![[credit: NASA]](https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/air_cloud1.gif)
[credit: NASA]
A few weeks ago we put up a post to discuss the role of convection in the Earth’s atmosphere:
Beginner’s guide to convection cells
The introduction, linked to a short video, said:
‘When you warm air, it rises. Cool air will sink. This process of convection can lead to flows in the atmosphere, in a manner that we can illustrate [see video] on a small scale. Warm and cool air in a fish tank rise and fall; this motion is made visible by adding fog. Ultimately, the motion leads to a convection cell, with air rising, moving to the side, falling, and moving back. This heat-driven motion of air moves heat around in the atmosphere. It is also responsible for making the wind blow.’
That may have seemed straightforward to some, but a few hundred comments later controversy continues, so we’re starting a new post using this website for reference : Lapse Rate, Moisture, Clouds and Thunderstorms
This doesn’t imply endorsement of every statement it makes, but gives us a background to further discussion.
In its introduction it says:
‘One of the key factors to understand in this context is the vertical motion of air parcels, a process referred to as convection.’
That’s probably enough to get the discussion, which is in effect a continuation from the earlier post, started.
[Note: comments on the earlier post (Beginner’s guide – link above) are now closed]
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
An wing or aerofoil or brick generating lift, a term with a context ignoring which is up or down, does this by accelerating a mass of air, the [counter] reaction is the lift. Shove air downwards it will compress the air rather inefficiently, which f’s off pdq.
Weightless in a massy fluid usually means neutral buoyancy.
Okay, a fun question: does an aircraft in normal flight increase atmosphere pressure over the whole globe assuming there is enough time for equalisation?
tchannon says: August 16, 2015 at 12:20 am
“An wing or aerofoil or brick generating lift, a term with a context ignoring which is up or down, does this by accelerating a mass of air, the [counter] reaction is the lift. Shove air downwards it will compress the air rather inefficiently, which f’s off pdq.”
That is true for high performance craft (brick). Today’s engines can fly a sheet of plywood. Most just create a lower pressure top of wing to below.
“Weightless in a massy fluid usually means neutral buoyancy”
As in weight of water displaced. Problem in this atmosphere for this atmosphere all that may be displaced also is weightless. Tricky thermo/fluid dynamics here! What does it mean? 🙂
“Okay, a fun question: does an aircraft in normal flight increase atmosphere pressure over the whole globe assuming there is enough time for equalisation?”
Do not know, lotsa atmospheric mass! It does increase local atmospheric density. When is surface pressure ever equalized? The mass of atmospheric column water increases surface pressure by a little less than 3kPa on average.
“This is a bold faced religious meteorological lie!!!”
Will 12:17am ! – “This” is YOUR bold faced religious meteorological lie spouting. I clipped your own statement verbatim. From right here:
“Hint: demonstrate (measure) the surface EMR “flux”, not radiance..”
Ok, then you can’t explain. This is done all day, everyday right here, not mysterious.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html
“I suppose you think the accelerative force of gravity is a scalar also!”
It is!! But g is not a force will, g is an acceleration. Ok, for the symbol challenged Will, weight is mass times gravity, “the force exerted on the mass of a body by a gravitational field” after your defn. commonly a scalar. Acceleration of gravity on this earth is 9.8m/s/s. Sure looks like a scalar to me, with no arrow designating it a vector. Look up the definition of scalar. Has only a magnitude. Vector designation will have an arrow showing direction AND magnitude. THEN you have a vector.
Weight of 1inch square of earth atm. column is 14.7 lbs same as the avg. surface Po in psi.
“Does this planet exhibit weight or just acceleration?”
Earth’s weight is “the force exerted on the mass of a body by a gravitational field”, likewise the sun’s weight is “the force exerted on the mass of a body by a gravitational field”. Weight = mass times gravity = mass times 9.8m/s/s surface of earth, a scalar.
“Take the mass of the craft in grams, divide by the total wing surface area in cm^2. That is the increase of surface pressure in kPa!”
Nope. Would be an increase of about 7kPa (3,500,000N/500m^2). Enough to crush your eardrums and blowout house windows. Yet there is no evidence of this happening to the photographers or houses Will, why is that?
Tim, The thing is not updating to comments-page-5 in latest comments!
TimC 12:20am: There is enough time or the 7kPa would blow out observer’s eardrums/windows. What Will missed is that 7kPa is the maximum possible.
Local increase in pressure immediately below the airplane will set up a horizontal pressure gradient, and hence that airflow will destroy the 7kPa gradient. Similar, to dropping a fish in a tank, its weight distributed over the bottom of the tank not just the area below the fish as Will assumed.
Trick says: August 16, 2015 at 1:08 am
“This is a bold faced religious meteorological lie!!!”
Will 12:17am ! – “This” is YOUR bold faced religious meteorological lie spouting. I clipped your own statement verbatim. From right here:
This is all of my content of that post:
Will Janoschka says: August 15, 2015 at 9:06 am
(“Are these folk finally trying to understand the actual EMR effects in this atmosphere?
Up till now the meteorologists AKA atmospheric physicists have been using that LBLRTM exclusively for radiative flux transfer This is upside down, backward, invalid, and perhaps criminal application of the HiTran database, developed to measure only atmospheric attenuation of the spatial and temporal ‘modulation’ (low-pass filtering) of EMR flux.
This atmosphere in no way absorbs, or delays EMR flux from a higher radiance (temperature) source. At every frequency/wavelength this atmosphere must produce an opposing ‘radiance’ that reduces or limits the production of outward EMR flux at each frequency, and in each direction.
Courtesy of Dr. Gus R Kirchhoff!”)
Trick steps in it again!!!
(“Hint: demonstrate (measure) the surface EMR “flux”, not radiance..”)
“Ok, then you can’t explain. This is done all day, everyday right here, not mysterious.”
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html
They are measuring surface radiance, then calling that radiative flux!! Typical religious meteorological fraud. Yes they do know better than to try and pull such crap, they do it anyway just to fool some Trick!!
Trick steps in it again!!!
The rest of your post is just as ridiculous!!!
Will – ok you posted again the same spouting. Back to square one:
How does Will explain atm. attenuation while at the same time writing the atm. in no way absorbs EMR flux?
So far Will can’t explain even his own spouting.
Trick says: August 16, 2015 at 1:17 am
“TimC 12:20am: There is enough time or the 7kPa would blow out observer’s eardrums/windows. What Will missed is that 7kPa is the maximum possible.”
Trick just keeps on stomping in it!!! Why not get a bucket of it and pour it on your head? Max take off weight of a 747 is 735,000 pounds. You claim 735,000,000 newtons. Only exaggeration by a multiplier of 2000 in pressure! much closer to 3 Pa, Ear pop if really close by!! Been there done dat! . BTW that is correctly 525 m^2 of wing area. Trick, is there some remedial class in anything, please!!
Will – You must be dronk again. I wrote 3,500,000N not 735,000,000N. Oh, and NOAA ESRL is measuring irradiance not radiance as you claim.
You must be quite dronk, Sat. bar closing time? You on the computer keys at the local? What?
Ben Wouters says: August 14, 2015 at 11:13 am
“Do you agree that WHILE rising the current density of the ‘test mass’ continuously changes?”
Yes, buoyancy is maintained during ascent until the ‘test mass’ encounters an external environment that matches its internal buoyancy/energy. However, the ‘internal buoyancy/energy’ of the ‘test mass’ is modified by the environmental ‘pressure’ that either prescribes, or proscribes, its continued ‘rise’ until ‘hydrostatic equilibrium’ is achieved again (environmental constraints persist).
“Using temperature as a proxy for density, the rising test mass expands and cools according the DALR or SALR.”
This is a problem! ‘Temperature’ just ‘isn’t’ a ‘good proxy’ for ‘density’! Its an ‘approximation’. 😦
“On the other thread Kristian agreed to 4 points I made:
Can you agree to them as well, so we can move on from there?”
1) I agree that this an ‘approximation’.
2) I agree that the DALR is an ‘assumption’ of how a ‘dry adiabat’ behaves in hydrostatic equilibrium. The SALR can’t represent ‘an atmosphere in hydrostatic equilibrium’ because it includes ‘phase change dynamics’. The SALR is an ‘approximation’ of the ‘dew point’ (the activity of ‘phase change’ for H2O), but doesn’t differentiate between a ‘condensing atmosphere’ and/or an ‘evaporating atmosphere’. The SALR ‘always’ assumes ‘condensation’.
3) This is nonsense! You introduce the DALR and SALR as ‘models for hydrostatic equilibrium’, and now you want to ‘assume’ that the introduction of “rising air” is complicit? It isn’t! Please ‘clearly’ state your intent and procedure.
4) Whilst I’m sympathetic towards your increased understanding Ben, “Wind flowing up a mountain flank is also ‘pushed’ upwards, now by horizontal pressure differences. The principle remains the same.”
No it doesn’t! This is ‘advection’!
Best regards, Ray.
No Will.
A wing, flying brick, whatever, generating lift does so by inertial reaction so yes air is accelerated but there is a twist.
If an aircraft is flying, no longer on the ground, the ground pressure is the same but once folly equalised is applied to the earth by the whole atmosphere around the globe instead of local point contact via the wheels, hence the no.
So yes there is a local transient whilst the air squirms but no pressure change on the earth.
Now what exactly is being talked about? I think local and transient hasa a lot to do with this monumentally long discussion.
tchannon says: August 16, 2015 at 3:40 am
“No Will. A wing, flying brick, whatever, generating lift does so by inertial reaction so yes air is accelerated but there is a twist. If an aircraft is flying, no longer on the ground, the ground pressure is the same but once folly equalised is applied to the earth by the whole atmosphere around the globe instead of local point contact via the wheels, hence the no. So yes there is a local transient whilst the air squirms but no pressure change on the earth.”
How close to the surface is that craft? A 747 wing pressure differential is 500-600 Pa. This pressure differential proceeds through the surround atmospheric volume at the speed of sound so attenuates with distance cubed. At a wingspan away the passing delta pressure is down to 4-5 Pa. While at takeoff 420 kts, and 40 degree angle of attack, the flying sheet of plywood (SR-71), the pressure increase is much higher, mostly from high velocity engine exhaust.
“Now what exactly is being talked about? I think local and transient has a a lot to do with this monumentally long discussion.”
I don’t know, you brought it up. With atmospheric convection everything is transient but slower much lower differential pressures but accelerating atmospheric mass for hours to days. How much non gaseous mass can this atmosphere handle by a slight increase in surface pressure.
Near the equator is an 32mbar constant Eötvös upward atmospheric acceleration that with the very wide 100km stream lines, only produces a surface low, but at 3km produces 46m/s updrafts with no necessary surface heating, while carrying 10 Cm of airborne water condensate all the way to 14km. Is this not atmospheric convection, What does it mean?
We haven’t even got to what is and isn’t convection. the ersatz meteorologists here wish to limit that to vertical advection moving heat energy. Nothing horizontal. Continuum fluid mechanics says that is disallowed. All atmospheric mass motion must follow streamlines indicating minimum work. Right angle turns of atmospheric momentum never happen.
All the best -will-
suricat says: August 16, 2015 at 3:03 am
“…4) Whilst I’m sympathetic towards your increased understanding Ben,(“Wind flowing up a mountain flank is also ‘pushed’ upwards, now by horizontal pressure differences. The principle remains the same.”)
“No it doesn’t! This is ‘advection’!”
Ray,
Why the distinction? In Continuum theory of fluid dynamics, mass motion must obey the principle of least work. This means that right angle turns of atmospheric mass momentum are disallowed.
Opposed horizontal flows toward a low pressure location never run into each other. They both must gently curve upward as long as that surface low pressure location remains. Doldrums!
I see very little pushing and much accumulating momentum. 34mbar x (Cos(latitude)) constant Eötvös upward atmospheric acceleration in the very wide 2000 km trade winds. To destroy the dance, is to destroy the understanding. The whole idea is to ‘circulate’ stale into fresh. Heat dispatch upward is a freebie. Much interesting (violent) weather in between! Is that “interesting” a part of atmospheric convection? What does it mean? No air parcels allowed!!
BTW I like your pointing out that bit, that the introduction of “rising air” is/not complicit with a teaching aid! I also are tired of 30 years of concentrated bull shit! Just add water!
All the best -will-
Ray, that “I also are tired”, is a bad translation from my girlie keyboard kitten ‘Shadow’, that after pouncing on keyboard, announces, “it is now permissible to to pet upon us”, or else!!, whers my food? 🙂
“Continuum fluid mechanics says that is disallowed. All atmospheric mass motion must follow streamlines indicating minimum work. ”
Will’s thinking along the right lines there… or better…thinking along the right streamlines there. 😉
We also haven’t touched on mass conservation along the streamlines very much. As large volumes of air rise in a decreasing density environment you might at first think the volume affected would spread out and the clouds blossom to take more volume triple the width but in tall towers that doesn’t happen, it stays the same diameter or even narrows. Instead the velocity greatly accelerates, lowing the pressure all the time density is lowing, Bernoulli comes into the picture, and if the density is one-third at the top than at the bottom the velocity must at least be tripled as it rises. Then you are convecting grapefruit sized hail upward! :O , let alone just mist.
That same principle seems in play in something like the Hadley cell. Is the pressure within a high-speed jet lower than just outside? Gas dynamics seems to say it must be so! You must always be moving the same mass and that scales with density and velocity to maintain the mass conservation always. This is where a temperature myopic viewpoint seems to fall apart.
Just look at any radiosonde, wind higher up is always much greater than below and always not in the same direction, how could it be otherwise? Air must always be moving from somewhere in the opposite direction to replace what is in motion but they may be many kilometers, even thousands of kilometers apart!
“Opposed horizontal flows toward a low pressure location never run into each other. They both must gently curve upward as long as that surface low pressure location remains. Doldrums!
I see very little pushing and much accumulating momentum. 34mbar x (Cos(latitude)) constant Eötvös upward atmospheric acceleration in the very wide 2000 km trade winds. ”
I now also think Will sees this correct, same here. It is primarly Eötvös and not just that it is warm in the tropics. If it were from the insolation the ITCZ band would follow the sun’s nadir point during the seasons, from the Tropics of Cancer to Capicorn and back but I have been watch GOES all summer and this is not what happens, the ITCZ band is close to the equator. That says in itself that it is a geometrical effect in play and not following the warmest latitude.
The doldrums, ditto. The streamlines must curve as they approach the equator from N and S and that leaves a huge 3d triangular section of the atmosphere with little movement, as expected by the gas dynamics involved.
wayne says: August 16, 2015 at 7:27 am
(“Continuum fluid mechanics says that is disallowed. All atmospheric mass motion must follow streamlines indicating minimum work. ”)
“Will’s thinking along the right lines there… or better…thinking along the right streamlines there. 😉
”
Thank you Wayne!
I are no longer stumbling in the direction of the same dirt road leading only to the swamp. I are stumbling orthogonal, into the stinky ditches on both sides. I try to get a concept of this road itself. Perhaps we can establish a toll both for those still stumbling parallel to that same dirt road in either direction. I need much more orthogonal (cheep) beer!
All the best, -will-
‘Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical and insignificant, if not utterly impossible.’
– Simon Newcomb (Professor of Mathematics in the U.S. Navy)
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/s/simonnewco205063.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Newcomb#On_the_impossibility_of_a_flying_machine
Hey guys, this massive thread, demonstrates the complete lack of anything physical about the meteorological bull shit of ‘temperature’. That temperature crap does not indicate anything about the potential atmospheric destructive power of atmospheric mass momentum at any temperature.
Will Janoschka says:
August 16, 2015 at 12:59 am
Suricat: “Weightless in a massy fluid usually means neutral buoyancy”
WillJ: As in weight of water displaced. Problem in this atmosphere for this atmosphere all that may be displaced also is weightless.
If air is weightless then also displaced air is weightless. The weight of air displaced is zero. So there is no upthrust on air. Then air will have weight.
This a paradox.
Archimedes Principle should be amended to mass of fluid displaced.
It is the displaced inertial mass that explains the upthrust, not the Earth’s gravitational effect on mass , called weight.
At the time of Archimedes the difference was not known, until Newton. Even now the difference is not well understood.
Trick says:
August 16, 2015 at 1:08 am
WillJ: “I suppose you think the accelerative force of gravity is a scalar also!”
Trick: It is!! But g is not a force will, g is an acceleration. Ok, for the symbol challenged Will, weight is mass times gravity, “the force exerted on the mass of a body by a gravitational field” after your defn. commonly a scalar. Acceleration of gravity on this earth is 9.8m/s/s. Sure looks like a scalar to me, with no arrow designating it a vector. Look up the definition of scalar. Has only a magnitude. Vector designation will have an arrow showing direction AND magnitude. THEN you have a vector.
Gravity has direction toward the centre of gravity. Weight, mg, is always a force towards centre of gravity.
Air pressure doesn’t have direction. It is in all directions. It is a scalar.
Air weight cannot be the cause of air pressure.
There is no hydrostatic balance between weight and pressure in the atmosphere.
Hydrostatic equilibrium is not the explanation for pressure/ height (p/h) gradient in the atmosphere.
The cause of p/h is the effect of gravity on velocity, not gravity on mass.
Stephen Wilde says: August 15, 2015 at 6:29 pm
“Dry convection is very nearly perfectly adiabatic and so the temperature and pressure of the parcel declines at the same rate as that of the surroundings so that the initial density differential is maintained, uplift continues and it does reach the tropopause.”
No, only the PRESSURE of the parcel decreases at the same rate as that of the surrounding ‘static’ air.
The temperature of the parcel decreases at the DALR (dry convection). The temperature of the surrounding air varies as shown in a sounding, measured by a weather balloon.
(Local Temperature Profile = LTP)
Will vary wildly. http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html
Using the average LTP of 6,5K/km, and the rising parcel being 3K warmer when starting to rise, the parcel will have the same temperature (=density) as the surrounding air after less than 1km of rising => rising stops.
Only when the LTP is 10K/km or steeper all the way to the tropopause can a dry parcel make it to the tropopause.
“The failure to appreciate that the initial density differential is maintained during adiabatic uplift is a common error.” Not a common error, it is not happening.
Trick says: August 15, 2015 at 10:18 pm
“Stephen 9:17pm: Correct according the Catling Review Stephen, this parcel is not neutrally buoyant, thus has a different pressure than surroundings; it is not on the DALR.”
A rising or sinking parcel has the SAME pressure as the surrounding air.
That is the reason pressure can be eliminated in the derivation of the DALR.
Continuous and instantaneous equalization of the pressure of the vertically moving parcel to the surrounding pressure.
A vertically moving parcel sees its temperature change according the DALR (assuming hydrostatic equilibrium of the surrounding air and the process being adiabatic)
So it is continuously on its own DALR. (temperature at start of vertical movement changes 9,8K for each kilometer of vertical movement above/below start altitude)
suricat says: August 16, 2015 at 3:03 am
(Ben Wouters says, July 7, 2015 at 8:38 pm:
“3) For rising air, the DALR gives the temperature change as long as condensation doesn’t take place. Once condensation starts, the SALR gives the temperature change for the rising volume.
The rising, condensing volume still expands and cools according the DALR, but now an internal heating system has been ‘switched’ on: condensation ‘releasing’ latent heat. This reduces the cooling due to the expansion, as long as wv is available to condense. When out of wv to condense, and the volume still rises, the cooling rate is again (practically) the same as the DALR rate.”)
“3) This is nonsense! You introduce the DALR and SALR as ‘models for hydrostatic equilibrium’, and now you want to ‘assume’ that the introduction of “rising air” is complicit? It isn’t! Please ‘clearly’ state your intent and procedure”
No idea what you mean with ‘models for hydrostatic equilibrium’?
The DALR and SALR give the rate of change of a rising/sinking parcel, that moves up/down in the surrounding atmosphere, that is assumed to be in hydrostatic equilibrium.
“4) Whilst I’m sympathetic towards your increased understanding Ben, “Wind flowing up a mountain flank is also ‘pushed’ upwards, now by horizontal pressure differences. The principle remains the same.”
No it doesn’t! This is ‘advection’!”
Obviously, but while the air rises it expands and cools at the same rate that air would expand and cool that rises due to buoyancy. Exact same principle.
(pse let’s not start about the venturi effect over the mountain top).
Ben, I acknowledged that locally and regionally, the actual lapse rate slope will differ from the DALR and that will limit the distance of uplift locally and regionally.
However, taking the atmosphere as a whole on average a dry atmosphere will have convection reaching the tropopause.
After all, it is the power of upward convection which sets the height that an atmosphere can achieve in the first place.
No uplift = no atmosphere.
The stratosphere is an obstacle to convection from within the tropopause but the stratosphere and other layers have their own circulations involving both horizontal and vertical transport. The vertical component is convective just as is that in the tropopause.
Water vapour complicates the scenario in the lower levels just as you say but the average height of cloud condensate is not indicative of the height that convection reaches.
“A rising or sinking parcel has the SAME pressure as the surrounding air.”
Then why does it not stop rising or sinking?
Once a parcel of less dense air detaches itself from the surface it then retains its temperature, density and pressure differential with the surroundings because it cools, reduces pressure and becomes less dense at the same rate as the surroundings.
Pressure within a gravity field is a consequence of density and temperature. The rising parcel acquires higher internal pressure at the surface due to the increase in temperature whilst it is held by gravity at the same density as the surroundings.
The buoyancy, against gravity, imparted by the initial pressre differential starts the uplift process and the parcel then detaches from the surface.
It only loses the differential when the outside temperature and pressure equalise with it such as at the tropopause or if it encounters a similarly warmer, higher internal pressure region on the way up.
Note that pressure is relative. High internal pressure for a parcel of gas will impart buoyancy against the force of gravity (the upward pressure gradient force) but since the parcel becomes less dense as it rises the downward force back to the surface is lower. Hence lower surface pressure under rising columns of air.
At the top of the column the internal pressure has fallen due to the work expended against gravity so there is less upward pressure gradient force to oppose the force of gravity. Density increases in response to the downward pull of gravity and the parcel starts to fall.That results in higher surface pressure beneath the descending column.
Ben 12:39pm: “A rising or sinking parcel has the SAME pressure as the surrounding air.”
If the adiabatic parcel has the SAME pressure as the ambient surrounding air, then it is neutral stable and cannot be rising or falling.
“That is the reason pressure can be eliminated in the derivation of the DALR.”
P is not eliminated in the derivation, parcel P is set equal to surrounding Ps. See Catling Review eqn. 12 for P included wherein it was set equal to Ps by “..expands or contracts adiabatically to adjust to its surrounding pressure”. Then ” We also substituted -gdz for (RT/p)dp using the first expression in eqn [5], the hydrostatic equation.”
“Continuous and instantaneous equalization of the pressure of the vertically moving parcel to the surrounding pressure.”
Yes, but the parcel is not moving vertically if neutral stable, parcel simply undergoing a process at T=Ts and P=Ps under atm. hydrostatic conditions.
“A vertically moving parcel sees its temperature change according the DALR (assuming hydrostatic equilibrium of the surrounding air and the process being adiabatic) So it is continuously on its own DALR. (temperature at start of vertical movement changes 9,8K for each kilometer of vertical movement above/below start altitude)”
There is no parcel vertical movement (no mass motion) in the neutral stable DALR derivation, mgh & 1/2mv^2 terms are avoided that way. There is only mass motion if the parcel T .ne. Ts and/or P .ne. Ps on DALR, then convection starts so mgh and 1/2mv^2 terms come into play, see Catling where G=ELR, Ga= ambient DALR:
“When GGa, a parcel that rises adiabatically is warmer than surroundings, and the parcel continues to rise.”
This derivation & last Catling Review paragraph sufficiently answers the top post question.
Last 2:16pm Catling paragraph is here by deleting the less than and greater than signs in the original ref.:
“When G less than Ga, a parcel that rises adiabatically cools more than the gentler ambient decrease of temperature with height. This cold, dense parcel sinks back downward, so the atmospheric profile is convectively stable. Conversely, when G greater than Ga, a parcel that rises adiabatically is warmer than surroundings, and the parcel continues to rise.”
Stephen 1:58pm: “Once a parcel of less dense air detaches itself from the surface it then retains its temperature, density and pressure differential with the surroundings because it cools, reduces pressure and becomes less dense at the same rate as the surroundings.”
If so then parcel stops rising. Catling writes it more precisely according and following the physics eqn.s, again where G=ELR, Ga= ambient DALR:
“When G less than Ga, a parcel that rises adiabatically cools more than the gentler ambient decrease of temperature with height. This cold, dense parcel sinks back downward, so the atmospheric profile is convectively stable. Conversely, when G greater than Ga, a parcel that rises adiabatically is warmer than surroundings, and the parcel continues to rise.”
“At the top of the column the internal pressure has fallen due to the work expended against gravity..”
For DALR, the pressure only falls due to hydrostatic eqn. P=Ps, the T falls due expansion only T=Ts. For ELR not equal ambient DALR as per Catling, convection ensues, then mgh & 1/2mv^2 terms come into play.
Stephen Wilde says: August 16, 2015 at 1:28 pm
“After all, it is the power of upward convection which sets the height that an atmosphere can achieve in the first place. No uplift = no atmosphere.”
@Stephen and Trick
Very little time today.
Seems you both have a totally different idea about hydrostatic equilibrium than I (and many others) have.
see
http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s3b.htm#A2
http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s3.htm
Index is here http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/chindex.htm
Ben Wouters says, August 15, 2015 at 11:10 am:
“‘Convection dominates lower tropospheres.’
I read: ‘convection dominates the boundary layer, and sometimes even reaches the tropopause.
Above the boundary layer radiation dominates.’”
Yeah, I’m sure you read it like that, Ben. However, does this look like Catling saying that the boundary layer is what marks the transition between the dominance of convective vs, radiative energy transfer in the troposphere to you?
This transition occurs high in the troposphere. Approaching the tropopause. It is part of the reason why convection won’t and can’t go any higher. The radiative loss becomes so efficient that all remaining upward momentum is finally dissipated.
The reason why you’re still unable to look beyond the tip of your nose on this subject, Ben, and why we’re still discussing it after 1200+ comments on this thread, is because of your being absolutely stuck in your narrow interpretation of the term “convection”. Yes, we ALL know about the restrictive meteorological definition of the term. But we also possess somewhat flexible minds that are able to see the bigger picture. Why is the troposphere called the TROPOsphere, Ben? Why doesn’t the stratosphere begin at the top of the boundary layer rather than at the tropopause? It is because of the constant large-scale global tropospheric circulation of air. Air (and thus energy) is being transported around the planet, from heating end to cooling end, vertically and horizontally and in every plane in between. When people say that in the troposphere, convection rules, they are NOT referring to dry thermals and thunderstorms only. They are referring to the constant turnover of air that goes on in the troposphere as a whole, mostly having to do with heating/cooling (creating density/pressure) differentials in one form or another.
Radiation (and conduction (!), according to an earlier comment of yours) does NOT dominate energy transports in the troposphere above the boundary layer, Ben. The global circulation of air does.
The entire atmosphere radiates to space. That doesn’t mean radiation – on a general basis – dominates the energy transfer and thus the distribution of energy and temperature within the troposphere between the boundary layer and the tropopause. The global circulation of air does. However, the situation is not all black and white. Wherever and/or whenever convection/turnover is sparse, radiation gets a say, and as a consequence, the ELR tends to drop.
I have referred you to this comment of mine before, but can’t recall having seen a response:
“There is solar radiative warming going on in the troposphere as well. But in the troposphere there is effective vertical circulation of air going on (turnover), overriding the tendency towards temperature stratification. In the stratosphere, there isn’t, and so temperature stratification is free to develop.”
On page 433:
“In stratospheres, the absorption of shortwave solar radiation causes a temperature inversion, defined as a temperature increase with altitude. On Earth, the ozone absorbs UV radiation, whereas on the giant planets and Titan, aerosol particles and methane absorb at wavelengths in the UV, visible, and near-IR. Mars and Venus, which have predominantly CO2 atmospheres, do not have strong shortwave absorbers above their tropospheres, so in the global average, they lack stratospheric inversions and tropopause minima (see Section 10.13.3.4).”
Perhaps time to reconsider?”
Ben, the momentum of vertically moving air is already exhausted before you reach the stratospheric temperature inversion on these planets. That’s why the inversion is situated above the top of convection, even quite high above. Note what Catling’s saying: On Titan, aerosols and methane absorb at wavelengths in the UV, visible and near-IR. From Wikipedia:
(My boldface.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Titan#Composition
This is to a large extent equivalent to what happens with H2O on Earth. H2O – in all its forms – absorbs the main portion of the incoming solar flux:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_absorption_by_water#Atmospheric_effects
On top of this comes the absorption by liquid and icy clouds. In other words, H2O is a much more significant atmospheric absorber of incoming solar energy than ozone. Only difference is, almost all of the H2O absorption happens in the troposphere, where the air moves vertically, while almost all of the O3 absorption happens in the stratosphere, safely above the top of convection. Same thing on Titan, the vast majority of atmospheric methane is to be found in the lower part of the troposphere, but the absorption of incoming solar going on here is unable to create a temperature inversion. Why? Because there is vertical motion of air, Ben.
Trick says, August 16, 2015 at 2:33 pm:
“For DALR, the pressure only falls due to hydrostatic eqn. P=Ps, the T falls due expansion only T=Ts. For ELR not equal ambient DALR as per Catling, convection ensues, then mgh & 1/2mv^2 terms come into play.”
You’re still not getting this, Trick?
Both the internal pressure AND the internal temperature of the rising parcel drops as it expands. The pressure at each incremental altitude level OUTSIDE the rising parcel (Ps) stays constant. The pressure INSIDE the parcel (P) changes (drops) all the time as it rises. It does so because it encounters ever-decreasing outside pressures and so expands until the inside pressure has dropped to equal these progressively lower counter-pressures. We see this as a smooth expansion of rising air, a smooth drop in its internal pressure and a corresponding smooth drop in its internal temperature. Work is done on the surrounding air as the parcel expands against the decreasing outside pressure, thus expending internal energy, thus cooling.
This is how the DALR is established, Trick. It is common knowledge even among people who possess only a basic understanding of atmospheric physics.
Ben 4:07pm: “..seems you both have a totally different idea about hydrostatic equilibrium..”
I didn’t find anything on that astronomy site to conflict (especially not totally) with meteorology Ben, you’ll need to be more specific when you get a chance.
Kristian 5:33pm: “Both the internal pressure AND the internal temperature of the rising parcel drops as it expands. “
There is nothing in physics to make the parcel in the DALR rise or fall Kistian, its P=Ps and T=Ts are given, neutral stable, neutral buoyant. The DALR parcel IS neutrally stable at the ambient so it just sits there, anywhere actually where P=Ps and T=Ts. The parcel at the ELR is compared to this and as Catling writes, determines whether the ELR parcel will fall or rise, beginning convection or not if neutral:
…where G=ELR, Ga= ambient DALR: “When G less than Ga, a parcel that rises adiabatically cools more than the gentler ambient decrease of temperature with height. This cold, dense parcel sinks back downward, so the atmospheric profile is convectively stable. Conversely, when G greater than Ga, a parcel that rises adiabatically is warmer than surroundings, and the parcel continues to rise.”
“The pressure at each incremental altitude level OUTSIDE the rising parcel (Ps) stays constant”
Not in Catling’s (et.al.) DALR derivation, hydrostatic equilibrium is operating on Ps (which is equal DALR parcel p): “substituted -gdz for (RT/p)dp using the first expression in eqn [5], the hydrostatic equation.”
“Work is done on the surrounding air as the parcel expands against the decreasing outside pressure,”
Not in Catling’s (et.al.) DALR derivation, since P=Ps no work done, NO energy exchange with surroundings as they explicitly state : “..expands or contracts adiabatically to adjust to its surrounding pressure”.
Read Catling’s DALR derivation closely for the common understanding Kristian.
A re-link for ease of reference moving now onto Page5!
Click to access Catling2015_PlanetAtmos_Review.pdf
Trick says, August 16, 2015 at 5:57 pm:
“There is nothing in physics to make the parcel in the DALR rise or fall Kistian”
Er, yes there is. That is kind of the definition of an adiabatic lapse rate, Trick. It is defined specifically for a rising or sinking air parcel. Not for air “just sitting there”. No rising and falling air, no adiabatic lapse rate. The adiabatic lapse rate is to be found inside the rising/falling air:
Click to access lapse_rates.pdf
Trick says, August 16, 2015 at 5:57 pm:
“Read Catling’s DALR derivation closely for the common understanding Kristian.”
Why don’t you just ask him, Trick? Send him an email. By what physical mechanism does air inside an adiabatically rising parcel in the troposphere cool? If no energy is expended as the parcel expands, then how does it cool? Ask him his opinion about this matter and settle the issue once and for all.
Kristian – Your clip completely agrees with Catling, the common understanding: “The rate of expansion cooling for dry air is very close to 10◦C/km or 30◦F/mi and is called the dry adiabatic lapse rate (DALR).”
That parcel is stable, it won’t be moving, it is at the neutral buoyancy point in Ts,Ps, the DALR parcel cooling is entirely due expansion, no work is done (delta W=0) means P=Ps, adiabatic so T=Ts no thermal energy exchange with surroundings. When they say “make it rise” they mean at the hydrostatic pressure decrease: “The temperature inside the parcel is dropping because its volume is expanding in response to the decreasing pressure.”
NB:
“if outside pressure changes, inside pressure adjusts to match it.” meaning parcel P=Ps.
“there is no heat transfer by conduction or radiation across a parcel boundary” meaning T=Ts.
“a balloon is not a good proxy for an air parcel; the outside and inside pressures are clearly different in that case”
“The important point to keep in mind is this: For a dry air parcel, the only way to change its temperature is to change its pressure” i.e. at the hydrostatic rate for DALR.
Kristian – “Why don’t you just ask (Catling), Trick?”
He would just respond with his Review paper, no need.
“If no energy is expended as the parcel expands, then how does it cool?”
Free expansion. Read Catling Review closely. Settles the issue, along with many other classic works that already did so on close reading of the math if not their Queen’s English, based on 1LOT & IGL & hydrostatic.
Trick says, August 16, 2015 at 8:59 pm:
“Kristian – Your clip completely agrees with Catling, the common understanding: “The rate of expansion cooling for dry air is very close to 10◦C/km or 30◦F/mi and is called the dry adiabatic lapse rate (DALR).””
That wasn’t the bone of contention, now was it?
“That parcel is stable, it won’t be moving”
There’s the bone of contention, right there. I wonder, are you having trouble reading, Trick? You are no different from Stephen Wilde in that regard. The two paragraphs quoted above specifically describe a RISING parcel of air. It is moving, Trick. If it weren’t, there would be no DALR to describe.
“the DALR parcel cooling is entirely due expansion”
Indeed. But it can only expand against a decreasing outside pressure. Which means that, in the atmosphere, it will have to rise.
“no work is done (delta W=0)”
Then how exactly does the air inside the parcel cool, according to you? By what physical mechanism? Just saying “expansion” doesn’t cut it, Trick. What is it with the expansion process that cools the air inside the parcel? If it’s not by work done …
“adiabatic so T=Ts no thermal energy exchange with surroundings.”
“Adiabatic” does not mean T=Ts, Trick. Read what it says in the quote above: “As the parcel rises, the T outside of the parcel is also usually dropping (that’s the ELR). The crucial point here, however, is that outside and inside temperature changes are absolutely INDEPENDENT. The temperature outside of the parcel is dropping because the parcel is moving away from the surface, the troposphere’s primary heat source. The temperature inside the parcel is dropping because its volume is expanding in response to the decreasing pressure. It is rare for the environmental and parcel temperatures to change at the same rate. This has very strong implications for the notion of atmospheric stability.” The DALR is only for the rising (or sinking) parcel, Trick.
“Adiabatic” also does not mean “no thermal energy exchange with surroundings”. This is one situation where you need to separate between the concepts of ‘energy’ and ‘heat’. But since ‘heat’ apparently does not exist in your vocabulary, Trick, then you will never understand this crucial distinction, that basically makes the whole adiabatic process possible.
In an adiabatic process, there IS an exchange of energy between the system and its surroundings. Only not in the form of ‘HEAT’ transfer [Q], but in the form of ‘WORK’ done [W]. The particular form of work performed in an adiabatic process is called PV (pressure-volume) work or just ‘expansional/compressional work’. In an adiabatic process, Q=0, so dU = -PdV. And U [the ‘internal energy’ of the system] is always proportional to the temperature of the system.
““if outside pressure changes, inside pressure adjusts to match it.” meaning parcel P=Ps.”
And what is the situation BEFORE the inside pressure has adjusted to match the changing outside pressure, Trick? P≠Ps.
So the parcel has reached P=Ps at one atmospheric level, then rises to the next, where the surrounding pressure is lower than at the former level. That means P>Ps, and so the parcel will have to expand in order to equalise the lower outside pressure and make P=Ps once again. During the expansion process, taking the overall situation from P>Ps to P=Ps, is when the PV work is done and the parcel cools.
Trick says, August 16, 2015 at 9:06 pm:
“Kristian – “Why don’t you just ask (Catling), Trick?”
He would just respond with his Review paper, no need.”
No, Trick. If you ask him specifically what I told you to ask him, he would not “just respond with his Review paper”. You don’t even have to mention his review paper. Just ask him the questions about the DALR and expansional cooling. He’ll give you a proper answer, I’m sure. What are you afraid of?
““If no energy is expended as the parcel expands, then how does it cool?”
Free expansion. Read Catling Review closely. Settles the issue, along with many other classic works that already did so on close reading of the math if not their Queen’s English, based on 1LOT & IGL & hydrostatic.”
Blah, blah, blah. No, Trick. In your words. What is it physically that cools the air parcel as it expands. If it does no work on its surroundings, losing internal energy in the process. It’s not “free expansion”. Free expansion is something you get when you release a gas into a vacuum. No outside pressure. Free expansion does not exist inside the atmosphere.
Also, a gas expanding freely in a vacuum does not cool from the expansion.
Troll Trick is just reeling in the bait….
Kristian says: August 16, 2015 at 10:33 pm
“During the expansion process, taking the overall situation from P>Ps to P=Ps, is when the PV work is done and the parcel cools.”
Symbols PV evaluate to force x distance. In this atmosphere there is no force applied upon any other mass. This atmospheric expansion/compression is free, and isentropic, no work done ever. Does your “cool” mean transfer of heat energy from, or does it only mean reduction in temperature?
Kristian says: August 16, 2015 at 10:39 pm
“What is it physically that cools the air parcel as it expands. If it does no work on its surroundings, losing internal energy in the process. It’s not “free expansion”. Free expansion is something you get when you release a gas into a vacuum. No outside pressure. Free expansion does not exist inside the atmosphere.”
Atmospheric mass expansion/compression with vertical position displacement in this atmosphere is indeed free. Again, does your “cool” mean transfer of heat energy from, or does it only mean reduction in temperature?
Kristian says: August 16, 2015 at 10:42 pm
“Also, a gas expanding freely in a vacuum does not cool from the expansion.”
Again, does your “cool” mean transfer of heat energy from, or does it only mean reduction in temperature? Please set your meaning of the word ‘temperature’ for any planetary atmosphere.
We have the special case of compressible fluid atmosphere totally constrained by only ‘mean free path’ and ‘gravity’. For an atmospheric particle, say 10^9 molecules, T ∝ P/rho, or T ∝ power density, or T ∝ intercepts/nanosecond, for that 10^9 molecules. This is an atmospheric ‘particle’, the closest I am willing to get to the dreaded ‘parcel’. 🙂
What are your thoughts about your internal energy? My power potential/mole, independent of actual mass. What does it encompass? What does it exclude, beside Newtonian KE? Does it include pressure, chemical or electrical energy? After all ‘heat’ can be considered electrical energy.
All the best -will- ∝∝∝
Verbose Kristian 8:59pm: Kristian makes this way, WAY more complicated than Catling’s whole treatment, should just clip 10.13.2.4 entirely. Please read that section Kristian et.al., it answers all Kristian’s DALR parcel questions. No need for me.
—–
If you do want me to answer instead, sure but Catling’s review is better, for z increases for DALR parcel, p goes down at the hydrostatic rate Ps, free expansion allowing the cooling. There is no motive forcing in the math though, as the DALR parcel is neutrally buoyant, ideally can move them along the DALR all day long. Long as T=Ts and P=Ps. Place them anywhere on the DALR slope, the math is unaffected. You won’t find this motion in the derivation math – that’s a good strong clue Kristian, read the Catling math very closely, pretty simple.
“Which means that, in the atmosphere, it will have to rise.”
Along the hydrostatic, DALR (Ga) slope. P=Ps, T=Ts. No motive force in the math, buoyancy is always neutral on that DALR slope. Different planets, different Ga.
“Then how exactly does the air inside the parcel cool, according to you? By what physical mechanism?.. “expansion” doesn’t cut it..Adiabatic” does not mean T=Ts,”
I wrote free expansion not just “expansion” Kristian. Catling: “For adiabatic changes, dq=0” the only way for that to happen, Kristian, is parcel T=Ts, no net thermal energy exchange with surroundings for DALR. Free expansion is the ideal physical method, is from Poisson testing published in 1823. No energy (work or thermal) crosses the DALR parcel borders. P=density*RT = constant, P goes down at the hydrostatic rate with increasing z, DALR parcel freely expands, T goes down.
Poisson figured this out by observing test, it’s been around awhile & Catling echos Poisson; AND Catling defines adiabatic differently than Kristian, Catling: “Adiabatic means no exchange of energy with surroundings. So if a vertically displaced air parcel expands or contracts adiabatically to adjust to its surrounding pressure, the temperature change as a function of height is readily calculable.” DALR math has NO “exchange of energy” no work exchange, no thermal energy exchange, with surroundings, what part of that Catling NO does Kristian miss?
“The DALR is only for the rising (or sinking) parcel, Trick.”
Catling assessment DALR (Ga), all planets: “Comparison of the ambient lapse rate G with Ga indicates susceptibility to convection.” That answers the top post question.
“And what is the situation BEFORE the inside pressure has adjusted to match the changing outside pressure, Trick? P≠Ps.”
Catling: “So if a vertically displaced air parcel expands or contracts adiabatically to adjust to its surrounding pressure, the temperature change as a function of height is readily calculable.” Proceeds to do so.
“During the expansion process, taking the overall situation from P>Ps to P=Ps, is when the PV work is done and the parcel cools.”
This is why Kristian needs to use “free expansion” for no work done DALR derivation, Catling: “Adiabatic means no exchange of energy with surroundings.” NO means NO.
“In an adiabatic process, there IS an exchange of energy between the system and its surroundings. Only not in the form of ‘HEAT’ transfer [Q], but in the form of ‘WORK’ done [W].”
Catling differs: “Adiabatic means no exchange of energy with surroundings.” NO means NO.
“The particular form of work performed in an adiabatic process is called PV (pressure-volume) work”
No means NO. Goes beyond the Catling DALR clip, might be another section. Sure, PV work exists, Catling: Work is ‘force x incremental distance’ or ‘pressure ( p) x incremental volume change.’ There are constant pressure processes (Cp, Vdp=0) and constant volume processes (Cv, PdV=0), note that both Cp and Cv are used by Catling eqn. 12. What should that tell Kristian?
“But since ‘heat’ apparently does not exist in your vocabulary, Trick, then you will never understand this crucial distinction..”
Catling: “dq is heat input per unit mass (zero if adiabatic)”.
Trick: In nature, heat has no separate physical existence from energy. Here Catling term “heat” means in context thermal energy. He also really does mean no work done, Catling: “Adiabatic means no exchange of energy with surroundings.” NO means NO.
——
10:39pm: “No, Trick. If you ask him specifically what I told you to ask him, he would not “just respond with his Review paper”. You don’t even have to mention his review paper. Just ask him the questions about the DALR and expansional cooling. He’ll give you a proper answer, I’m sure. What are you afraid of?”
Afraid of wasting time, all his answers are already in 10.13.2.4 entirely. He really would just reiterate them.
“No, Trick. In your words. What is it physically that cools the air parcel as it expands.”
Free expansion, from tests Poisson observed and idealized in 1823. Look in Catling’s ref.s for more. WAY more.
“Free expansion is something you get when you release a gas into a vacuum.”
You get a big bang too. The real gas will be cooler by test.
“Free expansion does not exist inside the atmosphere.”
Neither does DALR, a useful ideal concept, you seem comfortable with that as a physical mechanism.
“Also, a gas expanding freely in a vacuum does not cool from the expansion.”
Show me the test data behind that assertion. In my experience, real test observations say it does cool. Poisson’s idealism only goes so far in usefulness.
Kristian – Lapse rate is the decrease of something and Catling on eqn. 13: “This simple but fundamental equation gives the temperature change with altitude of a dry parcel of air moving up and down through an atmosphere in hydrostatic equilibrium…The resulting rapid mixing by convection of such unstable atmospheres tends to adjust the temperature profile toward the adiabatic one. Thus, we find planetary atmospheres typically with G less than Ga.”
Ga being DALR. See Table 3 for a mean comparison G less than Ga.
Trick says: August 17, 2015 at 1:31 am
“Lapse rate is the decrease of something and Catling on eqn. 13: “This simple but fundamental equation gives the temperature change with altitude of a dry parcel of air moving up and down through an atmosphere in hydrostatic equilibrium…”
Trick reads Catling, and then spouts with no understanding of his spouting.
Catling: Is merely reiterating the same religious nonsense of meteorology “dry air parcel moving”!
This imaginary “parcel”, is but a teaching aid used to brainwash innocent children, and to give the illusion of science. Such an imaginary fantasy exists nowhere in this atmosphere, but only in the alleged minds and models of disgraced meteorologists.
An atmospheric particle of approximately 10^9 molecules. is never moving ‘through’ anything. It is always moving ‘with’ its neighbour particles in the continuum; with the same temperature, pressure, and relative humidity; all with the just the same positive or negative buoyancy deviation from the neutral self-buoyancy, (that Catiling calls “hydrostatic equilibrium). Such self-buoyancy is demanded by this planets gravity for a motionless atmosphere with respect to this rotating frame of reference. No such ‘motionless’ appears in this atmosphere, courtesy of that same rotating. At points of some velocity shear there is turbulent mixing, always! The meteorologists always try to make it simple, straightforward, and wrong; for those they wish to BS! 🙂
Will: “Catling: Is merely reiterating the same religious nonsense of meteorology “dry air parcel moving”!”
Occurrences in Catling Review: “dry air parcel moving” = 0
Trick says: August 17, 2015 at 3:54 am
Will: “Catling: Is merely reiterating the same religious nonsense of meteorology “dry air parcel moving”!”
Occurrences in Catling Review: “dry air parcel moving” = 0
Will Janoschka says:
August 17, 2015 at 3:30 am
Trick says: August 17, 2015 at 1:31 am
“ a dry parcel of air moving up and down through an atmosphere in hydrostatic equilibrium…”
Good GOD Trick, no one would put up with your continual trolling; unless dronk or stoned! You are having some fun. I are having “more” fun!!!
Will – You got it right that time. The DALR. Its parcel exists for an instant in which to write the eqn. 12 then disperses with no damage to that equation. In that instant of existence, can “move” its parcel anywhere P=Ps and T=Ts. After that, poof, its parcel is gone. As P goes down with z, density goes down, so does T, lapses at DALR, at neutral buoyancy.
Trick says: August 17, 2015 at 4:43 am
Will – You got it right that time. The DALR. Its parcel exists for an instant in which to write the eqn. 12 then disperses with no damage to that equation. In that instant of existence, can “move” its parcel anywhere P=Ps and T=Ts. After that, poof, its parcel is gone. As P goes down with z, density goes down, so does T, lapses at DALR, at neutral buoyancy.
What F***ing idiocy. This planet ignores all of your maximally stupid theoretical equations/expressions. Atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean? 🙂
From, C Kelly Johnson,
If it don’t spin, all must be static. All critters must suffocate in their own farts. Wad jue want GOD?
Dead or rotating?
Kristian says:
August 16, 2015 at 8:36 pm
No rising and falling air, no adiabatic lapse rate.
Convection does not cause lapse rate
Density gradient causes convection
Absorption of radiation by H2O(g) causes lapse rate
Will Janoschka says:
August 17, 2015 at 3:30 am
An atmospheric particle of approximately 10^9 molecules. is never moving ‘through’ anything.
I agree. Talking of packets of air is wrong.
Molecular motion in a gas is individual and has to be understood statistically.
Molecules travel 100 x their diameter between contacts.
Trick says:
August 17, 2015 at 4:43 am
The DALR. Its parcel exists for an instant in which to write the eqn. 12 then disperses with no damage to that equation. In that instant of existence, can “move” its parcel anywhere P=Ps and T=Ts. After that, poof, its parcel is gone
This way of thinking is wrong.
A physical concept, the basis of a theory, cannot exist and later disappear, like symbols in an equation.
Concepts have to represent a physical reality. That is something I can experience and measure.
From electrolysis by Faraday 1834 I can measure the charge on a mole, 10^27, of electrons.
From Millikan 1910 I know the charge on an electron.
From these I calculate the number of particles in a mole of gas. That is 10^27 individually moving molecules.
Can you give me evidence for the existence of packets of 10^9 molecules?
Roger – “A physical concept, the basis of a theory, cannot exist and later disappear,”
The physical concept of a parcel disperses immediately, the math does remain. Test can be replicated on different parcels. There is no way to physically track those molecules again as they move on their way. In the real atm., convection persists however keeping track of the unit mass sum of individual molecules that made up eqn. 12 is not possible nor is it in any way necessary. The Catling Review eqn. 12 persists.
Faraday’s, Millikin’s, Poisson’s test results persist but their test samples have dispersed. There was no need to preserve the samples as there was the resulting physics knowledge in eqn.s in papers, text books.
“Can you give me evidence for the existence of packets of 10^9 molecules?”
No. Couldn’t keep track of the 10^9 after an instant, but can calculate their actual instantaneous weight, pressure, temperature, and volume given a certain proportionality constant found from test. Then they can disperse without damage to my calculation.
Stephen Wilde says: August 16, 2015 at 1:28 pm
“However, taking the atmosphere as a whole on average a dry atmosphere will have convection reaching the tropopause.”
Whether an atmosphere is dry or wet doesn’t matter for convection. It is the Local Temperature Profile = LTP that decides whether convection is possible and how high it will rise.
(actually it is the local density profile)
“Water vapour complicates the scenario in the lower levels just as you say but the average height of cloud condensate is not indicative of the height that convection reaches.”
It is paramount for convection whether condensation starts or not in the rising air.
The release of latent heat greatly reduces the cooling rate of the rising air and makes it possible that convective clouds reach all the way to the tropopause and above.
Stephen Wilde says: August 16, 2015 at 1:58 pm
(“A rising or sinking parcel has the SAME pressure as the surrounding air.”)
Then why does it not stop rising or sinking?
Because its density (= temperature) is not equal to that of the surrounding air.
Trick says: August 16, 2015 at 2:16 pm
Ben 12:39pm: “A rising or sinking parcel has the SAME pressure as the surrounding air.”
If the adiabatic parcel has the SAME pressure as the ambient surrounding air, then it is neutral stable and cannot be rising or falling.””
As long as its temperature (density) is different from the surrounding air, it WILL rise or sink, its temperature changing according the DALR.
“Thus, from
the last expression in eqn [12], we obtain the adiabatic lapse rate for dry air:
Ga = g/Cp [13]
This simple but fundamental equation gives the temperature
change with altitude of a dry parcel of air moving up and down
through an atmosphere in hydrostatic equilibrium.
Trick says: August 16, 2015 at 2:33 pm
” For ELR not equal ambient DALR as per Catling, convection ensues, then mgh & 1/2mv^2 terms come into play.”
What is an ‘ambient DALR’ ??
Ben: “As long as its temperature (density) is different from the surrounding air, it WILL rise or sink..”
Yes, you now agree with Catling Review. Generally air far from surfaces, not condensing, the well mixed surrounding air is hydrostatic DALR Ga = G, stable.
“When G less than Ga, a parcel that rises adiabatically cools more than the gentler ambient decrease of temperature with height. This cold, dense parcel sinks back downward, so the atmospheric profile is convectively stable. Conversely, when G greater than Ga, a parcel that rises adiabatically is warmer than surroundings, and the parcel continues to rise.”
Kristian says: August 16, 2015 at 4:12 pm
“However, does this look like Catling saying that the boundary layer is what marks the transition between the dominance of convective vs, radiative energy transfer in the troposphere to you?”
They describe a general picture for planets. On earth convective OVERTURNING is limited to the boundary layer, which may be close to the surface at night (= no convection at all).
So only radiative energy transfer.
“The reason why you’re still unable to look beyond the tip of your nose on this subject, Ben, and why we’re still discussing it after 1200+ comments on this thread, is because of your being absolutely stuck in your narrow interpretation of the term “convection”. ”
Seems if we remove the comments of the resident nitwit its only some 400 posts or so, not too bad.
“Why doesn’t the stratosphere begin at the top of the boundary layer rather than at the tropopause? It is because of the constant large-scale global tropospheric circulation of air”
Not really. According to Catling it is because at altitudes above 0,1 bar pressure the effect of shortwave absorbers begins to ‘overrule’ the effect of the surface heating from below.
“When people say that in the troposphere, convection rules, they are NOT referring to dry thermals and thunderstorms only. They are referring to the constant turnover of air that goes on in the troposphere as a whole, mostly having to do with heating/cooling (creating density/pressure) differentials in one form or another.”
All fine and well, but eg the Hadley cell is not driven by convection, the subject of this thread.
(outside the ITCZ the Hadley cell actually suppresses convection)
“The entire atmosphere radiates to space. That doesn’t mean radiation – on a general basis – dominates the energy transfer and thus the distribution of energy and temperature within the troposphere between the boundary layer and the tropopause. The global circulation of air does. However, the situation is not all black and white. Wherever and/or whenever convection/turnover is sparse, radiation gets a say, and as a consequence, the ELR tends to drop.”
Ok, except perhaps for ‘the ELR tends to drop’ and between the boundary layer and the tropopause convection can be very sparse.
But again, the subject of this thread is ‘atmospheric convection’, not Global Circulation Cells.
“This is to a large extent equivalent to what happens with H2O on Earth. H2O – in all its forms – absorbs the main portion of the incoming solar flux:
“Water vapor is (…) responsible for 70% of the known absorption of incoming sunlight, particularly in the infrared region (…)””
Disagree. Of the incoming solar flux ~30% is reflected, ~50% is absorbed by the surface, and the remaining 20% is absorbed by the atmosphere.
~10% of incoming solar is UV, which is mostly blocked in the stratosphere.
So the remaining 10-12% is absorbed in the rest of the atmosphere, partly in the thermosphere.
Clouds absorb ~3% or so.
Trick says: August 17, 2015 at 3:29 pm
“Ben: “As long as its temperature (density) is different from the surrounding air, it WILL rise or sink..”
Yes, you now agree with Catling Review. Generally air far from surfaces, not condensing, the well mixed surrounding air is hydrostatic DALR Ga = G, stable.”
The AVERAGE ELR is ~6,5K/km. So on AVERAGE the atmosphere is stable for dry convection (requires LTP > 9,8K/km) and unstable (at least initially) for condensing convection.
Agree Ben, Catling: “Thus, we find planetary atmospheres typically with G (ELR) less than Ga (DALR) (ignoring local circumstances such as thunderstorms) (Table 3)”
Table 3 puts Earth global median G observed (ELR) ~6K/km. Your 6.5 is standard atm. at midlatitudes.
Ben Wouters says:
August 17, 2015 at 3:19 pm
Ga = g/Cp [13]
This simple but fundamental equation gives the temperature
change with altitude of a dry parcel of air moving up and down
through an atmosphere in hydrostatic equilibrium.
Lapse rate = g/C comes from conservation of energy
mgh = mCT
I don’t think air has weight (hydrostatic equilibrium) or that parcels exist.
Can you refer me to evidence of these claims ?
Roger 5:26pm: Ga = DALR g/Cp “comes from conservation of energy mgh = mCT”
Not exactly that easy according the Catling Review, Roger. DALR (Catling =Ga) upon close reading comes from: “We also substituted -gdz for (RT/p)dp using the first expression in eqn [5], the hydrostatic equation”.
Eqn. 5 comes from: “Written in calculus form, we get the hydrostatic equation relating pressure, density, and altitude..”
And eqn. 5 itself comes from observing: “In all atmospheres, high total pressure at low altitudes pushes upward against the weight of overlying air, so that pressure declines with altitude. Air settles into hydrostatic equilibrium. This equilibrium assumes no vertical motion – a good approximation over large horizontal scales (e.g., a few kilometers on the Earth) that average out updrafts and downdrafts.”
So if you et. al. (especially Will) accept dry adiabatic lapse rate = g/Cp (DALR=Ga), then you must accept air has weight because that is the thought process by which DALR was commonly originally derived.
Roger, your mgΔh = mCΔT only holds if the C is 1508 J/kg/K such as in earth’s linear troposphere’s case. Is that what you keep implying? I just grabbed some rough values from the SA for an example.
1 [kg] * 9.81 [m/s²] * 11,000 [m] = 1 [kg] * 1508 [J/kg/K] * (288.15 [K] – 216.65 [K]) does equate as joules on both sides but only if you assume that “C” you continually toss up is 1005 [J/kg/K] plus some other [J/kg/K] factors such as convection + state changes, local net radiation in/out to space, etc.
Am I reading you correct? If you noticed in that Catling paper he has done just that, much like C_effective = C_std_lab + C_other just as that 1508 [J/kg/K] value implies being 1005 [J/kg/K] + 503 [J/kg/K] or something there about, could say 1003+505 instead.
This is exactly the topic I have been showing in detail for all thick atmospheres for more than two years now, the “C” is not what you would expect.
Do you have the answer why that additional “C” exists?
Can you explain exactly (plus the math) why that additional ‘x’ [J/kg/K] exists on any thick troposphere? Catling seems to place the explanation on state changes only and I don’t think that is correct for why would state changes in compunds such as water, sulfates, methane, etc all create nearly identically same numerical effect multiple. I think it is based on a much more basic level, such as just the fact that when radiation leaves a mass of an atmosphere it gets denser and must relatively sink and warming a bit due to the sink. If the atmosphere absorbs energy from any source it becomes less dense and must rise which means the temperature will not rise the number of kelvin expected by the C from lab results. Convection! That would explain why they all have the same “additional C” multiple but I can’t prove that yet.
You add energy (search out “plume science”) and it is not all shown in the rise in temperature, for convection is instant, and in order to raise one kilogram one kelvin you must add more than just 1005 joules (earth’s case). OTOH, I can see part of that effect coming from the thermal emr to space since this an atmospere scale effect.
I have hear two other possible explanations but neither seem to make sense in all cases across multiple atmospheres.
wayne says: August 17, 2015 at 6:56 pm
Roger, your mgΔh = mCΔT only holds if the C is 1508 J/kg/K such as in earth’s linear troposphere’s case. Is that what you keep implying? I just grabbed some rough values from the SA for an example.
This is exactly the topic I have been showing in detail for all thick atmospheres for more than two years now, the “C” is not what you would expect. Do you have the answer why that additional “C” exists?
Enthalpy, the “pressure” part of energy density. atmosphere = 1.4
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/specheat.html
Wayne,
Atmospheric convection – what does it mean?
Convection = Diffusion + advection. No particular direction. Advection atmospheric mass motion Kg x meters/second. What is carried = energy +stale, one way, = little energy + fresh the other way. We need to get off the meteorology formulas and on with the actual movement of energy. Up and toward the poles. Less energy down and toward the equator. Both heat and pressure energy need be considered.
What is the minimum (Kg x m/s) is needed before we have actual physical convection, not some fantasy conjecture of the ‘why’ of convection? 🙂
Trick says: August 17, 2015 at 12:41 pm
(Roger – “A physical concept, the basis of a theory, cannot exist and later disappear,”)
“The physical concept of a parcel disperses immediately, the math does remain.”
If such a concept is not physical,but only an illusion, that can never be any part of “Atmospheric convection – what does it mean?”.
“Test can be replicated on different parcels. There is no way to physically track those molecules again as they move on their way. In the real atm., convection persists however keeping track of the unit mass sum of individual molecules that made up eqn. 12 is not possible nor is it in any way necessary.”
It is not necessary for insane meteorological conjecture of convection, that has no meaning.
“Atmospheric convection Is physical, measurable, and constantly moving in any direction. No conjecture, no equations. Physically – “What does it mean?”.
“The Catling Review eqn. 12 persists.” Fine but it is meaningless!
(“Can you give me evidence for the existence of packets of 10^9 molecules?”)
“No. Couldn’t keep track of the 10^9 after an instant, but can calculate their actual instantaneous weight, pressure, temperature, and volume given a certain proportionality constant found from test. Then they can disperse without damage to my calculation.”
No one cares about your calculation as such is meaningless drivel! In this atmosphere an atmospheric “particle” 10^9 H2O condensate molecules is the smallest ‘visible’ part of a cloud, This is still part of the atmosphere and part of convection. Such water condensate is completely ignored by your religious meteorologists. Physically “What does it mean?”
Please be done with your David Catling meteorological nonsense also.
Trick says: August 16, 2015 at 2:42 am
“Oh, and NOAA ESRL is measuring irradiance not radiance as you claim.”
Certainly not! The instrument cannot measure that! The instrument has a projected solid angle in the direction of the test object The instrument measures a difference in temperature of a bolometer/thermopile with respect to its self temperature. If the sensor temperature is lower, then the sensor is radiating some flux outward limited by any opposing radiance of the test object. If the sensor temperature is higher, then the test object is radiating some flux inward limited by any opposing radiance of the sensor. Radiative flux at any wavelength can be at ‘maximum’ unidirectional.
By use of a wavelength abbreviated S-B equation, and proper calibration, that instrument calculates test object radiance over that waveband. Then the absolute fools at NOAA use that radiance to project some ‘brightness temperature’ for that waveband. Then from that projected ‘temperature’, the same idiots further project what may possibly be the “maximum” flux (bb) outward towards absolute zero! Then NOAA pronounces this a measurement of radiative flux.
The NOAA folk could not produce an actual surface exit flux measurement, if their lives depended on it. They simply have no clue as to just what they are trying to measure. I can’t do that either as no one ever found a way to do that directly. I have done spectral BRDF measurements. Then with surface temperature and spectral sky radiance measurement, actual surface flux can be estimated to about 10% accuracy. This total is between 9 and 25 W/m^2 depending on cloud cover. Less from water surfaces. 🙂
Will – “Then NOAA pronounces this a measurement of radiative flux.”
Where did you get that from? The do not. In their own words, NOAA ESRL appropriately use irradiance not “radiative flux”: “Irradiance is the amount of electromagnetic energy incident on a surface per unit time per unit area.”
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/starmeas.html
Trick says: August 18, 2015 at 4:19 am
(Will – “Then NOAA pronounces this a measurement of radiative flux.”)
From all of the NOAA damn press releases with intent to deceive the public.
“Where did you get that from?” See above plus all so called energy budget, Trenberth,”K.”E.,”et”al.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/starmeas.html
“They do not. In their own words, NOAA ESRL appropriately use irradiance not “radiative flux”:”
The units are the same W/m^2. So much for your symbolic equations with absolutely no understanding. Your reference is but a CYA for the intentional scam.
“Irradiance is the amount of electromagnetic energy incident on a surface per unit time per unit area.”
In a misguided attempt to CYA NOAA now uses Wm. CON-allys bastardisation of the Wikipedia reference of radiative terms. There is no anything incident but a potential, a field strength, no energy, no power, only a EM field strength from over yonder. W/m^2.
Irradiance is the combined spectral EM field strength from one direction normal to a surface area in W/m^2. In the opposing normal there is ‘always’ an opposing spectral field strength. The vector sum of the opposing spectral field strengths, upon integration determine both magnitude and direction of the only unidirectional power flux (W/m^2) ever emitted from the source for thermal EMR. Exactly as the non-bastardized S-B equation, with ’emissivity’ demands.
Trick, You certainly are very good at pointing out each scam! Sometimes I think you believe them! Do you so believe?
Trick says: August 18, 2015 at 4:19 am
(Will – “Then NOAA pronounces this a measurement of radiative flux.”)
From your reference
“Downward longwave irradiance – This quantity is thermal irradiance emitted in all directions by the atmosphere; gases, aerosols, and clouds as received by an horizontal upward facing surface.
Downward longwave irradiance is measured with a pyrgeometer.”
Irradiance is never something emitted. It is but an EM field. Similar to a gravity field, a force. Your weight pushing on the floor is never a transfer of energy or power. The power/energy transferred is always limited by any opposing force. Satellites high in elliptical orbit move only there own expression of power, (force), momentum vs. current location in that field. Never any work! Atmospheric convection also expresses no work. Only the potentials of temperature, pressure vs location in that field.
I might as well finish this up! Temperature is never a measure of energy. It is a measure of power a force or a combination of forces, power. Never the accumulation of power by mass called ‘heat’ energy! Example, 400 psi volume of H2 has a potential i.e. pressure. That same volume and pressure, temperature, of SF6 or UF6 that has the same potential pressure power and temperature, but way way more energy in terms of mass flow power transfer in the direction of flow toward a lower pressure potential. Massive molecules within the same pressure, temperature, and volume. Have way, way, way more energy, but the same power (force). What means ‘temperature’ of this atmosphere, with variable everything?
Ben Wouters says: August 16, 2015 at 12:59 pm
(Response to ‘Q’ 3) “No idea what you mean with ‘models for hydrostatic equilibrium’?
The DALR and SALR give the rate of change of a rising/sinking parcel, that moves up/down in the surrounding atmosphere, that is assumed to be in hydrostatic equilibrium.”
No they don’t! The DALR and SALR are ‘models’ (of the mathematical type) for a ‘static atmosphere’ both ‘with and without’ ‘phase change’! You need ‘more information’ (data) to predict a ‘rising, or falling’ mass.
A ‘mathematical model’ is a ‘formula’ that ‘explains’ the ‘state of a system’ during a ‘given’ set of parameters/configuration. Its a ‘statement’ of the ‘static configuration’ that exists.
“(My response to your ‘Q’ 4. “Whilst I’m sympathetic towards your increased understanding Ben, “Wind flowing up a mountain flank is also ‘pushed’ upwards, now by horizontal pressure differences. The principle remains the same.”
No it doesn’t! This is ‘advection’!”)”
“Obviously, but while the air rises it expands and cools at the same rate that air would expand and cool that rises due to buoyancy. Exact same principle.
(pse let’s not start about the venturi effect over the mountain top).”
Mountain tops aside, the ‘energetic source’ determines the scenario between ‘convection’ and ‘advection’!
‘Convection’ is mediated/initialised by a source of ‘imbalance’ within the ‘hydrostatic state/system’. ‘Advection’ is mediated/initialised by a source of ‘imbalance’ ‘other than within’ the ‘hydrostatic state/system’.
Apologies for the delay, but my time is short and this thread is fast.
Best regards, Ray.
Will Janoschka says: August 16, 2015 at 6:57 am
“Why the distinction? In Continuum theory of fluid dynamics, mass motion must obey the principle of least work. This means that right angle turns of atmospheric mass momentum are disallowed.
Opposed horizontal flows toward a low pressure location never run into each other. They both must gently curve upward as long as that surface low pressure location remains. Doldrums!
I see very little pushing and much accumulating momentum. 34mbar x (Cos(latitude)) constant Eötvös upward atmospheric acceleration in the very wide 2000 km trade winds. To destroy the dance, is to destroy the understanding. The whole idea is to ‘circulate’ stale into fresh. Heat dispatch upward is a freebie. Much interesting (violent) weather in between! Is that “interesting” a part of atmospheric convection? What does it mean? No air parcels allowed!!”
Please see my last post to Ben.
Best regards, Ray.
If you believe air pressure is caused by weight and weight only acts down.
Then how does this barometer work?
The cells are measuring pressure from the side.
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTVLsmy6YpewS-n7P3WcYDeNYQsL1t0qoxVi99CZgHtSFLAFf4fOA
Will: “I might as well finish this up! Temperature is never a measure of energy”
That is without a doubt true.
Will: “It is a measure of power a force or a combination of forces, power. ”
I must disagree. No it isn’t. If you disagree show it in either units, numbers or equations Will. Temperature is not power. Temperature (K) is basically just a proportional variable and has NO real physical meaning by itself when speaking of an atmosphere or gases. Remember? It came into existence just to make these tangled relationships much easier to handle in equations and math. A mark on a thermometer is not measuring “temperature” in reality, it is measuring a difference in density and density alone! In other cases it is measuring the pressure to density ratio and either can change.
Take the P/ρ=R·T that you and I have agreed on, R being the specific gas constant. I’ll let ‘v’ = 1/ρ be the specific volume and ‘u’ being a velocity ( u² in units as [(m/s)²] ) so also P·v = R·T. P units are [N/m²] that is then [(kg m/s²)/m²] or just [kg/s²/m] and since v=[m³/kg], P·v is [kg/s²/m · m³/kg] cancel a ‘m’ [kg/s² · m²/kg], move the m² [kg·m²/s²/kg] = [kg·u² / kg] = [u²] the root-mean-squared velocity and nothing less! You should also notice [kg·u² / kg] is just [J/kg], the specific internal random energy. So you can correctly look at R·T in two different ways, it is [kg·u² / kg] that is just saying [J / kg] or equally it is also just [u²] and letting the mass cancel, the rms velocity squared.
So you have to then ask if you move the ‘R’ [J/kg/K] to the other side T=[u²]/R or T=[J/kg]/R and how in the world is that a “power” Will? Doing the same dimensional decomposition you can say [u²]/R = [kg·K / kg] or [u²·K / u²] or [J·K / J] or just [K] and that is what temperature (K) is…. nothing but a proportional constant describing various ratios of REAL variables (meters, kilograms, seconds) measurable within REAL gases found in REAL atmospheres but I cannot come up with power nowhere (where’s the t?). Maybe you know something that I do not but please show it in something besides just more words.
Come on Will, you are an engineer are you not? Show something that those here that understand math and equations can see and understand! I just sat through a series of engineering courses and it is all about units and relations given in equations is it not? So speak some engineering here.
I can’t speak for others here but whenever I see “temperate” or [K] units I ALWAYS see not just some value but a ratio and then want to know and understand exactly what ratio this “temperature K” is supposed to be representing in various instances. That is part of my disdain of meteorology and what it has done to minds that should understand the physics that underlies the very meteorology they proclaim! But it doesn’t, it generates the curious complex pseudo-science belief systems instead. Just look at what Wilde believes! As if he can go in and re-write physics, thermodynamics, gas laws and gas dynamics all at the stroke if his pen and tangled words! But of course, he knows little math, so it is understandable where the ignorance begins.
Aneroid barometer linkages are a lot like a Swiss watch – ‘In fact, a quality barometer linkage incorporates many of the same components.’
Read more: http://www.madehow.com/Volume-7/Aneroid-Barometer.html
‘the future will inevitably bring a huge number of very inexpensive barometers and thermometers stationed throughout the world and connected through the world wide web.’
Temperature simply reflects the amount of energy carried by mass in terms of motion in all directions rather than velocity through space in a single direction.
A photon is a tiny amount of mass travelling at the speed of light so its temperature is low but its velocity is very high.
As mass is slowed progressively further beneath the speed of light by collisional activity within the greater density of mass collected around a gravitational field then progressively more of the energy represented by its velocity in a single direction becomes motion in all directions and the temperature rises.
You can say that the internal energy of a photon is nearly all potential energy but, as it slows down and vibrates more at the expense of velocity, more of its potential energy becomes kinetic energy and is represented by what we measure as temperature via sensors that can register the IR given off as a result of those vibrations.
So, temperature is not a measure of total internal energy but can be said to be a measure of a type of energy, namely the type involved in random motion of the building blocks of the mass in question.
Wayne thinks that just because he is ignorant of the basis concepts behind the maths then I must be re writing physics.
He is quite wrong and needs to give more thought to what the maths really means out in the real world.of physical phenomena.
I must say Stephen, you do wear your ignorance well… I don’t even have to add anything more to what you just wrote! It displays itself fine.
wayne says: August 18, 2015 at 5:37 pm
(Will: “I might as well finish this up! Temperature is never a measure of energy”)
“That is without a doubt true.”
(Will: “It is a measure of power a force or a combination of forces, power. ”)
“I must disagree. No it isn’t. If you disagree show it in either units, numbers or equations Will. Temperature is not power. Temperature (K) is basically just a proportional variable and has NO real physical meaning by itself when speaking of an atmosphere or gases. Remember? It came into existence just to make these tangled relationships much easier to handle in equations and math. A mark on a thermometer is not measuring “temperature” in reality, it is measuring a difference in density and density alone! In other cases it is measuring the pressure to density ratio and either can change.”
Wayne,
I agree, Temperature has no meaning in this atmosphere. But with gas constrained to a particular volume vs that same mass of gas freely expanding at constant pressure, you get different coefficients of rate of temperature rise per unit mass, (upon rate of application of heat) i.e thermal power. That Cp/Cv ratio is the difference in meaning of temperature. In this atmosphere we have always that ratio to deal with for consideration of what does atmospheric convection mean?. I still promote then use of power, the ‘force’ needed, to apply such ‘force’ over distance. All agree that power need not be conserved anywhere. And a useless concept applied to this atmosphere. Accounting for all power uses including entropy, may be useful, to point out the “why dey do dat, dat way”. To be learned later. These guys are good!
Most thermal energy is but the accumulation (integral wrt time) of power in some mass, with no phase change. But you also have the latent latent “heat” of phase change that does not express as temperature. This latent whatever is better expressed a latent power (the rate of evaporation/condensation, always ‘with’ the accompanying change in density).
This power also needs not to be conserved. I think this is why chemists express in moles, (number of molecules), and power, rather than mass and energy. This gives a clear expression of what all the thingies are doing rite cheer, rite now. What happens in the next second may be way different depending on ‘what’ runs out of power first. This seems to be the most significant concept to remember when considering atmospheric convection. Nothing static.
As far as the equations, they are all in that Catling paper. I can finds no error even in how you get from one to the next. However David explains these in terms of meteorological expression not engineering or physics expression. If you have problems with any, by number, please write out the problem you have with that numbered equation, in your new fluid dynamics learning, here in this or other threads. I will reply. Please do not say all of them as I have the same problem, the whole thing is ugly! There are errors in David’s explanation, but not in the equations themselves. 🙂
All the best! -will-
Hi Will, sorry, tied up for a while but will read your response more slowly later into the morning. But did catch your last line… “errors in explanation [and application], but not in the equations” and that seems epidemic when your get even remotely close to “climate”! It is becoming more than apparent that it has all been manufactured, this AGW, every stinking bit of it. Did you read my cross-post to wuwt above and the discussions around and about it? Seems even Dr. Brown is changing his tune now as he becomes more aware of the depth of malfeasance.
RGB now says: “In fact, if one formulates the null hypothesis “the global surface temperature anomaly corrections are unbiased”, the p-value of this hypothesis is less than 0.01, let alone 0.05. If one considers both of the major products collectively, it is less than 0.001. IMO, there is absolutely no question that GISS and HadCRUT, at least, are at this point hopelessly corrupted”
and
“But this fit is pointless if I cannot trust the data I’m fitting! ”
Right on rgb!!!! Exactly !!!
This is finally making some progress with some people with more that a little bit of influence..
see: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean/comment-page-4/#comment-105534
Wayne, It is nice to hear that Dr. Brown is seeing the corruption. He generally has excellent contributions over at WUWT but as he says, if the data sets are ” at this point hopelessly corrupted” they are completely useless.
Think of all the papers that have been written based on those corrupted data sets and all the useless correlations, non-correlations and conclusions.
Essentially 30 or 40 years worth of research, the work of an entire generation, needs to be tossed into the waste bin.
Not only has the temperature data sets been corrupted but so has the CO2/ice core data sets and now L.S. and his buddies are working on corrupting the solar data.
What an absolute mess.
suricat says: August 18, 2015 at 1:19 pm
Will Janoschka says: August 16, 2015 at 6:57 am
(“Why the distinction? …… No air parcels allowed!!”)
“Please see my last post to Ben. Best regards, Ray.”
Ray,
Read all that, nice that you are helping Ben with his parcelitis. 🙂 You seem to restrict ‘convection’ to thermally induced, natural, (spontaneous) vertical motion of a gas at constant pressure. Lab conditions: insulated tube with small diameter water tubing inside to add thermal power (hot water) or remove thermal power (cold water) Hot water ambient gas enters below expands (+ buoyant) from the plus power and exits above circulates and becomes ambient. Cold water reverses that spontaneous mass flow. Carefully measuring all mass flows water also and all temperatures. results in the Cp for that gas. That same tube horizontally has no such flow but perhaps some slight pressure change in the middle, depending specific gas.
Is not the poleward mechanical convection of heat power even more important in this atmosphere? Since the force of gravity attempts to makes all the atmosphere self buoyant, a slight push in any direction gets things moving. Something else needs to stop that motion. The thermals are nice for gliders, but how important to ATMOSPHERIC convection? I am sure the hot stale air in the doldrums help with that circulation, and the great loss of that waste power to space via EMR exitance, likely helps even more, and helps create the three nice cells in each hemisphere. Perhaps all the power for interesting weather comes from the transfer of insolation to space. And perhaps all the mechanical acceleration needed for convection comes just from a rearrangement of linear and angular momentum, within this atmosphere. Mountains do ‘that’ too. Is it not time to find out what ‘is’ of this atmosphere? I see a great need to flush all of the fantasy! Still lots of room for don’t know. Time to design the real measurement techniques needed to falsify ‘all’ that cannot be demonstrated! Such measurements may even give clues to what all the other Solar system bodies are doing to/with Earth.
All the best! -will-
wayne,
I suggest you read up some particle physics.
Stephen Wilde says: August 19, 2015 at 7:40 am
“wayne, I suggest you read up some particle physics.
I must say Stephen, you do wear your ignorance well… I don’t even have to add anything more to what you just wrote! It displays itself fine. “A photon is a tiny amount of mass”, indeed 😦
Gail Combs says: ‘Essentially 30 or 40 years worth of research, the work of an entire generation, needs to be tossed into the waste bin.’
A classic case of ‘moving the goal posts’ – all trying to save a worthless theory.
wayne says:
August 18, 2015 at 5:37 pm
You should also notice [kg•u² / kg] is just [J/kg], the specific internal random energy.
You say Temperature is [J/kg].
I agree for solids and liquids.
As a chemist I would say [J/mol] for gas.
I don’t agree with replacing number of molecules with mass when discussing T for a gas.
oldbrew says:
August 18, 2015 at 5:39 pm
Read more: http://www.madehow.com/Volume-7/Aneroid-Barometer.html
The Hg barometer measures downward pressure against weight of a column. This does not prove that air pressure is itself caused by downward weight of air.
The aneroid barometer can measure pressure from any direction. This should, but will not, dispel the myth that air pressure is caused by weight.
‘The aneroid barometer can measure pressure from any direction. This should, but will not, dispel the myth that air pressure is caused by weight.’
Why? The barometer is immersed in air.
Roger Clague says: August 19, 2015 at 11:12 am
“I agree for solids and liquids.
As a chemist I would say [J/mol] for gas.
I don’t agree with replacing number of molecules with mass when discussing T for a gas.”
I agree with this for a gas when possible and also using rates of change of T and W/mol however in this atmosphere, gravity acts on ‘mass’ not on moles, so both must be considered and both must work!
For atmospheric convection (movement) the equation to describe should be dT/dt = W/(molar density)
This rids all of that Cp/Cv nonsense, and all consideration of 1LTD in this atmospheric convection. Have you some way of expressing P/rho in gravitational force/mole terms? Is this atmosphere really a gas that obeys IGL? The compressible part may be enough. Insects and birds are a part of molar mass, but how many molecules?
“This should, but will not, dispel the myth that air pressure is caused by weight.”
Again what is that chemistry trick for converting moles to molar mass? that F= (m1 x m2)/R^2 might have some minor and understandable correction for gas moles. I really like the idea, pressure needs no mass, Watts need no mass, dT/dt needs no mass when things are dynamic, and weight disappears. Whoever runs out of Watts first gets to move to the back of the bus. 🙂
The issue of photons having mass is not clear cut. They are simply assumed to have no mass because any mass they might have is too small to affect the equations.
“In classical electromagnetic theory, light turns out to have energy E and momentum p, and these happen to be related by E = pc. Quantum mechanics introduces the idea that light can be viewed as a collection of “particles”: photons. Even though these photons cannot be brought to rest, and so the idea of rest mass doesn’t really apply to them, we can certainly bring these “particles” of light into the fold of equation (1) by just considering them to have no rest mass. That way, equation (1) gives the correct expression for light, E = pc, and no harm has been done. Equation (1) is now able to be applied to particles of matter and “particles” of light. It can now be used as a fully general equation, and that makes it very useful.
Is there any experimental evidence that the photon has zero rest mass?
Alternative theories of the photon include a term that behaves like a mass, and this gives rise to the very advanced idea of a “massive photon”. If the rest mass of the photon were non-zero, the theory of quantum electrodynamics would be “in trouble” primarily through loss of gauge invariance, which would make it non-renormalisable; also, charge conservation would no longer be absolutely guaranteed, as it is if photons have zero rest mass. But regardless of what any theory might predict, it is still necessary to check this prediction by doing an experiment.
It is almost certainly impossible to do any experiment that would establish the photon rest mass to be exactly zero. The best we can hope to do is place limits on it. A non-zero rest mass would introduce a small damping factor in the inverse square Coulomb law of electrostatic forces. That means the electrostatic force would be weaker over very large distances.
Likewise, the behavior of static magnetic fields would be modified. An upper limit to the photon mass can be inferred through satellite measurements of planetary magnetic fields. The Charge Composition Explorer spacecraft was used to derive an upper limit of 6 × 10−16 eV with high certainty. This was slightly improved in 1998 by Roderic Lakes in a laboratory experiment that looked for anomalous forces on a Cavendish balance. The new limit is 7 × 10−17 eV. Studies of galactic magnetic fields suggest a much better limit of less than 3 × 10−27 eV, but there is some doubt about the validity of this method.”
If one takes a photon as being massless my previous comment can be reworded thus:
“Temperature simply reflects the amount of energy carried by mass in terms of motion in all directions rather than velocity through space in a single direction.
A particle of mass travelling through space has the temperature of space. It moves in its direction of travel with hardly any vibratory motion.
As that particle is slowed progressively by collisional activity within the greater density of mass collected around a gravitational field then progressively more of the energy represented by its velocity in a single direction becomes motion in all directions and the temperature rises.
You can say that the internal energy of the particle is nearly all potential energy whilst it is in space but, as it slows down and vibrates more at the expense of velocity, more of its potential energy becomes kinetic energy and is represented by what we measure as temperature via sensors that can register the IR given off as a result of those vibrations.
So, temperature is not a measure of total internal energy but can be said to be a measure of a type of energy, namely the type involved in random motion of the building blocks of the mass in question.
suricat says: August 18, 2015 at 12:04 pm
“No they don’t! The DALR and SALR are ‘models’ (of the mathematical type) for a ‘static atmosphere’ both ‘with and without’ ‘phase change’! You need ‘more information’ (data) to predict a ‘rising, or falling’ mass.”
Do you seriously claim that g/Cp has any meaning for the static atmosphere?
Nothing about pressure, density, energy input, energy output etc.etc.??
I can only assume you missed most of the recent discussion,
Obviously you need more data to predict rising or falling of air. You need the ACTUAL Local Temperature Profile (LTP), to compare that to the DALR and SALR to see if convection can start and/or continue.
Afaik there is no formula that captures the ACTUAL LTP for every place at every moment on this planet. If we had, we would have perfect weather predictions.
“‘Convection’ is mediated/initialised by a source of ‘imbalance’ within the ‘hydrostatic state/system’. ‘Advection’ is mediated/initialised by a source of ‘imbalance’ ‘other than within’ the ‘hydrostatic state/system’.”
Indeed, and this should be obvious to anyone who understands Hydrostatic Equilibrium.
wayne says: August 17, 2015 at 6:56 pm
“This is exactly the topic I have been showing in detail for all thick atmospheres for more than two years now, the “C” is not what you would expect.
Do you have the answer why that additional “C” exists?”
You still haven’t figured out that it costs energy to also EXPAND the column against gravity when you increase the temperature of the entire column??
Still no clue what Hydrostatic Equilibrium is all about?
Stephen W: who/what are you quoting? (today @ 2:09 pm and 2:22 pm)
Where does the quote at 2:22 pm end? Thanks.
Roger Clague, “You say Temperature is [J/kg].”
No, that decomposition does not say T has [J/kg] units. It does say that “Rspecific x T” units are [J/kg]. Read it again.
Ben Wouters says: August 19, 2015 at 3:03 pm
wayne says: August 17, 2015 at 6:56 pm
(“This is exactly the topic I have been showing in detail for all thick atmospheres for more than two years now, the “C” is not what you would expect. Do you have the answer why that additional “C” exists?”)
“You still haven’t figured out that it costs energy to also EXPAND the column against gravity when you increase the temperature of the entire column?? Still no clue what Hydrostatic Equilibrium is all about?”
That is because your illusionary meteorological crap is dependent of a ill-formed assumption of some expression of Cp/Cv obeying 1LTD for this atmosphere. This is used for your basis of hydrostatic equilibrium. Can you please demonstrate where an expansion with no force requires energy or some work? Chemistry has been all over this for years with no resolution.
For Cv less heat energy is required for a given delta T. For Cp the amount of heat energy required is 1.4 x Cv. Chemistry can also express this as a lower mass density or lower molar density do to free expansion with constant pressure. Where is the force.
Again meteorological explanation for this physical fails. Your dry LR equating to -g/Cp is also fantasy. Earth tropospheric LR is some where between 10 C/km and half that depending on change of phase of water. Nothing more has ever been demonstrated. All of meteorology is pseudo-scientific clap trap. We know! Here are the equations with no understanding. Your column is as illusionary as your parcel. If the atmosphere were contained at some altitude the whole thing would be constant volume. This atmosphere at 20kPa has an altitude that is free to range from 14 km at equator to half that at the poles. Cp all at constant pressures. Lateral expansion at constant pressure requires no work, only expansion and a reduction in density! Please try to get your beloved meteorology to ever write of this atmosphere as it expresses itself!!
oldbrew says: August 19, 2015 at 4:51 pm
“Stephen W: who/what are you quoting? (today @ 2:09 pm and 2:22 pm)
Where does the quote at 2:22 pm end? Thanks.”
How about fantasy?
OB,
Perhaps this again needs a new thread because nothing of “the meaning of atmospheric convection” is being discussed. I can suggest two: “What does this atmosphere actually do?” and Why is meteorology so wrong?” Clarity can thus be maintained between two very different concepts. Thanks!
oldbrew says: August 19, 2015 at 12:39 pm
(‘The aneroid barometer can measure pressure from any direction. This should, but will not, dispel the myth that air pressure is caused by weight.’)
“Why? The barometer is immersed in air.”
Air is considered a gas that is considered near ideal! The expressions of gravity in this atmosphere replace more vernacular expressions like weight the concept of heaviness! Weight is not a formula as many here claim, it is the form of measurement of heaviness. The formula expresses the combination of components that are being measured.
The atmosphere has ‘no weight’ because that is not what is being measured. Weight is a vector quantity because it has both magnitude and direction. Pressure is a scalar quantity because it is isotropic. This is the key to Archimedes’ hydrostatics that is so butchered in this thread. The measured weight is not affected be the displacement of the atmosphere. The reduction in weight after partial or full immersion in water, is identical to the weight of water displaced. This demonstrates that the atmosphere has (exhibits) no weight at all!
Such is very important when discussing atmospheric convection, as weightlessness is never a force in any direction. This forms the basis for free expansion of any part of the atmosphere within that same atmosphere. Such expansion/contraction is called free as it is always isentropic. No work, no entropy.
Displacing atmosphere is equivalent to displacing space because that is all that ever happens! Consider the formation of a new volcanic island. Water is displaced upward, work. once clear of water self-buoyant atmosphere is displaced, displacing only space, no work. The effect of increasing the atmosphere from outgassing from the volcano is left as an exercise for the students; i.e. I have no idea! 🙂 This can easily take another 2000 comments before any conclusion of “What does it mean?
Will Janoschka says: August 19, 2015 at 9:17 pm
Will, RC is basing his hypothesis on the ‘Archimedes Principle’ where ‘zero’ = ~14.7 lb.f/in^2. This is an ‘offset’ to the ‘absolute’!
If the ‘Archimedes Principle’ applies to ‘water beneath an atmosphere’, it also applies to ‘an atmosphere beneath a vacuum’.
Air has ‘weight’, but not having a ‘rigid structure’ it displays its weight as ‘pressure’! See here:
http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae650.cfm
Best regards, Ray.
wayne says: August 19, 2015 at 4:56 am
“Hi Will, sorry, tied up for a while but will read your response more slowly later into the morning. But did catch your last line… “errors in explanation [and application], but not in the equations” and that seems epidemic when your get even remotely close to “climate”! It is becoming more than apparent that it has all been manufactured, this AGW, every stinking bit of it. Did you read my cross-post to wuwt above and the discussions around and about it? Seems even Dr. Brown is changing his tune now as he becomes more aware of the depth of malfeasance.”
Read your post, I agree. I am not a fan of RGB@Duke. Fence setter for way to long, smells the politics and like Dr. J Curry is not yet willing to go public and expose this utter crap before Paris.
Perhaps they are smarter than you and I. Like the guys in Panama, all carry, but wait to see which way most bullets are coming from, then run to ‘that’ side of the street.
As far as D Catling’s paper the important stuff for this thread is in 10.13.2.3. Every time he mentions weight of the atmosphere above, hydrostatic equation, or adiabatic; it is right from the meteorological bible. Look for an entirely different explanation. Throughout is that glaring presence that expansion of part of the atmosphere within this atmosphere takes work and use the reference of 1LTD. Any expansion of this atmosphere is only displacing space, no work!
The abstract algebra of Emmy Noether 1917, falsified conservation of energy within a gravitational field. This atmosphere is completely within and controlled by Earth’s gravitational field, and requires a very careful re-evaluation of physics fundamentals of how the force of gravity in this may be expressed in this atmosphere, with the first observable of Noether’s theorem.
This must be done without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Change only what ‘must’ be changed. All must still remain consistent within the fields of physics, chemistry, and engineering. I hope we can be clear enough with minimal changes of concept so all knowledgeable think “why didn’t I think of that”!
I still think “molar power density and dT/dt”, for only compressible fluids in a gravitational field is best. Gets rid of absolute temperature, direct mass, 1LTD, and every thing not associated with atmosphere. It is the easiest change for EE and chemistry to understand! Thermo not so much. Ask Kristain! I wonder if the aerodynamics folk will giggle! They likely have many pre-defined terms that apply.
All the best! -will-
Ben Wouters says: August 19, 2015 at 2:55 pm
“Do you seriously claim that g/Cp has any meaning for the static atmosphere?”
No. That was ‘your’ claim. My ‘claim’ is that the DALR and SALR are mathematical models of a ‘perfect’ dry and wet lapse rate respectively. These ‘models’ are used to give ‘intuitive’ prediction for the current state of the local ELR.
“Nothing about pressure, density, energy input, energy output etc.etc.??
I can only assume you missed most of the recent discussion,”
I unconditionally ‘end a sentence’ with a ‘full stop’. What else was in your ‘original message’ that you would want to ‘edit’ it?
I’ve read through ‘all’ the thread Ben, but only ‘commented’ where I believed an additional POV was needed for ‘clarity to the discussion’.
“Obviously you need more data to predict rising or falling of air. You need the ACTUAL Local Temperature Profile (LTP), to compare that to the DALR and SALR to see if convection can start and/or continue.”
Thank you for being so candid.
“Afaik there is no formula that captures the ACTUAL LTP for every place at every moment on this planet. If we had, we would have perfect weather predictions.”
I concur.
““‘Convection’ is mediated/initialised by a source of ‘imbalance’ within the ‘hydrostatic state/system’. ‘Advection’ is mediated/initialised by a source of ‘imbalance’ ‘other than within’ the ‘hydrostatic state/system’.”
Indeed, and this should be obvious to anyone who understands Hydrostatic Equilibrium.”
Again, I concur.
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: August 20, 2015 at 2:38 am
Will Janoschka says: August 19, 2015 at 9:17 pm
“Will, RC is basing his hypothesis on the ‘Archimedes Principle’ where ‘zero’ = ~14.7 lb.f/in^2. This is an ‘offset’ to the ‘absolute’!”
Do you mean David Catling? This principle is yet another fake Weight is never a symbolic expression as is claimed in this thread. it is a measurement of heaviness, a downward vector force. no force in any other direction. This whole atmosphere exhibits no weight as discovered and carefully demonstrated by Archimedes himself in the discovery of hydrostatics! your meteorologists plagiarized that discovery, invented some insane principle, and stole the name hydrostatic equilibrium (floating, neutral buoyancy), a deliberate theft in order to appear competence. 50 years, $trillions, has demonstrated nothing but incompetence!
“If the ‘Archimedes Principle’ applies to ‘water beneath an atmosphere’, it also applies to ‘an atmosphere beneath a vacuum’.”
Your principle applies to nothing. Displacement of any atmospheric mass in this atmosphere expressing only pressure, density, and delta temperature, under the force of gravity, can only displace space, weightless, massless space.
“Air has ‘weight’, but not having a ‘rigid structure’ it displays its weight as ‘pressure’! Best regards, Ray.”
How much costs 14.7psi of prime rib? 🙂 Air has ‘mass’, but not having a ‘rigid structure’ it displays its mass under the force of gravity as ‘pressure. This small difference entirely trashes the meteorological concept that gamma (Cp/Cv) of the atmosphere does any work in expanding. Ask any chemist! It is free expansion. It expands only into, space no temperature, no mass, no pressure, no density, and no work. Neutral buoyancy, self- buoyancy, at every location. No work to change any location ever. What does it mean 🙂
All the best! -will-
The energiser Bunny!
Will: “The abstract algebra of Emmy Noether 1917, falsified conservation of energy within a gravitational field. ”
That so? Conservation of what explicit energies? Total energy? Have a link or the equations or discussion leading you to determine this? I’ll consider.
Or, are you just pointing in a manner at the increase in entropy from exitance of infrared to space and the decrease in entropy from the radiation from the sun entering our world?
And as to your “Any expansion of this atmosphere is only displacing space, no work!”
True only of some volume of gas expanding with no other gas about and around it, that… it must displace!. I see your attempt now to toss mass from consideration as to atmospheres! Good luck on that Will.
Seems this discussion is now entering areas that I must not tread.
-yes, all the best!
suricat says: August 20, 2015 at 2:38 am
“much”
Ray Dart,
Claims to be millwright at some university!! You seem to be the only one here that is habilitated in meteorology. I hope to learn much from your POV.
All the best! -will-
Will: “Displacing atmosphere is equivalent to displacing space because that is all that ever happens! Consider the formation of a new volcanic island. Water is displaced upward, work. once clear of water self-buoyant atmosphere is displaced, displacing only space, no work. ”
Will, please don’t think that you are always correct either. Water is just as self-buoyant as the atmosphere, no difference! Your statement is not correct. Air is no different than water in any case, they both have weight & mass & must accelerate and both must be displaced in exactly the same manner. Air’s mass is just about 1/816th that of water near or surface and can many times just be ignored since it is small and can just be lost in the precision digits, but in science, and fluid dynamics, there is no “special equations” or “special cases” and handling of the mass or weight of air compared to the mass and weight of water, they are handled identically in the same equations with differnt densities, the former about 0.001225 g/cm³ and the latter 1 g/cm³ right where we exist on the surface. Your view of the atmosphere having no weight is of course flawed. However you are correct that a given volume of water, or air, or any fluid, suspended within itself, at some identical vertical level can be termed “weightless”… all forces cancelled and that is correct … neutral buoyancy.
Well, summer’s over, school’s begun again, and I must turn my attention to some other things for a while, on and off, but I must thank everyone for some great lessons in science philosophy and sophistry and pure hogwash! Hopefully the students “wanting to be a scientist or engineer” can gather a bit of insight from such discussions! Plus and especially minus!
Later gents. I’ll pop in as often as I can.
wayne says: August 20, 2015 at 4:44 am
(Will: “The abstract algebra of Emmy Noether 1917, falsified conservation of energy within a gravitational field. ”)
“That so? Conservation of what explicit energies? Total energy? Have a link or the equations or discussion leading you to determine this? I’ll consider.”
Falsified the “concept” of energy conservation, except in precisely closed systems!! Dr. Lorentz, Dr. Einstein, Dr. Hilbert, all praised her work as the smartest mathematician, ever. I understand none of it. 🙂
“Or, are you just pointing in a manner at the increase in entropy from exitance of infra-red to space and the decrease in entropy from the radiation from the sun entering our world?”
Wayne,
Such is backward. The Sun discards vast waste power (entropy) in every direction. Earth is always in the way of such discard but at higher temperature than space, thus earth can accept some of this Solar waste power (entropy) and converts ‘part’ back to useful energy as space still has a lower temperature. This Earth uses that converted solar entropy (now energy) to provide food, warmth, and interesting weather, etc, etc. Only the ‘waste’, now again entropy, is dispatched again via EMR to low radiance space in most all directions. Please do not let the stupid equations get in the way of observing such wonderful dance without understanding…. How dey do dat?
All the best! -will-
wayne says: August 20, 2015 at 4:57 am
(Will: “Displacing atmosphere is equivalent to displacing space because that is all that ever happens! Consider the formation of a new volcanic island. Water is displaced upward, work. once clear of water self-buoyant atmosphere is displaced, displacing only space, no work. ”)
“Will, please don’t think that you are always correct either.”
Wayne, I am seldom correct, I fantasize, compute, and present. Worst error presented as i remember was seven orders of magnitude off. Everyone giggled. Months of buying first round.
“Water is just as self-buoyant as the atmosphere, no difference! Your statement is not correct.”
Ocean is damned near incompressible. No change in density with pressure. A submarine expressing slight positive buoyancy, spontaneously accelerates in motion to the surface. Aircraft have way, way different expression.,
“Air is no different than water in any case, they both have weight & mass & must accelerate and both must be displaced in exactly the same manner. Air’s mass is just about 1/816th that of water near or surface and can many times just be ignored since it is small and can just be lost in the precision digits, but in science, and fluid dynamics, there is no “special equations” or “special cases” and handling of the mass or weight of air compared to the mass and weight of water, they are handled identically in the same equations with different densities, the former about 0.001225 g/cm³ and the latter 1 g/cm³ right where we exist on the surface.”
What grand nonsense! Never in a gravitational field. This atmosphere is compressible. Rocky surface or ocean is not compressible in a gravitational field. In this compressible atmospheric fluid. There must be the exquisite dance between mass, density, pressure, and temperature. Especially with mass motion (convection). This atmosphere or any part of this atmosphere exhibits no downward accelerative vector force whatsoever. It expresses absolutely no weight i.e. heaviness!
“Your view of the atmosphere having no weight is of course flawed.”
Only if you think that that weight is a symbolic formula, i.e. weight = (kg x g).
Could you please express your understanding of the ‘difference’ between 14.7 lbs (weight) of prime roast and 14.7 psi (pressure) of prime roast or atmosphere?
“Later gents. I’ll pop in as often as I can.”
Thank you Wayne! Perhaps your students have hard questions also. That I suggest should be the focus of education. A vector toward those that want to learn! These are the kids that accept and appreciate “I don’t know’. So much more valuable than BS. It helps with, i’m not so bad!
All the best! -will-
suricat says:
August 20, 2015 at 2:38 am
Air has ‘weight’, but not having a ‘rigid structure’ it displays its weight as ‘pressure’!
I say the opposite. Air displays its pressure as weight in a liquid barometer.
Pressure on a liquid from a gas ( as in the Hg barometer) can only be applied downwards on its top surface.
Weight also only acts only downwards and on a surface.
This leads many to think that pressure is acting as weight does. Weight cause pressure.
But we know air pressure acts in all directions. An aneroid ( no liquid ) barometer can have the cells placed vertically and measuring pressure squeezing it from the side. I made one myself, it works with the cell vertical.
Pressure is a scalar and is not caused by weight which is a vector.
ISS crew have mass but no weight. Centrifugal force caused by its orbiting the Earth opposes force of attraction and the result is no weight
At the top of a small jump you are weightless. Children skip for the repeated sense of weightlessness caused. Try it.
Smoke has no weight. Not having weight is not unusual.
The mass of a can be calculated by compressing air, it is 1g/1000cm^3, but no weight , no effect on scales.
Therefore no hydrostatic balance.
Roger Clague says: ‘Weight also only acts downwards and on a surface.’
Watch what happens at the end of the video as air enters from the side of the bottle.
‘The weight of air’
‘Even though they’re too tiny to see, all the molecules of air in the atmosphere above your head weigh something. And the combined weight of these molecules causes a pressure pressing down on your body of 10,000 kg per square metre. This means that the mass of the air above the 0.1 square metre cross section of your body is 1,000 kg, or a tonne.
If you tried to lift a small car, you’d certainly notice it, so why don’t we notice that there’s a tonne of air pressing down on us? Well, the air exerts this force in all directions, so as well as pushing down on us, it also pushes up and balances out the force on our bodies so that we don’t collapse.’
http://www.physics.org/facts/air-really.asp
Ben Wouters says, August 17, 2015 at 4:03 pm:
“They [Catling] describe a general picture for planets. On earth convective OVERTURNING is limited to the boundary layer, which may be close to the surface at night (= no convection at all).
So only radiative energy transfer.”
So you insist on staying inside your little box …
Yup, they describe a general picture for planets. On Earth and Venus, vertical mixing of air is prevalent all the way to the tropopause. Overturning of air masses occurs mostly in the Hadley cells (but also outside of them), which on Venus stretch all the way to the polar vortices, but on Earth only as far as ~30 degrees away from the equator:
https://chiefio.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/tropobands-cell1.gif?w=640&h=480
The ELR is set somewhere around the balance point between radiative loss to space and convective vertical mixing of the air column. Whenever and wherever convection is less prevalent, radiation takes on the larger role. Then the average ELR tend to drop. Whenever and wherever the convective vertical mixing is more steady and efficient, however, the role of radiation is much smaller, and the average mean ELR tend to steepen. There’s a very clear pattern to this globally (and don’t forget, we’re always talking annual averages here):
“Not really.”
Yeah, really.
“All fine and well, but eg the Hadley cell is not driven by convection, the subject of this thread.
(outside the ITCZ the Hadley cell actually suppresses convection)”
Still completely stuck inside the narrow frame of the meteorological definition of “convection”. The Hadley cells most assuredly are driven by convection, deep moist convection along the ITCZ. The rising columns of air here are what sets up the entire circulation of air between 30N and 30S. The air subsides gently towards 30N and 30S before it sinks to the surface, might suppress thermal convection here from the solar-heated surface, but is still air moving vertically through the air column and so follows the DALR. Same thing happens along the frontal systems between the Ferrel and the Polar cells, only slantwise air movement. Still DALR/SALR.
Thunderstorms along the ITCZ and in the monsoon regions over South and Southeast Asia regularly push through the thermal tropopause and into the lower stratosphere. How could they possibly do this? There’s a temperature inversion up there, after all. Shouldn’t that be impossible to cross? Momentum. Upward buoyant momentum. This is what detemines the general tropopause level. Top of convection. It is as far as the thermal momentum can take the air. On average. When you get to about 200 mbar, radiation loss to space starts becoming so efficient that the buoyant momentum is quickly dissipated. At 100 bar it is normally finally exhausted and the air starts subsiding. But sometimes the upward momentum is so strong that the rising air pushes even further up.
“Ok, except perhaps for ‘the ELR tends to drop’”
See figure above. ELR is generally much steeper at low latitudes (Hadley cells) than at high ones. On an annual basis. Radiation is more important the further N and S you get, because less and less sfc heating and drier and drier air.
“But again, the subject of this thread is ‘atmospheric convection’, not Global Circulation Cells.”
It has moved far beyond pure convection by now, Ben. Sorry. If you are not ready to acknowledge how the global circulation of air is what defines the troposphere and distinguishes it from the statosphere above, then you have a long way to go, I’m afraid.
“Of the incoming solar flux ~30% is reflected, ~50% is absorbed by the surface, and the remaining 20% is absorbed by the atmosphere.
~10% of incoming solar is UV, which is mostly blocked in the stratosphere.
So the remaining 10-12% is absorbed in the rest of the atmosphere, partly in the thermosphere.
Clouds absorb ~3% or so.”
Ben, try to keep up. WV is responsible for ~70% of the known ATMOSPHERIC absorption of incoming sunlight, not of Earth’s. Of course most of the solar input through the ToA is absorbed at the actual surface (~69%), but of the remaining ~31%, about 70% is absorbed by WV in the troposphere:
I think it’s appropriate to repost this comment of mine from the Feynmann thread here:
Kristian says, July 31, 2015 at 3:08 pm:
harrydhuffman (@harrydhuffman) says, July 30, 2015 at 2:49 pm:
““Why is the effective specific heat of the tropospheric atmosphere so precisely just 1.5 times that of a diatomic ideal gas?” (I disagree that it is due to the accidental concentration of any “greenhouse gas”, particularly either carbon dioxide or water vapor, or to convection, or “convective cooling”, and I reject, for now, the very idea of a “wet” versus “dry”, so-called “adiabatic lapse rate” (because, again, the difference would depend upon the amount of “wet” involved, wouldn’t it, and that would vary with altitude, and thus give an unreal, non-constant lapse rate, wouldn’t it?); it is the hydrostatic lapse rate, period, and the only question is why, in the formula for it (-g/c), is the specific heat c exactly 50% higher than that for a diatomic ideal gas? (Or equivalently, why is the lapse rate -6.5 K/km instead of -9.8 K/km?)”
The DALR: dT/dz = g/c_p
The SALR: dT/dz = g/c_p – (L_v * dq_vs)/(c_p * dz)
The “(L_v dq_vs)/(c_p dz)” term is simply describing the release of latent heat of vaporisation inside the rising – and thus adiabatically expanding – air parcel, reducing the temperature falloff rate with altitude.
As you point out, Harry, there is no way we can be certain how large the global average of this variable would be, because it’s impossible to tell exactly how “wet” (condensing, really) the global troposphere actually is on average. We can make estimates, of course. The 6.5 K/km ‘average’ value is just such an estimate, really no more than an educated guess. It is simply agreed upon as the global average, although it is originally stated as the US standard average. In other words, it has become 6.5 K/km by convention. Methods have been used to calculate the global average providing lower estimates than this standard value, 6.1-6.2 K/km, and the value varies greatly both vertically in the troposphere and from the equator to the poles. There is nothing absolute about the 1.5 ratio.
Click to access LapseRate-FAO06-IACP430.pdf
What is evident from these maps and graphs is how the tropospheric temperature gradient depends significantly on the amount of vertical mixing of the air, that is, on surface heating and evaporation plus subsequent condensation in the tropospheric column.
The average annual tropospheric temperature gradient in the extratropics and especially near the poles actually tends towards the isothermal condition (it will never get there as long as there is some kind of heating and cooling going on diurnally/annually), because there is a lot less surface heating and a lot less surface evaporation, and so convection is a much rarer and more intermittent phenomenon than closer to the equator, and so a lot more of the thermal radiation escapes to space directly from the surface and/or from much lower in the air column, which tends to level out the upward temperature gradient because of higher cooling rates down low. (Not enough low heating during the day, effective low cooling during the night.)
Bear in mind, the maps/graphs above and I are speaking in annual averages.
So you have two global patterns manifesting themselves: 1) “wet” areas (and/or tropospheric levels) generally (annual avg) have gentler gradients than “dry” areas, because of SALR vs. DALR; 2) tropical/subtropical areas generally (annual avg) have steeper gradients than higher latitudes, because of more consistent vertical mixing of the tropospheric column.
There is no natural, inherent “hydrostatic equilibrium” temperature gradient in the troposphere as some people seem to assume. If so, it would’ve been say 6.5 K/km at all tropospheric heights and especially at high latitudes where convective mixing is limited mostly to passing fronts, orographic lifting/sinking, ocean evaporation and summer heating events. You need dynamical vertical mixing to keep a tropospheric gradient, because the air actually needs to rise in order to cool (from adiabatic expansion). The air just sitting there, in hydrostatic equilibrium, only higher up, being less dense than air further down, doesn’t in itself make it cooler than the lower air. Such a situation will gradually move towards isothermal conditions through internal conduction (the average molecular velocity (and hence, air temperature) would end up the same at all levels, regardless of the density of the air).
oldbrew says:
August 20, 2015 at 2:07 pm
Watch what happens at the end of the video as air enters from the side of the bottle.
The video shows pressure acting from the side. If it was pressure caused by weight it would only act downwards.
http://www.physics.org/facts/air-really.asp
“Even though they’re too tiny to see, all the molecules of air in the atmosphere above your head weigh something.”
They have mass not weight
1. “And the combined weight of these molecules causes a pressure “
2.“the air exerts this force in all directions, so as well as pushing down on us, it also pushes up and balances out the force on our bodies so that we don’t collapse.”
2. is correct. Therefore 1 is not correct. Weight is a vector down so cannot be causing pressure.
Roger Clague says: August 20, 2015 at 11:59 am
suricat says: August 20, 2015 at 2:38 am
(“Air has ‘weight’, but not having a ‘rigid structure’ it displays its weight as ‘pressure’!”)
“I say the opposite. Air displays its pressure as weight in a liquid barometer.”
Perhaps we can get the idiots to recognise their brainwashing! 🙂 I have little hope!
oldbrew says: August 20, 2015 at 2:07 pm
(Roger Clague says: ‘Weight also only acts downwards and on a surface.’)
Roger is correct! He is describing the “difference” between weight and pressure precisely!
Please stop with the brainwashing of formula: weight = mg! The magnitude of weight (downward vector) is the same (equal,equivalent) to magnitude of mass (scalar) times magnitude of gravitational force (downward vector). Scientifically that equation would be expressed with vector symbols, for understanding, rather than intentional confusion.
Formula represent the components of a physical measurement of ‘weight’, heaviness, that is heavy!!, atmosphere is nowhere heavy! If you cannot at least try to understand the difference, you remain brainwashed, the prime intent of neuvo-science (pseudo-science)!
“‘The weight of air’ ‘Even though they’re too tiny to see, all the molecules of air in the atmosphere above your head weigh something. And the combined weight of these molecules causes a pressure pressing down on your body of 10,000 kg per square metre. This means that the mass of the air above the 0.1 square metre cross section of your body is 1,000 kg, or a tonne.”
More total neuvo-science (pseudo-science)! Never a tonne (weight), 101.3kPa, or 14.7 psi (pressure)! Again “How much would you pay for 14.7 pounds per square inch of prime rib?”.
You pay, they put just that in a balloon, you walk away! Thank you very much idiot. 🙂 Mass always has volume, pressure removes one distance, density brings it back. The ratio of the two, at that location, is what determines atmospheric temperature in this troposphere.
Kristian says: August 20, 2015 at 3:03 pm
Ben Wouters says, August 17, 2015 at 4:03 pm:
(“They [Catling] describe a general picture for planets. On earth convective OVERTURNING is limited to the boundary layer, which may be close to the surface at night (= no convection at all).
So only radiative energy transfer.”)
“So you insist on staying inside your little box …”
Kristian,
Thank you! Your presentation is well done, as always. My encouraging complaint, as always, this time is your limitation on WV absorption of insolation. Most solar power reflection is done by surface and clouds. Just like the surface spectral irradiance is limited by junk in the atmosphere, mostly WV and airborne water condensate. The reflected power outgoing to space is also limited (absorbed) by the same junk in the atmosphere. The infamous WMO claims 30% albedo (whatever that may mean). If 30% of insolation is reflected, just imagine the amount of absorption by atmospheric junk with that two way travel. Specular irradiance at the surface shows about 60% of atmospheric junk absorption of insolation.
All the best! -will-
Kristian says: August 20, 2015 at 3:13 pm
“I think it’s appropriate to repost this comment of mine from the Feynmann thread here:”
OK good idea!
“There is no natural, inherent “hydrostatic equilibrium” temperature gradient in the troposphere as some people seem to assume. If so, it would’ve been say 6.5 K/km at all tropospheric heights and especially at high latitudes where convective mixing is limited mostly to passing fronts, orographic lifting/sinking, ocean evaporation and summer heating events.”
OK
“You need dynamical vertical mixing to keep a tropospheric gradient, because the air actually needs to rise in order to cool (from adiabatic expansion).”
OK, it indeed has lower temperature from lower power density, not work!
“The air just sitting there, in hydrostatic equilibrium, only higher up, being less dense than air further down, doesn’t in itself make it cooler than the lower air.”
It must do this spontaneously, with no work, “lower power density”!
“Such a situation will gradually move towards isothermal conditions through internal conduction (the average molecular velocity (and hence, air temperature) would end up the same at all levels, regardless of the density of the air).”
Gravitational force absolutely prevents such spontaneous thermal conduction in this atmosphere.
You still claim temperature proportional to molecular velocity, rather than to molar changes in momentum per time interval (collisions) Why?
This atmosphere must always has some lapse rate with any power input internal or Solar.
This very high atmosphere would become isothermal at 7 Kelvin, an have lapse rate 14-17 o/km solely from EMR exitance to space, as long as Earth has this kind of atmosphere.
All the best! -will-
Kristian says: August 20, 2015 at 3:13 pm
“I think it’s appropriate to repost this comment of mine from the Feynmann thread here:”
OK good idea!
Now Kristian,
Your ‘temperature’ proportional to molecular heat energy (velocity) within a fixed volume is very correct and precise for any mass of fixed volume (incompressible). With this atmosphere the mass spontaneously changes volume with altitude. Why? It seems that temperature in this atmosphere is proportional to molar power density. Get rid of accumulation of power (energy) and locality. This atmosphere requires different concepts. -will-
Kristian says: August 20, 2015 at 3:13 pm
“I think it’s appropriate to repost this comment of mine from the Feynmann thread here:”
OK good idea!
More weird ideas on this thread that seems to be developing into the “final theory of everything”, before we all die.
Take your highly compressed mass. chop that into wee particles, then dump the whole mess into space with no external gravity. and observe what ‘must’ happen. All are attracted to some centre of mass called gravity. but each particle has its own momentum, (mv) composite in every direction. but free volume (density). In locations of high density the similar mass bangs into other similar mass at a rate that is proportional to (v) divided by mean free path, changing the vector momentum of both. Temperature can now be associated with rate of change of momentum, quite independent of actual mass (the integrator of power). This is the force (power) required to instantaneously (quickly) rearrange the vectors of momentum while never changing momentum itself. This now isotropic power is called the scalar ‘temperature’ an extrinsic, no longer associated with mass or your neuvo-science damn “internal energy”.
Please poke holes wherever you can, please. I need guidance and vector to this insanity, seemingly more productive than meteorological insanity! 🙂
All the best! -will-
More unfounded crap from distinguished Professors of meteorology. i.e. DALR equals minus Earth gravitational force 9.8 meters/second^2 divided by Cv of atmosphere 1.000 J/(kg x change in degrees Celsius).
This is simply a result of what means Joules, what means mass, and what means the temperature difference/100 of boiling or freezing water. Highest measured tropospheric lapse rate is approximately a change in degrees Celsius of 10 per kilometre. The lowest measured is half that! DALR and SALR my butt. All fantasy! Any change in temperature of moving atmospheric mass is exactly the same as that of the continuum. ‘what does it mean?’
suricat says: August 20, 2015 at 3:22 am
“No. That was ‘your’ claim. My ‘claim’ is that the DALR and SALR are mathematical models of a ‘perfect’ dry and wet lapse rate respectively. These ‘models’ are used to give ‘intuitive’ prediction for the current state of the local ELR.”
I have been claiming all along that:
The DALR and SALR give the rate of change of a rising/sinking parcel, that moves up/down in the surrounding atmosphere, that is assumed to be in hydrostatic equilibrium.
Since both processes are assumed to be adiabatic, the rising or sinking air does NOT change anything to the temperature of the static air the parcel passes through.
Rising or sinking stops when the temperature is equal to that of the surrounding air, so again no change in the temperature of the static air.
What DOES happen is that rising air brings large quantities of moisture higher up in the atmosphere.
“‘Convection’ is mediated/initialised by a source of ‘imbalance’ within the ‘hydrostatic state/system’. ‘Advection’ is mediated/initialised by a source of ‘imbalance’ ‘other than within’ the ‘hydrostatic state/system’.”
To be more specific about advection: pressure differences at the same altitude create movement from the higher pressure to the lower pressure area (wind). The movement is along the density level of the moving air, and the direction of movement is not directly from high to low pressure, but modified by the Coriolis effect.
Kristian says: August 20, 2015 at 3:03 pm
“The Hadley cells most assuredly are driven by convection, deep moist convection along the ITCZ.”
Care to explain how convection in the ITCZ can make air around tropopause level move from the ITCZ to ~30 N/S, increase in speed and turn eastbound forming the subtropical jet?
The Hadley cell is NOT driven by convection. Period. Driving force is thermal wind, turning force is Coriolis effect. On earth the balance between the two results in breaking up of the Hadley circulation around 30 N/S. Don’t know anything about the weather on Venus.
This one is a bit like Galileo’s experiment, but with balloons.
‘If compressed air weighs more than non-compressed air, then air must have weight.’
http://nicholasacademy.com/scienceexperiment289airhasweight.html
Suricat: (“Air has ‘weight’, but not having a ‘rigid structure’ it displays its weight as ‘pressure’!”)
RogC “I say the opposite. Air displays its pressure as weight in a liquid barometer.”
WillJ Perhaps we can get the idiots to recognise their brainwashing! 🙂 I have little hope
My experience of teaching and this blog is that people do change their views. I change mine.
To change a firm opinion which you think is wrong it is necessary to know when and how it originated.
Everyone from Archimedes 150BC to Galileo 1638 knew that an element ( water , air ) has no weight in its own element. Galileo joked about Aristotle thinking air has weight.
A balloon full of water is weightless in water. Air is weightless. It displaces itself.
The idea that air pressure is caused by the weight of air started with Torricelli who invented the mercury barometer. In 1644 he wrote:
Noi viviamo sommersi nel fondo d’un pelago d’aria. (We live submerged at the bottom of an ocean of air.
The analogy is false.
Pressure in the ocean is caused by weight of water.
Bernoulli 1738 derived the gas laws and proved pressure in gas is caused by momentum of molecules.
The fallacy persists because the idea of pressure as weight is natural. We humans are on a surface and continuously feel the acceleration of gravity causing a force, which causes pressure on our feet.
Explanations using 10^23 molecules and the Kinetic Theory of gas are counter-intuitive
oldbrew says:
August 21, 2015 at 9:45 am
This one is a bit like Galileo’s experiment, but with balloons.
‘If compressed air weighs more than non-compressed air, then air must have weight.’
http://nicholasacademy.com/scienceexperiment289airhasweight.html
Congratulations to Robert Krampf – The Happy Scientist who says:
“When you blew up the balloon, your lungs and the stretchy rubber compressed the air inside. Because it was compressed, the air inside the balloon is denser than the air outside. You have more molecules of air in each cubic inch of space. What you have shown is not that a balloon full of air is heavier than an empty balloon. Instead, you have shown that a volume of compressed air is heavier than the same volume of air at normal air pressure”
He like Galileo knows that
1. Air has no weight
2. Water in water has no weight.
3. Compressed air exerts more downward force than normal air.
In addition he now knows thanks to Newton and Bernoulli these facts are explained by the number density of molecules of a gas, not weight.
Kristian —-Thanks
As a ‘neutral observer’ your explanation makes the most sense and is the clearest. It dovetails nicely with everything else I have learned. Convective overturning plus water latent heat rules the lower atmosphere — the troposhere. Above the tropopause radiation primarily through oxygen, O2 and ozone, NOx and CO2 rules.
The Figure is from Uherek, 2006. They even say it “show how carbon dioxide is cooling the stratosphere.” The black dotted line is the tropopause and you can see water is dumping energy just under the tropopause (the pink splotches surrounded by dark blue) while CO2 is dumping energy from just above the tropopause and up (the big yellow streak on the left) just as Dr. Happer, Dr Brown and the GallopingCamel state. Ozone is the smaller yellow streak on the right.
The legend with the illustration:
What is NOT mentions is that is where CO2 is radiatively active and NOT in the troposphere at least not below 11 KM where it barely starts radiating. (See Dr Happer next comment)
Also everyone forgets that long wave infrared is radiated directly to space through the ‘Atmospheric window’ too.
This is a rather interesting view of the earth from space”
The Hadley cell is pretty clearly defined.
If you look at the actual energy received, instead of the wimpy Trainbreath’s sleight of hand incoming 341 Wm^2 — In the tropics you are actually getting ~ 1150 Wm^2 at noon. (H/T RACookPE1978 wattsupwiththat(DOT)com/2014/02/17/crises-in-climatology/#comment-1571641 ) If you look at the top graph in the Transmition/Absorption spectrum globalwarmingart image Kristian showed (and they only shave about 15% incoming solar energy off that graph not 53%) If you look at a map of the earth, much of the land mass is towards the poles and NOT towards the equator. So with over 50% of the area between 30 degrees N (1121 Wm^2) and 30 degrees S (1122 Wm^2) being water AND receiving the most sunlight. What happens. The energy from the sun enters the oceans and warms the water to a depth of 300 meters (984 feet) SEE:
That ‘heat’ STAYS THERE because it is replenished ever 24 hours, and that energy ain’t no measly 0.9 Wm^2. The earth does not instantaneously radiate ALL the energy back to space as soon as the sun goes down. Dr Brown puts this concept in one simple sentence, ” The atmosphere has almost no heat capacity relative to the ocean.” Think giant hot water bottle warming the earth via the ocean currents and causing atmospheric convection. Remember the UK and Europe have balmy weather because of the Gulf Stream not atmospheric circulation patterns. Do not forget that it was the closing of the Isthmus of Panama and the opening of Drake Passage that tossed the earth into the latest Ice Age. If CO2 and the Atmosphere were the ‘Control Knob’ that would not happened.
You can not have the oceans warming over time (according to CAGW gospel) AND the oceans losing all their heat and becoming solid ice every 24 hours. This is the heat that fuels the Hadley overturning. Warming and STAYING WARM over night at the equatorial area and more rapid cooling above 30 degrees N because of less ocean. It also explains why the Northern and Southern hemispheres do not equate and the Norther hemisphere is the one Milankovitch nailed as critical to ice age glaciation.
………………
Continued…
ohn Kehr has a nice graph of the differences between the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere @ theinconvenientskeptic(dot)com/2010/10/how-the-northern-hemisphere-drives-the-modern-climate/
………………..
Dr. Happer’s lecture not only shoots CAGW full of holes but also has slides of FTIR satellite spectrum of interest to this discussion.
Audio and slides of the physics lecture
http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/
Slides 16, 22, 42, 43 and 44 are the critical slides.
In Slide 16, The thunderhead anvil FTIR satellite spectrum is top right graph. The BOTTOM CURVE just above the X axis. In other words water, as liquid and ice, blocks almost all outgoing IR. The other four spectra are cloud free spectra for the tropical west Pacific, Sahara Desert, Southern Iraq and Antarctica.
ALSO SEE Slide 22: Lorentzian line shape nor Voigt line shapes are correct in the far wings!
The overlap with the pure-rotational band of water vapor eliminates most of the response from the lower band edge, and IR from clouds further reduces the response to more CO2. The true response is likely less than half the ideal limit or a doubling is less than 3.7Wm^2″
Roger Clague says: “…My experience of teaching and this blog is that people do change their views. I change mine….”
Yes, I agree. I have certainly changed mine as new information comes to light or I stumble over new information.
I consider that ability to be the difference between a religious fanatic and a true scientist.
It helps if the presenter is clear about his ideas to a wide range of education levels. We should all remember the fence sitters who come and read but never comment. Those people are our true audience, otherwise we are just collectively navel gazing.
I should also add to the above, that what I like about Dr. Nir Shaviv is he goes out of his way to rewrite his peer-reviewed papers in terms a layman can understand and then posts them at sciencebits. He also takes the time to respond to comments. It is one of the reasons I was NOT HAPPY with Willis E. trashing the guy without doing any background searches first. Dr. Shaviv’s latest paper (and blog post) was based on a foundation that he had ALREADY made easily available to laymen.
Given that squash it flat, the sun is constant L.S. is a major presence at WUWT, one is left to wonder what the actual reason for the attack was, especially after the attacks on Theodor Landscheidt (You would never know he had peer-reviewed papers the way WUWT/L.S. carry on) Steven Goddard, Tall Bloke, and Nicola Scafetta.
I would hazard a guess it had nothing to do with science, especially after I read Dr. Shaviv’s rebuttal and the ‘apology’ The new NGO developed by WUWT to be the ‘Voice of the Skeptics’ makes me think of “Controlled Opposition’
Roger Clague says: He like Galileo knows that
1. Air has no weight
But if “a volume of compressed air is heavier than the same volume of air at normal air pressure”, how is ‘zero weight (i.e. your normal air) compressed’ not equal to zero?
It would really be nice if physicists actually knew what gravity was! (comment by hubby the physicist)
oldbrew says:
August 21, 2015 at 9:45 am
“This one is a bit like Galileo’s experiment, but with balloons.
‘If compressed air weighs more than non-compressed air, then air must have weight.’”
Air the gas at constant volume weighed in a vacuum expresses weight. Air in a scuba tank expresses weight but is not part of the atmosphere. Your balloons are partials of such expression; the air in the inflated balloon has both higher volume and higher pressure. Again your video is but another intentional attempt at fraud and misunderstanding. A scale measures force, squeeze on your bathroom scale see the expression of force in pounds; standing on it expresses gravitational force upon your mass; get off you get the true weight of atmosphere zero. Weight is not an equation! 😦 Weight is the “expression” of a downward force created by gravity. Any force that is free to apply such force can do mechanical work. The semi-compressible fluid atmosphere that Ben calls “air”, just like most others, “expresses” no such downward force. Gravity instead express temperature, pressure, and density; all decreasing with altitude. This is a much more complex “expression” of what is created by gravity on the masses of this atmosphere. The mass of any part of the atmosphere, can express no vertical work at all. The mass of any part of the atmosphere, can express no work in any direction as pressure has but cannot express force against a equal but opposing pressure. In this atmosphere there is much work done changing the momentum of part of atmospheric mass; both linear and angular momentums! This is the key concept; where does the power for such work originate? No understanding of atmospheric convection can be had by the meteorological simple, straightforward, and wrong! 😦
Gail Combs says: August 21, 2015 at 5:40 pm
“It would really be nice if physicists actually knew what gravity was! (comment by hubby the physicist)”
Can they accept that gravity is an ‘mass attractive field’, obeying projective geometry. The power (force) of this field is easily demonstrated. But in this compressible atmosphere such force never expresses its mass within that field as weight. Atmosphere expresses that power in terms of pressure, density and, temperature, each measurable; and all as a magnificent dance independent of the total aerosol mass. atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean?
Ben Wouters says: August 21, 2015 at 9:42 am
Kristian says: August 20, 2015 at 3:03 pm
(“The Hadley cells most assuredly are driven by convection, deep moist convection along the ITCZ.”)
“Care to explain how convection in the ITCZ can make air around tropopause level move from the ITCZ to ~30 N/S, increase in speed and turn eastbound forming the subtropical jet?”
Can you explain Ben without using your term the mythical thermal wind, which is a shear force.
“The Hadley cell is NOT driven by convection. Period.”
It is not primarily thermal convection. Up Hadley mass motion (convection)is primarily Eötvös force (centrifugal) the main driver of all atmospheric convection. This force creates a surface high pressure near the equator. Continually the convective uplift begins between the doldrums and horse latitudes; accelerating saturated WV and aerosol water condensate gently upward to avoid that equatorial surface high pressure. This accelerative Eötvös force is acting only on the atmosphere itself with slightly lower angular rate. This accelerative force increases by cos(latitude). At the equator this can result in very dense atmospheric vertical velocity approaching 50 m/s at 2-3 km. This is the atmospheric momentum that Kristain mentioned, causing cloud tops of 14 km and no idea of lapse rate. You go measure idiot! 🙂
“Driving force is thermal wind, turning force is Coriolis effect.”
Thermal wind is not mass motion it is a wind shear. Coriolis force expresses zero at the equator as it is a function of sin(latitude). Only religious meteorologists express Coriolis (rotating) effect as something parallel to the Earth’s surface. Coriolis force is maximum at the poles, creating the polar vortices. In between the only accelerative force is the vector sum of young Eötvös dancing orthogonally with fetching Coriolis. When the dance stops being orthogonal and more intimate; that is called a hurricane, with much entropy (the opposite of production) apparent! 🙂
Roger Clague says: August 20, 2015 at 11:59 am
“I say the opposite. Air displays its pressure as weight in a liquid barometer.”
You are welcome to take an opposing ‘relative’ POV to this scenario Roger, but the ‘outcome’ is the same. The ‘mercury column’ can only sustain a ‘weight of mercury’ consistent with the ‘local’ column atmospheric pressure for the same area/region.
“Pressure on a liquid from a gas ( as in the Hg barometer) can only be applied downwards on its top surface.”
I concur. The ‘top surface’ of the mercury is open to a vacuum. This gives the change in atmospheric column ‘weight’! Thus, change in atmospheric ‘weight’ at the locality of the mercury barometer ‘discloses’ the ‘effective pressure and weight’ applied by the ‘local atmosphere’!
However, ‘other atractors are at work’! Namely, ‘advection’ by way of ‘Coriolis Effect for/from Earth’s rotation’, ‘topographical inconsistencies’ and the commencement of a ‘convective event’ at ‘near surface’. These tend to ‘confuse’ ‘barometric data’.
“ISS crew have mass but no weight. Centrifugal force caused by its orbiting the Earth opposes force of attraction and the result is no weight”
I concur. However, ‘the crew’ still suffer injury if they collide with another ‘massive object’. In the ‘absence’ of ‘gravity’, a ‘massive object’ continues to display the ‘property’ of ‘inertia’!
Best regards, Ray.
Roger Clague says:
August 21, 2015 at 10:46 am
Suricat: (“Air has ‘weight’, but not having a ‘rigid structure’ it displays its weight as ‘pressure’!”)
RogC “I say the opposite. Air displays its pressure as weight in a liquid barometer.”
WillJ Perhaps we can get the idiots to recognise their brainwashing! 🙂 I have little hope
“My experience of teaching and this blog is that people do change their views. I change mine.
To change a firm opinion which you think is wrong it is necessary to know when and how it originated.”
Perhaps IMO in every expression, the distinction between the gas “air” and the compressible fluid constrained only by gravity; termed “atmosphere” must be repeated. Folk assume they are the same thing.
“Everyone from Archimedes 150BC to Galileo 1638 knew that an element ( water , air ) has no weight in its own element. Galileo joked about Aristotle thinking air has weight.
A balloon full of water is weightless in water. Air is weightless. It displaces itself.”
Good point!
“The idea that air pressure is caused by the weight of air started with Torricelli who invented the mercury barometer. In 1644 he wrote:
Noi viviamo sommersi nel fondo d’un pelago d’aria. (We live submerged at the bottom of an ocean of air. The analogy is false. Pressure in the ocean is caused by weight of water. ”
Yes but I still like microTorr for understanding, Where you cannot find one molecule anywhere! All stuck in the vanes or walls of the turbo pump! What is causing that pressure? Nothing occupying all volume! Lotsa meter thunking. Honeywell found specific locations in the large vacuum chamber where the pressure was always a wee bit higher. 🙂
“Bernoulli 1738 derived the gas laws and proved pressure in gas is caused by momentum of molecules.”
Yes and atmospheric temperature is proportional to the first derivative with respect to time of each molecules momentum. Some anisotropic momentum change with respect to time. The molar changes of momentum (collisions or intercepts per nanosecond). Especially is this atmosphere, our ‘only’ laboratory for such effects. Electrically this is called the noise power; proportional to (representative of) temperature. Boltzmann’s (k) or k x T x (unit interval of time); bandwidth.
“The fallacy persists because the idea of pressure as weight is natural. We humans are on a surface and continuously feel the acceleration of gravity causing a force, which causes pressure on our feet. Explanations using 10^23 molecules and the Kinetic Theory of gas are counter-intuitive”
I agree but politics are never run by science. Why, however, all the scientific fraud? No competency or no personal integrity?
suricat says: August 22, 2015 at 2:31 am
Roger Clague says: August 20, 2015 at 11:59 am
(“I say the opposite. Air displays its pressure as weight in a liquid barometer.”)
“You are welcome to take an opposing ‘relative’ POV to this scenario Roger, but the ‘outcome’ is the same. The ‘mercury column’ can only sustain a ‘weight of mercury’ consistent with the ‘local’ column atmospheric pressure for the same area/region.”
Your outcome; Ray is the same scalar value from formula intended to confuse by dropping all reference to magnitude and direction. This is the dumbing down of innocent children. We all get tired of the incessant ‘why momma’, but lying is worse than feeding same into the wood chipper, feet first! What an outrage!
Children are willing to accept “I do not know either” from authority; makes them feel ‘not so stupid’; encourages curiosity. I can ask, and get the bestest straight answer. Most children are way smarter than authority. They have yet to be brainwashed into stupidity, as is always taught, at least in US schools!
Have you ever watched the smart shrub guy, explain to curious children, what and why he plants the shrub this way. I observed one explaining: I plant this way so I don’t have to come back and try all over. Watch and please tell me if I am successful! The kid watches, sometimes even waters!
All the best! -will-
Gail Combs says: August 21, 2015 at 1:31 pm
“Kristian —-Thanks What is NOT mentioned is that is where CO2 is radiatively active and NOT in the troposphere at least not below 11 KM where it barely starts radiating. (See Dr Happer next comment)”
Gail,
Somewhat correct. EMR exitance to space does not start at any altitude. Within the troposphere, all altitudes have slightly higher temperature than radiative equilibrium can produce due to convective upward heat transfer.
Each and every atmospheric molecule at every altitude spontaneously adds exitance flux. None is absorbed from below but is continually passed on outward with no change in temperature. Outward flux accumulates all the way to 120 km. Water (clouds) and WV contribute the most, CO2 a little! A very large effect is the low local emissivity O2, and N2 molecules integrated over 120 km of atmospheric (optical) depth. 180 Kelvin radiating to 7 Kelvin is huge. This is charistic of any optically thick atmosphere. Forget surface temperature, it is trivial for any Solar system object with significant atmosphere. Every atmospheric molecule at every altitude is contributing to more EMR exitance of power (force) that cannot do no more work, (entropy). Continuous flux W/m^2, never energy.
All the best! -will-
Gail Combs says: August 21, 2015 at 1:31 pm
“If you look at the actual energy received, instead of the wimpy Trainbreath’s sleight of hand incoming 341 Wm^2 — In the tropics you are actually getting ~ 1150 Wm^2 at noon. (H/T RACookPE1978 wattsupwiththat(DOT)com/2014/02/17/crises-in-climatology/#comment-1571641 ) If you look at the top graph in the Transmition/Absorption spectrum globalwarmingart image.”
Gail,
Please get stoned and think , or go somewhere and mess around with hubby or something younger, then think. Direct (normal) insolation is absorbed readily by ground surface or ocean. Makes no difference at what depth such is absorbed, it is absorbed. At angles from normal absorption decreases. Land surface absorption decreases little with angle. Trees decrease not at all! Water or ocean absorptivity decrease little with angle from normal to about 50-55 degrees. Then all becomes reflective at every wavelength. Earth’s oceans absorb almost no insolation power when the Sun is off normal to the surface by 55 degrees. At the poles the ice/snow is so reflective that Polar bears and Penguins just giggle; then dive for some warm fresh food!
All the best! -will-
Gail Combs says: August 21, 2015 at 2:31 pm
― Vladimir Ilich Lenin
I had no idea. We had an interesting black bear, that you did want to get close to, certainly no wish to pick up tail. All called such bear Vladimir. Then ‘she’ showed up with cute bouncy cub, into everything! Is the new name Vladimira? Still not willing to get close to!
oldbrew says: August 21, 2015 at 5:09 pm
(“Roger Clague says: He like Galileo knows that 1. Air has no weight”)
‘But if “a volume of compressed air is heavier than the same volume of air at normal air pressure”, how is ‘zero weight (i.e. your normal air) compressed’ not equal to zero?’
What a totally insane question! A compressed atmosphere in a constant volume must exhibit higher pressure and higher density than the continuum atmosphere and a vector force downward (acceleration) . This is the opposite of a baseball thrown upward into the continuum. Such exhibits positive buoyancy from mass momentum until that momentum is is zero. Then that baseball exhibits weight an accelerative force downward, its weight. Can you demonstrate where in any tropospheric location the atmospheric mass itself, not a baseball, demonstrates such accelerative force downward. i.e. weight?
Gail Combs says: August 21, 2015 at 1:33 pm
“ohn Kehr has a nice graph of the differences between the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere @ theinconvenientskeptic(dot)com/2010/10/how-the-northern-hemisphere-drives-the-modern-climate/”
Gail,
Please express your POV. Much more interesting than the POV of others demonstratively much more stupid than ‘you’ combined with that of your hubby. 🙂
oldbrew says:
August 21, 2015 at 5:09 pm
But if “a volume of compressed air is heavier than the same volume of air at normal air pressure”, how is ‘zero weight (i.e. your normal air) compressed’ not equal to zero
You say: extra mass is added and is acted on by directly by gravity and causes extra weight.
Do I have an alternative explanation using momentum instead of weight?
1. Gravity slows the vertical component of the velocity of molecules in the top half of the container more than the velocity of molecules in the bottom half.
2. With increased pressure , the increase in momentum applied upwards is less than the increase in momentum applied down.
3. So less force is applied to the top half relative to the force applied to the bottom half of the ball.
4. There is a resultant downward force. This force is measured on the scale.
Ben Wouters says, August 21, 2015 at 9:42 am:
““The Hadley cells most assuredly are driven by convection, deep moist convection along the ITCZ.”
Care to explain how convection in the ITCZ can make air around tropopause level move from the ITCZ to ~30 N/S, increase in speed and turn eastbound forming the subtropical jet?”
Who claimed anything of the kind? What I said was that the Hadley cells as large-scale air circulation structues are (ultimately) convection driven. It all starts (and ends) with the stronger solar heating – and thus the consistent columns of rising air – at and along the (thermal) equator, creating a relative low pressure band encircling the Earth. No heating gradients -> no pressure (and density) gradients -> no Hadley cells. They are called “thermally direct circulation cells” for a reason, Ben.
“The Hadley cell is NOT driven by convection. Period. Driving force is thermal wind, turning force is Coriolis effect. On earth the balance between the two results in breaking up of the Hadley circulation around 30 N/S.”
I really do wonder where you get these strange ideas of yours from. So the ‘thermal wind’ aloft drives the Hadley cell? It’s not itself a corollary effect of differential surface heating? Fully independent?
http://sparce.evac.ou.edu/q_and_a/air_circulation.htm
More in depth:
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~dib2/climate/tropics.html
More straight to the point:
Click to access Lecture_5.pdf
Or:
Click to access HadleyCell.pdf
Finally:
https://www.google.no/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCwQFjACahUKEwjt0aPQlbzHAhUHc3IKHWCPDxk&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.springer.com%2Fcda%2Fcontent%2Fdocument%2Fcda_downloaddocument%2F9783642305221-c2.pdf%3FSGWID%3D0-0-45-1340529-p174510655&ei=9iTYVe3-OIfmyQPgnr7IAQ&usg=AFQjCNFoslA8Y_OpHcO3vrjbyWKNanjtaQ
Will Janoschka says, August 21, 2015 at 6:46 am:
“(…) your neuvo-science damn “internal energy”.”
For the nth time, Will, it’s not mine and it’s not “nuevo-science”. It was introduced by Rudolf Clausius in the mid 19th century when he defined the 1st Law of Thermodynamics for a closed system mathematically: ΔU = Q – W.
Stated as follows: “In a thermodynamic process involving a closed system, the increment in the internal energy [dU] is equal to the difference between the heat accumulated by the system [δQ] and the work done by it [δW].”
‘Air has weight, can be expanded or compressed, and, at extremely low temperatures, can be changed into a liquid or solid.’
http://science.howstuffworks.com/air-info.htm
Presumably not weightless liquids or solids.
Roger Clague says: August 22, 2015 at 10:48 am
oldbrew says: August 21, 2015 at 5:09 pm
(“But if “a volume of compressed air is heavier than the same volume of air at normal air pressure”, how is ‘zero weight (i.e. your normal air) compressed’ not equal to zero”)
Good God OB,
Why must you always display maximum stubbornness and refusal to consider an alternate POV? You speak of “air” as any gas within a rigid or semi-rigid volume, then compare that to Roger’s atmosphere?
“You say: extra mass is added and is acted on by directly by gravity and causes extra weight.
Do I have an alternative explanation using momentum instead of weight?”
Good God Roger,
Why must you always display maximum stubbornness and refusal to consider an alternate POV? You speak of “air” as atmosphere, then compare that to OB’s any gas within a rigid or semi-rigid volume?
“1. Gravity slows the vertical component of the velocity of molecules in the top half of the container more than the velocity of molecules in the bottom half.”
Only if you have a container of constant horizontal cross section, with open upper and lower cross sections, tall enough to extend between stratosphere and troposphere. Stratosphere is where Keppler’s laws of motion apply over Boltzmann’s kT molecular energy!
“2. With increased pressure , the increase in momentum applied upwards is less than the increase in momentum applied down.”
How do you increase the pressure of said ‘container’ without increasing density (add mass)? Adding heat energy would be free expansion.”
“3. So less force is applied to the top half relative to the force applied to the bottom half of the ball.”
What ball?
“4. There is a resultant downward force. This force is measured on the scale.”
Huh? What does any of this have to do with atmospheric convection?
oldbrew says: August 22, 2015 at 7:17 pm
“‘Air has weight, can be expanded or compressed, and, at extremely low temperatures, can be changed into a liquid or solid.’ http://science.howstuffworks.com/air-info.htm
Presumably not weightless liquids or solids.”
Huh? What does this have to do with atmosphere or atmospheric convection?
Anything expressing ‘weight’ cannot be airborne!! Folk and all mass within the constant volume aircraft express weight the “whole flying (airborne) aircraft expresses (has) no weight. Such mass is expressed as a pressure differential, higher pressure, density, and temperature below! The physical replacement for airborne mass x gravitational force. 🙂
Will Janoschka says: August 22, 2015 at 4:19 am
“Your outcome; Ray is the same scalar value from formula intended to confuse by dropping all reference to magnitude and direction.”
No it isn’t. Both the atmosphere and the mercury are ‘fluids’. However, the ‘height of the mercury column’ discloses the atmospheric ‘pressure’ imposed by ‘local influences’ as the ‘weight’ of mercury that can be sustained by the ‘atmospheric pressure’ acting upon the barometer’s reservoir.
Its hard to see where and how this has anything to do with ‘convection’, but I relate to it because ‘the mercury barometer’ is only accurate at ‘a given latitude’ (‘it’ [the mercury barometer] is demonstrably susceptible to inaccuracy related to ‘r’ [Earth’s ‘radius’, thus, Earth’s ‘centrifuge’]). We need to follow the ‘paths of inefficiency’ to understand where ‘power loss’ goes. ‘Entropic accumulation’ is tantamount to ‘we have an inefficiency issue’. The ‘energy’ went to ‘duh’.
That’s why I look for ‘energy atractors’ that may be ‘active’ within a system’s configuration!
I’ll ignore the rest of your post as its almost unintelligible.
Best regards, Ray.
Kristian says: August 22, 2015 at 10:55 am
More straight to the point:
Click to access Lecture_5.pdf
This is the meteorological fantasy. Direct insolation energy is distributed to all parts of the globe
By this circulation. Temperature, pressure, and density changes via insolation only contribute to such atmospheric mass motion. The latitudes with highest upward mass motion zero (equator) and 60 degrees have low surface pressure. The latitudes with highest downward mass motion 30 degrees and 90 degrees (poles) have high surface pressure. Can you explain why the motion and pressure are backward vertically with latitude? Why vertically from low pressure to high pressure? Hint, Eötvös forces, not from the surface or planet but from centrifugal force of the decoupled but still rotating atmosphere. 30 Pa x cos(latitude) at all tropospheric altitudes, even at night. a continuous upward from the rotational axis. This force expresses as high upward atmospheric mass motion at mid troposphere, at just the latitudes of low surface pressure, as expected. The other latitudes 30,90 have downward mass motion to provide some gravitationally induced conservation of mass at each altitude. The slope (altitude) of 20kPa with latitude.
Or:
http://derecho.math.uwm.edu/classes/TropMet/notes/HadleyCell.pdf
True meteorological BS simple, straightforward, and wrong!. CFD has demonstrated that the same circulatory mass flow patterns must develop on this Earth, with no latitudinal temperature gradient. “thermally direct” circulation BS
Will Janoschka says: August 23, 2015 at 2:01 am
“True meteorological BS simple, straightforward, and wrong!. CFD has demonstrated that the same circulatory mass flow patterns must develop on this Earth, with no latitudinal temperature gradient. “thermally direct” circulation BS”
I concur Will. Earth’s ‘centrifuge’ isn’t addressed at all either!
Best regards, Ray.
Way off topic but minor with the number of posts getting nowhere. 🙂
Kristian says: August 22, 2015 at 12:17 pm
Will Janoschka says, August 21, 2015 at 6:46 am:
(“(…) your neuvo-science damn “internal energy”.”)
“For the nth time, Will, it’s not mine and it’s not “nuevo-science”. It was introduced by Rudolf Clausius in the mid 19th century when he defined the 1st Law of Thermodynamics for a closed system mathematically: ΔU = Q – W.”
Rudy Clausius did not introduce and did not write any such thing. Rudy reiterated the 1st Law of Thermodynamics for a closed system All energy must be accounted for even if we have to invent stupid entropy. Originally 1 Clausius (Cl) = 1 calorie/degree Celsius (cal/°C). Then later changed to
delta S (entropy) = 4.1868 joules per kelvin (J/K). Should have remained J/Δk. That change to absolute temperature is what turned physics thermodynamics, upside down, backwards, and UN-understandible!! Now entropy is not just unusable energy that accumulates in a closed system. The damned thing now can go to infinity! How is this understanding?
“Stated as follows: “In a thermodynamic process involving a closed system, the increment in the internal energy [dU] is equal to the difference between the heat accumulated by the system [δQ] and the work done by it [δW].””
Only for your idiot neuvo-science! All engineering still use mathematically: ΔS = Q – W.
That S stands for sensible heat no longer available for work as it is at the lowest local (closed) temperature. Easy to understand but “do not look into the entropy bucket” the increasing lowest temperature with any work, will eat your face off, LEAVE IT ALONE!! Entropy is extrinsically constant, as it is precisely the specific heat, of the lowest local temperature mass.
Stated as follows: “In a thermodynamic process involving a closed system, the increment in the entropy [ΔS] is equal to the difference between the sensible heat (accumulated power) by the system( [δQ] and the work done by it [δW] ), all divided by the temperature of the lowest local mass temperature, T-low.”
To this day, you physicists still do not understand Rudy’s clever trick to get around the now falsified 1st Law of Thermodynamics within a gravitational field. When will you ever learn that with EMR, “hey it’s gone man”! No such local accumulation. Entropy increasing for the whole universe?, just try to prove your conjecture! Perhaps when the universe collapses and it all comes back. I plan on being elsewhere/when.
My bitch is with the claim of “internal” especially for thermodynamics. I can understand the exclusion of the first derivative of vector momentum with respect to time. Perhaps chemical and electrical (internal) energy can be excluded if your intent is to confuse! How can anyone exclude latent heat and pressure as internal to mass from thermodynamics? They each are much much more important to thermodynamics than sensible heat!
Whyever would you consider this atmosphere a closed system?
All the best! -will-
Will Janoschka : August 23, 2015 at 2:01 am
suricat : August 23, 2015 at 2:48 am
Yep, it seems to be meteorological BS, the ITCZ and the principle cause of circulation. I have been digging about and the evidence is right in front of your eyes if you look for it, the evidence. Search for “ITCZ” and go to the images tab. I used Bing first. You will see a hundred graphical drawings portraying it and they all vary a bit. But concentrate on just the segment over the Pacific Ocean where there is no land masses, the continents, to drag the ITCZ away from the equator. There is the evidence of Eötvös or some other purely geometry effect for it does not follow the point where the sun is zenith varying from 23.5N to 23.5S with the seasons and receiving the maximum insolation. Am I not right that this is conclusive evidence?
However, since it does seem (by the drawings) to vary when there is land masses close to the equator able to heat up much more than ocean water this might be indicating that it is a combination of both effects. Still not sure of that… want to see it with my own eyes.
So… help watch the GOES West, Indian Ocean and METROSAT hemispheric snapshot images every month for the next siz months or even the next year
to see if you can get a feeling if the ITCZ cloud band is actually varying much away from the equator on the average. One source mentioned plus or minus three degrees from the equator but said little else. That is not twenty-three and a half degrees.
This seems much like AGW… the vast majority just accept it as they are told that it must be!
DARN! Didn’t want those links to expand, should have put brackets around them I guess:
These are so you can save a bookmark and get the latest snapshot any day you want one.
[http://www.goes.noaa.gov/FULLDISK/GWIR.JPG]
[http://www.goes.noaa.gov/FULLDISK/GIIR.JPG]
[http://www.goes.noaa.gov/FULLDISK/GMIR.JPG]
Missed one. Here is one over the Atlantic completing global coverage of the ITCZ:
[http://www.goes.noaa.gov/FULLDISK/GEIR.JPG]
suricat says: August 23, 2015 at 2:48 am
Will Janoschka says: August 23, 2015 at 2:01 am
(“True meteorological BS simple, straightforward, and wrong!. CFD has demonstrated that the same circulatory mass flow patterns must develop on this Earth, with no latitudinal temperature gradient. “thermally direct” circulation BS”)
“I concur Will. Earth’s ‘centrifuge’ isn’t addressed at all either! Best regards, Ray.”
Thank you Ray,
150 years without understanding the Rudy Clausius trick to get around ‘conservation of energy’.
We need complete new definitions for learning, understanding, knowing, and education.
Entropy does not necessarily always increase, but stupidity always does! 😦
All the best! -will-
wayne says: August 23, 2015 at 4:08 am
“DARN! Didn’t want those links to expand, should have put brackets around them I guess:
These are so you can save a bookmark and get the latest snapshot any day you want one.”
OK the three showed up for today. Quite impressive!
“This seems much like AGW… the vast majority just accept it as they are told that it must be!”
What is the name for those academics that promote this BS? They have been truly AlGored!
My goodness Will, I know you have some huge problem with the term “internal energy” but it is just your sensible heat, your accumulated power! It does not have external energy fields nor potential energy involved, it is just the mechanical motion of molecules/atoms that give it a temperature! There is no electrical flow either, emr either, those have to be handled separately, just molecules moving, linear momentum, plus if more than one atom in the molecule it can be rotating, angular momentum, and plus if it has bonds like springs may vibrate, periodic momentum, all giving forms of momentum that can transfer to other molecule/atoms and that is all. But the later two are at given energy levels only if they transfer, per current understanding.
See, you seem to be placing meanings on words that, to me, are not even there and trying to beat “you physicists” over the head with your own interpretation when speaking of the same thing. You say ‘sensible’ and I just accept that though I would most likely say ‘internal’. You are capable of translating on the fly too.
Sorry to break the news Will, but I have been observing this and I think that horse died !! 😉 Hasn’t moved for a week.
wayne says: August 23, 2015 at 4:01 am
“Am I not right that this is conclusive evidence?”
Depends on which political party you belong to! or which political party owns you!
Please consider the difference.
“Please consider the difference.”
No, think I’ll just lay my ace of spades!
wayne says:
August 23, 2015 at 4:58 am
“See, you seem to be placing meanings on words that, to me, are not even there and trying to beat “you physicists” over the head with your own interpretation when speaking of the same thing. You say ‘sensible’ and I just accept that though I would most likely say ‘internal’. You are capable of translating on the fly too.”
Yes I can Wayne, but always that translation leads to “this is intentional misdirection of thermodynamics”, which must include pressure and latent heat. i.e. All that we have learned of how mechanical work is actually done! What is; flush formula, symbolic algebra, with no understanding of what is!
“Sorry to break the news Will, but I have been observing this and I think that horse died !! 😉 Hasn’t moved for a week.”
I agree “internal energy” for thermodynamics is way dead. It still stinks! Entropy lives! A very clever way of avoiding conservation of energy. Power is not conserved, Why does the time integral of power need be conserved? Why promote misunderstanding?
Thank you Wayne. How can I better express what I observe, please ?
All the best! -will-
wayne says: August 23, 2015 at 5:20 am
(“Please consider the difference.”)
“No, think I’ll just lay my ace of spades!”
Then they shoot your young ass and run with the money!
wayne says: August 23, 2015 at 5:20 am
(“Please consider the difference.”)
“No, think I’ll just lay my ace of spades!”
You still believe in fair! In this game you are the mark!
🙂
wayne says:
August 23, 2015 at 6:43 am
🙂
Wayne,
There are folk at Lockheed, JPL, and Cal tech that would be accused of sluffing off, if not producing at least 6 major technical “Aw Shits” per hour. Most all of these are corrected by co-workers, before anyone “important” ever notices! It is always, please check this. I was never up to that level of competence. Most of mine were again putting PI on the top rather than on the bottom. Order of magnitude error. “Will you please stop doing that”!
All the best! -will-
Kristian says: August 22, 2015 at 10:55 am
“Who claimed anything of the kind? What I said was that the Hadley cells as large-scale air circulation structues are (ultimately) convection driven.”
Which is ultimately nonsense.
See
THIS is the driving force of the Hadley circulation.
Atmosphere EXPANDS most near the thermal equator, least near the poles.
(Hydrostatic Equilibrium remember?)
Even with equal surface pressure (= no surface wind) we have a pressure gradient from equator to poles, which INCREASES with altitude. If we let the air move in this situation, at altitude it will flow from equator to poles, INCREASING in speed, both with increasing altitude and increasing latitude. On a non-rotating planet this flow would go all the way to the poles, undoubtedly creating very interesting weather over there.
On earth the flow will turn eastbound, due to the Coriolis effect. When the pressure gradient force and the Coriolis effect balance, the flow will (ideally) be purely eastbound and not accelerate any more => subtropical jet.
Near the equator the air moving polebound at altitude will reduce the total weight of the column
=> lower surface pressure.
The subtropical jet is where most of this air ‘collects’ => higher weight of the column => higher surface pressure.
The surface pressure gradient from 30 N/S to the equator causes the trade winds, converging in the ITCZ and rising, closing the loop, but obviously air is also flowing in other directions out of the high pressure areas.
This system will run, as long as the sun keeps the temperature near the equator higher than near the poles, regardless of convective development in the ITCZ.
“I really do wonder where you get these strange ideas of yours from.”
From understanding basic meteorological principles.
Ben Wouters says: August 23, 2015 at 10:53 am
Kristian says: August 22, 2015 at 10:55 am
(“Who claimed anything of the kind? What I said was that the Hadley cells as large-scale air circulation structues are (ultimately) convection driven.”)
“Which is ultimately nonsense.”
Only in your religious meteorological fantasy of this Earth’s atmosphere. This is precisely why all of the fake meteorological computer simulations of Earth and its atmosphere fail so very badly. All is based on religious conjecture (fantasy) rather than the measurements of what this atmosphere actually represents. A grand 400 year old deliberate SCAM for monetary and political gain!
“I really do wonder where you get these strange ideas of yours from.”
He gets this from observing what is.
“From understanding basic meteorological principles.”
Your basic meteorological principles have no basis in this physical. Basic meteorological principles are but a SCAM for monetary and political gain!
wayne says, August 23, 2015 at 4:01 am:
“Yep, it seems to be meteorological BS, the ITCZ and the principle cause of circulation.”
Are you being serious!?
“I have been digging about and the evidence is right in front of your eyes if you look for it, the evidence. Search for “ITCZ” and go to the images tab. I used Bing first. You will see a hundred graphical drawings portraying it and they all vary a bit. But concentrate on just the segment over the Pacific Ocean where there is no land masses, the continents, to drag the ITCZ away from the equator. There is the evidence of Eötvös or some other purely geometry effect for it does not follow the point where the sun is zenith varying from 23.5N to 23.5S with the seasons and receiving the maximum insolation. Am I not right that this is conclusive evidence?”
That you of all people, wayne, should focus your field of vision onto the tip of your nose like this, you who are normally so eager to emphasize the importance of averages when it comes to (global) climate, quite frankly takes me by surprise. In a stroke, you’ve turned into Ben.
Try to consider what’s going on here. Why do you think that the ITCZ over the oceans (especially those stretches without any continents to the north or south) does not slavishly track the Sun on its annual cycle all the way from tropic to tropic? A hint is given here:
(My boldface.)
Another clue is the massive heat capacity (and hence thermal inertia) of liquid water. Add to this the equilibrated large-scale arrangement of oceanic currents of the different tropical ocean basins, constraining the N and S migration of the central zone of highest SSTs, especially in the eastern parts, plus the specific geometry of the bordering continental landmasses, particularly important being South America, forcing the warm, solar-heated water masses generated along the equator preferably into the North Atlantic basin, and you should start seeing the broader picture.
Once you include continents to the north, like South & South East Asia and Northern Africa, and to the south, like Australia, Southern Africa and South America, you see at once how the ITCZ is here drawn much further away from the equator with the seasons, the continental surface being much more directly responsive to solar heating than the oceanic surface.
The ITCZ simply follows the “thermal equator”, not the Sun directly, although the “thermal equator” shifts north and south through the year because of the wanderings of the Sun, but always with a considerable lag. The “thermal equator” in the oceans is simply where the highest SSTs are to be found. And so this is where the ITCZ will be located. Because this is where the most persistent deep moist convective activity will naturally be centred. The zone of highest SSTs doesn’t move very much, especially in the eastern tropics of the Pacific:
(The ITCZ across the Atlantic in June-July 2014. North Africa at the bottom, northern South America at the top.)
Ben Wouters says, August 23, 2015 at 10:53 am:
First of all, Ben. You could’ve saved yourself a lot of trouble if you only took your time to actually read through what I wrote:
Final quote.
Now you just come off as a fool trying to teach me about some mechanism after I have already explained it to you.
Secondly, this is really way too basic, Ben. You don’t get a Hadley cell without initial convection. It starts with the heating and the resulting uplift. How can you possibly deny this? I really don’t know why I bother (it’s all already been stated several times). Talking to you feels more and more like trying to address Stephen Wilde. You appear to be completely stuck on some fanciful, privately concocted ideas about how the atmosphere works, but display an utter lack of ability to put pieces together to create a broader understanding of things. And the more narrow your mind and your scope, the more stubborn and the more impervious you get to different POVs than your own.
This is how it all starts, Ben: The Sun on average heats the surface around the equator more than it does further N and S. This would initially set up a gradient of progressively stronger buoyant tendencies as you move in towards the central zone. Air lifting like this, up and away from the surface, creates the need for replenishment. This infill of air would come in from the sides, from areas where the buoyant tendency is less pronounced, meaning from the N and S. From higher pressures/densities to lower pressures/densities. When the rising air along the zone of highest heating (and thus strongest convection and hence lowest pressure) has finally exhausted its upward momentum, it cannot go any higher, but also can’t fall straight down from where it came, so rather streams out to the sides, N and S, along the tropopause. At the point where geostrophic balance has been reached (around 30N and 30S), the air starts sinking, partly because the zones of relative high pressure at the surface far below also need replenishing from feeding the relative low pressure ITCZ with air (trade winds). Thus the circulation cell has come full circle. It starts with the differential surface solar heating, but would (literally) not get off the ground without the central convective uplift first creating the cell’s ascending limb. This is what sets the whole circulation in motion. This is a giant (and complex, indeed) version of a convection cell, Ben, like the ones you’ll find in any fluid heated from below:
(Caption reads: “This figure shows a calculation for thermal convection in the Earth’s mantle. Colors closer to red are hot areas and colors closer to blue are cold areas. A hot, less-dense lower boundary layer sends plumes of hot material upwards, and likewise, cold material from the top moves downwards.”)
The exact same basic principle governs the Hadley cells: A central plume of light, rising, hot material from the bottom up, and lateral drooping canopies of dense, sinking, cool material from the top down. Connected in a grand convective heat transfer loop – from heating end to cooling end and back to the heating end.
You need to read the quotes I provide, Ben. I include them for a reason. It’s all right there:
oldbrew says:
August 22, 2015 at 7:17 pm
‘Air has weight, can be expanded or compressed, and, at extremely low temperatures, can be changed into a liquid or solid.’
http://science.howstuffworks.com/air-info.htm
Presumably not weightless liquids or solids.
I accept liquids and solids have weight.
Also from your reference:
“The weight of the atmosphere causes air at sea level to exert an average pressure of 14.7 pounds per square inch (101.3 kPa) in all directions.”
Problems
1. Weight is vector, the force caused by gravity. Pressure is scalar force/area
2. Gas pressure is directly proportional to temperature. Temperature depends on number and velocity of molecules not mass.
See assumption of Kinetic theory of gas here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory
3. Air has no weight
Kristian says:
August 23, 2015 at 1:14 pm
(Caption reads: “This figure shows a calculation for thermal convection in the Earth’s mantle.
Your diagram not helpful because it is:
1. “A calculation”. That is from a computer not observations.
2. “The Earth’s Mantle”. The atmosphere is not like hot molten rock
The atmosphere is gas. Gas can only be understood using Kinetic theory of gas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory
Pressure in a gas is caused by motion. Pressure in a liquid is caused by weight
Kristian says:
August 23, 2015 at 12:14 pm
wayne says, August 23, 2015 at 4:01 am:
(“Yep, it seems to be meteorological BS, the ITCZ and the principle cause of circulation.”)
“Are you being serious!? That you of all people, wayne, should focus your field of vision onto the tip of your nose like this, you who are normally so eager to emphasize the importance of averages when it comes to (global) climate, quite frankly takes me by surprise. In a stroke, you’ve turned into Ben.”
Kristian,
In a stroke, you’ve turned into Ben. A true believer in all things meteorological! Please O wise one, calculate, show your numbers, of how much less the atmospheric mass motion in kg meters/second due to atmospheric circulation cells, would be if the surface were at constant temperature! Tip of your nose indeed. :-*
Guys, I think we need a ‘time out’ for reflection.
Whilst bearing in mind that an ‘increase’ in altitude affords greater potential for an ‘exitance’ of energy by the ‘EMR’ route to ‘space’, the ITCZ is portrayed as ‘singular’ for its ‘convective activity’, but its not. Its ‘duplicitous’ in its ‘convective’ role!
IMHO the energy added ‘at’ the surface overlays the energy ‘from’ the surface. I make this distinction as ‘at’ = ‘energy gained from Earth’s rotation’, and ‘from’ = ‘energy gained from insolation’. The two are distinctly differentiated by their ‘source’ of energy input. That’s why I label the ‘kinetic’ from ‘insolation’ as ‘convection’ and from ‘Earth’s rotation’ as ‘advection’.
I can’t concur with any post/link that doesn’t reflect this POV.
Best regards, Ray.
wayne says: August 23, 2015 at 4:58 am
“My goodness Will, I know you have some huge problem with the term “internal energy” but it is just your sensible heat, your accumulated power! It does not have external energy fields nor potential energy involved, it is just the mechanical motion of molecules/atoms that give it a temperature! There is no electrical flow either, emr either, those have to be handled separately, just molecules moving, linear momentum, plus if more than one atom in the molecule it can be rotating, angular momentum, and plus if it has bonds like springs may vibrate, periodic momentum, all giving forms of momentum that can transfer to other molecule/atoms and that is all. But the later two are at given energy levels only if they transfer, per current understanding.”
I still do not understand that U. It cannot be sensible heat as that is part of the Q. Useful sensible heat is only part of the Q(energy) of the mass. This Q can do W(work). When ever real work (action,construction) W is done ΔW is always less than ΔQ giving ΔS = Q – W ! Meaning when energy is converted to work via applied force x distance forced (ploughing a field), that amount of work is always less than the energy expended. The difference is called entropy ΔS. Clever Rudy did it, to maintain the illusion of conservation of energy, 1LTD. The ‘work’ if not reversible, is entropic. This entropy presents itself always at the location of lower side of the delta potential that is available to do work no matter if that difference is temperature, pressure, momentum, voltage, field strength, or gravitational PE.
All of these forms (and several others) of difference in potential form a composite Q that is used in thermodynamics. This Q is often expressed as a different form of energy, heat to pressure, or latent heat of evaporation, decrease in density. These reversible processes, create no entropy, are isentropic. If Kristain wishes to express only ‘waste’ sensible heat (sh) as ΔUsh = Qsh – Wsh, that if fine, but only if all know of that very,very narrow view what is expressed by U, Q, and W .
More important is understanding of in which potential direction that ΔUsh presents. Kristain’s writings strongly imply that ΔUsh somehow presents(remains) at the higher of the ΔQsh. Such can only present as a temperature increase at the lower temperature side of that ΔQsh. If no work is done, all ΔQsh heat flux becomes ΔSsh. This is also why expressing power(force) has much more clarity. Entropy always goes in the same direction as the power, even for air tools. An air compressor does work, adding molecules, pressure, and temperature of that fixed volume of air. Temperature “sensible heat energy” dissipates quickly, leaving pressure and airmass to do work. Pressure is the potential, mass flow to lower pressure does the work. All of these potentials express in this atmosphere, for motion. None can be ignored. Gravity and weight, must be ignored for this atmosphere, as neither express.
The baby has truly been thrown out with the bath water!! Someone in Kristain’s educational process has intentionally stomped on his understanding. To Kristain ‘all is equations’, with no meaning or context whatsoever. 😦
All the best! -will-
suricat says: August 24, 2015 at 3:03 am
“Guys, I think we need a ‘time out’ for reflection.
Whilst bearing in mind that an ‘increase’ in altitude affords greater potential for an ‘exitance’ of energy by the ‘EMR’ route to ‘space’, the ITCZ is portrayed as ‘singular’ for its ‘convective activity’, but its not. Its ‘duplicitous’ in its ‘convective’ role!”
Interesting POV!
The ITCZ or doldrums is but where the mechanically convective Eötvös force (outward acceleration of atmospheric mass) accumulates from 2000 km north and south. This produces extreme mass upward velocity at mid troposphere of the ITCZ. This also displays as doldrums (no more trade-winds) and low surface pressure.
“IMHO the energy added ‘at’ the surface overlays the energy ‘from’ the surface. I make this distinction as ‘at’ = ‘energy gained from Earth’s rotation’, and ‘from’ = ‘energy gained from insolation’. The two are distinctly differentiated by their ‘source’ of energy input. That’s why I label the ‘kinetic’ from ‘insolation’ as ‘convection’ and from ‘Earth’s rotation’ as ‘advection’.”
Again interesting. That would be “natural (spontaneous) thermal convection” or thermals only. Earth’s surface irregularities plus rotation within surface boundary level provide only tangential acceleration to atmosphere not already at 1000 x cos(latitude) mph of surface velocity. But meteorological distinction between ‘convection’ and ‘advection’ is always as local to the surface rotating “Frame Of Reference”. If no need for tangential acceleration, there is no advection or your ‘at’ energy. Can you show any “energy added” from ‘at’?
Seems like just a gravitational adjustment to where angular momentum is located. Eötvös force is the radial component of tangential atmospheric momentum. If each atmospheric particle has near neutral buoyancy, even when moving, Eötvös force only accelerates mass that deviates from the existing streamlines. Seems like the only energy added is insolation and all that of course is dissipated to space via EMR, after creating some ‘interesting’ weather. The convection of “insolation heat” is both upward and poleward. The advection (mass motion) in all directions appears only slightly related to the insolation heat content. Vast difference in meteorological difference ‘tween convection/advection and what is present in this atmosphere. What does it mean?
“I can’t concur with any post/link that doesn’t reflect this POV. Best regards, Ray.”
OK no need for concurrence. Respectfully request consideration. Some here are trying to learn.
All the best! -will-
Will, don’t know if I can say something that might help you if you are so firm on your definitions.
You say “It cannot be sensible heat as that is part of the Q”
Well, no, Q is not “a thing” like sensible heat, it is heat (±heating) and heat is not a noun, it is a verb. best I can get you to see where I am, Q is the warming or cooling going on at the molecular level but cannot include the work ‘W’ that is don’t to or by the external surroundings molecules, to the ‘Q’, volume is constant, to work ‘W’, it always normally includes a change in volume and density.
In atmospheres, work ‘W’ is easy for me to know exactly what it is. Work generally has to do with changes in volume, and therefore density, since the ‘volume’ I have isolated in my head always has the same number of molecules and therefore identical mass. Density is just mass/volume.
An example — free expansion: If you let a gas expand to double the volume, therefore half the density and pressure also decreases exactly one-half just like the density then the P/ρ did not change at all and the temperature did not change at all and since our atmosphere’s composition is very, very close to an ideal gas that is what is called free expansion, expansion into a void but you have to pull the piston outward faster than the speed of sound to do this in a lab, explosives are usually best used here to withdraw it fast enough. 😉 No work ‘W’ was performed at all so ΔU just equals Q, the ±heating which may also be zero. (j.t. effects are extreme cases)
Another example — expansion of one volume of air within other air about it at a given pressure: This time let the volume also double, the density be half just like before, but what you will find is the pressure did not exactly follow the ratio of change in the density this time, lets say it ends up decreasing more than exactly one half that the density decreased. You then know the reason the molecules slowed and it is because the volume in question had to be physically pushed outward by the momentum of the molecules in our volume on the surrounding air molecules creating a larger volume for our volume to expand into, all happening continuous and simultaneously at any moment. The P/ρ is then lower in this case and the temperature went down and it is solely because of the work ‘W’ at a molecular level by the momentum of the molecules.
That is, if volume and density is to ever change you should immediately suspect a change in temperature but ONLY if pressure does not exactly change in the same ratio that the density changed… and that is always true in any normal atmospheric environments so we are rarely speaking of the “free expansion” case.
Other than that I cannot seem to see exactly what you are struggling with. But to speak in t.d. you might need to change your native engineering terms a bit. Some I don’t like either but t.d. has been using these terms back into the early 20th centruy or even before. I caved..
And alway the best right back! -wayne-
Roger Clague says: August 23, 2015 at 5:22 pm
“The atmosphere is gas. Gas can only be understood using Kinetic theory of gas.”
That theory is helpful but woefully incomplete. Way to much emphasis on velocity, with no consideration of mean free path.
“Pressure in a gas is caused by motion.”
Only within a constant volume. Both pressure and temperature of a gas represent “rate of banging into” by a fixed number of molecules.
“Pressure in a liquid is caused by weight”
Indeed for some liquids , those with constant density! Liquid CO2 is compressible!
wayne says: August 24, 2015 at 6:55 am
“Will, don’t know if I can say something that might help you if you are so firm on your definitions.”
(You say “It cannot be sensible heat as that is part of the Q”)
“Well, no, Q is not “a thing” like sensible heat, it is heat (±heating) and heat is not a noun, it is a verb. best I can get you to see where I am, Q is the warming or cooling going on at the molecular level but cannot include the work ‘W’ that is done to or by the external surroundings molecules”
Ok I can now understand your neuvo-science BS. Heat in any form is extrinsic to mass. It can only be a noun expressed by the symbol Q. The heating (verb) expresses the rate of energy transfer (power) between masses at different temperatures, the potential difference, as modified by work or thermal conductivity if no work is performed. It has been this since Rudy Clausius re-expressed the conservation of energy, giving the noun “heat” to the time integral of power transfer ‘to’ mass in that direction.
Q a noun, always expresses that accumulation of power applied. Again Q is a scalar P is a vector. P (possibly reversible) expresses the warming or cooling of of other mass, and the direction of such. Work is the value of P expressed as ‘force’ applied over some distance. The dissipation of energy as action or construction. When and why was the definition of energy the integral of power changed to the rate of change of temperature? Is this part of the intentional dumbing down of innocents? Or perhaps just the nonsense of symbolic algebra with no understanding?
” to the ‘Q’, volume is constant, to work ‘W’, it always normally includes a change in volume and density.”
To your insane Q(used to be energy) volume does not exist. You claim W is a reversible change in the form of Q rather than work. Work(action,construction), requires the generation of entropy. What is meant by the UN-understandable symbol U?
“In atmospheres, work ‘W’ is easy for me to know exactly what it is. Work generally has to do with changes in volume, and therefore density, since the ‘volume’ I have isolated in my head always has the same number of molecules and therefore identical mass. Density is just mass/volume.”
In this atmosphere no work is needed for motion in any direction, except for the acceleration of mass. Density is just as easily, moles/volume, perhaps a better definition of atmospheric density as the force of gravity on mass is never expressed (weight). Actual mass is required only for force = mass times acceleration, the actual application of force over distance, work! There is no other work! Movement of self-buoyant atmosphere in any direction requires no work. Free expansion/compression requires no work
“the P/ρ did not change at all and the temperature did not change at all”
Huh! The ratio did not change, the decrease in power density is called lapse rate!
All the best again, I truly learn from your POV. -will-
Kristian says: August 23, 2015 at 1:14 pm
“Now you just come off as a fool trying to teach me about some mechanism after I have already explained it to you.”
Seems ignorance and arrogance go hand in hand on this site.
Since all the explanations included convection as the driving force, it should be obvious that they are wrong. A (thunder)storm (CB) will influence its surroundings up to 50km around. (being very generous here), and this includes the downward flow.
The straight distance from equator to 30 N or S is 1800nm (over 3300 km).
The idea that a few CB’s near the equator will create a flow all the way to 30 N/S is total nonsense.
At the thermal equator the atmosphere is expanded most against gravity, so at altitude we’ll see an increasing pressure gradient towards the poles. the only explanation needed for the Hadley circulation. Coriolis effect does the turning towards an eastbound flow.
On its way pole bound the air cools, and starts to descend, creating the Trade wind inversion.
No clue what a computer simulation of some magma plumes (?) has to do with atmospheric convection.
Since you think you have figured it all out, pse explain these observations:
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/patterson
Shows the wind speeds at the 10 hPa level (well into the stratosphere)
(70 hPa surface shows the same pattern more or less)
Very strong eastbound flow over the Southern Hemisphere (speeds over 360km/h south of Africa)
Over almost the entire NH Hadley area, a WEST bound flow.
Remember convection stops at the tropopause, and the subtropical jet is EAST bound around 30 N/S.
suricat says: August 24, 2015 at 3:03 am
“That’s why I label the ‘kinetic’ from ‘insolation’ as ‘convection’ and from ‘Earth’s rotation’ as ‘advection’.”
Where does that leave the energy that goes into EXPANDING the column as its temperature rises, without creating convection?
Is ‘advection’ horizontal or vertical?
If horizontal, why not just use ‘Coriolis effect’?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect#Meteorology
If vertical, how does the tiny reduction in Effective Gravity due to the centrifugal force create ‘advection’ ?
Not to mention the Eötvös effect, a tiny change in the already tiny centrifugal force, and only for the east or westbound component of movements.
Ben Wouters says: August 24, 2015 at 6:39 pm
suricat says:
Ben Wouters says:
“(That’s why I label the ‘kinetic’ from ‘insolation’ as ‘convection’ and from ‘Earth’s rotation’ as ‘advection’.) Where does that leave the energy that goes into EXPANDING the column as its temperature rises, without creating convection?”
I don’t understand your question Ben. Do you refer to ‘black carbon’ in the atmosphere, or ‘cloud-top insolation’ – for insolation? OLR has other ‘mediators’ (atractors) that transmit energy into a ‘sensible temperature regimen’.
There has to be a ‘mediator’ (atractor) for energy to be converted between systems.
“Is ‘advection’ horizontal or vertical?
If horizontal, why not just use ‘Coriolis effect’?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect#Meteorology
If vertical, how does the tiny reduction in Effective Gravity due to the centrifugal force create ‘advection’ ?
Not to mention the Eötvös effect, a tiny change in the already tiny centrifugal force, and only for the east or westbound component of movements.”
The ‘advective quality’ always follows at 90 degrees to the axis of Earth’s rotation on the ‘great scale’. It ‘is’ the Coriolis Effect! The ‘latitude’ on the globe dictates the angle that the effect manifests, horizontal at the Poles and vertical at the Equator.
Best regards, Ray.
Ben Wouters says: August 24, 2015 at 6:39 pm
I’ve had more thoughts on this Ben.
The ‘teleconnection’ between the Earth and the Moon alters the ‘gravity constant’ for Earth. This ‘modifies’ any ‘assumed’ constant by the ‘tidal influence’ that prevails.
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: August 26, 2015 at 2:19 am
“The ‘advective quality’ always follows at 90 degrees to the axis of Earth’s rotation on the ‘great scale’. It ‘is’ the Coriolis Effect! The ‘latitude’ on the globe dictates the angle that the effect manifests, horizontal at the Poles and vertical at the Equator.” Best regards, Ray.
Ah!
My references somewhere describe Eötvös as the “discoverer” of your ‘advective quality’ i.e.
centrifugal, not centripetal, force evidenced in the rotating frame upon buoyant masses. Centripetal, part of gravitational force. keeps the atmosphere and ocean here. Centrifugal; is evidenced only for buoyant mass. Eötvös becomes the name that separates the radial from the rotational for buoyancy. Coriolis is the name for the rotational. Young Eötvös dances with fetching Coriolis at mid latitudes when projected on the latitudinal surface. 🙂
Current comments have migrated to:
All the best! -will-
suricat says: August 26, 2015 at 2:52 am
Ben Wouters says: August 24, 2015 at 6:39 pm
“I’ve had more thoughts on this Ben. The ‘teleconnection’ between the Earth and the Moon alters the ‘gravity constant’ for Earth. This ‘modifies’ any ‘assumed’ constant by the ‘tidal influence’ that prevails. Best regards, Ray.
Oh goody,
Do moonside ships have lowest draft? Is this the Dart effect?
All the best! -will-
Will Janoschka says: August 26, 2015 at 3:20 am
“Ah!
My references somewhere describe Eötvös as the “discoverer” of your ‘advective quality’ i.e.
centrifugal, not centripetal, force evidenced in the rotating frame upon buoyant masses. Centripetal, part of gravitational force. keeps the atmosphere and ocean here. Centrifugal; is evidenced only for buoyant mass. Eötvös becomes the name that separates the radial from the rotational for buoyancy. Coriolis is the name for the rotational. Young Eötvös dances with fetching Coriolis at mid latitudes when projected on the latitudinal surface. 🙂
Current comments have migrated to:
All the best! -will-”
You’re spouting crap here Will! I don’t understand any of it.
I’m ‘out of here’ and I’ll not partake in any discussion in your link!
Ray.
suricat says: August 26, 2015 at 2:19 am
“I don’t understand your question Ben. Do you refer to ‘black carbon’ in the atmosphere, or ‘cloud-top insolation’ – for insolation? OLR has other ‘mediators’ (atractors) that transmit energy into a ‘sensible temperature regimen’.”
I’m referring to solar radiation warming the surface to a higher temperature in the tropics than near the poles. This is the reason for the atmosphere expanding more in the tropics than near the poles.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/fnl/200z_01.fnl.anim.html
The 200 hPa surface is more than 1000m higher in the tropics than near the poles.
So at the same geopotential height the pressure in the tropics is considerably higher than near the poles => pressure gradient => poleward flow as long as the temperature difference exists.
This is the major driving force for high altitude air flows (Hadley circulation ,jetstreams etc.)
“The ‘advective quality’ always follows at 90 degrees to the axis of Earth’s rotation on the ‘great scale’. It ‘is’ the Coriolis Effect! The ‘latitude’ on the globe dictates the angle that the effect manifests, horizontal at the Poles and vertical at the Equator.”
The vertical component of the Coriolis effect is usually neglected (as is the centrifugal ‘force’) since they only create a minuscule change in the hydrostatic equlibrium, which has been compensated for by a small mass re-distribution long time ago.
suricat says: August 26, 2015 at 2:52 am
“The ‘teleconnection’ between the Earth and the Moon alters the ‘gravity constant’ for Earth. This ‘modifies’ any ‘assumed’ constant by the ‘tidal influence’ that prevails.”
See http://www.recreationalflying.com/tutorials/meteorology/section1a.html#atmospheric_tides
Another existing but negligible effect in the grand scheme of things.
Gravity vs vertical pressure gradient are far to powerful compared to all these small effects.
In the horizontal plane tiny effects DO have a noticeable influence, since air moves easily in the horizontal plane. Surface friction and viscosity are the limiting effects here.
Ben Wouters says, August 26, 2015 at 12:18 pm:
“I’m referring to solar radiation warming the surface to a higher temperature in the tropics than near the poles. This is the reason for the atmosphere expanding more in the tropics than near the poles.”
The Sun heats the surface, yes. And then the atmosphere is heated convectively from the surface. The ascending limb of the Hadley cells, the ITCZ, is effectively what makes the tropical/subtropical tropopause so much higher than the mid and high latitude one. Your thermal wind is a mere effect of the strong equatorial convective lift. No (deep moist) convection, no Hadley cell.
It starts at the surface, Ben, not at the tropopause.
This source (among many) explains the whole thing quite succinctly:
http://www.ic.ucsc.edu/~wxcheng/envs23/lecture5/Air_circule.htm
It is the differential solar heating at the surface and the consequent stronger tendency of rising warm air along the equator that sets the whole Hadley circulation in motion. Because it pulls air in from higher latitudes, which in turn creates a need for a balancing counter-movement of air at altitude. Conservation of mass. High pressure to low pressure.
Ben Wouters says: August 26, 2015 at 12:18 pm
“I’m referring to solar radiation warming the surface to a higher temperature in the tropics than near the poles. This is the reason for the atmosphere expanding more in the tropics than near the poles.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/fnl/200z_01.fnl.anim.html
The 200 hPa surface is more than 1000m higher in the tropics than near the poles.
So at the same geopotential height the pressure in the tropics is considerably higher than near the poles => pressure gradient => poleward flow as long as the temperature difference exists.
This is the major driving force for high altitude air flows (Hadley circulation ,jetstreams etc.)
If you plot the ‘circulation’ with a ‘constant temperature’ for a ‘globe in rotation’ you’ll get the same ‘circulation cells’. The ‘template’ is ‘rotation’ (advection), ‘insolation’ is the agent that ‘modifies’ the ‘template’.
“The vertical component of the Coriolis effect is usually neglected (as is the centrifugal ‘force’) since they only create a minuscule change in the hydrostatic equlibrium, which has been compensated for by a small mass re-distribution long time ago.”
I commiserate your findings Ben, but ‘small forces’ may be ‘amplified’ by some ‘amplification factor’. Advection forcings may well become ‘overlooked’ by overwhelming temperature differences, but the ‘advective forcings’ are still extant.
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: August 27, 2015 at 2:42 am
“I commiserate your findings Ben, but ‘small forces’ may be ‘amplified’ by some ‘amplification factor’. Advection forcings may well become ‘overlooked’ by overwhelming temperature differences, but the ‘advective forcings’ are still extant. Best regards, Ray.”
The 30 Pa radial force at the horse latitudes to the 34 Pa at the doldrums 3300 Km continually decelerate the downward atmospheric mass motion, turning that equator-ward. At mid trades that results in zero vertical motion. Then equator-ward that upward accelerative force from the rotating atmosphere itself not from the Earth mass, results in increasing upward atmospheric mass velocity. The mid tropospheric altitude merging of N and S display the secession of lateral motion and excessive (way above the thermal) upward mass velocity at the doldrums. Nowhere can the lateral be separated from the vertical. They depend on each other. The actual direction of mass motion is given by the least work streamlines in the troposphere. It is not the reduction of gravitational force. It is the continual upward accelerative force created by the disconnected but still rotating atmosphere at each altitude. This is not some surface kick in the pants.
All the best! -will-
Kristian says: August 26, 2015 at 4:27 pm
“Your thermal wind is a mere effect of the strong equatorial convective lift.”
THE thermal wind (it don’t own it) is caused by sloping equal pressure levels from equator towards poles, caused by greater EXPANSION of the atmosphere near the equator.
“It starts at the surface, Ben, not at the tropopause.”
Atmospheric heating and expansion starts at the surface indeed.
Kristian says: August 26, 2015 at 5:10 pm
Convection (cumulonimbus clouds) near the equator do NOT pull air in from over 3000km away.
A CB is a local event, pulling in air from maybe a few kilometers away.
Outflow is sometimes happening, and visible as the anvil. Again very restricted in distance covered.
“It is the differential solar heating at the surface and the consequent stronger tendency of rising warm air along the equator that sets the whole Hadley circulation in motion.”
Still no answer to my question from above:
Since you think you have figured it all out, pse explain these observations:
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/patterson
Shows the wind speeds at the 10 hPa level (well into the stratosphere)
(70 hPa surface shows the same pattern more or less)
Very strong eastbound flow over the Southern Hemisphere (speeds over 360km/h south of Africa)
Over almost the entire NH Hadley area, a WEST bound flow.
Remember convection stops at the tropopause, and the subtropical jet is EAST bound around 30 N/S.
suricat says: August 27, 2015 at 2:42 am
“If you plot the ‘circulation’ with a ‘constant temperature’ for a ‘globe in rotation’ you’ll get the same ‘circulation cells’. The ‘template’ is ‘rotation’ (advection), ‘insolation’ is the agent that ‘modifies’ the ‘template’.”
On a rotating planet with equal surface temperature we would see an atmosphere moving with the surface, no wind, no circulation.
Just a little more mass above the equator than above the poles to compensate for the slightly lower effective gravity at the equator.
see http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1193/why-does-the-atmosphere-rotate-along-with-the-earth
“I commiserate your findings Ben, but ‘small forces’ may be ‘amplified’ by some ‘amplification factor’. Advection forcings may well become ‘overlooked’ by overwhelming temperature differences, but the ‘advective forcings’ are still extant.”
Fine, but let’s concentrate on the major players first: gravity, vertical pressure gradient force, thermal gradient and horizontal Coriolis effect.
I do understand that the Eötvös effect can nudge a fast flowing eastbound jetstream slightly upwards, but let’s first understand why we have a jetstream in the first place.
Ben Wouters says: August 27, 2015 at 1:45 pm
“Fine, but let’s concentrate on the major players first: gravity, vertical pressure gradient force, thermal gradient and horizontal Coriolis effect.”
These can’t be contemplated until a full understanding of the ‘configuration’ is realised.
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: August 28, 2015 at 7:16 am
“These can’t be contemplated until a full understanding of the ‘configuration’ is realised.”
That’s what I tried to do with TestEarth:
Introduce a surface temperature gradient from equator to poles, let the atmosphere expand in HEq., and see how a circulation starts, initially without rotation. Can be added later.
suricat says: August 28, 2015 at 7:16 am
Ben Wouters says: August 27, 2015 at 1:45 pm
(“Fine, but let’s concentrate on the major players first: gravity, vertical pressure gradient force, thermal gradient and horizontal Coriolis effect.”)
“These can’t be contemplated until a full understanding of the ‘configuration’ is realised.”
How elegant Ray.! Quite precise! How to present to serfdom? without youronself getting badly kilt
All the best! -will-
Will Janoschka says: August 28, 2015 at 9:06 am
As usual, your catalytic posts promote a response that was not originally intended Will. I’ve many other matters to attend to, but I’ll respond to Ben.
Ben Wouters says: August 28, 2015 at 8:49 am
“Introduce a surface temperature gradient from equator to poles, let the atmosphere expand in HEq., and see how a circulation starts, initially without rotation. Can be added later.”
Without ‘rotation’ any insolation can only provide the/a basic ‘Hadley Cell’ from the ‘center of insolation’ to the ‘twilight edges’ of the Sun facing region.
‘HEq’ doesn’t exist even in this most ‘basic’ atmosphere Ben (there is ‘movement of/within the atmosphere’). Do you understand that ‘HEq’ = ‘no change’, but the atmosphere is ‘always changing’ when ‘convection/advection’ is in evidence?
Conversely, ‘inertia’ supplied to an atmosphere surrounding a solid planet most accurately describes the behavior of a ‘tropospheric’ and ‘stratospheric’ atmospheric response to energy transmission.
Though, I concur, the atmosphere both ‘gets in the way’ of radiative cooling/heating, ‘sets the environment’, and decides the ‘outcome’ for our ‘climate’ relative to the geometry and atractors of/for the ‘Earth’ region selected. The ‘atmosphere’ also uses ‘convection’ to ‘correct’ any ‘density disparity’ generated by either, ‘insolation’ or ‘OLR’, at any given location.
I suppose that my ‘main point’ is that the Earth ‘rotates’! Thus, ‘HEq’ is an ‘assumption’ of/from a ‘classroom experiment’ for a ‘static atmosphere/fluid’! Modifications to this require data that prove the ‘source’ of ‘mass inertia’ to the ‘fluid’. The ‘source of energy’ determines the addition of inertia to be ‘advective’, or ‘convective’.
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: August 31, 2015 at 2:06 am
Will Janoschka says: August 28, 2015 at 9:06 am
RD “These can’t be contemplated until a full understanding of the ‘configuration’ is realised.”
WJ How elegant Ray.! Quite precise! How to present to serfdom? without youronself getting badly kilt.
“As usual, your catalytic posts promote a response that was not originally intended Will. I’ve many other matters to attend to, but I’ll respond to Ben.”
I wish only a response Ray, from ‘any’ that understand my post, and are willing to offer deliberative corrections to my POV. I are trying to learn. I do not know.
All the best! -will-
suricat says: August 31, 2015 at 2:06 am
“Without ‘rotation’ any insolation can only provide the/a basic ‘Hadley Cell’ from the ‘center of insolation’ to the ‘twilight edges’ of the Sun facing region.”
Again quite elegant. 🙂
“‘HEq’ doesn’t exist even in this most ‘basic’ atmosphere Ben (there is ‘movement of/within the atmosphere’). Do you understand that ‘HEq’ = ‘no change’, but the atmosphere is ‘always changing’ when ‘convection/advection’ is in evidence?
Conversely, ‘inertia’ supplied to an atmosphere surrounding a solid planet most accurately describes the behaviour of a ‘tropospheric’ and ‘stratospheric’ atmospheric response to energy transmission.”
“Though, I concur, the atmosphere both ‘gets in the way’ of radiative cooling/heating, ‘sets the environment’, and decides the ‘outcome’ for our ‘climate’ relative to the geometry and atractors of/for the ‘Earth’ region selected. The ‘atmosphere’ also uses ‘convection’ to ‘correct’ any ‘density disparity’ generated by either, ‘insolation’ or ‘OLR’, at any given location.
I suppose that my ‘main point’ is that the Earth ‘rotates’! Thus, ‘HEq’ is an ‘assumption’ of/from a ‘classroom experiment’ for a ‘static atmosphere/fluid’! Modifications to this require data that prove the ‘source’ of ‘mass inertia’ to the ‘fluid’. The ‘source of energy’ determines the addition of inertia to be ‘advective’, or ‘convective’. Best regards, Ray.”
Thank you Ray!
suricat says: August 31, 2015 at 2:06 am
“Without ‘rotation’ any insolation can only provide the/a basic ‘Hadley Cell’ from the ‘center of insolation’ to the ‘twilight edges’ of the Sun facing region.”
Obviously, that is what the thermal wind does.
“‘HEq’ doesn’t exist even in this most ‘basic’ atmosphere Ben (there is ‘movement of/within the atmosphere’). Do you understand that ‘HEq’ = ‘no change’, but the atmosphere is ‘always changing’ when ‘convection/advection’ is in evidence?”
No, I don’t. HEq. exists everywhere in the atmosphere. It is the EXPANSION of the atmosphere against its own weight (internal pressure vs. gravity).
Even with equal surface pressure eg the 200 hPa altitude can be more than 1000 meters higher above the surface at the equator than at the poles. And both situations represent a local HEq.
The resulting pressure differences AT ALTITUDE create the thermal wind.
Even a sun is in HEq against its own gravity.
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_equilibrium
“Astrophysics
In any given layer of a star, there is a hydrostatic equilibrium between the outward thermal pressure from below and the weight of the material above pressing inward. The isotropic gravitational field compresses the star into the most compact shape possible. A rotating star in hydrostatic equilibrium is an oblate spheroid up to a certain (critical) angular velocity.”
Same principle for an atmosphere, only the gravity is provided by the underlying planet.
Even the solid earth is in HEq., the reason for the ‘bulge’ near the equator.
To me HEq has been the base assumption in the now almost 1400 posts long thread on atmospheric convection.
“I suppose that my ‘main point’ is that the Earth ‘rotates’!”
That’s why I had the Coriolis effect amongst the major players in our atmosphere.
“Thus, ‘HEq’ is an ‘assumption’ of/from a ‘classroom experiment’ for a ‘static atmosphere/fluid’!”
Never before looked at the sun as a classroom experiment 😉
Ben Wouters says:
August 31, 2015 at 9:55 am
HEq. exists everywhere in the atmosphere. It is the EXPANSION of the atmosphere against its own weight (internal pressure vs. gravity).
I agree pressure vs. gravity. That is velocity of molecules accelerated or decelerated by gravity. But air has no weight.
Hydrostatic Equilibrium ( HEq) leads to the Barometric Equation.
The Barometric Equation does not correctly predict by calculation the pressure of the atmosphere
http://planetcalc.com/938/
Using this calculator, altitude 10 000m, T= -50C I get p= 22 000pa. Measured p ( at 10km) = 26 000pa.( U.S. Standard Atmosphere 1976)
That is 16% out.
This is because the assumptions it is based on are not justified.
These wrong assumptions are:
1. Air has weight
2. Gas law describes the properties of the atmosphere
Click to access BAROMETRIC%20FALLACY.pdf
This explains some of my objections to the HEq/Barometic Formula.
To me HEq has been the base assumption in the now almost 1400 posts long thread on atmospheric convection.
Pressure gradient ( p/h ) causes convection. So cause of p/h needs to be understood.
If you assume HEq for p/h of the Earth’s atmosphere I will continue to dispute it.
You must have overlooked it Roger but that http://planetcalc.com/938/ is using a form of the isothermal equation which is what is used to calculate within the lower isothermal stratosphere. Little wonder it is off by 16% for our troposphere is not isothermal.
Look for some other site (usually aviation related) using an equation similar to P=P0(T/T0)^(1/0.1903), or very close, that will give you the a better answer. Might also list the exponent at about 5.256.
Ben Wouters says, August 28, 2015 at 8:49 am:
“Introduce a surface temperature gradient from equator to poles, let the atmosphere expand in HEq., and see how a circulation starts, initially without rotation. Can be added later.”
The atmosphere doesn’t expand before it’s heated, Ben. If you introduce a SURFACE temperature gradient from equator to poles, what you engender is stronger convection at the equator, hence a low pressure sucking in air from higher latitudes. Setting Hadley circulation in motion. Your thermal wind aloft comes later, as a result of the unequal convective/latent heating of the troposphere from the surface. The thermal wind is indeed important in its own right, but it’s ultimately a corollary effect, not an original cause, of tropospheric circulation. You won’t get general tropospheric circulation going without first having (importantly, deep, moist) convective currents of air up from the surface heating the air column and doing so unevenly.
Seriously, Ben, why do you think that the surface atmospheric pressure is low along the equatorial ITCZ and in the oceanic warm pool regions, and high in the cooler water regions of the horse latitudes? Do you think it’s simply because the surface is warmer near the equator and cooler around 30N & S? Or do you think it has something to do with what this general temperature difference actually leads to? A natural loop of moving air is set up simply from the stronger tendency of rising air from the (warmer) equatorial surface creating a need for replacement from the sides (N & S), and since this asymmetry at the surface forces an opposite asymmetry aloft (conservation of mass), we end up with equatorial convergence of air masses at the surface and divergence at the tropopause, and subtropical divergence of air masses at the surface and convergence at the tropopause.
But it all started with the superior tendency towards convective uplift along the thermal equator over that of more poleward regions. This is why the Hadley cells are called ‘thermally direct’ cirulation cells. Like the polar ones. This is all pretty well understood.
Kristian says: August 31, 2015 at 5:42 pm
Ben Wouters says, August 28, 2015 at 8:49 am:
(“Introduce a surface temperature gradient from equator to poles, let the atmosphere expand in HEq., and see how a circulation starts, initially without rotation. Can be added later.”)
“The atmosphere doesn’t expand before it’s heated”
What BS. An atmospheric molecule, freely elevating from ricocheting from others, finds itself, in an environment of greater mean free path (lower density) , and slightly lower temperature (slightly higher density. Gets banged around less often. Why would such molecule ever spontaneously go in the opposite direction. Upward advection in this atmosphere is spontaneous! It is part of the pressure, density, temperature, effect with altitude. Each molecule must dispatch(somehow) some of its own kT power/energy before ever descending in this gravitational field. Most of this dispatch is via EMR exitance to space at altitude. Atmospheric (heat) convection is the spontaneous elevation of insolation energy/power to the altitude most effective for dispatch of such energy/power to space.
1,403 posts. Are we close to nailing this puppy?? Thank you OB, for all the fun!
I are an old, old atmospheric molecule, with no relative velocity to the airmass. Just me, rocking on the porch, petting on kitten! I do not mind neighbour atmospheric molecule banging on, trying to get me to vote his way! I do indeed resent the high academic idiots incessantly banging on with governmental, fake inertia. Senatorial farts have little momentum! Grinn 🙂
Ben Wouters says: August 31, 2015 at 9:55 am
“No, I don’t. HEq. exists everywhere in the atmosphere. It is the EXPANSION of the atmosphere against its own weight (internal pressure vs. gravity).”
That is a Ben Woulters, meteorological religious fantasy claim. Hydrostatic equilibrium is precisely the reason that ships float in the water. A floating ship precisely displaces its weight in the weight of water displaced. This is called hydrostatic equilibrium. Hydrostatic equilibrium has absolutely nothing to do with any atmosphere. All or any part of an atmosphere “has” (exhibits) no weight. This is quite independent of any mass of a compressible atmosphere! The formula, “weight” = mg, has no meaning for an atmosphere independent of mass or density.
An atmosphere has no weight, as demonstrated by Archimedes. The displacement of any amount of atmosphere by a fixed mass never affects the weight of that mass. QED, atmosphere has no weight!
wayne says:
August 31, 2015 at 12:59 pm
You must have overlooked it Roger but that http://planetcalc.com/938/ is using a form of the isothermal equation which is what is used to calculate within the lower isothermal stratosphere. Little wonder it is off by 16% for our troposphere is not isothermal.
The barometric formula for the troposphere is p/p0 = e^-mgh/RT
It is assumed that T is constant in the troposphere. That is another big fault.
Obviously planes do not use the barometric formula. Nobody uses the barometric formula The formula does not work. The formula is a an “educational ” book exercise to convince students that climate scientists know something.
The atmosphere has no weight and does not obey the gas laws.
The theory of hydrostatic equilibrium was invented by Pascal 1647 and is wrong.
The atmosphere is gas. Gas properties are caused by velocities of 10^19/cm^3 molecules
.Gas properties are correctly predicted by statistical mechanics invented late 19th century.
Statistical mechanics (SM)uses only statistics and Newtons mechanics ( laws of motion).
SM does not assume weight and gas laws for the atmosphere..
‘The Barometric Equation does not correctly predict by calculation the pressure of the atmosphere
http://planetcalc.com/938/
Using this calculator, altitude 10 000m, T= -50C I get p = 22 000pa.
Measured p ( at 10km) = 26 000pa.( U.S. Standard Atmosphere 1976)
That is 16% out.’
SA Calculator gives 26436 at alt. 10000m.:
http://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/
Report: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/strange-physics-trick-lets-people-create-a-cloud-in-their-own-mouth-10476817.html
Kristian says: August 31, 2015 at 5:42 pm
“But it all started with the superior tendency towards convective uplift along the thermal equator over that of more poleward regions. This is why the Hadley cells are called ‘thermally direct’ cirulation cells. Like the polar ones. This is all pretty well understood.”
Apparently not Kristian. The “polar ones” are governed almost entirely by ‘Earth’s rotation ‘orbital tenancy/transition’ between summer and winter.
During ‘summer’, a ‘polar cell’ is ‘less dense’ due to the temperature. During ‘winter’, a ‘polar cell’ is ‘more dense’ due to the temperature. Do you see where this is going?
The ‘inertia’ gained by the atmosphere in the near surface region/altitude determines the ‘advective’ power of the circulation. At the ‘poles’ ‘gravity’ acts at ’90 degrees’ to the ‘inertia’ imparted by ‘Earth’s rotation’ and is ‘ineffectual’ to ‘slow’ the ‘circulation’.
Similarly, HEq at equatorial latitudes ‘prevents’ the/a counterpoise to the ‘~3 inches/per second squared’ acceleration force from Earth’s ‘centrifuge’ until the state of HEq depletes this ‘at altitude’.
A ‘Hadley Cell’ is a ‘complex Cell’.
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says:
September 2, 2015 at 1:52 am
Kristian says: August 31, 2015 at 5:42 pm
“But it all started with the superior tendency towards convective uplift along the thermal equator over that of more poleward regions. This is why the Hadley cells are called ‘thermally direct’ cirulation cells. Like the polar ones. This is all pretty well understood.”
Apparently not Kristian. The “polar ones” are governed almost entirely by ‘Earth’s rotation ‘orbital tenancy/transition’ between summer and winter.
During ‘summer’, a ‘polar cell’ is ‘less dense’ due to the temperature. During ‘winter’, a ‘polar cell’ is ‘more dense’ due to the temperature. Do you see where this is going?
The ‘inertia’ gained by the atmosphere in the near surface region/altitude determines the ‘advective’ power of the circulation. At the ‘poles’ ‘gravity’ acts at ’90 degrees’ to the ‘inertia’ imparted by ‘Earth’s rotation’ and is ‘ineffectual’ to ‘slow’ the ‘circulation’.
Similarly, HEq at equatorial latitudes ‘prevents’ the/a counterpoise to the ‘~3 inches/per second squared’ acceleration force from Earth’s ‘centrifuge’ until the state of HEq depletes this ‘at altitude’.
A ‘Hadley Cell’ is a ‘complex Cell’. Best regards, Ray.
———————————————————————————–
” HEq at equatorial latitudes‘prevents’ the/a counterpoise to the ‘~3 inches/per second squared’ acceleration force from Earth’s ‘centrifuge’ until the state of HEq depletes this ‘at altitude’.
OK your POV is quite interesting to consider. There is no counterpoise. MY POV is that your the ‘~3 inches/per second squared’ acceleration force from Earth’s ‘centrifuge’, must be precisely the 34 Pa radial atmospheric pressure at the equator This radial pressure comes not from earth mass, or gravity, but only from the radial component of atmospheric circular (rotational) mass momentum, maintained when necessary by planetary surface roughness. Such pressures express as 45 m/s upward/outward mass velocity at mid equatorial troposphere. Thank you Ray.
All the best! -will-
Kristian says: August 31, 2015 at 5:42 pm
“The atmosphere doesn’t expand before it’s heated, Ben.”
The atmosphere is expanded since its creation. Unless its temperature falls below the freezing point of its gasses, an atmosphere will expand against gravity according to its temperature.
“If you introduce a SURFACE temperature gradient from equator to poles, what you engender is stronger convection at the equator, hence a low pressure sucking in air from higher latitudes. ”
On TestEarth we can introduce the temperature gradient slowly and evenly, so no convection will result from the warming.
“Seriously, Ben, why do you think that the surface atmospheric pressure is low along the equatorial ITCZ and in the oceanic warm pool regions, and high in the cooler water regions of the horse latitudes?”
Seriously Kristian, read what I wrote before:
“Near the equator the air moving polebound at altitude will reduce the total weight of the column
=> lower surface pressure.
The subtropical jet is where most of this air ‘collects’ => higher weight of the column => higher surface pressure.”
Still awaiting your explanation for this WESTBOUND flow at 10 hPa surface over the NH,
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=0.62,91.31,401
and at the same time this fast EASTBOUND flow over the SH:
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=-0.88,275.65,401
Kristian says: August 31, 2015 at 5:42 pm
“what you engender is stronger convection at the equator, hence a low pressure sucking in air from higher latitudes. Setting Hadley circulation in motion. ”
Read up on Cumulonimbus clouds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulonimbus_cloud
Average lifetime 30 minutes. During the mature and dissipating fase air is falling, creating dangerous downbursts below the cloud AT THE SURFACE. Pulsating tradewinds?
suricat says: August 31, 2015 at 2:06 am
‘HEq’ doesn’t exist even in this most ‘basic’ atmosphere Ben (there is ‘movement of/within the atmosphere’). Do you understand that ‘HEq’ = ‘no change’, but the atmosphere is ‘always changing’ when ‘convection/advection’ is in evidence?”
suricat says: September 2, 2015 at 1:52 am
“Similarly, HEq at equatorial latitudes ‘prevents’ the/a counterpoise to the ‘~3 inches/per second squared’ acceleration force from Earth’s ‘centrifuge’ until the state of HEq depletes this ‘at altitude’.”
Pse clarify.
oldbrew says:
September 1, 2015 at 12:43 pm
SA Calculator gives 26436 at alt. 10000m.:
http://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/
How is p = 26 000pa at h = 10 000m and T = -50C = 220K calculated?
Click to access 19770009539.pdf
Pages 11/12 ( pdf pages 27/28)section 1.3 Computational Equations 1.3.1 Pressure
Equations 33a and 33b
33b is the familiar Barometric equation. This uses the gas law and assumes T constant (T isothermal)
33a The Barometric formula for when T is changing (T non-isothermal)
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_40.html
“In other words, if we know the number of molecules per unit volume, we know the pressure, and vice versa: they are proportional to each other, since the temperature is constant in this problem.”
The use of the gas law and following mathematics to derive the Barometric Formula depends on “the temperature is constant”
It is not correct to then change the Barometric Formula derived using the gas law and T constant and then allow T to change.
33a works better than 33b.
However the Barometric Formula for T changing (non-isothermal), 33a, is not consistent with the physical assumptions of the original Barometric Formula, equation 33b.
The Barometric Formula is like the Greenhouse Effect, a moving target.
Roger C: see the US Standard Atmosphere link (under ‘References’) here:
http://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/help.htm
The data tables start on page 50 of the linked pdf.
Ben,
Your tunnel vision on this subject seems utterly incurable. A Hadley cell being fundamentally convection driven is hardly a controversial point in meteorology or atmospheric physics. Simply because it’s so obvious.
Ben, no one has denied the significance of Earth’s rotation in cutting short the Hadley cells at around 30N & S. That says nothing about what got the tropospheric circulation going in the first place. You simply need to start getting used to keeping more than one thought in your head at the same time …
oldbrew says:
September 2, 2015 at 10:39 am
Roger C: see the US Standard Atmosphere link (under ‘References’) here:
http://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/help.htm
The data tables start on page 50 of the linked pdf.
I have linked to it here:
Click to access 19770009539.pdf
and quoted from it in my post. [September 2, 2015 at 10:20 am (mod)]
Ben Wouters says: September 2, 2015 at 9:50 am
“Pse clarify.”
‘HEq’ = ‘a static atmosphere’ scenario! It describes an atmosphere that is in ‘complete hydrostatic balance’, thus, ‘static’.
If we ‘stopped’ Earth’s ‘rotation’ (advection), convection would still continue to create a turbulent atmosphere from/by the mediation, atractor, activity, from/by the ‘atmospheric hydrological cycle’.
‘HEq’ is only an ‘indicator’ of the ‘environment’ that ‘energy transfer’ encounters on its way to the cold of space. IOW, buoyancy is maintained by ‘pressure’, but inconsistencies to ‘pressure’ ‘delineate’ (expose) energy transfer scenarios (each scenario has its limit on the way that ‘energy transfer’ is achieved).
I hope this helps, if not “Pse ask”!
Best regards, Ray.
Ben Wouters says: September 2, 2015 at 9:38 am
Kristian says: August 31, 2015 at 5:42 pm
““The atmosphere doesn’t expand before it’s heated, Ben.”
The atmosphere is expanded since its creation. Unless its temperature falls below the freezing point of its gasses, an atmosphere will expand against gravity according to its temperature.”
This is a ‘given’!
““If you introduce a SURFACE temperature gradient from equator to poles, what you engender is stronger convection at the equator, hence a low pressure sucking in air from higher latitudes. ”
On TestEarth we can introduce the temperature gradient slowly and evenly, so no convection will result from the warming.”
Kristian, the ‘increased insolation’ that causes ‘higher temperatures’ at the ‘equatorial regions’ only ‘reduce the density’ of the local gasses. This leads to a greater altitude for the ‘tropopause’ in the achievement of HEq, but doesn’t account for the additional altitude observed. ‘Other’ atractors/mediators are involved!
Ben, the ‘configuration’ of ‘atractors’ in Earth’s atmosphere are ‘chaotic’! How do you propose to understand and predict this?
Best regards, Ray.
Kristian says: September 2, 2015 at 11:36 am
“A Hadley cell being fundamentally convection driven is hardly a controversial point in meteorology or atmospheric physics. Simply because it’s so obvious.”
Funny. It should be totally obvious that a few CB’s near the equator are never able to drive a circulation over more than 3000km. Still you keep pushing this nonsense.
Simple question: why do the trade winds keep blowing with almost the same strength during the night when the convection near the equator has died down?
And once again:
Circulation NH at 250 hPa surface:
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=0.32,89.22,401
Circulation NH at 10 hPa surface:
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=0.32,89.22,401
Why is the 250 hPa (~ 11 km) circulation eastbound and the 10 hPa (~26 Km) circulation westbound in the equator – 30N area?
Try to think in 3 dimensions, counter rotating flows right above each other, all caused by the same convection?
suricat says: September 3, 2015 at 1:34 am
“HEq’ is only an ‘indicator’ of the ‘environment’ that ‘energy transfer’ encounters on its way to the cold of space.”
To me the amount of expansion for a given mass of air depends on the surface temperature and how efficient the energy is transferred up and radiated away to space.
Low surface temperature / high transfer efficiency => little expansion
High surface temperature / low transfer efficiency => large expansion.
Both scenarios can be in HEq if the density distribution is ‘normal’.
If this is what you mean, I can agree.
suricat says: September 3, 2015 at 2:06 am
“Kristian, the ‘increased insolation’ that causes ‘higher temperatures’ at the ‘equatorial regions’ only ‘reduce the density’ of the local gasses. This leads to a greater altitude for the ‘tropopause’ in the achievement of HEq, but doesn’t account for the additional altitude observed. ”
Not sure why you bring in the tropopause, but the higher surface temperatures near the equator let the atmosphere expand there more than near the poles. Just look at the height of different pressure levels above the surface compared to their height further north.
“Ben, the ‘configuration’ of ‘atractors’ in Earth’s atmosphere are ‘chaotic’! How do you propose to understand and predict this?”
By looking at each effect separately first (eg using TestEarth), and then try to combine everything.
Ben Wouters says: September 3, 2015 at 2:22 pm
suricat says: September 3, 2015 at 1:34 am
(“HEq’ is only an ‘indicator’ of the ‘environment’ that ‘energy transfer’ encounters on its way to the cold of space.”)
“To me the amount of expansion for a given mass of air depends on the surface temperature and how efficient the energy is transferred up and radiated away to space.”
Efficient means what in an atmosphere?
What do you mean by how efficient the energy is transferred up?
What do you mean by how efficient the energy is radiated away to space?
Does expansion need a surface temperature? Why?
“Low surface temperature / high transfer efficiency => little expansion.
High surface temperature / low transfer efficiency => large expansion.
Both scenarios can be in HEq if the density distribution is ‘normal’.”
What do yo mean by normal?
“If this is what you mean, I can agree.”
Ben Wouters says: September 3, 2015 at 2:22 pm
“To me the amount of expansion for a given mass of air depends on the surface temperature and how efficient the energy is transferred up and radiated away to space.”
Then you need to make a re-assessment Ben. Insolation is also absorbed ‘within’ the atmosphere itself and ‘cloud-top’ is an obvious example of this (cloud-top displays an ‘albedo’).
At the surface, temperatures are held to a ‘false’ low by latent emission of WV. The same WV emission adds ‘mass’ to the atmosphere, causing ‘expansion’ by an ‘included mass’, and again lowers the atmosphere’s ‘density’ (WV is ~3/5 the density of Earth’s main atmospheric gasses), again, causing ‘further’ expansion/buoyancy.
Don’t look at ‘temperature’ Ben, look for ‘energy’!
Best regards, Ray.
Ben Wouters says: September 3, 2015 at 2:30 pm
“Not sure why you bring in the tropopause, but the higher surface temperatures near the equator let the atmosphere expand there more than near the poles. Just look at the height of different pressure levels above the surface compared to their height further north.”
The height of the tropopause is a good ‘indicator’ for the ‘atmospheric column height’ that can provide a ‘equal’ HEq surface pressure for the entire globe WRT temperature. That’s why I mentioned it!
However, the ‘surface pressure’ at ~30 degrees N & S alters, this is because HEq is ‘compromised’ by ‘other’ atractors, forcings.
We really ‘do’ need to look at ‘energy’ more than ‘temperature’ per se!
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: September 4, 2015 at 2:16 am
” Insolation is also absorbed ‘within’ the atmosphere itself and ‘cloud-top’ is an obvious example of this (cloud-top displays an ‘albedo’).”
Albedo has to do with reflection due to clouds (and surface), is causing the ~30% reflected sunlight.
Most insolation is absorbed at the surface. The bulk of the absorbed insolation in the atmosphere is in the Thermosphere and Stratosphere, causing their increasing temperature with increasing distance away from the surface.
Absorption by clouds is happening, but doesn’t really show in the temperature profiles.
Afaik tropospheric absorption is just a few percent of total insolation.
Again an existing but minor effect compared to surface heating in this case.
suricat says: September 4, 2015 at 2:54 am
“The height of the tropopause is a good ‘indicator’ for the ‘atmospheric column height’ that can provide a ‘equal’ HEq surface pressure for the entire globe WRT temperature. That’s why I mentioned it!”
The tropopause is the altitude where warming due to UV interaction with solar is beginning to be felt. So no good indicator of expansion against gravity due to internal pressure.
The height of eg the 500 hPa pressure shows exactly how much the atmosphere has expanded, regardless of the cause.
Surface pressure is a measure of the weight of the entire column above.
More mass => higher surface pressure.
The tiny differences in Effective Gravity also effecting surface pressure have been compensated long ago by a slight re-distribution of mass towards the equator.
“However, the ‘surface pressure’ at ~30 degrees N & S alters, this is because HEq is ‘compromised’ by ‘other’ atractors, forcings.”
Pse be a bit more specific about these attractors / forcings.
Ben Wouters says, September 5, 2015 at 1:30 pm:
“The bulk of the absorbed insolation in the atmosphere is in the Thermosphere and Stratosphere, causing their increasing temperature with increasing distance away from the surface.
Absorption by clouds is happening, but doesn’t really show in the temperature profiles.
Afaik tropospheric absorption is just a few percent of total insolation.
Again an existing but minor effect compared to surface heating in this case.”
[snip]
You’re just making up your own “facts” as you go along, to fit with your [Snip] private ideas of how the atmosphere works.
Most of the atmospheric absorption of incoming sunlight occurs in the troposphere, by clouds and by water vapour, that is, by H2O. This is also a matter of air density. The air in the thermosphere is so rarefied that it’s approaching a vacuum, and so even if the molecules up there do indeed absorb incoming sunlight, and heat accordingly, it hardly amounts to anything when it comes to the Earth system’s overall budget. The ozone molecules in the stratosphere are also incredibly thin on the ground and absorb preferably in the UV band, which doesn’t make up too large a portion of the total incoming flux:
http://www.calpoly.edu/~rfield/Thermalstructure.htm
(Note that clouds aren’t even included here …)
If there were proper convective circulation going on in the stratosphere, like in the troposphere, there is no way that the ozone UV absorption up there would be able to maintain a reversed temperature profile. The only reason the ozone heating in the stratosphere is allowed to create such a gradient is simply that the upward convective momentum from the surface and the tropospheric layers is exhausted already at levels below it, because of the increasing efficiency of radiative loss to space as the air gets less and less dense the higher up the column you go.
[Moderation note] Easy, tiger
Ben Wouters says: September 5, 2015 at 1:30 pm
“Albedo has to do with reflection due to clouds (and surface), is causing the ~30% reflected sunlight.
Most insolation is absorbed at the surface. The bulk of the absorbed insolation in the atmosphere is in the Thermosphere and Stratosphere, causing their increasing temperature with increasing distance away from the surface.
Absorption by clouds is happening, but doesn’t really show in the temperature profiles.
Afaik tropospheric absorption is just a few percent of total insolation.
Again an existing but minor effect compared to surface heating in this case.”
It ‘isn,t minor’ Ben! The ‘frequency’ (wave length) of incident EMR is paramount to its ‘depth to extinction’ within Earth’s atmosphere. Where EMR frequency is closely ‘resonant’ (full, half, or quarter wavelength) with the molecular make-up of the atmosphere, energy is ‘transferred’ (pendulum effect, like a child on a swing). Thus, EMR energy becomes ‘transitioned/transferred’ into a ‘molecular kinetic’, thus, reducing the/its ‘depth to extinction’. Enough on EMR for now.
‘Albedo’ is a loose term that describes ‘total absorption/exitance’. It was intended for a ‘singular’ ‘surface’! However, ‘cloud albedo’ is only ‘singular’ at ‘cloud-top’, but the Earth beneath the ‘cloud’ continues to provide an ‘albedo’ whilst it’s in the ‘shade’ of the cloud.
There’s more to this but it’s late. Nearly 3am here. I’m off to bed.
Best regards, Ray.
Ben Wouters says, September 5, 2015 at 1:30 pm:
“The bulk of the absorbed insolation in the atmosphere is in the Thermosphere and Stratosphere, causing their increasing temperature with increasing distance away from the surface.
Absorption by clouds is happening, but doesn’t really show in the temperature profiles.
Afaik tropospheric absorption is just a few percent of total insolation.
Again an existing but minor effect compared to surface heating in this case.”
More than half of the insolation accepted by the Earth and its atmosphere never even reaches the surface. The greatest source of power for radiative exitance via EMR comes from insolation absorbed by airborne water condensate (clouds, overcast) evaporating such to WV within the atmosphere. As that WV re-condenses to condensate, continually, on the dark side the released insolation energy powers EMR exitance from atmosphere to space throughout the night time.
Kristian says: September 5, 2015 at 3:58 pm
*
Your lower chart labels x axis units Wavelength as nanometres, should be micrometers or microns! What was that source? Do you have one with low clouds/overcast?
All the best! -will-
Kristian says:
September 5, 2015 at 3:58 pm
Most of the atmospheric absorption of incoming sunlight occurs in the troposphere, by clouds and by water vapour, that is, by H2O. This is also a matter of air density. The air in the thermosphere is so rarefied that it’s approaching a vacuum, and so even if the molecules up there do indeed absorb incoming sunlight, and heat accordingly, it hardly amounts to anything when it comes to the Earth system’s overall budget.
This is an important point.
T/h graphs suggest that at 50km I could walk about in a coat and hat (0C), at 110km I could wear a swimsuit.
This is obviously not so and misleading.
Temperatures for the troposphere, up to 20km and temperatures above 20km do not have the same meaning.
Temperatures up to 20km are measurements made in the air of molecules striking a sensor.
Temperatures above 20km are measurements of the energy of radiation that has left molecules and strike a sensor on a satellite.
Roger Clague says:
September 6, 2015 at 9:10 am
Kristian says:September 5, 2015 at 3:58 pm
“Temperatures up to 20km are measurements made in the air of molecules striking a sensor.
Temperatures above 20km are measurements of the energy of radiation that has left molecules and strike a sensor on a satellite.”
No comparison! no real meaning for temperature, especially spatially and temporally averaged!!
What is your guess as to the altitude of pressure where 99.9% of the atmospheric thermal energy is below that level? How much climbing for most is required? I’m at locally on top 520m above the ocean. I may need a ladder. 🙂
Kristian says: September 5, 2015 at 3:58 pm
Have an explanation already for the ‘steady’ tradewinds during the night (no convection)?
Or the counterrotating flows in the Hadley area at 250 and 10 hPa surface.?
“Most of the atmospheric absorption of incoming sunlight occurs in the troposphere, by clouds and by water vapour, that is, by H2O. ”
see http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7f.html
or similar.
Of incoming solar ~30% is reflected, ~51% absorbed at the surface, leaving ~19% to be absorbed in the atmosphere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet#Solar_ultraviolet
At the top of the atmosphere ~10% of solar is in the UV range, of which ~80% (= 8% of total) is absorbed, leaving 11% for the rest of total atmosphere.
So at best this leaves 11% for absorption in the troposphere, but this would leave nothing for the rest of the atmosphere.
” The only reason the ozone heating in the stratosphere is allowed to create such a gradient is simply that the upward convective momentum from the surface and the tropospheric layers is exhausted already at levels below it, because of the increasing efficiency of radiative loss to space as the air gets less and less dense the higher up the column you go.”
Are you now accepting that ozone heats the stratosphere ???
” upward convective momentum”
The only upward convective momentum I’m aware of is when rising air (convection) reaches its equilibrium level, and buoyancy ceases to exist. Due to its momentum the air will rise a little higher, and then sink back to the equilibrium level. This can happen at any altitude, including the tropopause.
Ben Wouters says: September 6, 2015 at 2:15 pm
“The only upward convective momentum I’m aware of is when rising air (convection) reaches its equilibrium level, and buoyancy ceases to exist. Due to its momentum the air will rise a little higher, and then sink back to the equilibrium level. This can happen at any altitude, including the tropopause.”
I concur Ben, but this ‘isn’t’ the ‘whole’ story! ‘Advection’ ‘overlays’ ‘all convective activity’!
Personally, I blame OB for introducing ‘GCCs’ (Global Climate Cells) to a thread about ‘convection’.
WRT temperature at high and low altitudes, ‘energy density’ rules that a ‘massive object’ enjoys ‘thermal capacity’, whereas EMR is ‘transient’ and with ‘little/no thermal capacity’. Thus, ‘mass density’ improves ‘thermal capacity’ (and ‘energy density’).
If you want to investigate the ‘UV’ component of insolation you’ll find that ‘UVc’ (the shortest wave length [highest frequency] of UV) is so intense in its ‘ionizing’ ability that it can’t ‘penetrate to extinction’ anywhere near the ‘tropopause’. From the ‘other end’ of the UV spectrum, blue vis and the ‘longer’ limits of UVa can ‘penetrate’ ‘liquid water’ (in its ‘pure state’) to ‘~a kilometer’ before its extinction. This makes UVa and UVb the ‘prime movers’ for the ‘strength’ of insolation from Sol. However, Sunspot ‘activity’ determines the rate of insolation for UVa and UVb as well as the ‘rate of transition’ for the ‘Solar wind’.
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: September 7, 2015 at 2:56 am
Personally, I blame OB for introducing ‘GCCs’ (Global Climate Cells) to a thread about ‘convection’.
Ray,
The GCCs are 96% of atmospheric ‘convection’ in all directions providing FRESH to all Earth’s surfaces. As a sideline, atmospheric convection also provides heat transfer into the upper troposphere for increased efficacy in dispatch of entropy to space via EMR. Lower surface temperatures. This is quite independent of any fake meteorology!
An in-page search for “tropo” on this page gives “More than 100 matches”.
…so this must be the place to ask:
Is G a factor in tropopause height?
Say G isn’t constant but rather cycles.
Would hydrology cycle with it?
If it did, would that affect 10Be deposition?
I’ve checked how terrestrial heat engines would alias G cycling found by NASA JPL.
Better take a look (de Vries 208) cuz G whiz it fits like a Gas Giant’s Glove and maybe that spot on Jupiter was a clue:
Paul Vaughan says: September 7, 2015 at 6:58 am
An in-page search for “tropo” on this page gives “More than 100 matches”.
…so this must be the place to ask:
Hi Paul,
I don’t think the atmosphere is the correct place to look for long term variance in gravitational force.
The day to day variances in column water and column insects would affect tropospheric density, pressure, and temperature much more. Gravity only maintains the proper P/rho so that T decreases linearly with increasing altitude.
“Is G a factor in tropopause height?”
Equatorial tropopause, 16 kPa, varies from 16 Km to 11 Km depending on time of day. From equator to poles it is 14km down to 6km at the lowest temperature pole. The damned atmosphere is spinning, but decoupled from the surface. Not even R omega^2 works correctly, has its own angular momentum. Perhaps mass itself changes with long away “stuff” alignment. Why pick on G? What was your question?
“Say G isn’t constant but rather cycles. Would hydrology cycle with it? If it did, would that affect 10Be deposition?”
Perhaps long term. Local atmospheric temperature and airborne H2O dominate at every location.
“I’ve checked how terrestrial heat engines would alias G cycling found by NASA JPL.”
Very sensitive to buoyancy! Neutral buoyancy tank with high thin draft markers tethered in a small lake, corrected for water temperature perhaps best indicator of local gravity, if ‘it’ is swishing about. The atmosphere is just way to compressible, and forgiveable, else no aircraft!~ Thanks for looking!
All the best! -will-
Not helpful Will.
Let’s put it a different way:
What formulas does G show up in?
…so if G varies….
Paul Vaughan says: September 7, 2015 at 1:03 pm
“Not helpful Will.”
I know!!!
“Let’s put it a different way: What formulas does G show up in? …so if G varies….”
It doesn’t! Lc (g) Earth’s gravity acting on Earth’s atmospheric mass sets the tropospheric, logarithmic, pressure and density gradients. The ratio of which determines the static linear lapse rate. But that lapse rate can decrease to 1/2 that value at WV saturation, and radiative effects. Outside of that, g or G is absent. Every atmosphere must remain weightless, independent of atmospheric mass, just as Archimedes demonstrated. Sorry again!! What was that Solar (z) thing with Roger?
Will, there appears to be some misunderstanding.
Have a look over here — and if you have time, connect a series of dots:
I’ll watch for any commentary anyone has over there.
Will Janoschka says: September 7, 2015 at 3:52 am
“Ray,
The GCCs are 96% of atmospheric ‘convection’ in all directions providing FRESH to all Earth’s surfaces.”
We’ll never agree on this Will. ‘GCCs’ are ‘advected cells’ powered by either, or both, Earth’s rotation, or water evaporation and are ‘not’ ‘convection cells’ per se! What on Earth is “FRESH”?
‘Convection cells’ are extremely ‘local’, mostly ‘rise’ during daylight and ‘fall’ during the night. The ‘net result’ is ‘zero’ and ‘back to the starting position’ when a 24hr observation is made. ‘Anything else’ is ‘advection’ by ‘another means’!
“As a sideline, atmospheric convection also provides heat transfer into the upper troposphere for increased efficacy in dispatch of entropy to space via EMR. Lower surface temperatures. This is quite independent of any fake meteorology!”
Duh! 😉 This doesn’t make full sense Will, but I’ll respond anyhow.
Any ‘increase’ to ‘planetary rotation’ generated by the theoretical ‘collision’ between the ‘proto Earth’ and ‘Thea’ will continue to ‘advect’ Earth’s atmosphere by way of a ‘turbine’ forcing to Earth’s atmosphere. Earth continues to slow whilst the Moon continues its ‘slingshot’ to higher altitudes (~3.5 m.y. later).
There’s no question that GCCs ‘do’ ‘refresh’ and ‘advect’ insolation energy to a place where radiation to the ‘void’ is more efficient. A ‘plus’ for ‘MEP’ (Maximum Entropy Production), but this ‘isn’t’ ‘convection’ Will.
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: September 9, 2015 at 1:13 am
Will Janoschka says: September 7, 2015 at 3:52 am
(“Ray, The GCCs are 96% of atmospheric ‘convection’ in all directions providing FRESH to all Earth’s surfaces.”)
“We’ll never agree on this Will. ‘GCCs’ are ‘advected cells’ powered by either, or both, Earth’s rotation, or water evaporation and are ‘not’ ‘convection cells’ per se! What on Earth is “FRESH”
I agree: the title ‘atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean’, however, never mentions “cells”.
FRESH is whatever it takes to avoid earthlings suffocating in their own farts! Atmospheric motion in every direction also dispatching “stinky” to space along with ‘entropy’.
You may wish to defend meteorology, I however am here to demonstrate that meteorology has no basis in science. Meteorology is so fake and religious it makes astrology pristine.
‘Convection cells’ are extremely ‘local’, mostly ‘rise’ during daylight and ‘fall’ during the night. The ‘net result’ is ‘zero’ and ‘back to the starting position’ when a 24hr observation is made. ‘Anything else’ is ‘advection’ by ‘another means’!
So you claim from meteorology, a disgraced endeavour. Sounds like thermals, where no one knows where the surface replacement atmosphere originated. All pure fantasy!
(“As a sideline, atmospheric convection also provides heat transfer into the upper troposphere for increased efficacy in dispatch of entropy to space via EMR. Lower surface temperatures. This is quite independent of any fake meteorology!”)
“Duh! 😉 This doesn’t make full sense Will, but I’ll respond anyhow.”
The atmosphere’s secondary role, get rid of useless insolation power in the most efficient way possible.
“Any ‘increase’ to ‘planetary rotation’ generated by the theoretical ‘collision’ between the ‘proto Earth’ and ‘Thea’ will continue to ‘advect’ Earth’s atmosphere by way of a ‘turbine’ forcing to Earth’s atmosphere. Earth continues to slow whilst the Moon continues its ‘slingshot’ to higher altitudes (~3.5 m.y. later).”
I have no idea to what you are referring! The earth’s rotation will tangentially accelerate surface atmosphere that is not at the same surface velocity. Gravity forces all atmosphere to neutral or self-buoyancy. But the atmosphere, detached from the surface continues to follow in its own rotation about earth’s rotational axis. Detached the atmosphere ‘itself’ exhibits internal centrifugal force upon itself. Such forces combine to provide convective circulation of the atmosphere without need for any thermal power. Go up head toward poles. Viscosity and Reynolds number, along with gravity come into play of what happens next.
“There’s no question that GCCs ‘do’ ‘refresh’ and ‘advect’ insolation energy to a place where radiation to the ‘void’ is more efficient.”
Thank you!
“A ‘plus’ for ‘MEP’ (Maximum Entropy Production)”
I observe only MEP (Minimum Entropy Production). The fluid dynamics and continuum mechanics require streamlines of all motion, avoid angular momentum changes, minimize work, minimize any entropy production. Well some entropy, like hurricanes and tornadoes, which are fun!
“but this ‘isn’t’ ‘convection’ Will. Best regards, Ray.”
OK, we disagree! All the best anyhow! -will-
Will Janoschka says: September 9, 2015 at 3:04 am
“I agree: the title ‘atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean’, however, never mentions “cells”.”
I can understand why it wasn’t mentioned, convection per se is ‘always’ cellular in structure.
“You may wish to defend meteorology, I however am here to demonstrate that meteorology has no basis in science.”
I don’t wish to defend meteorology, its an ‘off-shoot’ that has a script of its own.
“So you claim from meteorology, a disgraced endeavour. Sounds like thermals, where no one knows where the surface replacement atmosphere originated. All pure fantasy!”
Huh? I ‘claim’ nothing from meteorology. Put a deep pan of oil on a gas stove and light the gas at a low setting. As the oil at the bottom of the pan is warmed it expands, becomes less dense and begins to rise. As the oil rises the lower density regions alter the refractive index of the oil, so any ‘convective plume’ can be seen with the naked eye. Estimate the number of ‘plumes’ and turn the gas up to full. Do you see ‘faster’ convective activity? No you don’t! What you do see is a ‘greater number’ of ‘plumes’. That’s the ‘science’ of ‘convection’. It doesn’t need to be said to mature students that ‘what goes up, must come down’, thus the regions surrounding a ‘plume’ are subsiding.
A ‘fluid’ is ‘a fluid’ and there are small differences between the behaviors of gasses and liquids. That’s not to say that ‘exceptions to the rule’ never occur.
“The atmosphere’s secondary role, get rid of useless insolation power in the most efficient way possible.”
I concur, ‘MEP’ (Maximum Entropy Production) for energy transfer to space.
“I have no idea to what you are referring!”
Apologies, the time-scale should read “(~3.5 b.y. later), or ~3.5 Bybp). I was only ‘out’ by three decimal places (and a billion years [~4.5]) 😦
A gravity ‘teleconnection’ exists between the Earth and the Moon. Here’s a link to the ‘Theia hypothesis’;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis
“The earth’s rotation will tangentially accelerate surface atmosphere that is not at the same surface velocity. Gravity forces all atmosphere to neutral or self-buoyancy. But the atmosphere, detached from the surface continues to follow in its own rotation about earth’s rotational axis.”
I concur. Earth’s ‘centrifugal force’ depletes ‘G’ by ‘~3 inches per second squared’ for any of the atmosphere in frictional contact at the equator, but as for “detached from the surface continues to follow in its own rotation about earth’s rotational axis” is confusing.
On leaving any surface contact, the ‘atmosphere’ maintains its original ‘inertial trajectory’! This causes a ‘retrograde’ aspect with an increase in altitude WRT the motion of the Earth beneath.
Then there’s the ‘continuum factor’ of more atmosphere leaving Earth’s surface. As gravity begins to exert its force more effectively at increasing altitudes, on-coming atmosphere with more energetic ‘inertia’ displaces the ‘inertially depleted (by gravity)’ atmosphere and causes it to ‘subside’ to a region of ‘less inertia’ and at the Equator, this can only be either North, or South.
“Detached the atmosphere ‘itself’ exhibits internal centrifugal force upon itself.”
No it doesn’t. Here the ‘MEP’ (Minimum Entropy Production) for ‘fluid dynamics’ prevails!
“Such forces combine to provide convective circulation of the atmosphere without need for any thermal power.”
Convection without a ‘thermal’ component is accepted Will, but ‘convection’ from a ‘mechanical forcing’ is an impossible conceptualisation for convection.
This is ‘advection’!
(“A ‘plus’ for ‘MEP’ (Maximum Entropy Production)”)
“I observe only MEP (Minimum Entropy Production). The fluid dynamics and continuum mechanics require streamlines of all motion, avoid angular momentum changes, minimize work, minimize any entropy production. Well some entropy, like hurricanes and tornadoes, which are fun!”
Don’t take the piss Will. MEP for ‘energy transfer’ is ~the same as MEP for ‘fluid dynamics’, but ‘inverse’.
Ray.
suricat says: September 9, 2015 at 11:45 pm
“Put a deep pan of oil on a gas stove and light the gas at a low setting. As the oil at the bottom of the pan is warmed it expands, becomes less dense and begins to rise. As the oil rises the lower density regions alter the refractive index of the oil, so any ‘convective plume’ can be seen with the naked eye. Estimate the number of ‘plumes’ and turn the gas up to full. Do you see ‘faster’ convective activity? No you don’t! What you do see is a ‘greater number’ of ‘plumes’. That’s the ‘science’ of ‘convection’. It doesn’t need to be said to mature students that ‘what goes up, must come down’, thus the regions surrounding a ‘plume’ are subsiding. A ‘fluid’ is ‘a fluid’ and there are small differences between the behaviors of gasses and liquids. That’s not to say that ‘exceptions to the rule’ never occur.”
Yes, hexagonal convection ‘cells’ with plumes contained in a pan. Nothing like an atmosphere.
Liquids and gasses are fluids. Atmospheres require a separate category, where what goes up, need never come down, unless acted upon by some force. Didn’t Newton write something similar?
Will Janoschka says: September 9, 2015 at 3:04 am
(“The atmosphere’s secondary role, get rid of useless insolation power in the most efficient way possible.”)
“I concur, ‘MEP’ (Maximum Entropy Production) for energy transfer to space.”
Maximum entropy production is a concept only applicable to information theory, never the mechanical! In thermal radiative flux entropy is all that is ever transferred, always spontaneously.
(“The earth’s rotation will tangentially accelerate surface atmosphere that is not at the same surface velocity. Gravity forces all atmosphere to neutral or self-buoyancy. But the atmosphere, detached from the surface continues to follow in its own rotation about earth’s rotational axis.”)
“I concur. Earth’s ‘centrifugal force’ depletes ‘G’ by ‘~3 inches per second squared’ for any of the atmosphere in frictional contact at the equator, but as for “detached from the surface continues to follow in its own rotation about earth’s rotational axis” is confusing.”
Earth’s centrifugal force does not operate on the atmosphere. Your depletion exibits only a minor decrease in atmospheric surface pressure. That is what is noticed from a rotating frame of reference on a local surface. The huge mass of atmosphere rotating with nearly the same angular velocity is not noticed from that POV.
“On leaving any surface contact, the ‘atmosphere’ maintains its original ‘inertial trajectory’! This causes a ‘retrograde’ aspect with an increase in altitude WRT the motion of the Earth beneath.”
That is true! from a surface POV. The mass inertia from this POV splits into a tangertial component forcing the self-buoyant atmosphere outward at increasing mass velocity. The other component is angular (rotational) The linear velocity drops as outward momentum increases. This plus the decoupled atmosphere need no longer remain at the angular velocity of the surface. Much more retrograde than you express. From an inertial frame of reference an entirely different POV develops. Both are true, and both must be satisfied in the continuum.
“Then there’s the ‘continuum factor’ of more atmosphere leaving Earth’s surface. As gravity begins to exert its force more effectively at increasing altitudes”
How can gravity exert any force on self-buoyant atmospheric mass? At any altitude near the equator the pressure is less both N and S. This is why in FD the airmass veers north and south.
“on-coming atmosphere with more energetic ‘inertia’ displaces the ‘inertially depleted (by gravity)’ atmosphere and causes it to ‘subside’ to a region of ‘less inertia’ and at the Equator, this can only be either North, or South.”
That is one way of looking at it and must also be satisfied! As far as I can notice airmass displacement is outward involving no work (buoyant, isentropic)
(“Detached the atmosphere ‘itself’ exhibits internal centrifugal force upon itself.”)
“No it doesn’t. Here the ‘MEP’ (Minimum Entropy Production) for ‘fluid dynamics’ prevails!”
There is absolutely no such concept in fluid dynamics! Does the rotating atmosphere exhibit an outward accelerative force or does it not?
(“Such forces combine to provide convective circulation of the atmosphere without need for any thermal power.”)
“Convection without a ‘thermal’ component is accepted Will, but ‘convection’ from a ‘mechanical forcing’ is an impossible conceptualisation for convection. This is ‘advection’!
Yes indeed. Without heat, this advection is still convecting “stinky” upward and poleward.
((“A ‘plus’ for ‘MEP’ (Maximum Entropy Production)”))
(“I observe only MEP (Minimum Entropy Production). The fluid dynamics and continuum mechanics require streamlines of all motion, avoid angular momentum changes, minimize work, minimize any entropy production. Well some entropy, like hurricanes and tornadoes, which are fun!”)
“Don’t take the piss Will. MEP for ‘energy transfer’ is ~the same as MEP for ‘fluid dynamics’, but ‘inverse’. Ray.”
Please show anything in this atmosphere, except “interesting weather”, that ever does more than minimum work and minimum entropy production? Even the Jet streams and Vortices are minimum work. Please give an example of your “Maximum Entropy Production”? Cold high altitude entropy comes as part of insolation, non needs be produced.
All the best! -will-
Will Janoschka says: September 10, 2015 at 3:17 am
“Yes, hexagonal convection ‘cells’ with plumes contained in a pan. Nothing like an atmosphere.”
No! This ‘is’ ‘convection’! Why should/could it represent Earth’s atmosphere?
“Liquids and gasses are fluids. Atmospheres require a separate category, where what goes up, need never come down, unless acted upon by some force. Didn’t Newton write something similar?”
Yes he did. It superseded Archimedes by proving that the ‘atmosphere’ is also ‘buoyant’, as is water.
“Will Janoschka says: September 9, 2015 at 3:04 am
(“The atmosphere’s secondary role, get rid of useless insolation power in the most efficient way possible.”)
“I concur, ‘MEP’ (Maximum Entropy Production) for energy transfer to space.”
Maximum entropy production is a concept only applicable to information theory, never the mechanical! In thermal radiative flux entropy is all that is ever transferred, always spontaneously.”
That’s ‘bull shit’ Will! Yes, MEP has its problems, but this is due to the inability to identify ‘attractors’! Can ‘you’ identify these ‘sources’ of/for ‘interaction’ (attractors)?
Please read this link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-equilibrium_thermodynamics#Speculated_principles_of_maximum_entropy_production_and_minimum_energy_dissipation
Then feel free to read the entire page.
I’ll leave further comment until your ‘measured’ response.
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: September 11, 2015 at 3:05 am
Will Janoschka says: September 10, 2015 at 3:17 am
(“Yes, hexagonal convection ‘cells’ with plumes contained in a pan. Nothing like an atmosphere.”)
“No! This ‘is’ ‘convection’! Why should/could it represent Earth’s atmosphere?”
Convection cells in a heated constrained fluid!
(“Liquids and gasses are fluids. Atmospheres require a separate category, where what goes up, need never come down, unless acted upon by some force. Didn’t Newton write something similar?”)
“Yes he did. It superseded Archimedes by proving that the ‘atmosphere’ is also ‘buoyant’, as is water.”
Newton demonstrated self-buoyancy for both ‘atmosphere itself’ and ‘ocean itself’ within a gravitational field. Archimedes demonstrated that atmosphere is weightless but ocean is not. The two are incomparable!!! Only one is compressible!
“Will Janoschka says: September 9, 2015 at 3:04 am
(((“The atmosphere’s secondary role, get rid of useless insolation power in the most efficient way possible.”)))https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean/comment-page-5/#comment-form-load-service:Facebook
((“I concur, ‘MEP’ (Maximum Entropy Production) for energy transfer to space.”))
(“Maximum entropy production is a concept only applicable to information theory, never the mechanical! In thermal radiative flux entropy is all that is ever transferred, always spontaneously.”)
“That’s ‘bull shit’ Will! Yes, MEP has its problems, but this is due to the inability to identify ‘attractors’! Can ‘you’ identify these ‘sources’ of/for ‘interaction’ (attractors)?”
Ray,
In information theory, MEP is the deliberate process or ‘production’ of distinguishing/separating that with information, and the limits of that information, from everything else called opinion, guess, lies, etcetera, etcetera; i.e. entropy, randomness, nonsense! The maximization of that entropy, in order to get to unbiased information. That is all. Nothing to do with energy or power. Any application to the mechanical or electromagnetic is a deliberate lie!! You cannot even identify what you may mean by your fake nebulous ‘entropy’!
I refuse to discuss further until you, with inability to identify ‘attractors’ and ‘entropy’, can and will actually identify your attractors and entropy to others such as me!
Will Janoschka says: September 11, 2015 at 9:02 am
Sorry Will, I thought you were ‘au fait’ with attractors.
An ‘attractor’ shows/involves the path of ‘energy transfer’ between the ‘PDs’ (Potential Differences) between ‘high energy’ and ‘low energy’ (small entropy and greater entropy).
Energy is drawn into ‘basins’ that ‘attract’ energy from the ‘energy source’.
This probably isn’t helpful, but perhaps this link may help:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Attractor.html
Hmm. Couldn’t do this with MS Edge, but it worked with MS IE!
Anyhow, the ‘basin’ is the ‘sink’ for any energy that’s compatible with the environment presented.
To keep this on thread, it helps to demarcate the point between radiative and convective influence for energy transfer preference.
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: September 12, 2015 at 4:02 am
Will Janoschka says: September 11, 2015 at 9:02 am
(“I refuse to discuss further until you, with inability to identify ‘attractors’ and ‘entropy’, can and will actually identify your attractors and entropy to others such as me!”)
I think this statement is what you are referring.
“Sorry Will, I thought you were ‘au fait’ with attractors.”
No Ray, To me such concepts are extremely ugly, and to be avoided when possible!
“An ‘attractor’ shows/involves the path of ‘energy transfer’ between the ‘PDs’ (Potential”
OK I can see a possible value for path integrals, Laplace transforms, cyclic functions and perhaps fractal geometry.
Under what conditions are the use of attractors and undefined entropy contraindicated?
“Differences) between ‘high energy’ and ‘low energy’
Aah! Here we differ greatly in POV! I see no ‘high energy’ nor “low energy”. Mater of fact to me the whole idea of energy ls nonsense because of the multiple meanings of the word. (more later)
I envision only a difference in potential, that often has the concept of spontaneity to that difference. That spontaneity cannot be in a direction that may increase the potential difference. 2LTD.
For example a electrical dry cell one terminal is called positive one negative. Neither is higher or lower potential than the other, as true potentials have no reference,though perhaps asymptotes. The difference in potential is called voltage and the battery can produce power to do work! The through variable is called current or majority carrier mobility. These two are in opposite directions but are never confused they are but negation povs of the same thing. The through variable dotted with the potential becomes power or capability to do work. Work is ‘some’ intended construction that uses up power! If no work is done but power is still used up, that lost power is called entropy and collects as a constant specific heat in the lowest temperature mass of a closed system or discarded elsewhere/when with an open system even if no mass is actually transferred.
“(small entropy and greater entropy)”
What is your definition of entropy that is ‘in’ different locations. Perhaps you are referring to some sort of (old time) sensible heat, now mistakenly referred to as internal energy for some insane reason.
“Energy is drawn into ‘basins’ that ‘attract’ energy from the ‘energy source’.”
Whether a through variable is pulled or pushed is but a pov and ‘all’ povs must be satisfied for understanding!
Back to power and energy Energy can be an accumulation of power generally associated with some mass. Energy can also be the expression of power within a time interval. Within a time interval can also be a unit of action called Planck’s constant. This is for the 1/t (cyclic) form of four-space. Can you state what form is meant to be conserved by 1LTD, when conserved?
“Anyhow, the ‘basin’ is the ‘sink’ for any energy that’s compatible with the environment presented.”
What kind of energy? Where is this so called sink in Earth’s atmosphere?
“To keep this on thread, it helps to demarcate the point between radiative and convective influence for energy transfer preference. Best regards, Ray.”
In any thread on atmospheric convection, convective heat transfer, both sensible and latent is always outward and always eventually tales on the form of spontaneous entropy dispatch to space via EMR, from all levels of the atmosphere. Please define the point you wish demarcated! None of that entropy remains in the atmosphere or reverts back to power/energy. There does seem to be some work done in accelerating atmospheric mass including water in all 5 phases. This too ends up entropy to be dispatched to space. Most all motion of atmospheric mass itself seems to be re-alignment of angular momentum with no work.
All the best! -will-
Will Janoschka says: September 12, 2015 at 7:30 am
“No Ray, To me such concepts are extremely ugly, and to be avoided when possible!”
So you ‘do’ have a previous experience of the ‘attractor’ scenario! Don’t shrink from this Will, it ‘honestly’ highlights the limits of our understanding of energy transfer.
With the ‘attractor’ scenario, accumulation and dissipation of energy is ‘accounted for’ within the ‘limits’ of current understanding.
“OK I can see a possible value for path integrals, Laplace transforms, cyclic functions and perhaps fractal geometry.
Under what conditions are the use of attractors and undefined entropy contraindicated?”
When you expect all ‘radiative activity’ to ‘exit to space’ from ‘near surface’ activity. When you expect ‘convective activity’ in the strat. You name it! The ‘imponderables’ are ‘extensive’ when you think negatively.
TBH, this is the first time I’ve had two quotes from one ‘split’ sentence and I can’t reply accurately.
‘Energy’, in its many forms, makes leaps, hops and bounds between ‘bowls’ that ‘retard’, or ‘hang on’ to energy. The ‘compatibility’ (close resonance) of the energy with a bowl determines the ‘attractor strength’. The ‘capacity’ of the bowl determines the amount of energy that can be contained, the rate (determined by local attractors) that the bowl can be ‘charged/discharged’ and the degree of ‘lag’ that can be encountered.
Yes, it looks to be an ‘RC’ circuit at first glance.
I reserve further comment.
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: September 15, 2015 at 1:29 am
Will Janoschka says: September 12, 2015 at 7:30 am
(“No Ray, To me such concepts are extremely ugly, and to be avoided when possible!”)
“So you ‘do’ have a previous experience of the ‘attractor’ scenario! Don’t shrink from this Will, it ‘honestly’ highlights the limits of our understanding of energy transfer.With the ‘attractor’ scenario, accumulation and dissipation of energy is ‘accounted for’ within the ‘limits’ of current understanding.”
From your reference, I could see some Laplace stuff for avoiding poles and zeroes, some fractals stuff and the so called “attractor” of 0.7391 for iterated cos(x). I see no possible application for any thing physical, mechanical, electrical, or electromagnetic. It is abstract mathematical dog poo! I also see no need for accounting of energy! Energy comes from, and goes to, constantly. Accounting for the current status of power, is useful to determine engine force application effectiveness/efficiency. 2LTD concerning observed spontaneity is a law!! 🙂
All the best! -will-.
The word “attractor” has unfortunate common meanings.
tchannon says: September 16, 2015 at 3:14 pm
“The word “attractor” has unfortunate common meanings.”
Yes! Where is the word ‘attractor’ applicable to Earth’s atmosphere or atmospheric convection, always powered via spontaneous force or potential difference?
All the best! -will-
Will Janoschkas says: September 16, 2015 at 10:15 am
“I see no possible application for any thing physical, mechanical, electrical, or electromagnetic.”
Look again Will. Its analogue, not ‘digital’ so there’s no “iterated cos(x)”. The ‘observation’ may well be ‘timed’, but the ‘scenario’ is ‘seamless’!
“It is abstract mathematical dog poo! I also see no need for accounting of energy!”
Without an ‘account’, how could you begin to understand what goes where?
“Energy comes from, and goes to, constantly.”
Yes, this is the ‘dynamic’ of/for the ‘system’!
“Accounting for the current status of power, is useful to determine engine force application effectiveness/efficiency.”
Here, your narrative is too narrow. The ‘attractor’ scenario/analysis requires that ‘all paths’ of energy transfer are disclosed to reveal ‘all’ the ‘bowls’ that energy sinks into. Its an analysis that attempts to disclose a more complete understanding of ‘inefficiency’ against the more widely understood ‘efficiency’ of/for a ‘system’ for us engineers.
For us, ‘inefficiency’ is the caveat that can declare/disclose the ‘other’ attractors!
“Accounting for the current status of power, is useful to determine engine force application effectiveness/efficiency.”
Again, ‘look to inefficiency’! This is where ‘power drain’ transfers energy into ‘another’ ‘system’!
“2LTD concerning observed spontaneity is a law!! :-)”
Please ‘explain’ this in ‘longhand’. I don’t understand.
Best regards, Ray.
“Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments,
and they wander off through equation after equation and
eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.”— Nikola Tesla
suricat says: September 19, 2015 at 2:47 am
Will Janoschkas says: September 16, 2015 at 10:15 am
(“I see no possible application for any thing physical, mechanical, electrical, or electromagnetic.”)
“Look again Will. Its analogue, not ‘digital’ so there’s no “iterated cos(x)”. The ‘observation’ may well be ‘timed’, but the ‘scenario’ is ‘seamless’!”
I try to find definitions for the word “attractor”! Mathematically the ‘attractor’ is the eventual “residue” of any continuous or iterated function of itself, x = f(x)! Fractals are exceedingly complex but never random. The trivial is that x = f(x), where f() is the identity operator, and x is its own ‘attractor’. Most all bounded conic functions, have even or odd “parity” about zero. (ob gerade oder ungerade Parität). Odd functions (negation symmetry, sin(x)) have an attractor of zero, while (real symmetry, cos(x)) have an attractor elsewhere within the range of that function. The ‘attractor’ for (x=cos(x)), with x limited to p/m PI, is quickly 0.739085, but must oscillate about the true value which is irrational.
You seem to be writing of something else, that I ‘call’ the lesser potential of some potential difference, with the mathematical ‘attractor’ being a zero potential difference. Also this zero potential difference is the ‘attractor’ of spontaneity!! There is no gravitational potential/potential difference ‘between two rigid masses’ with zero length interval between surfaces of the two masses. Work is required to separate them.
This is way different than the work required to bring two like ‘charges’ from infinity into proximity. This physical has both, but only one requires mass! Any attempt to ignore one or convert one to the other must fail! E(nergy) is not equivalent to mc^2.
(“It is abstract mathematical dog poo! I also see no need for accounting of energy!”)
“Without an ‘account’, how could you begin to understand what goes where?”
Move the ‘accounting’ to ‘power’ that needs no “accumulation of power” that is called the time integral of power or one form of ‘energy’.
(“Energy comes from, and goes to, constantly.”)
“Yes, this is the ‘dynamic’ of/for the ‘system’!” —– 🙂
(“Accounting for the current status of power, is useful to determine engine force application effectiveness/efficiency.”)
“Here, your narrative is too narrow.”
That may be true. If so, you also are being too narrow, by requiring mass for energy! My POV acknowledges mass but does not require such.
“The ‘attractor’ scenario/analysis requires that ‘all paths’ of energy transfer are disclosed to reveal ‘all’ the ‘bowls’ that energy sinks into. Its an analysis that attempts to disclose a more complete understanding of ‘inefficiency’ against the more widely understood ‘efficiency’ of/for a ‘system’ for us engineers.”
I still don’t get how your POV can be an improvement over shedding that stuff ‘unrequired’ for understanding.
“For us, ‘inefficiency’ is the caveat that can declare/disclose the ‘other’ attractors!”
Circular! Perhaps try just that! The other ‘energy’ power within an interval of time, space, or both . Energy within a whole cycle of EMR flux. Mistakenly called a “photon”!
(“Accounting for the current status of power, is useful to determine engine force application effectiveness/efficiency.”)
“Again, ‘look to inefficiency’! This is where ‘power drain’ transfers energy into ‘another’ ‘system’!”
I do! Have you a problem with rate of entropy (S/t) = inefficiency = (1-efficiency)?
(“2LTD concerning observed spontaneity is a law!! 🙂 ”)
“Please ‘explain’ this in ‘longhand’. I don’t understand. Best regards, Ray.”
I’ll try! Rudy Clausius should have written ‘Spontaneous don’t go uphill!’. Then let 1LTD live or die on its own. This would have solved the current junk of atmospheric potential.
There is a thermal potential difference with lesser upward. This indicates spontaneous upward heat conduction is permitted. There is a pressure potential difference with lesser upward. This indicates spontaneous upward mass flow is permitted. However gravity still negates both of those and maintains such negation with any atmospheric compressible fluid independent of density. Your mass/volume!! I do not need mass; massless, weightless, gas molecules are sufficient.
In this atmosphere what is permitted, but not promoted, is called ‘isentropic mass motion of the atmosphere within itself’. No work, no entropy! The atmosphere is an isopotential! External forms of power may be applied with expected result, (work). Atmospheric inertia is still present but no continued force is required to sustain motion. I am really beginning to hate symbolic formula without the requirement for exact understand of each symbol in this context!
All the best! -will-
Will Janoschka says: September 19, 2015 at 6:50 am
Thanks Will! You’ve explained a query I had with Tom Vonk’s declaration/explication on the subject of ‘f(x)’ (I didn’t have a clue from his explanation)! However, I ‘instinctively’ knew and understood this before I was introduced to ‘attractor theory’.
‘Water’ weighs nothing in water, and ‘atmosphere’ weighs nothing in atmosphere! Bullshit! This is ‘hydrostatic ballance’ and not ‘weight’!
I’ll add that ‘x’ is a ‘singular system’, but all of Earth’s systems include ‘x0’, ‘x1’, ‘x2’, ‘x3’, ‘x4’, etc.. Thus, the ‘main attractor’ may well amount to ‘less than half’ the value of/for the total ‘energy transport’.
I need to think further on this and will get back.
“I am really beginning to hate symbolic formula without the requirement for exact understand of each symbol in this context!”
I concur, but its good to talk.
Your quoted ‘2LTD’, when ‘googled’, revealed many limited companies and ‘google schollar’ only linked to papers related to the human endochrine system. 😦 That’s just ‘wrong’)!
That’s another reason why I believe ‘it’s good to talk’!
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: September 22, 2015 at 2:25 am
(‘Water’ weighs nothing in water, and ‘atmosphere’ weighs nothing in atmosphere! Bullshit! This is ‘hydrostatic balance’ and not ‘weight’!)
I have no Idea where that came from!!
Archimedes carefully demonstrated that the measured weight of a volume in the atmosphere although displacing that volume of atmosphere may have buoyancy, partially submerged in water (it floats). The very beginning of physical science also requiring no mass (concept thereof). The reduction in weight (to zero) of that floating volume, partially submerged, precisely matches the weight of water displaced into that same atmosphere with considerably less volume. If two different displaced volumes of atmosphere display no difference in weight, please explain your concept of ‘weight’ of this atmosphere! You cannot! Science has gone downhill ever since!!
Hydrostatic balance or equilibrium has nothing to do with atmosphere or meteorology, only floating in water. You get to pay for movement of whatever increased the ship’s displacement of water. No charge, nor refund, for the lesser displacement of atmosphere that has no weight. It is the careful balancing of nuevo concepts of atmospheric pressure, density, and temperature; that allow your brain-washers to have you accept atmospheric weight!
“I’ll add that ‘x’ is a ‘singular system’, but all of Earth’s systems include ‘x0’, ‘x1’, ‘x2’, ‘x3’, ‘x4’, etc.. Thus, the ‘main attractor’ may well amount to ‘less than half’ the value of/for the total ‘energy transport’. I need to think further on this and will get back.”
Ah, perhaps E= (mv^2)/2 from some linear acceleration of stuff! It gets much worse with the insane symbolic algebra. Consider the accepted E= mc^2!! This demands that Energy is represented by mass spreading out in two orthogonal directions (surface) at the velocity of electromagnetic propagation in all of those directions. Have you considered The other ‘energy’ power within an interval of time, space, or both? Energy within a whole cycle of EMR flux. Mistakenly called a “photon”!
Will Janoschka says: September 19, 2015 at 6:50 am
(“I am really beginning to hate symbolic formula without the requirement for exact understand of each symbol in this context!”)
“I concur, but its good to talk.”
Learning comes from doing! Learning ‘what not to do’, comes from trusting those few who already did, and still survived! —- I find many that can not do, they only teach!
“Your quoted ‘2LTD’, when ‘googled’, revealed many limited companies and ‘google schollar’ only linked to papers related to the human endochrine system. 😦 That’s just ‘wrong’)!”
Sorry: ‘Second Law of Thermodynamics’. Mostly maligned by entropy. 2LDT is true Rudy, work is poking at the bugs, this must have entropy. Spontaneity is observing what happens after you stop poking at. Best to be way uphill, as spontaneous don’t go uphill!! Bugs still hate you!
“That’s another reason why I believe ‘it’s good to talk’! Best regards, Ray”
Most enjoyable! All the best! -will-
Will Janoschka says: September 22, 2015 at 5:18 am
“(‘Water’ weighs nothing in water, and ‘atmosphere’ weighs nothing in atmosphere! Bullshit! This is ‘hydrostatic balance’ and not ‘weight’!)
I have no Idea where that came from!!”
It came from Ben’s assertion, but a ‘massive object’ can’t possess the property of ‘inertia’ in an ‘inertial reference frame’ without ‘also’ possessing the property of ‘weight’ within a ‘gravitational’ reference frame! The two ‘properties’ are ‘composite’ within the state of ‘mass’!
“Archimedes carefully demonstrated that the measured weight of a volume in the atmosphere although displacing that volume of atmosphere may have buoyancy, partially submerged in water (it floats). The very beginning of physical science also requiring no mass (concept thereof). The reduction in weight (to zero) of that floating volume, partially submerged, precisely matches the weight of water displaced into that same atmosphere with considerably less volume. If two different displaced volumes of atmosphere display no difference in weight, please explain your concept of ‘weight’ of this atmosphere! You cannot! Science has gone downhill ever since!!
Hydrostatic balance or equilibrium has nothing to do with atmosphere or meteorology, only floating in water. You get to pay for movement of whatever increased the ship’s displacement of water. No charge, nor refund, for the lesser displacement of atmosphere that has no weight. It is the careful balancing of nuevo concepts of atmospheric pressure, density, and temperature; that allow your brain-washers to have you accept atmospheric weight!”
Will. If you ‘float’ a piece of wood on water, it ‘floats’ with a ‘given buoyancy’ proportionate to the ‘weight of the wood’ displacing a volume of water equal to the weight of the wood. If you ‘increase’ the atmospheric pressure above the ‘floating wood’, the ‘wood’ becomes ‘less buoyant’! Why? Gas cells within the wood become ‘compressed’ and some water may displace air trapped within the porous wood material, but this doesn’t represent the full change in density disparity.
With an increase in atmospheric pressure the density disparity between ‘liquids’ and ‘gasses’ is reduced proportionately by the ‘compression’ of the gas and the ‘resistance to compression’ of the liquid. As the ‘density’ of the gas increases with increasing pressure, the density of the liquid remains ~constant. You’d be forgiven if you thought that this would make a difference, but it doesn’t. Both fluids, gas and liquid, are in ‘hydrostatic equilibrium’ where ‘pressure’ translates as ‘weight’. The ‘residual’ ‘mass in a gravity field’ is a constant for the gravity field under observation.
“Ah, perhaps E= (mv^2)/2 from some linear acceleration of stuff! It gets much worse with the insane symbolic algebra. Consider the accepted E= mc^2!! This demands that Energy is represented by mass spreading out in two orthogonal directions (surface) at the velocity of electromagnetic propagation in all of those directions. Have you considered The other ‘energy’ power within an interval of time, space, or both? Energy within a whole cycle of EMR flux. Mistakenly called a “photon”!”
This looks like a rant Will. I’m sure you understand that a “photon” is the lowest ‘observable’ intensity of an EMR emission.
E=mc^2 isn’t a 2D proposition Will (I think you confuse this with Einstein’s proposal for ‘special relativity’). Its a ‘conversion’ of mass to energy. Any ‘distribution’ of energy would be ‘360 x 360 degrees x temporal event’. Its in 3D (arguably in 4D, taking the ‘temporal’ element into account).
“Sorry: ‘Second Law of Thermodynamics’. Mostly maligned by entropy. 2LDT is true Rudy, work is poking at the bugs, this must have entropy. Spontaneity is observing what happens after you stop poking at. Best to be way uphill, as spontaneous don’t go uphill!! Bugs still hate you!”
Thanks for the disclosure of the acronym, however, “entropy” isn’t all its made up to be.
Well there you go again. ‘Energy’ can’t be destroyed, it only ‘leaks’ into places that you didn’t know existed. This becomes the foundation for ‘energy exchange’ between attractors!
“Most enjoyable! All the best! -will-”
Yes. I enjoy our exchanges as well.
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says:
September 26, 2015 at 3:08 am
With an increase in atmospheric pressure the density disparity between ‘liquids’ and ‘gasses’ is reduced proportionately by the ‘compression’ of the gas and the ‘resistance to compression’ of the liquid. As the ‘density’ of the gas increases with increasing pressure, the density of the liquid remains ~constant.
The density of gas changes, the density of liquid does not.
Force applied to gas changes density force applied to liquid is transmitted.
This is a fundamental difference.
Both fluids, gas and liquid, are in ‘hydrostatic equilibrium’ where ‘pressure’ translates as ‘weight’.
According to my understanding, in hydrostatic theory weight causes pressure and pressure balances weight. That is circular logic.
Pressure is caused by motion in all directions.
Gas has no weight. Gas molecules are accelerating and decelerating much quicker than g = 10m/s^2. which is masked.
The ‘residual’ ‘mass in a gravity field’ is a constant for the gravity field under observation.
Inertial mass is constant. Weight varies.
“The density of gas changes, the density of liquid does not.”
No. The density of a liquid does change. Likewise the density of a solid does change. Sorry about what that does to your (or maybe Miles) understanding. Doesn’t change much compared to gases but change it does.
Also no, a gas does have weight, just like a liquid or solid has weight when using the proper definition of ‘weight’ of a mass in a gravitational field.
See any good physics book, or are you in the process of redefining physics to meet your understanding?
wayne says:
September 29, 2015 at 3:53 pm
The density of a liquid does change
However I see at this site:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/compress.htm
H2O compressibility = 46 x 10^-6 atm^-1 46 ppm parts per million
Air increase pressure x 2 reduce volume x 2
H2O compressibility is negligible
a gas does have weight, just like a liquid or solid has weight when using the proper definition of ‘weight’ of a mass in a gravitational field.
Weight is downward force. I see no evidence of gas exerting downward force.
Pressure is not downward force. It is force in all directions.
I accept that gas molecules are affected by the Earth’s gravity field. But not in the way liquids and solids are.
Molecules in liquids and solids are continuously bonded. They are not compressible and transmit force, such as weight.
The molecules of gas are not bonded. They move independently. They accelerate and decelerate by 100’s of m/s^2 very quickly. This masks the more gentle gravity.
The average velocity of molecules is changed by the difference in gravity with height.
suricat says: September 26, 2015 at 3:08 am
“Will. If you ‘float’ a piece of wood on water, it ‘floats’ with a ‘given buoyancy’ proportionate to the ‘weight of the wood’ displacing a volume of water equal to the weight of the wood. If you ‘increase’ the atmospheric pressure above the ‘floating wood’, the ‘wood’ becomes ‘less buoyant’! Why? Gas cells within the wood become ‘compressed’ and some water may displace air trapped within the porous wood material, but this doesn’t represent the full change in density disparity.”
This has happened in a rigid chamber with variable pressure, but never with repeatability in an atmosphere! While the wood is floating, even submerged it has neutral buoyancy. Every sub mass of any ‘atmosphere’, always remains at neutral buoyancy independent of locational pressure/density, or gravitational force. I can squeeze that wood in all directions until it no longer floats, negative buoyancy. Such wood still displaces only the weight of water exactly equal to its reduction in weight when submerged verses the displacement of the exact same volume of atmosphere (displacing only vacuum). This proves that atmosphere has no weight (expresses no heaviness).
His careful, precise engineering measurement was Archimedes gift to the science and the world. Many that claim to be scientific,reject the need for evidence, and have only fantasy formula. All of your atmospheric W=mg, must be symbolic nonsense as Archimedes falsified such, long before the discovery of mass or gravity. Thanks Ray.
wayne says: September 29, 2015 at 3:53 pm
“Also no, a gas does have weight, just like a liquid or solid has weight when using the proper definition of ‘weight’ of a mass in a gravitational field.”
Any mass including gas can have weight when allowed to express heaviness. No sub mass of a compressible atmospheric can have such expression. All such expression must be cancelled by gravity for an atmosphere to become a thermodynamic isopotential with thermostatic gradients of both pressure and temperature as thoroughly discussed by Maxwell/Boltzmann vs Loschmidt!. As far as the symbolic W = mg! read the above! Thanks Wayne.
Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments,
and they wander off through equation after equation and
eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.”— Nikola Tesla
Roger Clague says: September 29, 2015 at 7:14 pm
“Weight is downward force. I see no evidence of gas exerting downward force.
Pressure is not downward force. It is force in all directions.”
Thank you Roger for joining in! Please try to understand the huge difference of gas constrained by a rigid volume and uniform pressure, and a very special form of compressible fluid called an atmosphere that is prevented from expressing heaviness by the very same gravity that somehow prevents that atmosphere from spontaneously expanding without limit! It is part of gravity!
All the best! -will-
Roger Clague says: September 29, 2015 at 3:01 pm
“The density of gas changes, the density of liquid does not.”
I didn’t say that, you did!
“Force applied to gas changes density force applied to liquid is transmitted.
This is a fundamental difference.”
No it isn’t. The two are ‘identical’ when the ‘modifier’ of ‘compressible’ is applied (please try to improve your punctuation for better understanding)! However, if you imply that the “fundamental difference” is ‘compressible’ behavior, I concur.
“According to my understanding, in hydrostatic theory weight causes pressure and pressure balances weight. That is circular logic.”
How/why is it “circular logic” Roger? If you ‘dive’ into water with a ‘snorkel’ you can ‘breath’ (inhale and exhale) normally, but if you ‘dive’ to greater depth you need an air supply at an increased pressure that can allow your lungs to ‘work’ as if they are at a ‘normal atmospheric pressure’. The water pressure acting on your thorax proscribes ‘inhalation’ by virtue of the musculature of your thorax being too weak to overcome ambient pressure at depth.
The ‘depth’ into an atmosphere governed/detrained by a ‘gravitational field’ alters the ‘static weight’ of a ‘compressible’ fluid mass within that ‘gravitation field’ as the ‘pressure’ induced by the weight of the ‘non-solid’ atmosphere above! This should be a ‘given’.
“Pressure is caused by motion in all directions.”
No! ‘Pressure’ is generated by the ‘detrainment’ of mass, at a given temperature, within a ‘gravity field’.
“Gas has no weight. Gas molecules are accelerating and decelerating much quicker than g = 10m/s^2. which is masked.”
The ‘speed’ of a gas molecule has little to do with ‘convection’ per se. This relates more to the ‘diffusion’ of gasses.
“Inertial mass is constant. Weight varies.”
For the sake of Archimedes, I concur. However, the ‘environment’ may disagree. 😉
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says:
October 1, 2015 at 2:33 am
pressure’ induced by the weight of the ‘non-solid’ atmosphere above!
Air pressure caused by weight of atmosphere is the opinion of most. It is not my view. It was not the view of Galileo and some others today.
‘Pressure’ is generated by the ‘detrainment’ of mass, at a given temperature, within a ‘gravity field’.
Yes but how is air pressure caused by the gravity field.
How does gravity cause ‘detrainment’ of mass
How does gravity affect mass?
You say by causing a force, f =ma weight, mg,
I say by causing change of momentum, mv using v^2 = 2gs,
Consider the ISS.
The crew are weightless ( in orbit )
The cabin is at 1bar air pressure The cabin air is also in orbit and so is also weightless
Therefore air pressure is not caused by weight
Roger Clague says: September 29, 2015 at 7:14 pm
“Weight is downward force. I see no evidence of gas exerting downward force.”
Gas exerts force in ‘all’ directions Roger. Including ‘down’!
“Pressure is not downward force. It is force in all directions.”
Yes, and the ‘pressure’ is generated by the weight of fluid above the altitude under observation for an atmosphere constrained by gravity.
“I accept that gas molecules are affected by the Earth’s gravity field. But not in the way liquids and solids are.”
Well, no. They’re all different, but are affected. I’d tend to group gasses and liquids together, with solids reserved as ‘center of mass’ distinctive objects.
“Molecules in liquids and solids are continuously bonded.”
Disagree! Molecular bonds are fixed for solids, but for liquid bonds the ‘valency’ is more like a gaseous valency.
“They are not compressible and transmit force, such as weight.”
Disagree! The ‘compression’ property of most liquids and solids is very small in comparison to gasses, but it exists. Gasses give a very ‘spongy’ response to ‘pressure change’, but ‘pressure change’ isn’t all about ‘convection/advection. Its more to do with the ‘causal process’.
Please think more about ‘fluidity’!
“The molecules of gas are not bonded. They move independently. They accelerate and decelerate by 100’s of m/s^2 very quickly.”
As do molecules in the ‘liquid phase’, but with less ‘gusto’.
“This masks the more gentle gravity.”
We may have a ‘common ground’ here.
“The average velocity of molecules is changed by the difference in gravity with height.”
I’m ‘all ears’ Roger. The ‘gravity constant’ barely alters with altitude throughout the Earth’s atmosphere/atmospheres.
What do you propose?
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says:
October 3, 2015 at 3:43 am
RogC “Pressure is not downward force. It is force in all directions.”
Suricat: Yes, and the ‘pressure’ is generated by the weight of fluid above the altitude under observation for an atmosphere constrained by gravity.
RogC: Pressure, a force in all directions cannot be generated ( caused ) by weight which is force in only one direction.
Suricat: I’d tend to group gasses and liquids together, with solids reserved as ‘center of mass’ distinctive objects.
RogC; Why group gasses and liquids are fluids?
Latent heat of fusion /melting H2O = 300J/g
Latent heat of condensation/evaporation H2O = 2400J/g
Liquid is more like solid than it is like gas
Suricat: The ‘compression’ property of most liquids and solids is very small in comparison to gasses, but it exists
RogC Compressibility of water is 50ppm = 1/20 000
RogC: “The molecules of gas are not bonded. They move independently. They accelerate and decelerate by 100’s of m/s^2 very quickly.”
Suricat: As do molecules in the ‘liquid phase’, but with less ‘gusto’.
RogC:
http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/aboutwater.html
“Recent work from Richard SayKally’s laboratory shows that the hydrogen bonds in liquid water break and re-form so rapidly (often in distorted configurations) that the liquid can be regarded as a continuous network of hydrogen-bonded molecules.”
RogC: “The average velocity of molecules is changed by the difference in gravity with height.”
Suricat: The ‘gravity constant’ barely alters with altitude throughout the Earth’s atmosphere/atmospheres. What do you propose?
RogC I am proposing analysing of the interaction of gravity and gas molecules using statistical mechanics of gas not fluid mechanics. Can I explain properties of the atmosphere that fluid mechanic does not?
The acceleration field of the Earth at 20km is 0.6% less than at the surface
g at 20km = 0.997 x g at the surface
It is this change in g that affects the average velocity of molecules
v^2 = 2gs s = distance over which acceleration is applied = 20km
v^2 = 2 x 0.007 x 10m/s^2 x 20 000m
= 2800
v =50m/s
It is this 50m/s^2 change in velocity that causes the difference in temperature between surface and 20km
I use only Laws of Motion and statistics not S-B or IGL.
Gas molecules behave like identical particles and there are 10^23 per m^3
Does the air in the ISS have weight?
Roger Clague says: October 5, 2015 at 12:34 pm
“Does the air in the ISS have weight?”
Do the humans in the ISS have weight? If not, then all humans have no weight in your way of reasoning.
“RogC: Pressure, a force in all directions cannot be generated ( caused ) by weight which is force in only one direction.”
Atmospheric pressure is caused by the collisions of moving molecules.
The pressure is ‘contained’ by:
– the surface, pushing ‘back’ with as much force as the weight of the entire column exerts on it.
– horizontally by the surrounding air, that pushes back around the entire planet.
( you DO accept that the earth is not flat?)
– vertically by the weight of the column above the altitude under consideration.
After almost 1500 posts on something simple as convection even hydrostatic equlibrium is still not known / understood. Cutting edge ‘science’ indeed.
Roger C: Pressure, a force in all directions cannot be generated ( caused ) by weight which is force in only one direction.
Of course it can. Take a plastic bag full of air. place it on the ground. Put a brick on it. The brick is pulled straight down by gravity (giving it its weight)
The pressure of the air in the bag has increased.
What increased the pressure of the air in the bag Roger?
Ben Wouters says: October 5, 2015 at 1:21 pm
“After almost 1500 posts on something simple as convection even hydrostatic equlibrium is still not known / understood. Cutting edge ‘science’ indeed.”
I guess convection is not so simple! What was the Archimedes definition of hydrostatic equilibrium? He invented it. Why do you change it? Can you even describe the difference between an ‘atmosphere’ and a gas? Nothing but fantasy!!
Roger Clague says: October 5, 2015 at 12:34 pm
First of all, apologies to any queries to me that have been unanswered. My time is short.
RC, ‘gravity’ can only ‘alter’ the velocity of a molecule in the ‘vectored direction’ in which ‘gravity’ exerts its force. That’s ‘~vertical’ to the ‘center of mass’ of the planet’s ‘CG’ (Center of Gravity)!
IMHO its more likely that your ‘correlation’ is a ‘log’ factor for ‘pressure change’ other than a ‘gravity’ ‘co-relationship’.
“Does the air in the ISS have weight?”
Yes it does! However, ‘orbital inertia’ decrees that the ‘falling ISS’ never achieves ‘re-entry’!
Your link was interesting. It reinforces the need for clarification of the ‘properties of H2O’. Its mention of ‘Gerridae’ is pertinent to the property of ‘surface tension’ for ‘liquid’ H2O. I term this species as ‘pond skaters’ that use ‘surface tension’ to ‘float above the water’, but ‘other species’ are ‘aquatic’ that use ‘surface tension’ to ‘hunt’ from ‘below the surface’ (‘water boatman’ phenotype).
Just add a ‘washing up liquid’ detergent and the ‘skater’ drowns, whilst the ‘boatman’ starves.
Where is this going?
Best regards, Ray.
RogC: “Does the air in the ISS have weight?”
BenW Do the humans in the ISS have weight?
I see videos of humans floating about in the ISS. I conclude they are weightless.
According to you gravity affects solid liquid and gas in the same way, by causing weight.
Therefore according to your theory the air in the ISS is weightless.
However there is normal air pressure on ISS. Measured with an aneroid barometer, not a liquid mercury one.
So air pressure in the ISS is not caused by weight.
And atmosphere pressure is also not caused by weight.
BenW: Atmospheric pressure is caused by the collisions of moving molecules.
RogC; I agree
BenW: The pressure is ‘contained’ by: – vertically by the weight of the column above the altitude under consideration.
RogC: Most of the internet says something like this
http://nova.stanford.edu/projects/mod-x/id-pres.html
Atmospheric pressure is caused by the weight of the atmosphere pushing down on itself and on the surface below it.
Is it weight or collisions? It can’t be both.
tallbloke says:
October 5, 2015 at 4:33 pm
Roger C: Pressure, a force in all directions cannot be generated ( caused ) by weight which is force in only one direction.
Of course it can. Take a plastic bag full of air. place it on the ground. Put a brick on it. The brick is pulled straight down by gravity (giving it its weight)
The pressure of the air in the bag has increased.
What increased the pressure of the air in the bag Roger?
The pressure in the bag is increased by reducing the volume, p1v1 = p2v2.
My main argument is that air pressure cannot be caused by weight because gas does not have weight. We have air pressure on the ISS yet the air on ISS is weightless. All the mass on ISS is weightless.
RogC: “Does the air in the ISS have weight?”
Suricat: Yes it does
If the people in the ISS are weightless why isn’t the air weightless?
I am told gravity affects solid, liquid and gas in the same way?
Roger Clague says: October 6, 2015 at 11:00 am
“However there is normal air pressure on ISS. Measured with an aneroid barometer, not a liquid mercury one.
So air pressure in the ISS is not caused by weight.
And atmosphere pressure is also not caused by weight.”
Maybe the ISS is build airtight, and the life support systems regulate the internal pressure with a pump or compressed air or similar to normal pressure?
“Atmospheric pressure is caused by the weight of the atmosphere pushing down on itself and on the surface below it.”
Never wondered why a submarine gets crushed by the ‘weightless’ water when diving too deep?
The pressure at any depth is equal to the weight of the water above it. Exactly the same for the atmosphere, only air is very compressible.
Going up from the ocean floor, pressure decreases linearly, density remains more or less constant.
Going up in the atmosphere pressure AND density decrease exponentially, since the air is very compressible.
Roger Clague says: October 6, 2015 at 11:16 am
“(RogC: “Does the air in the ISS have weight?”
Suricat: Yes it does)
If the people in the ISS are weightless why isn’t the air weightless?”
The ‘people’ aren’t ‘weightless’ either Roger!
“I am told gravity affects solid, liquid and gas in the same way?”
It does! ‘Any’ ‘massive object’ is subjected to the property of ‘weight’ within the environment of a gravitational field (this includes electrons and neutrinos). The confusion on the ‘macro’ perspective seems to be an understanding of the observational objectives between ‘solid’ and ‘fluid’ entities.
The ‘atmosphere’ in your ISS argument is obfuscating. This isn’t an ‘atmosphere’, its an ‘encapsulated environment’ that provides a ‘survival bubble’ for the crew. The ISS is in orbit at a terminal velocity that proscribes any Earth re-entry and isn’t part of Earth’s systems, other than the ‘gravity’ component (loosely speaking on the subject of atractors 🙂 ).
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: October 7, 2015 at 1:18 am
———————————————————————————-
Roger Clague says: October 6, 2015 at 11:16 am
“(RogC: “Does the air in the ISS have weight?” Suricat: Yes it does)
If the people in the ISS are weightless why isn’t the air weightless?”
The ‘people’ aren’t ‘weightless’ either Roger!
“I am told gravity affects solid, liquid and gas in the same way?”
—————————————————————————————-
“It does! ‘Any’ ‘massive object’ is subjected to the property of ‘weight’ within the environment of a gravitational field (this includes electrons and neutrinos). The confusion on the ‘macro’ perspective seems to be an understanding of the observational objectives between ‘solid’ and ‘fluid’ entities.”
Ray! Not at all!! Weight is never an expression of symbols as in W=mg! That is but symbolic abstraction, quite necessary for algebraic manipulation of concepts. Often helpful for understanding. In this case, however, it is only confusion, and insistence upon an opposing POV.
Weight in every context is the ‘expression’ of abstract ‘heaviness’ (whatever that may be)! Mass in any form including gas in a gravitational field, “may” express heaviness, but only in confined, fixed volume! This ‘atmosphere’ nowhere expresses heaviness, therefore ‘weight’! In an atmosphere, the atmosphere itself has expression of gravitational force, only as pressure and density, never as an accelerative force. This atmosphere (even buoyant location in the atmosphere) is truly thermodynamically isopotential, while still exhibiting thermostatic, pressure, density, and temperature vertical gradients that cannot be spontaneously equilibrated because of opposing isentropic gravitational force (no work).
All the best! -will-
Ben Wouters says:
October 6, 2015 at 1:16 pm
Going up from the ocean floor, pressure decreases linearly, density remains more or less constant.
Going up in the atmosphere pressure AND density decrease exponentially,
Liquid p directly proportional to height
Gas p/h exponential
Liquid density constant
Gas density exponential
As you clearly explain there is no physical justification for using the same theory for liquid and gas.
That is using fluid mechanics for gas.
since the air is very compressible
It was Rene Pascal, who made popular the use of fluid mechanics for the atmosphere.
He used the analogy of squashing sacks of wool. A stack of wool sacks is continuously transmitting force (weight) to the ground. A scale under the sacks measures this force, called weight. The air is not compressed it is pushes out of the wool.
Gas is not a solid with air pockets in it. Gas is a completely different state of matter.
A column of air does not affect a scale.
Pascal’s model is a completely wrong. He was a clever mathematician, but a poor scientist.
suricat says:
October 7, 2015 at 1:18 am
‘Any’ ‘massive object’ is subjected to the property of ‘weight’ within the environment of a gravitational field (this includes electrons and neutrinos).
The ISS is in a gravity field of 0.89g
Is this not weightlessness?
I put it this way: Massive objects are subjected to acceleration or deceleration in a gravity field.
That acceleration can in special conditions cause weight. In the case of the ISS gravity is not causing weight to massive objects. The massive objects are weightless
Explained by Free-fall, centrifugal force, but still weightless.
According to you gas is affected in the same way as solid and liquid.
So therefore the gas is weightless.
The pressure in the bubble of air in the ISS is not caused by weight of the molecules (they are weightless)
Pressure all gas including the atmosphere is not caused by weight.
‘Float like an Astronaut and fly like a superhero in weightlessness.
A ZERO-G Experience is the only one of its kind.’
http://www.gozerog.com/
A wild ride on the vomit comet.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10822045/Space-tourists-on-Zero-Gs-vomit-comet-incredible-flight-to-weightless-world-of-space-travel.html
Roger Clague says: October 7, 2015 at 12:30 pm
First of all, I’d like to address a part of your remark to Ben.
“It was Rene Pascal, who made popular the use of fluid mechanics for the atmosphere.
He used the analogy of squashing sacks of wool. A stack of wool sacks is continuously transmitting force (weight) to the ground. A scale under the sacks measures this force, called weight. The air is not compressed it is pushes out of the wool.”
Please understand that your ‘analogy’ is at/on ‘another level’! For ‘sack’ read ‘gravity’, for ‘wool’ read ‘mass’, and for ‘air’ read ‘vacuum’.
This ‘scenario transcription’ should help readers to better relate your scenario with the subject under discussion. 🙂
To continue.
“The ISS is in a gravity field of 0.89g
Is this not weightlessness?”
No, it isn’t.
“I put it this way: Massive objects are subjected to acceleration or deceleration in a gravity field.”
I concur, but that’s dependent on the ‘other forces’ that are applied to them WRT the ‘gravity gradient’.
“That acceleration can in special conditions cause weight. In the case of the ISS gravity is not causing weight to massive objects. The massive objects are weightless
Explained by Free-fall, centrifugal force, but still weightless.
According to you gas is affected in the same way as solid and liquid.
So therefore the gas is weightless.”
Roger. The ‘terminal velocity’ for any ‘planet’ is determined by density of the gasses withheld by/with the ‘mass of the planet’ and the ‘rate of descent’/’gravitational attraction’ for the ‘entrained mass’ by the ‘sum’ of the two ‘masses’ (roughly).
Altitude and orbital vector plays the major part of ‘orbit’, or ‘atmospheric vector’. When ‘top-end gasses’ (gasses in the upper atmosphere) slow the object under observation, orbital decay is evident and the object becomes part of the ‘atmosphere’. However, if the object is sited above the last vestiges of the atmosphere, its truly in ‘orbit’.
“The pressure in the bubble of air in the ISS is not caused by weight of the molecules (they are weightless)
Pressure all gas including the atmosphere is not caused by weight.”
This is obfuscation. The ‘atmosphere’ within the ISS is ‘pressurised’ by artificial means and the ‘boundary’ is a ‘containment barrier’, not ‘gravity’. The ‘analogy’ is unsubstantiated for the representation of “Atmospheric convection” and ‘what it means’!
Why did you post this content?
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: October 12, 2015 at 2:20 am
“This is obfuscation. The ‘atmosphere’ within the ISS is ‘pressurised’ by artificial means and the ‘boundary’ is a ‘containment barrier’, not ‘gravity’. The ‘analogy’ is unsubstantiated for the representation of “Atmospheric convection” and ‘what it means’!
Why did you post this content? Best regards, Ray.”
Ray,
If you think that weight = mg for any mass in a gravitational field than your understanding is being undermined by nonsense algebraic formula. That formula that must remain abstract so somehow g is a function of (equal to) weight/mass. This is of course nonsense as the gravity of one mass is independent of any other mass!
The only proper concept of weight is that of heaviness or the anticipation of acceleration should that ‘observing that heaviness’ be removed (scale, post, building, etc). In the way that the Earth expresses gravity in this atmosphere is never weight, as the atmosphere is part of Earth’s gravity. The gravity expresses only as a pressure, density, and temperature gradient.
This is all in compliance with all physical laws including 2LTD. 2LTD expresses as possible, but not necessary, spontaneous power transfer in a direction of a single lower potential. This atmosphere within itself is isopotential. It expresses no spontaneous thermal, gravitational, or barometric (pressure) differentials in any direction. Any part of this atmosphere, within this atmosphere can express no weight (heaviness).
This property of this atmosphere is what allows all convection or advection if you like. All movement of atmosphere within this atmosphere requires no work. It is always isentropic but never adiabatic, as interchange of mass is still spontaneous. Of course to provide such movement in.finite time interval, non isentropic accelerations of mass must be considered., especially those concerned with change of direction of mass motion (continuum mechanics).
All the best! -will-
(suricat says: October 12, 2015 at 2:20 am)
Will Janoschka says: October 12, 2015 at 10:59 am
(“This is obfuscation. The ‘atmosphere’ within the ISS is ‘pressurised’ by artificial means and the ‘boundary’ is a ‘containment barrier’, not ‘gravity’. The ‘analogy’ is unsubstantiated for the representation of “Atmospheric convection” and ‘what it means’!
Why did you post this content? Best regards, Ray.”)
“Ray,
If you think that weight = mg for any mass in a gravitational field than your understanding is being undermined by nonsense algebraic formula.”
Will. ‘g’ is felt/effective at the ‘center of mass’, thus, ‘g’ for a solid object is felt/effective at the ‘center of the solid mass’. However, for a ‘fluid object’ that can’t hold its shape, the ‘center of the total mass’ is the ‘center of mass’ that’s ‘defined by the major ‘g’ force’ that acts upon the system!
For ‘fluid systems’, they conform to the ‘gravity gradient’ that most influences the system that they inhabit and exhibit ‘weight’ as ‘pressure’.
“That formula that must remain abstract so somehow g is a function of (equal to) weight/mass. This is of course nonsense as the gravity of one mass is independent of any other mass!”
Disagree. Here you write of ‘solid mass’ without a reference to ‘fluid mass’.
“The only proper concept of weight is that of heaviness or the anticipation of acceleration should that ‘observing that heaviness’ be removed (scale, post, building, etc). In the way that the Earth expresses gravity in this atmosphere is never weight, as the atmosphere is part of Earth’s gravity. The gravity expresses only as a pressure, density, and temperature gradient.”
I ‘kind’a’ concur Will.
See the above.
“This is all in compliance with all physical laws including 2LTD. 2LTD expresses as possible, but not necessary, spontaneous power transfer in a direction of a single lower potential. This atmosphere within itself is isopotential. It expresses no spontaneous thermal, gravitational, or barometric (pressure) differentials in any direction. Any part of this atmosphere, within this atmosphere can express no weight (heaviness).”
Whilst I concur, the ‘Second Law of Thermodynamics’ doesn’t include a ‘change’ in the ‘system’. ‘Resonance’ isn’t covered!
“This property of this atmosphere is what allows all convection or advection if you like. All movement of atmosphere within this atmosphere requires no work. It is always isentropic but never adiabatic, as interchange of mass is still spontaneous. Of course to provide such movement in.finite time interval, non isentropic accelerations of mass must be considered., especially those concerned with change of direction of mass motion (continuum mechanics).
All the best! -will-”
I concur. ‘Continuum mechanics’ seems the way forward.
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says:
October 12, 2015 at 2:20 am
Why did you post this content?
Let me summarise my point of view.
Convection in the atmosphere is caused by the pressure gradient p/h. Therefore to understand convection we must understand the cause of air pressure.
The consensus view, e.g The Feynmann Physics Lectures is that air pressure is caused by the weight of air.
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_40.html#Ch40-S1
“The pressure at height h must exceed that at h+dh by the weight of the intervening gas.”
The theory dates from Torricelli 1644. He wrote in a letter: Noi viviamo sommersi nel fondo d’un pelago d’aria. We live submerged at the bottom of an ocean of air.
That is, the atmosphere has properties similar to the liquid ocean. This is the origin of fluid dynamics applied to the atmosphere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory
“In 1738 Daniel Bernoulli published Hydrodynamica, which laid the basis for the kinetic theory of gases. In this work, Bernoulli posited the argument, still used to this day, that gases consist of great numbers of molecules moving in all directions, that their impact on a surface causes the gas pressure that we feel, and that what we experience as heat is simply the kinetic energy of their motion”
I think Torricelli and Feynman were wrong and Bernoulli was right.
I accept that all molecules have mass.
The normal evidence of weight is from scales. Air does not affect scales.
You say solids and liquids have weight so therefore so does gas.
Whatever solids and liquids do gasses will also do.
You say:
The ‘atmosphere’ within the ISS is ‘pressurised’ by artificial means and the ‘boundary’ is a ‘containment barrier’, not ‘gravity’. The ‘analogy’ is unsubstantiated for the representation of “Atmospheric convection” and ‘what it means’!
I think the ISS atmosphere does tell us something about the Earth’s atmosphere.
In my opinion the air pressure in the ISS atmosphere has the same cause as the air pressure of the Earth’s atmosphere and it is not weight.
The Gas Laws were first applied to gas artificially pressurised in a container. It is an assumption of the consensus (e.g. Feynman) analysis that the same Gas Laws apply to the atmosphere.
If you think IGL applies to the atmosphere. Then you should agree that the ISS and the Earth’s atmospheres have the same cause and properties.
Roger Clague says: October 13, 2015 at 6:15 pm
“Convection in the atmosphere is caused by the pressure gradient p/h. ”
Total nonsense. Convection is caused by DENSITY differences.
“In my opinion the air pressure in the ISS atmosphere has the same cause as the air pressure of the Earth’s atmosphere and it is not weight.”
Obviously the pressure in both cases is caused by the collisions of molecules.
The pressure is CONTAINED by the walls of the ISS, and by the weight of the air above for earths atmosphere. The weight of the air column compresses the underlying air so that the pressure is exactly equal to the weight of the upper column.
Open a hatch on the ISS, and you have an explosive decompression. Why isn’t earths atmosphere exploding into space??
suricat says: October 13, 2015 at 2:49 am
“‘Continuum mechanics’ seems the way forward.”
What do you think meteorology is all about?
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_mechanics
Under ‘Fluid Statics’:
“Hydrostatics offers physical explanations for many phenomena of everyday life, such as why atmospheric pressure changes with altitude, why wood and oil float on water, and why the surface of water is always flat and horizontal whatever the shape of its container.”
Under “Fluid Dynamics”:
“Fluid dynamics has a wide range of applications, including calculating forces and moments on aircraft, determining the mass flow rate of petroleum through pipelines, predicting weather patterns, understanding nebulae in interstellar space and modelling fission weapon detonation.”
Meteorology is all about the movement of volumes of air, nobody is interested in what individual molecules are doing.
Air moves from high pressure to low pressure areas (wind). This movement is modified by the Coriolis effect.
BenW: “Obviously the pressure in both cases is caused by the collisions of molecules. The pressure is CONTAINED by the walls of the ISS, and by the weight of the air above for earths atmosphere. ”
RogC: The question is: what is the cause of air pressure, not what contains the air. We agree the cause is the same in the ISS atmosphere as in the Earth’s atmosphere.
In the ISS the mass we see, such as the astronauts, is weightless. Therefore we can deduce that mass we cannot see such as air in the ISS is also weightless.
And therefore weight is not causing air pressure in the ISS and furthermore weight is not causing air pressure in the Earth’s atmosphere.
BenW: “The weight of the air column compresses the underlying air so that the pressure is exactly equal to the weight of the upper column.”
RogC: If the weight of air can compress underlying air why does it not compress you or me or weighing scales?
BenW:” Meteorology is all about the movement of volumes of air, nobody is interested in what individual molecules are doing.
Air moves from high pressure to low pressure areas (wind). This movement is modified by the Coriolis effect.”
RogC: Fluid dynamics is relevant to horizontal movement of air that is wind and its modification.
We cannot know what individual molecules do but we can know about the average properties of 10^23 molecules using Maxwell- Boltzmann statistical mechanics
Vertical movement of air, against gravity, such as convection can only be understood by treating the atmosphere as a gas and not as a fluid.
Dimensional analysis
Pressure is force/area, weight is force,
weight does not equal pressure
Gravity over distance = velocity
m/s^2 x s = m/s
gravity over height does reduce velocity and hence pressure
‘Atmospheric pressure decreases exponentially with altitude.’
http://www.regentsprep.org/regents/math/algtrig/atp8b/exponentialresource.htm
‘Pressure varies smoothly from the earth’s surface to the top of the mesosphere.’
suricat says: October 13, 2015 at 2:49 am
(“The only proper concept of weight is that of heaviness or the anticipation of acceleration should that ‘observing that heaviness’ be removed (scale, post, building, etc). In the way that the Earth expresses gravity in this atmosphere is never weight, as the atmosphere is part of Earth’s gravity. The gravity expresses only as a pressure, density, and temperature gradient.”)
“I ‘kind’a’ concur Will. See the above.”
I did see The center of mass of this atmosphere is very near the center of the Earth. That is why it is part of earth’s gravity. A floating ship also has no weight!! the mass is instead expressed as draft and displacement.
Oceans have a very large pressure gradient but that gradient is not expressed for the ocean water itself. The same with this atmosphere. The whole thing is isopotential although it has definite density, pressure, and temperature gradients with altitude. Both fluid bodies exhibit neutral buoyancy of the fluid itself. Although compressible, incompressible fluids work differently if this self-buoyancy were not so the fluids in this gravitational field would not act at all like they actually do.
oldbrew says: October 15, 2015 at 10:55 am
‘Atmospheric pressure decreases exponentially with altitude.’
‘Pressure varies smoothly from the earth’s surface to the top of the mesosphere.’
Indeed and so does atmospheric density! The ratio of the two however, P/rho is a constant with value 1.4 and called isentropic exponent in engineering, and gamma in chemistry. This one factor leads to the correct explanation of linear lapse rate for every troposphere. Do you have that explanation? With out that, there can be no understanding of atmospheric convection.
All the best! -will-
Will J says: ‘P/rho is a constant with value 1.4 and called isentropic exponent in engineering, and gamma in chemistry. This one factor leads to the correct explanation of linear lapse rate for every troposphere. Do you have that explanation?’
Here’s the Wiki version: 7/5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity_ratio#Relation_with_degrees_of_freedom
oldbrew says: October 15, 2015 at 11:00 pm
(Will J says: ‘P/rho is a constant with value 1.4 and called isentropic exponent in engineering, and gamma in chemistry. This one factor leads to the correct explanation of linear lapse rate for every troposphere. Do you have that explanation?’)
“Here’s the Wiki version: 7/5”
Indeed. But what is your explanation for linear lapse rate? Hint: Think of some atmosphere at a pressure altitude of 12.5 kPa and cold. Bag 8 cubic meters (2x2x2) of that in a flexible but well insulated baggy. Slowly, but with no work drag that down to the surface. No work is done, as the thing remains at neutral buoyancy all the way down. What is the pressure and volume at the surface? What is the rms velocity increase of the atmospheric molecules at the surface? Why did that change so very little? How much did the mean free path of the molecules decrease? Why has the temperature increased with no work and no heat transfer? If you can do that, then you will know the true kinetic theory of gas! Not the stupid version taught by incompetent academics. This atmosphere is weird. 😉
As your bag approaches the solid body (planet) it encounters reflected heat from the surface.
The closer it gets to the surface the more of that reflected heat there is.
Is that a circular argument? Not sure.
oldbrew says:
October 15, 2015 at 10:55 am
‘Atmospheric pressure decreases exponentially with altitude.’
http://www.regentsprep.org/regents/math/algtrig/atp8b/exponentialresource.htm
“the scale height of the atmosphere is approximately 7 kilometers.”
Scale height is a concept from the Barometric Formula. The assumption is T constant which is wrong for the atmosphere.
H = kT/mg
Click to access 7Page15.pdf
Nasa calculate H = 8.6 km, which is different from the above 7km
Here is pretty explanatory graph. They have H ~ 10km.
http://www.spaceacademy.net.au/library/notes/scaleht.htm
The interesting question is where does this exponential Barometric equation come from?
e^-kT/mg
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_40.html#Ch40-S1
In fig.40-1 he introduces dT the infinitesimal. I don’t understand why it is needed.
However when integrated it gives an exponential, which is handy, as we know from observation that is the shape of curve we are trying to explain.
I think the pressure/height gradient of the atmosphere is exponential because of the Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity distribution which is exponential.
Roger Clague says: October 15, 2015 at 10:42 am
“The question is: what is the cause of air pressure, not what contains the air.”
If you don’t ‘contain’ pressure it will equalize with the surrounding pressure.
Open the bottle and the pressure will equalize and the bottle restore to its original form.
“In the ISS the mass we see, such as the astronauts, is weightless. Therefore we can deduce that mass we cannot see such as air in the ISS is also weightless.
And therefore weight is not causing air pressure in the ISS and furthermore weight is not causing air pressure in the Earth’s atmosphere.”
Again total nonsense. You can’t compare an airtight container in free fall around the earth with the atmosphere that is expanding against gravity.
” If the weight of air can compress underlying air why does it not compress you or me or weighing scales?” It should be totally obvious that the internal pressure of a body or scale is equal to the external pressure on it, so the pressure doesn’t register.
A scale on the bottom of the ocean doesn’t register any weight as well, but try going their with a regular submarine with internal pressure at 1 bar. It gets crushed.
Never had ear pain when diving deep, or when climbing/descending in an aircraft??
Caused by pressure not equalizing….
“Vertical movement of air, against gravity, such as convection can only be understood by treating the atmosphere as a gas and not as a fluid.”
Gas IS a fluid, just as liquids or plasma’s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid
Difference is ao their compressibility. Density of water DOES increase when going deep into the oceans, only not as fast as density of air increases with decreasing altitude.
Still no answer to my simple question:
Open a hatch on the ISS, and you have an explosive decompression. Why isn’t earths atmosphere exploding into space??
Guys! From our ability/inability to disagree/agree, it’s become apparent that the ‘weight’ of a ‘mass’ is difficult to determine with any accuracy.
I propose a ‘standard’ for the ‘measurement’ of ‘weight’.
1). The ‘weight’ (force acting towards the major, and central’ mass) of a mass/massive object can only be determined when ‘weighed’ in a vacuum within a ‘zero reference frame’ for the relative gravity flux.
2). Because the ‘weight’ of a ‘massive object’ also possesses ‘inertia’, the ‘inertia value’ can also be taken as the ‘absolute weight’ of the mass under observation.
What are your thoughts?
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: October 17, 2015 at 12:59 am “Guys! From our ability/inability to disagree/agree, it’s become apparent that the ‘weight’ of a ‘mass’ is difficult to determine with any accuracy. I propose a ‘standard’ for the ‘measurement’ of ‘weight’.”
OK Good.
“1). The ‘weight’ (force acting towards the major, and central’ mass) of a mass/massive object can only be determined when ‘weighed’ in a vacuum within a ‘zero reference frame’ for the relative gravity flux.”
At what distance in a projective field such as ‘gravity’ Weight per steradian might be nice!
“2). Because the ‘weight’ of a ‘massive object’ also possesses ‘inertia’, the ‘inertia value’ can also be taken as the ‘absolute weight’ of the mass under observation.”
Yes indeed mass has an opposition to acceleration, adding the term weight only promotes confusion. I can buy 14.7 pounds of prime rib and “get” something to take home, and such belongs to me! What do I get to take home if I buy one square inch of atmosphere? Who does that belong to?
Science is fine, so is mathematics. Neither feeds the kids. Both science and mathematics properly belong in the realm of fantasy.
What are your thoughts? Best regards, Ray
Thank you. The concept of weight, and what is wrong, was completely demonstrated by Archimedes, thus demonstrating the vast difference between atmosphere and compressible fluid or gas. A non-self buoyant mass of any volume within the atmosphere displaces atmosphere of that volume, without regard to density (rho, mass/volume) of either volume. Earth’s gravity replaces that concept with the displacement of space with no, mass, no specific heat, and no temperature. If that puppy floats in water (hydrostatic balance) it must displace the mass of water equal to the non self buoyant “weight” of just that puppy, at that location. Can there be any discussion that the volume of atmosphere displaced at any location has any (non zero) weight?
Ray, This may sound pedantic, but is crucial to any possible understanding of this atmosphere. It is the isopotential nature of this atmosphere in every direction that allows/induces the convection/advection that earthlings try to measure with absolutely no understanding whatsoever!
All the best! -will-
Ben Wouters says:
October 16, 2015 at 3:51 pm
You can’t compare an airtight container in free fall around the earth with the atmosphere that is expanding against gravity.
How gas is contained
The theory of hydrostatic balance uses the Gas Law (IGL) equation. This equation was originally for gas in an air-tight container. The theory of hydrostatic balance proposes that it be applied to the gravity constrained atmosphere.
Yes we can and do compare an air tight container to the atmosphere by using the IGL for both.
Air in freefall
By looking at Nasa’s videos it appears the air in the ISS atmosphere behaves the same as air in a container on the surface. The pressure is measured. As far I know the Gas Law experiments, Boyles Law or Charles Law will work with air in the ISS.
Open a hatch on the ISS, and you have an explosive decompression. Why isn’t earths atmosphere exploding into space??
A balloon also has “explosive decompression” when pricked yet the Earth’s atmosphere pressure exponentially and smoothly decreases. yet you say both can be analysed using the IGL.
It should be totally obvious that the internal pressure of a body or scale is equal to the external pressure on it, so the pressure doesn’t register.
It is not clear to me what you mean by internal pressure.
Gas IS a fluid, just as liquids or plasma’s.
Gas has very different properties to liquid. To consider gas to have the same behaviour and properties as a liquid is wrong.
Difference is ao their compressibility. Density of water DOES increase when going deep into the oceans, only not as fast as density of air increases with decreasing altitude.
Click to access 1-42B.pdf
water compressibility of 1atm is 0.005
air compressibily of 1atm is 0.5
0.5/0.005 = 100
Air is 100x more compressible than water. Air is not a fluid.
suricat says:
October 17, 2015 at 12:59 am
Because the ‘weight’ of a ‘massive object’ also possesses ‘inertia’,
You are saying weight causes inertia. This is wrong.
I think mass has permanent inertia and sometimes can cause weight
the ‘inertia value’ can also be taken as the ‘absolute weight’ of the mass under observation.
There is absolute inertia but no absolute (permanent?) weight
suricat says: October 17, 2015 at 12:59 am
“I propose a ‘standard’ for the ‘measurement’ of ‘weight’.”
Anything wrong with the ISO definition?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight#ISO_definition
Roger Clague says: October 17, 2015 at 12:13 pm
“How gas is contained
The theory of hydrostatic balance uses the Gas Law (IGL) equation. This equation was originally for gas in an air-tight container. The theory of hydrostatic balance proposes that it be applied to the gravity constrained atmosphere.
Yes we can and do compare an air tight container to the atmosphere by using the IGL for both.”
Increase temperature in the ISS => pressure increases.
increase temperature for atmosphere => atmosphere expands against gravity, surface pressure remains the same.
“A balloon also has “explosive decompression” when pricked yet the Earth’s atmosphere pressure exponentially and smoothly decreases. yet you say both can be analysed using the IGL.”
And point is?? A hot air balloon has the same presssure as the atmosphere at the level it floats.
“It is not clear to me what you mean by internal pressure.”
The pressure in my lungs, sinuses and other cavities is the same as the external atmospheric pressure. If not, it hurts usually.
A weighing scale has internally the same pressure pushing up against the weighing plate as the atmospheric pressure pushing down on it.
“Gas has very different properties to liquid. To consider gas to have the same behaviour and properties as a liquid is wrong.” No kidding….
Anything that is not a solid is a fluid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid
And yes, gasses have different properties from liquids or plasma’s. I did hope that to be ready knowledge….
“Air is 100x more compressible than water. Air is not a fluid.”
Be my guest.The rest of the world considers air to be a fluid.
Ben Wouters says: October 17, 2015 at 4:11 pm
suricat says: October 17, 2015 at 12:59 am
(“I propose a ‘standard’ for the ‘measurement’ of ‘weight’.”)
“Anything wrong with the ISO definition?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight#ISO_definition ”
A mathematical formula can be part of a definition
‘The effect of atmospheric buoyancy is excluded in the weight.’
According to your ISO definition the atmosphere has no weight, as each and every part of the atmosphere is self-buoyant!!
Ben Wouters says: October 17, 2015 at 4:22 pm
“The theory of hydrostatic balance proposes that it be applied to the gravity constrained atmosphere.”
What theory? Where? More nonsense from disgraced meteorology? Like your fantasy air parcels and adiabatic anything of this atmosphere? What is wrong with the Archimedes hydrostatic?
“Be my guest.The rest of the world considers air to be a fluid.”
Do you now consider yourself to be “the rest of the world”? This ‘atmosphere’ does contain solids and the two colloids of H2O. This atmosphere is a compressible semi-fluid. As it is entirely constrained by gravity, it is self-buoyant and has (exhibits) no weight. It is but part of Earth’s gravity.
Ben Wouters says:
October 17, 2015 at 4:22 pm
Increase temperature in the ISS => pressure increases.
That is, IGL applies to gas in a container in orbit, such as the ISS, as it does in a container on Earth’s surface
increase temperature for atmosphere => atmosphere expands against gravity, surface pressure remains the same.
So IGL does not apply to the atmosphere. I agree.
Anything that is not a solid is a fluid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid
“Fluids can be defined as substances that have zero shear modulus or in simpler terms a fluid is a substance which cannot resist any shear force applied to it.”
You can walk through water and air. You can’t walk through a solid. This distinction of solid/fluid is not useful for atmsophereic physics. . Solids and liquid have a surface and are not compressible , gas doesn’t. This is a more significant split.
BenW: The rest of the world considers air to be a fluid.
Your own reference makes says common, colloquial and medical meaning of fluid is liquid only.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid
“Although the term “fluid” includes both the liquid and gas phases, in common usage, “fluid” is often used as a synonym for “liquid”, with no implication that gas could also be present. For example, “brake fluid” is hydraulic oil and will not perform its required incompressible function if there is gas in it. This colloquial usage of the term is also common in medicine and in nutrition (“take plenty of fluids”).”
“Liquids form a free surface (that is, a surface not created by the container) while gases do not. The distinction between solids and fluid is not entirely obvious. ”