Simple Greenhouse Model 2: The Reckoning
Previously, I looked at a tutorial model of the Earth’s greenhouse effect (image, above), like this one from Harvard University.
To review how these models are typically presented, an arrow of sunlight heats the surface, which in turn heats an overhead layer of greenhouse gases to the same temperature, so the layer radiates the same heat intensity downward, thus doubling the radiant energy impinging on the surface.
My focus the last time was that “watts” refer to an energy rate, so if 240 Joules per second are being spent (exiting to space) while 240 Joules per second are being earned (absorbed), there’s no room for a thermal savings account. The notion that gases like CO2 “trap heat” is therefore a myth.
This time the focus is on Radiative Forcing. The model alleges that surface heat excites the atmospheric layer, which then excites the surface. This means that the two bodies are thermally coupled. If this is the case, however, then the now-warmer surface should warm the layer even more, and we’d expect to see something like this.
The thermally coupled layer heats the surface, which heats the layer, which heats the surface, and so on.
Yet this does not occur in the model: After a single stroke of added warmth, communication ceases. This calls into question whether such an interaction can occur in the first place. To settle that question, go to Engineering Toolbox, scroll down to the Radiation Heat Transfer Calculator, enter the same temperature in both boxes, press Calculate, and see how many watts the “hot” one radiates to the “cold” one. I’ll wait.
As you see, two radiations from two equally heated bodies do not combine; they cancel out instead.
Ah, you may say, but that’s why the simple model is flawed: complex models avoid such an error.
Well no, complex models plow right into it.
Here I’ve inserted Celsius temperatures beside a few of the radiant fluxes marked on a complex greenhouse model. (To verify these temperatures, you can go to Science Facts – Temperature Conversions, set Albedo to 0, and enter any listed flux.)
The bottom left of the chart shows that the surface falls to 64 W/m² (note the up arrows) after initially gaining 161. The bottom right shows what happens when 333 is added to 64: 397. Nearly 1 watt is diverted, so the surface now radiates 396 at 16 degrees. This is radiative forcing, i.e., mindless addition, at work.
To those who insist that a 4° body can heat a cooler body to 16°, what more can I say?
To the rest, here’s a take-home lesson:
-
The purpose of the tutorial model is to convince initiates that radiative heat transfer is accomplished by addition. But two cold things do not make a hot.
-
Radiated heat is transferred by difference. Simply put, a receptive 80 watt object exposed to 100 watts will absorb another 20 watts, max. It will not attain 180 watts.
- Since radiative forcing – the addition of opposing fluxes – is a fiction, and since this is greenhouse theory’s central tenet, greenhouse theory is a false paradigm.
About the author: Alan Siddons is a former radio chemist but now leading climate researcher and science writer Alan has been a pioneer exposing a myriad of errors woven into post-normal climate science. Alan uses clear examples and common sense reasoning to illustrate where and why it all went wrong for politicized ‘goal-oriented’ government climate research.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Pierre-D Bernier
| #
My drop of water…
The Inconvenient Spotlight
A spotlight is made of a filament enclosed in a sealed vacuum globe, a back polished parabolic aluminium reflector and a front transparent glass lens. When the power is set on, the filament glows to about 3000K and emits light. We can see the light because it passes through the front lens. We can also feel some Infrared light passing through the lens because the temperature of the lens reaches about 200 C which is 473K. According to the Stefan-Botlzman law, 473K is the equivalent of emitting 2838 W/m2. This 2838 W/m2 is emitted externally and internally from the lens where it will be reflected by the back reflector. Now the lens receives both the filament energy and the internally reflected energy for a total of 5676 W/m2. If the Greenhouse Effect is true then according to the Stefan-Boltzman law this is equivalent to 562K or 289 C. Now, that lens has to emit more energy to cool off, 5676 W/m2 outward and inward which will also be reflected by the back reflector. So, now the lens receives 8514 W/m2 which is equivalent to 622K or 349 C. This continuous heating cycle must result in continuous increases in temperature causing increases in radiative emissions and it has no end. If the Greenhouse Effect is true then no spotlight should ever be operational. They will all blowup instantaneously. Since they do work then the Greenhouse Effect is not real.
QED.
Reply
J Cuttance
| #
That’s a good extension of warmie reasoning, though I suspect the filament you describe would have to be more than 200C to produce light.
Reply
Pierre-D Bernier
| #
Doesn’t matter where you start. You’ll end up at the same point… Filament meltdown !
Reply
tom0mason
| #
Yes Alan Siddons,
A massive flaw in the AGW paradigm.
The other major flaw is the idea that averaging the sun’s radiant energy flux over the whole plant’s surface can tell you anything about the climate — it can not, it is an illogical oversimplification to think it can.
The sun’s radiant energy flux is most highly concentrated at the equator. This sets-up the temperature and pressure differential (and also the humidity differential) across the globe from equator to poles, and from the day light side to the night time side on our spinning planet. On our spinning planet these differentials power the dynamic movement of the air (and sea surface temperatures) that gives us the weather and ultimately our local climates.
Averaging the solar energy flux across the planet’s surface removes all the air cell action from the planet (no Hadley cell, Temperate cell, or Polar cell) and all the kinetic energetic dynamics of air and water that’s in them and between them. Averaging this solar input across the planet surface removes all the adiabatic movement from the system — a movement that is FUNDAMENTAL to our weather’s and climate’s evolution.
It has been said “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” This averaging of the Sun’s energy IS an example of Oversimplification to the point of absurdity! Knowing this average may be useful for something but for finding nature and actions of the weather and climate it is not.
Reply
Barry
| #
Thanks Alan, really a great article. Simple enough for us lay people to understand and yet scientifically accurate. I feel if we can’t convince the average person on the street what a crime this whole climate change thing is they will never demand that politicians quit with all the stupidity. Just look what is happening in Texas in an industrialized country,its unbelievable that people are loosing their life over such a simple thing as keeping the heat on.
Reply
J Cuttance
| #
Wow, 333 W/m2 in back radiation! That’s twice as much as the sun. Why aren’t we harnessing that free energy? Back radiation panels should even work at night.
Reply
steve
| #
This is heresy Alan. The punishment will be ridicule, scorn and rejection of you as a scientist. Moreover, further punishment will be sent your way in the form of criticism of you as a “bad type of person” and therefore ostracism from employment and grants. For you have questioned the very basics of the sacred greenhouse wherein worship of the warming Gods is performed. You have undermined the ten commandments of global warming and will be forever ostracised from the consensus of the high priests of climate change.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Well done Alan.
There still remains the fundamental problem: you can”t cure stupidity with reason. As long as people are paid to be stupid they will continue to be stupid.
It is truly amazing that the GHGT continues to hold sway even though there is absolutely nothing in it that is correct: the atmosphere is not a greenhouse, there is no greenhouse effect, there are no greenhouse gases, the Earth is not flat, the quantity of GHGs could not produce the results they claim, etc..It is a horrendous con masquerading as science.
Reply
Max DeLoaches
| #
I am not a scientist but I do like to research. When I looked at both presented diagrams, I noticed that the Harvard one had the incoming solar radiation being divided by 4. So instead of 1365 watts/square meter you get 341.3 watts/square meter. Wouldn’t this equation put the Earth 2 time or 186 million miles away from the Sun? I guess it would also make the Earth flat by eliminating night!!
Am I missing something here?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Max and Herb,
Herb, when he wrote “There still remains the fundamental problem: you can”t cure stupidity with reason.” is absolutely correct. Science is founded on the observations like those of day and night to which you (Max) correctly observed.
And I review a statement credited to Einstein. “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Max DeLoaches
| #
Thanks Jerry, I am a systems trouble shooting analyst so I dwell on every word spoken or reported in text. By doing that I have been able solve some presumed unsolvable situations by eliminating assumptions.
You have good day too, Max
Reply
Joseph Postma
| #
Max, have you seen this?
https://climateofsophistry.com/2021/02/19/climate-change-denial-of-earths-orbit-astrophysics/
That’s exactly what they’re doing and what has happened! 🙂
Reply
Max DeLoaches
| #
Hi Joseph, I have watched links and also looking at the rest of your material. Very interesting and educational, it must be very frustrating for you to watch as academia and governments totally ignore true science. You have a new fan.
Reply
Norman
| #
Joseph Postma
Your ignorance is baffling. You seem smart but act as dumb as someone who never learned a lick of science.
You can’t grasp that the 342 is a calculated constant for each part of the Earth’s surface.
Roy Spencer has tried to explain it to you. You have this mental block an go on a rant just sounding dumb about not being able to understand a simple concept.
I will give you the measured values.
I gave them to you on your blog but you were not able to grasp the information or just did not want to, you banned me for showing how ignorant you really are.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_60331fc8dd4de.png
This is the reality you seem oblivious to. The solar input energy per square meter is 26,880,000 joules for this location. If you had a constant source it would be equivalent to 311 Watts/m^2. That you can’t grasp the Earth’s surface is 4 times larger than a circle and a circle area is all the solar energy you get that if you spread the energy to each square meter equally you get the 342 value.
Reply
Gary Ahe
| #
Your a phucking crackpot mate,……funny as your idiotic smugness is people like you are why the world is such a mess.
Reply
geran
| #
The GHE is pseudoscience, as is the phony “energy balance”.
I’m glad Alan Siddons showed the corresponding blackbody temperature of the 333 W/m^2 — 3.86 ºC (38.6 ºF). That compares to Earth’s average temperature of 14.9 ºC (58.7 ºF). 3.86º cannot warm something at 14.9º!
Reply
Norman
| #
Alan Siddons
I do not know why intelligent people like you cannot understand what the GHE is. With your tool box example, if two objects are the same temperature no heat flows between them, the temperature does not increase or decrease. The atmosphere is NOT heating the surface to a higher temperature. The atmosphere and back radiation are reducing the amount of NET energy (Heat) is lost by the surface. With no GHE the surface would lose 396 W/m^2 and cool very fast. With only 161 (average covers both night and day cycle) solar input the surface would cool until it found a steady state temperature with the solar input. With the GHE going on the surface is STILL losing ENERGY!! The atmosphere is NOT warming the surface!! With the GHE going on the surface is still losing 63 W/m^2. Now the solar input exceeds the radiant energy loss by 98 W/m^2. With the GHE the solar input will drive up the temperature. It would be much warmer but he surface has other heat loss mechanisms the remove the 98 W/m^2 evaporation and thermals remove 97 of the 98 and you are left with a small increase in energy that is causing the warming trend. Pretty simple if your mind thinks logically.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Norman,
Are you saying that because the atmosphere does not absorb the visible or infrared spectrums it does not absorb radiated energy from the sun and is being heated by the surface of the Earth?
It takes 450,000 joules/mole to break an oxygen molecule and create oxygen atoms. This energy is coming from the Earth, through the troposphere and creating the ozone layer in the stratosphere?
If you look at the chemical composition of atmosphere it shows the greater the altitude the greater the energy of the molecules/atoms (O2, O3, NO, N2O,2, O, helium/hydrogen).The atmosphere is absorbing radiated energy (Law of thermodynamics) creating the ionosphere and thermosphere and that energy is radiated not only into space but also to the Earth’s surface.
Herb
Reply
Norman
| #
Herb Rose
No I am not making the claim that. The energy budget shows 78 W/m^2 absorbed by the atmosphere from the Sun. Some of this energy is part of the DWIR as well as the atmospheric UWIR. The density of those regions you describe is very thin. The kinetic energy of the individual molecules is high but the number of molecules are low.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Norman,
Is 78W/m^2 a relevant measurement for the atmosphere where the density of molecules gas varies from .00005 kg/m^3 at 80 km to 1.2 kg/m^3 at sea level? The kinetic energy of the molecules is determined not only by the amount of energy but also the number of molecules that energy is distributed to. How does the kinetic energy of the molecules in the atmosphere receiving 78W/m^2 compare to the kinetic energy of the 1000 kg/m^3 of water (more on land) receiving 396 W/m^2? The uv is heating the atmosphere in depth (95% absorbed) while the visible light is heating the surface. The molecules in the atmosphere will have more kinetic energy than the water molecules and they will add energy to those surface molecules.
Herb
Reply
geran
| #
Norman, I had forgotten how hilarious your pseudoscience can be.
Siddons clearly show what the GHE is claimed to be. See Figure 7.2. Then, he showed why it is so wrong. You want to deny that GHE, but make up your own GHE!
Hilarious.
Reply
Norman
| #
Geran
I do not make up my own GHE nor does Alan Siddoms do a good job of debunking it, he debunks what is not said.
The figure in 7.2 does not make any different claim than I have made. Maybe you need to use a little logic thought process, then you just might understand what I said.
Look at the energy budget diagram (there are no values in figure 7.2). It shows 161 solar input. It shows a surface emitting 396 upwards. It shows and atmosphere radiating 333 Downwards. Without GHE the surface would radiate 396 W/m^2 straight to space and the 161 would not be enough to keep the surface emitting at that rate. With the GHE the surface only loses a NET of 63 W/m^2.
Geran, I have no clue of your background knowledge of physics. I know Roy Spencer told you, “you need to study some physics”. With that in mind, a heated object has no set temperature it will reach in a steady state condition. If it is in colder air it will reach some temperature. Now if you insulate it it will reach a higher temperature, add some more insulation and it will get still warmer. The insulation is not adding energy to the object, the heat source is, yet with more insulation it will reach a higher temperature. It really is that simple. Open your mind just a bit and get off the contrarian wagon. It is not a logical place to ride. Use logic and physics.
Reply
geran
| #
Sorry Norman, it’s figure “7.12”, at the top of Alan Siddon’s post. (I was laughing too hard.)
So the unscientific GHE is trying to add flux. “Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases increase the absorption efficiency f of the atmosphere, and we see from equation (7.16) that an increase in the surface temperature “
As Alan pointed out: “But two cold things do not make a hot.”
Or, as I’ve told you numerous times, you can’t bake a turkey with ice cubes.
You’re as ignorant as you are hilarious.
Reply
Lit
| #
No, that´s not true. Reducing net loss of heat is done with insulation, insulation reduces heat transfer by reducing heat absorption in the surroundings of a warm body. GHG:s increase heat absorption, they do the opposite of reducing net loss of heat.
” Thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_insulation
“rather than absorbed”
Learn the basics.
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
Radiative gases [ so called greenhouse gases ] in the atmosphere receive more than 90% of their kinetic energy from molecular collisions with none radiating gases, that is the energy they radiate to space, that is the only way the TOA can cool, the 1% cools the 99%.
The more radiating molecules you put in the atmosphere the quicker the atmosphere will cool, the exact opposite of your crazy.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Norman: The atmosphere is NOT heating the surface to a higher temperature.
James: Right. There is no violation of the laws of thermodynamics. You are right to point out to Postma that his argument in this regard is a strawman (irrelevant).
Norman: The atmosphere and back radiation are reducing the amount of NET energy (Heat) is lost by the surface.
James: Right. Or we could even say that the atmosphere is warming the surface. (We could also say that it is insulating the surface, since insulation actually works by the same mechanism).
Norman: With no GHE the surface would lose 396 W/m^2 and cool very fast.
James: Wrong. With no ATMOSPHERE the surface would lose 396 W/m^2 and cool very fast. The term “greenhouse” has no place in this discussion because a greenhouse is a walled enclosure that prevents mixing of air and this discussion has no walled enclosures and no barriers to mixing of air. Surely you agree with this perfectly sensible assertion. Right?
Norman: And the reason the atmosphere would cool very fast is because, as you indicate above, the atmosphere does warm the surface. However, It is misleading and confusing to suggest that this necessarily has anything to do with or is analogous with a greenhouse. This is not to say there are not parallels between a greenhouse and the atmosphere. The air in a greenhouse and the air in earths atmosphere can/will get warmer mostly due to conduction with the surface (and the surface is being heated by the sun). However, radiative transfer (UWIR) plays a small role in any of this. This is what you and other global warming alarmist don’t understand. And there’s more. What you alarmist also don’t seem to be able to grasp is the fact that the role radiative transfer does play mostly has to do with water evaporating from the surface and, since water has a high heat capacity, gradually releasing IR, which is mostly occurring at night when the reflectivity of clouds blocking the sun above is not a factor (since the sun is shining on the other side of the planet at night).
So, all of this rhetoric about greenhouses and radiative transfer is obfuscation. Yes it is true that DWIR does warm/heat the surface. But this is mostly due to clouds. And clouds have a net negative effect on temperature due to the fact that they also block the sun during the day. Although it is true that clouds do have a net positive effect on temperature during the night (when there is no sun to be blocked) but the magnitude of this effect is negligible.
All in all, radiative transfer does not play the dominant role in heating the atmosphere that climate alarmist want the public to believe it plays. It is only by way of fooling the public into believing that radiative transfer does play the dominant role that these confused alarmist have been able to find any link to CO2. And without the link to CO2 there is no link to humans.
James McGinn / Genius
President of Solving Tornadoes
Reply
Carl
| #
According to your hypothesis there should be a direct correlation between the concentration of “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere and the temperature of the surface (measured ~1.5 meters above the ground.) Since the water content of the atmosphere in the form of humidity and clouds is said to cause up to 80% of the hypothetical “greenhouse effect”, if your hypothesis is true as the water content of the atmosphere increases the surface temperature should increase as well.
In 2011-2012 I ran an experiment to test this hypothesis using both personally gathered data and publicly available humidity and temperature readings and discovered that the opposite is true. As the yearly average humidity and cloud cover increase in a region, the yearly average surface temperature goes down.
If you want to review the experiment, I posted it on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2K1uHvfaek
I looked today to see if the video was still up and it is and was delighted to see that it has been honored by being flagged by YouTube as disinformation with a link redirecting the viewer to Wikipedia which even contradicts your point of view on the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis. Wikipedia say that, “the greenhouse effect is the process by which radiation from a planet’s atmosphere warms the planet’s surface . . .”
You say that, “The atmosphere is NOT warming the surface!!” but Wikipedia says that the atmosphere “warms the planet’s surface.” Even you have fallen short of today’s global Ministry of Truth, today’s infallible authority on all scientific questions.
Reply
Norman
| #
Carl
I liked your video and do not see why it is considered “disinformation”. You make good logical points. I have raised these same questions. Water Vapor is a very complex player in climate science. It does increase DWIR.
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
You can see this if you use this tool. Set the altitude to zero and select looking up, this will give you the DWIR at the surface. Change the 1 for water vapor to 1.1 and you will get a 7 watt/m^2 increase in DWIR in tropical atmosphere.
But water vapor cools the surface with evaporation and it shuts off solar input considerably which also has a cooling effect.
https://www.altestore.com/howto/solar-insolation-data-usa-cities-a35/
Also another factor of water vapor is it changes the amount of energy air holds at a given temperature. I ran your list of cities on the calculator and most have about the same amount of energy content with there different temperatures. The Water Vapor GHE is increasing the energy in the wet location allowing the air to hold as much energy as in the dry areas even though the dry areas receive a lot more solar energy.
http://humcal.com/
Since water vapor is so complex, I believe you did a good presentation showing it was not a positive feedback. I think the reason they are suggesting it is, is because the observed warming is much greater than what CO2 could accomplish. CO2 in 100 years would have increased the DWIR by around 2 watts/m^2 but the observed warming of about 1 C would require an increase in 5.5 Watts/m^2. The water vapor feedback was the hypothesis they use to explain this warming. You have shown this may not be the case. But still something needs to explain the observed warming.
The Wikipedia article does not exactly say this. “The greenhouse effect is the process by which radiation from a planet’s atmosphere warms the planet’s surface to a temperature above what it would be without this atmosphere.”
You have to add the last part. This still works quite well with what i have stated. The surface emits 396 W/m^2 so this is a loss. It regains 333 W/m^2 from the atmosphere so the NET loss is reduced from 396 to 63. With the incoming solar of 161 it is greater than the amount of heat loss of the surface by radiant mechanism and the surface can reach a warmer temperature than without the 333 back-radiation present. Moon’s average temperature is much below the Earth’s.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Norman,
I would recommend Dr. Gerald Pollack’s book “The Fourth Phase of Water”. It explains how water in the atmosphere is not a vapor (steam cannot exist below 100 C) but a liquid crystal and how the micro crystals absorb heat and carry it out of the troposphere, to be radiated into space. If not for water the temperature on the Earth would be similar to the moon.
If you make a graph, using the universal gas law, of altitude and the inverse of density (the volume of a constant number of molecules) it will give a image of the kinetic energy of gas molecules in the atmosphere. In the troposphere the ke increases linearly because of water while above the troposphere the ke increases exponentially.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Carl,
Your video is excellent and worthy of much wider distribution than it is getting.
I got two things from it, both of which I agree with fervently:
1) The net effect of H2O in the atmosphere is overwhelmingly that of negative feedback
2) The amount of uncertainty in the models that is due to the unknowns of H2O makes the use of the model useless for detecting the influence of other factors, such as CO2.
Norman seems to have grasped your first point but not the second.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Carl
| #
“. . . something needs to explain the observed warming.”
While we both agree that the presence of the atmosphere inhibits the ability of the ground to cool at night (during the day the ground warms due to Sunlight) we seem to disagree about what thermodynamic property of air causes the inhibition.
If I understand you correctly, you believe that the relevant thermodynamic property is how much IR radiation the air emits, which in turn is relative to the concentration of “greenhouse gases” in the air. Thus, within your paradigm the higher the concentration of “greenhouse gases” in the air the more the air inhibits the ability of the ground to cool at night via IR radiation.
The traditional “proof” that this is the case is the fact that high humidity air cools slower at night than low humidity air. This is a simple misattribution. The actual reason why humid air cools slower at night than arid air is the release of “latent heat”. That is, as nighttime air cools the reverse of evaporation occurs–the humidity in the air condenses out of the air to form dew. As this happens the thermal energy that was used to evaporate the water during the day is released back into the air during the night. You may have noticed that the low limit of nighttime cooling is set by the dew point.
At any rate, this release of “latent heat” keeps the temperature of humid air from dropping as quickly as does the temperature of arid air during the night. It has nothing to do with the amount of IR radiation that nighttime air might be emitting.
What I observed in the data that I put into my video is that the rate at which the ground cools at night is relative to the “temperature” differential between the ground and the cooler air that was in contact with the ground. Thus, whatever controls the “temperature” of the air near the ground also controls the temperature of the ground as per Newton’s Law of Cooling.
Newton’s Law of Cooling = “the rate of heat loss of a body is directly proportional to the difference in the temperatures between the body and its surroundings.”
The “surroundings” of the ground is the air that is in contact with it. Thus, it is the “temperature” of the air near the ground that inhibits the ability of the ground to cool at night, not the amount of IR radiation that the air might be emitting.
So we must ask: From where does the air near the ground get the thermal energy that maintains it temperature?
There are two sources:
1) The ground is heated by Sunlight every day and most of that heat is transferred to the atmosphere via convection, conduction, evaporation and via the IR radiation that the ground emits, which the air in turn absorbs.
2) the second source of thermal energy that maintains the temperature of ground level air is rarely acknowledged. What is that second source of thermal energy?
The air near the ground is a very small part of a very large thermodynamic system called the atmosphere. The subdivision of the atmosphere that is in contact with the ground is the Troposphere. It is about 11km thick and has an average temperature of about -18C. At its top the average temperature is about -60C and at its bottom–near the ground where weather stations monitor local temperatures, which get averaged into a “global temperature”–the temperature averages about 15C.
So, here is the question: Why is the bottom of the Troposphere 33C warmer than the average temperature of the entire Troposphere and conversely why is the top of the Troposphere 42C cooler than the average temperature of the entire Troposphere?
Simply put, the Troposphere is a giant air-conditioner/heat pump that transports, via the operation of the Ideal Gas Law, thermal energy from the low-pressure side of the system (the top) to the high pressure side of the system (the bottom). Nothing in science has been more thoroughly demonstrated or more universally accepted as being axiomatically true than the adiabatic cooling of ascending air as it moves from an area of high pressure (near the ground) to an area of progressively lower pressure as it ascends skyward. What is often neglected is the equal but opposite adiabatic heating of descending air as air moves from a low pressure area to a high pressure area. For example, the down-welling leg of the Hadley Cell at ~30 degrees latitude north and south.
I have a window-unit air-condition that blows cool air into my bedroom. If I simply turn the unit around it becomes a “heat pump”, which extracts thermal energy from cool outside air in the winter to warm the air that blows into my bedroom.
The massive atmospheric cells–the Hadley Cell, the Mid-latitude Cell and the Polar Cell–are, in reality, giant heat pump/air-conditioners. They simultaneously “heat” the lower Troposphere while “cooling” the upper Troposphere, which creates a 75C temperature differential between the Tropopause and the air near the ground. Thus these massive atmospheric cells not only transport thermal energy from lower to higher latitudes, they extract thermal energy from the upper Troposphere and transport that thermal energy to the lower Troposphere.
Those who are not aware that the air that they are currently taking the temperature of was heated adiabatically on its way to their location conclude that its temperature is “higher than it should be” because they are basing their assumption of what the temperature of the air “should be” solely on the amount of Solar energy that is incident upon the ground at their location. The adiabatic heating of descending air is completely ignored.
To explain where this extra “mystery” thermal energy came from, 19th century scientists, like John Tyndall, concocted the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis. Unfortunately many 21st century scientists appear to be mentally stuck in that false 19th century paradigm.
Reply
MattH
| #
Carl. Your explanation, definition, is gold.
Thank you.
James McGinn
| #
Carl: Simply put, the Troposphere is a giant air-conditioner/heat pump that transports, via the operation of the Ideal Gas Law, thermal energy from the low-pressure side of the system (the top) to the high pressure side of the system (the bottom). Nothing in science has been more thoroughly demonstrated or more universally accepted as being axiomatically true than the adiabatic cooling of ascending air . . .
James: I think this is model/description is a big step in the right direction. It is certainly better than the greenhouse effect.
James McGinn
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Carl,
I am going to disagree with your explanation. The problem is in treating the temperature of a gas, like the atmosphere, as equaling the kinetic energy of the gas molecules. The universal gas law is not an equation but the relationship of the macro properties (volume, pressure) of a gas to the properties of its components (number of molecules, gas constant, kinetic energy of the molecules). A change in one macro property results in a change of the other macro property, not a change in the component properties.
Air conditioning works because a gas is compressed into a liquid. That liquid has heat (kinetic energy removed by going through a heat exchanger. The liquid is then heated, converting it back into a gas, with less kinetic energy allowing it to absorb kinetic energy from the surrounding medium. The increase in temperature of the liquid is not because the kinetic energy of the molecules has increased but because the mass transferring that energy has increased.
Another example where there is no change in the kinetic energy of molecules but an increase in temperature occurs when scuba tanks are filled from a high pressure storage tanks. Both tanks start out in equilibrium with the surrounding temperature. When the tanks are connected the volume of the storage tank is increased and gas flows into the empty scuba tank. The storage tank cools as it loses mass of gas while the scuba tank gets hot as the mass of gas transferring energy to the tank increases. In order to fill the tank it must be placed in a cooling water bath to remove the heat. Simply connecting the tanks did not change the kinetic energy of the molecules, what it did was change the number of molecules (mass) transferring energy to the tanks.
The atmosphere is a result of kinetic energy converting O2 and N2 from a liquid (held to the Earth by gravity) into gases. These gases expand in volume as more energy is added to the molecules by the sun. The greater the energy of the molecules, t, the greater the volume of the atmosphere. If you were to remove energy the atmosphere would contract resulting in it eventually reverting back to liquids. The work being done is in the expanding of the gases against gravity, not in their “falling” due to gravity.
The reason the atmosphere feels warmer at lower altitudes is because of the increased number of molecules (mass) transferrin energy to your body, not because those molecules have more energy.
The molecules in a 100 C oven have greater kinetic energy than the molecules in a pot of boiling water yet when you put your hand in the oven it will only feel warm as that energy from a few molecules is distributed to a larger number of molecules Your hand will get burned in the water because there are more molecules (with less kinetic energy) transferring more total energy to more molecules in your hand.
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Carl,
I watched your video and haven’t commented because I was critical of it. Why? I did not have a good reason since your analysis was based upon good actual data. And naturally the maximum daytime temperatures of dry climates (days) are commonly observed to be significantly greater than the maximum temperatures of humid climates (days)..
As I came to make this comment, I saw there has been further discussion. Which I have not yet read. For I do not want to be influenced by anything that might have been written. For I consider two people who independently reach the same conclusion are better than one who merely agrees with what another has originally written.
While during the nighttime of a humid night, condensation to form dew (or frost) will slow the cooling during the nighttime with the result that the minimum temperature of that day will likely be greater when the sun rises than if neither dew nor frost has formed during the nighttime.
If dew (frost) had formed before sunrise, solar radiation will first have. to vaporize the dew, or melt the frost. And if frost has formed the melted water will need to vaporized before that surfaces’ and atmosphere’s temperature can begin to increase.
Hence, the temperature increase during a humid morning is much less than that during a dry morning. And you, Carl, did emphasize the lag of warming (temperature increase which follows the solar radiation’s intensity as this intensity increases till noon and then the solar intensity begins to decrease as the atmospheric temperature continues to increase until the solar radiation magnitude matches the emmison magnitude of the Earth’s surfaces (an actual radiation balance. After which both the atmospheric temperature and solar radiation intensity begin to decrease.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Carl,
My criticism of your comment was that you seem to ignore the observed influence of cloud in the Earth’s radiation balance system as they influence the surface’s temperature and the more commonly measured atmospheric temperature about 1.5m above the surface.
I have quoted the meteorologist, R.C. Sutcliffe (Weather and Climate, 1966), several times and do so again. “Clouds which do not give rain, … , have a profound effect on our climate. … Taking an overall average, about 50 per cent of the earth’s surface is covered with cloud at any time. … Long-wave radiation from the earth, the invisible heat rays [IR], is by contrast totally absorbed [scattered according Richard Feynman’s (The Feynman Lectures on Physics, 1962, Vol. 1, pp. 32-8, 32-9) simple scattering theory] byquite a this layer of clouds and, by the same token, the clouds themselves emit heat continuously according to their temperatures, almost as though they were black bodies. In this way clouds clouds by day keep much of the sun’s heat away, but at the same time and in the nighttime too they return to the earth much of the heat that would have been lost.”
I cannot remember reading anything about the actually measured atmospheric data during the twice a day sounding balloon launches. (http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html). I had to live about 3mi from where these balloons are launched at Salem OR. It so happens that this morning the sky was reported to be overcast while the measured air temperature slowly increased from 37F at midnight to 40F at 7am (sun at yet a factor). The air temperature (61m) when the sounding was launched was 39F and had increased to 41F (341m) and then decreased to 19F (2636m). At the base of the overcast (2679m) the air temperature had increased to 23F. At the top of this overcast (3831m) the temperature had decreased to 14F. At 5650m another overcast (neg 4F) began and its top was at 9508m (neg 49F).
I have just illustrated how it is that I cannot remember anyone referring to actual sounding measures because to comprehend what might be occurring requires that one has studied many soundings.
But I have reviewed this data because at about 4am I had gone outside with my IR thermometer and pointed it down (about 40F) and up (about 27F) as compared to sounding (23F). Have to admit I have a bad habit of not taking a paper with me to record actual measurements and a poor memory so these IR temperatures are very ‘about’.
And I almost forgot a critical observation. This morning there was no dew on the car parked along the curb. Hence, the condensation of atmospheric water molecules did not slow the cooling of the measured air temperature. Instead the overcast was.
No, do not know if my IR thermometer was measuring downward scattered IR radiation or the radiation being emitted by a near black body cloud according to its temperature. What I accept is that cloud particles (droplets or ice particles) do not absorb any radiation being emitted from a much warmers surface beneath them any absorbed radiation (energy) must evaporate (sublime) the very cold particles of high altitude clouds.
I suspect that conclusion about thin clouds is based upon observations of the cloud tops. For there is no surface with a significantly greater temperature emitting downward at the top of the thin cirrus clouds at high altitudes.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
Shouldn’t the the diagram be labelled 24 Hour Global Energy Flows? ……. “nearly one watt is diverted”? Diverted where? It appears just to be from rounding numbers.
Reply
crakpot
| #
If “back radiative forcing” can enable a weak concentration of CO2 in the air to force the Earth’s surface a little warmer, what might it do if we use a strong reflector instead?
Replace the atmosphere with a 89% reflective mirror, replace the sun-warmed Earth’s surface with your body-temperature face (emissivity = IR absorptivity = 0.8), and do the math (assuming back-radiative forcing is real):
98.6°F initial temperature
179°F first bounce
222°F second bounce
248°F bounce 3
265°F bounce 4
. . .
300°F bounce 12
As Alan Siddons once said, if the back-radiative forcing engine of the “greenhouse gas effect” were real, you could burn your face with your own reflection in the mirror.
Reply
Ross Handsaker
| #
Norman
“The atmosphere is NOT heating the surface to a higher temperature.” Pennsylvania State University may not agree with your statement.
The following is quoted from e-education.psu.edu (Pennsylvania State University – module for students studying The Greenhouse Effect and the Global Energy Budget):
“The remarkable thing to observe and remember here is that the surface receives almost twice as much energy from the greenhouse effect than it does from the Sun! But, if you look at the diagram (global energy budget) a bit, you can see that the energy sent to the surface from the atmosphere is essentially recycled energy, whose origin is the Sun.”
Apparently, PSU thinks recycling energy creates more energy and that the surface receives twice as much energy from the greenhouse effect than the Sun. If this is true the atmosphere must be heating the surface to a higher temperature.
Reply
Norman
| #
Ross Handsaker
They do not believe recycling energy creates more energy. That is not said at all. Not sure how you were able to “see” this in the statement. The surface receives this much energy from the atmosphere but it is radiating away still more so the atmosphere is NOT warming the surface nor did the PSU makes such a claim.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_603450f27018e.png
This is a graph of actual measured radiant fluxes. You can look at the legend to determine what each line represents.
Solar input calculates out to about 26,880,000 joules for this location in a 24 hour cycle.
The DWIR in the same time frame 32,832,000 joules. The energy from the atmosphere reaching the surface is greater than the solar input. However this energy will not warm the surface as the surface is losing more energy than it gains from the atmosphere.
(On my first plot I did not include the UPIR I will in this one)
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_6034534353f7e.png
This one just shows the NET heat loss of the surface, it is a product of surface emission minus the amount gained by absorbing energy from the atmosphere. The loss is still negative with an atmosphere. The energy that is returned does not heat the surface, it reduces the radiant surface loss so the solar input exceeds this and warm the surface to a higher temperature.
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
Norman and the rest of the Normanites will stay stuck in their illusion of average sunlight [solar energy] over 24hrs and be locked in their greenhouse of insanity,..
That is until they take their heads out of their asses and realise that solar energy arrives at 1300/1400 joules per second per sq meter over only half of the top of the atmosphere at any given second of any given minute of any given hour of any given day of any given year of any given decade of any given century of any given millenia.
There does not exist an average solar intensity, it is quite simply 1300/1400 joules per second by per meter less albedo, divided 2 at the surface that intensity of 600 joules per sq meter at the surface is what drives all the earths weather and climates as the kinetic energy disperses to the poles i.e. the earth radiators….
You divide by 4 the outgoing radiation as that departs through the whole atmospheric window and not just half like the incoming radiation.
It isnt hard to grasp, but these people the Normanites are just insane.
Reply
Norman
| #
Gary Ashe
Are you a Postma cultist? You believe whatever blather of nonsense that he peddles to unscientific people? If so it is a waste of time to attempt any rational discussion with your.
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
Norman you are just a disgusting troll who is on the averaging of intensive qualities bandwagon, so anything you say i see as just disgusting trolling.
And consequently being a man of little patience for disgusting trolling i’m more than likely just going to tell you to go phuck yourself no matter how sciency and polite you are.
So go phuck yourself Norman you are parasite on humanity.
Reply
Norman
| #
Gary Ashe
Yup confirmed you are a braindead Postma zombie. As I state there is no possible rational discussion with a mind like yours. You even sound like the stupid Postma himself. You are just ignorant and don’t know what you are talking about. He is just a crackpot that brainwashes weak minds like you.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Norman,
Like many global warming alarmists you seem mildly confused. I suspect you believe that DWIR necessitates UWIR. DWIR is the result of evaporation. Evaporation is the result of warm air at the surface. Warm air at the surface is the result of sunlight heating the surface and the surface heating the air–through conduction–no radiative transfer is involved. In fact, the radiation transfer that does happen in the atmosphere mostly goes out to outer space.
I don’t think this makes you dumb or evil, just confused.
James McGinn / Genius
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
The atmosphere is heated by the sun, not the surface of the Earth. You need to use the universal gas law, PV=nrt, to determine the kinetic energy of the molecules in the atmosphere. P is gravity and doesn’t change significantly through the atmosphere so the atmosphere is an unconfined gas where any change in kinetic energy, t, or number of molecules, n, will result in a change in volume, V. Since the boiling point of N2, O2, Argon, and CO2 are well below the temperatures experienced on Earth the number of molecules (water is not a gas as you taught me) will be constant. Any change in volume, V, will be the result of a change in ke, t. If you compare the inverse of density (the volume of a constant number of molecules) you will get a comparison of kinetic energy at different altitudes. Here are the values: 1 km density 1.122 ke .87: 2 km density 1.007 ke .99: 3 km density .9093 ke 1.01: 4 km density.8194 ke 1.22: 5 km density .7364 ke 1.36: 6 km density .6601 ke 1.51: 7 km density .590 ke 1.69: 8 km density .5259 ke 1.90: 9 km density .4671 ke 2.42: 10 km density .4135 ke 5.00.
This clearly shows the kinetic energy of the gas molecules in the atmosphere increase with increasing altitude and it is the sun that is heating the atmosphere, not the Earth.
Herb
geran
| #
Herb, this is another example of you spewing pseudoscience irresponsibly. I’ll only correct a couple of mistakes.
“The atmosphere is heated by the sun, not the surface of the Earth.”
That’s only true for the upper atmosphere, above the tropopause. It is not true for the troposphere, which contains over 70% of the mass of the entire atmosphere.
“P is gravity and doesn’t change significantly through the atmosphere”
“P” is “pressure” not “gravity”, and changes significantly in the troposphere.
No one has time to correct all your mistakes.
james McGinn
| #
Herb: The atmosphere is heated by the sun, not the surface of the Earth.
James: I disagree. Mostly it is heated by conduction at the surface. (At least in the Troposphere. Above this IDK.)
This is why the air at the surface gets warmer when the sun rises while the air above not so much. The only other thing is moisture in the atmosphere which does warm as a result of insolation, as evidenced by clouds dissipating.
James McGinn / Genius
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
The values I gave are for the troposphere, from an altitude of 1 km to 10 km. The increase in t becomes exponential above the troposphere where there is no water absorbing energy.
Instead of a zigzag graph produced by the thermometer (What is the source of energy at the top of the stratosphere increasing the temperature of the molecules?) you get a constantly increasing graph.
What you need to decide is whether you believe the UGL is more accurate when it comes to the ke of molecules in the atmosphere (which is confined by gravity, not atmospheric pressure) or the thermometer where both the velocity (energy) and mass (number of molecules) transferring energy ti it vary. The thermometer was designed for liquids and calibrated using liquid water, where there would be a constant number of molecules (mass) transferring energy to it, so any change would be the result of a change in energy.
Herb
James McGinn
| #
Herb: The values I gave are for the troposphere, from an altitude of 1 km to 10 km. The increase in t becomes exponential . . .
James: I think you are overthinking it, Herb. I’m just starting from the observation that when the sun rises (on cloudless days) the increase in temperature of the troposphere is not uniform but primarily at the surface. And this observation is perfectly consistent with it being primarily heated by conduction (and/or causing evaporation) and not radiative forcing/transfer, this being the square peg that the alarmist whackjobs are attempting to force into the round hole of reality. This leaves one remaining issue, how we explain the one degree difference in temperature that Norman refers to, which I think is most readily explained by the incompetence of those that claimed to have observed it.
James McGinn / Genius
Solving Hydrogen Bonding of Water
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum3/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=414
geran
| #
Norman, since you like calling everyone “braindead”, “stupid”, “ignorant”, and “crackpot”, tell us again how you can bake a turkey using only ice cubes.
That’s always hilarious.
Zoe Phin
| #
Gary,
But 1300/1400 W/m^2 doesn’t shine on the same place for 24 hours.
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
Well done Zoe.
the 13/1400 joules are concentrated on half the the surface every second of every minute of every hour for 24 hours driving up the oCean surface T to 30C and the land mass at the tropis even more than that, this ”real” ”measurable” solar intensity is what drives the earth, and carries the spinning planets stored heat with it into the darkside.
Reply
Gary Ahe
| #
You cannot average the intensity of heat zoe, you can only average the consequences of that intensity and its impact.
Reply
MattH
| #
A freezing cold winter’s day and you light the fire and bring the average room temperature up to a near perfect 23 degrees C.
Touch the single pane of glass behind the curtains and it is ice cold. The gap under the door is cold. But average is 23 degrees.
Now put your hand in the fire for two minutes and you know there will not be any permanent damage because it is only 23 degrees average.
Being under the sun’s zenith is the same deal. That is not an average.
Gary Ashe
| #
Stored energy i mean not heat in the above.
And 1300/1400 joules per sqm less albedo at the surface 400 to 1000 joules per sqm this intense power of solar energy being absorbed and stored is what drives all of the earths weather systems, you cannot average that intensity zoe otherwise you lose the impact of those intensities at the surface, surely anyone an understand that, you can average the consequences of that solar intensity from 12 hours over 24 hours which is how you get an average T over 24 hours.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Gary,
You can’t look into a DIFFERENT piece of mass receiving 1361 W/m^2, you have to look at THIS one.
This piece of mass can be warmed up to a 5C 24-hr average. It’s not 15C and there is no accounting for evaporation.
taxedserf
| #
Good news for non-scientists: employment law website Workplace DNA has published advice about how to look after employees in the face of extreme weather.
A drop in temperature
Falls [on slippery surfaces]
Driving on and to sites [in wet or frosty conditions]
Create warm rest areas so workers can warm up with a hot drink.
Encourage workers to dress warmly with layers and provide the correct gear so when employees are working outside none of their skin is exposed and they are fully insulated to retain body heat and prevent the cold weather affecting them.
Waterproof footwear with non-slip soles will help mitigate the risks of cold stress and falls.
Hard hats should also be worn to protect against falling objects or falls on the ice.
https://workplacedna.net/news/extreme-weather-protecting-your-staff-and-site
No mention at all about rising temperatures. Or driving without air con. Or creating cool rest areas with cold drinks. Etc.
The article is all about global cooling. Or perhaps global freezing.
Looks like a lawyer might understand the basics of a solar minimum far more fluently than the pseudo-scientists whittering on about man-made global warming.
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
Zoe Phin
February 23, 2021 at 8:35 pm | #
Gary,
You can’t look into a DIFFERENT piece of mass receiving 1361 W/m^2, you have to look at THIS one.
This piece of mass can be warmed up to a 5C 24-hr average. It’s not 15C and there is no accounting for evaporation.
I dont know what you are talking about when imply i was not talking about the whole sphere.
And the average T over 24hrs stays the same 24/7 365 days a year, and it is 14.5c i’m not interested in your crazy where you add 10c ontop of the suns thermal impact coming from geo-thermal ta very much, you cannot add one temperature onto another.
It’ the sun silly.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Gary,
I’m not adding geothermal on top of the sun, that would be silly.
The sun is added on top of geothermal.
Postma has never been able to show 15C daily average from the sun alone. Read his paper, use his correct formula. Just because he can get 30C for a fraction of the day doesn’t mean he completely explained it all.
If you think I’m crazy, then explain Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune.
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
Thats just as silly, you cannot add 2 temperatures together one on top of the other that’s just bonkers.
when the sun rises in the morning it will heat the ground to the highest temperature it is capable of heating by midday when directly over head, it doesn’t matter what temperature the ground was when the sun rose in the morning, whether it was minus 5c or plus 5c if the solar radiation can heat the ground unobstructed beneath it to 30c by midday it will.
If i put 3 buckets of water outside my house at sun up one bucket of water at -5c one bucket at 5c and one bucket at 100c by midday all buckets of water will be the same temperature under direct sunlight all morning.
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
cups of water Zoe not buckets cups.
then you could go -20c 10c and 100c and all would be the same temperature 6 hours later under the sun in the tropics….
a bucket of ice was a bucket ambitious in 6 hours but even that would be all even by sun down 12 hours.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Your buckets are not persistent source of heat.
Why deny Planck’s Law? Of course you can add shortwave on top of longwave-vibrating molecules.
There’s no negotiation mechanism between long and shortwave. The matter will have both long and short wavelength vibrations.
Reply
geran
| #
Gary is correct, Zoe. Zero degrees added to 50 degrees will NEVER result in more than 50 degrees.
Zoe Phin
| #
Geran,
It’s about finer vibrations added to coarser vibrations.
Carl
| #
Herb Rose wrote: “The reason the atmosphere feels warmer at lower altitudes is because of the increased number of molecules (mass) transferrin energy to your body, not because those molecules have more energy.”
“Feels warmer” is not what we are discussing. We are discussing the “temperature” of air as measured by a thermometer, i.e., what causes the ‘temperature’ of surface level air to be what it is. Whether somethings “feels” hot or cold is subjective. In North Dakota in March, for example, after a cold winter that gets down to -40F, an air temperature of 32F “feels warm” while in the fall in Phoenix AZ after a summer with temperatures >100F December temperatures of 70F “feels cool”. In science we use instruments to obtain objective data and do not rely on “feelings” because human sense perception is subjective.
Beyond what the “temperature” of matter might be, “feels warmer” is acutely affected by the thermal conductivity of the matter being “felt”. For example, the thermal conductivity of water is 0.606, while the thermal conductivity of air at sea level = 0.0262. So yes, water at 100C will “feel warmer” than air at 100C, not because its “temperature” is higher but rather because its thermal conductivity is twice as high (heat conducts to your skin faster from water than from air.)
In thermodynamics “temperature” is centrally important because it is what equalizes in a state of thermal equilibrium and it is what determines the direction of “heat” flow. Water at 95C will indeed “feel warmer” than air at 100C, never the less heat will flow from the 100C air to the 95C water.
Also, we were discussing air temperature vs. air temperature (+15C air at sea level vs. -60C air at the tropopause) and not air temperature vs. water temperature.
The fact is, a kg of air at 15C will have the same amount of “internal energy” regardless of the volume of space that it might occupy because “internal energy” (the amount of thermal energy that is contained within matter) is quantified by mass and not by volume, i.e., Joule/gm or kJ/kg.
Temperature is an independent variable from volume and pressure. (Search YouTube for lectures on “free expansion”) “Free expansion” is the expansion of a gas into a vacuum–an expansion that does not require “work”–and is an example of “Boyle’s Law” which states, “at a fixed temperature pressure and volume are inversely proportional.” In order for a km of air to drop in “temperature” its “internal energy” must drop as well.
From the 2nd law of thermodynamics we know that there are only two paths by which a kg of air can loose energy. 1) heat and 2) work.
As air ascends in the atmosphere it is not expanding into a vacuum. Rather it expands by doing “work” against its new, lower pressure surroundings. This “work” takes energy to accomplish, which results in a “adiabatic” (without “heat”) drop in the expanding air’s “internal energy”. This in turn results in a drop in its “temperature” (0.72 kJ/kg/K to be exact.) Ergo, as air ascends skyward it continues to do “work” against progressively lower and lower pressure surroundings and its internal energy continues to drop, which weather balloons measure as a drop in “temperature”.
We can actually calculate how much the “internal energy” of air drops as it ascends from sea level up to the tropopause, as its temperature drops from +15C to -60C, since the “specific heat” of air is about 0.72 kJ/kg/K. In other words, for every degree K that the temperature of air drops it loses 0.72 km/kg of thermal (internal) energy. Within the specific heat construct volume is irrelevant because “internal energy” is quantified solely by mass. Thus as air ascends from sea level to the tropopause and its temperature drops 75C adiabatically (via “work” done on progressively lower and lower pressure surroundings and not by “heat” transfer) it loses 54 kJ/kg of internal energy.
The 1st law of thermodynamics–the conservation of energy law–says that that 54 kJ/kg of energy does not disappear. It has to go somewhere. So where does it go?
It is transferred to descending air in a reciprocal action. That is, as a parcel of air descends from the tropopause down to sea level, it’s progressively higher and higher pressure surroundings does “work” on it and it consequently gains the thermal energy that is simultaneously being lost by a parcel of ascending air. On its way from the tropopause to sea level it gains 54 kJ/kg of internal energy and this raises its temperature from -60C up to +15C.
We can therefore say that ascending air “does work” on descending air which transfers thermal energy from the ascending to the descending air via the thermodynamic entity called “work”. Ascending air loses “internal energy” and becomes cooler while descending air gains an equal amount “internal energy” and becomes warmer. This is all within the bounds of well established thermodynamic laws.
The volume that each kg of air might occupy at any point in time is an independent variable that is related inversely to air pressure. Temperature is determined solely by the “internal energy” contained within each kg of air regardless of the volume of space that that kg of air might occupy. In order to raise the temperature of air by compressing it into a smaller volume (forcing air into a SCUBA tank for example) “work” must be done on it. Doing so adds thermal energy to the air and it is this addition of thermal energy that raises its temperature.
Again see: “Physics – Thermodynamics: (1 of 1) Free Expansion” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpUO88GmTM8
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Carl,
Instead of “feel warmer” substitute thermometer registers a high temperature. If you believe temperature is an indication of kinetic energy then any measurement will be a function of both mass and energy. With both radiated energy and convection energy flows from greater to lower. In a collision an object with greater energy (velocity) will transfer energy to an object with less energy (velocity) regardless of the masses of the objects. (Conservation of momentum.) Since the thermometer is measuring both the mass and energy being transferred to it, it doesn’t give an accurate measurement of energy.
In the filling of the scuba tank the high pressure air is moving into the low pressure tank, comparable to air rising in the atmosphere. You maintain that this will cause the air to cool but in reality the air increases both its temperature and the temperature of the tank. If you equalize the pressure of the two tanks without a cooling bath when the scuba tank later cools it will be under filled (lower pressure) when its temperature returns to that of the surrounding air.
It is gravity, not air pressure, that is the confining the atmosphere and resists its expansion and that is the P in the universal gas law. If you take blocks and stack them the weight (pressure) will be a function of the number of blocks. In the atmosphere the molecules are not stacked and what air pressure registers is the momentum of the air molecules (This is why you don’t feel the weight of an airplane flying over you or why in deep mines, where there is a lot of solid structure between a person and the atmosphere and the weight of the air above them is low, they must ascend in stages to prevent the bends (decompression sickness))
Herb
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
It isn’t pressure that raises temperature Herb, it is compression, the more molecules you compress into a set volume like a tank the more kinetic energy in those molecules you squeeze into a confined space.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Only change in compression can warm or cool. Hotter surface will cause more compression.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Gary,
That is what I have been trying to say. The energy of the individual molecules hasn’t increased just the amount being transferred (more mass). When you descend in the atmosphere the increasing temperature is not a result of an increase in the kinetic energy of the molecules but the increase in number of molecules transferring energy. That is why using the UGL to determine the ke of molecules gives different results than a thermometer. It shows a continually increasing ke for the molecules with increasing altitude, not the zigzag graph produced by the thermometer meaning the energy being added to the molecules comes from the sun, not the Earth.
Herb
Reply
geran
| #
Wrong Herb. The increase in temperatures, as you drop in the troposphere, is due to increased KE of the molecules.
You’re still confused about KE, the Gas Law, heat, and temperature. Just to mention a few things….
Herb Rose
| #
Hi again Gary,
Let me clarify something. With the atmosphere, as opposed to the tanks, the compression of the atmosphere is done by an attraction to the center of the Earth, not an external force or confinement. Gravity would have the atmosphere become a layer of liquid on the surface. It is the ke off the molecules that create the atmosphere and the molecules with less ke remain closer to the surface while the molecules with more ke expand to higher altitudes.
Herb
Reply
geran
| #
Wrong Herb. The increase in temperatures, as you drop in the troposphere, is due to increased KE of the molecules.
You’re still confused about KE, the Gas Law, heat, and temperature. Just to mention a few things….
Gary Ashe
| #
Well i always thought we get full spectrum light from the sun herb so i never though co2 was solely absorbing terrestrial radiation only the longer waves are coming in from the sun aswell..
I do know that the bottom of the grand canyon is several degrees warmer than the surface temperature above and that is a great example of the compresion by the weight of the atmosphere above.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Gary,
Hot air (more energy same mass) rises because it is less dense than the surrounding air. Energy radiates in all directions. The bottom of the Grand Canyon has a higher temperature not because the molecules have more energy but because there are more of them (denser).
Herb
Reply
geran
| #
You’re still making the same mistakes, Herb.
N identical molecules, all with the same KE, would have the same temperature as 2N such molecules.
(Why keep getting it wrong? Why not try to learn?)
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
What causes the higher temperature at the base of the grand canyon Geran if not the compression of the molecules of air into that confined space and the collisions of the molecules with each other and the ides of the canyon caused by the weight of air above.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Gary,
It is not compression from the air above but increase in density due to lower energy of the air molecules. Construct an insulated chamber divided into 2 sections by a valve with a thermometer in both halves. Create a vacuum in one half and pressurized the other half. The thermometer in the pressurized half will record a temperature from the ke of the molecules while the vacuum side thermometer does not register a temperature. When you open the valve between the two chambers you do not affect the ke of the molecules but the the temperature in the pressurized side will decrease as fewer molecules transfer energy to it while the thermometer in the vacuum half will register this lost temperature. There has been no loss of energy of the air just a decrease in the number of molecules transferring energy to the one thermometer.and an increase in the molecules transferring energy to the other thermometer
The density of the atmosphere decreases with altitude. How can fewer molecules with less energy (V) compress a greater number of molecules with more energy? What is holding the top layer of molecules in place?
The weight of a molecule is its mass time gravity and this weight does not change significantly in the atmosphere. What air pressure is, is the momentum of the air molecules as they bounce off the Earth and each other.
Race cars are designed with aerodynamics that push the car down as its velocity increases. Without this downward force the car will lose traction and control with increasing velocity and a bump or obstacle could cause the car to become airborne. The mass of the car isn’t changed but part of that mass has become forward momentum reducing the gravitational mass and downward force.
Herb
Reply
geran
| #
Gary, in general, it’s no different that the base of a mountain being warmer than the top of the mountain.
“Compression” is a one time phenomenon. Compress a gas in a container, and the temperature rises. But, the temperature does not continue to rise under the same pressure. “Colliding molecules” do not always result in a temperature increase. Colliding molecules in a system can exchange kinetic energy, but there is no gain in kinetic energy. So no gain in temperature.
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
Hmm well the air molecules are constantly being replaced with fresh ones as the warming molecules rise and fresh air sucked in so the heat generated by the squeeze and expansion of the air as it warms by conduction of heat from the canyon floor is a constant i would think in the canyon during daylight or is that wrong…. what i’m trying to get at is the temp of the air higher than conduction alone makes it because of the constant compression of new gas in canyon.
That was interesting above where someone talked about a plane flying overhead and we dont feel its weight.
its weight in essence must follow behind it filling the void of molecules in the hole the plane punched in the air, the air thats being compressed under the plane being sucked up filling the void behind the plane.
Displacement and turbulence are the words i’m looking for like a boat in water.
it was interesting to think about. all we feel is the vibration the wave.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Gary,
As long as the temperature on the Earth is greater than the boiling point of O2, N2, Argon, CO2 the weight of the gas molecules in the atmosphere will be the same. The changes in barometric pressure is a result of the energy of those molecules. As gases there is considerable distance between molecules so their weights never add but their momentum does.
Herb
Reply
Carl
| #
Herb wrote,
“Instead of ‘feel warmer’ substitute thermometer registers a high temperature.”
Remember that the example that you gave was two different bodies of matter with at the “same” temperature—air in an oven and water in a pot on the stove, each at 100C. The water in the pot “feels warmer” than the air in the oven even though they are both the same temperature.
My previous post spoke of two thermodynamic properties of matter that affect how quickly a body matter at 100 C might burn one’s hand if touched. One is called “conductivity” and the another is called “heat capacity” or “specific heat”, which is the amount of thermal energy or “internal energy” that matter must gain or lose in order for its temperature to change one degree. The specific heat of liquid water is about 4 kJ/km/K while the specific heat of air as previously stated is ~0.72 kJ/km/k. Thus at 100 C water contains over 4 times as much thermal energy as does air with which to burn your hand.
But again, I was not comparing two different types of matter in two different states with different heat capacities, i.e., gaseous air in an oven vs. liquid water in a pot. I was discussing the same matter in the same state with the same heat capacity but at different temperatures. I was discussing two parcels of air that both have the same mass (let’s say 1 kg) that are 75C different in temperature, i.e., the air near the ground vs. the air near the top of the Troposphere at ~11km above the ground.
“If you believe temperature is an indication of kinetic energy then any measurement will be a function of both mass and energy.”
With this statement you seem to be confusing “external” with “internal” energy.
“External” kinetic energy is the energy contained within a moving large object–a ball, for example, that is traveling through the air from the pitcher to home base. It has a certain mass and is traveling at a certain speed and therefore contains a certain amount of “external” kinetic energy that is dependent upon the mass of the object.
Thermal or “internal” energy is different because the portion of “internal” energy that is kinetic has to do with the movement of individual molecules. This is independent of the mass of the entire object. That is, as the ball is traveling through the air from the pitcher to home base, the temperature of the ball, which is related to its internal energy, is an independent variable from the mass of the entire ball, which determines its “external” energy.
Beyond that some of the portion of the internal energy that is kinetic is contained within the angular momentum of electrons as they circle the nucleus of an atom rather than in the spacial movement of the molecule itself. That is, as solid or liquid matter heats up electrons make “quantum leaps” into higher energy orbits, which is why solids and liquids expand in size when heated. When matter cools these same electrons emit a photon of energy as they drop down to lower energy orbits. That is one theory of why matter emits IR radiation as it cools.
Also be aware of this, depending upon the matter in question a great deal its “internal” energy is not kinetic but is rather “potential” energy that is held within intermolecular forces, both electrostatic forces and forces that are called the “Lennard-Jones” potential. YouTube has a number of lectures on both.
The fact that the “potential” portion of internal energy (thermal energy) varies greatly between different types of matter and depends upon the “state” that the matter is in—solid, liquid or gas—gives rise to wide variation in heat capacity. It is only the kinetic portion of internal energy that is detected by thermometers and it is the kinetic portion of internal energy that equalizes when two bodies of matter are in thermal equilibrium.
“Since the thermometer is measuring both the mass and energy being transferred to it, it doesn’t give an accurate measurement of energy.”
With all due respect a thermometer does not measure the mass of an object.
“In the filling of the scuba tank the high pressure air is moving into the low pressure tank, comparable to air rising in the atmosphere.”
You started in the middle of the energy flow that is involved in filling a SCUBA tank. Let’s start from the beginning.
Step 1: Coal is burned at a Generating Plant to generate electricity which is routed via wires to your house.
Step 2: You use that electricity to power an electric motor (unless you are burning gasoline on site to drive a gas motor.)
Step 3: That electric motor drives a piston that converts low pressure ambient air into high pressure air that flows out of the pistons exhaust port.
Step 4: In the process the “work” done on the air within the piston increases the internal energy of that air and consequently raises its temperature: so high in fact that simply compressing a gas within a piston can ignite diesel fuel.
Step 5: This hot compressed air then is forced into the SCUBA tank where it mixes with the cooler low pressure air that is already in the tank.
Step 6: During the mixing of the high pressure, hotter air with the low pressure cooler air already in the tank thermal energy transfers from the higher pressure, hotter air to the lower pressured cooler air through both the flow of heat and via the “work” being done on it. This raises the internal energy of the air already in the tank, which in turn raises its temperature.
This is where you start your analogy and, yes, the higher pressured hotter air that is being forced into the SCUBA tank will cool slightly as it enters the tank into lower pressured surrounding and mixes with the cooler air that is already in the tank.
This is different from air that ascended in the atmosphere because 1) a parcel of ascending air is not necessarily mixing immediately with the air aloft but rather is pushing it out of the way and 2) ascending air is not ascending into a container with ridged walls that has a set volume.
Step 7: The now hotter air within the tank transfers thermal energy via heat to the metal tank. Not only does the tank “feel” hotter than before it was filled, its temperature has increased due to the increase of the metal’s internal energy—energy that started out being released through the burning of coal at an Electrical Generating plant. Without the input of electrical energy (or burning gasoline on site) there would be no filling of SCUBA tanks because ambient outside air is at the same pressure as the air in the tank when the valve is open.
Step 8: To get rid of this excess thermal energy one cools the tank in a cooling bath, which in turn via the transfer of heat (energy) from the tank to the water, lowers the internal energy of both the tank and the air that is inside of the tank. This drop in internal energy lowers temperature of the tank and it feels cool again.
Step 9: Should you open the valve on now filled SCUBA tank you will feel the tank drop in temperature below the ambient outside air temperature as the air in the tank does “work” to force the air out of the valve. This is comparable to ascending air in the atmosphere because the air within the tank is now doing “work” on its lower pressured surrounding, i.e., the outside ambient air.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Carl,
Temperature is defined as the mean kinetic energy of the medium being measured so according to the definition, the mean kinetic energy of the molecules in the boiling water will be equal to the mean kinetic energy of the air molecules in the oven.
The temperature of the storage tank and scuba tank are equal with the surrounding air and each other so the past energy content is irrelevant and the molecules in the tank have the same kinetic energy as the ones in the scuba tank. There are more molecules and more total energy in the storage tank just as there is more energy in the boiling water but according to. the definition the thermometer is not measuring the total energy. If the molecules in the storage tank have the same mass and energy as the molecules in the scuba tank they cannot transfer energy to those molecules. Instead the greater velocity of the air molecules transfers energy to the metal tank increasing its energy. At equilibrium when the pressure between the two tanks are equal the air molecules in the scuba tank will have a greater temperature than the molecules in the storage tank because they are absorbing energy from the metal tank. When the valve between the two tanks is closed and both tanks equalize with the surrounding air the pressure in the scuba tank will be less than that of the storage tank.
In the atmosphere there is no container. The P in the UGL is a macro property of the gas. If the gas is confined any increase in n or t will cause an increase in P. Where there is no container any change in n or t will result in an increase in the other macro property, Volume. When the molecules in the atmosphere absorb energy (increase t) it does not increase the weight of the air but the distance between the molecules. Rising air molecules are expanding and transferring energy to the air molecules around them and this occurs util equilibrium is reached. When molecules gain energy they rise in the atmosphere, when they lose energy they descend. They are not being pushed down by the rising air. Changes in energy cause the expansion and contraction of the atmosphere but not the weight (g times mass).
This is why a hot air balloon will only rise to an altitude where the density of the balloon equals the density of the surrounding air. Weather balloons are partially filled with helium to allow for expansion of the gas. The helium continues to expand, even though the temperature decreases and increases in the atmosphere (according to the thermometer) rising into the thermosphere. When the balloon bursts the helium rises to the top of the atmosphere. It is the kinetic energy of the gas molecules that determine the volume of the gas in the atmosphere not the weight of the atmosphere and the helium continues to absorb energy as it rises because the surrounding molecules have more energy (the internal energy of helium does not change).
The problem lies in the definition of temperature and that somehow a thermometer is able to determine the median kinetic energy instead of the amount of kinetic energy being transferred to it.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
Temperature is defined as the mean kinetic energy of the medium being measured
James:
Temperature measures heat, not energy. Heat is the flow of energy. So a thermometer measures the rate of flow of energy. And there is not necessarily proportionality between different substances that have differences in heat capacity and conductivity, as Carl mentioned in other posts.
Herb:
so according to the definition, the mean kinetic energy of the molecules in the boiling water will be equal to the mean kinetic energy of the air molecules in the oven.
James:
No. This is very wrong. As per above.
My two cents in passing
James McGinn
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
The thermometer measures the flow of heat from the medium being measured to another medium with different energy. In the atmosphere where the entire thermometer is exposed to the same medium, where is the flow of energy?
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Hi Herb,
In both cases the thermometer is measuring the heat flow from medium to the thermometer.
Carl
| #
Herb wrote, “It is gravity, not air pressure, that is the confining the atmosphere and resists its expansion and that is the P in the universal gas law. “
With all due respect, the P in the ideal gas law stands for “pressure” not for gravity. In physics gravity is represented by the letter “g”.
While “g”—gravity—does decrease slightly with altitude. It is the rapid decrease in “P”—air pressure—that sets the condition necessary for ascending air to cool adiabatically.
Gravity compressed the atmosphere once millions of years ago and it has remained compressed ever since. Whatever effect that initial compression had on the temperature profile of the atmosphere has long since dissipated. What is currently affecting the temperature profile of the Troposphere is the “movement” of air upwards and downwards within the atmosphere through changes in P—air pressure. Air pressure increases as one descends and it decreases as one ascends.
“If you take blocks and stack them the weight (pressure) will be a function of the number of blocks. In the atmosphere the molecules are not stacked and what air pressure registers is the momentum of the air molecules.”
Air molecules are in fact “stacked” upon one another and air pressure is in fact the “weight” of all the air that is above you. Air pressure is measured in PSI = “pounds” per square inch. “Pound” is a “weight” measurement. At sea level each square inch of your body has 14.7 “pounds” of air pressure being applied to it.
The reason we don’t feel the weight of this 14.7 pounds per square inch on our bodies is because we were born, have grown and live within it. We have grown accustomed to it and our bodies have long ago adapted to it.
“This is why you don’t feel the weight of an airplane flying over you or why in deep mines, where there is a lot of solid structure between a person and the atmosphere and the weight of the air above them is low, they must ascend in stages to prevent the bends (decompression sickness)”
You might have this backwards. The bends (decompression) happens when you go from a high pressure environment to a low pressure environment and the air pressure within deep mines is know to be much greater than the air pressure at sea level.
Reply