In this video I answer a question from my blog where a reader asks where the temperature numbers come from which form the basis of climate physics and political climate alarmism? It is an excellent question with an excellent answer in terms of providing true educational and scientific insight into how the atmosphere actually works and how it is structured.
Couldn’t be simpler. Brilliant.
Was helpful. Slowly getting my head around your explanations.
“Energy, like time, flows from past to future”.
The Fifth Law of Thermodynamics and The Arrow of Energy, proposed 2017.
Expending so much fossil fuels energy in propagating a message claiming that money is a substitute for energy, and solar, wind, nuclear, fusion, hydro, EVs, AI, IoT, IR4, robotics, shale oil, shale gas and others, are energy solutions – is not more than an effort to take the globe into a Two-Tier World, one is smaller and kept energy-saturated, the other is forced to become living energy-deprived, in pre-industrial conditions.
Off Fossil Fuels (OFF) movement today is a screaming evidence that Physics is what ruling humans, before man made Economics, Social Contracts and National Constructs (see US Sen. Tulsi Gabbard’s presidential campaign posts).
OFF has been mentioned in a 2015’s paper on Energy that envisaged the potential of a Two-Tier World.
Time has come to rewrite the Magna Carta from scratch, leaving a space for Energy in its context!
Great post explaining the concept of energy flux density of light.
Key take home messages :
1. Output is not input.
2. An average is not found at the maximum point.
Next you MUST show how the lapse rate is generated and its relationship to atmospheric composition.
Some alarmists contend that the lapse rate is caused by atmospheric opacity.
This utter nonsense needs to be stopped.
Yes I did say that I might explain this again. Will do. Yes they try to switch the adiabatic physics lapse rate out for their false greenhouse effect…that’s the core switch out, the magic trick.
It’s just a coincidence that the greybody temperature falls in the middle of the tropopause, just like it’s a coincidence that moon and sun are the same size from our POV; just like it’s a coincidence that little g is so close to one second pendulum.
Alarmists use the lapse-of-judgment rate.
Out of the blue because I like to talk about things people believe related to Atmospheric energy and gass mass energy relationships,
I want to post to readers who come by an observation for you related to whether CO2 present in air can cause it to retain energy it otherwise wouldn’t.
Let’s create a situation where we’re going to have to warm something in order to have it reach some mission critical temperature, and we’re in a cold polar region.
We’ve got to throw some stuff in tool bags and go outside where the instrument arrays are, and repair some equipment: but in order to calibrate some sensors we need a certain module in the assembly to be between a temperature range closely approximating standard room temperature.
We have two pressurized cans, like welder’s tanks, one with CO2 in it, one with Air in it.
The law written specifically for calculating the temperatures of these two compounds, states clearly that CO2 retains less energy per average mole, and by a significant degree.
That law, the Ideal Gas Law and when applied to specified mixes, that law expressed as the Real Gas Law, has a chart in it which contains the average molar energy of volumes of many gases and some common industrially encountered byproduct gas mixes, like steam, and the byproducts from burning coal.
The main chart’s named the Chart of Specific Heats of gases, and the average energy per mole, is a sub-chart within that: and those values are inserted into mathematical processes related to the Gas Law written for this very purpose, where R appears in processing PV=nRT.
If we take out the can of standard Air, and use a nozzle to bring the module to about room temperature, by bathing it in the warmed air,
and we take out the can of Carbon Dioxide, and use a nozzle to bring the module to the same temperature range by bathing it in the room-temperature C02
we will have to shut down calibration related activity sooner, when warming the object with the can of CO2.
Just because CO2 comes to a maximum temperature sooner due to energy application, does not mean CO2 warms Air when it’s added.
Air retains more energy than any mix involving enrichment with CO2.
Therefore in a cooling interval, CO2 can cause less energy to be retained overal.
No one, is to ever admit a volume of CO2-enriched air will retain more energy than standard mix.
It’s simply beyond possible no matter HOW one attempts to view it.
Inversion fraud is what this type fraud is called,
where early on some manipulating
leads to inversion of reality,
and it’s insisted
that the erroneous assertions
be kept intact.
Not one single symbol of one single syllable of one single sentence proclaiming the atmosphere to EVER be associated with warming the planet, is true.
It is a bylaw in heating & cooling thermodynamics, that since presence of gaseous atmospheres always leads to CREATING at least one more mode of cooling,
and actually it almost always, leads to CREATION – where the modes didn’t EXIST before – of TWO new MODES of cooling, conduction and convection,
single mode radiative loss-only cooling
is ALWAYS less efficient than multiple-mode cooling:
thus creating the bylaw in thermodynamics that DEFINITIONALLY,
OBJECTS WITHOUT ATMOSPHERES are AT THE HIGHEST TEMPERATURE ATTAINABLE
for A GIVEN ENERGY INPUT.
The very OVERALL claim that the Atmosphere HEATS Earth is A DEFINITIONAL VIOLATION of HEATING-COOLING THERMODYNAMICS.
this is a BEGINNING TEST QUESTION
in HEATING/COOLING THERMODYNAMICS processing.
It is a TEST QUESTION in FUNDAMENTALS of THERMODYNAMICS,
that you are to ANSWER: “..the warmest an object can become, when energized with a given energy,
occurs when there IS no ATMOSPHERE
Every single symbol, in every single sentence, related to ”The cold light blocking, oxygen-enriched NITROGEN BATH
is a HEATER”
is FLAGRANTLY OPEN VIOLATION of EVEN the basics of “LESS vs MORE” energy creating final temperature.
You will NEVER win arguments and make those claiming the Atmosphere OR ANY FRACTION OF IT WARMS EARTH,
because COLD BATHS
are NEVER- not once, not ever – HEATERS.
The cold light blocking oxygen-enriched Nitrogen atmospheric bath,
is responsible for stopping 29% of total available energy from reaching and warming Earth.
This means before the CONDUCTION and CONVECTION cooling begin the temperature of the planet is reduced 29%,
simply through mere existence of the COLD Atmospheric
Indeed the MAIN class of gases creating MOST of that 29% initial COOLING,
is the GREEN HOUSE GASES,
as shown globally: in all charts,
depicting sunlight spectra at top-of-atmosphere,
vs at the surface.
”Sunlight spectra chart” or any reasonably close derivation
when searched in ‘Images’
shows CLEARLY that MOST of the energy not reaching the planet thus warming it
about 23% of it
is KEPT from WARMING Earth
by the COOLING Green house gases.
The vastly predominating green house gas water,
performs nearly ALL that COOLING,
with CO2 performing a SMALL FRACTION of incident surface energy reduction.
Every time MORE gh gases go into the Atmosphere,
LESS ENERGY goes into the surface of the Earth.
No Negotiation there either.
Any claim otherwise is open,
flagrant violation of ALL thermodynamics.
It HAS to be,
to make COLD BATHS
MAGICAL HEATERS that VIOLATE that BYLAW of HEATING/COOLING fundamentals.
NO object with an atmosphere of conductive gases,
can be as warm, as that SAME object, subject to the SAME input energy,
when energy loss is limited to single-mode, radiant loss-only cooling.
Maybe it IS within the isothermal tropoPAUSE that the real temperature is to be found at minus 60ºC. separated from space by the stratosphere’s photo-electric blanket.
With latent heat and solar energy storage in land and sea smoothing out the extremes at the surface.
To Joe, Allen, Roscoe, Pierre, Robert, Zoe, CD, and all,
I would like a critique of this link I am about to supply. It basically says that more CO2 in the atmosphere actually cools it if all else stays the same. It uses Dalton’s Law of gasses to make it’s proof. The math is straight forward. If the link is not making an error somewhere that should put an end to the debate about CO2’s role in climate change. Oh! I know it will be said that the interactions of climate go beyond that simple concept but I want to know if the basis is sound.
“In fact increasing any gas in a mixture that contains a fixed amount of heat energy will cause the temperature of the mixture to drop as the energy is distributed over a greater number of molecules.
Therefore, simply increasing the earth’s atmospheric CO₂ cannot increase its temperature.”
Yes I agree with that. There is no radiative back-effect whatsoever as this is already part of the molecules thermodynamic properties such as thermal capacity and conductivity, etc.
Thanks for your comment. I get feedback from the AGW clowns that state that there are dozens of physics books that will refute the link I’ve given. I have yet to see any that dispute the math on that page.
Pertinent quotes from that link are:
“Along with other carbon gases, CO₂ is today charged with being the principal cause of Global Warming (see Global Warming below) because it is a “Greenhouse” gas. This claim is made because of its low specific heat capacity; i.e. it requires less energy input to raise its temperature by 1K than the more abundant atmospheric gases (except argon). However, its contribution to the earth’s atmospheric temperature can only be considered in conjunction with its relative mass.”
“As can be seen in the above table, increasing the quantity of CO₂ actually decreases the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere.
This phenomenon is due to the fact that the additional mass of the increased CO₂ in the atmosphere (CO₂: 1.585E+15 kg > 1.585E+16 kg) more than offsets the reduction in combined specific heat capacity of the gas mixture (air: 965.3882 J/kg/K > 965.0618 J/kg/K).
As a result, it can be concluded that significant increases in atmospheric CO₂ will have no appreciable effect on the temperature of the air, other than to reduce it slightly.”
I don’t see where the link is wrong. The math is solid. What else could affect these figures to put them in error? I just don’t see it!
CO2 has higher heat capacity per mole.
In normal science: Hotter objects emit more radiation, Colder objects emit less radiation.
In climate junk science, emitting less radiation (to space) is “proof” something is getting hotter.
CO2 is capable of absorbing about 37W/m^2 of the 389W/m^2 leaving the sun-warmed surface.
Two ice cubes at 0°C (315W/m^2) facing each other will not warm each other.
Why do crank scientists claim 37W/m^2 can warm 389W/m^2? Hoax. Only >389W/m^2 can warm 389W/m^2.
Climate cranks pretend that looking at absorption spectrum changes determines Air temperature. No, it doesn’t. It only tells you about GHGs absorption of IR, and nothing else. It doesn’t even tell you the temperature of the GHGs. Near the surface, CO2 will be 15°C (389 W/m^2), while it will only be absorbing 37 W/m^2 at best.
Looking at a subset (37) doesn’t prove it caused the whole set.
The brilliant thing about the ideal gas law is that it looks at all forms of heat transfer at once: radiation, conduction, convection. Climate cranks are trying to isolate the radiative component and then add it on as an extra effect, when it’s actually already included.
Only >389W/m^2 can warm 389W/m^2.
That cannot be right, as that would be both energy sources in balance and there would be no heat transfer.
Only 390w/m2 and above can warm 389w/m2 surely.
Zoe, thanks for your reply. Yes, what you linked to is correct. Do you think the link I supplied is correct? Do you see any problem with it?
Your link is slightly incorrect, because CO2 doesn’t follow ideal gas law.
Zoe, thanks again. Your link is interesting and informative. I wonder how much the variance CO2 has in regard to the ideal gas law (R=<0.1) would affect the math Calqlata uses to show CO2 as a net cooling agent? Good link, Zoe, thanks!
There is something about heat transfer that I don’t understand. Why does the atmosphere heats from bottom up? I mean the solar flux meets the upper atmosphere and doesn’t heat it, but the flux coming from earth surface (which is weaker) heats it. Heat flows from high temperature object to lower one so why the flux from the sun does not heat the upper surface of the atmosphere? Or does it? From what I read it passes through atmosphere, heats the earth surface, which then radiates and heat up the air. I know I’m ignorant in these matters but I try to understand. Someone please explain this so I can grasp it. And please forgive my english as it is not my first language!
I could make an effort to answer Mihail Raita’s question, but I’m sure somebody here can do a better job than moi. So, instead, I’ll just leave you all with this:
Wouldn’t it be nice if this became an actual law? Got it off a website thought it was hilarious. Enjoy.
The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is a political body, subsidiary to the UN. It was created in 1988 in order to “tell the governments what to do,” in the words of Mostafa Tolba, the Executive Director of UNEP at the time. IPCC officials are appointed by governments that are members of the UN, and their assessment reports are subject to authorization by all the participating governments. The IPCC is not a scientific authority.
IPCC-produced texts contain lies and are intended to harm the USA, as well as its friends and allies. Since the mid-1990’s, at least one government in a state of war with the United States of America has been a member of the IPCC. Any actions having the intent to aid the IPCC to inflict harm on the US, including alleging that IPCC texts have any authority on the territory of the United States or in respect to the United States, committed by a person owing his or her loyalty to the United States, might constitute treason, as defined in 18 U.S. Code § 2381. Readers in other countries should consult their respective laws.
Nothing in the paragraph above is directed toward persons who merely cite IPCC reports in their scientific (or even pseudo-scientific) papers, or whose papers have been cited by IPCC. In the past, some distinguished scientists contributed to IPCC reports and even participated in its activities as Lead Authors. Some content in the IPCC reports (especially the full reports of Working Group I) is scientifically accurate. Nevertheless, the IPCC is dominated by anti-American governments, radical environmentalists, and third-rate scholars. Any accurate content is mixed up with distortions and lies, produced maliciously or out of incompetence, even in the full reports of Working Group I.
Working scientists should also be aware that the IPCC reports are not and have never been peer-reviewed. IPCC does submit its drafts for review by independent scientists, but the IPCC authors themselves decide whether to accept or reject reviewers’ criticism. The full reports must also incorporate changes that are made into so-called Summaries for Policy Makers by government representatives.
The IPCC reports do not represent any kind of consensus of the scientists and non-scientists that have participated in their preparation. The majority of the participating scientists have no say at all about the use of their contributions, and they all can be overruled by government representatives and political appointees, many of whom in the pockets of radical environmental interests. The public and statesmen should also be aware that the content of the reports is further distorted in the direction of increasing alarm by the media and enviro-advocates.
JP this is the site.
Some troll finally gave me what he is. Read it for yourself. Slowly they are unveiling the curtain and revealing the monsters therein. The scary thing is they don’t see themselves as the monsters.
“why the flux from the sun does not heat the upper surface of the atmosphere? Or does it?”
Radiation is not heat. Radiation needs to penetrate matter in order to cause kinetic energy. The sun heats the atmosphere very weakly: 77 W/m^2, while providing 163.3 W/m^2 to the surface.
Top down heating occurs only during inversions, and it’s very weak.
Zoe, for an economist you sure know a lot about climate dynamics! Kudos! Hats off to you.
Zoe Phin and Mihail
I read that high energy (frequencies from 1033 to 2000 Thz) solar radiation warms the atmosphere from above constantly via the Chapman cycle at 20-30km altitude by photo-disassociation of oxygen and ozone. This results in temperatures of -13ºC to +3ºC at the tropical stratopause with a global average of -15ºC.
The ozone heating theory is challenged in this excellent recent video:
Specifically minutes ~35 to ~42
Thank you. I took 3 physics and 2 astronomy courses too. Did I mention I was also a professional dancer?
Zoe, no, I didn’t know you were a dancer. LOL The Connollys do some very good work. I have been to their site a few times and, of course, they are ignored by the AGW crowd because what they have found doesn’t support the bogus theory.
You might add to the end of the video just to put a find point on the falsity of the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis the fact that water vapor–supposedly the most powerful “greenhouse gas”–always decreases the lapse rate of the lower Troposphere, which necessarily results in decreased surface-level air temperatures.
In my view, this is not simply because water vapor is the vehicle for latent heat transfer because weather balloon soundings do not show a corresponding warming of the upper troposphere above humid regions. I suggest that one of the ways that water vapor decreases the lapse rate is the fact that it increases the emissivity of lower Tropospheric air, which in turn compels the it to emit more IR radiation, through the thinner layers of air above it, directly out into space? This then results in a cooling of the lower Troposphere (a decreasing of its lapse-rate) without a corresponding warming of the upper Troposphere above humid regions.
I’m trying to figure why ocean water is very warm below where the sun reaches. I don’t believe the mixing theory because it’s incompatible with solar energy in = solar energy out. There can’t be any storage under such an assumption.
My theory is that oceans are warmed geothermally, but it manifests top-down not bottom-up. How can I prove that with physics?
Since “cool” fresh water will “float” on top of “warm” salt water you will find examples in the ocean, depending upon where you look, of warm ocean water being deeper than other cooler ocean water.
Once water flows off shore it becomes “ocean water” even though it my not have yet mixed with the rest of the ocean and become salty. As an overall principle since gravity striates water by density and cooler water is typically more dense than warm water you will see the temperature of the ocean drop as you go deeper. Naturally if there is a geothermal vent on the ocean bottom that water will be much warmer than most of the rest of the ocean floor, which is near freezing on average. That is my perspective on the subject.
Hi Zoe and thanks for the reply!
Some clarifications. I understand that radiation is not heat. Radiation is just a form of energy.
“Radiation needs to penetrate matter in order to cause kinetic energy.”
Very good. This condition is satisfied by atmosphere, because it is matter and is penetrated by sunlight. So it should increase particles’ kinetic energy. Then you say :
“The sun heats the atmosphere very weakly.” Right! My question was/is why? Radiation from earth (which is weaker than sun’s radiation) also penetrates the atmosphere, but produces a higher increase in the kinetic energy of the particles than the sun does. So the problem is still here for me.
Seems entirely possible that some of the lapse rate decrease is due to intermolecular radiation via water vapour, but maybe rather than a faster exit to space, the cooler air aloft is warmed at the expense of the lower air. This results in a radiative shrinkage of the thermal gradient pivoting around the steady average in opposition to the tendency of advective and convective mixing to return it to the dry gravitational lapse rate.
Q = kA*dT/L, or
q = (k/L)*dT (Watts/m^2)
and k = 0.026 for air (avg pressure of troposphere)
and L = 11,000 meters (height of tropopause)
and dT = 70K
Then q = 0.000165 W/m^2
That’s all that’s needed! So even if the Sun-warmed surface received just 78 W/m^2 vs the 77 W/m^2 received by the Sun-warmed atmosphere, the surface will be heating the atmosphere. Heat naturally flows from hot to cold.
““The sun heats the atmosphere very weakly.” Right! My question was/is why?”
Because gases absorb in discrete bands. What O2,N2,H2O,and CO2 can absorb directly from sunshine amounts to 77 W/m^2 (23%), whereas dirt, rocks, and water at the surface can absorb much much more, like 97%.
Typically, solids and liquids have lattice structures which can absorb more radiation, and gases don’t.
84%, not 97%
I see. So gas absorbtion is worse than solid absorbtion of radiation. Well, that explains why earth surface gets warmer than the atmosphere when exposed to the same amount of radiation. There is stil one question: why is it that air absorbs more radiation from earth than from sun? It seems that one of the factors that makes lower atmosphere warmer than upper atmosphere is radiation from earth. Of course there is the compresion etc. I see there is discussion about the lapse rate which implies greater temperature at the bottom. Does gas absorb more radiation if its density is higher?
Oh, sorry! I havent see the post before yout last post. Now it makes sense. Gas absortion is worse so earth surface gets warmer than air. Then the heat flows from the ground which has a greater temperature to the air which is colder. I got it.
Sorry for the previous post!
And please forgive my spelling. Is there a way for me to edit my text after I post it? Or even delete a post?
I got a question on this subject. Adiabatic lapse rate explains atmospheric temps. Why are oceans always colder the deeper the pressure? It’s because colder water sinks, warmer water rises. The exact opposite of the atmospheric lapse rate. A good argument for a troll if you don’t have a sounder scientific answer. I need a better reply.
I’m assuming it’s the physics difference between a gas and a liquid.
The problem with all climatology is the acceptance that temperature is an accurate indicator of kinetic energy. When you add kinetic energy to gas molecules the gas expands (Ideal Gas Law). The less dense gases higher in the atmosphere have more kinetic energy than the gas molecules lower in the atmosphere. Adiabatic heating from gravity is nonsense. At lower altitudes the gases are denser which means there is more mass transferring kinetic energy to an object even though the molecules have less kinetic energy. An oven at 100 C and pan of boiling water have the same temperature. For every gas molecule transferring energy to the thermometer in the oven there are 1,000,000 molecules of water molecules to the thermometer. The water contains more energy than the oven (food cooks faster) but the kinetic energy of the gas molecules is greater than the kinetic energy of water molecules and if you put the pan in the oven the gas molecules will transfer energy to the water even though they have the same temperature.
If you take the temperature of the gases at different altitudes and divide it by the density of the gases at that altitude you will get a comparison of the kinetic energy of the gas molecules at different altitudes. This shows that the kinetic energy increases with altitude and the sun is the source of heat for the Earth. The Earth is like an oven with the sun being the heating element which heats the atmosphere that then heats the surface of the Earth.
CD – right water doesn’t compress in terms of changing volume under pressure, like gas does.
I’m not a physicist, so I when I’m presented with two models that explain the same collection of facts i’m not in a position to decide which one is better. Usually, the most important condition for a theory is consistency so I might try to find some sort of contradiction … But, as I said, I do not know the fine (an many) details in order to asses which model is better. I just don’t know too much physics! I ‘ll keep reading what people post here and maybe I’ll be able to get the picture right.
You know when science is dies? When people stop asking why. That’s why climate science is dead. Not one person asks, why? Nothing kills science more than politics.
Delete that other one please. Hit the wrong key.
You know when science dies? When people stop asking why. That’s why climate science is dead. Not one person asks, why? Nothing kills science more than politics.
The most correct theory, is mine:
I used numbers from the “official” energy budget. One can use different numbers:
“Average temperature: 288 K (15 C)
Diurnal temperature range: 283 K to 293 K (10 to 20 C)”
AVG = 302.8/4+283*3/4 = 287.95K
Don’t listen to Herb, he’s a nutcase.
“If you take the temperature of the gases at different altitudes and divide it by the density of the gases at that altitude you will get a comparison of the kinetic energy of the gas molecules at different altitudes.”
The molar form of ideal gas law is:
In other words, you get nonsense.
The kinetic energy is actually: nRT,
where n = # of moles.
Never listen to Herb.
I am reading an updated military meteorology manual, and guess what? They use the adiabatic lapse rate. Not one mention in this whole thing about greenhouse gases. It teaches conduction/convection and thermodynamics. How freak’n ironic. The military has taught real climate science for decades. That means the US knows this is a fraud.
This is like two versions of laws. One for the common folk and one for the elite.
Climate cranks claim GHGs create the lapse rate, while denying it stated this way.
Climate cranks claim GHGs create the lapse rate, while denying it stated this way.
I’m sorry but this is great stuff. From the manual:
“The Sun radiates electromagnetic energy in all
directions. However, Earth intercepts only a small
fraction of this energy. Most of the electromagnetic
energy radiated by the Sun is in the form of light waves.
Only a tiny fraction is in the form of heat waves. Even
so, better than 99.9 percent of Earth’s heat is derived
from the Sun in the form of radiant energy.
The term “radiation” refers to the process by which
electromagnetic energy is propagated through space.
Radiation moves at the speed of light, which is 186,000
miles per second (297,600 km per second) and travels
in straight lines in a vacuum. All of the heat received by
Earth is through this process. It is the most important
means of heat transfer.
Energy radiates from a body by wavelengths,
which vary inversely with the temperature of that body.
Therefore, the Sun, with an extremely hot surface
temperature, emits short wave radiation. Earth has a
much cooler temperature (15°C average) and therefore
reradiates the Sun’s energy or heat with long wave
In the diagram they show not one speck of LWR returning to Earth from the surface. NOT ONE SPECK.
That’s excellent. Copy the diagram and show us!
D.E.A.D. WRONG: another MAGICAL INVERSION
by an INVERSION FRAUD BELIEVER.
AIR has the HIGHER
ENERGY per MOLE,
You don’t even know
which CHART you’re supposed to CHECK.
It’s RIGHT there ON the CHART,
on lines 3,
and LINES 15:
Air: LINE 3.
Carbon Dioxide: LINE 15.
You are D.E.A.D. W.R.O.N.G.
on THE chart,
of THE law,
TO ANSWER this
THE CHART of the LAW W.R.I.T.T.E.N.
to ALLOW one to KNOW WHICH holds
the LARGER ENERGY per MOLE,
shows you in C.L.E.A.R,
holds LESS ENERGY per MOLE than AIR,
* * * *ALL imaginable CONDITIONS* * * *
YOU are DEAD WRONG: telling people
AIR holds MORE energy,
CO2, holds LESS energy,
who have ZERO formal training in this matter,
will NEVER escape it. N.E.V.E.R.
There is ONE CHART
in ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL THERMODYNAMICS
that MAKES this ENERGY-PER-MOLE average, assignment.
The CHART of Specific Heats of GASES
of the I.D.E.A.L. GAS LAW
with it’s DERIVATIVE SUB-CHART,
the CHART of INDIVIDUAL GAS ENERGY CONSTANTS.
There is not another CHART.
The chart is NOT AMBIGUOUS: assigning CO2 the greater energy SOMETIMES,
assigning AIR the greater energy at some OTHER times.
EVERY single WORD you WROTE related to that is WRONG:
N O T H i N G.
EVERY column on lines 3 and lines 15
DEPICT Atmospheric AIR
having the HIGHER ENERGY per MOLE.
“Zoe Phin says:
2019/08/19 at 9:47 AM
CO2 has higher heat capacity per mole.
The CHART of LAW
WRITTEN to ANSWER the QUESTION
which GAS or MIX has the HIGHEST energy PER MOLE:
LINE 3: AIR
LINE 15: CO2
of the SUB-CHART named ”Individual Gas Constants”
or sometimes known as the Individual Gas ENERGY Constants:
You are barking INVERSION fraud.
you will not EVER
mitigate or escape it.
w r o n g,
W. R. O. N. G,
CO2 is in FACT one of the gases in the CHART of ENERGIES of the IDEAL GASES,
and if you even knew which LAW you were talking about , your REFERRING to the CHART
that ASSIGNS CO2 the
LOWER AVERAGE MOLAR ENERGY
and ASSIGNS Air the
HIGHER AVERAGE MOLAR DENSITY,
you would KNOW that the CHART DOING THIS assignment
PART II of the
* * * *Ideal Gas LAW* * * *
it comprises HALF of.
There is the EQUATION of the LAW
There is the CHART of the LAW
Parts I and II of the law WRITTEN
to be able to ESTABLISH overall energy retention
by an average MOLE of the GASES listed WITHIN it.
And CO2 is ONE of the LiSTeD
It SAYS – RIGHT THERE – IN THE EXPLANATION of WHY the CHART EXISTS:
“The specific heat (= specific heat capacity) at constant pressure and constant volume processes,
and the ratio of specific heats and individual gas constants – R – for some commonly used
“ideal gases”, are in the table below (approximate values at 68oF (20oC) and 14.7 psia (1 atm)).”
You have ZERO GRASP,
of what YOU are barking
Zoe Phin says:
2019/08/19 at 12:47 PM
Your link is slightly incorrect, because CO2 doesn’t follow ideal gas law.
Wouldn’t let me copy so I sent links.
I think Zoe is right. On this site they are showing this and it is more accurate than others I’ve seen.
However, if you go here, looks like they slip in the greenhouse effect.
There was another post pointing out the INVERSION Zoe Phin is trying to claim that didn’t post up just yet due to something or other I did, so – ostensibly that’s in que and Joseph will post it up later.
Thanks for that link CD. Look at this GHE description:
The atmosphere conserves the heat energy of Earth because it absorbs radiation selectively. Most of the solar radiation in clear skies is transmitted to Earth’s surface, but a large part of the outgoing terrestrial radiation is absorbed and reradiated back to the surface. This is called the GREENHOUSE effect. A greenhouse permits most of the short-wave solar radiation to pass through the glass roof and sides, and to be absorbed by the floor, ground or plants inside. These objects reradiate energy at their tempera-tures of about 300°K, which is a higher temperature than the energy that was initially received. The glass absorbs the energy at these wavelengths and sends part of it back into the greenhouse, causing the inside of the structure to become warmer than the outside. The atmosphere acts similarly, transmitting and absorbing in somewhat the same way as the glass. If the greenhouse effect did not exist, Earth’s tempera-ture would be 35°C cooler than the 15°C average temperature we now enjoy, because the insolation would be reradiated back to space.
Of course, the atmosphere is not a contained space like a greenhouse because there are heat transport mechanisms such as winds, vertical currents, and mixing with surrounding and adjacent cooler air.”
There you have it. A greenhouse doesn’t function by preventing convective cooling after being heated with a high-temperature input, but by trapping radiation and becoming higher in temperature than the heat which was initially received. They admit then that the atmosphere is not enclosed like a greenhouse building, but nevertheless that doesn’t matter and isn’t important – the inversion and con is complete.
Ah well, for a moment I had hope that insanity hadn’t gone everywhere, but the residents are once again in charge of the insane asylum.
You confused heat capacity per KG and per Mol. How embarassing! LMAO.
Any model that neglects geothermal radiation-to-space is worthless.
Any model that secretly substitutes GHGs for geothermal is a fraud.
There’s a whole field of science that researches materials to convert UV/Light to Infrared. If only those “dumb” researchers knew what mainstream climate scientists know: Water, Dirt, Clay, and Rocks do it all the time.
My 2 cents worth –
Radiation does not play a major part in heating the atmosphere. So called GHGs constitute at most a few percent of the atmosphere yet ALL of the atmosphere heats and cools every day – where I live the air temperature at 6:00 am yesterday was 8°C and it reached 27°C – the relative humidity was ~20%. It was a beautiful clear day and there is only one thing that can explain this almost 20°C temperature increase and it has nothing to do with a paltry ~650 milligrams of CO2 in every kilogram of air.
Science used to be based on reason so you should trust your reason to determine what is valid. Zoe likes to make things complicated to hide the fact that she is an idiot.
If there was no energy in the atmosphere it would be a layer of liquid held to the surface of the Earth by gravity. When you add energy the nitrogen, oxygen, argon, etc are converted to gases and expand against the downward pressure exerted by gravity. The more energy (heat) you add the more the atmosphere expands. According to Zoe the molecules with the most energy remain at the surface of the Earth while the molecules with the least kinetic energy are able to overcome the pressure exerted by gravity and rise to the top of the atmosphere Stupid.
I might be wrong (again) but I thought the molecules didn’t essentially “rise” in the atmosphere. The heat transfers to energy and back to heat riding each molecule in the atmosphere until it radiates out into space. Therefore the molecules aren’t moving from the surface to the upper atmosphere, it’s the energy moving like a current through the atmosphere’s molecules and out into space. That’s why with each transfer, the frequencies get scattered and the temperature reduces as it ascends.
Is that wrong?
You’re correct. Herb is an imbecile. He thinks average kinetic energy (what temperature measures) increases as you move up the troposphere, which is patently absurd. He also thinks expansion causes translation motion. Crackpot.
On behalf of my species I am sorry you are treated so bad by some and frankly ashamed of them. I was taught to show a lady some respect. Disagreement is one thing, becoming hostile about it is in poor taste. You either have a conversation or a confrontation. I prefer the confrontations for the real enemies I face.
Las time I checked that is not you or Joseph. Thank you both for your continued and much appreciated help.
Molecules in the troposphere transfer heat (kinetic energy) primarily through collisions not radiation. These collision are elastic and energy equalizes between colliding molecules with the molecules moving in all directions. The energy deceases with distance from its source so the question is what is the source of energy for the atmosphere? If you look at a graph of the temperature you would see there appear to be three sources of heat: the surface of the Earth, some unknown energy source in the atmosphere at an altitude between 50 and 51 km, and the sun above the thermosphere.
There is only one source of heat for the atmosphere, the sun, and the bizarre graph is the result of believing that temperature represents kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is a function of both mass and velocity (1/2mv^2) of molecules and objects transfer kinetic energy not temperature.
At lower levels the atmosphere is denser (more molecules and mass) so at these levels is the reading of the thermometer a result of more mass transferring energy or greater kinetic energy (velocity) of the molecules? To find the answer you must divide the temperature at an altitude by the density at that altitude to get the kinetic energy of a constant number of molecules. A graph of these results shows that the kinetic energy of molecules increases in a straight line from the surface of the Earth to the top of the troposphere. This gradual increase is due to water moderating the temperature in the troposphere until the boiling point of water is reached at the top of the troposphere and the water becomes a gas.
The gas molecules with the greatest kinetic energy are at the top of the atmosphere where they are closest to the source (the sun) and receive the most intense energy from the sun. The reason the temperature reading is so low is because there are so few of theses high energy molecules transferring energy to the thermometer.
Sunlight penetrates the atmosphere transferring energy to molecules and losing energy as it approaches the Earth’s surface. As you descend in the atmosphere the molecules are heated less by the sunlight and it is the hotter molecules at the top of the atmosphere that are radiating energy into space and to the molecules lower in the atmosphere.
Meteorologist report on a cloudy night the Earth will be warmer because the water in the clouds is reflecting heat back to the surface of the Earth. Water does not reflect heat but is very good at transmitting heat. The nights are warmer on cloudy nights because the water is more effectively transferring heat from the hotter molecules higher in the atmosphere to the surface of the Earth.
Herb, If “the nights are warmer on cloudy nights because the water is more effectively transferring heat from the hotter molecules higher in the atmosphere to the surface of the Earth”, how come the days are cooler?
You’re an idiot.
KEavg = 1/2mv^2 = 3/2kT
“To find the answer you must divide the temperature at an altitude by the density at that altitude to get the kinetic energy of a constant number of molecules. ”
T/D = PM/(R*D^2)
KE = nRT
How many times do you need to be corrected?
The days are warmer because the sun is adding energy to all the atmosphere. At night the greater energy of the molecules high. in the atmosphere is being distributed to all the molecules by radiation.
You are the idiot.
To convert 0 C ice to 0 C water you must add 80 calories/gram yet the thermometer says the kinetic energy of the Ice and the water is the same. To convert 100 C water to 100 C steam you must add 540 calories/gram yet the thermometer says the kinetic energy of the steam is the same as the kinetic energy of the water, so where does a steam engine get its energy? According to the thermometer 86% of the energy needed to convert 0 C ice to 100 C steam disappears. You spit out formulas but do not think and have no idea what your are talking about.
In the atmosphere kinetic energy follows the physics laws that apply to kinetic energy moving at the speed of light. Whatever those laws may be I am sure the physics is not the same as a pot of water, boiling or otherwise.
Unless I flunked everything known to science, kinetic energy of a body is equal to half it’s mass and its velocity or something like that. So more mass at the bottom, less at the top of the atmosphere would imply more energy at the bottom less at the top. Since conduction from the surface to the lower atmosphere and then by convection is the driver of energy during the day the temperature is higher at the surface 15C (if I have the process correct) temperature does not increase as it moves upwards. The more spread out those molecules are the kinetic energy will decrease, like momentum moving uphill, so it would be moving faster at the bottom layers and slower at the top layers of the atmosphere.
So what am I missing here?
What is missing is that temperature as measured by a thermometer does not give an accurate reading of kinetic energy. Thermometer is designed with a section to be exposed to the medium being measured and another section designed to equalize with the energy being added or given off by the other section. When equalization occurs the temperature is read. There is nothing on the thermometer to record the median kinetic energy of the molecules or calculate the average kinetic energy. The thermometer is calibrated by submerging the bulb in ice water to find the level for 0 C. It is then submerge in boiling water to find the level for 100 C. If you submerge more than the bulb into boiling water the thermometer will give a reading that the temperature is greater than 100 C even though the kinetic energy of the molecules in the water cannot exceed 100 C unless there is increased pressure. If you only submerge 1/3 of the bulb in ice water some of the measuring area will be exposed to air and the temperature will read greater than 0 C. The air contains 1 gran of molecules per cubic meter while the water contains 1 million grams per cubic meter. Even though 1/3 of the bulb is exposed to air the mean and average kinetic energy will be that of a water molecule so the thermometer should read 0C but does not.
The thermometer is recording the total heat being transferred to the bulb not the mean kinetic energy. In the lower atmosphere or boiling water there are more molecules/mass transferring heat to the bulb than in the upper atmosphere or oven. If the total heat transferred to the bulb in both the boiling water and oven are the same and the thermometers record the same temperature in both mediums than the velocity of the few molecules in the air must be greater to provide equal kinetic energy as the more numerous water molecules and have greater kinetic energy.
The greater kinetic energy of molecules in a gas causes the gas to expand (ideal gas law) so the volume/density of a gas is determined by the kinetic energy of the molecules and pressure, the volume and pressure do not determine the kinetic energy of the molecules. In the atmosphere the pressure is from gravity and can be considered as constant. The greater the kinetic energy the less dense the gas. The thermometer is recording the total energy transferred to it and just as when the bulb is not completely submerged in ice water or over submerged in boiling water it will give a false reading of kinetic energy of the molecules as the number of molecules transferring energy changes.
Herb, I didn’t say that the days are warmer when there’s cloud cover, I asked how come the days are COOLER?
Cloudy days are cooler because water droplets absorb a lot more energy than gas molecules. When liquid water absorbs energy it is absorbed in the hydrogen bonds between water molecules and does not appear as increased temperature. It takes 80 calories/gram to convert 0 C ice to 0 C water. It takes 100 calories/gram to raise the water temperature from 0 C to 100 C. It takes 540 calories/gram to convert 100 C water to 100 C steam. Only 14 % of the energy absorbed by the water in the troposphere shows up on a thermometer. It is the liquid water in the atmosphere that contains most of the energy in the atmosphere.
PV = nRT
T = PV/nR = P/dR
T/d = P/R/d/d
Drivel ? No ! Just shows you can get the same feeling for what is going on using 2 different aproches !
You changed topics. You made a strawman. You are disgusting swine!
A thermometer measures kinetic energy. It doesn’t measure internal energy, IMBECILE!
There’s no disappearance if energy, only conversion, IDIOT!
“The greater kinetic energy of molecules in a gas causes the gas to expand ”
No, idiot, kinetic energy is:
KEavg = 1/2mv^2
Do you see an expansion component?
Kinetic energy does not cause gases to expand. Internal energy causes a gas to expand.
You don’t even know the difference.
“In the atmosphere the pressure is from gravity and can be considered as constant.”
No, Moron, pressure is not a constant, it varies by height as described by barometric formula.
Gosh, it hurts to read the ramblings of a stubborn arrogant swine.
Gosh, Pierre, please enlighten us with what density^2 means.
Maybe we should divide temperature by density^2, so we can ponder about the meaning of density^3.
“Only 14 % of the energy absorbed by the water in the troposphere shows up on a thermometer. It is the liquid water in the atmosphere that contains most of the energy in the atmosphere.”
Retard, Water Vapor amounts to 0.25% of the atmosphere. You can divide that by 0.14, and get 1.79%. Is 1.79% MOST of the energy in the atmosphere?
No! Stop talking, you’re embarassing skeptics.
Zoe would you please write that up a little bit more and explain each step. Why the bottom two equations?
And WTF is everyone doing now…temperature is not simply a measure of kinetic energy even with a perfect thermometer…it is a measure of energy normalized to entropy and how these change with respect to one another. And it is not energy that transfers, but heat, when temperatures are different, etc. Why don’t we just focus on the given material which by itself utterly destroys political climate alarm, and points out a fundamental flaw in the way we do science at all.
Atmospheric pressure is not what confines the atmosphere any more than it is a rock on top of a mountain that holds the mountain down. If the atmosphere had no kinetic energy it would be a liquid held to the Earth’s surface by gravity not the top layer of the liquid. It is kinetic energy that causes it to expand against gravity and become a atmosphere.
You claim that temperature measures the average/mean kinetic energy. Do you really believe that 100C steam and 100 C water have the same kinetic energy? The mass of the molecules are the same so their velocities must also be the same. In 0 C ice the water molecules are locked in a crystal with little free moment while in 0 C water the liquid is in constant motion and yet you maintain they have the same kinetic energy.
The amount of heat liquid water contains is far greater than the amount of heat a gas contains. If you doubt this I will put my hand in a 100 C oven and you put your hand in a pot of boiling water and see who removes their hand first.
You do not understand gravity or thermodynamis.You should be the poster child for the saying “Education does not cure stupid.”
There is only one equation at the bottom.
It’s all very simple:
Geothermal Energy (E) is always active, day or night. During the day, the Sun is also out, so we average Sun and Geothermal. The time average for day and night is just the day average and night average, averaged.
24hr Avg: ( (S+E)/2 + E ) / 2
It’s quite fruitless to explain things to someone who confuses tranlational and internal energy. Whatever wisdom you think you have is lost in your inability to use proper terms.
“It is kinetic energy that causes it to expand”
Molecules jiggling around at 1/2mv^2 does not cause expansion. But heat flowing through molecules raises internal energy and does cause expansion.
“Do you really believe that 100C steam and 100 C water have the same kinetic energy?”
Yes, they have the same translational kinetic energy. No, they do not have the same internal energy. How many times do you need this explained?
JP check this gem out, PotHoler54, employed by the Guardian so I am told, but was at BBC. I removed the https so it wouldn’t like up here. This guy is a class A climate clown. Hie “minions” troll YT and pounce on “climate deniers” with the fervent zeal of a cult.
All interpreted through this false paradigm of flat Earth physics. Shows just how good people are at parroting, and how paradigms lock people’s thinking into a box from which most can never escape.
and with such arrogance and condensation, typical of the leftist. Almost like it is beneath him to have to explain his vast intelligence to a lesser mind. I truly hate these socialist academics.
I’m not sure what that average temperature of yours tells us, just like I’m not sure what an average global temperature tells us.
What is that average temperature? Is it a temperature at all? Aren’t you arriving at a temperature by combining two other temperatures?
Something about it is messing with my mind.
The boring-Brit-accent-video dude seems to think that one molecule per 2500 other molecules of Earth’s atmosphere can provide enough vibration to add significant vibration to the other 2499 molecules, to outdo the massive fluid-dynamic movement, via convection, of all those other molecules.
Those CO2 molecules must be powered by wizards, in his paradigm.Great that he doesn’t like the phrase, “Greenhouse effect”. I would suggest that he might prefer the phrase, “the great wizard effect”, instead.
“Meethane”? — really? I don’t have a British accent, and so I’m not cool like that.
Father forgive me for I am new! Hi all.
Like others “Brit Dude” promotes CO2 as trapping heat. But he also said w/o GHG we would be cold as the moon, so he is clearly holding on to RGHE? So when they use the trapping heat argument, where is the trapped heat (IR) coming from? I mean 33 degrees is hard to come by, you have to have it to trap it. So, there is either RGHE and back radiation or there is excess energy to trap.
You actually can’t answer the questions their “science” creates, because there is no answer, because their science is non-existent and doesn’t occur and doesn’t exist. Their “heat” comes from nowhere…it is literally magically created from nowhere, that it then provides TWICE, read it, TWICE, the energy than the Sun provides.
…and that’s why they have an endless paper trail so when you do ask, they can citation you off into oblivion. Who has time to refute 1-3 thousand papers?
It’s a paper trail mirroring the endless circular argument. They try to keep you going in that endless, self-perpetuating error. The paper trail is the physical embodiment of the fallacy it perpetuates.
Poetic. Sad, but poetic.
Herb, I’m still baffled. If, as you say, “the nights are warmer on cloudy nights because the water is more effectively transferring heat from the hotter molecules higher in the atmosphere to the surface of the Earth”, then shouldn’t cloudy days also be warmer due to exactly the same process?
My favorite part is when they flip geothermal energy and turn it into backradiation heating from GHGs. The smartest skeptics STILL haven’t figured that out.
Texas Shooter quotes some typical nonsense from a gullible cultist – “Like others “Brit Dude” promotes CO2 as trapping heat. But he also said w/o GHG we would be cold as the moon, so he is clearly holding on to RGHE?” (I know he is not buying it)
Firstly only an idiot tries to cite the lunar circumstance as having any relevant comparison to Earth – yet they all do !
If Earth had no atmosphere of N2, O2, Ar etc it would have an atmosphere of water vapour which would likely disappear over time due to the solar wind.
If Earth were a rocky barren landscape there are still huge differences to the Moon.
Period of rotation – 24 hours versus 24 x 29.5 = 708.
The Moon has no magnetic field – big problem for human habitation especially so for Mars. (After all a huge spinning magnetic field rotating around an even larger magnetic field couldn’t possibly generate any energy could it ?)
The Earth has a significant internal heated core.
So even if solar radiation/emitted planetary IR radiation explained it all the comparison to the Moon is absurd. If the Moon had a “daily” period of 24 Earth hours I suggest it would be much hotter on average – it may not reach ~120°C in the shorter time frame (though the evidence of the Skylab accident suggests this is not unreasonable) BUT it certainly wouldn’t cool anyway near as much as it does in the long almost 21/2 week twilight and night as it currently does. So there is evidence that the period of rotation is extremely relevant yet climate “science” ignores it completely !
And it is an established fact that compressing gases causes an increase in temperature. I know in our atmosphere this effect is transitory but compressing a whole atmosphere in the near vacuum of space is an entirely different kettle of fish.
How else can the internal temperatures of the outer planets be explained – Jupiter’s internal temperature is orders of magnitude greater hotter than the surface of the Sun ?
Anyone who thinks we know it all is dreaming.
No Bernie during the day the sun is adding energy to the atmosphere. Some of that energy raises the kinetic energy of gas molecules while some increase the energy stored in water. The sun is heating the molecules higher in the atmosphere more since the sunlight is more intense (not filtered by the atmosphere.) An object in orbit above the atmosphere will have the surface facing the sun heated to 250 F. The same object on the surface will be heated to 50 F. The energy of the sun decreases as it is transferred to molecules in the atmosphere.
When the sun sets those molecules that have absorbed energy will transfer energy to molecules with less energy The temperature will drop as the energies distributed to more molecules. The tops layer of water in a pool or lake will gain heat from the sun during the day and during the night that heat will transfer to water at lower levels as well as molecules in the atmosphere. This is why in general around a lake the temperature will be cooler during the summer and warmer during the winter as the water absorbs solar energy and stores it then transmits that energy when energy is not being added. Water is able to absorb a great deal of energy which does not raise its temperature. For every calorie absorbed that raises the temperature 1 C there are 5.4 calories absorbed that are bound in the hydrogen bonds in the water.
Herb – its time to talk SI.
I’m pretty sure rotation speed doesn’t matter. Faster heating, faster cooling.
The only change will be the label at the bottom:
Lunar -> Earth Day Hour
Herb, if “the nights are warmer on cloudy nights because the water is more effectively transferring heat from the hotter molecules higher in the atmosphere to the surface of the Earth”, and if “during the day the sun is adding energy to the atmosphere”, then for the process you are describing, with more energy being added to the system, shouldn’t we observe warmer days under cloud cover, not cooler?
K = 3/2 k T.
The average molecular kinetic energy is proportional to the ideal gas law’s absolute temperature.
Cut it out Herb. Molecules have less kinetic energy high up there.
Thank you, Pierre.
Then why is the thermosphere hotter than the rest of the atmosphere? It doesn’t matter what temperature scale you use if you are getting inaccurate data because the thermometer was not designed or calibrated for gases.
I do have a specific heat capacity question. When you are dealing with the atmosphere,
Which is applied overall? Am I looking at “Specific Heat”,”Specific Heat Ratio”. or the “Individual Gas Constant”.
In climate science,
Obviously CO2 takes longer to heat up than air, (average portion of the atmosphere). Is political climate science combining reflection, IR emitting, and energy capacity as one constant? I mean it really doesn’t make sense.
If I am following this (god help me) being able to reflect IR is not the same thing as emitting IR from energy absorbed. A “reflector” is merely reflecting light from another source. Emitting would be from energy absorbed and then releasing it and emitting IR in the sequence of molecules in motion. So that’s why even though a gas may not “reflect” IR it can still emit IR it’s not the same damn thing at all.
Lastly, in a gas no blanket can exist because it’s not “bonding” that’s what a solid does like water. CO2 does not bond as a gas.
Is this all right and if yes, how can I understand it more. I can see why they are so good at masking the science of global warming. I do find it disgusting that they ruin real science and teach this junk science in schools. After decades of learning wrong these egos can never accept they are wrong. A revolution in clear climate science will have to come from a younger generation. These old turds will never accept thy are wrong. Ever.
Trump really is the only one that can put a damper on this and right now he’s not. As long as frauds have his ear the real truth is never coming out, and Spencey has them all under his wing. Trump’s daughter is a climate nut, she’s bought into all of this crap so Trump has to be careful or is simply influenced by the wrong information.
Right now the GHE has a monopoly on the science outlets.
If only we had one science outlet that was independently teaching climate science and a billion dollars to invest.
At these high altitudes the atmospheric gases are few and far between. They are the first to absorb the Sun’s energetic radiation and can heat up to very high temperatures. But since there is practicaly no mass, there is not much energy stored there. Satellites can pass through it unharmed. Hitting one molecule at 2000K wont do any harm.
Joseph If you could have convinced Spencey he came up with your idea on his own, he may have bought into it.
Cp and Cv are specific heat capacity at constant pressure and constant volume respectively. The others are ratios and differentials of these 2. Just keep looking at Cp. If you want it for moles instead of Kg, just multiply by molecular weight, O2 32, N2 28, CO2 44.
Thank you sir, much appreciated.
Dont know why that part did not come up right. So…
RIGHT was this this comment
Found this to help you…
Ek being kinetic energy and Ep potential.
I’ll try again…
If I am following this being able to reflect IR is not the same thing as emitting IR from energy absorbed
So here’s my confusion:
CO2 0.844 cp (kj/kg/K)
This is saying it takes less energy to raise CO2 1 degree than the others? If so how does that relate to it needing more energy to maintain a constant temperature or am I reading this
Per kg yes but per mole no. Not the same number of molecules per weight. You have to compare for the same number of molecules.
CO2 0.844 kJ/kg/K * 44 kg/kmole = 37.14 kJ/kM/K
N2 1.04 * 28 = 29.12 kJ/kM/K
O2 0.919 * 32 = 29.41 kJ/kM/K
Air being composed of N2 (78%) O2 (21%) with almost the same Sp per mole would be around 29.24
Does anyone know the TRUE average emissivity of Earth’s surface?
Thanks for the chart. It demonstrates what I have been saying. Do people really believe that molecules of 0 C water have the same movement (velocity) as the molecules of 0 C ice? They have the same mass and the same temperature so the mean kinetic energy of the molecules must be the same. Where does the 80 calories/gram go? it cannot disappear. The same questions apply to the 540 calories/gram needed to convert 100 C water to 100 C steam.
Zoe’s contention that it goes to vibrational energy in the molecule is as stupid as her belief that expansion of a gas is not from kinetic energy (1/2mv^2) but from internal energy. It is the force of the entire molecule striking the confining pressure that causes the expansion.
Thermometers do not measure the kinetic energy of molecules but the total energy striking the measuring surface. If you only submerge 1/3 of the bulb of a thermometer into ice water the temperature will be higher than 0 C even though the mean and average kinetic energy of the molecules striking the bulb is 0 C. Thermometers are not accurate in the atmosphere where the number of molecules (mass) transferring kinetic energy declines continuously with altitude.
The rotation period obviously matters. Heating is all about joules in per second. The graph Zoe provides shows lunar hours which is more than a day on Earth. Here is one from the Diviner program which also includes data fro the rocky surfaces.
Thus the rate of temperature decline on the Moon by radiation alone is say 390 K – 125 K in 6 lunar hours for the regolith or say 375 K – 275 K in 6 lunar hours for rocky surfaces.
This produces cooling rates of ~265 K in 6 x 29.5 Earth hours – ~1.5K per hour or a more realistic approximation to Earth’s rocky surfaces of ~0.6 K per hour.
On Earth 18 hours of cooling from noon peak using the regolith values would result in 18°C change if Earth was like the Moon or ~10°C for rocky surfaces – by radiation alone. Where I live the air temperature changes by more than that even in winter – the surface temperatures change by more than that again.
There is absolutely zero chance that the temperature swings seen on the Moon would occur on Earth ! There isn’t the time for the cooling but there is ample time for heating as evidence by the well established temperature records – google Baghdad weather or Alice Springs.
In Summer Baghdad records >18 °C swings and Alice Springs in WINTER today varies from 4°C to 27°C.
So NO – there is NO WAY KNOWN Earth would have a similar graph profile to the Moon !
The Sun is capable of heating the air by 20+°C in less than 6 hours.
I mentioned Skylab which had its heat shield damaged at launch. It became uninhabitable with temperatures of ~70°C inside despite only part of the shield being damaged. It orbited every 93 minutes. A temporary fix was to put a “parasol” to cover the damaged shield – its a great story.
But the period of rotation is extremely relevant – I know during the first 6 lunar hours there is input from the Sun but this is decreasing whilst the cooling rate is maximised due to the high radiating temperature of the surface.
Anyway that’s my 2 cents worth.
Speaking 2 cents worth. Can anyone explain coherently the Brownian Motion in regards to the atmosphere and how that is the same or different from gases colliding into each other from being heated and so forth.
You mentioned before about the nights warmer than the day tripe alarmists are yapping about. Do you have anything more to add since it’s been a while. Thank you bunches.
Rotation speed doesn’t matter. Faster heating, faster cooling.
Why are you trying to imagine the Earth being like the moon, when the only variable I’m adjusting is Moon’s rotation speed.
Your chart would remain the same if Moon rotated in 24 Earth hours. Only the meaning of hours would change.
As far as I know, we have no evidence of night warming faster than day. We have evidence of a tiny warming of 12:00AM vs 04:00PM. But what about 12:01AM vs 04:01PM? If people want to imagine day and night ruled by 1 minute, they are insane.
I was just told in was at the poles? So…every 3 months? I’m talking to Andy P-Brain. If you need to blow off some steam he’s trolling Tony Heller’s latest video and being his normal complete moron and he has a neurotic protege with him, a Romano. I’m always honored by your presence and flawless execution. You are a sword, not a shield and you reap well the carnage of your foes.
Zoe Warrior Princess…or something like that.
Herb Rose believes that a balloon’s mass and velocity can tell you something about its expanse. What an imbecile! Seriously, this guy is a disgrace to skeptics.
I believe the kinetic energy of the gas molecules inside the balloon determines its size. Since the number of molecules (mass) of the molecules is constant if you put the balloon in the refrigerator and lower the velocity of the molecules the volume will shrink. You give stupid a bad name.
Only a pedantic idiot like Herb could ruin a perfectly good analogy. The balloon was the molecule! If you want to discuss what’s going on inside the molecule, you’re now in the realm of internal energy. The mass and velocity of a molecule is separate from the masses and velocities inside it, and is not part of kinetic gas theory.
The kinetic energy of any object, be it a molecule, a car, or a planet is a function of its mass and velocity. I guess you don’t understand, gravity, thermodynamics, or kinetic energy. The universal gas law states that the volume-pressure of a gas is a function of the number of gas molecules, the constant for that gas, and the kinetic energy of those gas molecules. Your conversion to molar mass, what ever that is, is just another way to complicate things. A mole is the constant number of molecules in 22.4 liters of a gas at standard pressure and temperature. The mass of a gas molecule is the sum of the masses of the atoms that form it. The atoms of a molecule have no velocity independent of the molecule they are a part of the molecule. What is the velocity of the oxygen atoms that make up an oxygen molecule? You seem to believe that by making a statement even dumber than a previous statement you can make that statement appear smart. You are not just an idiot but a fool.
“A mole is the constant number of molecules in 22.4 liters of a gas at standard pressure and temperature.”
No, a mole is just Avogadro’s number of particles.
Retard, you forgot about electrons and their mass and velocity. But nice try thinking I was referring to the atoms of a molecule.
Herb, you have no idea how stupid you sound when you confuse basic terms and concepts. Please brush up on the basics.
I read that…
“electrostatic oscillators are asymmetric, with longer amplitude of oscillation on the attraction side than on the repulsion side.This means that as thermal energy increases, the mean amplitude (length of the bond) increases, which means that the material expands.”
“The only way to add or subtract energy from such an oscillator is by resonance with a nearby oscillator.”
“The oscillator with the lower amplitude (at similar frequencies) will absorb amplitude from the oscillator with the higher amplitude…”
People are allowed to use words like nutcase, imbecile, crackpot, idiot, moron, swine, retard ?
How nice !
/ Zoe’s contention that it goes to vibrational energy in the molecule /
Look at the diagram above. Kinetic energy is defined as translation. I did not make the rules ! So I have no choice but to imagine that the energy goes to vibration and rotation.
I for one find it hard to imagine that once some molecules in a pack of ice find themselves free (same for water to steam) wont translate more even though the rest is solid.
Maybe Joe can explain !
Please be more civil and on subject people. We have the opportunity to overthrow the existing failed method of science and the greatest fraud of all time. Let’s do that.
I do not doubt evaporation or sublimation of water molecules but when you are talking temperature you are speaking about the mean or average kinetic energy of all the molecules not individual molecules at the extreme of the bell curve. Internal energy of molecules is vibrations across the bonds between atoms and can radiate energy or become kinetic energy of the whole molecule during collision.
Ultraviolet light will be absorbed by oxygen molecules causing vibration across the bond. The vibrational energy can become great enough to overcome the attraction between the atoms creating atomic oxygen. If the oxygen molecule strikes another molecule that vibrational energy will be converted into kinetic energy. This is why the ozone layer is high in the atmosphere where there are few collisions between molecules.
The diagram shows the failure of a thermometer in measuring kinetic energy. Take four beakers of water: one 0 C ice, one ice water, one hot water, and the last boiling water. Drop some dye into each beaker. The spread of the dye through the beaker is a result of the movement of the water molecules or their kinetic energy. The dye in the ice doesn’t disperse, the dye in the ice water spreads slowly, the dye in the hot water spreads fast, and the dye in the boiling water spreads very quickly. This shows the failure of the thermometer to give an accurate measurement of the kinetic energy of the water molecules.
The hypothesis I have formed to explain this failure involves the water molecule with its electrical charges and the structure of a thermometer. Hydrogen bonds between the ionic charges on water molecules cause water to be a liquid at temperatures its molecular weight says it should be a gas. These charges also cause water vapor (not gas) to condense around particles in the atmosphere forming rain drops.
Thermometers are made of glass or metal which have ionic charges in water. These charges would attract and hold water molecules to the surface of the thermometer forming an insulating layer around it shielding it from the kinetic energy of the water. This would support James McGinn’s theory that as more energy is added to water and the hydrogen bonds expand they get stronger resulting in the greater energy needed to convert 100 C water to 100 C steam than to convert 0 C ice to 0 C water.
It is the acceptance of the contention that the temperature, as measured by a thermometer, is a measurement of the kinetic energy of the molecules (unsupported by evidence) that causes all the problems. To get a comparison of the kinetic energy of molecules in the atmosphere you must take the temperature as measured by a thermometer (which was not designed or calibrated for gases) at different altitudes and divide it by the density (density is the number of molecules for a constant volume. The inverse of density is the volume of a constant number of molecules.) This value will show the kinetic energy of the molecules increases slowly in the troposphere (where water moderates the kinetic energy by absorbing energy with its hydrogen bonds) then increases in an exponential curve in the stratosphere and other layers of the atmosphere.
The GHGT is invalid because it violates the second law of thermodynamics.
You must feel like a genius with your confusion of basic terms and concepts.
I write my comments for people who think about things, not people who think they know everything so you should’t bother reading them.
I have read some of the comments you have made. You were never hesitant to call some one a dumbass when you thought it appropriate. Have you found religion or was Zoe one of your students and you’re embarrassed that she gotten A and doesn’t know how gravity works?
Herb, I, too, like to think about things, which is why I’m often baffled. It doesn’t help that, as Batman once said, there are several things that I don’t know. No, make that most things.
You say that there is no evidence that thermometers measure the kinetic energy of molecules and that they measure only the total energy striking the measuring surface. By total energy, do you mean the total excluding all KE (so, just via radiation and “passive” conduction?) or only some KE? Or, in relation to measuring the temperature of the atmosphere, are you saying that the “problem” is that there are just too few molecules to pass on or donate their “extra” energy (extra, be it KE or radiative, in excess of thermodynamic equilibrium) to get an accurate temperature measurement. Is the “problem” just that the thermometer indicates the temperature of thermodynamic equilibrium where the energy lost from the thermometer via radiation equals the energy gained from the few-and-far-between, “hot” molecules?
By the way, I’m still baffled in relation to cooler days under a cloudy sky. If, as you say, “the nights are warmer on cloudy nights because the water is more effectively transferring heat from the hotter molecules higher in the atmosphere to the surface of the Earth”, and if “during the day the sun is adding energy to the atmosphere”, then for the process you are describing, with more energy being added to the system, shouldn’t we observe warmer days under cloud cover, not cooler?
A thermometer only measures some of the kinetic energy. It takes 720 calories per gram to convert 0C ice to 100 C steam. The change measured on the thermometer is 100 calories and misses the rest. The other energy is being assorted by the hydrogen bonds in the water. The problem is that the electric nature of a water molecule (due to its shape) causes the water to adhere to the charged surface of the thermometer (from the ionic bonds of crystals) which forms a layer of water with restricted movement on the surface which acts as insulation. As more energy (heat) is added the hydrogen bonds expand and get stronger adding more insulation.
The thermometer is designed so the bulb is exposed to the medium being measured while the rest of the body is not. When the mercury in the bulb absorbs energy from the medium it expands and more of it enters the unexposed part of the thermometer where the heat/energy is transferred to the body of the thermometer. When the energy being absorbed by the mercury in the bulb is equal to the energy being lost by the mercury in the body the temperature is shown. If The bulb is not completely submerged in the medium the mercury will have less area absorbing energy from the medium and more area of mercury transferring energy to the glass the body of the thermometer.
If you submerge more than just the bulb of the thermometer in the medium the area of mercury absorbing heat will increase and the area of mercury transferring heat to the body of the thermometer will decrease. In both these cases the thermometer will give an inaccurate reading of the temperature. By submerging to much of the thermometer in boiling water the thermometer will give a reading greater than 100 C, by submerging less of the bulb in the water (no longer boiling to eliminate the bulbs exposure to steam) the reading will be less than 100 C.
The thermometer is designed and calibrated using ice water and boiling water and having the bulb section submerged it the water. In the atmosphere the entire thermometer is exposed to the medium being measured and yet the number of molecules transferring energy to the thermometer is less than in water because water is a million times denser than the atmosphere at sea level. In a laboratory when you measure the temperature of a gas only the bulb is exposed to the gas being heated. Because there are fewer molecule (less mass) transferring energy to the thermometer than the water it was calibrated with, the reading of the thermometer will not be an accurate indication of the kinetic energy of the molecules. In a boiler where the the steam is 100 C the molecules of steam will have more kinetic energy and will be able to do work while the 100 C water will only transfer heat not do work. A house heated with steam radiators will heat faster than one with circling hot water because the steam carries more energy even if the circulating water is at 100 C.
The thermometer was designed and calibrated for use in liquids not gases.
On both a clear and cloudy day the sun is delivering the same amount of energy to the Earth. On a cloudy day some of that energy is being absorbed by the hydrogen bonds in the water in the clouds instead of raising the temperature of the gases in the atmosphere therefore the air is cooler. The claim by those that the oxygen, nitrogen, and argon in the atmosphere cannot be heated by the sun is nonsense. If that were true you would not be able to heat the air in your home r cook for in an oven.
The conversation has moved on quite alot.
Are these pair taking the piss
No thermals, no heat haze no warmed expanding molecules rising, are you guys serious,….
The energy in the rising gas columns transfers to the cooled air dropping down the outer boundary and under the rising gas column…………as well as space by the radiative gases at the TOA.
CD Marshall says:
2019/08/21 at 5:44 PM
I might be wrong (again) but I thought the molecules didn’t essentially “rise” in the atmosphere. The heat transfers to energy and back to heat riding each molecule in the atmosphere until it radiates out into space. Therefore the molecules aren’t moving from the surface to the upper atmosphere, it’s the energy moving like a current through the atmosphere’s molecules and out into space. That’s why with each transfer, the frequencies get scattered and the temperature reduces as it ascends.
Is that wrong?
Zoe Phin says:
2019/08/21 at 6:41 PM
You’re correct. Herb is an imbecile. He thinks average kinetic energy (what temperature measures) increases as you move up the troposphere, which is patently absurd. He also thinks expansion causes translation motion. Crackpot.
Herb, Oh! what a tangled (or complicated) web you weave, but I trust not intended to deceive.
In relation to measuring the temperature of the troposphere, could I just ask you for a simple Yes or No answer to my question “Is the the “problem” just that the thermometer indicates the temperature of thermodynamic equilibrium where the energy lost from the thermometer via radiation equals the energy gained from the few-and-far-between, “hot” molecules?
In relation to it being cooler during the day when there is cloud cover (that is, cooler under the clouds than it would otherwise be on a clear day), you originally said that they are WARMER “because the sun is adding energy to all the atmosphere” but then you said that “energy is being absorbed by the hydrogen bonds in the water in the clouds instead of raising the temperature of the gases in the atmosphere therefore the air is COOLER.” You can see why I’m baffled. But I accept your second explanation. It makes sense.
In relation to the nights being warmer under a cloudy sky, isn’t it simply the case that water in the clouds is buffering the rate of cooling? My experience is that it cools down more slowly when it gets dark on a cloudy or humid day.
Thank you for your time, patience and indulgence.
The one word answer is no. The explanation is that while a thermometer is designed to have one section (the bulb) absorb heart and another section radiate heat in the atmosphere the entire thermometer is absorbing heat. The thermometer has no mechanism for counting the number of molecules transferring heat and determining if the heat it absorbs is a result of 1 million molecules striking it or one.
On a sunny day if you go under into the shade it is cooler because the object above absorb the energy from the sun instead of it striking you. On a cloudy day the water in the clouds is absorbing the energy from the sun high in the atmosphere.
According to the current beliefs the clouds that are keeping the surface of the Earth warmer at night are at an altitude where the temperature is -50 C which means the liquid water would also be – 50 C (supercooled). How can they slow the rate of cooling?
Humidity slows the cooling by radiation at night.
“Using a building’s roof to take advantage of long-wave radiation to the night sky has been long identified as a potentially productive means to reduce space cooling in buildings. The night cooling resource is large and enticing for residential energy-efficiency applications. On a clear desert night, a typical sky-facing surface at 80EF (27EC) will cool at a rate of about 75 W/m2. In a humid climate with the greater atmospheric moisture, the rate drops to about 60 W/m2. Night-time cloud cover is an important variable as well. With 50% cloud cover in a humid climate, the cooling rate drops to about 40 W/m2 and only about 7 W/m2 under completely overcast skies. Average potential daily July cooling for a radiator at 72EF amounts to 63 – 110 Wh/m2 of roof surface in U.S. climate locations – the lower value being representative of a humid region like that in Florida (Clark, 1981).”
I found the bs claims of nights warming faster than days.
The fact that humidity/clouds only slow down cooling and never do any actual heating, is perfect proof that the surface must have a source of energy greater than the atmosphere – geothermal.
I agree geothermal contributes. How much and where is the question. The fact that oceans are claimed to be warming more than usual it can only be geothermal, nothing else is capable of warming that kind of mass. I’m not even sure how they can try and claim CO2 is warming the oceans that makes no science sense at all.
Also not sure how they are claiming “bleaching” is harming the ocean. Isn’t that just salt?
Every day source of energy to the system is obviously the sun.
However some longer term variables influencing ice age rhythms and extinction events etc. could well be geothermal, influenced by planetary motions and their gravitational influence on tectonic plate movements.
However… what about this on the impact of fossil fuel extraction on global warming?!
“Energy conservation in the Earth’s crust and climate change”
To clarify …
Even if you already know GHGs don’t heat, but think the sun does it all, you still have the geothermal “dead end” problem. Why conduction and geothermal upwelling (but decreasing temp.) would suddenly stop and dissappear sounds fishy to me.
Think about it …
Just like Joe said, they confuse their outputs and inputs.
“Why conduction and geothermal upwelling (but decreasing temp.) would suddenly stop and disappear sounds fishy to me.”
“3.5 The oceanic lithosphere and oceanic heat flow . Modelling heat flow measurements in oceanic lithosphere requires a different approach from the one we adopted for continental lithosphere. The observation that heat flow depends upon the age of the crust holds for oceanic lithosphere as well as for the continents and there is an overall similarity in average heat flow values ( 65 mW m−2 in continents versus 101 mW m−2 in the oceans). However, the explanations for the two are quite different. As discusssed above, heat flow in the continents is controlled partly by the heat supplied into the base of the lithosphere (the reduced heat flow) and partly by radioactive sources in the crust. Oceanic lithosphere is not enriched in radioactive elements and radioactive sources within the oceanic crust can be neglected. The key to oceanic heat flow is the process of sea-floor spreading whereby oceanic crust is formed at an ocean ridge and then spreads away until it is eventually subducted back into the mantle at a trench. The concept of seafloor spreading leads us to try and make a thermal model for the cooling of a lithospheric plate. Since old oceanic crust has had longer to cool than young oceanic crust, we can explain the dependence of heat flow upon the age of the crust. We also might expect (and indeed we do observe) a dependence of depth of the ocean on age (because of the principle of isostasy and the fact that old oceanic lithosphere is colder and therefore denser than young oceanic lithosphere).”
I see my diagram didn’t help.
The heat flux through a thermocoupler is not the energy that leaves the top of the thermocoupler.
I get what you are saying …. but to me it seems that your thermocoupler is simply the point at which air temperature ceases to have an effect on the average geothermal gradient of 20ºC/km. increase with depth.
“air temperature ceases to have an effect on the average geothermal”
Woah! I have failed completely.
Here I was trying to explain geothermal effect on the air … yet somehow people still interpret things backwards.
The geothermal gradient is NEGATIVE 20 (25, more likely) with INCREASING height.
The atmosphere doesn’t heat the core. Sheesh
Sorry, but please think carefully.
No disagreement there…that is the same as increasing with depth.
Somehow the Earth gets warmer as you descend …whether through gravity or other internal forces.
The point being that the top 10 metres or so deviates from that due to seasonal variations and so acts a flywheel for variations in annual surface and moderates air temperature extremes.
“that is the same as increasing with depth.”
And my body can heat a sauna by -23C. Cold-to-hot is a bad frame of reference.
“The point being that the top 10 metres or so deviates from that due to seasonal variations and so acts a flywheel for variations in annual surface and moderates air temperature extremes.”
Without the Sun or Atmosphere, the surface would be Tm.
With the Sun and NO Atmosphere, the surface would be between Tm and Tm+20
With NO Sun and an Atmosphere, the surface would be between Tm-20
With NO geothermal and Sun and Atmosphere, the surface would be 163.3 W/m^2 on average.
If the problem is not that the thermometer is just indicating the temperature of thermodynamic equilibrium where the energy lost from the thermometer via radiation equals the energy gained from your few-and-far-between, “hot” molecules, then how come temperature measurements based on alternative measurement techniques give more-or-less the same readings as a bulb thermometer? Are they also missing your elusive “hot” molecules and just measuring the temperature of “cold” molecules?
The evidence of cooling rates provided by Pablo in his 2019/08/26 at 5:15 AM comment above would appear to support my anecdotal observation that it cools down more slowly when it gets dark on a cloudy or humid day. Based on his figures, it would appear that humidity drops the cooling rate by about 20%, with clouds producing a further drop of another 30%, or thereabouts. The “extra” cooling from clouds would presumably begin at the cloud base, which would be at about 2000m, or even lower, but way before the temperature had dropped anywhere near –50C, which would be at about 10,000m. If it is true that current beliefs are that it is clouds at –50C that are keeping the surface of the Earth warmer at night, then those current beliefs would appear to be wrong. The slower cooling on a humid, cloudy night appears to begin just above the surface and would have effectively petered out somewhere up in the clouds way below 10,000m.
Oops, “The “extra” cooling from clouds” should read “The “extra” slow down in cooling due to clouds….”
All thermometers (except lasers) I am aware of, mercury, bi metallic, or electric measure the heat being transferred to them and do not have counters to count the molecules transferring the heat. As the altitude increases the number of molecules (mass) transferring heat to the thermometer decreases and the thermometer records lower temperatures. The current interpretation of these readings is that the kinetic energy of the molecules is decreasing while I maintain that the decrease of measured temperature is a result of less mass transferring heat to the thermometer even though the kinetic energy (velocity) of the molecules striking the thermometer increases with altitude. I do not think the thermometer is just measure low velocity molecules but all molecules striking it. There are just fewer of them.
There is a difference between humidity and clouds. Humidity comes from evaporation which is water absorbing heat while clouds come from condensation which is water cooling. As humidity becomes clouds heat is released by the water into the cooler gases slowing their cooling.
Clouds can form anywhere in the atmosphere from the surface of the Earth (fog) into the stratosphere. The cloud cover “reflecting” heat back to the surface of the Earth at night occurs at the interface between the troposphere and stratosphere where the measured temperature is -50 C.
“Without the Sun or Atmosphere, the surface would be Tm.”
No …the loss from radiation would exceed the flux from the core. Otherwise Siberia would be toasty in winter.
In the equatorial regions with little annual variation of solar input or air temperature change, the surface is Tm with only slight diurnal deviations.
“With the Sun and NO Atmosphere, the surface would be between Tm and Tm+20 ”
More like between much less than Tm-20 on the dark side and Tm+214ºF at the zenith on the sunlit side.
“With NO Sun and an Atmosphere, the surface would be between Tm-20”
No… it would be close to Tm-273ºC
“With NO geothermal and Sun and Atmosphere, the surface would be 163.3 W/m^2 on average.”
Now that’s the interesting one.
Assuming a cold core (which is not possible with the Earth’s mass and gravity as it is),
then the insulation from below is removed and a decline in temperature with depth to the core would occur.
The oceans would be able to cool downwards into the crust and freeze solid, even the tropical sun would not save it. Land too… its sun-warmed surface losing heat rapidly downwards becoming solid permafrost.
That geothermal barrier means that the solar storage heater of Earth’s oceans can never freeze from below or at the surface under a tropical sun and that permafrost can only reach a depth of 1km in Siberia where the temperature at 0ºC (the average air temperature) is Tm.
You learned nothing.
Average air temperature is what determines the depth at which that temperature stabilises within the Earth’s crust and the beginning of a constant increase of temperature with depth. The more variations of temperature at the surface the greater the depth of equalisation. Day and night … just a few centimetres , annual …into the metres.
I am not saying the atmosphere heats the core. “Sheesh”
The crust is thinnest near Siberia so wouldn’t that geothermal offset the cold? Or is it your theory that it’s warmest around the equator where the core would be widest. Interesting theory but how would you test it? I would imagine the only way is by depth temperature measuring. Easiest way to do that is mining tunnels. How willing are they to share that information?
So how would you do it? How would you propose an experiment to prove it?
Don’t worry, I will prove it, piece by piece. Updates will be in the latest thread.
Deep mines have inconsistent temperature variations due to the surrounding rocks. In some cases the temperature increases with increasing depth then decreases for a distance than increases.
You would expect geothermal radiation to be most noticeable in the polar regions where the effects of the sun is reduced and the distance to the heat source (core) is the shortest. In these areas you have permafrost which is layer of buried soil that never thaws even though the soil above it thaws. This indicates that the equilibrium point between the heat radiated from the sun and the heat radiated from the Earth’s interior is in the Earth’s crust. The Earth does not radiate geothermal energy into the atmosphere (except in volcanic activity) which would explain why after 4 billions years the crust is paper thin.
Type of of rock certainly affects thermal flux to the surface but the fact that oceanic crust is very thin compared to continental means that geothermal is an underestimated insulating layer for the bulk of the heat reservoir of Earth.
“This indicates that the equilibrium point between the heat radiated from the sun and the heat radiated from the Earth’s interior is in the Earth’s crust.”
Yes! When the sun is out. How about at night, Herb?
“You would expect geothermal radiation to be most noticeable in the polar regions where the effects of the sun is reduced and the distance to the heat source (core) is the shortest.”
No, you would expect geothermal to be greatest at the equator. Thermal expansion causes equitorial bulge.
I already posted geothermal data comparing Malaysia and Tundra.
I believe the oceanic crust has a different composition and density compared to continental crust but I don’t know how this effects heat transmission.
Herb, it would appear that either the current interpretation or your interpretation of thermometer readings is wrong. I wonder if there is any experiment or evidence that would falsify either interpretation?
In relation to slower cooling on humid and cloudy nights, I would have thought that it doesn’t really matter that humidity comes from evaporation while clouds come from condensation. They’re both liquid (water droplets) or solid (ice crystals) water. Once in situ at the end of the day, I imagine that the water contains a larger amount of stored energy (heat?) that will take longer to dissipate than that contained in what would be a less massive volume of dry air on a cloudless day. The result: slower cooling rates on a humid, cloudy night.
The only experiment I have come up with is using the dispersion of dye in water as an indicator of the motion (kinetic energy) of the water molecules. If you put dye on 0 C ice the dye does not disperse through the ice. If you put dye in 0 C water the dye will slowly into the water. If you put dye in hot water it disperses quickly while if you put dye in a beaker of water that was boiling it disperses very quickly. (The fact that 100 C steam is a gas shows its kinetic energy is greater than 100 C water.) Since the mass of the water molecules doesn’t change any difference in the movement of the dye would show a change in velocity and kinetic energy.
If a quantitative experiment was done showing the rate of dispersion in the water compared to the change in temperature recorded on the thermometer it could be determined if the kinetic energy (velocity) is accurately measured by the thermometer or if at higher temperatures there is more energy in a change of 1 degree than in a change of 1 degree at lower temperatures.
The fact that in a desert the temperature drops precipitously at night shows that the water in the atmosphere, whether humidity or droplets, stores a lot of heat which is released as the gas around the water cools.
Herb, I like your suggested dye experiment. One question springs to mind. I believe that liquid water molecules are said (I don’t know if it is a fact) to chaotically zoom around at an average of about 500-600m/s with only about a 20% increase in velocity from freezing water to boiling water. Would you expect to see similar differences in dye dispersion rates?
I don’t know. It appears to me that the rate of dye dispersion increases far more than 20% but I don’t have the equipment to do a quantitative measurement and determine it.
Do you know if there’s something anamolous about the way water heats?
If you heat water, will it get hot top to bottom, or bottom to top?
It all depends on the source of energy. If you heat water on a stove it will heat from the bottom, if you heat water in a microwave it will heat wherever in the container the microwave is absorbed by the water molecule. In an unheated pool the sun will heat the surface of the water.
All object above absolute zero radiate heat which decreases with distance. In the atmosphere, according to you who believe the thermometer gases will heat from the sun at the top of the atmosphere, from the surface of the Earth, and some mysterious source of energy located at an altitude at approximately 50 kilometers. Heat will decrease from the source until it encounters heat from another source that is equal to it (equilibrium point). The Earth is in equilibrium with the heat from the sun. When the heat from the sun decreases the Earth will cool to re-establish equilibrium. When the sun puts out more energy the Earth warms. This is what produces climate and the equilibrium point is in the Earth’s crust.
The equatorial bulge is not a result of geothermal heat but the rotational energy of the Earth and has been there since the Earth formed.