Tropospheric Hot Spot- Why it does not exist...

[SSDD]

All you have to do is go out and look at the specs hairball...

I did.

And in typical fashion, you failed to learn anything...there are two basic types of IR CAMERAS...not IR thermometers which use thermocouples...IR CAMERAS...the cheap uncooled ones have an internal IR source which sends out IR light which is then reflected from the surroundings back to the lens....and then there are the high dollar type as mounted on police and military helicopters, or the heavy shoulder mount type which are cooled...

 

[Wuwei]

The GHG's, O2, and N2 are thoroughly mixed in the atmosphere and are at the same temperature.

So o2, n2 and ghg are all at the same temperature at all times?

That's right. If a molecule of a GHG picks up energy, it will transfer it to the rest of the atmosphere immediately.

And then that molecule of o2 or n2 then dissipates it too, right, because o2 and n2 do not trap heat, right?

Right, O2 and N2 don't trap heat, but of course, they can stay hot and dissipate heat eventually to outer space. But during the day they will pick up more heat, and you see the up and down temperatures of day and night.

Agreed. But the heat that is immediately transferred from the ghg to the non-ghg is not trapped, right?

I'm not sure I know what you mean by trapped. All the atmosphere is trapped by gravity. All the atmosphere is at the same temperature locally, although it varies wildly with altitude or distance from the poles. Since GHG's are completely intermixed with the atmosphere there is no distinction between the heat of GHG's vs. the heat of O2 and N2.

 

[Wuwei]

What experiments are those?

Here are a couple....there are plenty out there...and they directly contradict the claim that pressure does not create a temperature gradient in columns of air.

https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/graeff1.pdf

Gravity induced atmospheric temperature gradient: New developments

Both references refer to the work of R W Graeff. The experiment is a static system at equilibrium. And both references have the following statement.

Contrary to the statement by Clausius, the reported results show that in an isolated system under the influence of a force field like gravity heat can flow from a reservoir at a given temperature to a reservoir at a higher temperature.​

That is contrary to what you have been continually saying, that heat cannot spontaneously flow from an object at lower temperature to a higher temperature. It is also contrary to the second law. Also if Graeff's experiments are valid, he has discovered perpetual motion of the second kind. In short, Graeff's conclusions are outlandish, and his experiment has to be flawed.

 

[mamooth]

And in typical fashion, you failed to learn anything...there are two basic types of IR CAMERAS...not IR thermometers which use thermocouples...IR CAMERAS...the cheap uncooled ones have an internal IR source which sends out IR light which is then reflected from the surroundings back to the lens....
and then there are the high dollar type as mounted on police and military helicopters, or the heavy shoulder mount type which are cooled...

And then there are the light mid-priced uncooled IR cameras, that absolutely do not have an internal IR source.

You're twenty years behind the technology curve. Modern technology has destroyed your crazy theory.

How a normal person views the technology:

"Cold" IR photons strikes the warm CCD bits. As it doesn't matter at all that they came from a cold source, those photons are absorbed, that initiates various individual electron flows, and the electronics assemble those into a picture.

Your explanation is ... ?

You're going to have trouble with that, being how you say the warm CCD's can't absorb those cold photons. So then how does the IR camera manage to create a very detailed image of a cold sky? "A model" certainly isn't going to give detailed images of clouds which are an exact match for the clouds you can see visually.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So o2, n2 and ghg are all at the same temperature at all times?

That's right. If a molecule of a GHG picks up energy, it will transfer it to the rest of the atmosphere immediately.

And then that molecule of o2 or n2 then dissipates it too, right, because o2 and n2 do not trap heat, right?

Right, O2 and N2 don't trap heat, but of course, they can stay hot and dissipate heat eventually to outer space. But during the day they will pick up more heat, and you see the up and down temperatures of day and night.

Agreed. But the heat that is immediately transferred from the ghg to the non-ghg is not trapped, right?

I'm not sure I know what you mean by trapped. All the atmosphere is trapped by gravity. All the atmosphere is at the same temperature locally, although it varies wildly with altitude or distance from the poles. Since GHG's are completely intermixed with the atmosphere there is no distinction between the heat of GHG's vs. the heat of O2 and N2.

Mars has gravity, yet lost its atmosphere.

 

[Wuwei]

Mars has gravity, yet lost its atmosphere.

That's right.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Mars has gravity, yet lost its atmosphere.

That's right.

But you said, " All the atmosphere is trapped by gravity." Did the force of gravity weaken on Mars?

 

[mamooth]

But you said, " All the atmosphere is trapped by gravity." Did the force of gravity weaken on Mars?

And he clearly didn't say "any gravity traps an atmosphere".

Hence, you look stupid for implying he did say that.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

But you said, " All the atmosphere is trapped by gravity." Did the force of gravity weaken on Mars?

And he clearly didn't say "any gravity traps an atmosphere".

Hence, you look stupid for implying he did say that.

Did the Russians hack your account to make you look like an idiot?

 

[SSDD]

What experiments are those?

Here are a couple....there are plenty out there...and they directly contradict the claim that pressure does not create a temperature gradient in columns of air.

https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/graeff1.pdf

Gravity induced atmospheric temperature gradient: New developments

Both references refer to the work of R W Graeff. The experiment is a static system at equilibrium. And both references have the following statement.

Contrary to the statement by Clausius, the reported results show that in an isolated system under the influence of a force field like gravity heat can flow from a reservoir at a given temperature to a reservoir at a higher temperature.​

That is contrary to what you have been continually saying, that heat cannot spontaneously flow from an object at lower temperature to a higher temperature. It is also contrary to the second law. Also if Graeff's experiments are valid, he has discovered perpetual motion of the second kind. In short, Graeff's conclusions are outlandish, and his experiment has to be flawed.

No it isn't...pressure is work...and energy can flow from cold to warm if work is applied...it just doesn't happen spontaneously...

 

[Wuwei]

No it isn't...pressure is work...and energy can flow from cold to warm if work is applied...it just doesn't happen spontaneously...

Actually pressure alone is not work since nothing is moving. An isolated system at equilibrium is not doing work or receiving work.

Work (thermodynamics) - Wikipedia

There are several ways of doing work, each in some way related to a force acting through a distance.​

 

[SSDD]

Actually pressure alone is not work since nothing is moving. An isolated system at equilibrium is not doing work or receiving work.

what do you mean nothing is moving?...is the atmosphere static?

 

[ding]

So o2, n2 and ghg are all at the same temperature at all times?

That's right. If a molecule of a GHG picks up energy, it will transfer it to the rest of the atmosphere immediately.

And then that molecule of o2 or n2 then dissipates it too, right, because o2 and n2 do not trap heat, right?

Right, O2 and N2 don't trap heat, but of course, they can stay hot and dissipate heat eventually to outer space. But during the day they will pick up more heat, and you see the up and down temperatures of day and night.

Agreed. But the heat that is immediately transferred from the ghg to the non-ghg is not trapped, right?

I'm not sure I know what you mean by trapped. All the atmosphere is trapped by gravity. All the atmosphere is at the same temperature locally, although it varies wildly with altitude or distance from the poles. Since GHG's are completely intermixed with the atmosphere there is no distinction between the heat of GHG's vs. the heat of O2 and N2.

Ok, but the heat that is exchanged immediately by the GHG and then transferred to the o2 and n2 is lost to space the exact same way as the temperature from convection was lost to space, right? And you said that the heating of o2 and n2 from convection did not warm the planet because that energy was lost to space, right?

 

[Wuwei]

Ok, but the heat that is exchanged immediately by the GHG and then transferred to the o2 and n2 is lost to space the exact same way as the temperature from convection was lost to space, right?

Right. It doesn't matter how the heat originally was transformed, but in the end it is radiated to space as EM energy.

And you said that the heating of o2 and n2 from convection did not warm the planet because that energy was lost to space, right?

That's right. Actually the planet heats O2 and N2, but the O2 and N2 don't back-radiate to earth.

 

[Wuwei]

Actually pressure alone is not work since nothing is moving. An isolated system at equilibrium is not doing work or receiving work.

what do you mean nothing is moving?...is the atmosphere static?

I was referring to the experiment you posted:

Here are a couple....there are plenty out there...and they directly contradict the claim that pressure does not create a temperature gradient in columns of air.

https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/graeff1.pdf
Gravity induced atmospheric temperature gradient: New developments

The discussion was not about earth's atmosphere. It was about the experiment that was done in a sealed container with no moving force acting on it.

 

[ding]

Ok, but the heat that is exchanged immediately by the GHG and then transferred to the o2 and n2 is lost to space the exact same way as the temperature from convection was lost to space, right?

Right. It doesn't matter how the heat originally was transformed, but in the end it is radiated to space as EM energy.

And you said that the heating of o2 and n2 from convection did not warm the planet because that energy was lost to space, right?

That's right. Actually the planet heats O2 and N2, but the O2 and N2 don't back-radiate to earth.

Right. I get that, so how much of that heat is transferred to the surrounding atmosphere that does not back-radiate to the earth?

 

[Wuwei]

Right. I get that, so how much of that heat is transferred to the surrounding atmosphere that does not back-radiate to the earth?

Various GHG's radiate in different wavelengths. There are a few wavelengths that GHG's don't back-radiate.

The percent near zero does not back-radiate. The important region for the earth is between 4 and 70.

 

[ding]

Right. I get that, so how much of that heat is transferred to the surrounding atmosphere that does not back-radiate to the earth?

Various GHG's radiate in different wavelengths. There are a few wavelengths that GHG's don't back-radiate.

The percent near zero does not back-radiate. The important region for the earth is between 4 and 70.

So can you ballpark how much heat is immediatly transferred to o2 and n2? What percent?

 

[Wuwei]

So can you ballpark how much heat is immediatly transferred to o2 and n2? What percent?

Almost all of it is transferred from the warm earth to the O2 and N2, if I understand your question.

 

[SSDD]

Actually pressure alone is not work since nothing is moving. An isolated system at equilibrium is not doing work or receiving work.

what do you mean nothing is moving?...is the atmosphere static?

I was referring to the experiment you posted:

Here are a couple....there are plenty out there...and they directly contradict the claim that pressure does not create a temperature gradient in columns of air.

https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/graeff1.pdf
Gravity induced atmospheric temperature gradient: New developments

The discussion was not about earth's atmosphere. It was about the experiment that was done in a sealed container with no moving force acting on it.

And yet...there were the temperature gradients..repeatable experiments demonstrating them.....and there was plenty of movement...do you think that the air in those columns was actually static?..