First get the facts straight

http://climateofsophistry.com/2015/06/08/ontological-mathematics-boundary-conditions-physics-empiricism/#comment-23735

Durango Dan:
When molecular kinetic energy, commonly known as heat (and measured as temperature), is transferred from the Earth’s surface to the atmosphere by a process of molecular contact commonly known as conduction of heat, the atmosphere which is a gaseous fluid responds by expanding at the immediate surface / atmosphere interface. This bit of atmosphere now being less dense than the air above it, rises and allows cooler denser air to contact the surface initiating a very efficient heat transfer process commonly known as convection. This convection feeds back on itself carrying the air and heat higher and higher above the surface. In dealing with conductive heating it is easy to visualize by the bicycle wheel analogy why heat only flows from warmer to cooler. If warmists had to explain the greenhouse effect in the context of conductive heat transfer I don’t see how they could do it effectively. This is why the graphics most commonly used to display the greenhouse effect show radiative heat from the surface to the atmosphere and back again. Since radiative heating is not the predominant process by which the Earth’s surface sheds heat to the atmosphere, the very use of radiative heating in this diagram is fraudulent. Radiative heat transfer by photons makes for a much easier magic trick when it comes to creating the illusion that cold can heat hotter. Going along with the radiative mechanism facilitates the deception.

ST:
I think you guys need to be less obsessed with the deception and exposing the deception (of climate alarmism) and more obsessed about getting the facts right about the atmosphere and how it actually functions. Postma’s long diatribes about mathematics don’t mean anything unless they are applied to the atmosphere to some useful end. And, Dan, your meanderings about the atmosphere and convection are extremely sketchy and amateurish. In some instances, as I will expand upon below, your thinking leads us to blatantly false conclusions.

Dan:
. . . the atmosphere which is a gaseous fluid responds by expanding at the immediate surface / atmosphere interface.

ST:
Well, of course it does. Anything that heats up will expand. But here is the thing you aren’t getting. The warmer air becomes the greater becomes its capacity to absorb and suspend microdroplets of liquid H2O (see chart). (Keep in mind, there is no steam in Earth’s atmosphere, it is much too cool.) Then consider the fact that 70% of the earth’s surface is water. Add up all of these factors and you arrive at the realization that vast majority of warmer air on this planet is heavier, not lighter, than cooler air. The only places where this is not true is in desert environments (including the polar regions) where there is little moisture.

So, remember, warmer air is almost always heavier because it, almost always, is holding a higher capacity of liquid water micro droplets.

Dan:
This bit of atmosphere now being less dense than the air above it, rises

ST:
As I stated, this happens only in the driest of dry desert environments. Most of warmer air is heavier than drier air because it contains so many more microdroplets of moisture.

Dan:
. . . and allows cooler denser air to contact the surface initiating a very efficient heat transfer process commonly known as convection.

ST:
This is wrong. Since warm, moist air is heavier than dry air convection is almost non-existent on this planet, except in driest of deserts.

Dan:
This convection feeds back on itself carrying the air and heat higher and higher above the surface.

ST:
This is nonsense. There is no convection and no convection feedback. (Convection feedback employs perpetual motion machine logic.)

ST:
The fact that you are wrong about the mechanism does not mean you are wrong about the effect. There is a tremendous amount of mixing that takes place on our planet. This mixing is, most directly, the result of the jet streams, the winds that are generated by jet streams, and the storms that too are generated by the jet streams.

See more on this here:
http://wp.me/p4JijN-45v
http://wp.me/p4JijN-aE

4 responses to “First get the facts straight”

  1. Tom OregonCity says :

    Dan wrote: “Since radiative heating is not the predominant process by which the Earth’s surface sheds heat to the atmosphere, the very use of radiative heating in this diagram is fraudulent.”

    And your proof of the “predominant process” is?

    Dan, the Moon is a very fortuitous neighbor for us to have. besides acting as a janitor for near space, and providing waves to surf, it also provides us a clear indication of how energy absorption and emission work from rocks pretty much the same as those that make up earth.

    Observe that radiative absorption and emission are the ONLY way the Moon gets and sheds energy. And observe that when at the same temperature, without solar input, a dry desert rock on the earth still cools SLOWER than a rock on the moon.

    How can that be, if radiative emission is not an effective part of the system? Think again: Earth rocks are cooled by TWO processes: conduction/convection and radiative emission. Moon rocks are only cooled by radiative emission. How can the Earth cool slower, with all that “dominant” conduction going on? (again, this is comparing the cooling rate at the same temperature in both locations.)

    Answer? Because radiative emission — which is unarguably dominant in both receipt of energy from the sun and shedding of energy into space — performs TWO functions on earth: cooling the planet by shedding heat from the TOA, and helping create the atmospheric temperature gradient that makes the planet thermally compatible with water-filled living things, by slowing the departure of energy during cooling cycles.

    Before declaring radiative emission a poor relation, it would be wise to go outside and look at the Moon. She shows us how temperatures change more abruptly when radiative feedback is NOT part of the process.

    One last thing: try to find a method for ISOLATING radiative emission from the conduction process. It does not exist. When measuring conduction, you cannot tell whether energy is transferred because of short distance emission and absorption, or kinetic collisions. Indeed, you can’t “turn off” radiative emission, even inside a chunk of copper. It still happens, because it’s a property of matter above absolute zero.

    Think about this: if you get a chuck of copper red-hot, is the INSIDE of that chunk somehow NOT glowing? What is that glow, hidden inside? It’s radiative emission of energy, and it can’t be prevented from happening.

    Or, consider if that piece of copper is just a little warm. Again, is it not also warm on the inside (thus emitting more efficiently in the IR spectrum)?

    So radiation is PART of that conduction process you consider as dominant over the radiative process that cools the Moon quite efficiently, without conduction of any kind.

  2. gymnosperm says :

    Convection, or something with identical effects to how we conceive it, definitely happens.

    • solvingtornadoes says :

      Well stated! The fact that convection is false (non-operational) does not mean that the effect that has traditionally been attributed to convection (troposphere mixing) is not true.

      Something is causing the mixing of the troposphere.

      More specifically, some process or collection of processes (I believe there are two. One process that involves evaporation and another interrelated process that involves winds and storms [jet streams]) is causing moist air to absorb a lot of heat and then transport that moist air and its heat as far up as the top of the trophosphere.

      I am very sure that this “something” has nothing to do with convection. Nevertheless, it is very hard to label and, thereby, discuss this “something” since everybody else refers to this “something” as convection.

      BTW, the purpose of the website is to establish what this non-convection based “something” that causes troposphere mixing actually is.

      I would suggest that instead of using the term convection, since it is actually wrong, that the more generic phrase “troposphere mixing” be used instead. And if your audience demands or requires more detail then refer to it as evaporation, winds, and storms.

      Regards,

      Jim

  3. jerry l krause says :

    Hi Jim,

    As you are well aware, it seems that we are seldom on the same page. However, “Add up all of these factors and you arrive at the realization that vast majority of warmer air on this planet is heavier, not lighter, than cooler air. The only places where this is not true is in desert environments (including the polar regions) where there is little moisture.” is a thought which I have dismissed as silly before but now am intrigued by it. For I have observed on occasion precipitation occurs during a increasing barometric pressure and increasing air temperature and had no explanation for it.

    And I have wondered if the atmospheric pressure beneath a cloud was greater than the nearby atmospheric pressure beneath an apparently cloudless atmosphere. For, because of the cloud droplets it seemed there had to be more mass in the vertical column in which the cloud was a part. But I could also consider that the cloud droplets exerted no downward force because they were falling.

    But your factor increasing that atmospheric pressure at the surface is not cloud droplets, it is “liquid water micro droplets” which you do not define beyond these four words. At least, I have not read that you have.

    Now I have thought (pondered) at length about the ‘condensation nuclei’ whose perpetual presence in the atmosphere seem to prevent the atmosphere from ever being (becoming) supersaturated with water molecules. So, until these condensation nuclei, which I would agree need to be liquid micro droplets, or micro ice crystals, obtain a certain size (of which I have no idea), I consider that these tiny particles are colloidally suspended in the atmosphere. Hence, because they are not falling, their mass contributes to the atmospheric pressure at the surface. Obviously, the more water molecules which condense on these tiny particles’ surfaces, without cause them to begin falling, will increase the atmospheric pressure at the surface. And the greater the density of condensation nuclei the smaller the mass of water molecules needed to condense on the nuclei’s surface to remove a given number of water molecules to prevent the atmosphere becoming supersaturated with them.

    And I would agree that these suspended micro droplets would contribute to the heat capacity of the atmosphere. Just how much a contribution this might be, I have no idea.

    Getting drowsy, so need to take a break.

    Have a good day, Jerry

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: