LikeLike

]]>You don’t define how areas are categorized into either category, but let’s take three end-member examples.

[snip. Yes, the study in the Appendix explains the methodology and the selection process for the 15 locations. Your cherry-picked “three” locations and your complete disregard for appropriate methodology, lack of consideration of the angle of the Sun and lack of adjustments for altitude or proximity of large water masses render your data as being far from an appropriate counter study. To you and others, do NOT submit comments here without spending at least an hour reading the paper and the study in the Appendix thereof.]

LikeLike

]]>“The Stefan-Boltzmann Law in physics confirms that the solar radiation impinging on Earth’s surface (168 watts per square meter according to NASA) is nowhere near sufficient to explain the mean surface temperature. In fact, the flux is like that from an iceberg at -40°C.”

[Yes my statement (which you quoted) is correct. See NASA energy diagrams here: http://whyitsnotco2.com/PSI.html showing the 168 figure and (below the NASA diagram) the Stefan-Boltzmann calculator showing 168W/m^2 flux and the resulting temperature of 233K which is -40°C. Please read that whole page.]

LikeLike

]]>When you stop looking at an atmosphere as having “A temperature” and realise that the temperature is a distribution of individual molecule temperatures ranging from absolute zero to some thousands of degrees the rest becomes obvious. Because rising air must convert KE to PE when rising it MUST cool. Yes there is no physical container but there is in fact a gravitational container.

So there must be a temperature gradient from bottom to top. [snip – the rest of the comment was incoherent and would be confusing for silent readers.]

LikeLike

]]>Latest book and documentary.

‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.

LikeLike

]]>Hence, don’t start out with the assumption I’m wrong, because that is not the case. Instead, try to understand the physics I have correctly explained using Kinetic Theory. Gravity acts on molecules and forms both a density gradient and a temperature gradient, as seen in every planetary troposphere. The pressure gradient is a mere corollary. As I said, in an “ideal” column of a planet’s troposphere in the state of maximum entropy, we know that, for an imaginary horizontal plane (with thickness, say, 1 nanometer or less) the pressure from above and below is equal, so we also know that the numbers of molecules crossing each way is equal (the density) and so the temperature (mean kinetic energy at the time of crossing) must also be equal. Hence, because of the acceleration due to gravity, those crossing from above must have had less kinetic energy just after their previous collision, and so the mean kinetic energy at that higher level must have been less – that is, the temperature was cooler there when we consider the macro scale. If I were wrong, then no vortex cooling tube would work, and Earth would be frozen solid because radiation from a colder atmosphere cannot heat the warmer surface, and nor can a mean of 168W/m^2 of solar radiation reaching that surface account for a mean temperature above the black body temperature of 233K which is about -40°C.

As a footnote, let me add that we don’t always have to differentiate some expression for entropy to determine its potential maximum. We just have to understand that it is maximized when all unbalanced energy potentials have dissipated, and those potentials must also consider gravitational potential energy. The latter is ignored in deriving the Clausius corollary of the Second Law, which thus only applies in a horizontal plane. If we were to have isothermal conditions in, say, a perfectly insulated, sealed tall cylinder of non-radiating argon, then there would be unbalanced energy potentials due to the extra gravitational potential energy at the top, and so entropy could and would increase until the mean sum of molecular (kinetic energy + gravitational potential energy) was homogeneous. Then we would have a temperature gradient with d(PE) = -d(KE) and so m.g.dH = – m.cp.dT and thus the gradient is dT/dH = -g/cp. I suggest you also read this guy’s website and the pages there on the Second Law: http://entropylaw.com and perhaps some of the cited references.

LikeLike

]]>You are correct when you say: A gas in thermodynamic equilibrium has as many molecules crossing an arbitrary horizontal plane upward and downward. However, the pressure of a gas in a gravitational field varies the weight of the gas above, creating a pressure gradient dP/dz. According to the ideal gas law (density = rho = n/V = RT/P), the density gradient in the gas (drho/dz), depends on both dP/dz and dT/dz. The latter is a controversial subject. (:)) The flux in either direction depend on both density and velocity, but the downward velocity is increased by the acceleration of gravity between collisions while the upward velocity is decreased. To get the physics right, one needs to deal with all of these complications using differential calculus, not handwaving approximations.

LikeLike

]]>Would all readers please understand that the “heat creep” hypothesis and the AGW greenhouse radiative forcing one are mutually exclusive: only one can be correct. Hence, if you cannot prove the “heat creep” hypothesis to be false (using the laws of physics) then you cannot prove the AGW conjecture to be correct.

Physics is a precise subject. Heat transfers in nature occur if and only if entropy is increasing. Indeed, every autonomous independent process in nature occurs because entropy is increasing (and so unbalanced energy potentials are diminishing) and all such processes cease when entropy reaches a maximum within the relevant constraints. So, you cannot deduce anything about any process unless you have a clear and precise understanding as to just exactly why unbalanced energy potentials are decreasing, why entropy is thus increasing and when and why it will cease doing so.

Hence, if you think you can prove the “heat creep” hypothesis false, then you need to explain why you think my analysis of the entropy maximization involved is incorrect.

LikeLike

]]>We know that, apart from direct solar radiation, there must be additional thermal energy entering a planet’s surface each morning and early afternoon because otherwise we don’t have any warming at those times, and we don’t have overall energy balance at the surface for each complete rotation, such as each 24 hours for Earth. In typical Earth energy diagrams like the one on this page, they show back radiation of about 324W/m^2 into the surface, but the electro-magnetic energy in that radiation is not converted to thermal energy in the warmer surface, and so there is no heat transfer from cooler to warmer regions. Such heat transfers can never happen by radiation. Instead, a similar amount of thermal energy is actually delivered into the surface by conduction across the interface with the atmosphere. This was energy originally absorbed each morning from new solar radiation that is strong enough to raise the cold temperatures found mostly in the upper troposphere and above. This new energy must be what makes its way to the surface, but it does not do so by radiation. Only non-radiative processes (natural convective heat transfers) can transfer thermal energy up the sloping thermal plane, provided that the process is increasing entropy. This is because such processes depend upon energy being transferred by molecular collisions, and gravity acts on molecules in flight between collisions increasing their kinetic energy as their gravitational potential energy decreases. But, by definition, no energy is transferred across internal boundaries in a perfect state of thermodynamic equilibrium. Energy transfers only happen when new energy creates a state that is

LikeLike

]]>Now, convective heat transfer in physics can be either forced or natural. Strictly speaking, forced convection is basically wind of any form. Such winds, as you know, can bring warmer or cooler air from other regions. My hypothesis is based on natural convective heat transfers and these, in physics, involve heat transfer only by way of molecular collision processes. This includes diffusion, where no discernible net motion of molecules can be detected, and it also includes a faster process which is really the same but is fast enough for us to be able to detect net movement of molecules. It is important to note that the transfer of heat (kinetic energy) is faster than the apparent net motion of the gas, if that is even detectable. For example, when you drive a car that has been in the Sun into your garage and open all four doors the thermal energy disperses reasonably quickly out into the garage by this process. It is only in this process, for which there is no external energy being added, that we get equal exchanges of molecular kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy which form the temperature gradient which we calculate based on that assumption.

Those who have read and understood my hypothesis will recognize the lack of any “night and day” in Stephen Wilde’s conjecture. His parcels of gas supposedly looping through the whole height of the troposphere have nothing to hold them together, and there is no explanation as to when they should go up and when down. Stephen has been influenced by the false physics of climatology which talks about such parcels rising from a heated surface and expanding and cooling. No such thing happens, because molecules are free to go in all directions and any initial group within some small defined space will not hold together all the way up or down through the troposphere, or even for a meter or two. In any event, there can be no net gain of energy when the rise equals the fall. Stephen does not explain how a particular location on the equator of Venus cools at night (by about 5 degrees from 737K to 732K) and then acquires new thermal energy the next Venus morning, gradually rising in temperature by the same amount that it cooled in the four-month-long Venus night. Stephen does not explain how the new energy acquired each Venus morning in the upper atmosphere (where temperatures < 400K) then gets down and into the 735K surface, thus explaining the rise in temperature.

To Stephen and others I say, unless future comments discuss entropy and the hypothesis I have put forward, they will not pass moderation. If readers are not prepared to study carefully what I have explained, then inevitably their comments will be irrelevant.

LikeLike

]]>