Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #594619
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics |
| Subject | Re: Convection is fiction |
| Date | 2016-08-25 06:20 +0200 |
| Organization | PointedEars Software (PES) |
| Message-ID | <1901610.irdbgypaU6@PointedEars.de> (permalink) |
| References | (6 earlier) <npfc2e$uap$2@dont-email.me> <4201218.GXAFRqVoOG@PointedEars.de> <npj6ma$mnh$1@dont-email.me> <8983463.nUPlyArG6x@PointedEars.de> <npkt0r$6ri$1@dont-email.me> |
Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 24/08/2016 v 19:03 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>> Poutnik wrote:
>> I am increasingly getting the idea that you have no idea what you are
>> talking about here.
>>
>> ,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropopause>
>> |
>> | […]
>> | More formally, the tropopause is the region of the atmosphere where the
>> | environmental lapse rate changes from positive, as it behaves in the
>> | troposphere, to the stratospheric negative one. Following is the exact
>> | definition used by the World Meteorological Organization:
>> |
>> | The boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere, where an
>> | abrupt change in lapse rate usually occurs. It is defined as the
>> | lowest level at which the lapse rate decreases to 2 °C/km or less,
>> | provided that the average lapse rate between this level and all
>> | higher levels within 2 km does not exceed 2 °C/km.[1]
>>
>> ,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate>
>> |
>> | The lapse rate is defined as the rate at which atmospheric temperature
>> | decreases with an increase in altitude.[1][2] […]
>>
>> So I understand that the tropopause is where the atmospheric temperature
>> no longer decreases with increasing altitude, but it increases instead.
>>
>> I find further that
>>
>> ,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inversion_(meteorology)>
>> |
>> | In meteorology, an inversion is a deviation from the normal change of
>> | an atmospheric property with altitude. It almost always refers to a
>> | "temperature inversion", i.e. an increase in temperature with height,
>> | or to the layer ("inversion layer") within which such an increase
>> | occurs.[1]
>>
>> According to those definitions, the tropopause *is* a (temperature)
>> inversion layer. And since you are now claiming that it is not, you are
>> wrong.
>>
>> I also find it suspicious that you would now attempt to establish a “true
>> inversion“ to justify your change of mind with which you support Michael
>> Strickland’s pseudo-scientific nonsense.
>>
>> See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman>
>>
> You english is much better than mine.
You don’t say.
> […]
> But your knowledge of physics of atmosphere
> reminds a last minute flash reading of Wikipedia pages,
> you will not tell me I do not know what I am talking about.
>
> If you read the pages properly,
> you would know that lapse rate L = -dT/dz,
I know that.
> therefore inversions have negative lapse rate.
Not at all. In temperature inversions, according to all definitions
(including the official ones *by the WMO and the AMO*), the lapse rate
*changes* from positive to negative. That is precisely what happens in the
tropopause: first the atmospheric temperature decreases with increasing
altitude (positive lapse rate, because dT∕dz _<_ 0), then it stays
approximately constant, and then it increases with altitude (zero to
negative lapse rate, because dT∕dz ≥ 0). It is therefore wrong of you to
say that this would not be a temperature inversion, and that the tropopause
would not be an inversion layer.
“True conversion” is a term that *you invented*.
> L = 2 deg C/km is still mild yet negative gradient,
> that makes a "holding layer" for all air climbing adiabatically.
That is _not_ what the definition says.
[You ought to use the degree symbol, “°”, not “deg”. It is a character
that is encodeable with US-ASCII already, so there is no excuse for not
using it, especially not in sci.ALL.]
> You would do better to review
> the overall temperature profile of the whole atmosphere,
> and to study some baloon probe measurements of atmosphere profiles.
BTDT:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_temperature#/media/File:Comparison_US_standard_atmosphere_1962.svg>
One can see there that the temperature in the stratosphere first stays
approximately constant, then rises with altitude, starting from the
tropopause. Below the tropopause it decreases with altitude. How you can
still deny that this would be a temperature inversion, and that the
tropopause would be an inversion layer is beyond me.
That the stratopause and the mesopause also are inversion layers is
*irrelevant*.
Maybe you have been out of university and out of the business for too long
already.
> I am not going to follow any more.
Your problem.
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Convection is fiction Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 09:44 -0700
Re: Convection is fiction James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 15:14 -0700
Re: Convection is fiction Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-17 19:01 -0400
Re: Convection is fiction James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-08-17 16:28 -0700
Re: Convection is fiction James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-08-17 22:20 -0700
Re: Convection is fiction Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-21 17:57 +0200
Re: Convection is fiction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 18:16 +0200
Re: Convection is fiction Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-21 18:46 +0200
Re: Convection is fiction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 18:56 +0200
Re: Convection is fiction Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-21 19:09 +0200
Re: Convection is fiction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 19:27 +0200
Re: Convection is fiction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 07:39 +0200
Re: Convection is fiction James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 19:58 -0700
Re: Convection is fiction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 17:17 +0200
Re: Convection is fiction James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 20:02 -0700
Re: Convection is fiction James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 12:38 -0700
Re: Convection is fiction Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 17:11 -0700
Re: Convection is fiction James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 19:59 -0700
Re: Re: Convection is fiction Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-21 22:34 -0400
Re: Convection is fiction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 06:52 +0200
Re: Re: Convection is fiction Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-22 19:02 +0200
Re: Convection is fiction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 19:17 +0200
Re: Convection is fiction James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 20:05 -0700
Re: Convection is fiction Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-24 01:16 +0200
Re: Convection is fiction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 05:53 +0200
Re: Convection is fiction Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-24 18:47 +0200
Re: Convection is fiction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 21:04 +0200
Re: Convection is fiction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 06:09 +0200
Re: Convection is fiction Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-24 19:03 +0200
Re: Convection is fiction Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-08-24 12:16 -0500
Re: Convection is fiction James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 11:11 -0700
Re: Convection is fiction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 21:36 +0200
Re: Convection is fiction Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-25 06:20 +0200
Re: Convection is fiction Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-25 08:13 +0200
Re: Convection is fiction Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-08-25 09:40 -0500
Re: Convection is fiction James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 12:14 -0700
Re: Convection is fiction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 17:45 +0200
Re: Convection is fiction Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-22 18:56 +0200
Re: Convection is fiction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 19:14 +0200
Re: Convection is fiction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 20:54 +0200
Re: Convection is fiction Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-24 01:56 +0200
Re: Convection is fiction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 06:02 +0200
Re: Convection is fiction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 06:14 +0200
Re: Convection is fiction Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-24 19:07 +0200
Re: Convection is fiction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 21:15 +0200
Re: Convection is fiction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 06:31 +0200
Re: Convection is fiction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 06:54 +0200
Re: Convection is fiction Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-24 01:10 +0200
Re: Convection is fiction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 05:53 +0200
Re: Convection is fiction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 07:32 +0200
Re: Convection is fiction Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-24 19:15 +0200
Re: Convection is fiction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 21:11 +0200
Re: Convection is fiction Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-24 21:26 +0200
Re: Convection is fiction Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-08-24 15:07 -0500
Re: Convection is fiction James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 20:04 -0700
Re: Convection is fiction Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 19:31 -0700
csiph-web