Atmospheric convection – what does it mean?

Posted: June 11, 2015 by oldbrew in climate, Clouds, weather, wind
Tags:

[credit: NASA]

[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]

Comments
  1. Will Janoschka says:

    Roger Clague says: December 11, 2015 at 2:27 pm

    “The gas Law is for p,T and v not p,T and density. The gas law can be derived n/v = number density of molecules (Bernoulli 1738). The gas Law is not derived using mass density. The mass of molecules is not a factor in the IGL ”

    That is what I was trying to express also! For molecular rho (ρ) n/v, n/V, with no mass! and no energy just the power kT/t for each molecule!

    “The so-called ‘engineering’ Gas Law is not the gas Gas Law.”

    It is precisely the same for any given number of molecules!

    “The Gas Law pv = nkT predicts T directly proportional to p. This is clearly not so for the atmosphere.”

    That ‘would be’ and ‘is’ true only if the ratio ρ = n/v, molecular density is constant, or the Cv case! This atmosphere is not such with altitude! This also trashes any concept of ‘air parcel’ ! Molecular molecules do not expand against anything they spontaneously and continually disperse, (and aggregate), with the surround.

    However (dρ/dz)/(dP/dz) results in a constant gamma γ (chemistry) or isentropic exponent κ (engineering) to be a constant of 7/5, and a fixed – (ΔT)/(Δz) ! Tropospheric thermal lapse rate.
    All the best! -will-

  2. Will Janoschka says:

    suricat says: December 13, 2015 at 4:06 am
    Will Janoschka says: December 12, 2015 at 10:42 pm

    (“The older I get, the better I was!”)

    “Touche (can’t put the accent on the ‘e’ in ‘note pad’). I’ve also got too many surviving synapses to forget my college years.”

    I borrowed that from garment maker “OLd GuYs RuLe”! Nice (spendy) T-shirts!

    RD((“What do ‘you’ understand as “the accepted mass”? Best regards, Ray.”))

    WJ(“Some ‘standard’ accumulated atmospheric columnar mass, represented as a force not pressure at the surface. What is it, please?”)

    “IMHO its the ‘SI unit’ for the ‘standard’ (averaged) pressure/etc at sea level Will.”

    In grams per sq centimetre please, please! Is total average atmospheric H2O, in all phases 3% or 0.3% of average total atmospheric mass? Only the lesser can support the concept that WV the gas, is atmospheric and airborne water condensate is not atmospheric! That 2.7cm column water is 9 times the average daily precipitation to surface!

    “Because the ‘surface’ supports the atmosphere, the ‘point force vector’ is shared/supported by the ‘area’ that the ‘point force vector’ affects (this is an ‘energy transfer’ scenario). The ‘force’ is spread to an ‘area of contact’ that the ‘force’ (energy) can be ‘transferred into’ by way of the ‘maximum entropy theorem’. The ‘SI’ unit is just a ‘fixed reference’ that we can come back to for a reference to any ‘finding’ that we may have discovered. However, its an ‘average’ again. Best regards, Ray.”

    The pressure (stress) never involves ‘work’ unless the ‘stressed’ moves because of the stress! What energy is ever transferred at the surface because of atmospheric pressure? Clear as mud to you also I think! Do you have a translation?
    All the best! -will-

  3. Will Janoschka says:

    Molecular Atmospheric molecules do not expand against anything they spontaneously and continually disperse, (and aggregate), with the surround.

  4. Roger Clague says:

    Kristian says:
    December 11, 2015 at 11:37 am

    Because of the exponential nature of both atmospheric pressure and density change in an atmosphere, the rate at which the temperature inside a rising (or falling) volume of air within that atmosphere changes will naturally be linear, as long as no condensation is taking place. This comes straight from the IGL: T = P/ρ

    The pressure and density curves are the same. So the engineers Gas Law predicts constant T. ( hat tip WillJ )
    The IGL, which is pv = nkT predicts T directly proportional to p.
    Neither engineer’s gas law nor the IGL predict the shape of the measured lapse rate T/h. This is a constant slope then stops and becomes constant.
    This is because Gas Laws can only be used for a volume of gas with one temperature and one pressure
    .
    Volumes (packets?) of air do not rise or fall or flow vertically. . Air is a gas and so it diffuses vertically.

  5. Roger Clague says:

    oldbrew says:
    December 12, 2015 at 10:44 am

    The quote from: http://howthingsfly.si.edu/gravity-air/air-stuff

    “The pressure of the air in your lungs and in other spaces inside your body balances the pressure of the air around you.” is incorrect, as are all explanations of why we don’t feel the weight of air.

    We don’t feel the weight of air because air does not have weight.
    Air does not have weight because the acceleration of gas molecules is 10^ 8 times greater than gravity.

  6. oldbrew says:

    Roger C: ‘Air does not have weight because the acceleration of gas molecules is 10^ 8 times greater than gravity.’

    OK, and do we know where the energy for that is coming from?

    RC: ‘The pressure and density curves are the same.’

    As are the temperature and viscosity curves, but their shape differs slightly from the pressure and density curves.
    http://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/graphs.htm

    Analysing their numbers, using the ratio(r) of the numbers at 0 and 11000 feet:
    T(r) = 1.330025
    P(r) = 4.477048
    D(r) = 3.3661429
    V(r) = 1.2651753
    S(r) = 1.1532653 [S = speed of sound]

    That means the variation equates to this (according to the tables):
    T(r) = P(r)/D(r)
    T(r) = (D(r)/V(r))/ 2
    T(r) = S(r)²

    http://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/table.htm
    (min = 0, max = 11000, incr. = any (e.g. 1000))

  7. Will Janoschka says:

    oldbrew says: December 13, 2015 at 10:08 am

    (Roger C: ‘Air does not have weight because the acceleration of gas molecules is 10^ 8 times greater than gravity.’)

    “OK, and do we know where the energy for that is coming from?”

    Can you Please explain why you think energy is needed to keep atmospheric molecules at the same temperature? The high acceleration is ‘identically’ the conserved (ex)change in linear and angular momentum that results when two atmospheric molecules produce “elastic” collision (isentropic)!! At lower altitudes such collisions are more ‘frequent’, producing higher ‘temperature, with no additional “energy”!!!
    You seem to think that Earth’s gravity uses up ‘energy’ to provide the constant acceleration of the Moon that produces Moon’s “orbit”!

    (RC: ‘The pressure and density curves are the same.’ )

    “As are the temperature and viscosity curves, but they differ slightly from the pressure and density curves. http://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/graphs.htm

    They only have “similar shapes” The two in each case do not even have the same dimensionality !
    If the shape is the same then two ‘curves’ have a constant ratio that need not be related to either axis let alone “both”!
    OB, This is an excellent demonstration that earthlings understand nothing of gravity and way way less of temperature! This is why “science” should advise governments /sarc… When the best advice is worse than just stumbling about, why is that the best? Scams abound in such a target rich environment! Schools “only” teach innocents to become targets!
    All the best! -will-

  8. Will Janoschka says:

    OB,
    Please do not edit your posts without new time stamps! Thanks.

  9. oldbrew says:

    Does anyone fully understand gravity?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Alternative_theories

    Will J: ‘If the shape is the same then two ‘curves’ have a constant ratio that need not be related to either axis let alone “both”!

    The ratio of T to P/D is constant, according to the SA table.

    I won’t add to this without a timestamp 😉

  10. Will Janoschka says:

    oldbrew says: December 13, 2015 at 12:54 pm

    “Does anyone fully understand gravity?”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Alternative_theories

    Number of theories, rarely exceed number of fantasies. What if anything is known?

    (Will J: ‘If the shape is the same then two ‘curves’ have a constant ratio that need not be related to either axis let alone “both”!’)

    “The ratio of T to P/D is constant, according to the SA table.”

    Huh! “ratio of T to (the ratio) P/D” can mean just what to others? Temperature is proportional to pressure/density. P/ρ = kT for any gas! But with no H2O phase change P/ρ has a constant ratio of 2/3 for atomic gas and 5/7 for diatomic gas like this atmosphere. As both pressure and density both go lesser ‘logarithmically’ with increasing altitude, temperature goes lesser ‘linearly’ with altitude! As a group of three measurables, this remains counter intuitive, and requires basic familiarity with calculus and analytic geometry in order to clearly conceptualize.
    These things one cannot learn from a book or instructor! Like with ‘learning’ to operate a bicycle,
    cuts and bruises are a requirement! Only after the personal, colossal, ‘AW shit’, can a mentor or instructor, actually help with understanding!

    “I won’t add to this without a timestamp 😉 ”

    Thank you! You had me thinking I was more dronk than is possible while still being able to locate the keyboard!
    All the best! -will-

  11. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: December 13, 2015 at 6:59 am

    “(RD “What do ‘you’ understand as “the accepted mass”?”)”

    “WJ “(“Some ‘standard’ accumulated atmospheric columnar mass, represented as a force not pressure at the surface. What is it, please?”)””

    RD “IMHO its the ‘SI unit’ for the ‘standard’ (averaged) pressure/etc at sea level Will.”.

    “In grams per sq centimetre please, please!”

    This is of no consequence. Conversion is easily deduced.

    “Is total average atmospheric H2O, in all phases 3% or 0.3% of average total atmospheric mass?”

    What is this? 20 questions? AFAIK the ‘total atmospheric H2O’ (do you propose ‘global’?) varies with latitude and weather system activity, and ‘life time existence’ is ‘determined’ (shortened) by particulate propensity.

    Does this help?

    “Only the lesser can support the concept that WV the gas, is atmospheric and airborne water condensate is not atmospheric!”

    Unfortunately this isn’t true Will. ‘Atmospheric constituents’ include ‘all’ forms of a ‘fluid nature’ that produce a ‘weight’ vector towards Earth’s surface. [Gasses and liquids are part of ‘the atmosphere’] where their ‘observed inclusion’ is noted [this is why TB wants to include ‘ocean’ with ‘atmosphere’]. However, the ‘lighter, gas’ format of H2O tends to ‘support’ the ‘heavier, liquid’ format of H2O during complex ‘phase change’ activity whilst ‘the Sun shines’ with ‘cloud formation’.

    Saying that, the ‘lack of activity’ during ‘Sun shine hours’ can generate yet ‘more cloud’!

    This makes analysis difficult.

    “That 2.7cm column water is 9 times the average daily precipitation to surface!”

    Why should we/you be surprised at this?

    H2O has a ‘survival rate’ of ~8-14 days in the atmosphere. Whilst its there, it abates temperature by way of ‘phase change’. This suggests that ‘H2O’ offers/provides a ‘damping effect’ to temperature changes.

    I’ll not mention the data on ‘Virgil rain’ here. However;

    “The pressure (stress) never involves ‘work’ unless the ‘stressed’ moves because of the stress! What energy is ever transferred at the surface because of atmospheric pressure? Clear as mud to you also I think! Do you have a translation?”

    I do! Apparently, you don’t!

    Learn ‘humility’/’expertise’ before you receive my future communication Will.

    A ‘vectored force’ is a ‘proportionate energy’ in a ‘given direction’ ! Much like your ‘EM’ energy Will.

    The ‘vectored force’ directs its energy ‘towards’ a ‘given’ atractor.

    Your ‘circus’ is unimpressive! I can discus this ‘all day’ on ‘other sites’, but this has already been done.

    Best regards, Ray.

  12. suricat says: December 15, 2015 at 4:37 am
    Will Janoschka says: December 13, 2015 at 6:59 am

    (“In grams per sq centimetre please, please!”)

    “This is of no consequence. Conversion is easily deduced.”

    I though so also, but I get two answers from different beginnings, both surface pressure accepted standard not local, English 14.7 psi vs SI 101.3 kPa. Assuming column mass yields both surface pressure and your claimed weight (same value),is my confusion. English yields 1031 grams_force/ cm^2, while SI yields 99.4 grams_force/ cm^2. See my post December 12, 2015 at 10:24 pm.
    If surface grams force/area is equivalent to columnar atmospheric mass, is either correct. Please?
    I see a large difference between pressure and ‘weight’ as gas molecules colliding at angles far from normal with the measurement surface provide much pressure but no ‘weight’! Atmospheric pressure seems way different than garden hose pressure! That one vs PI may be a projective geometry detail that all meteorology conveniently forgets!

    “Is total average atmospheric H2O, in all phases 3% or 0.3% of average total atmospheric mass?”

    “What is this? 20 questions? AFAIK the ‘total atmospheric H2O’ (do you propose ‘global’?) varies with latitude and weather system activity, and ‘life time existence’ is ‘determined’ (shortened) by particulate propensity. Does this help?”

    The published ‘average’ atmospheric column water, remains between 2.4 to 2.8 cm for all seasons. Locally it goes to 12 cm in the tropics. If 0.3% by mass, this could easily stay all atmospheric WV. If 3% by mass, All of the atmosphere must be above 40°C for atmospheric WV. My consideration is that ‘much’ atmospheric H2O convects sunside insolation via latent heat to nightside/poleward for dispatch to space as entropy! Such does not involve Earth’s surface at all!

    “A ‘vectored force’ is a ‘proportionate energy’ in a ‘given direction’ ! Much like your ‘EM’ energy Will.
    The ‘vectored force’ directs its energy ‘towards’ a ‘given’ atractor.”

    What grand nonsense! A vectored force (pushing on a bolder), like EM ‘radiance’, or the force of gravity, transfers no power unless allowed to do the first derivative of work with respect to time! For mass this is called ‘acceleration’! Even Gary Novak gets this correct. Horsepower. while ‘powering’ is a separate thing that the integral with respect to time (horsepower hours) becomes ‘action’, not energy, and is never again energy!

    “Your ‘circus’ is unimpressive! I can discus this ‘all day’ on ‘other sites’, but this has already been done. Best regards, Ray.”

    I do not post here to attract those that “can only” miss the whole point!
    All the best! -will-

  13. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: December 13, 2015 at 6:59 am

    “I borrowed that from garment maker “OLd GuYs RuLe”! Nice (spendy) T-shirts!”

    Thanks NOT! I already know that I’m not ‘in fashion’ (whats ‘OLGYRL’? [I permit your e-mail if you require it])!

    In summation of your post:

    “The pressure (stress) never involves ‘work’ unless the ‘stressed’ moves because of the stress! What energy is ever transferred at the surface because of atmospheric pressure?”

    ‘None’! The ‘surface’ that you imply is ‘unforgiving/immobile’ (in most scenarios) to the application of ‘force’ by a ‘fluid medium’. Notwithstanding the case/scenario for the variant phases of H2O. H2O is ‘free’ from this ‘scenario’ and is ‘pervasive’!

    “Clear as mud to you also I think! Do you have a translation?
    All the best! -will-”

    Yes. I just mentioned it Will.

    Best regards, Ray.

  14. Will Janoschka says:

    suricat says: December 16, 2015 at 5:03 am
    Will Janoschka says: December 13, 2015 at 6:59 am

    WJ( “I borrowed that from garment maker “OLd GuYs RuLe”! Nice (spendy) T-shirts!”)

    “Thanks NOT! I already know that I’m not ‘in fashion’ (whats ‘OLGYRL’? [I permit your e-mail if you require it])!”

    You responded to my quote from elsewhere/when by using French word touché in fencing!
    I tried to explain that comes from a tag on an obscenely priced BB cap sent by my daughter that knows i can buy anything I may want except some obscenely priced BB cap. Kinda like fuck you to daddy! That phrase was copied by me from that tag attached to the cap.

    In summation of your post:

    Please let us get over this BS I asked for a check on my calculation of column atmospheric mass as I got two answers an order of magnitude apart! I so far cannot resolve this so I asked you for some guidance as to where I truly screwed up. I need your opinion on what I did wrong. please!
    A one sq cm column of atmosphere to space has how many grams (mass) of atmosphere within that column. For extra points “How does anyone know”?

  15. Will Janoschka says:

    suricat says: December 16, 2015 at 5:03 am

    Will Janoschka says: December 13, 2015 at 6:59 am

    (“The pressure (stress) never involves ‘work’ unless the ‘stressed’ moves because of the stress! What energy is ever transferred at the surface because of atmospheric pressure?”)

    “‘None’! The ‘surface’ that you imply is ‘unforgiving/immobile’ (in most scenarios) to the application of ‘force’ by a ‘fluid medium’. Notwithstanding the case/scenario for the variant phases of H2O. H2O is ‘free’ from this ‘scenario’ and is ‘pervasive’!”

    I agree! The atmospheric surface density phase changes by local H2O induces a rapid transfer of latent H2O heat upward that is limited by atmospheric viscosity, Reynolds number, and other unknown shear forces. 😉

  16. Roger Clague says:

    oldbrew says:
    December 13, 2015 at 10:08 am
    Roger C: ‘Air does not have weight because the acceleration of gas molecules is 10^ 8 times greater than gravity.’
    OK, and do we know where the energy for that is coming from?

    The 2400J/gm heat of vaporization creates the freedom of gas molecules to change velocity.
    Elastic collisions do not need an energy input.

    That means the variation [of the Standard atmosphere] equates to this (according to the tables):
    T(r) = P(r)/D(r)

    This is the engineer’s version of the chemical Gas Law.
    The SA appears to obey the Gas law because the Gas Law is used to calculate the density value used. Also the atmosphere is divided into layers with one T,p and rho. But the atmosphere is not in layers.

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

    “The ISA mathematical model divides the atmosphere into layers with linear temperature distributions against geopotential altitude.[2] The other two values (pressure and density) are computed by simultaneously solving the equations resulting from:
    • the vertical pressure variation (which relates pressure, density and geopotential altitude), using a standard pressure of 101,325 pascals (14.696 psi) at mean sea level as a boundary condition, and
    • the ideal gas law (which relates pressure, density, and temperature), at each geopotential altitude.”

  17. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: December 16, 2015 at 8:26 am

    suricat says: December 16, 2015 at 5:03 am
    Will Janoschka says: December 13, 2015 at 6:59 am

    Kids eh! Say no more Will.

    “Please let us get over this BS I asked for a check on my calculation of column atmospheric mass as I got two answers an order of magnitude apart! I so far cannot resolve this so I asked you for some guidance as to where I truly screwed up. I need your opinion on what I did wrong. please!”

    Done! IMHO you included ‘modeled data’. Either a ‘model’ is introduced as such, or ‘observations’ are declared. A ‘mix’ of the two can generate obfuscation.

    I see that what Roger Clague says: December 16, 2015 at 2:49 pm may help you with this (please take the ‘link’). 🙂

    Please also realise and understand that the ‘latitude’ for which any ‘observation’ was made reflects directly upon the/any ‘advective energy’ added to Earth’s atmosphere by Earth’s ‘rotational moment/momentum’ (this ‘isn’t’ just ‘convection’ Will!).

    Best regards, Ray.

  18. suricat says:
    December 17, 2015 at 2:56 am

    Will Janoschka says: December 16, 2015 at 8:26 am

    (“Please let us get over this BS I asked for a check on my calculation of column atmospheric mass as I got two answers an order of magnitude apart! I so far cannot resolve this so I asked you for some guidance as to where I truly screwed up. I need your opinion on what I did wrong. please!”)

    “Done! IMHO you included ‘modeled data’. Either a ‘model’ is introduced as such, or ‘observations’ are declared. A ‘mix’ of the two can generate obfuscation.”

    Fine, If “done” what kind of numbers did you get, please. I am doing no mixing or modeling. I am trying to find an error in my column mass of earths atmosphere that is all!
    From two given surface P_absolute:
    1)pressure 14.7 psi x 454 (g/#) / 2.54^2 (cm^2/in^2) yields 1034 grams_force/cm^2 a pressure.
    2)pressure 101.3 kPa / 10^4 (cm^2/m^2) yields 10.13 kg_force/cm^2, 10,130 grams_force/cm^2 again supposedly the very same pressure. A 10x difference, Why? Dividing both by 9.81 m/s^2 accelerative force to get to column mass does not help! Is a Pa pressure different from a psi pressure somehow?
    All the best! -will-

  19. David Russell says:

    WJ

    One Pascal is 1 Newton/meter^2. One Kilogram force is 9.81 Newtons. So, divide 10,130 grams by 9.81 to get 1,033 grams/centimeter^2.

  20. pochas94 says:

    If the surface pressure is 14.7 psi that means above every square inch of surface area there is 14.7 lb of atmosphere assuming g_c is constant.

  21. pochas94 says: December 17, 2015 at 5:21 pm

    “If the surface pressure is 14.7 psi that means above every square inch of surface area there is 14.7 lb of atmosphere assuming g_c is constant.”

    My pound box of Cheerios says 454 grams as does my pound jar of JIF peanut butter. Assuming that is grams weight or grams force in an acceleration force of 9.81 m/s^2 or surface (g). That gives me 1034 grams of force above each cm^2 of surface area or 105.4 grams of air-mass directly above each sq cm of surface. I think this may be as high as 400 gm/cm^2.
    Perhaps this has been the commercial fantasy for monetary gain that grams mass and grams force (weight) have the same value for some nefarious reason! Does my jar of JIF will only have 46 grams of peanut butter mass, when I throw that at the cops? how disappointing! 😦

    David Russell says: December 17, 2015 at 11:00 am

    “WJ, One Pascal is 1 Newton/meter^2. One Kilogram force is 9.81 Newtons. So, divide 10,130 grams by 9.81 to get 1,033 grams/centimeter^2.”

    Thank you. The force vs weight seems to be the confusing issue, A gram mass has the same value as a gram weight so just what is force? Is not a Pascal a pressure, a force per unit area (strain) just like psi? How is it different? So i divide a force by an acceleration to get to mass as you describe. Yet the same procedure cannot be used for psi, as that has a very different result. Why? Are you actually claiming. each sq cm column to space has mass of 1033 grams? At the surface a 1 meter column has but 0.13 gram of mass. With the same density to to 10 km that would be 1300 grams, Atmospheric density at 10 km is but a third of surface density. What is the measurable column mass of Earth’s atmosphere? just imagine the errors in the models!!
    All the best! -will-

  22. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: December 17, 2015 at 8:36 pm

    “Thank you. The force vs weight seems to be the confusing issue, A gram mass has the same value as a gram weight so just what is force?”

    ‘Force’ is the apparent/observed ‘weight’ measured for a ‘mass quantity’ whilst its ‘relative position/distance’ is maintained as constant/stationary WRT the ‘major mass’ that generates the ‘gravity field’.

    “At the surface a 1 meter column has but 0.13 gram of mass. With the same density to to 10 km that would be 1300 grams, Atmospheric density at 10 km is but a third of surface density. What is the measurable column mass of Earth’s atmosphere?”

    Your “1 meter column” must be a ‘model’ from ‘calculation’ Will! Unless you ‘vacated’ a ‘given chamber’ of atmosphere and ‘re-weighed it’ providing evidence for provenance of ‘no interference from atmospheric buoyancy’.

    Surface pressure only gives apparent weight of/for the atmospheric column in its entirety. Advection also interferes with this.

    Best regards, Ray.

  23. suricat says: December 18, 2015 at 3:12 am
    Will Janoschka says: December 17, 2015 at 8:36 pm

    (“Thank you. The force vs weight seems to be the confusing issue, A gram mass has the same value as a gram weight so just what is force?”)

    “‘Force’ is the apparent/observed ‘weight’ measured for a ‘mass quantity’ whilst its ‘relative position/distance’ is maintained as constant/stationary WRT the ‘major mass’ that generates the ‘gravity field’.”

    Ok so you admit That the “formula” W = ma Has both W and g the same name for intent and identical value for the same units “grams”. Is what we now have, and what is brainwashed into innocent children? Is that some sort of science? Is it “force” as in F ⇐ ma with units of result in Newtons, or “weight” as in W ⇐ mg with units of result in grams, but different grams somehow, that is truly meaningless?

    (“At the surface a 1 meter column has but 0.13 gram of mass. With the same density to to 10 km that would be 1300 grams, Atmospheric density at 10 km is but a third of surface density. What is the measurable column mass of Earth’s atmosphere?”)

    “Your “1 meter column” must be a ‘model’ from ‘calculation’ Will! Unless you ‘vacated’ a ‘given chamber’ of atmosphere and ‘re-weighed it’ providing evidence for provenance of ‘no interference from atmospheric buoyancy’.”

    I have little interest of what you, and others, may try to imply by surface atmospheric pressure. At STP one mole (22.4 liters), of atmosphere, contains 29 grams of mass, as carefully and repeatedly measured by mass balance not your fool weight! That gives 1295 grams of STP atmospheric mass per meter³ or 0.13 grams mass for a an atmospheric column one cm² by one meter long. No modeling just measurement. Is any confusion introduced, intentional or otherwise?

    “Surface pressure only gives apparent weight of/for the atmospheric column in its entirety. Advection also interferes with this. Best regards, Ray.”

    So in meteorology and climate BS, everything is apparent fantasy, including your weight of atmosphere! Does anyone know the mass of any column of atmosphere? Does anyone know the mass of the whole Earth’s atmosphere? Does anyone care? Yet all are political facts with 97% certanty! Science indeed!!! /not.
    All the best! -will-

  24. Roger Clague says:

    suricat says:
    December 18, 2015 at 3:12 am

    Surface pressure only gives apparent weight of/for the atmospheric column in its entirety.

    You make an important point about “apparent weight”. I believe thinking of air pressure as weight is misleading.
    Pressure measured as mmHg or pounds/in^2 is the downward only pressure that a weight of a solid or liquid causes.
    But air pressure acts in all directions. Air pressure is not caused by weight.
    Pascals = N/m^2 is better.
    However the idea that air pressure acts in one direction, especially downwards like weight prevails.
    This idea dates from the incorrect understanding of the Torricelli Hg barometer,1644.

    Air pressure acting in all directions is the reason we do not feel it.

  25. oldbrew says:

    On the other hand air pressure reduces with height.

  26. oldbrew says: December 18, 2015 at 12:32 pm

    “On the other hand air pressure reduces with height.”

    That is true but logarithmically, and so does density! As pressure decreases by 7, density decreases by 5, in this Earth’s troposphere, always! This is the molecular average velocity combined with atmospheric density that results in a linear temperature lapse, that is independent of actual temperature at any particular altitude. Of course heat spontaneously converting between sensible and latent, locally, futzes with that lapse by a factor of two. How does that affect atmospheric convection? Does anyone know the mass of Earth’s atmosphere? How?
    All the best! -will-

  27. oldbrew says:

    Will J : ‘independent of actual temperature at any particular altitude’

    Yes, but not independent of an expected temperature.

    ‘Aircraft flight instruments, however, operate using pressure differential to compute Mach number, not temperature. The assumption is that a particular pressure represents a particular altitude and, therefore, a standard temperature. Aircraft flight instruments need to operate this way because the stagnation pressure sensed by a Pitot tube is dependent on altitude as well as speed.’
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound#Mach_number

    Of course an assumption isn’t the same as a fact, but should be in the ball park.

  28. oldbrew says: December 18, 2015 at 10:43 pm

    “Of course an assumption isn’t the same as a fact, but should be in the ball park.”

    Flight rules require isobaric (corrected for temperature) altitude not radar altitude.
    It is the particular construction and fine calibration on each barometric altimeter to a fixed standard that allows aircraft to maintain proper vertical separation independent of surface pressure temperature and geographic location. The requirement is for safety, not distance above the surface. At low altitudes reseting to local surface pressure assists in not flying into the surface.

  29. suricat says:

    Will Janoschkaw says: December 18, 2015 at 8:59 am

    First of all, are you sure of your ‘label’ (user name) Will?

    “Ok so you admit That the “formula” W = ma Has both W and g the same name for intent and identical value for the same units “grams”.”

    No! You need to expand/expound the true ‘meaning’ of the ‘values’ in your “formula” before I can commit a meaningful commitment/comment. I ‘assume’ that; given, ‘W’ = weight, ‘m’ = mass and/but ‘a’ = ? (would this be ‘area’?). If so, I disagree with any ‘assumption’ that ‘pressure, per se = the weight of a given atmospheric column mass within a gravity field’!

    “Is what we now have, and what is brainwashed into innocent children? Is that some sort of science? Is it “force” as in F ⇐ ma with units of result in Newtons, or “weight” as in W ⇐ mg with units of result in grams, but different grams somehow, that is truly meaningless?”

    I would like to concur, but that’s only because the explanation of the ‘whole science’ isn’t presented to “children” because it isn’t ‘thought’ to be in the ‘interest’ of the development of the child (take this up with your local school).

    Again, please offer a ‘given’ list for ‘equations proposed’ Will. I’m floundering to understand your posts and I’m also an engineer similar to yourself.

    “I have little interest of what you, and others, may try to imply by surface atmospheric pressure. At STP one mole (22.4 liters), of atmosphere, contains 29 grams of mass, as carefully and repeatedly measured by mass balance not your fool weight!”

    Er, its not ‘my’ “fool weight!” you should have interest in Will. Most of the ‘atmosphere’ isn’t at ‘STP’ (Standard Temperature and Pressure [I thought this was the ‘main’ force of/for your argument earlier]).

    Thus, most of the atmosphere responds to a ‘log scale’ of/to ‘STP’. Let’s look at ‘equal masses’ by ‘inertia value’ in scenarios where the ‘starting reference frame’ within a gravity field is equal:

    Drop an ‘equal mass’ of both lead and feather at atmospheric pressure from a tower and the ‘lead mass’ hits the ground before the ‘feather mass’ (‘buoyancy’ and ‘wind/air resistance’ through a ‘fluid atmosphere’).

    The same experiment performed ‘in a vacuum’ results in a ‘tie’ of ‘both masses’ hitting the ground at the same time (no buoyancy, or wind/air resistance).

    ‘Weighing’ these same ‘masses’ on a ‘beam balance’ at ‘one atmosphere’ shows the ‘lead mass’ as heavier than the ‘feather mass’ (buoyancy value is/becomes apparent). Their ‘weight’ in ‘a vacuum’ is, however, the same.

    You can’t measure the weight of a gas in a vacuum because its ‘gone’, ‘not there anymore’! This experiment isn’t valid for any ‘fluid’ unless the ‘fluid’ maintains its ‘physical configuration’ (e.g., silicone oil) in a vacuum, which most fluids can’t achieve.

    Some ‘experiments’ just defeat their objectives Will. Please don’t confound experiments that disclose the ‘weight’ of ‘solids’ with those of ‘fluids’. ‘Solids’ disclose their ‘weight’ at ‘the point/area of contact’, but ‘fluids’ disclose their ‘weight’ ‘everywhere’ and ‘internal kinetics’ need consideration!

    I have a current ‘back problem’ and can’t promise to respond promptly in the near future, but I’ll try to keep up with this thread.

    Best regards, Ray.

  30. suricat says:

    Roger Clague says: December 18, 2015 at 9:23 am

    “You make an important point about “apparent weight”. I believe thinking of air pressure as weight is misleading.”

    I concur. Unless the ‘rotational mechanics’ and ‘density disparity’ issues of/for ‘Earth’s systems’ is ‘well understood’, the ‘negative kinetic’ presented to Earth’s ‘surface pressure’ remains a myth.

    “Pressure measured as mmHg or pounds/in^2 is the downward only pressure that a weight of a solid or liquid causes.”

    No, that’s/its only ‘true’ for a ‘solid’. For a ‘fluid example’ there are many more ‘DOF’ (Degrees Of Freedom). You can verify your car tyre pressure by means of a ‘mercury column’, but this is a ‘comparison/comparator’ between the ‘internal pressure’ of the ‘tyre’ and the ‘external regional local pressure’ of ‘the atmosphere’.

    “But air pressure acts in all directions.”

    Yes it does.

    “Air pressure is not caused by weight.”

    Yes it is. ‘Weight’ is a measure of/for the ‘mass force vector’ towards a ‘Barry Centre’ (the absolute center for any ‘mass collective’). Fluid mass caught within a gravity field displays a migration towards the ‘Barry Centre’ of the total ‘massive entity’ and the ‘closer’ to the ‘Barry Centre’ an observed mass sample gets, the greater the ‘overhead’ force for/of/from ‘other mass samples’ to replace/reject/supplant the minor massive entity from its ‘altitude/density/proximity’ to the Barry Center.

    “Pascals = N/m^2 is better.”

    I see ‘no change’. Why would you propose this?

    “However the idea that air pressure acts in one direction, especially downwards like weight prevails.
    This idea dates from the incorrect understanding of the Torricelli Hg barometer,1644.”

    Wasn’t this corrected when it was realised that ‘Earth centrifuge’ dictated the latitude for its accurate observation and the ‘Hg height scale’ was modified according to the ‘resident latitude’?

    Best regards, Ray.

  31. suricat says: December 20, 2015 at 3:49 am
    Will Janoschkaw says: December 18, 2015 at 8:59 am

    RD: “First of all, are you sure of your ‘label’ (user name) Will?”

    Sorry Ray,
    I currently ane trying 8 computers With 10 different operating systems and up to all combinations
    on the computers, most for others, hopefully with working configuration! The hard part is to prevent stepping upon by others! Microsoft is the worst as it “must” stomp on all others! On two computers Windows XP refuses to even install, then refuses to work when the drive, is reinstalled from a working version on a generic computer! I wish the state of Washington were included in the sale of California to China! Drop that final w Pls!

    WJ (“Ok so you admit That the “formula” W = ma Has both W and g the same name for intent and identical value for the same units “grams”.”)

    WJ: For you I should have wiitten W = mg! My bad! Ok ok! the formula you support is W(eight) = m(ass) x g(ravity) for this surface/atmosphere. But(g) is defined as the acceleration on mass by gravity, . Georgia State University:

    The weight of an object is defined as the force of gravity on the object and may be calculated as the mass times the acceleration of gravity, w = mg. … “g” to be the measure of the intensity of the gravity field in Newtons/kg at your location.

    What nonsense! this is ‘never’ the way ‘weight’ is ever used!! Grams_f is identical to grams _m!

    If weight is to be attributed to gravity it them must be expressed as Newtons or mN, for mass in n Kg or grams respectively.
    Why is weight now accepted as Kg or grams in your country and all of Europe? Is this part if the effort to dumbdown/delude us serfs?

    The real problem with all of this is that any concept of “weight” cannot be attributed to either mass or gravity, but only a temporary indication of the force required to impede/neutralize the acceleration of gravity, the expressed heaviness of that mass!
    As the engineer Archimedes demonstrated 271 BC that expressed “heaviness’ decreases as that mass is let submerege in water, somtimes expressing “hydrostatic balance also called ‘floating’! Tnis of course may indicate that pressure “has weight” but not the atmosphere. This is also nonsense as pressure in no way impedes gravitational acceleration on atmospheric molecules (mass) between collisions, (free fall)!

    RD”No! You need to expand/expound the true ‘meaning’ of the ‘values’ in your “formula” before I can commit a meaningful commitment/comment. I ‘assume’ that; given, ‘W’ = weight, ‘m’ = mass and/but ‘a’ = ? (would this be ‘area’?). If so, I disagree with any ‘assumption’ that ‘pressure, per se = the weight of a given atmospheric column mass within a gravity field’!”

    I just did. What can you possibly mean by your own claim that atmosphere has weight?

    “Is what we now have, and what is brainwashed into innocent children? Is that some sort of science? Is it “force” as in F ⇐ ma with units of result in Newtons, or “weight” as in W ⇐ mg with units of result in grams, but different grams somehow, that is truly meaningless?”

    RD “I would like to concur, but that’s only because the explanation of the ‘whole science’ isn’t presented to “children” because it isn’t ‘thought’ to be in the ‘interest’ of the development of the child (take this up with your local school).”

    At this point in my life, I do not give a s**t of the developing “Soylent Greens” of many other couplings! At present it is much more important to me that I can still hold the rifle barrel accurately with my toes! Of course “ballistic trajectory” within the atmosphere is important, but not if you cannot point! Keep the list in proper order!!!

    RD “Again, please offer a ‘given’ list for ‘equations proposed’ Will. I’m floundering to understand your posts and I’m also an engineer similar to yourself.”

    I am trying to learn how you and others claim atmosphere has/exhibits ‘weight”. The bowlng ball rolling down the lane, “has” 7 kg of mass, “exerts” near 70 N of force/stress on the lane. The “pressure” (ha ha) can only be guessed about, from the resulting ‘strain’ on both the ball, and the lane. does that rhyme?

    “I have little interest of what you, and others, may try to imply by surface atmospheric pressure. At STP one mole (22.4 liters), of atmosphere, contains 29 grams of mass, as carefully and repeatedly measured by mass balance not your fool weight!”

    RD “Er, its not ‘my’ “fool weight!” you should have interest in Will. Most of the ‘atmosphere’ isn’t at ‘STP’ (Standard Temperature and Pressure [I thought this was the ‘main’ force of/for your argument earlier]).”

    What did I state incorrectly of average near sea level atmospheric mass density?

    RD “I have a current ‘back problem’ and can’t promise to respond promptly in the near future, but I’ll try to keep up with this thread. Best regards, Ray.”

    Please get well soon. 😉 I often get frustrated in my attempt to effectively present ‘my’ meaning to others! You are very very good at carefully pointing out every mistook! Thank you!
    All the best! -will-

  32. suricat says: December 20, 2015 at 5:32 am
    Roger Clague says: December 18, 2015 at 9:23 am

    (RC “You make an important point about “apparent weight”. I believe thinking of air pressure as weight is misleading.”)

    RD “I concur. Unless the ‘rotational mechanics’ and ‘density disparity’ issues of/for ‘Earth’s systems’ is ‘well understood’, the ‘negative kinetic’ presented to Earth’s ‘surface pressure’ remains a myth.”

    (RC “Pressure measured as mmHg or pounds/in^2 is the downward only pressure that a weight of a solid or liquid causes.” “Air pressure is not caused by weight.”)

    RD “Yes it is. ‘Weight’ is a measure of/for the ‘mass force vector’ towards a ‘Barry Centre’ (the absolute center for any ‘mass collective’). Fluid mass caught within a gravity field displays a migration towards the ‘Barry Centre’ of the total ‘massive entity’ and the ‘closer’ to the ‘Barry Centre’ an observed mass sample gets, the greater the ‘overhead’ force for/of/from ‘other mass samples’ to replace/reject/supplant the minor massive entity from its ‘altitude/density/proximity’ to the Barry Center.”

    No Ray!!! “Weight” (heaviness) can only represent that opposing force to “gravitational accelerative force” that limits or opposes/limits/cancels such acceleration. Atmospheric pressure in no way opposes the acceleration of atmospheric molecules (mass downward), free fall, “between collisions”, at any altitude.

    RD ” Fluid mass caught within a gravity field displays a migration towards the ‘Barry Centre’ of the total ‘massive entity’” Yes indeed it does! Why must you call that ‘weight’ rather than ‘weightless freefall’?

    (RC“Pascals = N/m^2 is better.”)

    RD “I see ‘no change’. Why would you propose this?”

    Pressure is never a weight of anything! The whole concept of weight, scientifically, must be depreciated to nothingness, as was brightness! Both were/are much more confusing, than informing!
    All the best! -will-

  33. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: December 20, 2015 at 1:37 pm

    “!!!!”

    I’d like to take a ‘time out’ here Will. I tend/seem to ‘automatically’ transpose energy transitions for massive entities. I’m an engineer, so I guess this may be expected of me. However, I do have ‘problematic ponderances’ when velocities get to aproach ‘c’ (the speed of light), but, again, I guess this may be expected of an engineer trying to cope with reference frames that don’t coincide when ‘E = m c^2’ turns up.

    ‘Potential energy / reference frame speed requirement = acelleration/decelleration energy input needed (+ or – relavent atractors)’. IMHO this equates the energy requirement to alter the ‘speed’ and/or ‘vector’ of a ‘massive body in motion/stasis’. Does this make sense? A ‘gain in kinetic’ results in a ‘proportional’ ‘loss in potential’ if we ignore ‘system losses/ineficiencies and vise versa.

    Back to your post:

    “WJ: For you I should have wiitten W = mg! My bad! Ok ok! the formula you support is W(eight) = m(ass) x g(ravity) for this surface/atmosphere. But(g) is defined as the acceleration on mass by gravity, .”

    Yes it is, but the atmosphere ‘isn’t’ acellerating towards the ‘Barry Center’! The ‘surface’ proscribes this! The ‘dynamic presentation’ is NOT the ‘POV’ (Point Of View) observed for ‘free fall’! Its a ‘static scenario’ Will (ignoring other atractors, or to ‘coin a new phrase’ ‘detractors’ to the system observed). Thus, IMHO, ‘surface pressure’ can be transcribed as ‘overhead weight’ in a ‘general’ sense.

    As an ‘asside’. For static presentation we need to either loose the ‘/sec^2’ of the dynamic, or gain the ‘/sec2’ for the static when ‘speed’ is altered.

    Best regards, Ray.

  34. Roger Clague says:

    oldbrew says:
    December 18, 2015 at 12:32 pm
    On the other hand air pressure reduces with height

    I agree that pressure/height is caused by gravity, but not through weight, mg. as is commonly believed.
    Molecules diffuse vertically against gravity. The velocity of molecules is reduced by the deceleration of gravity.

    This reducing velocity causes the exponential p/h.

  35. Roger Clague says:

    suricat says:
    December 20, 2015 at 3:49 am

    ‘Solids’ disclose their ‘weight’ at ‘the point/area of contact’, but ‘fluids’ disclose their ‘weight’ ‘everywhere’ and ‘internal kinetics’ need consideration!

    Liquids are like solids. 1kg of water poured into a glass. The weight is transferred to the bottom surface of the liquid and then to the glass and finally the scales.
    The weight of a liquid acts over the area of contact.

    In a gas molecules move in all directions and no weight can be measured.
    Gas is not like a liquid or solid.

    Mercury Barometer

    Air pressure can balance a column of Hg. A column of Hg has weight.
    Therefore air has weight and air pressure is caused by weight of air.
    The conclusion is wrong.

    The Hg barometer measures only the downward part of air pressure, not the equal upward force.
    76cm Hg is the weight air pressure can support if air pressure were only a downward force

    The vacuum bellows barometer shows pressure can be in any direction

  36. suricat says: December 21, 2015 at 3:45 am

    Will Janoschka says: December 20, 2015 at 1:37 pm

    (“!!!!”)

    “I’d like to take a ‘time out’ here Will. I tend/seem to ‘automatically’ transpose energy transitions for massive entities. I’m an engineer, so I guess this may be expected of me. However, I do have ‘problematic ponderances’ when velocities get to aproach ‘c’ (the speed of light), but, again, I guess this may be expected of an engineer trying to cope with reference frames that don’t coincide when ‘E = m c^2’ turns up.”

    I agree Ray. I also need some personnel four-space to ponder the vastness of this atmosphere and “what does it mean”. You and Roger C. seem the only that consider the comments of others before responding. If you can please expound a bit on your “attractors”. What I can get so far is some sort of deep valley in the myriad of potentials, all different. Where all stuff spontaneously seeks a stable equilibrium! Mommy, warm bed, and favourite stuffed critter!
    All the best! -will-

  37. Roger Clague says: December 21, 2015 at 9:25 am

    oldbrew says:December 18, 2015 at 12:32 pm
    (‘On the other hand air pressure reduces with height”)

    “I agree that pressure/height is caused by gravity, but not through weight, mg. as is commonly believed. Molecules diffuse vertically against gravity. The velocity of molecules is reduced by the deceleration of gravity. This reducing velocity causes the exponential p/h.”

    Yes indeed! Finally a reasonable explanation!! Each atmospheric molecule remains free to respond (accelerate) to force in any direction between collisions. These molecules “must have mass” in order to respond to the accelerative force of gravity, They individually accelerate in the direction of the Earth-molecule barycentre. This is the same environment that all orbiting satellites find and why they also are weightless. Do not discount (ignore) linear, rotational and orbital momentum for any of this mass! This is the expression of ‘thingies’ for their own internal (state)“power”!
    The so called neuvo-physics ‘Internal energy’ (sensible heat) is quite independent of this momentum power, and “only” indicates some accumulation (storage of power). Each molecule “has” power kT/t (no mass needed) always, even as v approaches ‘c’, because relativistic effects become dominant, when ‘t’ approaches proper ‘t’ = zero, for every case of v approaching ‘c’, and the illusionary effects of mechanical (mass) thermodynamics cease to exist! /rant.
    In this atmosphere molecules are also accelerated downward by that same accelerative force of gravity increasing atmospheric density! This is a different exponential &#961/h, as this has an additional ‘length’ term even for gas molar mass (N). For any atmospheric quantity of an even number of molecules, at near the same temperature; half are accelerating downward. the other half are decelerating upward; for no change in momentum, and no apparent change in location.
    All the best! -will-

  38. Sorry! This is a different exponential ρ/h, as this has an additional ‘length’ term even for gas molar mass (N).

  39. oldbrew says:

    On another thread Richard Holle pointed out that the solar wind compresses the atmosphere, and this effect obviously moves with the Earth’s rotation on the ‘day side’ of the world.

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/lunar-tides-long-term-variation-peak-latitude-anomaly/#comment-19721

  40. suricat says:

    Roger Clague says: December 21, 2015 at 9:27 am

    “Liquids are like solids. 1kg of water poured into a glass. The weight is transferred to the bottom surface of the liquid and then to the glass and finally the scales.
    The weight of a liquid acts over the area of contact.”

    This isn’t the ‘whole’ story Roger. 😉 From what you describe; if I poured water into a container with a ‘hole’ in the side you imply that water above the ‘hole’ would ‘not leak out’! We know that this is not the case. All fluid ‘phenotype’ (excuse the bio analogy) ‘distribute’ the ‘weight’ of any mass above the observed vertical height (do I need to say ‘in a gravity field’ again) as ‘pressure’ in ‘all directions’ at the height of observation.

    Also, you’re employing a ‘solid’ ‘containment apparatum’ (“a glass”).

    I could/did say the same for the weighing of a ‘gas’ within a vacuum chamber (by way of displacement) that was ‘weighed’ both before, and after the ‘chamber’ was ‘vacated/pulled to a vacuum’. 🙂 . What didn’t you understand about that scenario?

    “In a gas molecules move in all directions and no weight can be measured.
    Gas is not like a liquid or solid.”

    Liquid molecules also share this property that you propose, but to a ‘lesser degree’ of ‘fluidity’ (shorter diffusion length/distance is also apparent to a liquid state when compared to the ‘gas’ state).

    The main difference is ‘spacing’. The distance between molecules for a ‘gas’ is much greater than that for a ‘liquid’. This also ‘permits’ the ‘degree of freedom’ for a ‘gas’ that’s ‘proscribed’ to/for a ‘liquid’. ‘Compression/compressibility’!

    When it comes to ‘solids’, the definition is also ‘blurred’. Ice ‘sublimates’ to vapor, glass ‘flows’ over a century timescale (glass is a ‘super-cooled fluid’). I could go on, but I’ll not. In the main, ‘solids’ are categorised by the ‘strong’ valence bonds that couple molecules to give a ‘structural rigidity’ to the ‘material’. However, ‘parts of the solid molecule’ are used in ‘industry’ WRT ‘semiconductors’ where ‘electron holes’ and ‘surplus electrons’ are used to generate a ‘current flow bias, but let’s NOT get into this here. Suffice to say that a ‘solid’ maintains its ‘structural integrity’ within the ‘strong’ ‘electrostatic field’ and easily maintains its ‘solid structure’ within the ‘weaker’ ‘gravity field’.

    Ionic interaction for gasses is easy to establish at high temp and frequency, its harder, but quite efficient, for ‘most liquids’ (electro-plating), but solids mostly present ionic interaction at ‘VLF’ (Very Low Frequency) unless a ‘resonant factor’ is in evidence.

    IMHO your “In a gas molecules move in all directions and no weight can be measured.” declaration is self effacing. Microscopic observation isn’t conjoined with the macroscopic observation of ‘a pressure gradient within a gravity field’!

    What are your ‘assertions’?

    “Mercury Barometer”

    I just had to ‘larf’ at this Rog.

    “Air pressure can balance a column of Hg. A column of Hg has weight.
    Therefore air has weight and air pressure is caused by weight of air.
    The conclusion is wrong.”

    I ‘strongly’ disagree Roger. You seem to relate to ‘the surface’ for your ‘set standard ref’. You should ‘re-locate’ this to ‘abs. vacuum’. ‘Weight’ is defined by ‘the resultant pressure’ at the ‘point of measurement’. Where/when the ‘point of measurement is ‘compromised’ remains undefined without a ‘vacuum reference’ (which both ‘mercury’ and ‘aneroid’ devices employ), but please take the ‘absolute’ datum/data reference and ‘not’ a ‘modelled’ configuration (this only complicates any issues of/for verification).

    “The Hg barometer measures only the downward part of air pressure, not the equal upward force.”

    This statement is ‘odd’ Roger! If the “downward part of air pressure” is “equal” to the “equal upward force” whats the problem with the observation?

    “The vacuum bellows barometer shows pressure can be in any direction”

    As does the “Mercury Barometer” Roger. 🙂

    Best regards, Ray.

  41. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: December 22, 2015 at 4:09 am

    “I agree Ray. I also need some personnel four-space to ponder the vastness of this atmosphere and “what does it mean”.”

    I’m just looking for a way to turn this discussion ‘away’ from ‘hydrostatic equilibrium’ and towards the incredible dynamic that ‘mass inertia’ imparts to Earth’s weather systems. I’m not sure that this is a good thread to introduce this property, but I’m here anyhow.

    “If you can please expound a bit on your “attractors”. What I can get so far is some sort of deep valley in the myriad of potentials, all different. Where all stuff spontaneously seeks a stable equilibrium! Mommy, warm bed, and favourite stuffed critter!”

    The ‘atractor scenario’ is based on ‘efficiency’ Will.

    Consider the preferred routes for ‘energy transition’!

    Having made this analysis, now look for the ‘energy drain’ to each ‘route’ discovered and the ‘method’ of ‘transition’! If you’re happy with your ‘finding’ that’s OK, but there are many ‘other paths’ that you’ve probably not yet encountered to achieve a ‘95%’ understanding! Myself included!

    Best regards, Ray.

  42. suricat says: December 24, 2015 at 3:59 am

    Will Janoschka says: Ho Ho Ho, Merry and a Happy also! “whatever that may mean”! Mostly a complete absence of any possible ill/bad intent!

    “I’m just looking for a way to turn this discussion ‘away’ from ‘hydrostatic equilibrium’ and towards the incredible dynamic that ‘mass inertia’ imparts to Earth’s weather systems. I’m not sure that this is a good thread to introduce this property, but I’m here anyhow.”

    I agree this atmosphere generally appears so benign and gentle, that few consider the magnitude and absolute viciousness, horsepower, and horsepower hours within that large, but stull puffy, 27 km³, (3km)³ cloud. Just where is the spontaneous–ness of such a cloud construct? Idiot Earthlings!!

    “The ‘atractor scenario’ is based on ‘efficiency’ Will. Consider the preferred routes for ‘energy transition’!

    OK that (ME) type ‘energy transition’, to an (EE), is but a directional “power or flux” over some wee, but non constant interval, thus can never be considered the integral of power over time, The “accumulation” of power by mass! To EEs and I guess chemists, mass, is but a stupid distraction from what is!! All of that is left as an exercise for the student.

    “Having made this analysis, now look for the ‘energy drain’ to each ‘route’ discovered and the ‘method’ of ‘transition’! If you’re happy with your ‘finding’ that’s OK, but there are many ‘other paths’ that you’ve probably not yet encountered to achieve a ‘95%’ understanding! Myself included! Best regards, Ray. ”

    Do you write of ‘entropy’ then? The idiot beancounter trick? We have a sometimes moving force (horsepower) plowing the field. We have force times distance (work) times the ‘time’ to do the whole damed field. A scalar magnitude of Planck’s units (h), of action.
    Bean counters carfully note that more field would be now plowed if not for tired, turning around, and rocks! Poor efficiency, much entropy, but only has meaning in that now the bean counters books balance., Not the horse, field, nor farmer pay any attention to such BS numbers!! Is this called ‘science’ or nonsense?
    According to my lovely CPA lady, such is also called shrinkage, or in the extreme case “GOOD WILL”.
    All the best! -will-

  43. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: December 24, 2015 at 8:30 am

    “Ho Ho Ho, Merry and a Happy also! “whatever that may mean”! Mostly a complete absence of any possible ill/bad intent!”

    Apologies for the tardy response Will. Back pain makes my time short and the seasons activities amplifies this ‘shortening’.

    Your felicitation is well received Will, and reciprocated. 🙂

    “Just where is the spontaneous–ness of such a cloud construct?”

    ‘Clouds’ are only a local phenomenon on the scale of atmospherics. There are more ‘energetic’ systems, but we need to progress beyond the current thread content before this can be discussed with confidence for ‘understanding’.

    “OK that (ME) type ‘energy transition’, to an (EE), is but a directional “power or flux” over some wee, but non constant interval, thus can never be considered the integral of power over time, The “accumulation” of power by mass!”

    I assume “(ME)” to be ‘Maximum Entropy’ theory and “(EE)” to be the ‘Electrical Engineer’ discipline. To continue:

    I envisage the ‘Maximum Entropy Theory’ as a ‘confused conglomeration’ of ‘possible pathways’ for ‘energy’ to achieve ‘fastest Entropic decay/fastest discharge to a lower potential’ of energy!

    The ‘philosophy’ for/behind ‘MEP’ (Maximum Entropy Production) ‘dictates’ that ‘any’ path that energy can fall/dissipate into a ‘lower energy potential’ state is ‘taken’ when an ‘energy potential’ exists within the system, and its ‘neighboring systems’ are able to ‘convert and consume’ energy from the ‘source system’ (my definition).

    My conclusion from this scenario is that where an ‘increase’ in energy is being ‘transmuted’, due to increased potential, a ‘log increase in inefficiency’ is introduced proportionate to the main system’s ‘throughput resistance’. This automatically leads to a ‘log increase’ to ‘bordering/neighboring systems that can interact’ with the ‘main system’, thus, drawing energy ‘from the main system’ as an ‘overflow’.

    I consider ‘all neighboring systems’ that are capable of sinking energy from the ‘overflow’ of the ‘main source’ as an ‘atractor’ (the ‘mathematical definition’ of ‘atractor’ is the same, but for a ‘single/simple’ ‘sink’ with ‘random sources’).

    “Do you write of ‘entropy’ then?”

    No. Well, not quite. ‘Entropy’ is for the ‘bean counters’ that you mention. My interest is in ‘where’ the energy ‘went’. Not that ‘it was lost from the system’, thus, was ‘ineffective to the system’ and fell into entropy.

    There are always ‘stages’ into ‘entropy’ per se, but ‘mass has its energy potential’ and ‘energy has its mass potential’. However, ‘both mass and energy’ are ‘indestructible’ when their ‘equivalence’ is invoked!

    Now, there’s a ‘conundrum’. 🙂

    In advance (in the event that I don’t make a ‘timely post’ before/at the date), I hope the next year exceeds all your best positive expectations Will. IOW, HAPPY NEW YEAR!

    Best regards, Ray.

  44. suricat says:

    oldbrew says: December 22, 2015 at 2:01 pm

    “On another thread Richard Holle pointed out that the solar wind compresses the atmosphere, and this effect obviously moves with the Earth’s rotation on the ‘day side’ of the world.”

    Why do you mention this here OB? IMHO this thread didn’t get past understanding ‘HEq’ yet. The introduction of ‘inertial compaction’ can only confuse the readers here at this juncture.

    Best regards, Ray.

  45. suricat says: December 29, 2015 at 1:49 am

    Will Janoschka says: December 24, 2015 at 8:30 am

    (“OK that (ME) type ‘energy transition’, to an (EE), is but a directional “power or flux” over some wee, but non constant interval, thus can never be considered the integral of power over time, The “accumulation” of power by mass!”)

    Please note: I are having now your problems. Significant and thoughtful response. . Such disappears to the etheric upon posting to talkshop! Must now copy to thumb-drive, detach, give to kitten for burial in ‘her’ safe spot! …OTOH rewriting seems to improve clarity for all.

    I assume “(ME)” to be ‘Maximum Entropy’ theory and “(EE)” to be the ‘Electrical Engineer’ discipline.

    No no no no! Competent folk for communication not theory.
    EE Electrical Engineer’: Gotz any mass at all! Ya-all gonna get nowhere near (c)!
    CE Chemical Engineer’: Mass! maybe, Sure slows down neat xplosions!
    AE Aeronautical Engineer’ : Gots ta minimize mass if this puppy is to ever fly!
    ME Mechanical Engineer’ : Must have mass, or no energy to conserve!

    ” To continue:
    I envisage the ‘Maximum Entropy Theory’ as a ‘confused conglomeration’ of ‘possible pathways’ for ‘energy’ to achieve ‘fastest Entropic decay/fastest discharge to a lower potential’ of energy!”

    Lower or lowest? Why energy? Why some ‘fastest’? What is fast? All furious spontaneous peddling/gliding/stumbling to lower local stable equilibrium seems the same as Rudy Clausius observed. Spontaneous don’t go uphill, not never, ever!

    “The ‘philosophy’ for/behind ‘MEP’ (Maximum Entropy Production) ‘dictates’ that ‘any’ path that energy can fall/dissipate into a ‘lower energy potential’ state is ‘taken’ when an ‘energy potential’ exists within the system, and its ‘neighboring systems’ are able to ‘convert and consume’ energy from the ‘source system’ (my definition).”

    To me this seems backwards and inverted. This atmosphere seems to invoke minimum work (streamlines), so for a fixed disposal of amount of energy minimum “work”

    “My conclusion from this scenario is that where an ‘increase’ in energy is being ‘transmuted’, due to increased potential, a ‘log increase in inefficiency’ is introduced proportionate to the main system’s ‘throughput resistance’. This automatically leads to a ‘log increase’ to ‘bordering/neighboring systems that can interact’ with the ‘main system’, thus, drawing energy ‘from the main system’ as an ‘overflow’.”

    How do you reach such a conclusion? What do yo mean by transmuted? Is compressing a gas some sort of energy transmutation? Does such necessarily apply to this atmosphere with some region expanding and others aggregating mass within some volume?

    “I consider ‘all neighboring systems’ that are capable of sinking energy from the ‘overflow’ of the ‘main source’ as an ‘atractor’ (the ‘mathematical definition’ of ‘atractor’ is the same, but for a ‘single/simple’ ‘sink’ with ‘random sources’).”

    Clear as mud!

    (“Do you write of ‘entropy’ then?”)

    “No. Well, not quite. ‘Entropy’ is for the ‘bean counters’ that you mention. My interest is in ‘where’ the energy ‘went’. Not that ‘it was lost from the system’, thus, was ‘ineffective to the system’ and fell into entropy.”

    Yes fine! The aggregation of what used to be “power” but now has no “force” being at the lowest local potential (the tropopause)! What else does thermal EMF ever dispatch to even lower radiance, except “entropy”? In the case of radiance (a potential) such can and does still limit the flux from any higher radiance (potential). 😉

    “There are always ‘stages’ into ‘entropy’ per se, but ‘mass has its energy potential’ and ‘energy has its mass potential’. However, ‘both mass and energy’ are ‘indestructible’ when their ‘equivalence’ is invoked! Now, there’s a ‘conundrum’. 🙂 ”

    What kinda ‘drum’/’undrum’? At least some going from mass to energy has been demonstrated. But E = mc² not so much, else the universe is but a black whole/hole! 😉

    “In advance (in the event that I don’t make a ‘timely post’ before/at the date), I hope the next year exceeds all your best positive expectations Will. IOW, HAPPY NEW YEAR! Best regards, Ray.”

    Thank you Ray! All the best! -will-

  46. oldbrew says:

    Ray says: ‘The introduction of ‘inertial compaction’ can only confuse the readers here at this juncture.’

    Glad to hear they’re not already confused 😐

  47. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: December 30, 2015 at 11:35 am

    “Please note: I are having now your problems. Significant and thoughtful response. . Such disappears to the etheric upon posting to talkshop! Must now copy to thumb-drive, detach, give to kitten for burial in ‘her’ safe spot! …OTOH rewriting seems to improve clarity for all.”

    Commiserations Will. I just ‘give up’ because both the post and associated ‘proofs’ are gone. Can’t think why, though, my original ‘Internet service’ was Tiscali, which begat TalkTalk, which begat AOL. I just don’t know which ‘service’ to make complaint to anymore (what have they implanted on my HD?)!

    “No no no no! Competent folk for communication not theory.”

    I get it Will. I’m all of those, and some.

    “Lower or lowest? Why energy? Why some ‘fastest’? What is fast? All furious spontaneous peddling/gliding/stumbling to lower local stable equilibrium seems the same as Rudy Clausius observed.”

    Not quite. ‘Harmonic Resonance’ can increase the energetic ‘peak’ to a value that permits ‘over spill’ into an adjacent ‘system’.

    “Spontaneous don’t go uphill, not never, ever!”

    If that was true the klysteron tube, magnetron, EHT ‘triple’ device that generates HT for a CRT, etc. wouldn’t work.

    Please revise your ‘energy level’ understandings for contemporary tec. Will. 🙂

    I need to close here.

    Best regards, Ray.

  48. Roger Clague says:

    suricat says:
    December 24, 2015 at 2:49 am

    RogC:
    “The vacuum bellows barometer shows pressure can be in any direction”
    suricat: As does the “Mercury Barometer”

    The Hg barometer uses a liquid. It can only be arranged with the air above the liquid. A liquid barometer cannot set up in any other way.
    It measures air pressure downwards. This leads to this faulty logic
    . Downward air pressure can balance the weight of a column of Hg.
    Weight is downwards force
    Therefore air pressure is caused by weight of air

    However air does not have weight.

  49. Roger Clague says: December 31, 2015 at 8:03 am

    “The Hg barometer uses a liquid. It can only be arranged with the air above the liquid. A liquid barometer cannot set up in any other way. It measures air pressure downwards. This leads to this faulty logic”is but one of those

    I agree, but leads to all manner of fantasy about this atmosphere! The DALR of -g/Cp, is but one of those fantasies.

    “Downward air pressure can balance the weight of a column of Hg.”

    Sufficient air pressure can support any length column of Hg against gravitational attraction that does not rupture the containment of such a column!\

    “Weight is downwards force”

    But not any downward force! The force of momentum, accelerating mass in the same gravitational field, say a pile driver or impact well drilling, can produces force many times that produced by ‘weight’ Weight must be the expression of the accelerative gravitational force upon mass, known as heaviness! Weight is not ‘downwards force’! Weight is a particular form of expression with a maximum Earth surface expression of 9.8 N/kg! 😉

    “Therefore air pressure is caused by weight of air.”

    Air pressure is the force produced by reversing the normal component of molecular momentum of air molecules intersecting any flat surface. Such force is always a complex expression of pressure, density, and temperature! That stratified pressure, density, and temperature is the measure of how gravitational attraction on airborne mass is expressed in any atmosphere! Such never involves weight! All the other is but fantasy for profit in the meteorological section of politics!

    “However air does not have weight.”

    However, an atmosphere has (expresses) no weight as carefully demonstrated by Archimedes 271 BC. Such nonsense teaching by the ©CACAC™ is but another attempt at dumbing down the serfs!

  50. suricat says: December 31, 2015 at 1:24 am

    Will Janoschka says: December 30, 2015 at 11:35 am

    (“Spontaneous don’t go uphill, not never, ever!”)

    “If that was true the klystron tube, magnetron, EHT ‘triple’ device that generates HT for a CRT, etc. wouldn’t work. Please revise your ‘energy level’ understandings for contemporary tec. Will. 🙂
    I need to close here.Best regards, Ray.”

    I am well aware of resonances. Just where is your inductive reactance in this atmosphere? Bouncing tennis balls? A Komatsu D575A can make a fine ski slope in about a week! Hardly spontaneously though!
    All the best! -will-

  51. suricat says:

    Roger Clague says: December 31, 2015 at 8:03 am

    “The Hg barometer uses a liquid. It can only be arranged with the air above the liquid. A liquid barometer cannot set up in any other way.”

    I concur. This is because Hg is a ‘fluid’, exhibits ‘hydrostatic equilibrate’ behaviour (can’t support its own weight) and the ‘surface’ of the substance always presents at ’90 angular degrees’ to the ‘force vector’ in a gravity, or inertial, field (it can ‘slop around’ in its container).

    “It measures air pressure downwards.”

    However, ‘upwards air pressure’ is the same as ‘air pressure downwards’ at the point of measurement for a ‘static system’, thus, what do you imply?

    “However air does not have weight.”

    Yes it does. All mass involves a ‘measured weight in a gravity field’, or an ‘inertia value’ where a gravity field is absent (that point for ‘inertia value’ is hard to envisage when ‘mass’, per se, generates ”the”/”a” ‘gravity field’).

    Do you propose that “air” is ‘without’ ‘mass’, or ‘massless’? 😦

    Best regards, Ray.

  52. suricat says:

    oldbrew says: December 30, 2015 at 7:30 pm

    “Glad to hear they’re not already confused :|”

    Then please help! You initiated this thread, then left it ‘hanging’.

    Ray.

  53. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: December 31, 2015 at 11:26 am

    “I am well aware of resonances. Just where is your inductive reactance in this atmosphere?”

    Earth’s magnetosphere Will. However, I was thinking more along the lines of ‘capacitance’.

    Best regards, Ray.

  54. suricat says: January 1, 2016 at 1:11 am

    Roger Clague says: December 31, 2015 at 8:03 am

    (“However air does not have weight.”)

    “Yes it does. All mass involves a ‘measured weight in a gravity field’, or an ‘inertia value’ where a gravity field is absent (that point for ‘inertia value’ is hard to envisage when ‘mass’, per se, generates ”the”/”a” ‘gravity field’). Do you propose that “air” is ‘without’ ‘mass’, or ‘massless’? 😦 ”

    ATMOSPHERE I must agree with Roger as long as his ‘air’ pertains to the low density compressible fluid with mass retained locally only by the effects of a strong gravitational field! The whole concept of heaviness is replaced by the stratified triplet of pressure, density, and temperature. The mass of any part of this atmosphere demonstrates no spontaneous tendency to accelerate in the direction of the surface, due to gravitational attractive force! Not sure at all about the Venus CO2 at pressure/temperature above critical! Not willing to go measure either!!!
    Dunno is fine! On this Earth, the primary purpose of ATMOSPHERE is to keep oceans from evaporating! 🙂 This was all written up well before day3 when Lockeed/CalTech/JPL had to take over from Generous Dynamics/Aerojet General (low bidder) long long time ago!

    suricat says: January 1, 2016 at 1:46 am
    Will Janoschka says: December 31, 2015 at 11:26 am
    (“I am well aware of resonances. Just where is your inductive reactance in this atmosphere?”)

    “Earth’s magnetosphere Will. However, I was thinking more along the lines of ‘capacitance’.
    Best regards, Ray.”

    Atmospheric mass (capacitance) we gots lots! We gots no atmospheric springs (inductance), for resonance, that I can perceive! Of course upside down and backward is easy!! Earth’s magnetosphere?? Like a permanent magnet? Bite you in the A$$, when you is not looking!!
    All the best! -will-

  55. Roger Clague says:

    suricat says:
    January 1, 2016 at 1:11 am

    All mass involves a ‘measured weight in a gravity field’, or an ‘inertia value’ where a gravity field is absent (that point for ‘inertia value’ is hard to envisage when ‘mass’, per se, generates ”the”/”a” ‘gravity field’).

    Consider the ISS, its contents are weightless, they float about.
    The ISS is in the acceleration field of the Earth. At 400km above Earth this field is 0.9 of the surface value of 10m/s^2
    The ISS is also accelerating in orbit. It velocity changes relative to Earth acceleration field from + 28 000km/h to -28 000km/h in ½ of an orbit, that is 45 min.
    52 000 000m/4000s = 12 000m/s
    12 000m/s in 45 min = 12 000m/s x 1/3000s = 4m/s^2

    The 4m/s^2 orbital acceleration combines with the 9m/s^2 gravity acceleration
    The result is weightlessness.

    In a similar way the self generated acceleration field of gas molecules combines with gravity to produce weightlessness of gas.

    suricat: Do you propose that “air” is ‘without’ ‘mass’, or ‘massless’?

    No. I propose that mass does not always cause weight.

  56. Roger Clague says:

    suricat says:
    January 1, 2016 at 1:11 am

    RogC: “It [ the Hg barometer ] measures air pressure downwards.”

    suricat: However, ‘upwards air pressure’ is the same as ‘air pressure downwards’ at the point of measurement for a ‘static system’, thus, what do you imply?

    Molecular motion explains upwards air pressure and downward air pressure.
    Weight can’t explain upwards air pressure.

    In the hydrostatic equilibrium theory the equilibrium is between pressure as weight of air, mgh, and pressure caused by molecular motion, PV = nkT.

    2 very different causes of the main property considered, air pressure. This not allowed in a scientific theory.

  57. tallbloke says:

    Roger C: In the hydrostatic equilibrium theory the equilibrium is between pressure as weight of air, mgh, and pressure caused by molecular motion, PV = nkT. Two very different causes of the main property considered, air pressure. This not allowed in a scientific theory.

    Well I don’t see why the theory couldn’t be the subject of a dimensional analysis which would reconcile all terms used.

    Fact: atmospheric pressure is generated by gravity acting on the mass of the atmosphere pulling it against a boundary (the Earth’s surface)
    Fact: Temperature affects pressure by causing molecular excitation.
    Fact: Hydrostatic equilibrium is a condition including both the above factors.

  58. Roger Clague says: January 1, 2016 at 11:27 am

    suricat says: January 1, 2016 at 1:11 am

    (“Do you propose that “air” is ‘without’ ‘mass’, or ‘massless’?”)

    “No. I propose that mass does not always cause weight.”

    Quite nice! thank you! And hope for your your Comfortable 2016!!!

    Can we now get on with this thread and discuss what “is” within ±50m of the ocean atmosphere interface where “all” the neat action is!
    All the best! -will-

  59. tallbloke says: January 1, 2016 at 12:31 pm

    (Roger C: “In the hydrostatic equilibrium theory the equilibrium is between pressure as weight of air, mgh, and pressure caused by molecular motion, PV = nkT. Two very different causes of the main property considered, air pressure. This not allowed in a scientific theory.”)

    “Well I don’t see why the theory couldn’t be the subject of a dimensional analysis which would reconcile all terms used.”

    Not when you have fantasy/religious/meteorological/political terms like “atmospheric weight”

    “Fact: atmospheric pressure is generated by gravity acting on the mass of the atmosphere pulling it against a boundary (the Earth’s surface)”

    Indeed! Surface pressure is but one of the stratified triplet of pressure, density, temperature altitude gradient in this Earth’s atmosphere.

    “Fact: Temperature affects pressure by causing molecular excitation.”

    What total BS!! Temperature is but a piss poor indication of gas molecular power kT/t for each and every molecule! Slow ponderous massive gas molecules rule! 😉
    All the best! and happy! -will-

  60. tallbloke says:

    Will J: What total BS!! Temperature is but a piss poor indication of gas molecular power kT/t for each and every molecule!

    Fine, you get on with measuring the KT/t of all the individual molecules, while I stick a damp finger in the air, and then head for the pub.

    It’s the advantage of being an engineer rather than a scientist I guess 😉

    You’re right of course, temperature is a proxy for the energy state of the matter, not a ’cause’ of anything.

  61. oldbrew says:

    Erl Happ says:
    ‘Based on Dobson’s observations we can suggest a rule of thumb. It is this: The variation in the density of the upper half of the atmospheric column, due to its ozone content, accounts for variations in surface atmospheric pressure. You might not realize it at this point but this observation turns climatology, as we know it today, precisely on its head. Let me reiterate the point in a different form of words. The ozone content of the upper air drives surface winds. Here is another formulation: The character of the troposphere is determined in the stratosphere.’

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/3-how-the-earth-warms-and-cools-naturally/

    Does this impact on the convection debate?

  62. David Russell says:

    As an Engineer, I was often faced with imprecise and misstated information that was still useful and often essential or even critical, Pondering the above examples led me to these observations:

    Temperature by itself is a insufficient to describe the energy of anything.

    Weight is the exertion of force by one mass against another.

    An object, even an atom can be weightless, as long as it doesn’t run into something.

    Gas is never static, but some static rules work just fine, if the gas is sufficiently dense, homogenous, still and isolated.

  63. Roger Clague says:

    TB asks: is the hydrostatic equilibrium theory: mgh = nkT dimensionally correct?

    m = kg
    g = ms^-2
    h = m
    n is a number and has no dimension
    k = m^2kg s^-2K^-1
    T = K
    mgh = m^2kgs^-2
    nKT = m^2kgs^-2
    They are dimensionally equal in the m, kg, s system of dimensions. However I consider number to be a basic dimension (and not mass)

    My criticism is that the 2 sides of the equilibrium are not physically equal
    mgh, m is for mass (and is combined with g to give weight)
    nkT, the number of molecules is used.
    Masses and number of particles are different properties

    Fact: atmospheric pressure is generated by gravity acting on the mass of the atmosphere pulling it against a boundary (the Earth’s surface)
    Fact: Temperature affects pressure by causing molecular excitation.
    Fact: Hydrostatic equilibrium is a condition including both the above factors.

    I agree that T and g are factors in atmospheric pressure

    You say p caused (generated) by g and affected by T.
    Either p is caused by gravity acting on mass (weight) or molecular excitation (motion, velocity) the cause cannot be both

    We know (Bernoulli, 1733) that it is the number of molecules only and not the mass of each molecule that explains and predicts gas pressure.

    I say air pressure is caused by temperature (motion, velocity) and reduced by gravity (deceleration) according to the laws of motion.

  64. tallbloke says:

    Roger C: Either p is caused by gravity acting on mass (weight) or molecular excitation (motion, velocity) the cause cannot be both

    Pressure has more than one cause. Your objection is that the P on each side of the equation is arising from a different cause. I’m saying that doesn’t matter because they are dimensionally equivalent. You’re countering that they’re not:

    mgh, m is for mass (and is combined with g to give weight)
    nkT, the number of molecules is used.
    Masses and number of particles are different properties

    Isn’t n a molar number in this case though? That can be resolved to a mass can’t it?

    Wiki:
    The mole is a unit of measurement for amount of substance. It is defined as the amount of any chemical substance that contains as many elementary entities, e.g., atoms, molecules, ions, electrons, or photons, as there are atoms in 12 grams of pure carbon-12 (12C), the isotope of carbon with relative atomic mass 12 by definition. This number is expressed by the Avogadro constant, which has a value of 6.02214129(27)×1023. In other words, the mole is the name given to an amount of a substance equal in mass (in grams) to the combined mass (in amu) of the atoms of the constituent molecules of the substance multiplied by Avogadro’s number. It is one of the base units in the International System of Units; it has the unit symbol mol.

  65. tallbloke says: January 2, 2016 at 11:29 am

    (Roger C: “Either p is caused by gravity acting on mass (weight) or molecular excitation (motion, velocity) the cause cannot be both. Pressure has more than one cause. Your objection is that the P on each side of the equation is arising from a different cause.
    mgh, m is for mass (and is combined with g to give weight)
    nkT, the number of molecules is used.
    Masses and number of particles are different properties.”)

    “Isn’t n a molar number in this case though? That can be resolved to a mass can’t it?”

    No! n is the number of molecules that goes with kT. Boltzmann’s kT/t is the noise power associated with each and every gas molecule at temperature (T). The 1/ (time between collisions), or density and molecular velocity that yields momentum change, (KE) and is indicated by linear T over most of the gas phase range of pressure/density! Post modern physics also neglects pressure times mass as a form of energy. Such however is only a form of entropy in this atmosphere. Capital N is used for number of moles and molar density mass/volume! This part can be resolved.
    Pressure for any gas is independent of molecular mass/weight! The pressure is dependent on molecular structure, temperature, and numeric density! For any one species of gas the ratio of normalized density/pressure is fixed, 5/3 for monatomic gas, 7/5 for simple dipole molecules and down to 9/7 for very complex gas molecules. This is is called gamma in chemistry and “isentropic exponent” in engineering! This number is the ‘why’ of tropospheric linear temperature lapse.
    Back to the atmosphere and convection. It is the stratified pressure, density, temperature, and viscosity of the atmosphere that all interact to give the particular characteristics of the interaction of oceanic and atmospheric mass that results in convection. This interaction is unknown especially by meteorologists and other CCC. It is that above gravitational stratification of this atmosphere that completely replaces the concept that mass must yield ‘weight’!
    Is this but an exercise in who can try to confuse the other the most? This whole mess is caused by the use of exactly the same number of grams for weight as for mass! 😦 10 grams mass actually results in a ‘weight’ of 98.6 Newtons, at sea level, when compact enough to not be even a little airborne! That grams equals grams nonsense is a limy construct, as I recall, that took years of effort to correct, for the rest of us! 😦 The operation of this atmosphere is much more complex than your Phi of semi-orbital repetition!
    All the best! -will-

  66. tallbloke says:

    Ah, OK. 🙂

    “The operation of this atmosphere is much more complex than your Phi of semi-orbital repetition!”

    It’s not as simple as you imagine. No-one has satisfactorily solved the many body problem so far.

  67. oldbrew says: January 1, 2016 at 10:10 pm

    (Erl Happ says:”The ozone content of the upper air drives surface winds. Here is another formulation: The character of the troposphere is determined in the stratosphere.”)

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/3-how-the-earth-warms-and-cools-naturally/

    “Does this impact on the convection debate?”

    Perhaps impact on a debate, but not likely on the atmosphere! Earl Happ, like Dobson, make some measurement, then make wild claims of some effect, supposedly influenced by that measured that can never be affirmed nor falsified! This is the antithesis of science, used so often by meteorologists! It has the same basis as that of CAGW! Happ claims low pressure at the poles, but that is only high altitude pressure or the altitude of constant pressure!
    The surface pressure at the equator is the lowest from the huge outward atmospheric mass motion due to the radial component of surface air tangential velocity of 1000 MPH. The poles have none of this outward accelerative force. Yet the poles do have higher surface pressure, and also much greater density! The launch sites of the French Guiana Space Centre, and the two Brazillian centers all within 6° of the equator make use of this eastward inertial velocity!

  68. tallbloke says: January 2, 2016 at 2:30 pm

    Ah, OK. 🙂

    (“The operation of this atmosphere is much more complex than your Phi of semi-orbital repetition!”)

    “It’s not as simple as you imagine. No-one has satisfactorily solved the many body problem so far.”

    I agree Roger! Both are fraught with many Aw $**t$! However with your 6.022×10^23 molecules/mol x total atmospheric moles, indicates 2.5 x10^16 per mm^3 near the surface, we gotz many, many, mor bodies than y’all, and all still in free gravitationally induced orbit between collisions! ‘Course that distance ‘tween collisions is only 2 wavelengths of visible light, Are not your orbital velocities a function of mass and distance raised to some power? How is every-bodies various forms of momentum related? Can anyone claim that temperature is not some resulting function of all these potentials? How much would another Solar Gas Giant change the temperature of the Earth? If only you Englitch would admit that you buy produce by mass not weight! Perhaps you buy beer by the (1/5_Cubit)³! Cubit is length if trigger pull.
    All the best! -will-

  69. tallbloke says:

    Will J: Cubit is length if trigger pull.

    Yes, this is why our alcohol proof system relies on an arcane definition of 100 degrees proof being 57.5% alcohol. That’s the fraction at which when mixed with gunpowder, it burns with a clear flame.

    The multi-body problem is a problem because solar system bodies in freefall under gravity aren’t quite in freefall. They are pushing each other around in ways which change orbital distances and their angular momenta. But there are some rules which ensure a meta-stable outcome. We need to work out why those rules exist so we can understand why strong correlations between the timings of planetary motion and solar variation are observed.

  70. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: January 1, 2016 at 3:44 am

    “ATMOSPHERE I must agree with Roger as long as his ‘air’ pertains to the low density compressible fluid with mass retained locally only by the effects of a strong gravitational field! The whole concept of heaviness is replaced by the stratified triplet of pressure, density, and temperature.”

    I strongly disagree Will. Both the ‘aneroid’ and ‘mercury column’ types of measurement for ‘atmospheric pressure’ weigh ‘pressure/vacuum’. Only ‘pressure’ is measured against the ‘test vacuum’!

    I’m sure that many other observations can be made, but ‘pressure’ at Earth’s surface is well understood if we follow observations from these ‘absolute’ (statistical analysis for ‘energetic massive particles’) pressure references. However, there are ‘pressure anomalies’ WRT ‘latitude’. These can be explained by a better understanding of ‘inertia’ gained by ‘Earth’s rotation’ (Earth’s centrifugal component) and ‘density disparity’ (for ‘convection’ per se).

    “The mass of any part of this atmosphere demonstrates no spontaneous tendency to accelerate in the direction of the surface, due to gravitational attractive force!”

    This is true for ‘hydrostatic equilibrium’, but not true IMHO for Earth’s atmosphere. Many forces affect Earth’s atmosphere other than the ‘pressure’ generated by the atmospheric ‘overhead’.

    That’s the only response I’ve time for just now. 🙂

    Best regards, Ray.

  71. Claudius Denk says:

    Will:
    Post modern physics also neglects pressure times mass as a form of energy.

    CD:
    Every once in a while Will says something sensible.

    Will:
    Back to the atmosphere and convection.

    CD:
    Oh well. So much for that.

    The key to converting the huge amount of energy that is available as air pressure involves aerodynamics, not convection. This is one of the key realizations necessary for explaining the origins of the jet streams. (Forget convection. Convection is a red herring when it comes to resolving atmospheric flow.)

  72. Will Janoschka says:

    tallbloke says: January 2, 2016 at 11:20 pm

    (Will J: “Cubit is length if of trigger pull.”)

    “Yes, this is why our alcohol proof system relies on an arcane definition of 100 degrees proof being 57.5% alcohol. That’s the fraction at which when mixed with gunpowder, it burns with a clear flame.”

    Interesting! I thought it was body temperature on the Fahrenheit scale with 180 degrees proof between freezing and boiling at sea level! The Cubit is defined as the length between index knuckle and rear of elbow! ‘Bout 1/2 meter for your longbowman 1/5 is decimeter, cubed id liter.

    “The multi-body problem is a problem because solar system bodies in freefall under gravity aren’t quite in freefall. They are pushing each other around in ways which change orbital distances and their angular momenta. ”

    They certainly are too in gravitational free-fur-all with everything else!

    “But there are some rules which ensure a meta-stable outcome. We need to work out why those rules exist so we can understand why strong correlations between the timings of planetary motion and solar variation are observed.”

    Rots-a-ruck there! The problem like that of the oceanic atmospheric boundary, it is still a work in progress! Whatever you get this time, will be different next time! Try to find out who/what is still tweaking with the puppy!

  73. Will Janoschka says:

    suricat says: January 2, 2016 at 11:33 pm

    Will Janoschka says: January 1, 2016 at 3:44 am

    (“ATMOSPHERE I must agree with Roger as long as his ‘air’ pertains to the low density compressible fluid with mass retained locally only by the effects of a strong gravitational field! The whole concept of heaviness is replaced by the stratified triplet of pressure, density, and temperature.”)

    “I strongly disagree Will. Both the ‘aneroid’ and ‘mercury column’ types of measurement for ‘atmospheric pressure’ weigh ‘pressure/vacuum’. Only ‘pressure’ is measured against the ‘test vacuum’!”

    Can you give any evidence that gas pressure is a function of molecular mass, rather than ‘only’ numerical density and temperature as demanded by the ideal gas law? Gas molecular momentum and rate of change in momentum are functions of molecular power, not molecular energy! Consider UF6 vs SF6! Structure is the same! He vs Ar can also be considered!
    All the best! -will-

  74. Claudius Denk says: January 3, 2016 at 12:08 am

    “The key to converting the huge amount of energy that is available as air pressure involves aerodynamics, not convection. This is one of the key realizations necessary for explaining the origins of the jet streams.”

    OK Jim,
    If you wish to be CD then stay that way TB hates aliases! You have much to offer in your hydrogen bonding of WV and airborne water condensate.

    “(Forget convection. Convection is a red herring when it comes to resolving atmospheric flow.)”

    This thread is about ‘convection’ Jim. The meteorological fantasy, of air parcels, hydrostatic balance, geopotential height, convection only radial, and weight of atmosphere; first need be demonstrated as really, really bad astrology, with no scientific basis whatsoever! After that we can start to discover the interaction of the oceanic and atmospheric interface and why to atmosphere supports so much water condensate aloft.
    That very weak 32 Pa atmospheric radial accelerative force near the equator acting on (1.6 x 10^8) km³ of atmospheric mass, does indeed pack a huge amount of power for your interesting weather!
    This is mechanically induced advection not necessarily heat energy transport. Equatorial vertical velocity near 4 km altitude reaches 46 m/s, of your (condensate laden) air. Meteorology never speaks of actual mass flow, only silly lapse rates!
    All the best! -will-

  75. tallbloke says:

    Will J: The meteorological fantasy, of … weight of atmosphere; first need be demonstrated as really, really bad astrology, with no scientific basis whatsoever!

    I’ve avoided commenting much on this thread. But tell me Will, would you agree that gravity acting on the mass of the atmosphere contributes to its pressure (as well as insolation contributing to its pressure)? If so, do you also agree that it is the atmosphere’s pressure which prevents it from landing on the surface in a thin layer? If so do you believe that some of the higher pressure near the surface is due to the weight of the atmosphere above it, or do you believe the pressure is higher near the surface solely because the atmosphere is warmer near the surface?

    Thanks.

  76. tallbloke says: January 3, 2016 at 3:53 pm

    (Will J: “The meteorological fantasy, of … weight of atmosphere; first need be demonstrated as really, really bad astrology, with no scientific basis whatsoever!”)

    “I’ve avoided commenting much on this thread. But tell me Will, would you agree that gravity acting on the mass of the atmosphere contributes to its pressure (as well as insolation contributing to its pressure)?”

    Roger,
    The Earth’s gravity operates on the low density compressible fluid called atmosphere in a way that is much more weird than the Sun’s gravity acting on all the solar systems planets and major satellites! At least those are countable! The countable obey Kepler’s and Newton’s laws of motion, and that countable seems to conform to the Clausius Virial Theorem! Rudy was no dummy. Perhaps if you, OB, and Paul would study that, ya’all might easily dance to the finish line!!
    With a gas, as Roger C. points out, pressure is not a function of molecular mass but only of numerical density and temperature. Why would this atmosphere express heaviness ,called weight while mass is prevented from freely accelerating in the direction of Earth’s COM, when you can walk outside and clearly demonstrate to yourself, that the atmosphere exhibits no tendency to such acceleration while clearly free to do so? Earth’s gravity establishes and maintains, at the speed of sound, the specific stratified atmospheric triplet of pressure, density, and temperature, regardless of local airborne mass changes induced by bugs, birds, Frisbees, or massive aircraft!

    “If so, do you also agree that it is the atmosphere’s pressure which prevents it from landing on the surface in a thin layer?”

    Not at all Roger. It is the fluid atmosphere’s viscosity and Reynolds number, also stratified, that inhibits such collapse!

    ” If so do you believe that some of the higher pressure near the surface is due to the weight of the atmosphere above it, or do you believe the pressure is higher near the surface solely because the atmosphere is warmer near the surface? Thanks.

    Roger,
    To keep the wonder going, I limit myself to two beliefs: “I believe I will sleep in today” and”I believe I will have another beer”!!
    All the best! -will-

  77. tallbloke says:

    Thanks Will, for the reminder why it is I’ve avoided taking part in this thread. 😉

    ” Why would this atmosphere express heaviness ,called weight while mass is prevented from freely accelerating in the direction of Earth’s COM, when you can walk outside and clearly demonstrate to yourself, that the atmosphere exhibits no tendency to such acceleration while clearly free to do so? ”

    For the same reason a brick is prevented from accelerating towards the COM by the scale it sits on which tells you its weight.

    With a gas, as Roger C. points out, pressure is not a function of molecular mass but only of numerical density and temperature.

    ‘Numerical density’ of a known mixture of gaseous elements (molar quantities) has a calculable mass. That mass is acted on by gravity. That’s a major reason for the observed density and pressure gradients in the atmosphere, along with their kinetic energy (heat).

    ”I believe I will have another beer”

    This is one we can agree on. Cheers!

  78. David Russell says:

    Compressibility and miscibility tend to mess with static perspectives.

  79. tallbloke says: January 3, 2016 at 11:07 pm

    RT:”Thanks Will, for the reminder why it is I’ve avoided taking part in this thread. ;)”

    WJ:” Why would this atmosphere express heaviness ,called weight while mass is prevented from freely accelerating in the direction of Earth’s COM, when you can walk outside and clearly demonstrate to yourself, that the atmosphere exhibits no tendency to such acceleration while clearly free to do so? ”

    RT: “For the same reason a brick is prevented from accelerating towards the COM by the scale it sits on which tells you its weight.”

    You deliberately miss the whole point! A one m³ of atmosphere with or without mass at an altitude of 6km sits upon exactly the same pressure (self-buoyancy) and exhibits no tendency for downward acceleration. No weight scale is needed as there is no expression of ‘weight’!

    WJ: “With a gas, as Roger C. points out, pressure is not a function of molecular mass but only of numerical density and temperature.”

    RT: ‘Numerical density’ of a known mixture of gaseous elements (molar quantities) has a calculable mass.’

    Indeed but n molecules within volume V at temperature T of Ar(argon) has 12 times the mass of He(helium) yet both have the same pressure! Why? And why is this important in the way atmosphere moves about?

    RT: “That mass is acted on by gravity. That’s a major reason for the observed density and pressure gradients in the atmosphere, along with their kinetic energy (heat).”

    Indeed; but such is a deliberate attempt to confuse the how/why of atmospheric convection! Because the kinetic effect of gravity is absent in any atmosphere, the advective motion of atmosphere in any direction is isentropic. Only the the force needed to accelerate/decelerate atmospheric mass is “work”! The actual relocation of massless heat or ‘stinky’ is free of any power or energy requirements. BTW the atmospheric mass motion results in no change in linear or angular momentum within or external to Earth’s rotating reference frame.

    WJ: ”I believe I will have another beer” RT:” This is one we can agree on. Cheers!”

    Yup!!

  80. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: January 3, 2016 at 2:11 am

    “Can you give any evidence that gas pressure is a function of molecular mass, rather than ‘only’ numerical density and temperature as demanded by the ideal gas law?”

    Yes Will. If we take a ‘fixed volume’ of atmosphere, many ‘moles’, or molecules, exit and enter the ‘volume’ constantly. However, the ‘pressure’ remains ‘constant’ unless ‘phase change’ is evident!

    TB is correct to point out the ‘three body problem’ for a ‘molar’ approach. This method requires an ‘array’ consisting of ‘cells’ that represent the vector and kinetic for each molecule. Not only is the computation unavailable to today’s supercomputers, its also unable to be defined by the statistical probability of a ‘mole’, ‘molecule’, entering or exiting the ‘volume’ of the measured system.

    What happens if you ‘expect’ ‘all moles and molecules’ to experience the ‘same averaged pressure kinetic’?

    Chaos perhaps (for the ‘mole/molecule’ method)?

    No! There’s a ‘stabilising factor’ of local ‘pressure’ here. 🙂

    IMHO this is a ‘missing link’.

    Best regards, Ray.

  81. tallbloke says:

    Will: Indeed; but such is a deliberate attempt to confuse the how/why of atmospheric convection!

    We haven’t got to convection yet. I’m trying to establish the basics.

    Because the kinetic effect of gravity is absent in any atmosphere, the advective motion of atmosphere in any direction is isentropic. Only the the force needed to accelerate/decelerate atmospheric mass is “work”! The actual relocation of massless heat or ‘stinky’ is free of any power or energy requirements.

    Yes! If gravity did work, it’d all get used up and we’d float off into space. Gravity sets up the gradients, and insolation modifies them, with spare energy generating motion (convection, advection) of atmospheric mass.

  82. suricat says: January 4, 2016 at 2:26 am
    Will Janoschka says: January 3, 2016 at 2:11 am

    (“Can you give any evidence that gas pressure is a function of molecular mass, rather than ‘only’ numerical density and temperature as demanded by the ideal gas law?”)

    “Yes Will. If we take a ‘fixed volume’ of atmosphere, many ‘moles’, or molecules, exit and enter the ‘volume’ constantly. However, the ‘pressure’ remains ‘constant’ unless ‘phase change’ is evident!”

    Ray,
    Your answer is but a refutation, not evidence, that gas molecular mass affects, or that pressure is a function of! With a fixed numerical density, it matters not at all, if the molecules are H2 or UF6 as each has the same momentum (mv) between collisions as per the, statistics of large numbers.

    “TB is correct to point out the ‘three body problem’ for a ‘molar’ approach. This method requires an ‘array’ consisting of ‘cells’ that represent the vector and kinetic for each molecule. Not only is the computation unavailable to today’s supercomputers, its also unable to be defined by the statistical probability of a ‘mole’, ‘molecule’, entering or exiting the ‘volume’ of the measured system.”

    What nonsense! The average power (mv) of each molecule is kT/t. The higher the mass the lower the velocity, on average! The higher the numerical density the higher the change in momentum (banging into) thus the higher temperature. With Cv numerical density is fixed. With Cp (local atmosphere) the numerical density is the reciprocal of temperature. But it is the mass density that determines buoyancy and spontaneous radial advection. Of what volume (never an air parcel) I have not a clue, nor does anyone else!

    ?? “What happens if you ‘expect’ ‘all moles and molecules’ to experience the ‘same averaged pressure kinetic’?”

    Please define pressure kinetic!

    ?? “Chaos perhaps (for the ‘mole/molecule’ method)?”

    OK! reminds me if this atmosphere!

    “No! There’s a ‘stabilising factor’ of local ‘pressure’ here. 🙂
    IMHO this is a ‘missing link’. Best regards, Ray.”

    Thanks Ray. More to ponder!
    All the best! -will-

  83. Roger Clague says:

    tallbloke says:
    January 2, 2016 at 11:29 am

    [air] Pressure has more than one cause.

    I don’t think air pressure can be caused by weight and velocity. We need decide which it is.

    TB Isn’t n a molar number in this case though? That can be resolved to a mass can’t it?
    Wikipedia
    “ the mole is the name given to an amount of a substance equal in mass (in grams) to the combined mass (in amu) of the atoms of the constituent molecules of the substance multiplied by Avogadro’s number.”

    http://www.gcsescience.com/m3.htm
    “A mole is defined as the
    number of atoms in exactly 12 grams of 12C (carbon twelve)”

    Gcsescience and you are right, the mole is a number of particles not their mass. Wikipedia is wrong. The mass of a mole is called molar mass.
    An amount of substance in chemistry can be a number of particles not only the mass of those particles.

    Molar number cannot be multiplied by Avogadro’s number and changed to mass and keep the same meaning and properties

    WillJ says: Pressure for any gas is independent of molecular mass/weight! I agree, apart from the weight bit as gas does not have weight.

    A mole of He = 2gm causes the same pressure ( in a fixed volume ) as a mole of N2 = 28gm.
    Gas pressure is caused by number of particles not the mass of the particles.( bernoilli 1733 )

  84. tallbloke says:

    Roger C: “I don’t think air pressure can be caused by weight and velocity. We need decide which it is.”

    You haven’t done your dimensional analysis properly. ‘Weight’ is mass under (arrested) gravitational acceleration. Acceleration (m/s-2) is the differential (dV/dT) of velocity (m/s-1) with respect to time.

    Besides that, you’re committing the fallacy of the excluded middle. Pressure is a quantity. You are saying pressure can be caused by ‘weight’ or ‘velocity’ (of molecular vibration), but not by a third (middle) possibility, that it could be both. Effects can have more than one cause. Your argument is analogous to:

    “I’ve mixed red and yellow paint and now I’ve got orange paint. But it can only be either the yellow or the red paint that made it turn orange.”

    Molar number cannot be multiplied by Avogadro’s number and changed to mass and keep the same meaning and properties

    That’s why you need the atomic weight and proportions of the constituents of the gas. Then you can calculate the mass without subtracting properties or meaning from it. In fact we add to our knowledge (meaning) of the gas properties by including the additional information.

    Gas pressure is caused by number of particles not the mass of the particles.( bernoilli (sic) 1733 )

    Atmospheric pressure is caused by the number of particles i.e. volume, and their energy state i.e. temperature (Charles 1787), and also by the acceleration of their collective mass due to gravity.

  85. tallbloke says: January 4, 2016 at 1:53 pm

    Roger C:( “I don’t think air pressure can be caused by weight and velocity. We need decide which it is. Molar number cannot be multiplied by Avogadro’s number and changed to mass and keep the same meaning and properties”)

    RT: “That’s why you need the atomic weight and proportions of the constituents of the gas. Then you can calculate the mass without subtracting properties or meaning from it. In fact we add to our knowledge (meaning) of the gas properties by including the additional information.”
    You think you add! Stat properly is atomic mass, not the slang ‘weight!

    RC: (“Gas pressure is caused by number of particles not the mass of the particles.( bernoilli (sic) 1733 )”)

    RT: “Atmospheric pressure is caused by the number of particles i.e. volume, and their energy state i.e. temperature (Charles 1787), and also by the acceleration of their collective mass due to gravity.”

    Not at all!! Atmospheric pressure is caused only by temperature and local numerical density not by the mass of the molecules! The accelerations of gas molecules apparent as both pressure and temperature is from the molecules banging into each other! The radial/vertical acceleration by the feeble 9.86 m/s² of gravity never becomes apparent, except in the upper strato and mesosphere.
    Weight can only become manifest if gravitational acceleration is impeded from acting, like keeping the stone from dropping!. The actual radial component of molecular acceleration/deceleration between collisions due the force of Earth’s gravity is precisely the same 9.86 m/s² independent of the mass of the molecule. Any mass free to accelerate under gravitational force has no “weight”, as in free fall, or proper orbit!
    As you said gravity establishes the proper atmospheric pressure, density, temperature gradients; to keep the whole troposphere self-buoyant!
    Now that we have tried to establish, for the first time, the basics of what a planetary compressible fluid shell “sans convection” might be,!!!, Can we start to discuss that ill-defined meteorological convection, what it might mean, and what major concepts are but religious/political fantasy!
    All the best! -will-

  86. tallbloke says:

    Will: The radial/vertical acceleration by the feeble 9.86 m/s² of gravity never becomes apparent, except in the upper strato and mesosphere.

    If you mean it’s hard to detect in the molecular kinetic noise, that’s one thing. If you mean it is having no effect, then you wouldn’t be getting this:

    gravity establishes the proper atmospheric pressure, density, temperature gradients

    So you need to decide if gravity does act on atmospheric mass to establish gradients or not. You can’t have it both ways. We have to establish this before we discuss buoyancy and convection.

  87. tallbloke says: January 4, 2016 at 9:53 pm

    (Will: “The radial/vertical acceleration by the feeble 9.86 m/s² of gravity never becomes apparent, except in the upper strato and mesosphere.”)

    “If you mean it’s hard to detect in the molecular kinetic noise, that’s one thing. If you mean it is having no effect, then you wouldn’t be getting this:”

    As Roger C. points out, the effect of Earth’s gravity on atmospheric pressure cannot be detected at any tropospheric altitude. You wish to call such pressure (stress) identity, the exact same as weight, which is a force not normalized by area normal to the force! Only the scalar value is the same. The concept, and the terms must be way different.
    Post modern physics (since 1907) attempts to throw all forms of power (horsepower) times application of power over time, into the same bucket called ‘energy’. What fantasy shit!! A horsepower hour of plowed field has only the energy of the horseshit dropped in that hour!. Force (horsepower) times distance is ‘work’ only if the plough is in the dirt!

    (WJ: “gravity establishes the proper atmospheric pressure, density, temperature gradients”)

    “So you need to decide if gravity does act on atmospheric mass to establish gradients or not. You can’t have it both ways. We have to establish this before we discuss buoyancy and convection.”

    Yes Gravity establishes what is observed! It is the why and how that is not known and is certainly not your fantasy of atmospheric ‘weight’! Even with a mostly N2 atmosphere, if Earth’s (g) increased by 20% to 11.8 m/s², what do you claim to be Earth’s surface pressure?
    You like I, have no knowledge of the Earth’s atmospheric, numeric molecules, mass thereof, or why they can be considered atmosphere. Your fantasy, like mine, is but jerking off in the cloakroom!
    I believe I will have another beer 😉 ! -will-

  88. tallbloke says:

    Will J: You wish to call such pressure (stress) identity, the exact same as weight, which is a force not normalized by area normal to the force!

    No and a thousand times no! I’m not calling pressure weight at all. I’m saying the pressure gradient arises due to
    1) The effect of gravity on atmospheric mass (and I don’t care if we can’t count exactly how many molecules there are, there are other ways of estimating mass apart from beancounting)
    2) The kinetic energy of the molecules due to insolation (and Earth’s rotation)

    the effect of Earth’s gravity on atmospheric pressure cannot be detected at any tropospheric altitude

    Because we don’t have any means to measure it. So what? Do you believe that’s a proof it isn’t there? Seriously?

  89. David Russell says:

    WJ: “Yes Gravity establishes what is observed! It is the why and how that is not known and is certainly not your fantasy of atmospheric ‘weight’! Even with a mostly N2 atmosphere, if Earth’s (g) increased by 20% to 11.8 m/s², what do you claim to be Earth’s surface pressure?”

    Assuming no other changes, ~1.22 bar or 17.7 psia at sea level. You would weigh ~20% more, too.

  90. tallbloke says: January 5, 2016 at 12:21 am

    “No and a thousand times no! I’m not calling pressure weight at all. I’m saying the pressure gradient arises due to
    1) The effect of gravity on atmospheric mass (and I don’t care if we can’t count exactly how many molecules there are, there are other ways of estimating mass apart from beancounting)”

    I agree! The atmospheric pressure, density, and temperature gradient arises due to the effect of gravity on atmospheric mass. However earthlings know little or nothing of how or why the gradients:of pressure, and density are logarithmic with altitude, while temperature, speed of sound, and the other puppy are linear with altitude!

    “2) The kinetic energy of the molecules due to insolation (and Earth’s rotation)”

    What total BS! The average power associated with all gas molecules remains at kT/t .
    How the molecule gets that power, yielding that temperature remains unanswered as your dancing with Phi clearly demonstrates!

    (WJ: “the effect of Earth’s gravity on atmospheric pressure cannot be detected at any tropospheric altitude.”

    RT: “Because we don’t have any means to measure it. So what? Do you believe that’s a proof it isn’t there? Seriously?”

    Not at all, it is most likely there! Yours is but a demonstration that you believe that what is, “is”, because Mommy says so! BTW Roger, “Mommy says so” is much more likely correct than any post modern physics BS! 😉

    David Russell says: January 5, 2016 at 12:31 am

    (WJ: “Yes Gravity establishes what is observed! It is the why and how that is not known and is certainly not your fantasy of atmospheric ‘weight’! Even with a mostly N2 atmosphere, if Earth’s (g) increased by 20% to 11.8 m/s², what do you claim to be Earth’s surface pressure?”)

    “Assuming no other changes, ~1.22 bar or 17.7 psia at sea level. You would weigh ~20% more, too.”

    Ya think! where is your demonstration that will
    This may be correct, but only for those that accept “atmospheric weight” with no evidence!
    I agree with the algebraic formula, “assuming no other changes”! Why that assumption? You have no knowledge of atmospheric mass, why it is or what it is, or its likely change if Earth’s gravity changes by 20%. The earthling assumption of knowledge, where there is none, is much more humorous than all Gary Larson’s “Far side panels”!!!
    All the best! -will-

  91. David Russell says:

    Will,

    Atmospheric weight is evidenced by a mercury barometer. It is also evident in the operation of fans and compressors.

    I answered your unreal gravity change hypothetical, even though you refused to consider mine which was:
    Imagine a dry atmosphere free smooth solid sphere of Earth’s size and mass in orbit at 1AU about our Sun. Further, imagine that the sphere has zero capacity to absorb or emit heat.
    Now imagine dropping 5.27*10^18 kg of air at 225K and 200 mb from an altitude of 12 km,
    When it settles, what will the air temperatures be at the sphere’s surface and at 12 km ?

    5.27*10^18 kg is the mass of Earth’s atmosphere. The reason I started with all of the air at 225 K, 200 mb, and an altitude of 12 km is because that is approximately the conditions at 12 km altitude now. The sphere of the same size and mass should have the same gravity as Earth.

    If the 5.27*10^18 kg of air is allowed to fall to and distribute itself over the 5.1*10^14 m^2 surface, do you agree that there should be about 10,333 kg air/m^2 surface?

  92. Roger Clague says:

    tallbloke says:
    January 4, 2016 at 1:53 pm

    Atmospheric pressure is caused by the number of particles i.e. volume, and their energy state i.e. temperature (Charles 1787), and also by the acceleration of their collective mass due to gravity.

    At STP, 273K, 1atm, the volume of 1 mole (10^23 particles) of any gas is 22400cm^3.

    This proves that gas pressure is caused by number of particles not the mass of the particles.

    1 mole of He has mass 2g. I mole of N2 has mass 28g.

    2g of He is causes the same pressure as 28g of N2.

    If mass is the cause of gas pressure then 28g of N2 would cause more pressure than 2g of He. It does not.

    Therefore mass and weight do not cause gas pressure.

    [Reply] We’re not talking solely about gas pressure though. We are talking about Earth’s ATMOSPHERIC pressure, where as well as the effect of the number of particles on gas pressure (Benoulli 1737) there is the effect of gravity acting on the mass of the atmosphere, pulling it against a boundary, and thereby compressing it. When you compress a gas, you increase its pressure (PV=k)(Boyle 1662).

    tallbloke says:
    January 4, 2016 at 9:53 pm
    Effects can have more than one cause. Your argument is analogous to:
    “I’ve mixed red and yellow paint and now I’ve got orange paint. But it can only be either the yellow or the red paint that made it turn orange.”

    I think science theories improve by rejecting a theory shown by experiment to be wrong. It is then replaced by a new theory which is supported by experiment.

    [Reply] I think science theories also improve by not ignoring half of what’s happening.

    Atmospheric pressure is caused by the number of particles i.e. volume, and their energy state i.e. temperature (Charles 1787),

    Charles Law is explained by Kinetic Theory of Gas that is numbers not masses.
    Increased T causes increased velocity. Increased velocity caused increased pressure

    [Reply] Still only half the story where you have an atmosphere acted on by gravity

    The buoyancy of hot gas is more proof of gas pressure caused by particle number not mass. Increased T> increased v> less particles needed to cause same pressure > less mass density> buoyancy

    [Reply] Buoyancy is relative to the state of the surroundings. If they are equally hot, and of the same composition, there is no buoyancy.

    It also shows the sufficiency of Kinetic Theory of Gas in explaining gas properties.

    [Reply] For the last time, we’re not just talking about gas properties in isolation, we’re talking about a PLANETARY ATMOSPHERE, where ADDITIONAL EFFECTS such as that of GRAVITY on atmospheric MASS also have to be accounted for.

    and also by the acceleration of their collective mass due to gravity.,

    The mass is not collective. It is as molecules.

    [Reply] I’m beginning to think your brain is the same. 😉

    The acceleration of g is 10^-8 of the acceleration of molecules caused by collisions
    The motion of gas molecules and the properties of gas are not caused by gravity

    [Reply] I didn’t say they were. However, as you now admit, 10^-8 of the molecular acceleration is due to gravity pulling the atmosphere towards the centre of the Earth, and this is enough to produce a gradient in pressure from the top of the atmosphere, increasing to the surface. And although 10^-8 is a small number, you have to remember that it is consistently in one direction whereas the rest of the molecular motions are random, and also that it is 10^-8 acting on 5.27*10^18 kg of air, which is a big number, resulting in a big effect.

    The 0.03% change in gravity in the lower atmosphere does have an effect, thermal enhancement.

    [Reply] Your inability to comprehend the action of gravity on the atmosphere increasing its pressure in a gradient increasing from top to bottom has led you to utterly and completely misunderstand (and underestimate) the atmospheric thermal enhancement posited by Nikolov and Zeller.

  93. Roger Clague says:

    David Russell says:
    January 5, 2016 at 9:33 am

    atmospheric weight is evidenced by a mercury barometer.

    That is what Torricelli thought in 1644 when wrote “we are living under a sea of air”.

    Bernoulli 1738 showed that mass and weight do not cause gas pressure

    The Hg barometer can only be set with the air above the liquid Hg. That is only with the air pressure acting downward

    Downward air pressure can balance a weight of Hg. This is not evidence of air pressure being caused by weight of air.

    Air pressure acts in all directions

    How does weight explain air pressure measured upward as in a bellows barometer?

    It is also evident in the operation of fans and compressors.

    Please support this assertion.

    If the 5.27*10^18 kg of air is allowed to fall to and distribute itself over the 5.1*10^14 m^2 surface, do you agree that there should be about 10,333 kg air/m^2 surface?

    Yes as in our own atmosphere. But where is the evidence of this mass of a column of air causing weight

  94. David Russell says: January 5, 2016 at 9:33 am

    “Will, Atmospheric weight is evidenced by a mercury barometer. It is also evident in the operation of fans and compressors.”

    More trivial Post modern fantasy! That 0.76 m lift of Hg or the 32 ft lift of liquid H20 is absolutely no evidence of atmospheric weight which “must” remain “weightless” at all altitudes for proper understanding of atmospheric convection. Fans and compressors operate the same on gas or atmosphere, regardless of angular orientation with respect to the Earth’s gravitational vector. So far the only measurable evidence of the strangeness of gravitational potential is that of the the specific heat of CO2 at its critical point of pressure and temperature, that remains immeasurable, but highly dependent on mass flow orientation with respect to the local gravitational vector.

    “I answered your unreal gravity change hypothetical”

    Yes, it was hypothetical, as I truly have no workable method for increasing Earth’s gravity by 20%.
    Such would likely change the physical distance of 1 AU, and all other sorts of unknowables! Your answer, was as expected, for your level of academic brainwashing! Formula replaces thought or consideration!!

    ” even though you refused to consider mine 2 which was:
    Imagine a dry atmosphere free smooth solid sphere of Earth’s size and mass in orbit at 1AU about our Sun. Further, imagine that the sphere has zero capacity to absorb or emit heat.
    Now imagine dropping 5.27*10^18 kg of air at 225K and 200 mb from an altitude of 12 km,
    When it settles, what will the air temperatures be at the sphere’s surface and at 12 km ?”

    I did consider!
    1) 5.27*10^18 kg of air. A nonsense formula calculation of atmospheric mass! Actual atmospheric mass is approximately one third that much.
    2) Altitude of 12 Km. A nonsense assumption that atmosphere accrues external to the mass of the planet! Why such an assumption?
    3) Further, imagine that the sphere has zero capacity to absorb or emit heat. If by ‘heat’ you mean EMR flux, I cannot imagine such. You have but equation fantasy mind games!

    “5.27*10^18 kg is the mass of Earth’s atmosphere. The reason I started with all of the air at 225 K, 200 mb, and an altitude of 12 km is because that is approximately the conditions at 12 km altitude now. The sphere of the same size and mass should have the same gravity as Earth.”

    Where oh where, is your evidence that “5.27*10^18 kg is the mass of Earth’s atmosphere.”
    Some nonsense formula of surface pressure times surface area, with no thinking whatsoever?

    “If the 5.27*10^18 kg of air is allowed to fall to and distribute itself over the 5.1*10^14 m^2 surface, do you agree that there should be about 10,333 kg air/m^2 surface?”

    No never!! Atmospheric surface pressure is a projective geometry volume effect, never a linear, normal to the surface, gravity times columnar mass effect! What you are spouting is the meteorological religious/political propaganda, like astrology, saying whatever folk are willing to pay for, so they can believe, that someone knows the unknowable! There is no science there! Scams abound in fortune telling!
    All the best! -will-

  95. Roger Clague says: January 5, 2016 at 10:00 am
    tallbloke says:January 4, 2016 at 1:53 pm

    (“Atmospheric pressure is caused by the number of particles i.e. volume, and their energy state i.e. temperature (Charles 1787), and also by the acceleration of their collective mass due to gravity.”)

    RC:”At STP, 273K, 1atm, the volume of 1 mole (10^23 particles) of any gas is 22400cm^3.
    This proves that gas pressure is caused by number of particles not the mass of the particles.
    1 mole of He has mass 2g. I mole of N2 has mass 28g.
    2g of He is causes the same pressure as 28g of N2.
    If mass is the cause of gas pressure then 28g of N2 would cause more pressure than 2g of He. It does not. Therefore mass and weight do not cause gas pressure.”

    Exactly correct!!!

    TB: [Reply] “We’re not talking solely about gas pressure though. We are talking about Earth’s ATMOSPHERIC pressure, where as well as the effect of the number of particles on gas pressure (Benoulli 1737) there is the effect of gravity acting on the mass of the atmosphere, pulling it against a boundary, and thereby compressing it. When you compress a gas, you increase its pressure (PV=k)(Boyle 1662).”

    Indeed! Why do you persist in demanding that this is the concept of ‘weight’? Weight is a ‘downward’ vector force. The opposite of gravitational attraction of other mass. Pressure is a force normal to any surface in any orientation. The two cannot be considered even similar, without lotsa brainwashing! As I stated to David Russel: “Atmospheric surface pressure is a projective geometry volume effect, never a linear, normal to the surface, gravity times columnar mass effect!”.
    Tatersall , Please! What you are spouting is the meteorological religious/political propaganda, like astrology, saying whatever folk are willing to pay for, so they can believe, that someone knows the unknowable! There is no science there! Scams abound in fortune telling!

    RC: “I think science theories improve by rejecting a theory shown by experiment to be wrong. It is then replaced by a new theory which is supported by experiment.”

    TB:[Reply] I think science theories also improve by not ignoring half of what’s happening.

    Tatersall, Just who is ignoring much more than half of what is?

    TB: [Reply] “I didn’t say they were. However, as you now admit, 10^-8 of the molecular acceleration is due to gravity pulling the atmosphere towards the centre of the Earth, and this is enough to produce a gradient in pressure from the top of the atmosphere, increasing to the surface.”

    Indeed, but the concept of ‘weight’ is not involved! Without ‘gravity’ such pressure, density, and temperature gradients would induce spontaneous diffusion of both sensible heat, and atmospheric mass radially outward to equilibrium. Gravity, somehow negates this diffusion and also the concept of atmospheric ‘weight’! If you would examine the notes of Maxwell, Boltzmann, vs. Loschmidt, you would note that the Earth’s lower atmosphere remains an isopotential volume with regard to thermodynamic effects!

    TB: “And although 10^-8 is a small number, you have to remember that it is consistently in one direction whereas the rest of the molecular motions are random, and also that it is 10^-8 acting on 5.27*10^18 kg of air, which is a big number, resulting in a big effect.”

    The atmospheric pressure gradient completely nullifies any molecular motion effects of gravity! All air mass motion in this atmosphere remains isentropic except for thermal or motion potential other than gravity. It is the induced 1000 MPH equatorial tangential air mass velocity, and its radial momentum component that creates most all atmospheric motion in this isopotential volume. The one sided insolation only modifies that a wee bit!
    All the best! -will-

  96. suricat says:

    WOW! There’s SO much confusion and obfuscation here guys, and I don’t think TB can find ‘Les mots justs’ to explain well. 😦

    I’ll have a go.

    WRT ‘microscopic observation of “the effect of a gravity field” upon “the individual molecular trajectory”‘.

    Gravity, per se, can only (currently) be associated with a ‘macroscopic’ perspective (conclusions from our discussion here). Thus, I propose a ‘bridge’ between the ‘macroscopic’ and ‘microscopic’ POV. ‘Mass density/temperature = energy density’ (this may be an ‘inverse’ quantity, I’ve not thought enough on this yet).

    However, the ‘condensed’ energy of lower altitudes on a macroscopic perspective suggests that the microscopic perspective is pervaded by an ‘upward direction’ for ‘molecular collision encounters’.

    IOW. The population and energetic activity for molecules is ‘greater’ the ‘nearer’ the surface that they inhabit!

    Your thoughts?

    Best regards, Ray.

  97. tallbloke says:

    TB: “as well as the effect of the number of particles on gas pressure (Benoulli 1737) there is the effect of gravity acting on the mass of the atmosphere, pulling it against a boundary, and thereby compressing it. When you compress a gas, you increase its pressure (PV=k)(Boyle 1662).”

    Will J: Indeed! Why do you persist in demanding that this is the concept of ‘weight’?

    Hi Will. Can you point to the place where I used the word ‘weight’? Thanks.

  98. David Russell says:

    WJ: “The atmospheric pressure gradient completely nullifies any molecular motion effects of gravity! All air mass motion in this atmosphere remains isentropic except for thermal or motion potential other than gravity. It is the induced 1000 MPH equatorial tangential air mass velocity, and its radial momentum component that creates most all atmospheric motion in this isopotential volume. The one sided insolation only modifies that a wee bit!”

    What you seem to be missing is how H2O creates atmospheric motion. First, water vapor is lighter than air so it rises. Second, and perhaps more important, when the water vapor cools, there is collapse of the H2O partial pressure which leaves a void creating low pressure for the rest of the atmosphere to fill.

    You and RC also seem to have a mental block to understanding concepts like mass, weight, bulk gas properties and reconciling them with analogies used for kinetic theories. It often comes off looking like the obfuscation pushed by promoters of the constant temperature null state for atmosphere held by gravity that is necessary to keep the AGW myth alive.

  99. wayne says:

    WillJ and RogerC, is this page incorrect and please if so where and why each place you disagree?
    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/weighgas.html
    The insistence by both of you that there is no weight seems to say yes, wrong somewhere.

    Do you answer the quiz questions like this?
    “If a closed truck is carrying a lot of birds, will the truck weigh less if the birds are flying around in the truck?” …. No.
    “Is the [mean surface] atmospheric pressure times the area of the Earth’s surface equal to the weight of the atmosphere?” ….. Yes.

    If not, why?

  100. Roger Clague says:

    TB says:
    we’re not just talking about gas properties in isolation, we’re talking about a PLANETARY ATMOSPHERE, where ADDITIONAL EFFECTS such as that of GRAVITY on atmospheric MASS also have to be accounted for.

    I agree that gravity acts on the atmosphere. I think it acts by slowing the velocity of molecules and not through weight

    We are talking about Earth’s ATMOSPHERIC pressure, where as well as the effect of the number of particles on gas pressure (Benoulli 1737) there is the effect of gravity acting on the mass of the atmosphere, pulling it against a boundary, and thereby compressing it.

    Gravity acting on mass is weight and compressing mean causing pressure.
    It seems that you are saying in the atmosphere weight causes extra pressure added to the pressure caused by the motion of molecules.
    This is not what the hydrostatic equilibrium theory says.
    This puts weight x height mgh equal and balancing nkT , pressure caused by motion

    I think it is more fair to me and other readers if replies to this post be as a separate post and not within the original.

  101. Roger Clague says:

    WillJ and RogerC, is this page incorrect and please if so where and why each place you disagree?
    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/weighgas.html

    The answer from Newton’s laws is yes!

    Newton measured the mass of a column of air. He did think air has weight.
    Galileo measured the relative density of air. He was critical of Aristotle’s claim to have weighted air

    If you weigh an “empty” compressed gas cylinder and fill it with high pressure gas, it will then weigh more on an ordinary scale since you are weighing the gas in the cylinder.

    You are measuring the effect of the high pressure gas, not weighing air.

    Take a plastic beach ball. Weigh it.
    Inflate to normal pressure, 1atm with a pump. Weigh again. No change.

    The molecular analysis assumes each molecule has weight mg.
    Molecules are accelerating due to near collisions at 10^8 times g.
    Gravity has no significant effect on gas molecules
    The acceleration is caused by charge/ charge repulsion of molecules
    At the molecular scale we know charge is more important than gravity

    What do you think? If a closed truck is carrying a lot of birds, will the truck weigh less if the birds are flying around in the truck?
    Yes. Objects only have weight when in contact with a surface.
    Is the atmospheric pressure times the area of the Earth’s surface equal to the weight of the atmosphere?
    No. Pressure acts in all direction not only downward as does weight. Gas has no weight.

  102. tallbloke says:

    Roger C: I agree that gravity acts on the atmosphere. I think it acts by slowing the velocity of molecules and not through weight

    Gravity acts on MASS to cause an acceleration. And it would do that to a mass, even if that mass were buoyant, or in space, where it is ‘weightless’. You are the one who keeps using the word ‘weight’ not me. You are confusing yourself with it, not me.

    TB said earlier: We are talking about Earth’s ATMOSPHERIC pressure, where as well as the effect of the number of particles on gas pressure (Benoulli 1737) there is the effect of gravity acting on the mass of the atmosphere, pulling it against a boundary, and thereby compressing it. When you compress a gas, you increase its pressure (PV=k)(Boyle 1662).

    Roger C: Gravity acting on mass is weight

    No, gravity acting on mass causes an acceleration. Ask Newton (1687)

    and compressing mean causing pressure.

    No. It results in increased pressure. Ask Boyle (1662)
    (You can’t compress a vacuum)

    Roger C: It seems that you are saying in the atmosphere weight causes extra pressure added to the pressure caused by the motion of molecules.

    No. I’m saying gravity acting on the MASS of the atmosphere induces a gradient of pressure from top to bottom (due to the acceleration of the massive particles it causes) , and if you try to put the word ‘weight’ in my mouth one more time I’ll end your involvement in this thread.

    Roger C: This is not what the hydrostatic equilibrium theory says.
    This puts weight x height mgh equal and balancing nkT , pressure caused by motion

    See that letter ‘m’ in the expression ‘mgh’ you just wrote? It’s not a ‘w’ for ‘weight’ is it? No, it’s not. It stands for mass, doesn’t it? Yes, yes, it does.

    Take two propositions:

    (1) a=b+c
    (2) b=c

    (1) does not logically preclude the possibility of (2)

    Therefore it is perfectly possible that (1)the proposition that gravity acting on the MASS of the atmosphere and the kinetic energy of its molecular content both contribute to its pressure, and (2) your equation for hydrostatic equilibrium, are both correct.

    2=2
    &
    2+2=4
    QED

    As a footnote I’ll just add that the reason I’m getting annoyed with you putting words like ‘weight’ in my mouth is because I use the words I use in the context I use them precisely and scientifically, whereas you are all over the place. So have a care.

  103. tallbloke says: January 6, 2016 at 2:16 am

    (Will J: “Indeed! Why do you persist in demanding that this is the concept of ‘weight’?”

    “Hi Will. Can you point to the place where I used the word ‘weight’? Thanks.”

    Roger, I admit that you have not used the term ‘atmospheric weight’, here in 2016! The official TB reply to;
    Roger Clague, January 5, 2016 at 10:00 am

    [Reply] I didn’t say they were. However, as you now admit, 10^-8 of the molecular acceleration is due to gravity pulling the atmosphere towards the centre of the Earth, and this is enough to produce a gradient in pressure from the top of the atmosphere, increasing to the surface. And although 10^-8 is a small number, you have to remember that it is consistently in one direction whereas the rest of the molecular motions are random, and also that it is 10^-8 acting on 5.27*10^18 kg of air, which is a big number, resulting in a big effect.

    Seems to imply that you to agree that surface pressure times surface area yield the weight of the atmosphere in kg (weight).
    If this is not true I apologize!! See the below!
    BTW gravity is not “pulling the atmosphere towards the centre of the Earth”, as differential atmospheric pressure is pushing the exact same amount of atmosphere away from the centre of Earth, only if you believe the ridiculous two stream concept to atmospheric mass motion, or thermal EMR flux!

    wayne says: January 6, 2016 at 8:16 am
    WillJ and RogerC, is this page incorrect and please if so where and why each place you disagree?
    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/weighgas.html

    Can you weigh the gas in a closed container? The answer from Newton’s laws is yes!

    I agree! But I totally disagree that the given explanation has anything to do with a planetary atmosphere. That explanation (unsaid) implies that some rigid outside of the atmosphere changes the the remaining outward radial momentum of the molecule by 2 mv. With an atmosphere there is no such rigid outside. This means that the oversimplification of a single radially moving molecule does not exist. The Earth and its thin 400km atmosphere remain nearly isotropic with a 3D projective geometry. Gravity while projective at great distances, is not so at a mere 6000km radius from COM. The mass of the atmosphere acting on the atmosphere itself may, or may not, affect differential pressure, density, temperature.

    “Is the [mean surface] atmospheric pressure times the area of the Earth’s surface equal to the weight of the atmosphere?”

    The actual mass of the atmosphere is approximately one third of that amount. Measurement of atmospheric density and pressure at every altitude exist with sufficient accuracy to extablish the actual mass of this atmosphere.
    The atmosphere has (exhibits) no weight as carefully demonstrated by Archimedes 271 BC. please describe the error in his demonstration. Weight and weightless were discovered way before mass and gravity! Mass and gravity must then conform to the concept of weight, rather than to an abstract bidirectional symbolic formulation of W = mg! Please describe the meaning of both mass and gravity in a manner so they conform to the prior demonstration of a weightless atmosphere.

    “The insistence by both of you that there is no weight seems to say yes, wrong somewhere. Do you answer the quiz questions like this?”

    If a closed truck is carrying a lot of birds, will the truck weigh less if the birds are flying around in the truck?” …. No. “Is the [mean surface] atmospheric pressure times the area of the Earth’s surface equal to the weight of the atmosphere?” ….. Yes. If not, why?

    The answer to both is a resounding NO!, as explained above!
    Guys! I have other direct questions to me that I must ponder more.
    All the best! -will-

  104. tallbloke says:

    Will J: Seems to imply that you to agree that surface pressure times surface area yield the weight of the atmosphere in kg (weight).

    Let’s consult the experts shall we?

    http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/metric/mass.cfm
    ” SI Units – Mass.
    The kilogram (kg) is the SI base unit of mass and is equal to the mass of the international prototype of the kilogram, a platinum-iridium standard that is kept at the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM).30 Mar 2011″

    That chunk of platinum-iridium has a mass of one kilogram whether it is on the surface of the Earth, in space, or on the Moon. What it weighs at any of those locations is another issue. And even if it was in space where it is weightless, and were to be coming along at 5m/s relative to you and knocked yours and Roger Clague’s silly heads together, it would be a salutary (and perhaps even educational) reminder to you both that matter is massive, wherever it is, and whatever it ‘weighs’ at the time.

    All the best 🙂

  105. tallbloke says January 6, 2016 at 6:31 pm

    (Will J: “Seems to imply that you to agree that surface pressure times surface area yield the weight of the atmosphere in kg (weight).”

    “Let’s consult the experts shall we? http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/metric/mass.cfm

    OK where oh where in my entire lifetime have I ever claimed that the atmosphere has no mass?
    Mass is defined as the property of any physical object that resists any change in momentum (mv) by any force (f) even in that momentum is zero because of inertial velocity of zero ie. it is a property of only itself. The temperature (T) of atmospheric molecule(s) is representative of the force required to change the molecule(s) momentum. Two equal mass molecules at the same speed but opposing velocities each have momentum mv but combined momentum mv-mv or zero momentum. Such colliding head on results in each having momentum zero and still a combined momentum also of zero. Does such require power (force) 2kT/t integrated over collision interval (tc), or not? I await (aweight) your learned answer.

    Why not instead consult the experts on the correctness of your claimed 5.27*10^18 kg of air mass of the Earth’s atmosphere? Just how was that computed? Just how was that measured to verify the computation? Since pressure is not a function of mass but only gas density and temperature, as Roger C. correctly points out, no locational density, numeric or mass, can be derived by atmospheric pressure and temperature measurement! Such must be done by measuring the actual force required to accelerate such airmass in situ, and with local viscosity, this is likely impossible. Would you please describe a correct scientific verification of your claimed atmospheric mass? If you cannot provide such, your claim “must be considered circular and false”! Are we having fun yet? I choose now to act on my second belief!
    All the best! -will-

  106. tallbloke says:

    Will, I’ll clink glasses with your preferred flavour of second belief. We’re nearly ready to move on to discuss convection. 🙂

    Now, I didn’t claim the mass of the atmosphere was 5.27*10^18 kg , I simply borrowed it from Mr Russell’s previous comment to illustrate my point. I don’t know the exact mass of the atmosphere. Nor do I know that mgh=nkT as Roger Clague claims it is supposed to. In fact, when I googled that ‘hydrostatic equilibrium equation’ mgh=nkT, google couldn’t help. So perhaps Roger C will enlighten us as to what the derivation is.

  107. David Russell says:

    The original and for a long time only way to calibrate a pressure gauge was with a “deadweight tester” which works by applying the gravitational force on a traceable quantity of mass to a known traceable area of a fluid, creating the pressure to which the gauge is calibrated.

    It shouldn’t be too hard to figure out how this can be extended to validate measured atmospheric mass.

  108. David Russell says: January 6, 2016 at 2:34 am

    (WJ: “The atmospheric pressure gradient completely nullifies any molecular motion effects of gravity! All air mass motion in this atmosphere remains isentropic except for thermal or motion potential other than gravity. It is the induced 1000 MPH equatorial tangential air mass velocity, and its radial momentum component that creates most all atmospheric motion in this isopotential volume. The one sided insolation only modifies that a wee bit!”)

    “What you seem to be missing is how H2O creates atmospheric motion. First, water vapor is lighter than air so it rises. Second, and perhaps more important, when the water vapor cools, there is collapse of the H2O partial pressure which leaves a void creating low pressure for the rest of the atmosphere to fill.”

    I am not missing, nor denying, the effect of atmospheric WV, or the more dense yet still airborne water condensate, upon operation of this atmosphere! I do deny any comprehensive knowledge of such, by myself, or any self proclaimed body of ‘experts’!

    “You and RC also seem to have a mental block to understanding concepts like mass, weight, bulk gas properties and reconciling them with analogies used for kinetic theories.”

    You seem to claim some scientific “understanding” of “concepts like mass, weight, bulk gas properties and reconciling them with analogies fantasies used for kinetic theories.”

    Would you care to demonstrate such claimed ‘understanding’?

    “It often comes off looking like the obfuscation pushed by promoters of the constant temperature null state for atmosphere held by gravity that is necessary to keep the AGW myth alive.”

    I suppose my denial of knowledge by self and others, of physical fantasy concepts, does indeed appear quite similar to the promotion of such fantasy by self appointed experts!

    “tallbloke says: January 6, 2016 at 9:12 pm

    “Will, I’ll clink glasses with your preferred flavour of second belief. We’re nearly ready to move on to discuss convection. 🙂 ”

    My preferred flavor is Coors Banquet! Again no one knows why! I have tried some so called lite beers. I lost mass/weight so fast, I concluded that the odor/odour-eaters in my shoes would result in my complete disappearance. 😦
    All the best! -will-

  109. James McGinn says:

    Tallish Bloke:
    We’re nearly ready to move on to discuss convection.

    Jim McGinn:
    Quickly, before the current interglacial elapses.

  110. suricat says:

    suricat says: January 6, 2016 at 2:00 am

    “Your thoughts?”.

    OK, just ignore me guys! I ‘reiterate’ that; ‘macroscopic’ ‘gravity field’ is a ‘top down’ ‘observation/assumption’ whereas ‘microscopic’ ‘KE theory of gasses’ is ‘bottom up’!

    Apples and oranges. ‘Nuf said. 😦

    Ray.

  111. suricat says: January 6, 2016 at 2:00 am

    “IOW. The population and energetic activity for molecules is ‘greater’ the ‘nearer’ the surface that they inhabit! Your thoughts? Best regards, Ray.”

    Thank you Ray, The population and power activity is indeed greater at lower altitude in one restricted POV, that neglects whatever gravity may be! This would demand a spontaneous redistribution of such within that restricted POV . Observation and measurement indicates that such atmospheric redistribution does not occur! Of course we gots lotsa thermal noise. Please suggest a slightly better POV, that both contains that POV, but more closely aligns with observation?
    All the best! -will-

  112. tchannon says:

    James McGinn.. but is the send up buoyant enough yet?

  113. tchannon says: January 7, 2016 at 2:13 am

    (James McGinn.. “Quickly, before the current interglacial elapses.”)


    but is the send up buoyant enough yet?”

    Cryptic, but still a good question Tim!!
    All the best! -who,what,when/ever-

  114. David Russell says: January 6, 2016 at 11:09 pm

    “The original and for a long time only way to calibrate a pressure gauge was with a “deadweight tester” which works by applying the gravitational force on a traceable quantity of mass to a known traceable area of a fluid, creating the pressure to which the gauge is calibrated.”
    “It shouldn’t be too hard to figure out how this can be extended to validate measured atmospheric mass.”
    Can you please demonstrate how a calibration of force/area (pressure) done by the local (vector mg force) upon a specific normal area can ever be used to even approximate the 3D mass of this atmosphere, especially with its always present dynamic viscosity? Please do your “figuring out”, then report back to all here that cannot scientifically ‘figure out’ your fantasy. -will-

  115. David Russell says:

    WJ: “Can you please demonstrate how a calibration of force/area (pressure) done by the local (vector mg force) upon a specific normal area can ever be used to even approximate the 3D mass of this atmosphere, especially with its always present dynamic viscosity? Please do your “figuring out”, then report back to all here that cannot scientifically ‘figure out’ your fantasy.”

    By definition, atmospheric pressure at Earth surface is merely a unit conversion of weight/unit area!

    Take the weight/unit area times the surface area of Earth.

  116. wayne says:

    hmph!

    WillJ, don’t know how the mass of the atmosphere is obtained? Here is a C# numeric integration from the surface upward to 100 kilometers in tiny centimeter slices using only Newton’s second law (see the: density * gravAccel). I hope since you claim to be an engineer you at least will admit that that law holds universally true to at least six digits of precision. Think this is the last time I am going to do the work that a supposed engineer should be able to numerically integrate to check himself before he makes a fool of himself! You proclaim: “The actual mass of the atmosphere is approximately one third of that amount.”… what a load of crap Will!

    
    using System;
    
    class IntgAtmMass
    {
        static void Main()
        {
            double gravAccel = 9.80665      /* m/s²  */;
            double areaOfEarth = 510.07e12  /* m²    */;
            double density = 1.225          /* kg/m³ */;
            double lowerPressure = 101325   /* Pa    */;
            double colMass = 0              /* kg/m² */;
    
            for (double altitude = 0; altitude < 100000 /* m */; altitude += 0.01)
            {
                double upperPressure = lowerPressure - density * gravAccel;
                double pressureChangeRatio = upperPressure / lowerPressure;
                colMass += density; // accum mass for some very thin layer of unit area
                density *= pressureChangeRatio;
                lowerPressure = upperPressure;
            }
            Console.WriteLine("mass of unit area column of the atm. = {0:f1} kg/m²", 
                colMass);
            Console.WriteLine("mass of entire atm. = {0:e3} kg", 
                colMass * areaOfEarth);
    
            Console.ReadKey();
        }
    }
            /*
             * OUTPUT: WHEN INTEGRATED EVERY CENTIMETER UP TO 100 KM
             *
             * mass of unit area column of the atm. = 10332.3 kg/m²
             * mass of entire atm. = 5.270e+018 kg 
             * 
             */
    

    You might complain that this simple integration follows point-to-point an isothermal atmosphere per altitude slice, which it does, but surely you should also realize by now that pressure at any given altitude in an atmosphere is only dependent on the mass lying above that altitude (or outward to the gravitational field) and therefore pressures in an open end and still atmosphere’s case is not related in any way to temperature, AT ALL!

    Yes, the gravity and surface mean density and pressure are assumed by convention or committee if you can swallow those values as close enough but from what I read from what you keep writing you simply are clearly out of your expertise.

    😉 Or… maybe too many under the belt before you start typing? That might explain ‘the why’ of what I have been reading for the last four months on this insane thread.

  117. tallbloke says:

    Wayne: “what I have been reading for the last four months on this insane thread.”

    I agree it’s been like Doug Cotton MkII. I’m going to start a new thread, and unless Will J and Roger C can move very quickly on this one to convince me that they’re not either trolling or incapable of understanding, they won’t be joining us on it. That goes for anyone else who chucks in words like ‘viscosity’ or ‘miscibility’ without being very specific and theoretically quantitative too.

  118. tallbloke says:

    David R: By definition, atmospheric pressure at Earth surface is merely a unit conversion of weight/unit area!

    At standard temperature, yes. But our discussion also involves temperature, which makes a difference. A small difference at Earth’s surface. According to this online calculator At 1km altitude, a change in temperature of 100K from -50C to +50C would alter the air pressure by around 5%. Whereas the effect of gravity on the mass of the atmosphere alters the air pressure by around 13% (at a steady 10C) from surface to 1km.

    Considering the environmental lapse rate is only ~6.5K/km not 100K, Roger Clague and Will J might want to think about that a bit.

    However, the calculator gives a much bigger difference in pressure for large temperatures swings at high altitudes like 12km. Wayne might want to think about that a bit.

  119. Roger Clague says:

    tallbloke says:
    January 6, 2016 at 9:12 pm
    when I googled that ‘hydrostatic equilibrium equation’ mgh=nkT, google couldn’t help. So perhaps Roger C will enlighten us as to what the derivation is.

    Feynmann says in book 1 lecture 40:

    http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_40.html

    The Principles of Statistical Mechanics
    40–1The exponential atmosphere

    “But the pressure is not constant, it must increase as the altitude is reduced, because it has to hold, so to speak, the weight of all the gas above it.through the gas law. ”

    ” dP= −mgndh. Since P=nkT, and T is constant, we can eliminate either P or n, say P, “

    pressure is eliminated by putting pressure caused by weight equal to pressure caused by motion of gas molecules.
    We can eliminate p algebraically but I don’t agree that is physically correct.

    Gas pressure, including in the atmosphere, is caused by:
    weight, Torricelli 1644
    motion, Bernoulli 1738
    or a combination of both weight and motion, Feynmann etc.
    I agree with Bernoilli.

    Roger Clague says:
    January 6, 2016 at 4:57 pm

    Newton measured the mass of a column of air. He did think air has weight.
    Galileo measured the relative density of air. He was critical of Aristotle’s claim to have weighted air

    It should read:

    Newton measured the mass of a column of air. He did notthink air has weight.
    Galileo measured the relative density of air. He was critical of Aristotle’s claim to have weighed air

  120. tallbloke says:

    Roger C: (Quoting Feynman) ” dP= −mgndh. Since P=nkT, and T is constant, we can eliminate either P or n, say P, “

    This doesn’t tell us that mgh=nkT as you claimed. Feynman is saying that the change in pressure due to change in height can be calculated as being exponentially related to the change in particle density in his (erroneously assumed) isothermal (at equilibrium) atmosphere.

    “Newton measured the mass of a column of air. He did notthink air has weight.”

    Positing “a therefore not b” doesn’t fly in any rational system of logic without additional information.

  121. David Russell says: January 7, 2016 at 7:44 am

    (WJ: “Can you please demonstrate how a calibration of force/area (pressure) done by the local (vector mg force) upon a specific normal area can ever be used to even approximate the 3D mass of this atmosphere, especially with its always present dynamic viscosity? Please do your “figuring out”, then report back to all here that cannot scientifically ‘figure out’ your fantasy.”)

    “By definition, atmospheric pressure at Earth surface is merely a unit conversion of weight/unit area!”

    That is not a scientific definition in any stretch of the imagination It is but meteorologic, Climate Clown fantasy! Would you please describe any error in the Archimedes 271 BC demonstration that proves that atmosphere at any altitude exhibits no weight! If you would only try you would likely recognize why your claim is fantasy!

    Hint: gas pressure is defined as the force per unit area created by the summation of all normal (perpendicular to that surface) change in molecular momentum in a given time interval (t). A gas molecule reflecting at an angle 60° from normal imparts a momentum change and force of
    (kT/t) rather the 2(kT/t) of a normal reflection!

    “Take the weight/unit area times the surface area of Earth.”
    Please take your fantasy and relocate such to the appropriate place in, on, or about your self.

    wayne says: January 7, 2016 at 11:39 am

    “hmph! WillJ, don’t know how the mass of the atmosphere is obtained? Here is a C# numeric integration from the surface upward to 100 kilometers ”

    Nice well written C# routine that demonstrates only your fantasy of atmospheric weight. By using only your fantasy you attempt to verify your fantasy! See my response to David above.
    Please construct a proper integration routine over the whole 2 PI steradians of outer solid angle that makes up the correct interpretation of surface pressure including the wee (10^-8) contribution of gravitational acceleration. That gravitational attraction only induces a vertical delta P sufficient to cancel any spontaneous downward atmospheric motion, quite independent of the molecular mass of this atmosphere! No-matter what TB claims, that downward motion cannot be prevented without the viscosity and Reynolds number of this atmosphere, both also functions of altitude, pressure, density, and temperature.

    “Yes, the gravity and surface mean density and pressure are assumed by convention or committee if you can swallow those values as close enough but from what I read from what you keep writing you simply are clearly out of your expertise.”

    I make no claims of my own expertise! I accept the measured values and the induced averages. It is you that makes up fantasy from those measurements. I try to understand the differing POVs of others with the expertise and dialect of their own effort! Try discussing atmospheric fluid dynamics with an aeronautical engineer with 30 years of self induced mistakes! All together my learning goes way beyond the political scam of CAGW and atmospheric CO2. The real scam involves all of academia and the deliberate dumbing down of serfdom. Folk are brainwashed into accepting the fantasy of priests, rather than being assisted in thought and learning.
    All the best! -will-

  122. tallbloke says:

    Will J: Would you please describe any error in the Archimedes 271 BC demonstration that proves that atmosphere at any altitude exhibits no weight!

    It exhibits the same weight as a red herring swimming in a barrel of Coors.
    But it’s not the red herring we’re interested in; it’s the barrel of Coors.

  123. tallbloke says: January 7, 2016 at 7:16 pm

    “Will J: Would you please describe any error in the Archimedes 271 BC demonstration that proves that atmosphere at any altitude exhibits no weight!”

    “It exhibits the same weight as a red herring swimming in a barrel of Coors.
    But it’s not the red herring we’re interested in; it’s the barrel of Coors.”

    That is precisely correct, if the herring is not ascending/descending! Just like a submarine it displaces a volume of Coors that has precisely the weight of the herring/submarine submersed in this atmosphere that never exhibits any weight independent of the atmospheric mass displaced into a vacuum. Why do you not even try to explain how gravity ‘may’ accomplishes such? If that herring is in a barrel being trucked elsewhere, is the Coors convecting red herring? You seem to be a member of the group that thinks Coors tastes like red herring piss.

  124. tallbloke says:

    Will: this atmosphere that never exhibits any weight independent of the atmospheric mass displaced into a vacuum.

    Let’s go the other way. Starting with strong steel cubic box, internally 12″ along each side, sitting on a scale, we evacuate the STP air inside it using a vacuum pump. After removing the air, we find the scale registers a weight which is an ounce and a quarter lighter than it was before removing the air.

    That’s what air weighs. Now can we do some science please.

  125. tallbloke says: January 7, 2016 at 5:11 pm

    Roger C: (Quoting Feynman) ” dP= −mgndh. Since P=nkT, and T is constant, we can eliminate either P or n, say P, “

    “This doesn’t tell us that mgh=nkT as you claimed. Feynman is saying that the change in pressure due to change in height can be calculated as being exponentially related to the change in particle density in his (erroneously assumed) isothermal (at equilibrium) atmosphere.”

    Nor does such such have any scientific merit. Such is measurable “only” because the Cp of atmosphere is so very close to unity! Scams abound in fantasy land!

    (“Newton measured the mass of a column of air. He did notthink air has weight.”)

    “Positing “a therefore not b” doesn’t fly in any rational system of logic without additional information.”
    None is needed Also (a) therefore is never (not a) and is logically correct! Newton was a profound thinker. He like others, also concluded that this atmosphere is ‘weightless’ while never being massless! Weightlessness does not affect Newton’s nor Kepler’s laws of motion! Weight is but a social construct for doing trade! Folk were pisses at Archimedes as they could no longer sell a whatever of atmosphere! Please get over trying to run for parliament!

  126. tallbloke says:

    Here are two things Newton did say;

    “Tact is the knack of making a point without making an enemy.”

    “I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people”

    Now, Will, I’ve demonstrated the weight of the air you say is weightless, so wind your neck in, and let’s discuss science, scientifically.

  127. tallbloke says: January 7, 2016 at 10:23 pm

    (Will: this atmosphere that never exhibits any weight independent of the atmospheric mass displaced into a vacuum.)

    “Let’s go the other way. Starting with strong steel cubic box, internally 12″ along each side, sitting on a scale, we evacuate the STP air inside it using a vacuum pump. After removing the air, we find the scale registers a weight which is 0.08lbs lighter than it was before removing the air.”

    Indeed that is the Earth’s surface mg of any matter not “allowed” to take on the ‘volume’ prescribed by the repulsive force of its own electron cloud linear with distance Solids, non compressible liquids and gas constrained into any particular volume.
    A 2500 PSI of UF6 in a 70 cu ft bottle, costs much more to truck uphill than the same bottle and pressure of H2! Aluminum and titanium bottles lower such costs, but anyone with half a brain cell “must” run off with such, at ‘every’ opportunity! 😉

    “That’s what air weighs.”

    Perhaps but not so with atmosphere, not so constrained. You yourself noted that atmospheric volume increases with increasing temperature! Why is this true? No more of your commercial/political/religious BS! Now can we do some science please? 🙂
    I know nothing! I yust been in dis country a short distance! All the best! -will-

  128. tallbloke says: January 7, 2016 at 11:07 pm

    “Here are two things Newton did say;”

    Tact is the knack of making a point without making an enemy.
    I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people

    I gots many many enemies. How many you want? For you a very good price on large lots!

    “Now, Will, I’ve demonstrated the weight of the air you say is weightless, so wind your neck in, and let’s discuss science, scientifically.”

    You have presented only your rant of a contained compressed gas. You have presented nothing rational of this atmosphere. Roger C. only hints of it! I remain so confused of this atmosphere, after years of pondering, that I truly do not know whether to “scratch my watch”, or “wind my ass”!

  129. tallbloke says:

    Will J: You have presented only your rant of a contained compressed gas.

    I specified that the air was at STP but for all the difference it would make, I could have just said open to atmosphere before closing the box.

    You have presented nothing rational of this atmosphere.

    Every letter answers itself.

    I remain so confused of this atmosphere, after years of pondering, that I truly do not know whether to “scratch my watch”, or “wind my ass”!

    Sit back and watch for a while. See whether others can make some sense of it without your interruption.

  130. Brett Keane says:

    I can look at pressure, and see it does not need gravity, but weight does. Looking from other angles however, that is less clear. So, are we debating angel-density, or something real?

    I can grasp the Eotvos effect, and its back to front orbital dynamics effects. It might help the 2-4yr (I guess) total mixing of all atmospheric layers. But, does it really mean the atmosphere is in orbit? Brett

  131. tallbloke says:

    Brett K: I can look at pressure, and see it does not need gravity,

    Then it’s not the Earth’s surface pressure you’re looking at.

    I can grasp the Eotvos effect…. But, does it really mean the atmosphere is in orbit?

    No. It’s a small effect measured in nanometres/(s^-2*m), opposed to gravity, which accelerates mass in Earth’s vicinity at nearly 10 metres/s^-2

  132. tallbloke says: January 8, 2016 at 1:55 am

    (‘Brett K: I can look at pressure, and see it does not need gravity,’)

    “Then it’s not the Earth’s surface pressure you’re looking at.”

    What truly arrogant nonsense!

    [Reply] If you think you can account for 14psi surface pressure and the gradient of pressure diminishing with altitude, without gravity, give it your best shot.

    (‘I can grasp the Eotvos effect…. But, does it really mean the atmosphere is in orbit?’)

    All of atmospheric molecules must be in proper Keplerian orbit between elastic collision. there is no other force involved!

    [Reply] A keplerian orbit isn’t a force. It’s a motion path constrained by the force of gravity. T^2=(4Pi^2/GM)a^3 (Newton ~1650)

    “No. It’s a small effect measured in nanometres/(s^-2*m), opposed to gravity, which accelerates mass in Earth’s vicinity at nearly 10 metres/s^-2”

    TB there is no such downward acceleration of Earth’s atmosphere. The induced altitude pressure/density gradient insures no spontaneous atmospheric mass motion in any direction.

    [Reply] Just because gravity acts on mass with a force which would accelerate it at ~10m/s^-2 in freefall, doesn’t mean every molecule in the atmosphere is falling at 10m/^s-2. As I pointed out to you several days ago, a brick sitting on a scale isn’t falling at 10m/s^-2, but that doesn’t prevent gravity from causing it to express its weight, same as the ounce and a quarter of air in the foot cube box.

    If you would ever consider this atmosphere from both an inertial vs rotational reference you would notice that most everywhere young Eotvos dances merrily with fetching Coriolis on the local atmospheric head of the projective pin! Coriolis mostly sleeps at the equator, while Eotvos remains absent at the exact axis of current planetary rotation no-mater the wobble or nutation. Let’s discuss science, scientifically!!!

    [Reply] I’m still trying to establish the basics with you Will. You won’t even accept that gravity is a principle cause of surface pressure. So far as I can tell, you don’t think air weighs anything because electron clouds.

  133. Brett Keane says:

    We pray that our space ships remain pressurised, in orbital freefall, or interstellar space. Weight or heaviness can occur or apparently so from acceleration, deceleration, or nearby mass. I wonder if we are just tangling ourselves up by trying to make physics conform to our definitions, when it just is what it is, as can be shown by experiment. Problem is, we do not understand gravity anyway! Not its mode nor speed of action even. So, are we then stuck on the shore scratching our heads, unable to master convection because of it?

    I will hazard a guess that the gaseous keplerian orbit might be caused by the force/energy that unfroze and evaporated and lifted (launched) those elements which can be thus affected by the available energy. Like a rocket and its available energy. In both cases, energy removed, orbit gone. Splat. Convection however, seems to be a function of the fluid state. The gas phase may have differences in how pressure works on it to the solid states, or not.

  134. tallbloke says:

    Brett K: We pray that our space ships remain pressurised, in orbital freefall, or interstellar space….Problem is, we do not understand gravity anyway! Not its mode nor speed of action even.

    That’s true. However, by empirically measuring its effects, both here on Earth and onboard spacecraft in the outer reaches of the solar system, we can quantify gravity and predict its effects accurately. Rocket scientists do a lot more calculating than praying. If we are to gain insight and understanding, it won’t be achieved by waving our arms about in ‘electron clouds’. It is achieved by experimentation, measurement, hypothesis and replication.

    I will hazard a guess that the gaseous keplerian orbit might be caused by the force/energy that unfroze and evaporated and lifted (launched) those elements which can be thus affected by the available energy. Like a rocket and its available energy. In both cases, energy removed, orbit gone. Splat.

    Energy supplied by the Sun expands the atmosphere outwards, the force of gravity acting on its mass accelerates it towards the surface. You can’t only consider one side of the equation. You don’t get keplerian orbits without a gravitational force acting towards a gravitational body things orbit around. At the macro level, the sum-balance between these opposing force vectors defines the atmosphere’s height and gradients, which are modified by secondary effects associated with energy flows such as phase change of convecting/condensing gases, electrostatics, and geometric/spin effects such as coriolis and Eotvos.

    Convection however, seems to be a function of the fluid state. The gas phase may have differences in how pressure works on it to the solid states, or not.

    I’m not certain of what you’re driving at there. If you mean the energy transport and pressure gradient in the atmosphere affects when and where ice will form, then yes, certainly.

  135. As I have stated in this thread several times Atmospheric surface pressure is approximately three times that which can be accounted for by the atmospheric columnar mass times the accelerative force of gravity. It would be PI times that, only if the Earth were spherical, the Earth’s surface were rigid and polished to optical precision everywhere, providing an isotropic surface for elastic but specular momentum reflection upon collision! As it is, no one has any idea of the actual surface area of this planet. You are the one who will not even consider the implications of such a gross disparity.

  136. tallbloke says:

    You said to Wayne that you think the atmospheric mass is three times less than his c# routine calculated. Now you’re saying it would have to be three times more than his calc to raise the surface pressure to what it is because of the fractal nature of the surface if it is due (principally) to gravity.

    I find this hopping around of quantities to be… unhelpful. Which is it?

    You also complained that working out the atmospheric mass from its pressure profile and the (smooth) surface area wasn’t valid, presumably because of the surface complexity argument you outline. OK, so lets make an engineering estimate of the mass of the atmosphere from a smooth shell surface situated just above that complexity, to the top of the atmosphere, using the observed pressure profile, the atomic weights of the constituent gas molecules and the area of that smooth shell . Sound reasonable?

    On the subject of complexity, we also have gases being absorbed and emitted by surface biology in large amounts. Some of those fluxes are estimated. The net fluxes are orders of magnitude smaller than the estimated total atmospheric mass.

  137. wayne says:

    tallbloke, thanks for some sane input. These “the-atmosphere-is-weightless” characters are beyond help I am afraid, they seem to forget, whenever convenient, that the molecules of the atmosphere are ALWAYS being accelerated nadir… that would answer their confusion (or attempts to confuse). Amazingly, RogerC just answered both questions incorrectly in that clear page mentioned at https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean/comment-page-7/#comment-111878, the pressures present tossed into the wind. W=m*g ALWAYS… not just in some special cases used to confuse, it is a universal truth proven long ago and is always present.

    Think I’ll just move back into the bleachers and watch this comedy play out. It is clear now who play the clowns.

  138. tallbloke says:

    Wayne, Thanks for your patience. I’m trying really hard to get some kind of logically coherent chain of reasoning from those people that includes magnitude estimates.

  139. Will Janoschka says: January 8, 2016 at 2:37 am

    tallbloke says: January 8, 2016

    [Reply] If you think you can account for 14psi surface pressure and the gradient of pressure diminishing with altitude, without gravity, give it your best shot.

    I have never denied that gravity determines the pressure, density, and temperature gradient, and affects even surface pressure.

    WJ: All of atmospheric molecules must be in proper Keplerian orbit between elastic collision. there is no other force involved!

    [Reply] A keplerian orbit isn’t a force. It’s a motion path constrained by the force of gravity. T^2=(4Pi^2/GM)a^3 (Newton ~1650)

    Fine!! You describe the molecular motion between collisions! So far you seem to only allow the degenerate elipse (straight line) radial motion that actually never moves, as if it were a solid sitting on a scale! That is the “only” way your columnar mass times (g) would yield a surface pressure of 14.7 PSI.

    WJ:”TB there is no such downward acceleration of Earth’s atmosphere. The induced altitude pressure/density gradient insures no spontaneous atmospheric mass motion in any direction.”

    [Reply] Just because gravity acts on mass with a force which would accelerate it at ~10m/s^-2 in freefall, doesn’t mean every molecule in the atmosphere is falling at 10m/^s-2. As I pointed out to you several days ago, a brick sitting on a scale isn’t falling at 10m/s^-2, but that doesn’t prevent gravity from causing it to express its weight, same as the ounce and a quarter of air in the foot cube box.

    Weight is but one way the gravitational mass attractive force expresses itself! in this atmosphere the expression is not weight of atmospheric mass, but instead the pressure density temperature gradients with altitude that prevents spontaneous atmospheric mass acceleration downward same as your force measuring scale. The force is the stress the compression/elongation indicating is the resultant strain that represents weight. Volumetric gas pressure is completely different and can be completely independent of gravitational force

    WJ:”If you would ever consider this atmosphere from both an inertial vs rotational reference you would notice that most everywhere young Eotvos dances merrily with fetching Coriolis on the local atmospheric head of the projective pin! Coriolis mostly sleeps at the equator, while Eotvos remains absent at the exact axis of current planetary rotation no-mater the wobble or nutation. Let’s discuss science, scientifically!!!”

    [Reply] I’m still trying to establish the basics with you Will. You won’t even accept that gravity is a principle cause of surface pressure. So far as I can tell, you don’t think air weighs anything because electron clouds.

    Everyone or thing has their own version of “the basics” Including each religion! The individual “basics” in anything complex like this atmosphere are generally such an oversimplification that they are completely wrong and make a mockery of science (question everything)!
    The atmospheric gas itself is the principal cause of atmospheric surface pressure. I find the atmosphere to be weightless because I can find no error in Archimedes clear and very clever direct demonstration of a weightless atmosphere. Your red herring in the barrel is perhaps scientifically and socially even more clever..
    Consider the barrel of Coors full, with overflo tube. Fish hanging on spring indicating fish weight but displacing a volume of atmosphere. Red herring off ‘weighing spring’ now in barrel. Quickly drink Coors overflo before fish can pee in barrel, then go pee off back porch! You can no longer demonstrate even conservation of mass, but have still demonstrated that the atmosphere has no weight. Indeed fish also has no weight while swimming!
    (W) was, way way before (mg)! Please go fix your ridiculous concept of (mg)! I mentioned electron cloud and its repulsive force only for possible consideration as a negation, reciprocal, conjugate, of the gravitational attractive force. How that may all work together I do not know. I still reject your the basics, incorrect fantasy!

  140. Brett Keane says:

    @Will Janoschka says:
    January 8, 2016 at 4:12 pm

    “As I have stated in this thread several times Atmospheric surface pressure is approximately three times that which can be accounted for by the atmospheric columnar mass times the accelerative force of gravity.”

    ‘fraid I missed that before. Should be easy to verify, but maybe not, from my experience of physics which has proven to be different to what I thought 50+ years ago.

  141. tallbloke says:

    Will: I have never denied that gravity determines the pressure, density, and temperature gradient, and affects even surface pressure.

    The atmospheric gas itself is the principal cause of atmospheric surface pressure.

    Where in your view does the surface pressure “the atmospheric gas itself is the principal cause of” end and “the pressure, density, and temperature gradient gravity determines” begin?

  142. wayne says: January 8, 2016 at 5:29 pm

    “tallbloke, thanks for some sane input. These “the-atmosphere-is-weightless” characters are beyond help I am afraid, they seem to forget, whenever convenient, that the molecules of the atmosphere are ALWAYS being accelerated nadir… that would answer their confusion (or attempts to confuse). Amazingly, RogerC just answered both questions incorrectly in that clear page mentioned at https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean/comment-page-7/#comment-111878, the pressures present tossed into the wind. W=m*g ALWAYS… not just in some special cases used to confuse, it is a universal truth proven long ago and is always present.”

    Wayne,
    Please consider what “must” spontaneously occur with the current measurement of atmosphere vs altitude if the mass attractive force of gravity were not constantly present! The now measured gradients with respect to altitude, must disappear! Atmospheric pressure, density and sensible heat (as represented by temperature) must diffuse radially outward until equilibrium isobar, isotherm, and iso-density, with respect to altitude (unobtainable with the vastness of space). This would be the thermostatic result! EMR outward flux would again result in a decreasing temperature gradient with respect to altitude. This outward EMR flux/temperature gradient is now independent of the force of gravity as we have eliminated the force of gravity by the given consideration!
    Return the force of gravity on atmospheric mass and the standard thermostatic, thermodynamic concepts and gradients wrt altitude of atmospheric pressure, density, temperature, return to the previous with gravity equilibrium, but now the actual value of EMR exitance to space goes completely ape-shit and remains incalculable!

    Wane:”Think I’ll just move back into the bleachers and watch this comedy play out. It is clear now who play the clowns.”:

    Good move Jackson! Can I have my big red nose back, please!? Gotz any new floppy shoes size 11 (prime)?
    tallbloke says: January 8, 2016 at 6:11 pm

    “Wayne, Thanks for your patience. I’m trying really hard to get some kind of logically coherent chain of reasoning from those people that includes magnitude estimates.”

    Now perhaps you get the distinction between the kinda deterministic repetitive and the precise scientific cyclic which is never physical!

  143. tallbloke says: January 8, 2016 at 8:45 pm

    (Will: “I have never denied that gravity determines the pressure, density, and temperature gradient, and affects even surface pressure . The atmospheric gas itself is the principal cause of atmospheric surface pressure.”)

    “Where in your view does the surface pressure “the atmospheric gas itself is the principal cause of” end and “the pressure, density, and temperature gradient gravity determines” begin?”

    Roger Please do not interpret my writings as the “smelly cotton socks” demand of is! I offer only that maybe there ‘is’ a better POV! If you have some valid/invalid guess-estimate of “where” I would enjoy discussing such! Currently I are again acting on my second belief!!

  144. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: January 8, 2016 at 10:26 pm

    “Roger Please do not interpret my writings as the “smelly cotton socks” demand of is! I offer only that maybe there ‘is’ a better POV! If you have some valid/invalid guess-estimate of “where” I would enjoy discussing such! Currently I are again acting on my second belief!!”

    That statement doesn’t actually make full sense Will, but how about this POV:

    The ‘terminal velocity’ of a molecule in ‘free fall’ at a ‘stationary global location’ becomes ‘0 meters/sec’ when a surface ‘back-pressure’ of ‘~14.7 lbf/in^2’ is encountered from the local surface ‘kinetic’.

    ‘Free fall’ is difficult/impossible when many other collisional vectors are involved. It’s ‘worse’ than ‘Mie scattering’ and results in complete ‘opacity’.

    I just hope this makes sense Will. 🙂

    Best regards, Ray.

  145. suricat says: January 9, 2016 at 2:58 am
    Will Janoschka says: January 8, 2016 at 10:26 pm

    (“Roger Please do not interpret my writings as the “smelly cotton socks” demand of is! I offer only that maybe there ‘is’ a better POV! If you have some valid/invalid guess-estimate of “where” I would enjoy discussing such! Currently I are again acting on my second belief!!”)

    “That statement doesn’t actually make full sense Will, but how about this POV:”

    Indeed without full context! I previously wrote to TB that my second of only two beliefs was: ” I believe I will have another beer!”.

    “The ‘terminal velocity’ of a molecule in ‘free fall’ at a ‘stationary global location’ becomes ‘0 meters/sec’ when a surface ‘back-pressure’ of ‘~14.7 lbf/in^2’ is encountered from the local surface ‘kinetic’.”

    Such must be considered when considering the likely shape of airborne water colloid. I envision “Frisbee”. This is of import to convection, but not to what is the likely columnar mass or total mass of the atmosphere.
    This is where TB, Wayne Jackson, and David Russell seem to insist on a value three times what I get when integrating the “normal” to surface molecular momentum change over the whole external hemisphere, as ‘must’ be done to get a value of atmospheric pressure! You seem to be smart enough to stay away from that can of worms! If true atmospheric mass is that much less; it males tremendous difference to things like lateral atmospheric ‘velocity’ over distances of 50 km with a differential pressure of only a few Pascals. It is mostly atmospheric mass that interferes with the generation of cyclonic motion!

    “‘Free fall’ is difficult/impossible when many other collisional vectors are involved. It’s ‘worse’ than ‘Mie scattering’ and results in complete ‘opacity’….I just hope this makes sense Will. 🙂 Best regards, Ray.”

    I agree! TB seems to be irritated by folk introducing terms like ‘atmospheric viscosity’ or ‘Reynolds number’ into what he considers “the basics” of atmospheric fluid dynamics!
    All the best! -will-

  146. tallbloke says:

    Will: a value three times what I get when integrating

    Can we see some numbers then?

  147. tallbloke says: January 9, 2016 at 8:19 pm

    (“Will: a value three times what I get when integrating”)

    “Can we see some numbers then?”

    Roger,
    My best “guestimate” is that atmospheric mass is “one third” that the straight up atmospheric columnar mass per unit area that you Wayne Jackson, and David Russell favor, by believing the meteorological fantasy that atmospheric pressure being ‘only’ derived by gravitational attraction, rather than the method that gas develops pressure from only numeric density and temperature!, where mass is not involved!! I thank Roger Clague for that gas chemistry insight!
    The question to answer to gain insight to the significance of the three to one difference is: ” If the atmosphere were made up of an equal number of Argon (Ar) atoms instead of N2 molecules the same O2 and up to 4% water vapor, such yielding near twice the atmospheric mass, would surface pressure be any different?” Would anything change except no nitrous oxide emission from that wonderful VW Diesel engine?
    I am sorry for being so vague, but the details involve much that would be comparable to 3D Laplace transforms, whatever that may be! The whole Idea is to get folk to the point of “WHAT, wait a minute”, so that proper resource can be brought for a result of Hummmn or giggles! I no longer care! Can you get Wayne to return my big red nose? Without that I must appear dronk!
    My insight to this is from EMR surface flux that also involves no mass but does involve the exitance into a full hemisphere of solid angle with the normal component but cos(theta), angle from normal! Like radiant flux that integrates to PI steradians not one steradian nor the 2PI steradians of a hemisphere!
    Gravitational attraction accounts only for the density gradient (numerical or mass) with altitude; from which both the pressure and temperature gradients may be derived! That density gradient is either logarithmic or exponential, depending if you are affording beer, or single malt scotch!
    All the best! -will-

  148. tallbloke says:

    Will: I agree that the energy of the air molecules contributes to atmospheric pressure, and said so back at the start of my intervention in this thread in response to Roger C’s contentions. But you agree that part of the reason the molecules are at the temperature they are and have the energy they have, is because of the pressure caused by the action of gravity on atmospheric mass!

    Beyond that, the other big contributor to the near surface temperature is solar radiation. Quite clearly, without solar radiation, there wouldn’t be any atmospheric pressure at all, because the atmospheric constituents would be lying in puddles on the frozen surface in liquid or solid phases.

    On the face of it then, you are right that calculating the atmospheric mass from pressure times the surface area is going to overestimate mass because part of that pressure is due to solar radiation, not mass.

    Intuition tells me that since very little energy is required to significantly raise temperature when temperatures are very low, and because change in temperature has very little effect on pressure at Earth ambient temperatures, and because comparatively little solar energy is directly absorbed in the atmosphere; that is why molecular energy is disregarded in calculating the mass of the atmosphere.

    But to satisfy curiosity, and put this argument to bed, let’s consider how we might go about quantifying effects.

    ____________________________________________________

    Useful notes:

    NASA’s Earth fact sheet says:

    Surface pressure: 1014 mb
    Surface density: 1.217 kg/m3
    Scale height: 8.5 km
    Total mass of atmosphere: 5.1 x 10^18 kg

    This is within 4% with Wayne’s calc:
    “mass of entire atm. = 5.270e+018 kg”
    but is significantly smaller. Maybe due to the 8.5km scale height?

    Wikipedia has this:

    The density of air at sea level is about 1.2 kg/m3 (1.2 g/L). Density is not measured directly but is calculated from measurements of temperature, pressure and humidity using the equation of state for air (a form of the ideal gas law). Atmospheric density decreases as the altitude increases. This variation can be approximately modeled using the barometric formula. More sophisticated models are used to predict orbital decay of satellites.

    The average mass of the atmosphere is about 5 quadrillion (5×1015) tonnes or 1/1,200,000 the mass of Earth. According to the American National Center for Atmospheric Research, “The total mean mass of the atmosphere is 5.1480×10^18 kg with an annual range due to water vapor of 1.2 or 1.5×10^15 kg depending on whether surface pressure or water vapor data are used; somewhat smaller than the previous estimate. The mean mass of water vapor is estimated as 1.27×10^16 kg and the dry air mass as 5.1352 ±0.0003×10^18 kg.”

  149. tallbloke says: January 10, 2016 at 8:32 am

    “Will: I agree that the energy of the air molecules contributes to atmospheric pressure, and said so back at the start of my intervention in this thread in response to Roger C’s contentions. But you agree that part of the reason the molecules are at the temperature they are and have the energy they have, is because of the pressure caused by the action of gravity on atmospheric mass!”

    Roger,
    I your expressions lead me to a conclusion that you have been bought by the lukewarmers!
    I have not agreed to anything gravitational except a gravitationally induced atmospheric logarithmic density gradient which then induces the pressure and temperature gradients. I have not agreed with your claim of atmospheric ‘energy’ or your claim of atmospheric density of more than a kg/m^3! I do agree to each atmosphere molecule has average noise power kT/t!
    As I stated in January 9, 2016 at 10:59 pm, I doubt that doubling atmospheric mass while retaining molecular number would change surface pressure in the slightest. Replacing N2 with Ar would increase near surface atmospheric density from 367 to 550 g/m^3!

    “Beyond that, the other big contributor to the near surface temperature is solar radiation. Quite clearly, without solar radiation, there wouldn’t be any atmospheric pressure at all, because the atmospheric constituents would be lying in puddles on the frozen surface in liquid or solid phases.”

    With the thermal mass of this Earth and the induced wrenching about by other solar system bodies, how long until surface temperature is reduced to 76 Kelvin?

    “On the face of it then, you are right that calculating the atmospheric mass from pressure times the surface area is going to overestimate mass because part of that pressure is due to solar radiation, not mass.”

    Do you then agree that all meteorological/climate values may well be incorrect by a value of three? Not are, only ‘may be’?

    “Intuition tells me that since very little energy is required to significantly raise temperature when temperatures are very low, and because change in temperature has very little effect on pressure at Earth ambient temperatures, and because comparatively little solar energy is directly absorbed in the atmosphere; that is why molecular energy is disregarded in calculating the mass of the atmosphere.”

    That makes no sense whatsoever! Who said anything of mass or energy, which is but trivial atmospheric sensible heat, again to high by a factor of three! Very very much solar energy is continuously absorbed by airborne water condensate converting to WV. This is a direct result of the fact that much of the measured airborne water cannot be WV if total atmospheric dry mass is is less than 1.7 x 10^18 kg!

    “But to satisfy curiosity, and put this argument to bed, let’s consider how we might go about quantifying effects.”

    You seem to insist on appeal to authority rather that anything scientific! You go so far as to include American National Center for Atmospheric Research NCAR/UCAR;; the folk that employ Kevin Trenberth as liar in chief!
    ————————————————————————————————————————
    First put that meter^3 surface atmosphere into a 10 liter thin titanium sphere that can barely contain that 1470 PSI pressure. Measure the difference in resonant frequency vs that of equal tare mass sphere when suspended in vacuum by a suitable, long, low loss, titanium, spring. Calculate the mass of that proxy m^3 surface atmosphere, now mostly free of gravitational effects! If results near 1.2 kg stop! Close enough for government work!
    If result less that 600 gm redo a similar test on vertical axis balanced torsion oscillator eliminating gravitational effects and if need be, at near zero latitude reducing Earth rotation effects (Coriolis). This is called the scientific method used to falsify widespread meteorological fantasy!
    If results between 600 and 1000 gm, decide whether to “scratch watch” or “wind ass”!
    That is a beginning!! Next is to design experiment to falsify or temporarily affirm one of the many “kinetic theories” of gas to find the nature of gas density on the kinetic, or if the so call “elastic collision” is but more thermal noise between adjacent repulsive electric field continuum!
    All the best! -will-

  150. tallbloke says:

    Will: Who said anything of mass or energy, which is but trivial atmospheric sensible heat, again to high by a factor of three! Very very much solar energy is continuously absorbed by airborne water condensate converting to WV.

    About 20% of insolation is absorbed in the atmosphere. That means 80% isn’t. 30% is reflected back to space and 50% is absorbed in the ocean and ground.

    Agree or disagree?

  151. tallbloke says: January 10, 2016 at 11:06 pm

    “Will: (‘Who said anything of mass or energy, which is but trivial atmospheric sensible heat, again to high by a factor of three! Very very much solar energy is continuously absorbed by airborne water condensate converting to WV.”)

    “About 20% of insolation is absorbed in the atmosphere. That means 80% isn’t. 30% is reflected back to space and 50% is absorbed in the ocean and ground. Agree or disagree?”

    Agree a wee bit! About 1000W/m^2 (measured) is incident (incoming) on a surface normal to the sun on a clear day, at wavelengths less than 3 microns! But the sky is 62% cloud covered, even on the sun side! So only 380W/m^2 times the earth’s cross-sectional area, of direct insolation even “reach” the surface let alone is “absorbed”. A good photometer measurement will show more than 50% reflection from desert and ocean surfaces, mostly at angles far from normal. Forest and foliage are good absorbers but poor generators of sensible heat (temperature). More than 70% plant 0.4 to 0.7 micron “absorbed” isolation is immediately converted to latent heat of evaporation of H2O, else the plant dies! More latent heat comes from dense forest than from the ocean.
    All that reflected and converted isolation gets another pass at being absorbed by the dark underside of the water condensate called clouds, 85% coverage at 10 microns! What actually gets converted to near surface sensible heat is less than 100W/m^2 . This adds a wee bit of temperature to that part of the latitudes that at noon (only) are near normal to the sun!

    All of this was well known back in the late 1970s, from measurement! This atmosphere and its management of latent heat from where-ever, is crucial to understanding how this atmosphere manages the fine control of EMR exitance to space. Such I do not know, I can only guess! The take over by AlGorestas was simple, as meteorology never had any science!
    What you ever get from meteorology or climatology is lies upon more lies. Every word, phrase, sentence, paragraph, chapter, section, is but lies! Even the punctuation is suspect!! At least that is how I “must” treat it! Your mileage may vary! 😉
    All the best! -will-

  152. suricat says:

    tallbloke says: January 10, 2016 at 11:06 pm

    “About 20% of insolation is absorbed in the atmosphere. That means 80% isn’t. 30% is reflected back to space and 50% is absorbed in the ocean and ground.

    Agree or disagree?”

    Even I ‘baulk’ at answering that ‘broad’ question TB.

    The ‘variant wave-bands’ of ‘insolation’ offer ‘differing interaction’! Some generate ‘thermal stimulation’ at ‘a given altitude or at the surface’ and others generate ‘chemical change’ at ‘a given altitude or at the surface’. Then again, some ‘wave-bands’ don’t penetrate to anywhere ‘near’ the surface.

    Your question is too advanced (and loaded) for a ‘basic thread’ on the meaning of ‘atmospheric convection’ IMHO.

    Could we please stay focused on the ‘gravity ~constant’ with the ‘atmosphere’ changing density ‘exponentially’ with altitude for now (‘exothermic Earth’, its been a ‘long’ drag).

    Best regards, Ray.

  153. James McGinn says:

    Convection is just a general term used by meteorologists to describe air that goes up. The notion from whence it gets its name is a fairly simple notion, buoyancy. It is also a fairly benign and general process, incapable of producing the strong upward drafts associated with storms.

    Convection is not something known, measured, tested. It’s applicability to the atmosphere is limited only by one’s imagination.

    [Reply] and glider pilots’ ability presumably.

  154. Roger Clague says:

    tallbloke says:
    January 7, 2016 at 5:11 pm

    Roger C: (Quoting Feynman) ” dP= −mgndh. Since P=nkT, and T is constant, we can eliminate either P or n, say P, “
    TB: This doesn’t tell us that mgh=nkT as you claimed. Feynman is saying that the change in pressure due to change in height can be calculated as being exponentially related to the change in particle density in his (erroneously assumed) isothermal (at equilibrium) atmosphere.

    Roger C: Pressure due to ( caused by) gravity acting on mass which is weight [Moderation Note: Mass is not the same thing as weight.] is put equal to pressure due to number of particles [Moderation Note: That’s not what Feynman’s saying above]

    Bernoilli 1738 proved [Moderation note: He didn’t prove it, he posited it] gas pressure is caused only by particle density, not mass density
    [Moderation note: Bernoulli did NOT prove, or claim to have proved that gas pressure is ONLY caused by particle density. It is in any case a logical fallacy to attempt to prove a negative]

    tallbloke says:
    January 7, 2016 at 10:23 pm

    Starting with strong steel cubic box, internally 12″ along each side, sitting on a scale, we evacuate the STP air inside it using a vacuum pump. After removing the air, we find the scale registers a weight which is an ounce and a quarter lighter than it was before removing the air.

    Roger C: The scale does not register weight, or mass. A “weighing scale” ia a force meter, it registers force, Newtons, N.
    It is then assumed that this force is caused by gravity acting on mass and is called weight. The force is divided by g, 10m/s^2, and called mass, kg.
    In my opinion this is not correct for gas.
    The change in force registered by the scale in your experiment is not caused by weight. The change on the scale is caused by the change of air pressure from 1 atm to 0.
    This change in measured force, N, is caused by pressure not weight.

    [Reply] Newtons are a measure of force due to gravity acting on mass, not pressure. Pascals are a measure of pressure. The ~+0.35N force registered in this case prior to evacuation has a vector which is towards the Earth’s centre, due to gravity acting on the air’s mass. That’s why the apple landed on Newtons head too, rather than shimmying off sideways. Gravity doesn’t care (or know) if a mass is composed of apple, gas or biscuits, it acts on it regardless. Which is why force meters strapped to the sides and top of the box won’t register a change when the air is evacuated from the box. So you now need to explain why the gas pressure you claim is responsible for the force measured by the scale only acted downwards instead of in all directions, without appealing to gravity, which you don’t believe acts on gas. Good luck with that.

    I need an example of weighing air without a change of pressure.
    Take an empty beach ball. Pump in air to fully inflate the ball. The pressure inside is same as outside, that is 1atm.
    It contains 10 000cm^3 of air, that is a mass of 10g.
    The force on the scale after inflating is the same as when not inflated.

    [Reply] That’s because the ambient pressure air in the beachball is neutrally bouyant in its surroundings. Take it to the Moon and it’ll register your 10g/6 more when inflated. Increase the pressure in the beach ball by pumping in more air, increasing the particle density, and you’ll see the force registered by the Newton-o-meter creeping up, because those extra particles have mass, which is acted on by gravity.

    Now can we do some science please.

    Science is using the results of experiments to choose between alterative theories. We are discussing alternative theories for the cause of air pressure.

    [Reply] You are trying to limit the discussion to gas pressure, but we’re discussing the PLANETARY ATMOSPHERIC pressure as a prelude to a discussion of convection, and I’m not going to let you derail it.

    Science is done without:

    1. Referring to the person proposing a theory
    [Reply] So you’re going to stop appealing to Bernoulli, Gallileo and Newton’s authority?
    2. Unequal treatment of opinions you disagree with
    [Reply] Don’t tell me how to run my blog. If I have to go into a comment to moderate factual errors like “mass which is weight”, that’s where the rest of my response ends up.
    3. Threats to silence opinion you disagree with.
    [Reply] I don’t make threats. I kick people out if they are unable to discuss science rationally, logically, and with the courtesy of properly answering people’s objections to their propositions. You are getting close to that position. (that’s a point of information, not a threat).

    My comment about Galileo and Newton was to show the idea that air is weightless has a long history of illustrious supporters.

    [Reply] Newton will be turning in his Grave. Since you’re full of hot air, Gallileo would probably chuck you off the tower of Pisa along with a canonball to see which landed first.

  155. James McGinn says:

    Jim McGinn:
    Convection is not something known, measured, tested.

    Roger Tall Dude:
    [Reply] and glider pilots’ ability presumably.

    Jim McGinn:
    Presumably, yes. IOW, it is anecdotal. Convection has never been comprehensively measured, tested. It is just assumed, by glider pilots and meteorologists. It’s a label. It is verbiage to fill textbooks. It is not empirical.

    Obviously lateral winds aren’t caused by convection. So, indisputably, the movement of air in Earth’s atmosphere is not 100% attributable to convection. Therefore some process OTHER THAN convection must, at least, ALSO be involved in creating winds. And if this other process can create lateral winds who is to say it cannot also create vertical winds? And if some other process (or processes) can create vertical winds who is to say it doesn’t create the vast majority of updrafts that have been labelled “convection.”

    Undeniably, the strongest winds on our planet are associated with jet streams. And obviously these are not created by convection.

    For all anybody can say convection may actually cause less than 5% of the air that moves up in Earth’s atmosphere. And even that may be an overestimate.

  156. James McGinn says:

    Roger Tall Dude:
    strong steel cubic box, . . . evacuate the STP air inside . . . removing the air, . . . an ounce and a quarter lighter

    Roger C:
    The change in force registered by the scale in your experiment is not caused by weight. The change on the scale is caused by the change of air pressure from 1 atm to 0.

    Jim McGinn:
    Air pressure is irrelevant/independent. For example, suppose we lowered temp of air to absolute zero. It would form ice, falling to bottom of box. But weight would be the same. Roger TB is correct.

  157. tallbloke says:

    Jim: Glider pilots know the difference between thermals convecting over sunlit dry ground (but not over deep water) and updraughts caused by escarpment edges etc. From those observations, we build up our knowledge.

  158. wayne says:

    Roger C: ” (Quoting Feynman) dP= −mgndh. ”

    Sorry RogerC, I can hardly believe that Dr. Feynman would make such a blatant mistake unless it was merely a typo in some book… could you please state the book and page from which you are quoting that equation. I have never seen ‘n’ to indicate 1/V, the specific volume, but that would make such equation correct.

  159. tallbloke says:

    Hi Wayne.
    Here:
    http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_40.html
    I’ll be interested to hear your take on it. Please explain longhand for everyone.

  160. wayne says:

    tallbloke, ok, the problem of understanding here lies in Feynman’s explicit definition of ‘m’ and ‘n’ in that paragraph. Here the ‘m’ is not the mass of the gas per tiny volume within ‘dh’ in question but the mass of an individual molecule or atom so m·n is equal to the total mass located within some tiny volume and since the volume in question is the unit area that he sets time dh then his m·n divided by that volume is the density ‘ρ’ and you come full circle to the more common equation dP = -g·ρ·dh, here rho handling the ‘m·n/V’ being the mass of the gas contained within that tiny volume.

    RogerC keeps dancing with equations and statements without critical definitions of terms to… for some reason… deny that mass or density equally matters and is not equivalent…. it does and is… you just have to keep your eyes on the exact meanings of the variables and concepts like ‘N’ or ‘n’ or ‘M’ or ‘m’. Sometimes ‘n’ to mean the particle density, sometimes it is to mean the number of moles of particles. ‘N’ is usually to mean the particle count. ‘m’ can mean the total mass, but like here, if explicitly stated, the mass of a single particle more commonly using ‘M’ but for instance all of the equations PV=NkT, PV=nRT, P/ρ=RT are all correct in each of their own light but even here ‘R’ is in one case the universal gas constant and in the later ‘R’ is equal to the specific gas constant and their meanings are implicitly implied for someone well versed in this area. You MUST keep your eyes on what the letters MEAN.

    So, my numeric integration given above by that small program stays perfectly correct, the primary pressure at any vertical point within any atmosphere found on planets/moons/stars is determined by the mass of the column area lying outward above that point. This is not to say there can’t be other vertical forces might need to be applied in real situations, like radiation pressure, verical winds, electrical charge pressures but primarily it stays as stated as the base of the understanding of why the pressure in atmospheres are what they are found to be.

  161. James McGinn says:

    RTB: Jim, Glider pilots know the difference between thermals convecting over sunlit dry ground (but not over deep water) and updraughts caused by escarpment edges etc.

    JM: Do they? How?

    RTB: From those observations, we build up our knowledge.

    JM: There are no mountains over the oceans, which are essential to the consistent, upmoving air necessary for glider pilots. And updrafts at sea are commonly observed, as in storms. So, it’s not knowledge, it’s more anecdote. Observation is one leg of scientific process. Obviously, glider pilots have no basis to identify “convection.” They just assume it.

    Surely, you are not suggesting mountains cause jet streams. So, lateral winds, jet streams, storms are all evidence the movement of air in the atmosphere is not explicable solely with reference to convection. These are the issues you sidestep so effortlessly, as do all meteorologists. Jet streams can explain lateral winds. And you have no basis for eliminating jet streams as cause of storms, both at sea and on land. Convection is just a label put on storms–more anecdote. Tell us how convection explains jet streams. Even using anecdote you won’t touch that explanation with a ten foot pole. Will you, Roger?

    People tend to be convinced by anecdote, as you are doing here. And they think, more anecdote equals knowledge. Actually, more anecdote just equals more anecdote.

  162. The official replys to Roger Clague January 11, 2016 at 7:36 am

    [Reply] “Newtons are a measure of force due to gravity acting on mass, not pressure. Pascals are a measure of pressure.”

    Some things are free to accelerate others are not! A Newton is a force that has nothing to do with gravity which is an acceleration independent of mass (the resulting increase in mass momentum). One Newton is the force required to accelerate one kg at a rate of 1 meter/s^2 in the the direction of that force. To accelerate 3 kg at the same rate of 1m/s^2 requires 3 Newtons! Earth’s gravity on to other hand must accelerate “any” quantity of mass (free to accelerate) at exactly the same rate 9.8m/s^2 but “only” in the direction of the COM of the Earth. The difference between pressure and gravitational mass attraction is one between a directional force vector and a isotropic scalar force! How must the two be treated differently with regard to projective or analytic geometry?

    [Reply]”The ~+0.35N force registered in this case prior to evacuation has a vector which is towards the Earth’s centre, due to gravity acting on the air’s mass. That’s why the apple landed on Newtons head too, rather than shimmying off sideways. Gravity doesn’t care (or know) if a mass is composed of apple, gas or biscuits, it acts on it regardless.”

    That is quite true, except for the acting on part! Apart from the atmospheric dynamics (advection), this atmosphere can be considered thermostatic, with the static altitude gradients of temperature, pressure, density, speed of sound, viscosity, and many other measurable components while related all act together to prevent such acting, (atmospheric downward acceleration) due to gravity.

    [Reply]” Which is why force meters strapped to the sides and top of the box won’t register a change when the air is evacuated from the box.”

    Roger believe me, I’ve done it! Proper strain gauges on each of the six sides of your one foot cube will each indeed indicate a 14.7 pound force stress inward!!! That 6 x stress is not 2PI stress only because your cube is not isotropic!!! Please position your cube with a vertex at zenith and nadir and a horizontal surface containing the other four vertices. With that surface area of root 3 square feet, separating up from down, you may start to appreciate my concern of the veracity of established academic science fiction!

    [Reply] “So you now need to explain why the gas pressure you claim is responsible for the force measured by the scale only acted downwards instead of in all directions, without appealing to gravity, which you don’t believe acts on gas.”

    Only chemistry and electrical engineering, of the hard sciences, attempt to eliminate the concept of both mass and energy, as neither is needed in those fields and both are a huge pain in the butt for understanding! Your power accumulated over time is way way different than force times distance! 😉 Has anyone ever measured the mass of one cubic meter of STP atmosphere? How?
    All the best! -will-

  163. wayne says: January 11, 2016 at 4:54 pm

    “So, my numeric integration given above by that small program stays perfectly correct, the primary pressure at any vertical point within any atmosphere found on planets/moons/stars is determined by the mass of the column area lying outward above that point.”

    Wayne,
    I admire your skill and clarity in code writing! Such gives exactly what the routine must do, rather than some vaporous intent!

    Please look a your result over only ten iterations for an atmospheric altitude of 10 cm!
    I am not bitching. I have done the same!
    Then also examine what the overall result is, if surface density is 1/PI that claimed. Then at each iteration the accumulation is multiplied by PI to give the actual physical effect of 3D pressure!!

    “This is not to say there can be other vertical forces might need to be applied in real situations, like radiation pressure, vertical winds, electrical charge pressures but primarily it stays as stated as the base of the understanding of why the pressure in atmospheres are what they are found to be.”

    Why the pressure in atmospheres are what they are found claimed/computed to be.”
    Where and how has such had even one attempt at falsification/repudiation?
    All the best! -will-

  164. tallbloke says:

    Will: all act together to prevent such acting, (atmospheric downward acceleration) due to gravity.

    An acceleration still applies, whether things move or not. If they don’t, they have potential energy. This seems to be a sticking point, so maybe I’ll come back to it (yet again) later. Classical physics is tough sometimes.

    Proper strain gauges

    I wasn’t referring to strain gauges, and my strong metal box has unbendable sides.

    Jim: JM: Do they? How?

    You’ve never flown in a glider, have you?

    Surely, you are not suggesting mountains cause jet streams.

    Of course not, and stop calling me Shirley.

  165. Kristian says:

    tallbloke,

    Clague is saying: “Pressure due to (caused by) gravity acting on mass which is weight …”

    You respond: “[Moderation Note: Mass is not the same thing as weight.]”

    I don’t believe that’s what he meant. To me he seems to be saying: “gravity acting on mass = weight”. Which would be correct (W = m * g) …

  166. tallbloke says:

    Kristian: Roger C has spent much of the last four months here conflating mass with weight, have a look.

  167. tallbloke says:

    Wayne: Superb explication, thank you.

  168. tallbloke says: January 11, 2016 at 8:57 pm

    (Will: “all act together to prevent such acting, (atmospheric downward acceleration) due to gravity.”)

    “An acceleration still applies, whether things move or not. If they don’t, they have potential energy. This seems to be a sticking point, so maybe I’ll come back to it (yet again) later. Classical physics is tough sometimes.”

    It truly is not Roger C. that is trying to confuse all with fantasy!
    [snip]

    [Reply] The item under current discussion is about gravity and atmospheric pressure, not muscle power or anything else. Try to focus.

  169. suricat says:

    tallbloke says: January 11, 2016 at 8:57 pm

    “An acceleration still applies, whether things move or not. If they don’t, they have potential energy. This seems to be a sticking point, so maybe I’ll come back to it (yet again) later. Classical physics is tough sometimes.”

    Yes, however, ‘potential’, ‘inertia’ and the ‘kinetic’ that links them needs to be ‘well understood’ when we ‘do’ eventually come to discuss air ‘movements’ (not to mention ‘frames of reference’). Here’s a link that may help those in need of a ‘refresher’:

    http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-1/Inertia-and-Mass

    We should also mark here that the only ‘true method’ to disclose the mass of an object is to measure its ‘inertia’ against a ‘given standard’.

    PS. Thanks to wayne for reminding me why I try to ‘talk’ my way through posts here. 🙂

    Best regards, Ray.

  170. suricat says:

    tallbloke says: January 11, 2016 at 8:57 pm

    “Of course not, and stop calling me Shirley.”

    Roger Roger, but ‘The Jets’ was a ‘great group’ before ‘The Engines’ that just died! 😉

    Best regards, Ray.

  171. suricat says: January 12, 2016 at 12:35 am

    “We should also mark here that the only ‘true method’ to disclose the mass of an object is to measure its ‘inertia’ against a ‘given standard’.”

    Ray, Is my method of determining an increase in mass (inductance) via differential mass and singular spring constant (capacitance), yielding differential reciprocal radians/s = s/radian = root (LC) as expressed at WJ January 10, 2016 at 7:22 pm a valid method of measuring atmospheric mass? Does decreasing the volume of such same mass (100 x compression) just somewhat affect, or actually invalidate such measurement? 😦

    “PS. Thanks to wayne for reminding me why I try to ‘talk’ my way through posts here. 🙂
    Best regards, Ray.”

    Thank you Ray,
    All the best! -will-

  172. tallbloke says:

    I’ve had to temporarily (I hope) disable the paging function which breaks thread comment into 300 comment pages. This is to work around a wordpress glitch. Apologies for the inconvenience.

  173. Roger Clague says:

    TB: Which is why force meters strapped to the sides and top of the box won’t register a change when the air is evacuated from the box. So you now need to explain why the gas pressure you claim is responsible for the force measured by the scale only acted downwards instead of in all directions, without appealing to gravity, which you don’t believe acts on gas.
    Roger C: You make a good point here.
    I do believe gravity acts on gas, but not as weight. Gravity is a change of velocity. So it changes the velocity of molecules.
    The force meters at the sides will not register a change, no horizontal change of gravity.
    The force meter at the top will register less force than on the bottom force meter.
    The molecules reaching the top surface have been slowed more by gravity than molecules which hit the bottom surface.
    The force on the bottom surface is more than the force on the top surface.
    This difference is very small. However there are a lot of molecules.

    TB: Take it [ a beach ball ] to the Moon and it’ll register your 10g more when inflated.
    Roger C: It might weigh about 3g as moon gravity is 1/3 Earth gravity.Do you have data to support this claim?
    Also data on weighing gas in a container in a vacuum would be interesting.

    TB: You are trying to limit the discussion to gas pressure, but we’re discussing the PLANETARY ATMOSPHERIC pressure as a prelude to a discussion of convection
    Roger C: There is a variation in pressure in the atmosphere caused by gravity. But I think air pressure has a single physical cause,velocity, where ever it is found.

    TB: Increase the pressure in the beach ball by pumping in more air, increasing the particle density, and you’ll see the force registered by the Newton-o-meter creeping up
    Double the pressure to 2 atm and thus double the mass added does not add another 10gm.

  174. tallbloke says:

    Roger C: The molecules reaching the top surface have been slowed more by gravity than molecules which hit the bottom surface.
    The force on the bottom surface is more than the force on the top surface.
    This difference is very small. However there are a lot of molecules.

    Yes, and the net outcome is each and every molecule is being subjected to an acceleration g in the direction of the centre of gravity including the molecules that are moving sideways (which is why their trajectory curves). The g force is in vector addition to the vector the molecule would be travelling in without any large gravitational mass nearby.

    Each and every atom or molecule of solids is also subjected to the same acceleration. The phase state makes no difference. Gravity acts on all matter blindly, and doesn’t know what phase of matter it is in.

    It might weigh about 3g as moon gravity is 1/3 Earth gravity

    1/6 actually. I edited my comment later when I remembered I hadn’t factored lower moon g in.

    There is a variation in pressure in the atmosphere caused by gravity. But I think air pressure has a single physical cause,velocity, where ever it is found

    Fine, but remember that the velocity is affected by g as you’ve admitted above. When you sum the motion of billions of molecules in a ‘packet’ of bulk gas, you’ll get a net downward acceleration. Now, it will also be true that this won’t result in the downward motion of that air packet, because it is neutrally buoyant in its surroundings (more air packets of the same density).

    So now, finally, I hope you can see how the sum of all the net downward forces of all those packets in the atmosphere increase the density and pressure of the atmosphere as we get closer to the surface.

  175. Roger Clague says:

    James McGinn says:
    January 11, 2016 at 11:06 am
    Roger Tall Dude:
    strong steel cubic box, . . . evacuate the STP air inside . . . removing the air, . . . an ounce and a quarter lighter
    Roger C:
    The change in force registered by the scale in your experiment is not caused by weight. The change on the scale is caused by the change of air pressure from 1 atm to 0.
    Jim McGinn:
    Air pressure is irrelevant/independent. For example, suppose we lowered temp of air to absolute zero. It would form ice, falling to bottom of box. But weight would be the same. Roger TB is correct

    Liquid or solid air has weight. I think the weight will increase. Only need to reach liquid temperature of air

  176. tallbloke says:

    Roger C: Liquid or solid air has weight.

    It has mass that’s acted on by gravity. Same as the molecules of gaseous air which you agree have their velocity changed by gravity. They have mass too. Gravity acts on mass. Gravity is a force. Force = mass x acceleration. Acceleration is rate of change of velocity.`

  177. James McGinn says:

    JM:
    . . . . suppose we lowered temp of air to absolute zero. It would form ice, falling to bottom of box. But weight would be the same.

    RC:
    Liquid or solid air has weight. I think the weight will increase.

    JM:
    It won’t increase. Tallish Bloke explained why, explicitly:

    Roger Tallish Bloke: “Yes, and the net outcome is each and every molecule is being subjected to an acceleration g in the direction of the centre of gravity including the molecules that are moving sideways (which is why their trajectory curves). The g force is in vector addition to the vector the molecule would be travelling in without any large gravitational mass nearby. Each and every atom or molecule of solids is also subjected to the same acceleration. The phase state makes no difference. Gravity acts on all matter blindly, and doesn’t know what phase of matter it is in.”

    JM:
    So you see, Roger C, what you have is, essentially, a specious argument. You suggest that since molecules of air are moving that, therefore, they don’t have weight or that their weight will be immeasurable. But if you think about it, all molecules are moving all the time. So, if what you were saying was actually true then everything would be weightless.

  178. nuwurld says:

    Cannot believe, in all honesty, that so many (they know who they are) refuse to accept the consequences of gravitational containment.

    Any gravitationally bound gaseous envelope exhibits familiar traits. Those being a pressure and density gradient that allows near hydrostatic stability, otherwise collapse or expansion into space would ensue. Secondly, and subject to rather amusing debate is the existence of a gravitationally induced temperature gradient.

    If we consider a purely mechanical atmosphere acting within a field we would expect a thermal gradient to persist. If we extrapolate kinetic theory to produce the gas laws and subject the gas to the density and pressure gradients we find under containment then we would predict the same thermal gradient. When we include latent heat as a heat transfer mechanism then we find that every measured tropospheric thermal profile exhibits near perfect mechanical equilibrium time averaged.

    Yet many say that this is the result of radiation, particularly long wave. This being after the results are in, that we calculated the profile without it!

    It’s not complicated or unbelievable.

    Amazing.

  179. James McGinn says:

    “If we consider a purely mechanical atmosphere acting within a field we would expect a thermal gradient to persist. If we extrapolate kinetic theory to produce the gas laws and subject the gas to the density and pressure gradients we find under containment then we would predict the same thermal gradient.”

    Agreed.

    “When we include latent heat as a heat transfer mechanism . . .”

    What does the term, “latent heat,” real mean with respect to the atmosphere? I’m not asking for a definition of the phrase. How about a specific example? Does anybody know? Are there any two people that have the same understanding? Or is this just a term that gets bandied around that has no real meaning. Has it ever been measured, quantified. Or is it something that everybody pretends to understand but that nobody actually understands–like so much of meteorology.

    ” . . . then we find that every measured tropospheric thermal profile exhibits near perfect mechanical equilibrium time averaged.”

    So, you’re suggesting “perfect agreement.” What does that even mean? How can you claim perfect agreement for something when no two persons even agree on how to define it?

  180. wayne says:

    Roger C:
    The change in force registered by the scale in your experiment is not caused by weight. The change on the scale is caused by the change of air pressure from 1 atm to 0.

    Not so Roger. It is lighter because the mass from the air within the container was removed. If the cause was pressure then merely heating up the air within the solid closed container would weigh more… it doesn’t. However, if you add more air at the same temperature to double the pressure then, yes, it would weigh more on the scales. Likewise, if you heat the air within to double the pressure there would be no increase in weight… the opposite of what you just said for you are placing the causation on pressure and not on air’s mass.

    You beach-ball example is what is leading you astray I believe. Still, lets say the plastic of the ball is 10g. The collapsed ball weighs 10g. You add air to never-exceed the ambient air pressure outside and there you are correct, that the scale will stay precisely at 10g. But you are simultaneously increasing the volume and the air creating that added volume is neutral buoyant with the air outside at every vertical level due to the volume so it APPEARS that the air you are adding has no weight… it is but an illusion for the zenith buoyant force is exactly cancelling the nadir gravitational force because of the mass of the air being added.

    On the question of the bird in the semi-trailer truck that you answered incorrect above, whether the truck would weigh less if the birds were flying within the trailer, here you seem to carry the same flaws in well-known science facts. First, the truck itself, the birds sitting on the floor of the trailer would technically weigh less than the true mass of them indicates by W=m·g due to the buoyant force of the air that they both are displacing. In a vacuum, the truck and birds would weigh slightly more exactly as W=m·g indicates. The air with the trailer is buoyant neutral and appears to weigh nothing at all though the weight of the air is being exactly cancelled by the volume of the trailer displaced. If the birds start to fly they are creating an additional force downward to counter their weight but that force is against the floor of the trailer and the truck and birds would still weigh the same, flying or not.

    You have some strange beliefs RogerC. Maybe best to jettison them and understand why while discuss age-old science facts that are so well proven and known to be true.

  181. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: January 12, 2016 at 1:33 am

    “Ray, Is my method of determining an increase in mass (inductance) via differential mass and singular spring constant (capacitance), yielding differential reciprocal radians/s = s/radian = root (LC) as expressed at WJ January 10, 2016 at 7:22 pm a valid method of measuring atmospheric mass? Does decreasing the volume of such same mass (100 x compression) just somewhat affect, or actually invalidate such measurement? 😦 ”

    If you refer to this piece/post:

    “First put that meter^3 surface atmosphere into a 10 liter thin titanium sphere that can barely contain that 1470 PSI pressure. Measure the difference in resonant frequency vs that of equal tare mass sphere when suspended in vacuum by a suitable, long, low loss, titanium, spring. Calculate the mass of that proxy m^3 surface atmosphere, now mostly free of gravitational effects! If results near 1.2 kg stop! Close enough for government work!
    If result less that 600 gm redo a similar test on vertical axis balanced torsion oscillator eliminating gravitational effects and if need be, at near zero latitude reducing Earth rotation effects (Coriolis). This is called the scientific method used to falsify widespread meteorological fantasy!
    If results between 600 and 1000 gm, decide whether to “scratch watch” or “wind ass”!
    That is a beginning!! Next is to design experiment to falsify or temporarily affirm one of the many “kinetic theories” of gas to find the nature of gas density on the kinetic, or if the so call “elastic collision” is but more thermal noise between adjacent repulsive electric field continuum!
    All the best! -will-”

    Yes, but its more insensitive and reliant on ‘solid knowledge’ of the local electrostatic and magnetic fields IMHO. This permits an increase in the opportunity for unseen errata that may lead to error.

    IMHO the ‘safest’ method for the measurement of mass is by way of its ‘inertial value’ within a given ‘reference frame’. ‘Inertial value’ is measured at the ‘place of measurement’, so the ‘reference frame/frames’ is/are ‘coincident’ (‘local’ electromagnetic and electrostatic field anomalies are ‘coincident’ with the ‘mechanical’ procedure for the observation) for the observation.

    However, I’ll not say that any ‘measurement’ isn’t without a degree of ‘probable inaccuracy’. 😉

    Best regards, Ray.

  182. James McGinn says: January 13, 2016 at 12:43 am

    “What does the term, “latent heat,” real mean with respect to the atmosphere? I’m not asking for a definition of the phrase. How about a specific example? Does anybody know? Are there any two people that have the same understanding? Or is this just a term that gets bandied around that has no real meaning. Has it ever been measured, quantified.
    OK Jim,
    A specific example! the “latent heat” of the evaporation of liquid water to WV. WV being a fluid gas that ‘must’ expand to fill some volume because of the repulsive nature between molecules of that gas overcoming ‘all’ tendency for mass attraction or molecular bonding! Gas must be compressive as per the limitation on such expansion. Liquid water by comparison is a near incompressible fluid with much intermolecular “bonding” that is contained to a near specific volume gravitational force must limit this volume to that with the least gravitational potential (with respect to itself or any other mass within its own gravitational field. The ‘heat’ part means only specific heat ‘work energy added per unit mass, it has no reference to temperature or change in temperature. That is the ‘latent’ part, heat energy not obvious from change in temperature!. Such is the ‘work’ done to change the state from accumulative to repulsive. this is isentropic ‘work’ as it is completely reversible with no change in entropy in either direction. The value of H2O ‘latent’ varies from 2260 Joules/gram near 100° C, to 2540 Joules/gram near 0° C. Think of adding sensible heat to the liquid from 0 to 100 that is not needed for evaporation at the higher temperature. Please consider the magnitude of the energy supplied/received with no change in temperature.
    Before you stat to rant, there is airborne in the atmosphere always more “non gas H2O” than there is WV. The non gas can be liquid solid or two forms of water colloid, the states between th phases that are truly ill defined. such are collectively called airborne condensates, and ignored by all of meteorology, as not fit for religious dogma! Yes it is measured every day! this latent heat is likely “the” most measured phenomenon in this physical.
    In the atmosphere such is important as it is the largest transport of insolation in all directions of lesser temperature where it condenses back to condensate releasing that ‘latent heat’ to be dispatched to space via EMR!
    Note: What nuwurld says: about EMR not changing gradients is correct! What EMR does affect is both the volume of the atmosphere and the absolute magnitude of all those gradient values!l

  183. nuwurld says:

    James, thanks for the questions.

    There are only three ways that a body of gas can store energy. Those being directly thermal given by the sum of available independent energy states (degrees of freedom) that constitute the heat capacity. Gravitational potential energy, this being relative to an arbitrary reference (eg the surface). Finally energy can be used to change the physical state of a condensing gas whereby energy is not added to thermal pool or in accrual of altitude, but still exists and can become thermal upon condensation. As an example, we measure specific humidity at the surface and as a function of altitude as global means. We know from lab experiments that the latent heat of vaporisation of water is 2,230J/g, so for every gram change in specific humidity 2,230J is added or subtracted from the thermal pool. The thermal response of this is given by the isobaric specific heat capacity Cp.

    James, I am suggesting ‘near perfect’ agreement. From attitude it is possible to calculate a surface temperature that is an equilibrium temperature given only temperature and specific humidity at 7.5km (globally tropospheric)., that agrees very well with global measurements at the surface.

    If I go to the shops with an amount of money and purchase some items and have receipts to verify prices I care very little if someone or everyone disagrees with how much change I have. It’s a sum, it adds up (or subtracts) and that is what matters. The point is that even when shown how to calculate it, many still quibble about it unnecessarily and look to make it more complicated than it is!

    Regards.

  184. suricat says: January 13, 2016 at 2:55 am

    “Yes, but its more insensitive and reliant on ‘solid knowledge’ of the local electrostatic and magnetic fields IMHO. This permits an increase in the opportunity for unseen errata that may lead to error.”

    Ray I was just using my electrical analogy for a spring mass mechanical resonance and using the differential mass between and evacuated and pressurized container, or verification of technique. Nothing electrical at all.

    Is there a prescribed method for measuring not calculating the mass of gas? So far I cannot find any measurement of gas mass!

    “IMHO the ‘safest’ method for the measurement of mass is by way of its ‘inertial value’ within a given ‘reference frame’. ‘Inertial value’ is measured at the ‘place of measurement’, so the ‘reference frame/frames’ is/are ‘coincident’ (‘local’ electromagnetic and electrostatic field anomalies are ‘coincident’ with the ‘mechanical’ procedure for the observation) for the observation.”

    That is what I thought I was describing! How do you measure the inertial mass of anything without involving gravity, a calculation based on assumption.?

    “However, I’ll not say that any ‘measurement’ isn’t without a degree of ‘probable inaccuracy’. 😉
    Best regards, Ray.”

    I was thinking that the difference between 400 grams and 1200 grams should be easy to detect!
    Has such measurement been done? Is surface pressure a function of columnar mass or that of integrating the normal ‘component’ over a hemisphere of pressure? Is it always the same?
    All the best! -will-

  185. wayne says:

    WillJ: “I was thinking that the difference between 400 grams and 1200 grams should be easy to detect!”

    Yes, I would think so Will. Maybe check with JPL to see if they feel their ~10332 kg/m^2 columnar mass figure used to compensate for total air density resistance during flight of the rockets has, after all of this time, been off by a staggering factor of three as you claim.

  186. nuwurld says:

    Hi Will. You have said,

    ” What EMR does affect is both the volume of the atmosphere and the absolute magnitude of all those gradient values!l”

    From the basic premise that at eqm the Earth will emit in the long wave the equivalent of the short wave thermalised, we can calculate a sensible temperature for the Earth in a purely radiative argument, provided we are careful with associating with it a reasonable value for the mean emissivity.

    Do you agree with that?

    The temperature calculated in this manner is the effective mean radiative temperature and appears to exist at a particular altitude as most of the emissions come from the atmosphere?

    Do you agree with that?

    Finally the effective mean radiative height and its associated temperature give the surface equilibrium temperature through the gravitationally driven lapse rate.

    Yes/no?

    Regards.

  187. wayne says: January 13, 2016 at 4:13 pm

    WillJ: (“I was thinking that the difference between 400 grams and 1200 grams should be easy to detect!”)

    “Yes, I would think so Will. Maybe check with JPL to see if they feel their ~10332 kg/m^2 columnar mass figure used to compensate for total air density resistance during flight of the rockets has, after all of this time, been off by a staggering factor of three as you claim.”

    Please do Wayne. Perhaps you can get them to tell you where and how your claimed 1.225 kg/m^3 atmospheric near surface density has actually been measured! Even the claim of 22.4 liters/mol is highly suspect!! You write of “air density resistance” What can that possibly mean? Are you writing of the near adiabatic atmospheric compression, leading to an extremely high stagnation point temperature requiring immense ‘work’? Why would such depend on the atmospheric mass density rather than on only molecular numeric density? Since nearly all of the used aerodynamic coefficients come from measurement under near situ conditions, why would they care what your mass density is?
    Have you even looked at your routine to see what it produced for columnar atmospheric mass at an altitude of 10 cm? You seem to start with false assumptions with only the attempt at proving the same false assumptions via some code!
    All the best! -will-

  188. James McGinn says:

    energy can be used to change the physical state of a condensing gas
    Gaseous H2O only exists above 100 C. There is none in earth’s cooler atmosphere.
    We know from lab experiments that the latent heat of vaporisation of water is 2,230J/g,
    Reference?
    so for every gram change in specific humidity 2,230J
    Where are you getting this data?
    is added or subtracted from the thermal pool. The thermal response of this is given by the isobaric specific heat capacity Cp.
    James, I am suggesting ‘near perfect’ agreement. From attitude it is possible to calculate a surface temperature that is an equilibrium temperature given only temperature and specific humidity at 7.5km (globally tropospheric)., that agrees very well with global measurements at the surface.
    People (meteorologists) have been suggesting this for over a hundred years. Like you they refer to laboratory evidence as a general concept. But all the actual laboratory evidence indicates quite decisively that there is no gaseous H2O (H2Og) at the temps in earth’s atmosphere.
    If I go to the shops with an amount of money and purchase some items and have receipts to verify prices I care very little if someone or everyone disagrees with how much change I have. It’s a sum, it adds up (or subtracts) and that is what matters. The point is that even when shown how to calculate it, many still quibble about it unnecessarily and look to make it more complicated than it is!
    So, pretending it is simple is good science in your opinion?

  189. James McGinn says:

    “What does the term, “latent heat,” real mean with respect to the atmosphere? I’m not asking for a definition of the phrase. How about a specific example? Does anybody know? Are there any two people that have the same understanding? Or is this just a term that gets bandied around that has no real meaning. Has it ever been measured, quantified.
    OK Jim,
    A specific example! the “latent heat” of the evaporation of liquid water to WV.

    WV is liquid H2O suspended between air molecules as a result of a small amount of static electricity

    WV being a fluid gas

    That is the ‘latent’ part, heat energy not obvious from change in temperature!.

    Funny, but, that is the same excuse believers in paranormal activity employ.

    Please consider the magnitude of the energy supplied/received with no change in temperature.

    I think you mean water’s high heat capacity. How is that relevant?

    Before you stat to rant,

    It would seem I’m not the one ranting here.

    there is airborne in the atmosphere always more “non gas H2O” than there is WV. The non gas can be liquid solid or two forms of water colloid, the states between th phases that are truly ill defined. such are collectively called airborne condensates, and ignored by all of meteorology, as not fit for religious dogma! Yes it is measured every day! this latent heat is likely “the” most measured phenomenon in this physical.

    Are you suggesting everybody is hiding the data?

    In the atmosphere such is important as it is the largest transport of insolation in all directions of lesser temperature where it condenses back to condensate releasing that ‘latent heat’ to be dispatched to space via EMR!
    Note: What nuwurld says: about EMR not changing gradients is correct! What EMR does affect is both the volume of the atmosphere and the absolute magnitude of all those gradient values!l

    You lost me. I’m just looking for a simple explanation. If the data ever turns up be sure to let me know.

  190. nuwurld says: January 13, 2016 at 4:15 pm

    Hi Will. You have said,

    (” What EMR does affect is both the volume of the atmosphere and the absolute magnitude of all those gradient values!l”)

    “From the basic premise that at eqm the Earth will emit in the long wave the equivalent of the short wave thermalised, we can calculate a sensible temperature for the Earth in a purely radiative argument, provided we are careful with associating with it a reasonable value for the mean emissivity. Do you agree with that?”

    I certainly do not! I was explaining to Jim how the solar EMR creates a huge bulge in the atmosphere sunward while maintaining atmospheric gradients! What may you mean by the term “sensible temperature”, temperature per unit mass?? There is no such thing as mean emissivity. The emissivity of the atmosphere is a dynamic with respect to wavelength, direction, altitude, latitude, and time of day! Any attempted aggregation of such can only be regarded as silly!

    “The temperature calculated in this manner is the effective mean radiative temperature and appears to exist at a particular altitude as most of the emissions come from the atmosphere? Do you agree with that?”

    Most of the radiative exitance to space originates in the atmosphere. This exitance is cumulative with altitude, to at least to 200 km! There is no altitude or temperature that can be associated with that radiative exitance. Most of the 15 micron exitance originates in the tropopause, none from any lower! This has been true since atmospheric CO2 went above 100ppmv!

    “Finally the effective mean radiative height and its associated temperature give the surface equilibrium temperature through the gravitationally driven lapse rate. Yes/no? Reg”

    Most definitely NO! Such words as “mean, effective, and equilibrium” can only be used to confuse and distract from this physical, unless each is truly needed and carefully defined within the context used! There is a total disconnect with the atmospheric lapse, all three of them, and the surface in the lowest 20 meters! This lowest boundary has never even been studied to the extent of defining terms to be used in the communication of such!

  191. nuwurld says:

    James. You are coming across as a little weird but I’ll try to remain civil.
    You have stated,

    “Gaseous H2O only exists above 100 C. There is none in earth’s cooler atmosphere”

    Breath on some glass, watch clouds form, wonder how the rain only falls down? When the air cools to the condensation point the gaseous water present in it condenses. Ever seen fog?

    Also,

    ” But all the actual laboratory evidence indicates quite decisively that there is no gaseous H2O (H2Og) at the temps in earth’s atmosphere”

    Please explain how clouds form and where does a puddle go on a warm day.

    “So, pretending it is simple is good science in your opinion?”

    James, there is no pretence on my part.

    Also you have questioned the latent heat of vaporisation of water, which is well documented, I need no reference, you can do that for yourself.

    Good luck with your insecurities.

  192. nuwurld says:

    Will. In talking about a body like the Earth or any other body that exhibits a range of effective surfaces and physical properties we have to resort to means. Temperature itself is a mean. The mean of two or more temperatures is another mean. We can also mean two or more radiating bodies with differing emissivities. What’s the problem with that? The idea is to obtain an effective mean radiative temperature that as a single number reflects the condition that at equilibrium fluxes are balanced. It’s the only number that is accountable.

    The Earth is a dynamic radiator, acknowledged, but over annual cycles does not a basic equilibrium with the mean supportive flux exist? Go down a mine and you’ll find decades of integration revealing this long term equilibrium in spite of the dynamics above.

    ” Any attempted aggregation of such can only be regarded as silly!”

    By that you are rendering any attempt at suggesting a mean temperature for the Earth as “silly”. I can relate to that but please make it clear, with rough error bars how inaccurate you reckon our logic can be.

    “Most of the radiative exitance to space originates in the atmosphere. This exitance is cumulative with altitude, to at least to 200 km! There is no altitude or temperature that can be associated with that radiative exitance. Most of the 15 micron exitance originates in the tropopause, none from any lower! This has been true since atmospheric CO2 went above 100ppmv!”

    So what. That band is one of many. Nadir measurements through clear sky show a massive band gap that allows the surface to emit to space at 8 to 13 microns. We can view the Earth from space and spectroscopically identify the radiating constituents. From that we can weight their proportions and calculate means. Sensible means. We can individually apportion emissivities to these bodies to double check that at the effective mean radiative temperature the mean emissivity is correct to achieve eqm.

    What’s wrong with that?

    “Most definitely NO! Such words as “mean, effective, and equilibrium” can only be used to confuse and distract from this physical, unless each is truly needed and carefully defined within the context used! There is a total disconnect with the atmospheric lapse, all three of them, and the surface in the lowest 20 meters! This lowest boundary has never even been studied to the extent of defining terms to be used in the communication of such!”

    When we view the Earth from space and conclude that as a whole, aggregated over an annual cycle we can estimate a sensible mean temperature that effectively describes how an equivalent uniform body would radiate to space in order to satisfy equilibrium conditions. That temperature is the effective mean radiative temperature and must incorporate an estimate of proportioned mean emissivity.

    What’s wrong with that Will?

  193. tallbloke says:

    Nuworld: Go down a mine and you’ll find decades of integration revealing this long term equilibrium in spite of the dynamics above.

    A good and fair point in my view. The ocean bottom has a very stable temperature too.

  194. Roger Clague says:

    wayne says:
    January 11, 2016 at 4:54 pm

    for instance all of the equations PV=NkT, PV=nRT, P/ρ=RT are all correct in each of their own light

    Roger C: P = n/vkT n/v is number density
    P = m/vkT m/v is mass density
    Experiment (hot air and He buoyancy) show pressure is caused by number density and not mass density.
    So using the mass density form of the gas law as is done in fluid mechanics, is wrong.

  195. Roger Clague says:

    wayne says:
    January 13, 2016 at 1:31 am

    Roger C:
    The change in force registered by the scale in your experiment is not caused by weight. The change on the scale is caused by the change of air pressure from 1 atm to 0.
    Wayne:Not so Roger. It is lighter because the mass from the air within the container was removed.

    Roger C: I agree mass has been removed. I say that changes number of particles and thus momentum of impact and then pressure

    Wayne: If the cause was pressure then merely heating up the air within the solid closed container would weigh more… it doesn’t.

    Roger C: I say the extra down force (called weight) is caused by the difference in g at the top and bottom.
    If we increase the temperature we increase the average velocity (v) of molecules. However the decrease in v at the top and the increase in v at the bottom caused by g does not change. The difference between the v at top and bottom does not change. I predict no increase in down force with temperature

    Wayne: However, if you add more air at the same temperature to double the pressure then, yes, it would weigh more on the scales.
    Roger C: Doubling the pressure should double the weight of air in the ball according to your weight theory. The down force caused by the air in the ball does not increase in proportion to the increase in pressure as your theory predicts.

    [Moderation note: The ‘down force’ is caused by gravity acting on the mass of the air, not its pressure, not its density not the number of molecules. The magnitude of that ‘down force’ is dependent on the mass and local gravity, not the pressure. This has been proven to you and you have admitted it. Repetition of false claims after agreed rebuttal will lead to a ban. Observe how close to linear the relation is between density and pressure in the plot below, and stop trying to mislead people on my website. Final warning.]

  196. Roger Clague says: January 14, 2016 at 6:01 am
    wayne says: January 11, 2016 at 4:54 pm

    (“for instance all of the equations PV=NkT, PV=nRT, P/ρ=RT are all correct in each of their own light”)

    “RC: P = n/vkT n/v is number density P = m/vkT m/v is mass density”

    Roger, please use the (V) symbol for volume, to distinguish from (v) velocity! If for no other consideration than “clarity in communication” with others not so familiar with the chemistry dialect.

    RC: “Experiment (hot air and He buoyancy) show pressure is caused by number density and not mass density.”

    A more clear example may be: 2 billion H2 molecules + 1 billion O2 molecules in contained volume V; at temperature T; exhibits pressure 3 billion force/area and density 3 billion molecules/volume (V). This also expresses the mass (m) 2 billion H2O molecules, with that mass density (m/V) even though there are zero H2O molecules in volume (V). Note: since volume is constant at (V) specific heat Cv for all three gases, is used!
    For safety reasons lower temperature of volume (V) to 60 Kelvin before introducing a wee electrical spark into volume (V), please!
    Now pressure force/ area force at temperature 60 Kelvin is only that of 2 billion plus the partial number of 60 Kelvin gas/liquid O2. Remotely (or at least not in person) introduce wee spark!! Sit back, enjoy the fun, have a beer and wait until the temperature of (V) returns to (T).
    Ask Wayne Jackson, and Roger Tatersall their prediction of resultant pressure and both numeric and mass density using the symbols presented above but their concepts of pressure and density!

    RC: “Using the mass density form of the gas law as is done in fluid mechanics, is wrong.”

    Such is likely wrong for chemistry as demonstrated above. The mass density form is more correct for those familiar with fluid dynamics, within the field of fluid mechanics, which is where atmospheric convection; what does it mean!!, must reside, not in chemistry, and certainly not in meteorology, as evidenced by this whole thread!

    In reply to: Roger Clague says: January 14, 2016 at 10:46 am
    [Moderation note: “The ‘down force’ is caused by gravity acting on the mass of the air, not its pressure, not its density not the number of molecules. The magnitude of that ‘down force’ is dependent on the mass and local gravity, not the pressure. This has been proven to you and you have admitted it. Repetition of false claims after agreed rebuttal will lead to a ban. Observe how close to linear the relation is between density and pressure in the plot below, and stop trying to mislead people on my website. Final warning.”]

    Tallbloke, You may wish to consider removing the blinders from “your eyes”, before criticizing the mote in the eye of another! Just What holds the atmosphere UP? Any other thing than temperature? What is gravity? What is temperature? Personal fantasy?
    All the best! -will-

  197. wayne says:

    Will: “Ask Wayne Jackson, and Roger Tatersall their prediction of resultant pressure and both numeric and mass density using the symbols presented above but their concepts of pressure and density!”

    It is Tattersall Will.

    Of course the pressure will decrease where I gather from your insinuation that you feel I and Rog would have said the pressure remained the same due to the equal mass before and after, not so. Will, the specific gas constant for water vapor is not the same as the combined specific gas constant mean for twice the H2 plus one portion of O2; P/ρ=Rs·T just as P·V=N·kB·T or P=N/V·kB·T, physics still works as expected! A ‘mass’ viewpoint is identical to the viewpoint that within a fixed volume at some fixed temperature and pressure the number of entities of any gas are identical no matter whether composed of He, O2, H2O, or even SF6 of some mixture! You still don’t seem to understand!

    What shocks me is yours and RC’s inability to understand basic thermodynamics as related to atmospheric physics where gravity compression is also simultaneously at play in all aspects of any atmosphere-wide aspect, not the physics applying only to closed containers in an Earthbound lab while assuming no gravitational field at all.

    The fantasies are all your own.

  198. wayne says: January 14, 2016 at 9:21 pm

    (Will: “their prediction of resultant pressure and both numeric and mass density using the symbols presented above but their concepts of pressure and density!”)

    “It is Tattersall Will.” Thanks wayne, I should have checked!!

    “Of course the pressure will decrease where I gather from your insinuation that you feel I and Rog would have said the pressure remained the same due to the equal mass before and after, not so.”

    Please check!! Pressure decreased to 2/3 as predicted by RC! Mass density stayed the same. as it must. You ignore that numeric density also decreased precisely to 2/3 as predicted by RC, without using mass at all. and not even using any specific heat as temperature T remained constant. The proper chemistry interpretation for burning (oxidizing) at both constant (V) and constant (T)!! A very very similar situation exists for the chemical isentropic (reversible) process of water evaporation/condensation that has never been properly explained by even advanced thermodynamics!

    “Will, the specific gas constant for water vapor is not the same as the combined specific gas constant mean for twice the H2 plus one portion of O2; P/ρ=Rs·T just as P·V=N·kB·T or P=N/V·kB·T, physics still works as expected! A ‘mass’ viewpoint is identical to the viewpoint that within a fixed volume at some fixed temperature and pressure the number of entities of any gas are identical no matter whether composed of He, O2, H2O, or even SF6 of some mixture!”

    But you insist on two different values of specific heat for each species of gas, only because of your worship of “conservation of energy”!! Drop that and you have only power from temperature! No need for ‘energy’ except “that if you run out of power, temperature must decrease to that of the surround”!! You still don’t seem to understand! Gas power is stored (energy) as structure (or lack thereof) of a gas and its differential pressure inside/outside a volume! The whole sensible heat concept of gas is but minor thermodynamic nonsense!

    “What shocks me is yours and RC’s inability to understand basic thermodynamics as related to atmospheric physics where gravity compression is also simultaneously at play in all aspects of any atmosphere-wide aspect, not the physics applying only to closed containers in an Earthbound lab while assuming no gravitational field at all.”

    Well some clearly do not understand! I cannot speak for RC. Myself likely understand the basics of thermodynamics more completely than you or RT. I simply reject your fantasy of how such applies to this planet’s atmosphere, within a gravitational field. The chemistry version is much more proper, as it has much less tongue stepping upon!

    “The fantasies are all your own.”

    Perhaps! I have many more of those than beliefs (2)! I have fewer disbeliefs than beliefs. Always humm! Have you yet figured what is wrong with your atmospheric integral of mass? Again I must complement you on your excellent rigor in code writing! So easy to understand what the machine must do! Mine is always my intent commented in the morning, but becomes pure BS by 6 PM, and unintelligible even to me by next AM!! You seem to have little experience in solid, analytic, and projective geometries! A must; for juggling 1,2,3 dimensions plus time.
    Pressure, density, gravity, temperature; all together becomes true ape shit! Temperature (plus heat of vaporization) makes atmosphere expand forever! Gravity only says er! “wait a fu**in minute”!!! ‘xplain dat!
    All the best! -will-

  199. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: January 13, 2016 at 7:30 am

    “Ray I was just using my electrical analogy for a spring mass mechanical resonance and using the differential mass between and evacuated and pressurized container, or verification of technique. Nothing electrical at all.”

    My bad! It was late when I read your post (as usual). This/that brought to mind the ‘Yamal tree ring data’ debacle. Any ‘proxy’ must be ‘fully verified’ before it can be believed/accepted. ‘Keep it simple stupid’ is a worthwhile ‘by-line’ for measurement. 🙂

    “Is there a prescribed method for measuring not calculating the mass of gas? So far I cannot find any measurement of gas mass!”

    That’s a problem that pervades the understanding of an atmosphere. The ‘direct comparison’ of a ‘known mass’ with/against the ‘mass to be measured’ would be the most accurate IMHO. ‘Inertial comparison’ seems the ‘most direct’ and least ‘proxy’ method, but, how to achieve this?

    I need help with this Will. The ‘direct comparison’ of ‘inertia’ involves the ‘least’ use of a ‘proxy’ for the disclosure of the mass for a ‘massive object’!

    Perhaps a form of ‘Newton’s Cradle’ can fulfill this purpose?

    Two glass bodies suspended by an equal length of ‘twine’ are simultaneously released from an identical angle to the perpendicular of a gravity field’s orientation (yes, ‘gravity’ is the ‘proxy’).

    Although each of the two ‘glass bodies’ have ‘identical mass’, one is ‘solid’ and the other is ‘hollow’! For the sake of ‘puristic experimentation’ the experiment is performed in a vacuum to remove all external forces that aren’t gravitational.

    Question. Would the ‘rebound’ of each ‘glass body’ be ‘equal’ if the ‘hollow’ body contained a vacuum, and what would be the result if the ‘hollow’ body contained atmospheric gasses at 1 atmosphere?

    Other than that, use a ‘spring’ type device that uses the ‘spring’ as a ‘proxy’!

    What’s your ‘best’ faith in ‘proxy’? 😉

    Best regards, Ray.

  200. Will Janoschka says:

    suricat says: January 15, 2016 at 3:54 am
    Will Janoschka says: January 13, 2016 at 7:30 am

    (“Is there a prescribed method for measuring not calculating the mass of gas? So far I cannot find any measurement of gas mass!”)

    “That’s a problem that pervades the understanding of an atmosphere. The ‘direct comparison’ of a ‘known mass’ with/against the ‘mass to be measured’ would be the most accurate IMHO. ‘Inertial comparison’ seems the ‘most direct’ and least ‘proxy’ method, but, how to achieve this?”

    Ray this is exactly what I was trying to convey! Any careful measurement is ”the” measurement of something at that location and time interval! Such competent measurement is always the very bes-tests measurement you will ever get of that “whatever was” at that place and time interval! The interpretation often changes over time. But anyone or organization that wishes to adjust the value of that measurement, “must be terminated with extreme prejudice”! The value of whatever must remain pristine!

    “I need help with this Will. The ‘direct comparison’ of ‘inertia’ involves the ‘least’ use of a ‘proxy’ for the disclosure of the mass for a ‘massive object’!”

    With atmosphere, we are trying to measure the mass of a slightly massive wiggly object. How dey do dat?

    “Perhaps a form of ‘Newton’s Cradle’ can fulfill this purpose?”

    No! that still involves ‘gravity’ as does a pendulum!
    I was suggesting spring ‘constant’, mass, oscillatory resonance, ‘cyclic mass impedance to acceleration. I was following the Uncle Al’s torsion balance effort to detect ‘parity’ in this part of the universe. Certainly atmospheric mass would be a no brainer!
    I must admit that my challenging the establishment claim of surface atmospheric density and/or the volume of one mol of STP atmosphere, was indeed a intentional slightly pink herring! But where are the values and methods of such measurement so I can challenge! I find no evidence that such has ever been done! All is calculation based on fantasy!
    All the best! -will-

  201. wayne says:

    WillJ, sorry, no response even deserved, besides, currently on a flight out of you and RC’s weightless fantasy view of mass always acted upon by a gravitational field. Personally, in physics, W is always m times g and can be a force countered but cannot be a force ignored. Best to leave our disagreement at that but the daily ource of humor is appreciated.

  202. wayne says: January 15, 2016 at 3:52 pm

    “WillJ, sorry, no response even deserved, besides, currently on a flight out of you and RC’s weightless fantasy view of mass always acted upon by a gravitational field. Personally, in physics, W is always m times g and can be a force countered but cannot be a force ignored. Best to leave our disagreement at that but the daily ounce of humor is appreciated.”

    What does your symbol (g) represent? Do two masses in rigid contact express weight? One gravitational field expresses nothing! Takes two, free to accelerate! Then even the scientific misnomer can only be construed as the force required to prevent some always mutual acceleration in opposing directions! Can you show even one instance that I have claimed gas massless or contained gas weightless! This atmosphere is never so constrained Each atmospheric molecule no-matter its mass has within itself the thermal isotropic power to completely repel such gravitational attraction. That is the nature of any gas! As RC correctly points out it is the containment of a gas and the limitation of its repulsive force, that creates weight proportional to molecular mass times your undefined (g), a variable with no scientific meaning!!
    Until some agreement can be had on the static nature of atmosphere, especially the fact that Earth’s gravitational field plays no part in atmospheric motion, and that atmospheric viscosity along with continuum mechanics, is the dominant characteristic of atmospheric motion, no meaningful discussion of atmospheric convection can be forthcoming!
    All the best! -will-

  203. tallbloke says:

    Will: What does your symbol (g) represent?

    400 years of scientific observation.

    Do two masses in rigid contact express weight?

    Yes, especially if one of the two masses is a weighing device.

    One gravitational field expresses nothing! Takes two, free to accelerate!

    Bzzzt fail. the masses don’t have to be free to accelerate to express a force proportional to g.

    Earth’s gravitational field plays no part in atmospheric motion

    Bzzzt fail. When moist air buoyantly risen due to being warmer/containing more water vapour than surrounding air expands, radiates to space and cools, it loses buoyancy and sinks because of gravity. You yourself have said that the gradients in the atmosphere are due to gravity.

  204. tallbloke says: January 15, 2016 at 7:55 pm

    Will: (What does your symbol (g) represent?) ‘400 years of scientific observation.’

    You claim an acceleration of atmosphere without the required opposing acceleration of the earth’s mass! Where has such ever been observed. No motion whatsoever of any part of the ‘atmosphere’ can be attributed to gravitational force. That is what is observed now, and demonstrated 2233 years ago, well before the invention of gravity! If your 101.3 kPa is supporting some columnar atmospheric mass why dos not the force on the legs of a outdoor card table not reflect such force? Why is the pressure under the table the same as the pressure above that table?

  205. Will Janoschka says:

    Will Janoschka says: January 15, 2016 at 7:56 pm

    nuwurld says: January 13, 2016 at 11:08 pm

    “By that you are rendering any attempt at suggesting a mean temperature for the Earth as “silly”. I can relate to that but please make it clear, with rough error bars how inaccurate you reckon our logic can be.”

    I know not how to put error bars on silly! Can you please give reason for having “a mean temperature for the Earth”.

    “So what. That band is one of many.”

    If the entire CO2 exitance originates at the altitude of the tropopause, Atmospheric CO2 can have no effect of radiative transfer at lower altitudes! It has no measurable effect!

    Nadir measurements through clear sky show a massive band gap that allows the surface to emit to space at 8 to 13 microns.”

    This is true but clear sky is that same 8-13 micron band is less than 15% of total area, less than 10% in high temperature equatorial areas!

    “We can view the Earth from space and spectroscopically identify the radiating constituents. From that we can weight their proportions and calculate means. Sensible means.”

    Sensible to whom and why?

    “We can individually apportion emissivities to these bodies to double check that at the effective mean radiative temperature the mean emissivity is correct to achieve eqm. What’s wrong with that?”

    You give no reason for achieving that “eqm”, whatever that may be!

    “When we view the Earth from space and conclude that as a whole, aggregated over an annual cycle we can estimate a sensible mean temperature that effectively describes how an equivalent uniform body would radiate to space in order to satisfy equilibrium conditions. That temperature is the effective mean radiative temperature and must incorporate an estimate of proportioned mean emissivity. What’s wrong with that Will?”

    I agree that some can do that, but why? This planet has been maintaining near radiative equilibrium for a very long time, somehow. Some “mean temperature” or “mean emissivity”; will tell you nothing at all about how this atmosphere maintains such equilibrium.
    This is of special importance in that the atmosphere does such, in spite of the variances in insolation and various power inputs/drains from other solar system orbital bodies! Any learning at all can only come from extended consideration of fine details, like how this atmosphere actually works; without the meteorological fantasy and hand waving!

  206. tallbloke says:

    You claim an acceleration of atmosphere without the required opposing acceleration of the earth’s mass!

    No I don’t. I just neglect it because it’s balanced in the middle of the atmosphere that surrounds it.

    Where has such ever been observed.

    Always and everywhere. By everybody.

    No motion whatsoever of any part of the ‘atmosphere’ can be attributed to gravitational force.

    Well, you can keep saying that if it makes you happy. Constant repetition doesn’t make it true though. You fail to address my reasoned argument and just oppose it with unsubstantiated assertion.

    That is what is observed now, and demonstrated 2233 years ago, well before the invention of gravity!

    Archimedes can’t save your ass by your appealing to his authority.

    If your 101.3 kPa is supporting some columnar atmospheric mass why dos not the force on the legs of a outdoor card table not reflect such force? Why is the pressure under the table the same as the pressure above that table?

    Well it’s not quite the same, but that’s negligible too. The reason the pressure is (nearly) the same above and below the table is because gaseous volumes tend to equalise their pressure. Over a bigger height difference you’d need to start taking the compression of the lower portion by gravity acting on the mass of the upper portion into account.

  207. Will Janoschka says:

    tallbloke says:
    January 15, 2016 at 7:55 pm

    Will: What does your symbol (g) represent? TB:”400 years of scientific observation.”

    will: Do two masses in rigid contact express weight?

    TB:”Yes, especially if one of the two masses is a weighing device.”

    That weighing device cannot be rigid it must be able to react to stress (force including pressure)
    by a measurable strain (deformation) that the strain gauge measures generally designed to be linear with force

    will: “One gravitational field expresses nothing! Takes two, free to accelerate!”

    TB: “Bzzzt fail. the masses don’t have to be free to accelerate to express a force proportional to g.”

    To achieve acceleration both must be free to accelerate toward each other in such a manner as to preserve the local center of mass of the two. only if the two mass are so very unequal is both the mass and the combined acceleration assigned to the lesser mass. another corruption of science. generally for profit!

    will:’Earth’s gravitational field plays no part in atmospheric motion.”

    TB: “Bzzzt fail. When moist air buoyantly risen due to being warmer/containing more water vapour than surrounding air expands, radiates to space and cools, it loses buoyancy and sinks because of gravity.”

    Garrumph fail!! Atmospheric molecules arrange themselves to form a continuum of temperature pressure and density in all directions. If such continuum is disturbed; the molecules spontaneously rearrange at near the speed of sound, to form a new continuum involving minimum ‘work’ while maintaining the proper gravitational gradients! That minimum ‘work’ can make motion appear adiabatic (near isentropic), however there is no means by which the continuum is prevented from mixing. That work is supplied by both the mechanical acceleration of Earth’s rotation and thermal power generally maintained by insolation. The largest disturbances are flying bugs and birds!

    TB: “You yourself have said that the gradients in the atmosphere are due to gravity.”

    I agreed that the Earth’s gravitational force maintains and likely created such stratification in fine opposition to molecular repulsive forces!! Outside of the maintenance of such self-buoyancy: Earth’s gravity plays no part! Because gravity plays no part all of the continuum can be maintained with minimum work! Interesting weather like hurricanes and tornadoes differ greatly from the concept of minimum work! Atmospheric convection, what does it mean? Do you finally accept that molecular repulsive force keeps the atmosphere from collapsing to the surface? Clague may possibly return to add the needed chemist’s POV to this atmospheric thingy. I do not believe but I do consider!
    All the best! -will-

    [Reply] “Do you finally accept that molecular repulsive force keeps the atmosphere from collapsing to the surface?”

    I have always accepted that the energy transferred to atmospheric molecules via insolation is what keeps the atmosphere inflated, yes.
    Do you accept that the reason the atmosphere would collapse to the surface if the Sun died is because gravity would pull it there?

    “molecules spontaneously rearrange at near the speed of sound, to form a new continuum involving minimum ‘work’ while maintaining the proper gravitational gradients!”

    Well there you have it, that’s gravity playing its part in atmospheric motion. If gravity weren’t there, the molecules wouldn’t bother to re-arrange themselves into “the proper gravitational gradients” would they?

    only if the two mass are so very unequal is both the mass and the combined acceleration assigned to the lesser mass

    Or if the central mass is being approached by two equal masses either side of it starting from the same distance; like the Earth surrounded by the atmosphere it is attracting.

  208. Will Janoschka says:

    tallbloke says: January 15, 2016 at 9:56 pm

    will:(‘No motion whatsoever of any part of the ‘atmosphere’ can be attributed to gravitational force.”

    TB:”Well, you can keep saying that if it makes you happy. Constant repetition doesn’t make it true though. You fail to address my reasoned argument and just oppose it with unsubstantiated assertion.”

    What “reasoned argument”? You claim acceleration! Next line admitted no motion! Please explain this kind of “reasoned argument”! Weehu, “unsubstantiated assertion.” Are you looking in the mirror?

    [Reply] You’re being deliberately obtuse, and there’s only so long I’ll put up with that, so have a care. Gravity exerts a force on matter equal to the force required to accelerate that matter (at ~9.8m/s^-2 near Earth) in freefall.

    will: (“If your 101.3 kPa is supporting some columnar atmospheric mass why dos not the force on the legs of a outdoor card table not reflect such force? Why is the pressure under the table the same as the pressure above that table?”)

    TB:”Well it’s not quite the same, but that’s negligible too. The reason the pressure is (nearly) the same above and below the table is because gaseous volumes tend to equalize their pressure.”

    Yes the gaseous molecules do tend to maintain their desired spacing. Why? A pint of beer set on the table immediately registers as a weight on the legs. This quickly decreases to that of an empty cup, for mysterious reasons. Why not your claimed tonnes of atmospheric mass pressing downward? Does that also mysteriously slide off the table onto the ground? Fantasy abounds!

    [Reply] The molecules “maintain their desired spacing” under the table as well as over it Will. Air doesn’t “slide off the table”, it flows around it and equalises pressure. And around you, as you slide under the table.

    TB: “Over a bigger height difference you’d need to start taking the compression of the lower portion by gravity acting on the mass of the upper portion into account.”

    Garrumph fail!! At every altitude the repulsive force of each molecule counters the compressive force of gravity thus perfectly maintaining their own spacing. If you would bother to do the math you would find the vertical spacing very very slightly less that the horizontal spacing at each altitude! This is the aerodynamic engineering that explains the gravitational effect upon the atmosphere. Airfoils do very similar but only locally! There is no effect at distances greater than one wingspan. There need be no vertical cumulative effect! Your meteorological claims have never been substantiated, and have no rigor, thus my fantasy is a good as yours! We need many many others in order to see what parts are true vs false in each POV!

    [Reply] Gravity doesn’t compress things alone. It needs the help of mass to do that. Molecules have mass, and so there is a cumulative effect, no matter whether you are able to comprehend that or not. That’s why there’s a pressure gradient. Temperature makes little difference to pressure in the bottom few thousand feet of the atmosphere, but gravity makes a big difference, as I showed you earlier with the results from the online calculator I linked.

    All the best! -will-

    [Reply] All the best to you too, but please don’t try my patience too much further with repetitive argument that has been shown to be wrong.

  209. David Russell says:

    WJ asks “Why is the pressure under the table the same as the pressure above that table?”

    Because air is a gaseous fluid held by gravity.

    Is there something that suggests otherwise?

  210. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: January 15, 2016 at 6:00 am

    (suricat says: January 15, 2016 at 3:54 am)

    (“Perhaps a form of ‘Newton’s Cradle’ can fulfill this purpose?”)

    “No! that still involves ‘gravity’ as does a pendulum!”

    Will, without a ‘gravity’ field, ‘convection’ just can’t happen! All we get is ‘expansion’. 😦

    “I was suggesting spring ‘constant’, mass, oscillatory resonance, ‘cyclic mass impedance to acceleration. I was following the Uncle Al’s torsion balance effort to detect ‘parity’ in this part of the universe. Certainly atmospheric mass would be a no brainer!”

    I don’t understand.

    “I must admit that my challenging the establishment claim of surface atmospheric density and/or the volume of one mol of STP atmosphere, was indeed a intentional slightly pink herring! But where are the values and methods of such measurement so I can challenge! I find no evidence that such has ever been done! All is calculation based on fantasy!”

    IMHO they are all accurate within their own disciplines, but ‘cross-talk’ becomes confusing.

    Also, ‘temporal compression’, or the ‘averaging of temporal events’, ‘reduces’ the ‘definition’ needed to disclose ‘energetic transition events’ (reduces HD to SD for the observation [as an analogy]).

    Best regards, Ray.

  211. Will Janoschka says:

    David Russell says: January 16, 2016 at 1:06 am

    WJ asks (“Why is the pressure under the table the same as the pressure above that table?”)
    No WJ asks: (“If your 101.3 kPa is supporting some columnar atmospheric mass why dos not the force on the legs of a outdoor card table not reflect such force? Why is the pressure under the table the same as the pressure above that table?”)

    DR;’Because air is a gaseous fluid held by gravity.’

    Do you have a coherent answer to my two questions to Roger?

    Roger claims surface pressure is supporting some 101 tonnes of atmosphere in a one m^2 x 10 km column directly vertical above the table, yet such mass has never been detected! The table with mass is supported and can be measured by the force on the legs by the table legs. If the atmospheric pressure under the table now is supporting both the alleged atmospheric 100 tonne column by pressure exerted through the table surface why is the stress on the legs so sensitive to clearly reflect the mass of the table and also a mere 1 kg increase by the pint of beer.

    My claim is that ‘each’ location within the atmosphere supports itself via differential pressure at that location Thus all points in the atmosphere remain self-buoyant and convey no accumulation of mass in any direction. Atmospheric mass only becomes apparent if some acceleration of that mass is attempted, as in convection! The atmospheric mass expressed by Roger may be high by a factor of three, greatly affecting atmospheric mass motion, or consideration thereof! The expression at the surface is only a local isotropic pressure never some columnar mass, that may be interpreted as weight. Such claim reflects the observed situation at the card table.

    DR:”Is there something that suggests otherwise?”

    My claim attempts to explain the observed situation! your “air is a gaseous fluid held by gravity.” seems to be a string of words with no meaning sans another 200 pages of explanation.

  212. Will Janoschka says:

    suricat says: January 16, 2016 at 3:01 am

    Will Janoschka says: January 15, 2016 at 6:00 am

    (suricat says: January 15, 2016 at 3:54 am)

    ((“Perhaps a form of ‘Newton’s Cradle’ can fulfill this purpose?”))

    (“No! that still involves ‘gravity’ as does a pendulum!”)

    “Will, without a ‘gravity’ field, ‘convection’ just can’t happen! All we get is ‘expansion’. 😦 ”

    Yes gravity is indeed handy, if one wishes to continue to breathe! 🙂 Helps a lot with walking too!
    Back to measurement of atmospheric mass!!

    (“I was suggesting spring ‘constant’, mass, oscillatory resonance, ‘cyclic mass impedance to acceleration. I was following the Uncle Al’s torsion balance effort to detect ‘parity’ in this part of the universe. Certainly atmospheric mass would be a no brainer!”)

    “I don’t understand.”

    If I have a spring attached to the ceiling and I attach mass the spring will elongate indicating the stress of that mass under the “force” of gravity. Not a good way to measure anything! if I pull down on the mass and release, the mass will then oscillate vertically at a particular frequency.
    The frequency is mostly free of the effects of gravity but spring losses and air viscosity do affect frequency. Double the mass and the frequency halves theoretically! Minimizing amplitude and eliminating air really helps frequency linearity! Changing the spring to a watch spiral and a rotational oscillation with a vertical rotation axis sends gravity back to the locker room, but Earth’s rotation now takes over! etc, etc! To what extent has this been done with actual atmospheric mass? By whom!! Is everything now a computer program written by idiots?
    All the best! -will-

  213. wayne says:

    Willl: “Roger claims surface pressure is supporting some 101 tonnes of atmosphere in a one m^2 x 10 km column directly vertical above the table …”

    No Will, Roger and other here claim it to be ≈10.3 tonnes per unit area of m² in SI, not 101 tonnes and that has been shown to you above, even by explicit numeric integration, many times. Why your constant misquotes? Also it not ‘one m^2 x 10 km column’ but better more like ‘one m^2 x 84 km column’ or ‘one m^2 x 200 km column’ … why the obfuscation from you Will? m=F/a Will. m/A=Pa/a for Pa is by definition F/A. This has been realized to be true for over 200 years and is correct by the three Newton laws of mass and equal opposing forces.

    Besides, you show no skill in converting units or using simple algebra. The word ‘weight’ in it’s purest form (physics definition) is in Newtons, not grams or kilograms, those are mass and you continue to obfuscate. My advice, go back to school. How in the world can you claim to be an engineer!

  214. wayne says: January 16, 2016 at 3:21 pm

    “Besides, you show no skill in converting units or using simple algebra. The word ‘weight’ in it’s purest form (physics definition) is in Newtons, not grams or kilograms, those are mass and you continue to obfuscate. My advice, go back to school. How in the world can you claim to be an engineer!”

    How damn condescending Jackson!!! You interchange mass and force without distinction.

    Example: surface pressure (measured) 101.3 kPa = 101,300 Newtons/m^2 = 101.3 tonnes/m^2.

    [Moderation note: This is completely wrong. The correct columnar calculation is (101,300 N)/(9.80 m/s2) = 10,340 kg/m^2]

    Why is not surface pressure not blowing atmosphere out way past the moon?
    There is no physics definition of weight. Such is only a meteorological corruption of the ancient meaning of that word. ‘weight’ meaning ‘consideration, importance, gravity’. “Consideration”, the amount paid per unit (mass or volume). “Importance”, the higher the importance, the more ‘weight’ it is given, “Gravity” the seriousness, the connection, also the number of childbirths.

    (Willl: “Roger claims surface pressure is supporting some 101 tonnes of atmosphere in a one m^2 x 10 km column directly vertical above the table …”)

    That is precisely the atmosphere to be supported by 101.3 kPa over a 1 m/^2 area.

    [Moderation note: This is completely wrong. The correct columnar calculation is (101,300 N)/(9.80 m/s2) = 10,340 kg/m^2]

    “No Will, Roger and other here claim it to be ≈10.3 tonnes per unit area of m² in SI, not 101 tonnes and that has been shown to you above, even by explicit numeric integration, many times.”

    I pointed out an error in your integration. Have you even looked? What are you trying to integrate?
    Why do you think your routine is correct? How has your routine been verified by physical means?

    “Why your constant misquotes? Also it not ‘one m^2 x 10 km column’ but better more like ‘one m^2 x 84 km column’ or ‘one m^2 x 200 km column’ .”

    What misquote? No matter what your altitude, it is still wrong! You are using linear algebra where projective geometry is required. You painfully discovered gamma (kappa) for gas yet you refuse to use such in your integration!

    “why the obfuscation from you Will?”
    Because I remain confused by the meteorological fantasy, repeated over an over you and Tattersall. There is absolutely no science in meteorology.

    “m=F/a Will. m/A=Pa/a for Pa is by definition F/A. This has been realized to be true for over 200 years and is correct by the three Newton laws of mass and equal opposing forces.”

    Ah! resort to symbolic formula what you do not understand! Does the lc(a) have the same meaning as the uc(A)? Area, acceleration, what? Where and how is atmosphere accelerated?
    Just what can mass divided by area mean? What can pressure divided by acceleration possibly mean? All you have is alphabet soup!!! I understand the distinction between mass and force. You spout them with no distinction whatsoever!
    All of Newton’s laws of motion are linear 1D, All of Kepler’s laws of planetary motion are planar 2D. Although neither can be violated, they prove insufficient for a 3D atmosphere, and the 3D to 6D Solar system, as Roger, Stewart, and Paul are discovering.
    Roger claims 400 years! Is that when the Astrologist Guild decided to get into weather forecasting, using the same time tested method of using whatever words make folk’s head bob up and down, rather than shake side to side? Did they choose ‘Meteorology’ because meteors confounded even the storytellers! Politics is now the popular corruption of corrupt meteorology!
    All the best! -will-

  215. tallbloke says:

    Will J: All of Newton’s laws of motion are linear 1D, All of Kepler’s laws of planetary motion are planar 2D. Although neither can be violated, they prove insufficient for a 3D atmosphere

    Newton: “I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people who don’t bother to divide my units of force by my gravitational constant”

  216. nuwurld says:

    Will, you have amongst other things, stated,

    “I agree that some can do that, but why? This planet has been maintaining near radiative equilibrium for a very long time, somehow. Some “mean temperature” or “mean emissivity”; will tell you nothing at all about how this atmosphere maintains such equilibrium.”

    Now there is a contradiction Will. As you well know for a given (1-albedo) absorptivity then all that is required for ‘near radiative equilibrium’ is a mean temperature at a mean emissivity to provide equilibrium. And this will ‘appear’ to emanate from an effective mean radiative height, whether you like it or not, as shown by spectroscopic analysis.

    Proposing a mechanical lapse and finding that with the inclusion lo latent heat transfer we can predict a global mean, time averaged lapse rate that includes density, pressure, and condensed water at a boundary layer which ties in neatly with the required effective mean radiative height is not ‘hand waving’ when measurements fit the requirements for equilibrium. Equilibrium being a very useful analysis tool.

    Heat transfer requires a thermal gradient. Gravity provides ‘and’ maintains that thermal gradient.

  217. tallbloke says:

    Will J: What can pressure divided by acceleration possibly mean? All you have is alphabet soup!!! I understand the distinction between mass and force. You spout them with no distinction whatsoever!

    If you don’t stop misrepresenting other people’s arguments, there’s going to be a falling out. There’s an equivalence between Pascals and Newtons for a reason.

    Wiki:
    The pascal (symbol: Pa) is the SI derived unit of pressure, internal pressure, stress, Young’s modulus and ultimate tensile strength, defined as one newton per square metre

  218. tallbloke says:

    Nuwurld: The problem with that analysis is that it places all the emphasis on the atmosphere, whereas the ocean is the big dog on the climate block. Consider what averages and means don’t tell you. For example, the zenith insolation under the tropical sun heats the ocean to 30C (as hot as it can get since any more power simply increases evaporation). The ocean is heated by the Sun in 3D, as its rays penetrate to 100m. But longwave can’t get anywhere in water, so the ocean struggles to lose heat as fast as it gains it from its 2D surface. The only way the ocean can reach equilibrium is to get warmer until its surface can evaporate and radiate heat at the same rate it arrives. This equilibrium temperature is considerably higher than 255k under a massive atmosphere generating 1 bar of pressure at surface.

  219. Will Janoschka says:

    Tallbloke’s reply to: Will Janoschka says: January 15, 2016 at 11:11 pm

    tallbloke says:

    WJ: “Do you finally accept that molecular repulsive force keeps the atmosphere from collapsing to the surface?”

    TB:”I have always accepted that the energy transferred to atmospheric molecules via insolation is what keeps the atmosphere inflated, yes.”

    That was not the question! not about energy (the how or why) only: Do you accept a molecular repulsive force? Of a gas, perhaps only for temporary consideration! Please yes or no nothing more… details later!!! We are near maybe, but far far from ‘is’!

    TB: “Do you accept that the reason the atmosphere would collapse to the surface if the Sun died is because gravity would pull it there?”

    Yes indeed! by 50 Kelvin, only H2, He, and Ne are left for an atmosphere!
    Do you accept the identical result if atmospheric molecules had only 1% of current mass? Again Please yes or no, I ask for no your further acceptance of anything else… details later!!!

    Roger, please patience. This ‘is’ the basics of atmospheric whatever! First some ‘possible’ agreement on the seventeen conflicting “well, everyone knows that!!”

    WJ: “molecules spontaneously rearrange at near the speed of sound, to form a new continuum involving minimum ‘work’ while maintaining the proper gravitational gradients!”

    TB: “Well there you have it, that’s gravity playing its part in atmospheric motion. If gravity weren’t there, the molecules wouldn’t bother to re-arrange themselves into “the proper gravitational gradients” would they?”

    If gravity were not there the atmospheric gas molecules would all be tousnd times way over yonder! You still have not expressed any effect of gravity on atmospheric motion, only that the atmosphere would not be way over yonder, but instead right cheer, still weird!

    WJ: “only if the two mass are so very unequal is both the mass and the combined acceleration assigned to the lesser mass. another corruption of science. generally for profit!

    TB:”Or if the central mass is being approached by two equal masses either side of it starting from the same distance; like the Earth surrounded by the atmosphere it is attracting.”

    Bloke somehow transforms a two body expression and comment into something involving billion, billion, billion, gazillion atmospheric gas molecules (otherwise known as “lotsa”), all doing their own thing. No wonder why the big eight plus Sun and very local Moon remain indescribable! But think! A weak glimmer! Your (g) is not a vector at all! It remains a near isotropic attractive (compressive) force potential upon any and all other nearby projective mass! If you and Wayne would describe the proper four PI steradian gravitational compression on all atmospheric mass, we may well discover atmospheric mass and even surface pressure! There is absolutely no acceleration.

    TB:[Reply] “All the best to you too, but please don’t try my patience too much further with repetitive argument that has been shown to be wrong.”

    It is your blog!! But you only ‘think’ you are frustrated!!! Can you explain why closed cans of beer and ethyl ether on the card table, just sit there! While if open to the atmosphere the beer evaporates more quickly than the ether? My local observation!! 😉
    All the best! -will-

  220. Will Janoschka says:

    tallbloke says: January 16, 2016 at 9:51 pm

    Will J: “What can pressure divided by acceleration possibly mean? All you have is alphabet soup!!! I understand the distinction between mass and force. You spout them with no distinction whatsoever!”

    TB:”If you don’t stop misrepresenting other people’s argument’s, there’s going to be a falling out. There’s an equivalence between Pascals and Newtons for a reason.”

    Indeed the Newton is a unit of force, normalize that by dividing force by area and you have pressure in Pascals as N/m^2. Acceleration however has units of unrelated m/s^2 so what can the division yielding the symbolic [ Ns^2/m ] possibly mean to British peasants or anyone else, except “would be” politicians trying to snow the hell out of there own constituency? All alphabet soup with intent to deceive!!

    Wiki:
    “The pascal (symbol: Pa) is the SI derived unit of pressure, internal pressure, stress, Young’s modulus and ultimate tensile strength, defined as one newton per square metre

    Quite clear and concise! However the Pa/(m/s^2) can mean nothing to any above fungus!
    What shit are you trying to pull Tattersall?
    This intentional confusion is a British farce of whether a British tonne is 1000 kg mass or 1000 kg force. Can you introduce legislation to decide? Or do you wish to continue this farce forever? I hope I have expressed ‘my’ confusion correctly!

  221. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: January 16, 2016 at 5:20 am

    (suricat says: “I don’t understand.”)

    “If I have a spring attached to the ceiling and I attach mass the spring will elongate indicating the stress of that mass under the “force” of gravity. Not a good way to measure anything! if I pull down on the mass and release, the mass will then oscillate vertically at a particular frequency.
    The frequency is mostly free of the effects of gravity but spring losses and air viscosity do affect frequency. Double the mass and the frequency halves theoretically! Minimizing amplitude and eliminating air really helps frequency linearity! Changing the spring to a watch spiral and a rotational oscillation with a vertical rotation axis sends gravity back to the locker room, but Earth’s rotation now takes over! etc, etc! To what extent has this been done with actual atmospheric mass? By whom!! Is everything now a computer program written by idiots?”

    Why??? Sinusoidal periodicity is indeed ~doubled when the load is doubled whilst the stability factor is kept ~constant. However, its the increase in hysteresis that we’re actually looking at here. This isn’t a good way to measure, or compare, a mass value!

    We already have a ‘Standard Mass’ in the form of a platinum ‘brick’ that weighs, an agreed, 1kg., and I’m sure that it isn’t too difficult to replicate this. Let’s call the replicated ‘brick’ ‘brick A’, and an ‘unknown mass’ ‘mass B’, then perform an experiment. 🙂

    Suspend A and B beneath a securely fixed horizontal beam within a vacuum chamber by wires of identical properties and length, so as to also ensure that the horizontal center of gravity of both A and B coincide with their respective vertical distance from the beam and the objects A and B ‘just’ touch.

    Now just make sure that you have a mechanism installed to pull the object A away from object B, have a fast shutter speed movie camera to observe the experiment for evidence and its a good idea to put protractors at the wire root of each wire/beam connection to observe any angular movement.

    Now pull ‘brick A’ away from ‘brick B’ and let gravity disclose the mass of ‘brick B’! If, following the collision, A continues its vector towards B the ‘test’ ‘A’ has greater mass, but if the vector of ‘A’ is ‘negative’ (reversed) following the collision then the ‘unknown mass’ ‘B’ has greater mass (speeds [and directions] following collision disclose mass ratios). The ‘angular’ displacement following the collision also discloses the mass ratios.

    IMHO all other diversionary factors are removed by the ‘local’ references for this experiment, yet again, this isn’t a ‘global’ phenomenon. Actual quanta shall alter with diversity of latitude for the site of this experiment (weather warnings may also alter outcomes).

    Best regards, Ray.

  222. nuwurld says:

    Hi TB, thanks for the reply,

    The average emissivity of the earth is readily estimated from available data. The emissivities of terrestrial surfaces are all in the range of 0.96 to 0.99 [4] [5] (except for some small desert areas which may be as low as 0.7). Clouds, however, which cover about half of the earth’s surface, have an average emissivity of about 0.5 [6] (which must be reduced by the fourth power of the ratio of cloud absolute temperature to average earth absolute temperature) and an average cloud temperature of about 258 K [7]. Taking all this properly into account results in an effective earth emissivity of about 0.64 (earth average temperature 285 K).

    [6] being

    Click to access shippert_tr.pdf

    The term ‘thin’ clouds here is used to emphasise that earlier models used approximations for clouds that were optically thick, ie black bodies with ε=1.

    ‘Blue sky’ emissivity also has been measured at around 0.65.

    So once we proportion the bodies that radiate to space according to what we measure and analyse spectroscopically from space the 255K ‘black body’ corruption has been removed. The Earth appears to emit as a grey body with an effective mean emissivity of around 0.65, at a global mean temperature of around 285K, which means (no pun intended) that most of the Earth’s radiance to space must come from very near the surface where the temperature is warm enough to do this.

    The mystery of multiple mechanisms of ‘heat trapping’ have been reduced to a combined effect of 3K difference between measured surface temperatures and actual ‘real’ physical bodies that radiate to space to produce the necessary equilibrium of input/output netted flux.

    Hope that’s not too much ‘hand waving’ for Will.

  223. tallbloke says:

    Will J: Indeed the Newton is a unit of force, normalize that by dividing force by area and you have pressure in Pascals as N/m^2. Acceleration however has units of unrelated m/s^2 so what can the division yielding the symbolic [ Ns^2/m ] possibly mean ?

    You’re still ignoring the equivalences which have been extensively quantified empirically.
    Pascals is also Kg/m s^-2 and when you divide it by the acceleration due to g you cancel the m/s^-2 and simply divide the 101KPa by 9.81 to get 10300Kg

    You are the one who is misleading, deliberately or otherwise. Stop it or leave.

    Useful SI definitions:

    Moment of force
    Newton metre: N m = kg m2/s2

    Pressure, stress
    pascal: Pa = N/m2 = kg/m s2

    Energy, work, quantity of heat
    joule: J = N m = m2 kg/s2

  224. tallbloke says:

    nuwurld: Thanks for that, I like it. Elsewhere on this blog, we have descriptions of actual experiments by commenter ‘konrad’ which find that the ‘effective emissivity’ of seawater is around 0.65 too.

  225. David Russell says:

    WJ “My claim is that ‘each’ location within the atmosphere supports itself via differential pressure at that location Thus all points in the atmosphere remain self-buoyant and convey no accumulation of mass in any direction.”

    What’s its pressure due to?

    WJ “Atmospheric mass only becomes apparent if some acceleration of that mass is attempted, as in convection!”

    Nonsense. gas is comprised of mobile molecules that are never at rest.

    WJ “The atmospheric mass expressed by Roger may be high by a factor of three, greatly affecting atmospheric mass motion, or consideration thereof!”

    Unfounded nonsense again. Why are you claiming 2/3 of the atmosphere doesn’t exist?

    WJ “The expression at the surface is only a local isotropic pressure never some columnar mass, that may be interpreted as weight. Such claim reflects the observed situation at the card table. My claim attempts to explain the observed situation! your “air is a gaseous fluid held by gravity.” seems to be a string of words with no meaning sans another 200 pages of explanation.”

    Mass is a property of matter. Solids and fluids are classes of matter Solids can occupy volume and shape without restraint. Fluids cannot. Fluids include liquids and gasses and their combinations. Liquids are fluids that tend to occupy a constant volume. Gasses fill the volume available.
    Whether the matter is solid or fluid, it has mass.

    Air is a gaseous fluid. It may contain liquids and solids, but it will find no trouble filling the space around your card table like a gas.

    Gravity acting on its mass is the only thing holding air to the ground. The air pressure at the surface is the force of gravity acting on the mass of air above the unit area of surface. Compared with the pressure at the surface, the air pressure is slightly less at the top of the table, and even less than that at the rim of the pint. The air pressure is always due to the mass in the column above the elevation where the pressure is measured.

  226. The air pressure is never “due to the mass in the atmospheric column above the elevation where the pressure is measured.” It is due to the non linear gravitational compression of the entire gaseous atmosphere!
    To demonstrate:
    A conical shaped container in this atmosphere with 1 meter² lateral lower area and 400 meter² upper lateral area at 10 km altitude. Firmly attached to the table such that will indicate the mass of the container plus the mass of any internal gas, less any buoyant force upon the cone as stress upon the table legs. Such conical shape has angular subtense of 2 milliradian (a bit over a degree), and a solid angle of 400 micro-steradians. Much more volume by 133 than in your vertical column.

    [Reply] The circumference of the Earth is 40,075km. The circumference of the atmosphere at 10km is therefore
    Pi*20 + 40,075 = 40,137.8km
    40,137.8/40,075 = 1.0016
    This is the factor the 1m per side square-cone base needs to be multiplied by to get the additional size required so the atmosphere would be filled edge to edge with ‘cones’ to 10km. It will be 1.6mm bigger per side at the top, not 19,000mm bigger per side. By the way, 2 milliradians is 0.1146 degrees, not “a bit over a degree”. Not that you would have got the right size for the top of the cone even if you’d got this right.
    And you call yourself an engineer?

    The surface atmospheric pressure is the result of isotropic gravitational force


    [Reply] Get. Off. My. Website.

    Fuck you Tattersall!!!! There are lots and lots of non warmist blogs!!

    [Reply] Fine, Go and annoy one of them.
    All the best! –Rog–

  227. suricat says:

    TB.

    It would seem that we’ve lost a POV and a ‘pen pal’! However, I found Will’s ‘confusions’ ~mostly justified, and shall attempt to offer a POV that justifies this ‘confusion’ with answers. The ‘greatest confusion’ seems to be ‘how to handle a mass that is also a fluid’.

    I’ve already outlined an experiment on how to disclose an ‘unknown mass B’ for ‘solids’ by way of ‘inertia’, but this is ‘incomplete’ in that it doesn’t (yet) make/take any examples for ‘fluids’ (compressible or in-compressible).

    Best regards, Ray.

  228. tallbloke says:

    Ray: It would seem that we’ve lost a POV and a ‘pen pal’!

    A somewhat limited point of view. On Will-world, according to his calculations of the geometry, the planet is ~1km ((2Pi/0.002 Rad)/Pi x 1m) in diameter, putting the horizon a few metres away from the card table where he sits slugging his Coors. He’d be able to spit a mouthful of it into orbit. No wonder he doesn’t think our 14psi of surface air pressure is the result of gravity acting on the mass of the atmosphere.

    Will reminds me of Major Clanger

    That’s not to say Will might not have any interesting ideas about the atmosphere, but when he can’t get the basics right, it skews the basis of every concept built on top of fundamental misunderstanding.

  229. Roger Clague says:

    David Russell says:
    January 17, 2016 at 3:50 pm

    David R: Mass is a property of matter.
    Roger C: But mass is not always the most important property. At the molecular scale charge is more important.
    David R: Solids and fluids are classes of matter
    Roger C: Solid, liquid and gas are the 3 states of matter
    David R: Solids can occupy volume and shape without restraint.
    Fluids cannot. Fluids include liquids and gasses and their combinations.
    Liquids are fluids that tend to occupy a constant volume. Gasses fill the volume available.

    Roger C: This volume difference is, for me, the most significant. So a better division is:
    Solid, liquid/gas
    Solid and liquid have fixed volume and weight
    Gas has no fixed volume and no weight
    The volume property causes the other.
    Force is transmitted through the fixed volume of solid and liquid. The molecules are continuously connected by forces. The force on each molecule accumulates and causes a down force, weight, on the bottom surface. This can be measured with a strain meter.
    [Moderation note: A force, be it up, down or sideways, is defined in SI units as: force: newton: N: m·kg·s-2 at http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html In this case, the mysterious “down force” being referred to is the force of gravity.]
    Force is not transmitted through gas which has no fixed volume. The molecules are not continuously connected. They speed up and down independently. They cause no weight.
    [Moderation note: the force of gravity acts on all mass, even through space, which is an extremely rarified gaseous medium]
    David R: Air is a gaseous fluid.
    Roger C: Fluid flow. Gas diffuses.
    David R: Gravity acting on its mass is the only thing holding air to the ground.
    Roger C: Gravity acting on mass as weight is not the only possible relationship.
    Gravity is acceleration, a change of velocity. I consider the way gravity changes velocity of molecules.
    David R: The air pressure at the surface is the force of gravity acting on the mass of air above the unit area of surface.
    Roger C: Gravity is not a force, it is [measured in] m/s^2 [for masses in freefall] not [and] N = m^2/s^2[m·kg·s-2]. Your use of this expression shows how deep in language is the assumption that gravity will cause a force (called weight). There 90% of surface gravity in the ISS but no weight because of the orbital acceleration.

    [Moderation note: Gravity is a force. It causes all masses (including air molecules) to accelerate, you agreed to this point several days ago. It is not called weight. Weight is the outcome of all forces involved, e.g. gravity, buoyancy, centrifugal etc. For example, a correctly balanced sub-aqua diver weighs (say) 100kg in air, but is nearly ‘weightless’ in water, due to additional buoyancy counteracting gravity. Scientists know that the word weight causes a lot of confusion, which is why they don’t use it. Blog warriors on the other hand, love to confuse the issue. I will keep crossing out confusing phrases and incorrect definitions, so get used to it until I run out of patience.]

  230. suricat says:

    tallbloke says: January 18, 2016 at 7:24 am

    “A somewhat limited point of view. On Will-world, according to his calculations of the geometry, the planet is ~1km ((2Pi/0.002 Rad)/Pi x 1m) in diameter, putting the horizon a few metres away from the card table where he sits slugging his Coors.”

    That’s probably because he majors in radiative physics and can’t see further than the depth to extinction. I think he, not surprisingly, struggles with the concept of ‘HE’ (Hydro-static Equilibrium).

    Even ‘the term’, per se, suggests that ‘no activity’ is present. For example, ‘hydrostatic’ (fluid without movement) and ‘equilibrium’ (all is equal and stable to/with everything else).

    I think the ‘source’ for confusion in/with this term is the ‘equilibrium’ part because it isn’t ‘static’, as the first term suggests, but a ‘dynamic equilibrium’ that ensures/forces the ‘hydrostatic’ property to evoke ‘convection’, thereby maintaining the ‘hydrostatic’ principle of an atmosphere. IMHO the two terms should only be mentioned in separation (the first term being of a ‘static’ nature, and the second of a ‘dynamic’ nature!

    “No wonder he doesn’t think our 14psi of surface air pressure is the result of gravity acting on the mass of the atmosphere.”

    Exactly my point TB.

    “Will reminds me of Major Clanger”

    Hmm. He reminds me more of the Soup Dragon. Doesn’t give out much, but when he does it can be ‘scary’. 😉

    “That’s not to say Will might not have any interesting ideas about the atmosphere, but when he can’t get the basics right, it skews the basis of every concept built on top of fundamental misunderstanding.”

    I think we’ve all been there Rog. Roger Clague hasn’t helped with the elucidation of atmospheric convection either, but who’s throwing stones. We’re all here to ‘talk’ after all. 🙂

    Best regards, Ray.

  231. suricat says:

    Roger Clague says: January 19, 2016 at 9:24 am

    You don’t adequately describe the ‘equilibrium’ component here Roger.

    IMHO the ‘values’ prescribed to ‘mass’ are ‘always constant’! Its only the interacting forces that ‘alter the behavior’ of ‘mass’ per se! Its as TB described earlier, its a 3+ body scenario for ‘bodies within a singular gravitational field’!

    “Solid and liquid have fixed volume and weight”

    Not by your definition. You say that ‘liquid’ (a fluid) doesn’t display the property of ‘weight’ within its own environment!

    “Gas has no fixed volume and no weight”

    No “fixed volume” I concur, but “no weight”? I strongly disagree! The ‘weight’ of a volume of gas is dependent on its constituents and ‘density and pressure’ (thus we come back to ‘HE’ [Hydro-static Equilibrium {a ‘badly versed term’}]).

    Gasses display ‘weight’ as ‘pressure’ simply because gravity overpowers the ability of the atmosphere to maintain a ‘rigid’ structure. It’s impossible to ‘weigh’ the atmosphere on a ‘weighing scale’, ‘beam balance’, or ‘load cell’ because the ‘atmosphere’ needs a ‘containment vessel’ for this form of observation!

    Your “Gas has no fixed volume and no weight” observation/assertion is based on measurement in a colander.

    “The volume property causes the other.”

    ??? Duh! I give up (for now)!

    Ray.

  232. tallbloke says:

    Ray: I think he, not surprisingly, struggles with the concept of ‘HE’ (Hydro-static Equilibrium).

    It was his struggle with the gravitational effect of 5.9 x 10^24kg of solid Earth compared to 5.15 x 10^18kg of atmosphere that did it for me. We never got as far as discussing hydrostatic equilibrium.

    A couple of basic quantities are useful for a sense of perspective.
    The mean mass of water vapor is estimated as 1.27 x 10^16 kg and the dry air mass as 5.1352 x 10^18 kg.
    Approximately 505,000 cubic kilometres (121,000 cu mi) of water falls as precipitation each year; 398,000 cubic kilometres (95,000 cu mi) of it over the oceans and 107,000 cubic kilometres (26,000 cu mi) over land.[3] Given the Earth’s surface area, that means the globally averaged annual precipitation is 990 millimetres (39 in), but over land it is only 715 millimetres (28.1 in).

    That’s 10% of the mass of the entire atmosphere rising from surface to sky annually.

    How does Will think all that water convects into the sky without a buoyant effect from the gradient produced by the dominant gravitation of the solid Earth?

    Will: The surface atmospheric pressure is the result of isotropic gravitational force

    Bollocks it is.

    And as for Roger C and his “Force is not transmitted through gas which has no fixed volume.”

    More bollocks.

    The 11 second delay between the eruption and the arrival of the shock-wave (force transmitted through unconstrained open atmosphere) tells me the boat is ~3.8km from the crater. Science is useful for that kind of deductive stuff.

  233. suricat says:

    tallbloke says: January 20, 2016 at 10:45 am

    “It was his struggle with the gravitational effect of 5.9 x 10^24kg of solid Earth compared to 5.15 x 10^18kg of atmosphere that did it for me. We never got as far as discussing hydrostatic equilibrium.”

    Must have missed that, I don’t recollect reading it, but then again my time is short and I tend to ‘skim through’ OP’s conversations. Barry Center stays well within the ‘solid’, thus, any surface ‘fluids’ viewed on a microscopic level can only lead to the/a ‘Three Body/Three Body +’ conundrum (recollection of some of RC’s posts). Therefor, all views must be at a macroscopic level. They’re ‘not’ in orbit either.

    ‘HE’ was first mentioned here way back in June by Ben Wouters @Ben Wouters says: June 11, 2015 at 7:08 pm in his response to a link from [a parent page???], which seemingly described ‘hydrostatic balance’. From then onwards, understanding seemed to go downhill.

    “A couple of basic quantities are useful for a sense of perspective.
    The mean mass of water vapor is estimated as 1.27 x 10^16 kg and the dry air mass as 5.1352 x 10^18 kg.
    Approximately 505,000 cubic kilometres (121,000 cu mi) of water falls as precipitation each year; 398,000 cubic kilometres (95,000 cu mi) of it over the oceans and 107,000 cubic kilometres (26,000 cu mi) over land.[3] Given the Earth’s surface area, that means the globally averaged annual precipitation is 990 millimetres (39 in), but over land it is only 715 millimetres (28.1 in).

    That’s 10% of the mass of the entire atmosphere rising from surface to sky annually.”

    I concur, but reiterate that these are ‘best educated guestimates’. We don’t have the definition to reduce these ‘large’ error bars.

    “How does Will think all that water convects into the sky without a buoyant effect from the gradient produced by the dominant gravitation of the solid Earth?”

    Don’t know, but IMHO I think ‘pedantry’ and RC’s confusing POV got in the way of his curiosity.

    “Will: The surface atmospheric pressure is the result of isotropic gravitational force

    Bollocks it is.”

    I concur on bad sentence construction, the word ‘isotropic’ would be more accurately placed before the word ‘surface’ because ‘gravitational force’ (towards a Barry Center) is ‘mono directional’.

    “And as for Roger C and his “Force is not transmitted through gas which has no fixed volume.””
    “More bollocks.”

    I did ‘hint’ that RC is adding to the obfuscation of the ethos of this thread/subject TB.

    “The 11 second delay between the eruption and the arrival of the shock-wave (force transmitted through unconstrained open atmosphere) tells me the boat is ~3.8km from the crater. Science is useful for that kind of deductive stuff.”

    Thanks for the ‘approximation tilde’ before the distance TB. A ‘pressure wave’ travels at the speed of ‘mach 1’, but ‘mach 1’ in air is variable dependant upon the local pressure and temperature.

    Air has a low mass density that can propagate low frequency and high energy quickly (mach 1), but water can’t propagate low frequency and high energy quickly because it doesn’t compress well.

    Most of the ‘energy/amplitude’ is ‘lost’ near the source with a water propagation and the remainder energy is transmitted at a ‘low energy/amplitude’ level. The ‘speed of sound’ is faster in water than in air, but the ‘amplitude’ of energy packets is restricted. Look at the slow rate of ‘ocean surface wave propagation’ in your link (ignore audio) and get back to me (or not, this is a bit OT).

    I also see a ‘confusing’ ocean surface disturbance/wave prior to the visual eruption. More data please. 🙂

    Best regards, Ray.

  234. wayne says:

    suricat: “I concur on bad sentence construction, the word ‘isotropic’ would be more accurately placed before the word ‘surface’ because ‘gravitational force’ (towards a Barry Center) is ‘mono directional’.”

    Mono directional Ray, yes, but why in the world do you think the gravitational force felt by atmospheric molecules located near the surface of the Earth is toward the Earth-Moon barycenter (center of Earth-Moon common mass) and not nadir toward the geometric center of the earth (or very close even when the Moon is oriented orthogonal to the line between the molecule and Earth’s center)?

    I keep getting the feeling that hardly anyone here at Talkshop really understands gravity properly. This is sounding like more barycentrism to me.

    Please explain if that was not just an innocent slip.

  235. O. Hughes says:

    wayne says:January 21, 2016 at 3:52 pm

    ” I keep getting the feeling that hardly anyone here at Talkshop really understands gravity properly. This is sounding like more barycentrism to me.”

    Are you the exception? If you mass 50 Kg With weight 490 Newtons, How much of that 490N is from 100 kilo-tonnes nearest your feet and how much from 100 kilo-tonnes spaced at various intervals about the surface of the planet?

    “Please explain if that was not just an innocent slip.”

    By whom?

  236. Roger Clague says:

    The hydrostatic equilibrium of the Earth’s Atmosphere

    Hydrostatic means standing water. The atmosphere is composed of gas. Gas is not like water and is not standing.
    Equilibrium
    Two expressions for pressure are put equal
    http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_40.html
    “But the pressure is not constant, it must increase as the altitude is reduced, because it has to hold, so to speak, the weight of all the gas above it.through the gas law. ”
    ” dP= −mgndh. Since P=nkT, and T is constant, we can eliminate either P or n, say P, “
    This equation is then used to get the Barometric Formulas. The Barometric Formulas are used to explain the p/h, rho/h and T/h gradients in the atmosphere
    I have doubts about this analysis

    1. Weight of air
    2. Gas Law
    3. 2 causes of pressure
    4. nRT changed to mR*T
    5. Introducing an infinitesimal and then integrating

    1.Weight of air
    Air appears to be weightless
    If weight causes air pressure then p/h would be linear, as for a liquid. It is not.

    2. Gas Law
    If the Gas law caused pressure then p/h would be linear because T/h is linear. It is not.

    3. 2 causes of air pressure
    Since Bernoulli 1738 we know air pressure is caused by number and velocity of molecules, not mass of molecules. The new better theory replaces the old theory. They cannot be combined. There is no law of conservation of pressure.

    4. nRT changed to mR*T
    The substitution n = m/M = mass of gas/ molecular mass is made
    That is a number is replaced by the ratio of two masses. This changes the physical meaning of the equation.
    Number and mass are different measures of amount of substance.
    The Universal gas constant is replaced by a specific gas constant. It is no longer a constant. It depends on the molecular mass of the gas.

    5. Infinitesimal/integration
    Introducing dh is not justified. Air is composed of molecules. The space occupied by a moving molecule cannot be infinitely small. Introducing an infinitesimal is not necessary. It looks to me dh is introduced as later integration gives the observed exponential/log relationship of p/h.

    I propose a simpler analysis of the relationship between gravity and temperature in the atmosphere. According to the Law of Conservation of Energy different forms of energy are equivalent.
    Molecules of air have energy of position in a gravity field and heat energy
    mgh = gravitational potential energy = mcT = heat energy .
    Hence: T/h =g/c

    [Reply] Go and read this thread, then report back. https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/the-loschmidt-gravito-thermal-effect-old-controversy-new-relevance/

  237. Roger Clague says:

    tallbloke says:
    January 20, 2016 at 10:45 am

    And as for Roger C and his “Force is not transmitted through gas which has no fixed volume.”
    and
    The 11 second delay between the eruption and the arrival of the shock-wave (force transmitted through unconstrained open atmosphere) tells me the boat is ~3.8km from the crater.

    We are discussing convection which is vertical motion. I should have said:
    Force is not transmitted vertically through gas causing weight.

    [reply] You have already admitted gravitational force acts on the molecular constituents of air. Here are the quotes:
    “I agree that gravity acts on the atmosphere. I think it acts by slowing the velocity of molecules and not through weight”
    “The molecules reaching the top surface have been slowed more by gravity than molecules which hit the bottom surface.
    The force on the bottom surface is more than the force on the top surface.
    This difference is very small. However there are a lot of molecules.”

    Earth’s gravity slows the molecules going up and accelerates the molecules which are going down. The sum effect on a cubic metre of air is a downward force of 12.01N/m^3 at 15C. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-density-specific-weight-d_600.html

    I have posted in this discussion that I accept air flows horizontally, as in wind and a shock-wave.

    [Reply] Watch the video again. See how how the hemispherical shock wave expands in all directions, briefly creating cloud as it compresses the humid air.

    Wind equalizes horizontal pressure difference. Wind does not flow vertically to equalize pressure.

    [Reply] Go educate yourself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foehn_wind

  238. suricat says:

    wayne says: January 21, 2016 at 3:52 pm

    I didn’t mention The Moon wayne, you did. I hypothesised a centric Earth system which included each atmospheric molecule as a captured mass to emphasise the ‘Three Body Problem’ as insoluble/unsolvable.

    However, as you mentioned it, the ‘close proximity’ of major massive objects in Sol’s system does interfere with the normal ‘centric’ behaviour of Earth’s fluid manifestations. This usually goes by the name/title of ‘tidal effect’, but also includes the phenomena of ‘thermal shock’ from insolation and ‘precipitation shock’. Wiki says this;

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_tide

    and here’s an, in depth, paper by Lindzen and Chapman;

    Click to access 29_Atmos_Tides.pdf

    that I haven’t read yet, but looks interesting. 🙂

    Of greater import! Why have we not yet discussed the Newtonian ‘reactionary’ force to gravity here? The ‘development’ of ‘pressure’ from/by a ‘fluid’ en-captured within a gravity field and presented with a ‘solid’ surface requires a ‘reaction’ to the ‘force’ (gravity) that caused the agglomeration in the first instance.

    IMHO the ‘reactionary force’ that counters ‘gravity’ is the ‘electrostatic charge’ that separates molecules.

    Your thoughts? 🙂

    Best regards, Ray.

  239. tallbloke says:

    O.Hughes: If you mass 50 Kg With weight 490 Newtons, How much of that 490N is from 100 kilo-tonnes nearest your feet and how much from 100 kilo-tonnes spaced at various intervals about the surface of the planet?

    Sum the vectors. You’ll find the net force is towards the Centre of the Earth from your location.

  240. O. Hughes says:

    tallbloke says: January 22, 2016 at 8:53 am

    O.Hughes: “If you mass 50 Kg With weight 490 Newtons, How much of that 490N is from 100 kilo-tonnes nearest your feet and how much from 100 kilo-tonnes spaced at various intervals about the surface of the planet?”

    “Sum the vectors. You’ll find the net force is towards the Centre of the Earth from your location.”

    That gives a direction only! And only because of symmetry. You gave no answer to the question of local mass influence. This atmosphere is very local. Can 3D analytic geometry be done with linear equations? Is the atmosphere part of the Earth mass that results in the surface force of 9.8 N/kg?
    If you consider a simplified Earth as Six equal mass globs. Four spaced at the equator and one at each pole! Does each glob account for 81 Newtons of your weight? Is each even 1/6 Earth’s mass If the 50 kg is on the outside of one for a weight of 490N? Why?

    [Reply] You don’t get to use sock puppets at the talkshop Will, so this will be the last comment using this name.

  241. wayne says:

    barycenter.., definition:
    “The barycenter is one of the foci of the elliptical orbit of each body.”
    … and I agree.

    suricat: “I didn’t mention The Moon wayne, you did.”

    Please take my comment to you lightly, not trying to pick but just had to in this case.

    So why did you use the term “Bary Center” at all? The barycenter of what? I just assumed that you were not addressing the solar system barycenter when speaking of gravity affecting the gases within an atmosphere.

    suricat: “Of greater import! Why have we not yet discussed the Newtonian ‘reactionary’ force to gravity here? The ‘development’ of ‘pressure’ from/by a ‘fluid’ en-captured within a gravity field and presented with a ‘solid’ surface requires a ‘reaction’ to the ‘force’ (gravity) that caused the agglomeration in the first instance.

    IMHO the ‘reactionary force’ that counters ‘gravity’ is the ‘electrostatic charge’ that separates molecules.”

    Now you are talking Ray. Every force (vector) has an equal and opposite reactive force. If you would scan back up these 2000 comments you will find that I was trying, in vain, to get everyone to see this aspect, the pressure, especially WJ and RC, but found it hopeless… Newton’s third law… and it damn sure applies to the molecules of an atmosphere too, downward is gravity, upward is the countering pressure.

  242. wayne says:

    O. Hughes, yes, the gravitational pull from a mass right underneath your feet is vastly greater than that same quantity of mass located on the other side of a planetary body. But as to you questioning whether I was correct in objecting to suricat sticking in the term “Bary Center”… you should find I was correct in doing so. When I make a mistake, a slip in words chosen, I will quickly admit it, it happens.

    Tallbloke is correct… sum the vectors centered on some point for 1) the gravity pull from the center of each spherical body’s mass, or 2) sum the vectors of each and every infinitesimally tiny mass for every piece of matter and you will always end up with the correct answer, both ways are equivalent

    “Can 3D analytic geometry be done with linear equations? ”

    No.

    “Is the atmosphere part of the Earth mass that results in the surface force of 9.8 N/kg?”

    Of course, but you should also find if you take the time to perform such numeric integrations that when seeking answers of the gravitational field strength to five of six decimals of precision that the component from the pieces of matter of the atmosphere, even though it is much close to the point in question, can be simply ignored. Try it.

    Tallbloke and I took all of the pains of actually writing the numeric integrations long ago to show why so many view gravity incorrect when the term barycenter floats into the conversation.

  243. suricat says:

    wayne says: January 22, 2016 at 5:51 pm

    “Please take my comment to you lightly, not trying to pick but just had to in this case.”

    You should already know that I take criticism lightly here wayne, but you ‘are’ being ‘picky’. However, IIRC, the post I answered was ‘in compliance’ WRT the statement that TB made @tallbloke says: January 12, 2016 at 4:06 pm

    “So why did you use the term “Bary Center” at all? The barycenter of what? I just assumed that you were not addressing the solar system barycenter when speaking of gravity affecting the gases within an atmosphere.”

    Your assumption is correct. However, ‘other’ readers are more ‘miffed’ by this concept. Nevertheless, TB has already answered this @tallbloke says: January 22, 2016 at 8:53 am.

    “Sum the vectors. You’ll find the net force is towards the Center of the Earth from your location.”

    This is true for an ‘Earth centric’ observation when ignoring ‘other’ outside influence.

    (“IMHO the ‘reactionary force’ that counters ‘gravity’ is the ‘electrostatic charge’ that separates molecules”)

    “Now you are talking Ray. Every force (vector) has an equal and opposite reactive force. If you would scan back up these 2000 comments you will find that I was trying, in vain, to get everyone to see this aspect, the pressure, especially WJ and RC, but found it hopeless… Newton’s third law… and it damn sure applies to the molecules of an atmosphere too, downward is gravity, upward is the countering pressure.”

    Just consider the “countering pressure” as the ‘local kinetic’ for the gas/atmosphere.

    It’s nice to converse with a ‘like’ understanding here wayne, but there are those that can’t, those that don’t and those that won’t understand what we write here.

    Keep writing wayne. 😉

    Best regards, Ray.

  244. suricat says:

    suricat says: January 24, 2016 at 2:06 am

    “Just consider the “countering pressure” as the ‘local kinetic’ for the gas/atmosphere.”

    I really need to add to that wayne.

    In the troposphere all atoms are surrounded by an ‘electron shell’, with all molecules ‘bound’ by ‘valence electrons’ (electrons that ‘share’ their ‘orbit’ with other atoms, thus conjoining ‘atoms’ to form ‘molecules’). The ‘net’ ‘electrostatic’ outcome of this is that ‘atoms’ and ‘molecules’ ~always present a -ve ‘charge’ towards other ‘atoms/molecules’ within the region of their ‘charge potential’. Thus, present a ‘repulsion’ to other ‘entities’.

    This is the ‘perfect airbag’ that can prevent a ‘destructive collision’ (~1 ‘ev’ [electron volt]) when this outcome is obvious from the collision vector observed. Thus, we must include the ‘electrostatic’ value that needs to be ‘overcome’ before we can evaluate any change in electrostatic behaviour and/or chemical make up.

    An ‘overview’ would mention that ‘any kinetic activity’ within an ‘electrostatic field’ gives rise to an ‘electromagnetic field’! Which compounds our problem WRT the definition of the true disclosure of ‘pressure’ and its derivatives (for example temperature [the temperature/pressure for phase change differs for different materials/matter]) that confuse any outcome.

    Perhaps Doug Cotton was thinking along these lines with his ‘charge field’ postulation?

    Please respond and ask clarity on any confusion that may have been induced by this post.

    Best regards, Ray.

  245. suricat says:

    TB. Have I just killed this thread? There’s so much more to discuss in the field of ‘inertia’ that the thread’s demise is premature.

    Best regards, Ray.

  246. tallbloke says:

    Ray: I’m awaiting Roger C’s reply to my criticism of his position, and corrections to his factual inaccuracies. We’re busy with solar system dynamics at the moment, so a lull in this longrunning thread is welcome to me at least. I’m open to suggestions for a new thread with a tighter brief. Why not suggest a theme around your inertia issue?

  247. Roger Clague says:

    suricat says:
    January 26, 2016 at 3:19 am

    An ‘overview’ would mention that ‘any kinetic activity’ within an ‘electrostatic field’ gives rise to an ‘electromagnetic field’!

    I agree and go further. I think that at the scale of individual interacting molecules, as in gas, charge is more important than gravity.

    Miles Mathis also explains the atmosphere’s properties using charge.

    milesmathis.com/atmo.html ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE AND THE CHARGE FIELD
    “I have shown that the charge field is capable of keeping the sky from falling, by balancing the effective weight of the atmosphere.”

  248. Roger Clague says:

    tallbloke says:
    January 28, 2016 at 8:31 am

    Ray: I’m awaiting Roger C’s reply to my criticism of his position, and corrections to his factual inaccuracies.

    TB: Earth’s gravity slows the molecules going up and accelerates the molecules which are going down. The sum effect on a cubic metre of air is a downward force of 12.01N/m^3 at 15C.

    Roger C: I stopped commenting when I found myself agreeing with this analysis.

    If we apply this to the velocity of molecules in the lower atmosphere up to 10 000m

    1. Vs velocity of air at surface = 500m/s Statistical Mechanics of gas
    2. Vt velocity of air at 10 000m = ?
    3. Ts = temperature at surface = 300K
    4. Tt = temperature at 10 000m
    5. Change in v^2= 2gs = 2 x 0.003 x 10 x 10 000 = 600 Newton’s Equation of Motion
    0.003 x 10 m/s^2 = change of gravity from surface to 10 000m
    6. Change in v = 25 m/s
    7. Total change in v = 2 x 25m/s = 50m/s molecules going up slow, molecules going down speed up
    8. Vt = 500m/s – 50m/s = 450m/s
    9. (Vs/Vt)^2 = Ts/Tt Statistical Mechanics of gas
    10. Tt = Ts x (Vt/Vs)^2 = 300 x (450/500)^2 = 300 x (0.9)^2 = 300 x 0.8 = 240K
    11. Ts –Tt = 300K -240K = 60K = Atmospheric thermal enhancement = ATE = “Greenhouse effect”
    12. Lapse rate = 60K/10km = 6K/km

    These are approximate figure to demonstrate that a 60K “greenhouse effect” and lapse rate of 6K/km can be calculated using only Gas mechanics and Laws of Motion

  249. tallbloke says:

    Mathis: “I have shown that the charge field is capable of keeping the sky from falling, by balancing the effective weight of the atmosphere”

    Hmmm. I read that paper a while back and didn’t find it very convincing for several reasons. I’ll have another look at it and list some of them.
    Anyway, it’s good you now accept there is an ‘effective weight’ of the atmosphere, that needs ‘balancing’. Whether it is balanced by pressure or charge, this is a step forward.

  250. suricat says:

    tallbloke says: January 28, 2016 at 8:31 am

    “Why not suggest a theme around your inertia issue?”

    Though I’m retired, I just don’t get the time for this (my UK posting times should show you this). Besides, it starts with variant charge between variant molecules leading to comparative compressibility, introduces kinetic theory to get things moving, then shows how molecules on the move generate a fluctuating magnetic field that counters weight with pressure.

    From this grounding it should be possible to better understand the interaction of the insolation with Earth’s systems that give rise to an atmosphere and put a finger on the meaning of the resonances (ionising frequencies/wavelengths) which can break molecules and atoms (photo-chemistry).

    “a tighter brief” it isn’t! However, I’d offer support to anyone that hosted this type of thread. 🙂

    Best regards, Ray.

  251. suricat says:

    Roger Clague says: January 28, 2016 at 11:35 am

    “Miles Mathis also explains the atmosphere’s properties using charge.”

    [slaps upside the head] That’s the guy!!! I’m bad with names and numbers, but patterns and systems seem to stick better. Apologies to Doug Cotton!

    Thanx for the reminder RC.

    Best regards, Ray Dart.

  252. Roger Clague says:

    tallbloke says:
    January 28, 2016 at 12:52 pm

    Mathis: “I have shown that the charge field is capable of keeping the sky from falling, by balancing the effective weight of the atmosphere”
    TB: Anyway, it’s good you now accept the ‘effective weight’ of the atmosphere, that needs ‘balancing’.

    Roger C: I agree with Mathis that the atmosphere is weightless.
    I don’t accept the atmosphere has “effective weight” that needs balancing
    I agree with Mathis that the explanation for weightlessness is caused by a charge field.
    I don’t agree with Mathis’s theory that this weightlessness is caused by lack of constraint plus photon bombardment. He should have heeded his own criticism that one cause of weightlessness is more likely than two causes combining to be exactly zero.
    I think the charge field that overcomes weight, in the atmosphere is generated by the near approach of charged electron shells which causes rapid change of velocity of molecules.
    I agree that surface air pressure x surface area of Earth does not equal the weight of the atmosphere

  253. tallbloke says:

    Roger C: I agree that surface air pressure x surface area of Earth does not equal the weight of the atmosphere

    Who are you agreeing with and where is their data?

  254. suricat says:

    tallbloke says: February 1, 2016 at 7:57 pm

    “Who are you agreeing with and where is their data?”

    I think RC agrees with me Rog. However, my “data” comes from ‘first principles’ and needs to be ‘mined’.

    “Convection” isn’t the ‘only’ method for “parcel” (excuse the term) displacement. ‘Advection’ powered by the planet’s rotation also plays its part.

    We need to separate these methods of atmospheric movement before we can properly discus “convection” per se.

    Best regards, Ray.

  255. Roger Clague says:

    tallbloke says:
    February 1, 2016 at 7:57 pm
    Roger C: I agree that surface air pressure x surface area of Earth does not equal the weight of the atmosphere
    TB: Who are you agreeing with and where is their data?

    Roger C: I am agreeing with Miles Mathis. He is disagreeing with this calculation of weight and mass of the atmosphere, first done by Blaise Pascal in the 17C

    https://suite.io/paul-a-heckert/t262dj

    “Pressure can be measured in newtons per square meter in metric units or in pounds per square inch in English units. Earth’s atmospheric pressure is 14.7 pounds per square inch or 1.01 E5 newtons per square meter.”
    Roger C: A pound is used as both a unit of mass and weight.
    This assumes a certain mass always causes the same weight.

    [Reply] A pound is also used as a unit of currency. It doesn’t mean any of them are equivalent. A brass one-pound scale weight only weighs a pound in air, at Earth’s sea level. Put it under water and it’ll weigh less due to the (less negative in water) buoyancy of the material

    “In a fluid, which is either a liquid or a gas, the pressure at some point in the fluid results from the total weight of all the fluid above that point. “
    Roger C: The pressure results from the velocity of molecules at that point.

    “Hence the fact that atmospheric pressure is 14.7 pounds per square inch means that the total weight of atmosphere above 1 square inch of Earth’s surface is 14.7 pounds.”
    Roger C: I do not feel this claimed weight of air on me.
    So this only if you accept, contrary to experience, the assumption that 1 pound-mass always causes 1pound –force.
    It does not , for example:
    1. in an accelerating lift,
    2. on the Moon,
    3. in the ISS
    4. in a gas.

    [Reply] An accelerated one-pound mass exerts a force in relation to its velocity; F=MA. But that force may be opposed (or augmented) by another (such as buoyancy or gravity), such that the vector addition of the forces results in a different velocity or impact or gravitational potential from ‘standard’ (i.e. in air, at Earth’s sea level).

  256. suricat says:

    Roger Clague says: February 2, 2016 at 12:29 pm [ignoring first statements]

    ““Pressure can be measured in newtons per square meter in metric units or in pounds per square inch in English units. Earth’s atmospheric pressure is 14.7 pounds per square inch or 1.01 E5 newtons per square meter.”
    Roger C: A pound is used as both a unit of mass and weight.
    This assumes a certain mass always causes the same weight.”

    TB retorts:
    [Reply] A pound is also used as a unit of currency. It doesn’t mean any of them are equivalent. A brass one-pound scale weight only weighs a pound in air, at Earth’s sea level. Put it under water and it’ll weigh less due to the (less negative in water) buoyancy of the material

    We don’t need this type of ‘counterpoint’ confrontation guys! Let’s discuss this rationally 🙂

    Whatever an item weighs in its environment, its ‘inertia’ value always stays ‘THE SAME’!

    Apologies if my participation here has been less than desired, but ‘man-flue’ has inhibited my contribution.

    Best regards, Ray.

  257. tallbloke says:

    Ray: Whatever an item weighs in its environment, its ‘inertia’ value always stays ‘THE SAME’!

    Yes Ray. This is why I pointed out some time ago that a weightless 1kg mass in space moving at 5m/s relative to Will Janoschka and Roger Clague would still successfully knock their silly heads together.

  258. suricat says:

    tallbloke says: February 3, 2016 at 9:46 am

    “…”

    I’m not so convinced. It takes a ‘multi disciplined’ and ‘open’ mind to even begin to understand the multiple ‘Earth Systems Configuration’ with any degree of coherence. Will is an accomplished engineer in the field of spectroscopy, and Roger is an accomplished chemist (?). Thus, there’s enough aether in the ‘uncovered/unaccomplished disciplines’ to prevent a collision by repulsion from ‘vacuum pressure’! 😉 . Just kidding. 🙂

    The loss of either of them would be a loss to this site.

    Speaking as a multi disciplined engineer (universal millwright), we have a recognised ‘standard consensus’ on the value of ‘gravity at sea level’ (wherever it’s measured). We also have a recognised ‘standard consensus’ on the ‘mass quantity’ that displays a ‘given’ (and agreed) ‘weight’ at that “‘standard consensus’ on the value of ‘gravity at sea level’ (wherever it’s measured)”. Because of this/these ‘standard/s’ we ‘know’ that ‘global latitude’ alters the ‘weight observed’, we also ‘know’ that barometric pressure alters the ‘weight observed’ (what have I missed). We really need to move on now.

    Why does barometric pressure and global latitude alter the observed weight?

    How can we understand these changes and appoint a ‘constant’ that can reveal the ‘true value’ for the ‘weight’ of Earth’s atmosphere?

    IMHO, this ‘constant’ is commonly known as ‘inertia’.

    Best regards, Ray.

  259. tallbloke says:

    Ray. The problems we have getting Roger C or Will J to agree to some basics are orders of magnitude bigger than microscopic differences in G due to latitude. Will J I gave up on when he told us that atmospheric pressure is due to ‘isotropic gravity’. Roger C has finally accepted that a m^3 of air exerts a downward force due to the Earth’s gravity of ~12N, but then insists this is balanced by ‘charge’ on the molecules of air, rather than by pressure.

    It’s enough to make your hair stand on end.

    One day we might get to discuss convection.

  260. suricat says:

    tallbloke says: February 4, 2016 at 12:38 pm

    “Ray. The problems we have getting Roger C or Will J to agree to some basics are orders of magnitude bigger than microscopic differences in G due to latitude.”

    I wasn’t aware that there ‘was’ any/much difference in ‘G’ with ‘latitude’!

    “Will J I gave up on when he told us that atmospheric pressure is due to ‘isotropic gravity’.”

    Why? ‘Gravity’, per se, hardly alters in the tropo (anomalies aside)!

    “Roger C has finally accepted that a m^3 of air exerts a downward force due to the Earth’s gravity of ~12N, but then insists this is balanced by ‘charge’ on the molecules of air, rather than by pressure.”

    I offer the same advice I gave to ‘Steve M’ on C4’s Eve forum. “Get your loft ladder out and consult your graduate notes”! The ‘origin’ of ‘pressure’ within a gas is generated by the ‘repulsive nature’ of the ‘surrounding electron shell’ possessed by your and local entities.

    “It’s enough to make your hair stand on end.”

    Yeah. I get the ‘static charge’ humor.

    “One day we might get to discuss convection.”

    Not if we don’t get past the ‘buoyancy/convection:advection’ principles first TB!

    These need to be separated in the same thread IMHO.

    TB. Please understand that we all can only offer our POV to your site. Is this not good?

    Best regards, Ray.

  261. tallbloke says:

    Ray: Why? ‘Gravity’, per se, hardly alters in the tropo (anomalies aside)!

    Look up the meaning of ‘isotropic’

    The ‘origin’ of ‘pressure’ within a gas is generated by the ‘repulsive nature’ of the ‘surrounding electron shell’ possessed by your and local entities.

    The ‘repulsive nature’ of the ‘surrounding electron shell’ provides the elastic bounce to the colliding molecules, but this represents the conservation of the kinetic energy, not its origin. If we increase the temperature of the gas, the pressure increases. According to classical theory, this is due to an increase in the vibration rate of the molecules increasing the kinetic energy of the gas. This is a change in mechanical motion, not charge. And if your reply to that is along the lines of ‘the speeding up of the electrons in the shell(s) is what causes that increased oscillation’ then my answer is: “That may well be so, but in that case, the effect on what inflates the atmosphere is still via increased pressure, not the kind of electric charge Roger C is referring to”.

    Not if we don’t get past the ‘buoyancy/convection:advection’ principles first TB! These need to be separated in the same thread IMHO.

    No-one can make sense of effects like buoyancy if they believe atmospheric pressure is due to the ‘isotropic gravitation’ of the atmosphere. We have to get the basics established. It’s because of misdirection and misunderstanding that this thread is over 2000 comments old. That’s why I’m insisting on sorting first from second order effects, and the wheat from the chaff.

  262. tchannon says:

    If I produce new gas, put it into the air here, this lifts the entire atmosphere on a sphere. What is confusing about that?

  263. wayne says:

    I usually cringe having the thought of even posting here lately, but since I took the time to write this last night, and then was interrupted before submitting (so this is late), here it is anyway just for me to state agreement with what Tallbloke is also laying out… proper and well known science of gases, gravity and convection.

    suricat: “I offer the same advice I gave to ‘Steve M’ on C4’s Eve forum. “Get your loft ladder out and consult your graduate notes”! The ‘origin’ of ‘pressure’ within a gas is generated by the ‘repulsive nature’ of the ‘surrounding electron shell’ possessed by your and local entities.”

    Quite amazing, sounds like you think little of the well established kinetic theory of gases… in the decades I have studied chemistry and physics I have never come across such a far-out explanation for the origin of the pressure of any gas, from the random vectored momentum of the high velocity atom/molecules… yes, but from electron cloud repulsion within any non-ionized neutral gas? The inter-molecular electric field repulsion/attraction interaction only becomes sizeable enough to even consider (showing up in less than the fourth digit of precision) when the molecules are only a few radii between any two atom/molecules (in a collision or close encounter) and this is handled within the realms of the Van-der-Waals-type of corrections that properly is deemed insignificant at most planetary atmosphere pressures and compositions until approaching some super-critical state like found on Venus near the surface or deep into a gas giant’s atmosphere.

    Respectfully Ray, I would say it is up to you, not on others here, to show us where you came upon such an explanation from any credible physics or chemistry site, on-line book or just some .edu university domain where we can read about it (and please, not just some link back to something like Miles Mathis .com dreamed up personal physics conjecture pages)

    Please, lets move quickly toward well established science and away from science fiction so we can finalize this discussion on the simplicity of vertical convection and it’s reliance on nothing but gravitational acceleration and the case where density differences exist with less dense fluids lying deeper within a gravitational well… convection is spontaneous.

    And you don’t really need gravity per se, centrifuge acceleration will work just fine to cause convection even on the ISS in orbit where there is no ‘convection’ normally, for there is no ‘up’ or ‘down’ in the sense of some global acceleration field.

  264. James McGinn says:

    tallbloke says:
    February 4, 2016 at 12:38 pm

    Tall Dude:
    “It’s because of misdirection and misunderstanding that this thread is over 2000 comments old. That’s why I’m insisting on sorting first from second order effects, and the wheat from the chaff.”

    JM:
    Maybe you need more expert commentary from glider pilots.

    [Reply] or maybe you need to explain how the ten water molecules dispersed in 10,000 molecules of N2, O2, Ar and CO2 always get together really efficiently to hold a dewdrop party. TB

  265. Will Janoschka says:

    As a courtesy to you Roger, attempted publication here also. Do what you will!!!

    From: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean/comment-page-7/#comment-113414

    Over two thousand comments to this one thread! Still with no hope of any scientific answer!!
    The comments of Will Janoschka are now banned at the Talkshop as my views are in conflict with the political goals of Roger Tatersall,

    [snip]

    [Reply] Will, you’re deluding yourself (and trying to mislead others). I kicked you off the site because you insist atmospheric pressure is due to the atmosphere’s “isotropic gravity”. If you ever want to come back here again, telling lies about my motivation is the wrong way to go about it. And if you want to be honest about the reason why this thread is 2000 comments old, try looking at your own contribution to it. TB

  266. Just for interest, here is my calculations for a “humid air balloon”.

    That’s just for fun – but what is quite serious is that humid air, being lighter than normal air, at the same temperature – will rise.

    So, it is quite feasible for cooler air to rise!!

  267. wayne says:

    Scottish Sceptic: “So, it is quite feasible for cooler air to rise!!”

    Not sure I would state it that way though without more words. How much cooler? For that matters. Maybe “it is quite feasible for wet nearly saturated air to rise when surrounded by dry air at some fixed temperature horizontally even though temperatures in an atmosphere are decreasing with height”, but good point.

    Buoyancy and convection existence is strictly governed by differences in densities when gravity is involved, not by pressure differences alone, not even by temperature differences alone but can also be said to be governed by differences in the pressure/temperature ratio in gases, which circularly, of course, is just a proportion difference in the densities in question.

    If the temperature differences in the “cooler” wet air was small enough then, yes, your statement could also stand as being correct for wet air is less dense than dry air but not by much so the temperature difference would have to be even smaller.

  268. suricat says:

    tallbloke says: February 5, 2016 at 9:30 am

    Please excuse my late response, I’ve been otherwise engaged.

    “Look up the meaning of ‘isotropic’”

    WRT ‘altitude’, the effect of gravity is ~isotropic in the tropo, but anomalies occur over Earth’s surface.

    “The ‘repulsive nature’ of the ‘surrounding electron shell’ provides the elastic bounce to the colliding molecules, but this represents the conservation of the kinetic energy, not its origin. If we increase the temperature of the gas, the pressure increases. According to classical theory, this is due to an increase in the vibration rate of the molecules increasing the kinetic energy of the gas. This is a change in mechanical motion, not charge. And if your reply to that is along the lines of ‘the speeding up of the electrons in the shell(s) is what causes that increased oscillation’ then my answer is: “That may well be so, but in that case, the effect on what inflates the atmosphere is still via increased pressure, not the kind of electric charge Roger C is referring to”.”

    You’ve clearly misunderstood my logic TB. There’s NO change in ‘electrostatic charge’ without the molecular recombination events of chemistry. I don’t consider ‘this’ (any chemical change) and shall answer the above quote in full.

    “The ‘repulsive nature’ of the ‘surrounding electron shell’ provides the elastic bounce to the colliding molecules, but this represents the conservation of the kinetic energy, not its origin.”

    I concur, but this also says nothing of the means of ‘constraint’ or the ‘system/s involved’ either. The ‘closed system’ that this definition describes was/is bounded by a ‘fixed volume’ with constraints consisting of a ‘solid’ nature whose ‘boundaries’ are impenetrable by gas molecules. Earth’s systems don’t enjoy this ‘boundary’. The ‘constraining force’ for Earth is ‘gravity’.

    OTOH, another view would say that ‘gravity’, per se, is in ‘counterpoise’, per se, with the ‘weight reactionary’ (electrostatic force [pressure]) that the atmosphere presents to persist as a ‘fluid’ (gas, or liquid). Thus, the ‘neutral’ aspect to ‘gasses in an atmosphere’ WRT gravity should be followed.

    This is just inadequate. The ‘inertia value’ of a gas is constant, whereas its ‘weight’ is variant dependant upon the ‘region’ it’s weighed in. IOW! Surface gravity anomalies add to this problem of ‘full definition’.

    “If we increase the temperature of the gas, the pressure increases. According to classical theory, this is due to an increase in the vibration rate of the molecules increasing the kinetic energy of the gas. This is a change in mechanical motion, not charge.”

    I concur. These ‘changes’ represent an ‘increase’, or the occasional ‘decrease’, in ‘kinetic for the local observation’ and are pertinent to the convective properties of an atmosphere, but are ‘transient’.

    However, be aware that pressure change alters at the rate of mach 1, but Coriolis intervenes.

    “And if your reply to that is along the lines of ‘the speeding up of the electrons in the shell(s) is what causes that increased oscillation’ then my answer is: “That may well be so, but in that case, the effect on what inflates the atmosphere is still via increased pressure, not the kind of electric charge Roger C is referring to”

    ‘And’ (I HATE beginning a response with ‘AND’) my response is that ‘you are responding at the wrong level of physics TB’!

    Atomic and molecular physics are ‘worlds’ apart!

    I persist.

    “No-one can make sense of effects like buoyancy if they believe atmospheric pressure is due to the ‘isotropic gravitation’ of the atmosphere.”

    I disagree. Convection exists within an environment of ~equal ‘gravity/weight’ per altitude. The ‘real problem’ is ‘definition’! If you can’t ‘see’ a ‘convection cell’, it doesn’t exist (this isn’t due to the ‘gravity quotient’, its due to the ‘mass density’)!

    “We have to get the basics established. It’s because of misdirection and misunderstanding that this thread is over 2000 comments old. That’s why I’m insisting on sorting first from second order effects, and the wheat from the chaff.”

    I understand your pressure to end this thread TB, but there is so much more to discuss here.

    Best regards, Ray.

  269. tallbloke says:

    Ray: I understand your pressure to end this thread TB, but there is so much more to discuss here.

    I’m not trying to end this thread, I’m trying to get the necessary basics agreed so we can start it.

    WRT ‘altitude’, the effect of gravity is ~isotropic in the tropo, but anomalies occur over Earth’s surface.

    You still haven’t understood what isotropic means.

    isotropic
    ˌʌɪsə(ʊ)ˈtrɒpɪk/Submit
    adjective PHYSICS
    (of an object or substance) having a physical property which has the same value when measured in different directions.
    (of a property or phenomenon) not varying in magnitude according to the direction of measurement.

    Gravity in the environs of Earth most certainly DOES vary in magnitude according to the direction of measurement.
    Try measuring the effect of gravity in the direction of:
    1) the horizon
    2) the centre of the Earth
    3) the centre of mass of the local atmosphere
    If you don’t believe this.

    The ‘closed system’ that this definition describes was/is bounded by a ‘fixed volume’ with constraints consisting of a ‘solid’ nature whose ‘boundaries’ are impenetrable by gas molecules. Earth’s systems don’t enjoy this ‘boundary’. The ‘constraining force’ for Earth is ‘gravity’.

    And the Earth’s surface. That’s the whole point of this discussion about gravity. To establish that gravity acting on the mass of the Earth’s atmosphere causes it to press against the surface, generating a pressure gradient from surface to space.

    The ‘inertia value’ of a gas is constant, whereas its ‘weight’ is variant dependant upon the ‘region’ it’s weighed in. IOW! Surface gravity anomalies add to this problem of ‘full definition’.

    Surface gravity anomalies are tiny, TINY fraction of the forces involved. You can try to convince me that they may a measurable difference to convection but I’m not going to spend long on this one.

    you are responding at the wrong level of physics TB’! Atomic and molecular physics are ‘worlds’ apart!

    You don’t need to tell me that, tell Roger C, whose misconceptions I was addressing.

    If you can’t ‘see’ a ‘convection cell’, it doesn’t exist!

    Does a tree falling in a forest where no-one hears it make a sound? I have to admit, I didn’t expect to be dragged into a discussion of the philosophy of Bishop Berkeley of Cloyne in a discussion about convection. :/

  270. oldbrew says:

    Re: ‘To establish that gravity acting on the mass of the Earth’s atmosphere causes it to press against the surface, generating a pressure gradient from surface to space.’

    There’s some evidence of the solar wind causing changes to atmospheric pressure.
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.1841

  271. suricat says:

    tallbloke says: February 8, 2016 at 8:24 am

    “I’m not trying to end this thread, I’m trying to get the necessary basics agreed so we can start it.”

    It heartens me to read that!

    “You still haven’t understood what isotropic means.

    isotropic
    ˌʌɪsə(ʊ)ˈtrɒpɪk/Submit
    adjective PHYSICS
    (of an object or substance) having a physical property which has the same value when measured in different directions.
    (of a property or phenomenon) not varying in magnitude according to the direction of measurement.

    Gravity in the environs of Earth most certainly DOES vary in magnitude according to the direction of measurement.
    Try measuring the effect of gravity in the direction of:
    1) the horizon
    2) the centre of the Earth
    3) the centre of mass of the local atmosphere
    If you don’t believe this.”

    Yes I have, but you’re describing gravity’s ‘force vector’ and not ‘its change with altitude’! By default, ‘gravity’, per se, ‘always acts’ in a ‘straight line’ towards the ‘center of mass’ of a system. The ‘Barry Centre’. Its ‘influence’ is ~unchanging within the tropo!

    Thus, “1) the horizon” ??? Why???

    “2) the centre of the Earth” Better call.

    “3) the centre of mass of the local atmosphere” this is really ‘out there’ (but passable on a ‘local observation’)!

    “And the Earth’s surface. That’s the whole point of this discussion about gravity. To establish that gravity acting on the mass of the Earth’s atmosphere causes it to press against the surface, generating a pressure gradient from surface to space.”

    That’s already understood TB. The real problem is ‘how this configuration is established’ and ‘why mass enjoys a preferential status for convection/advection’ in a gravity field.

    “Surface gravity anomalies are tiny, TINY fraction of the forces involved. You can try to convince me that they may a measurable difference to convection but I’m not going to spend long on this one.”

    Neither am I TB.

    “You don’t need to tell me that, tell Roger C, whose misconceptions I was addressing.”

    Consider them ‘told’.

    “Does a tree falling in a forest where no-one hears it make a sound? I have to admit, I didn’t expect to be dragged into a discussion of the philosophy of Bishop Berkeley of Cloyne in a discussion about convection. :/”

    Don’t even think of it. 😦

    Best regards, Ray.

  272. tallbloke says:

    Ray: you’re describing gravity’s ‘force vector’ and not ‘its change with altitude’!

    The change in Earth’s gravitation with altitude is negligible for the height of the atmosphere (~0.03m/s^-2). The reason I’m talking about the force vector is because that’s what the definition of isotropic talks about:

    Isotropic: not varying in magnitude according to the direction of measurement.

    I am demonstrating that Will J’s claim that atmospheric pressure is due to ‘isotropic gravitation’ is wrong.

    Can we get at least this one point agreed please.

  273. James McGinn says:

    Tall Bloke:
    Maybe you need to explain how the ten water molecules dispersed in 10,000 molecules of N2, O2, Ar and CO2 always get together really efficiently to hold a dewdrop party.

    Jim McGinn:
    Not only is this a fair question but it is the right question.

    However, if you are looking for a simple answer I suggest to you stick with Meteorology. Their notion that H2O turns to steam at temperatures well below those that have ever been detected in a laboratory is easy to comprehend even though it is plainly absurd. And once you accept this absurdity it is easier to accept other observational inconsistencies, like the fact that heavier clouds don’t fall out of the sky like bricks as convection theory would seem to predict.

    The correct understanding of what is happening in the atmosphere with H2O is incredibly complex. There is a dichotomy. And, Roger, the way you worded the question gets right to the crux of the dichotomy. I would rephrase it as follows: Are individual H2O molecules more electromagnetically active than collective H2O molecules? And might this explain why/how they are able to get together efficiently to form a dewdrop. For purposes of argument, let’s just say the answer to this question is yes. And this brings us right to the dichotomy: If they are highly charged why aren’t the droplets highly charged? In other words, if gaseous H2O molecules have such extreme electromagnetic charges that they are able to find one another despite being dispersed amongst 10,000 N2, O2 and such then why oh why aren’t droplets/clusters of H2O electromagnetic powerhouses that would begin to attract any other droplets in their vicinity? In short, if monomolecular H2O (gaseous H2O — steam) is so electromagnetically active why are droplets, collective H2O, so electromagnetically passive?

    I struggled with this issue for about 2 years before I solved it. The solution has to do with the fact that H2O polarity is not a constant it is a variable. And hydrogen bonds are the mechanism that neutralizes H2O polarity. In other words, collectively H2O (liquid) is electromagnetically passive because its polarity has been neutralized by hydrogen bonds. It is at this point that things become extremely complex and confusing.

    I have written a paper on this. If you are interested do a search for the following:
    Hydrogen Bonds Neutralize H2O Polarity James McGinn

  274. suricat says:

    tallbloke says: February 9, 2016 at 3:34 pm

    “I am demonstrating that Will J’s claim that atmospheric pressure is due to ‘isotropic gravitation’ is wrong.”

    Inappropriate perhaps, but not ‘wrong’. Gravity, per se, acts in a given ‘trajectory’ (towards the center of the local mass). This makes ‘gravity’, per se, a ‘linear’ subject!

    Whilst its inappropriate to mention an ‘isotropic’ quality for a ‘linear’ subject, its excusable IMHO. All we want to do here is ‘talk’ between ourselves.

    “Can we get at least this one point agreed please.”

    I concur that Will J’s claims were ‘inappropriate’. However, I’m sure that I’m not the only reader of your site that recognised this. Most readers are here to improve their understanding. Most posters are here to improve readers understanding. Its just unfortunate that Will J’s remarks were below the standard of post required here.

    I’ll miss his goading remarks. 🙂

    Best regards, Ray.

  275. tallbloke says:

    Will occasionally drops comments here. If one of them appears to add something of value to the discussion, I’ll let it through. I’ve had enough of the obfuscation and goading for now. It’ll leave room for people like Ben Wouters to put in their thoughts. If he ever comes back.

  276. Roger Clague says:

    tallbloke says:
    February 5, 2016 at 9:30 am
    if we increase the temperature of the gas, the pressure increases. According to classical theory, this is due to an increase in the vibration rate of the molecules increasing the kinetic energy of the gas.
    According to Kinetic theory of gas the motion of the molecules is random in direction and velocity, it is not vibration. Vibration is regular and repeated motion relative to a fixed point.

    tallbloke says:
    February 8, 2016 at 8:24 am
    Isotropic
    (of an object or substance) having a physical property which has the same value when measured in different directions.
    (of a property or phenomenon) not varying in magnitude according to the direction of measurement.

    It is useful to classify the substances and properties we are discussing as isotropic or monotropic.
    Inertial mass, charge and pressure are isotropic (same in all directions).
    Gravitational mass and weight are monotropic (only acting up and down).
    This suggests gas pressure could be caused by inertial mass and charge, but not by gravitational mass and weight.

    [Reply] You’re back to your ‘pressure can only be caused by one thing’ schtick, which is incorrect. An you already said yourself that molecules hitting the bottom of the box do so at a higher velocity due to acceleration gravity than those hitting the top, due to deceleration by gravity. It’s about time you started integrating the knowledge you already have don’t you think?

  277. Roger Clague says:

    wayne says:
    February 5, 2016 at 5:55 pm
    sounds like you[suricat] think little of the well established kinetic theory of gases…

    Pressure in gas is not only caused only by momentum of molecules. Kinetic theory of gas includes the fundamental postulate of elastic rebound.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory_of_gases
    Assumption 5.

    There has to be something which changes the momentum by elastic rebound. That is a sold wall or electron cloud repulsion.
    The small Van-der-Waal corrections shows how correct assumption 5 is.

  278. Will Janoschka says:

    tallbloke says: February 10, 2016 at 10:27 am

    “Will occasionally drops comments here. If one of them appears to add something of value to the discussion, I’ll let it through. I’ve had enough of the obfuscation and goading for now. It’ll leave room for people like Ben Wouters to put in their thoughts. If he ever comes back.”

    Fine TB, Money same place as mouth!! I stated that the Earth’s gravitational field is nearly isotropic and that this property is required for this atmospheric pressure. You claim to redefine the meaning of isotropic to suit your linear thinking, then in the same paragraph claim, that Earth’s gravitational anisotropy is less than 0.034% of that gravitational force in Newtons.
    Which is it? In which direction would all the Earth’s atmosphere go squirting off to space if the Earth’s gravitational field were not nearly isotropic? This same volumetric consideration is required for even trying to estimate the actual magnitude of Earth’s atmospheric mass!
    ————————————————————————–
    Leave this rest off if you must…. Why must you insist on trying to over simplify, ‘perhaps’ the most complex scientific situation ever presented to mankind, Earth’s dynamic atmosphere???.
    Can we not start by trying to list in detail:
    1). What is known of this atmosphere, along with proof of such knowledge.
    2). What is unknown of this atmosphere, along with conjecture as to the difficulty in acquiring such knowledge.
    3). What is presented of this atmosphere, as correct, by the discipline of meteorology!
    4). The killer!! Why dey do dat???
    —————————————————————————-
    BTW The fine balancing act between linear and angular momentum (Ray’s inertia) of the compressible fluid ‘atmosphere’ in conjunction with that of the incompressible fluid ‘ocean’, is of required consideration as such is all measurable. Not fair to discard such into ‘dark matter’, ‘dark energy’, or ‘black holes’, all racist terms!
    May I freely post under my universally accepted descriptive pseudonym (thatasshole™)?
    All the best! -will-

  279. suricat says:

    Roger Clague says: February 10, 2016 at 1:13 pm

    “It is useful to classify the substances and properties we are discussing as isotropic or monotropic.”

    I think the term ‘monotropic’ is unhelpful. ‘Mono tropic tendency’ is usually referred to in connection with ‘crystal growth’, ‘autism’, etc., better to be more careful with setting our ‘scenario’ and mention all the parameters under consideration.

    “Gravitational mass and weight are monotropic (only acting up and down).”

    Disagree! A ‘gravitational mass’ is ‘isotropic’ because it exerts an ~equal ‘force’ to all other surrounding ‘mass entities’, which isn’t to say that all the surrounding ‘mass entities’ exert the same ‘force’ (nuf said for now).

    However, ‘weight’ is a ‘relative term’ used in everyday life that ‘Jo Public’ can more easily come to terms with. Please don’t obfuscate ‘weight’ with ‘inertia’, as ‘the two’ are ‘inseparable’ and we really do need to understand ‘inertia’ well to come to terms with atmospheric behaviour.

    “This suggests gas pressure could be caused by inertial mass and charge,”

    Impossible! You’re looking at a ‘symptom’ and not the ’cause’!

    Sol warmed the Earth and evaporated some compounds and elements at its surface. These compounds and elements gained ‘ke’ (kinetic energy) to do this.

    Free from Earth’s surface, these miniature ‘mass entities’ discovered Earth’s ‘gravity field’. The ‘weight’ that these ‘miniature’ mass entities presented to Earth’s gravity field overpowers the ability for these ‘miniature mass entities’ to stray far from Earth’s surface.

    The ‘miniature mass entities’ didn’t possess enough ‘mass’ at the speed that they gained from Sol’s insolation to achieve an ‘escape velocity’ through the ‘soup’ of ‘other miniature mass entities’ that were now in the substrate that we call ‘the atmosphere’ (either their ‘inertia’, or their ‘velocity’, value was too small).

    “but not by gravitational mass and weight.”

    No! This ‘is’ the initial means of ‘pressure generation’ in Earth’s atmosphere, heck, for any planet or moon with an atmosphere!

    Ray.

  280. suricat says:

    Consider yourself ‘told’ RC! 🙂

    Best regards, Ray.

  281. suricat says:

    Roger Clague says: February 10, 2016 at 1:14 pm

    “Pressure in gas is not only caused only by momentum of molecules. Kinetic theory of gas includes the fundamental postulate of elastic rebound.”

    Thanx for the ‘backup’ RC.

    Not only does this ‘postulation’ suggest that ‘energetic’ ‘mean free path’ is determined by ‘density’ (the distance between ‘micro mass entities’). It also strongly suggests that the electromagnetic effect is bound to the ‘movement of mass’ by the ‘electromagnetic’ influence of ‘mass’ per se!

    I’ll think more on this. Thanx RC. 🙂

    Best regards, Ray.

  282. James McGinn says:

    WJ: Which is it? In which direction would all the Earth’s atmosphere go squirting off to space if the Earth’s gravitational field were not nearly isotropic? This same volumetric consideration is required for even trying to estimate the actual magnitude of Earth’s atmospheric mass!

    JM: I don’t get what you point is with this isotropic stuff, Will. So I think Roger is right to be concerned that you are just spamming with this.

  283. wayne says:

    “Pressure in gas is not only caused only by momentum of molecules.”

    Sorry RC, but the pressure in gases is only caused by the momentum of molecules. Momentum is a vector. A vector has a quantity and a direction and in a still gas these momentums are random and therefore always sum to the null vector.

    Think along the lines of a mono-directional cue ball’s vector breaking a rack of biliard balls, upon collision, that momentum is randomized in direction into the ten balls involved but the sum of the eleven balls is still the same as the original cue ball. The “pressure” is now imparted against at least three sides as the eleven balls bounce in different directions hitting the bumpers. Now take a random million examples simultaneeously all in random setups and that alone describes the origin of pressure to a tee.

  284. wayne says:

    [spell-checked]

    “Pressure in gas is not only caused only by momentum of molecules.”

    Sorry RC, but the pressure in gases is only caused by the momentum of molecules. Momentum is a vector. A vector has a quantity and a direction and in a still gas these momentums are random and therefore always sum to the null vector.

    Think along the lines of a mono-directional cue ball’s vector breaking a rack of billiard balls, upon collision, that momentum is randomized in direction into the ten balls involved but the sum of the eleven balls is still the same as the original cue ball. The “pressure” is now imparted against at least three sides as the eleven balls bounce in different directions hitting the bumpers. Now take a random million examples simultaneously all in random setups and that alone describes the origin of pressure to a tee.

  285. Roger Clague says:

    TB Feb 10:
    You’re back to your ‘pressure can only be caused by one thing’ schtick, which is incorrect.

    After 1644 up to 1738 the physical mechanism for air pressure was weight.
    After 1738 we also have Kinetic theory of gas. Pressure caused by elastic rebound of molecules
    The consensus hydrostatic equilibrium theory uses both mechanisms. It puts pressure caused by weight equal to pressure caused by motion.
    I believe Kinetic theory can replace the hydrostatic equation
    An you already said yourself that molecules hitting the bottom of the box do so at a higher velocity due to acceleration gravity than those hitting the top, due to deceleration by gravity.
    This is one mechanism. Change in acceleration with height causing change in velocity

  286. Roger Clague says:

    suricat says:
    February 11, 2016 at 12:30 am

    A ‘gravitational mass’ is ‘isotropic’ because it exerts an ~equal ‘force’ to all other surrounding ‘mass entities’, which isn’t to say that all the surrounding ‘mass entities’ exert the same ‘force’

    A molecule of gas is a gravitational mass. It does exert equal force to all other surrounding mass entities.
    What are the mass entities surrounding a molecule of gas?
    The other mass entities are the Earth and other molecules.
    A molecule is in the force field of the Earth and the force field of the surrounding molecules.
    The force field of the Earth on a molecule is in one direction, down. This because the Earth has much more mass than a molecule.
    The mass and charge force fields caused by other molecules are equal in all directions, isotropic, inertial.

    Please don’t obfuscate ‘weight’ with ‘inertia’, as ‘the two’ are ‘inseparable’ and we really do need to understand ‘inertia’ well to come to terms with atmospheric behavior.

    Weight and inertia are different and thus separable
    F = ma Newton’s 2nd law of motion
    F = ma is for inertial isotropic mass which resists change of velocity in any direction equally.
    W = mg is for gravitational mass. In my opinion, a special case of F = ma for a = g of Earth and thus in only one direction only.

  287. suricat says:

    Inconclusive!
    ‘A gas molecule is positioned within Earth’s gravity field (with all its connotations) and is affected locally by neighboring molecules (not necessarily gas molecules) WRT “electrostatic compression” and “motion kinetic (electrostatic) rebound”. The effect of Earth’s gravity field ~overwhelms any inter-molecular gravity field interaction by gas molecules and they tend to be forced towards “Earth’s gravity Barry center” (special case) with a proportional increase in “electrostatic compression” as the “mass population density increases.’
    May, perhaps, be a little more accurate, but I know its more complex than this.

    “The force field of the Earth on a molecule is in one direction, down. This because the Earth has much more mass than a molecule.”

    Not if you live in New Zealand and I’m in the UK! Full scenario please. 😉 As I said above, all atmospheric molecules ‘gravitate’ towards “Earth’s gravity Barry center” “(special case)”. This is ‘isotropic’ (we’re unsure of the ‘origin’ of the force, mass attraction as a ‘weak force’ with a ‘distant’ teleconnection, or vacuum pressure as a ‘weak force’ with a ‘distant’ teleconnection), IOW its definitely a ‘mono-directional’ isotropic field with/of an unknown source. Thus, it ‘has to be’ ‘isotropic’ because we don’t know which direction the “source” comes from. You’re beginning to give/offer your scenario with a Ben Wouters flavour.

    “The mass and charge force fields caused by other molecules are equal in all directions, isotropic, inertial.”

    No. ‘The mass and charge fields caused by other molecules are equal in all directions, isotropic’. Is how I would concur with that statement, but any ‘statement for ‘inertia’ requires an introduction to the/a ‘reference frame’ with a ‘zero kinetic’ (or a means to establish this) that can calibrate the ‘inertial kinetic’ for component constituents of the ‘system configuration/component constituents’ within the scenario. More data is required.

    “Weight and inertia are different and thus separable”

    No they’re not! Even Einstein and his discussion group realised this when discussing ‘false gravity’ inside an ‘accelerating’ ‘lift’! The ‘reactionary force’ of ‘acceleration’ is identical to a ‘gravity field’ of some value.

    “F = ma Newton’s 2nd law of motion
    F = ma is for inertial isotropic mass which resists change of velocity in any direction equally.
    W = mg is for gravitational mass. In my opinion, a special case of F = ma for a = g of Earth and thus in only one direction only.”

    This is ‘disappointing’ RC. Sorry for the disparity. 😦 What is the ‘reference frame’? Inertial impact/value needs a ‘reference frame’ that sets ‘KE’ (Kinetic Energy) at a ‘basic’ ‘zero’ and is the ‘set point’ for ‘PE’ (potential energy). All variant energetic events progress from this. There may well be a ‘statistically progressive curve’, but this isn’t a point of discussion here AFAIK.

    Best regards, Ray.

  288. suricat says:

    Roger Clague says: February 11, 2016 at 3:52 pm

    “A molecule of gas is a gravitational mass. It does exert equal force to all other surrounding mass entities.
    What are the mass entities surrounding a molecule of gas?
    The other mass entities are the Earth and other molecules.”

    I concur.

    “A molecule is in the force field of the Earth and the force field of the surrounding molecules.”

    Inconclusive!
    ‘A gas molecule is positioned within Earth’s gravity field (with all its connotations) and is affected locally by neighboring molecules (not necessarily gas molecules) WRT “electrostatic compression” and “motion kinetic (electrostatic) rebound”. The effect of Earth’s gravity field ~overwhelms any inter-molecular gravity field interaction by gas molecules and they tend to be forced towards “Earth’s gravity Barry center” (special case) with a proportional increase in “electrostatic compression” as the “mass population density increases.’
    May, perhaps, be a little more accurate, but I know its more complex than this.

    “The force field of the Earth on a molecule is in one direction, down. This because the Earth has much more mass than a molecule.”

    Not if you live in New Zealand and I’m in the UK! Full scenario please. 😉 As I said above, all atmospheric molecules ‘gravitate’ towards “Earth’s gravity Barry center” “(special case)”. This is ‘isotropic’ (we’re unsure of the ‘origin’ of the force, mass attraction as a ‘weak force’ with a ‘distant’ teleconnection, or vacuum pressure as a ‘weak force’ with a ‘distant’ teleconnection), IOW its definitely a ‘mono-directional’ isotropic field with/of an unknown source. Thus, it ‘has to be’ ‘isotropic’ because we don’t know which direction the “source” comes from. You’re beginning to give/offer your scenario with a Ben Wouters flavour.

    “The mass and charge force fields caused by other molecules are equal in all directions, isotropic, inertial.”

    No. ‘The mass and charge fields caused by other molecules are equal in all directions, isotropic’. Is how I would concur with that statement, but any ‘statement for ‘inertia’ requires an introduction to the/a ‘reference frame’ with a ‘zero kinetic’ (or a means to establish this) that can calibrate the ‘inertial kinetic’ for component constituents of the ‘system configuration/component constituents’ within the scenario. More data is required.

    “Weight and inertia are different and thus separable”

    No they’re not! Even Einstein and his discussion group realised this when discussing ‘false gravity’ inside an ‘accelerating’ ‘lift’! The ‘reactionary force’ of ‘acceleration’ is identical to a ‘gravity field’ of some value.

    “F = ma Newton’s 2nd law of motion
    F = ma is for inertial isotropic mass which resists change of velocity in any direction equally.
    W = mg is for gravitational mass. In my opinion, a special case of F = ma for a = g of Earth and thus in only one direction only.”

    This is ‘disappointing’ RC. Sorry for the disparity. 😦 What is the ‘reference frame’? Inertial impact/value needs a ‘reference frame’ that sets ‘KE’ (Kinetic Energy) at a ‘basic’ ‘zero’ and is the ‘set point’ for ‘PE’ (potential energy). All variant energetic events progress from this. There may well be a ‘statistically progressive curve’, but this isn’t a point of discussion here AFAIK.

    Best regards, Ray.

    PS. Mods, please delete my prior post on this response to RC. Things were missing.

  289. suricat says:

    suricat says: February 13, 2016 at 3:32 am

    Wot! No reply yet RC? This says that you are either otherwise predisposed, or ‘thinking’.

    Please look at the equations that you posted, then see this vid that colourfully describes your equation’s shortcomings.

    Did you notice the ‘infinity’ condition between ‘F’ and ‘ma’?

    The ‘infinity condition’ is applied when the further progression of ‘known physics’ is incomplete (not unlike the ’tilde’ (~) that we use here to advise an approximation).

    The ‘math’ is an ‘approximation’ and nothing more.

    RSPV.

    I’d like to discuss ‘inertia’ in future posts, but this subject is dependant upon the future directions of this thread.

    Best regards, Ray.

  290. Will Janoschka says:

    TB, perhaps this appears to add something of value to the discussion, of those left with sufficient technical experience to discuss the scientific basics of this atmosphere, rather than the fantasy of meteorology!

    suricat says: February 14, 2016 at 2:27 am

    “I’d like to discuss ‘inertia’ in future posts, but this subject is dependant upon the future directions of this thread. Best regards, Ray.”

    Very good! Your ∝ symbol means ‘proportional to’ and is a assignment statement! The meaning is such that mass acceleration/deceleration requires such force but never means that such force must result in acceleration of such mass. Not an equal sign!
    The concept of ‘weight’ is a commercial trade term referring to the value of the measurable countering “strain” to the “force of gravity acting on that mass” (heaviness) in order to prevent such gravitational acceleration!
    Such measurement of “atmospheric” mass, weight, strain, heaviness within the atmosphere is impossible! Any spontaneous tendency to gravitational acceleration of the atmosphere, at any point in the atmosphere, has been eliminated, by the gravitationally induced pressure structure of the atmosphere!!! Atmosphere is not but gas, or air, it remains a carefully structured compressible fluid! Weight (strain) ∝ mass x g(f) in N/kg, only if that same strain eliminates such gravitational acceleration!
    Surface pressure times surface area is the force required, in Newtons, to prevent the total collapse of the atmosphere. That force divided by (surface area x g(f)) is never the atmospheric columnar mass of that area in the direction of zenith! Pascal’s mistake! Pressure does not work that way on a compressible fluid!! Columnar mass is likely 1/PI that amount! Airborne water condensate (cloud), is somewhat compressible but not a gas. Uncertainty abounds!
    all the best! -will-

  291. Roger Clague says:

    suricat says:
    February 13, 2016 at 3:32 am

    all atmospheric molecules ‘gravitate’ towards “Earth’s gravity Barry center” “(special case)”. This is ‘isotropic’ … IOW its definitely a ‘mono-directional’ isotropic field with/of an unknown source.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter

    I see your point. The Earth’s field is a mono-directional isotropic field. It is in one direction at each point on its isotropic surface, UK or NZ.

    The gas molecular force fields and the gas pressure are different. They cause or resist motion in all directions at each point in the gas.

    The source of Earth’s gravity is the Earth mass. It is the physical mechanism that is not known.

    What is the ‘reference frame’?

    My point of reference is a gas molecule.

  292. Ben Wouters says:

    Will Janoschka says: February 14, 2016 at 6:45 pm
    “TB, perhaps this appears to add something of value to the discussion, of those left with sufficient technical experience to discuss the scientific basics of this atmosphere, rather than the fantasy of meteorology!”

    tallbloke says: February 10, 2016 at 10:27 am
    “Will occasionally drops comments here. If one of them appears to add something of value to the discussion, I’ll let it through. I’ve had enough of the obfuscation and goading for now. ”

    In this thread alone ~2100 posts on something simple as atmospheric convection.
    Still no sign of understanding of hydrostatic equlibrium, probably the most basic property of any atmosphere (and suns as well).
    Maybe time to give up, and leave understanding the atmosphere to meteorologists?

    From http://www.recreationalflying.com/tutorials/meteorology/section1a.html#atmospheric_pressure
    meant to provide some basic knowledge to recreational pilots:
    “As the pressure decreases with height so, in any parcel of air, the downwards pressure over the top of the parcel must be less than the upwards pressure under the bottom. Thus within the parcel there is a vertical component of the pressure gradient force acting upward. Generally this force is balanced by the gravitational force, so the net sum of forces is zero and the parcel floats in equilibrium. This balance of forces is called the hydrostatic balance. When the two forces do not quite balance, the difference is the buoyancy force. This is the upward or downward force exerted on a parcel of air arising from the density difference between the parcel and the surrounding air.”

  293. Roger Clague says:

    Ben Wouters says:
    February 15, 2016 at 10:51 am
    From http://www.recreationalflying.com/tutorials/meteorology/section1a.html#atmospheric_pressure
    meant to provide some basic knowledge to recreational pilots:
    “As the pressure decreases with height so, in any parcel of air, the downwards pressure over the top of the parcel must be less than the upwards pressure under the bottom. Thus within the parcel there is a vertical component of the pressure gradient force acting upward. Generally this force is balanced by the gravitational force, so the net sum of forces is zero and the parcel floats in equilibrium. This balance of forces is called the hydrostatic balance. When the two forces do not quite balance, the difference is the buoyancy force. “

    RC: Objections to this;
    1. “in any parcel of air”. A parcel is a fluid dynamics concept which by definition does not have molecular properties. Air is a gas which has molecular properties.
    2. What causes the upward pressure gradient force? It must be other than gravity which it balances and is a down force.. It could be motion of molecules. But motion of molecules is not part of fluid mechanics (see 1.).
    3. There is not a balance between upward pressure (caused by motion?) and downward pressure caused by weight. The upward pressure and downward pressure are both caused by motion.

    BW: “This [buoyancy] is the upward or downward force exerted on a parcel of air arising from the density difference between the parcel and the surrounding air.”

    Above it says up and down forces are caused by pressure. How do you change to density?

    We agree that gravity causes air pressure. But no one knows what causes gravity (gravity waves of what?) So we will continue to disagree on how gravity causes air pressure.

    I think number density and inertial mass of molecules cause gas pressure.

    [Reply] However, as Roger C has already agreed, gravity is also a cause of atmospheric pressure. TB

  294. Oh dear, the confusion here is so depressing but Ben W is closest to the truth.

    At the surface, kinetic energy is at maximum so the molecules are vibrating as fast as mass, gravity and insolation allow.

    Each molecule in the vertical column vibrates against the next molecule up and so that kinetic vibrational energy is transmitted up through the entire column by conduction but as volume increases with height that vibrational energy is spread across greater distances as the density decreases.

    That upward ‘push’ of energy offsets the force of gravity until the system reaches hydrostatic equilibrium at which point the upward pressure gradient force is equal to the downward gravitational force.

    It is entirely a function of kinetic energy at the surface and it follows that if the atmosphere is to remain suspended off the surface then a portion of the surface kinetic energy cannot be permitted to radiate to space.

    That is why the surface beneath a convecting atmosphere must be warmer than the S-B prediction. It is a consequence of conduction and convection and NOT radiation.

    As the kinetic energy being conducted upward is spread across greater distances it becomes potential energy rather than kinetic energy and PE does not register as heat so the temperature falls.

    At any given moment half the atmosphere is rising and half is falling so KE becomes PE in rising columns and PE becomes KE in falling columns.

    Once upon a time this was all established science but the education of recent decades has been pitifully inadequate.

    The concept of ‘parcels’ of rising or falling air is perfectly realistic as one can see from the shape of clouds or feel from the bumpiness of clear air turbulence.

    Nothing in nature is perfectly smooth, even or regular so the concept of ‘parcels’ correctly deals with that natural irregularity of physical phenomena.

  295. James McGinn says:

    Stephen Wilde: The concept of ‘parcels’ of rising or falling air is perfectly realistic as one can see from the shape of clouds or feel from the bumpiness of clear air turbulence.

    Stephen’s explanation might seem to make sense, as long as you ignore the extensive evidence that it fails to explain–like jet streams and why they happen to be located at the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere.

  296. James,

    There is nothing in the parcel concept that is inconsistent with more general meteorological observations. Multiple parcels combine to create a general flow.

    I deal with jet streams in some detail here:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/

  297. A, Ames says:

    oldbrew:

    Some lattice Boltzmann modeling of convection here.

    Click to access report930.pdf


    It is a long way from being able to model a thunderhead or hurricane but it is a beginning.

  298. Roger Clague says:

    Roger C: I think number density and inertial mass of molecules cause gas pressure.

    TB: However, as Roger C has already agreed, gravity is also a cause of atmospheric pressure.

    By gravity I assume you mean the gravity caused by the planet with the atmosphere.
    Gas pressure is possible in interstellar molecular gas clouds without planetary gravity.

    I think planet gravity causes the gas pressure gradient in an atmosphere.

  299. Roger Clague says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    February 15, 2016 at 5:03 pm

    SW: Each molecule in the vertical column vibrates against the next molecule up
    RC: Gas molecules do not vibrate. Vibration is motion at a fixed velocity and a fixed distance and to and from a fixed point. Gas molecules translate. They travel a range of distances at a range of velocities.
    SW: and so that kinetic vibrational energy is transmitted up through the entire column by conduction
    RC: Energy is transmitted in a gas by diffusion
    SW: but as volume increases with height that vibrational energy is spread across greater distances as the density decreases.
    RC: The change in volume of a column of air in the atmosphere up to the tropopause is small. Density decreases because of decrease of pressure
    SW: That upward ‘push’ of energy offsets the force of gravity until the system reaches hydrostatic equilibrium at which point the upward pressure gradient force is equal to the downward gravitational force.
    You accept the cause of this upward force is caused by molecular motion. But a fluid dynamics parcel has no internal properties
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parcel
    “a volume of a fluid (as air) considered as a single entity within a greater volume of the same fluid”
    SW:,i>Nothing in nature is perfectly smooth, even or regular so the concept of ‘parcels’ correctly deals with that natural irregularity of physical phenomena.
    RC: Gas has 10 ^23 molecules in 30cm cube. The motion of the molecules is random and therefore regular and can be predicted by Maxwell-Boltzmann statistical mechanics