Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #593021 > unrolled thread

Convection is fiction

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#594188

Michael J.  Strickland wrote:

> […] Poutnik […] wrote:
>> Dne 21/08/2016 v 17:57 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>>> Michael J.  Strickland wrote:
>>>> Thunderheads go to 50-60 thousand feet and they must have some
>>>> moisture.
>>> Nonsense.  50'000 to 60'000 ft equal 15.24 to 18.29 km.  The troposhere
>>> only extends up to ca. 12 km altitude from sea level.
> ...
> 
> There is nothing "magical" about the "troposphere" and clouds do
> extend above your definition of it and exist above it.

As I said and cited in the part that you snipped, stratospheric clouds 
(which are seldom and few by comparison) do not contribute to precipitation 
directly, and certainly have nothing to do with cumulonimbi.

If you think differently, cite evidence to support your claim.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594191

On 08/22/2016 07:02 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>
> As I said and cited in the part that you snipped, stratospheric clouds
> (which are seldom and few by comparison) do not contribute to precipitation
> directly, and certainly have nothing to do with cumulonimbi.
>
> If you think differently, cite evidence to support your claim.
>

Well, see the recently posted references to convective overshoots.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594271

On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 10:17:04 AM UTC-7, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
> On 08/22/2016 07:02 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> >
> > As I said and cited in the part that you snipped, stratospheric clouds
> > (which are seldom and few by comparison) do not contribute to precipitation
> > directly, and certainly have nothing to do with cumulonimbi.
> >
> > If you think differently, cite evidence to support your claim.
> >
> 
> Well, see the recently posted references to convective overshoots.

Meaningless.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594386

Poutnik wrote:

> On 08/22/2016 07:02 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> As I said and cited in the part that you snipped, stratospheric clouds
>> (which are seldom and few by comparison) do not contribute to
>> precipitation directly, and certainly have nothing to do with
>> cumulonimbi.
>>
>> If you think differently, cite evidence to support your claim.
> 
> Well, see the recently posted references to convective overshoots.

Your logic is flawed.  Either clouds extend above what is usually the 
tropopause, pushing, as you claimed, the tropopause altitude up; then
they are not stratospheric clouds.  Or, *contrary* to what you claimed,
the tropopause is _not_ defined as an inversion layer, only then
Michael Strickland’s counter-argument is valid.  Tertium non datur.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594412

Dne 24/08/2016 v 01:16 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
> Poutnik wrote:
> 
>> On 08/22/2016 07:02 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> As I said and cited in the part that you snipped, stratospheric clouds
>>> (which are seldom and few by comparison) do not contribute to
>>> precipitation directly, and certainly have nothing to do with
>>> cumulonimbi.
>>>
>>> If you think differently, cite evidence to support your claim.
>>
>> Well, see the recently posted references to convective overshoots.
> 
> Your logic is flawed.  Either clouds extend above what is usually the 
> tropopause, pushing, as you claimed, the tropopause altitude up; then
> they are not stratospheric clouds.  Or, *contrary* to what you claimed,
> the tropopause is _not_ defined as an inversion layer, only then
> Michael Strickland’s counter-argument is valid.  Tertium non datur.
> 
I did not say they are...

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594497

Poutnik wrote:

> Dne 24/08/2016 v 01:16 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>> Poutnik wrote:
>>> On 08/22/2016 07:02 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> As I said and cited in the part that you snipped, stratospheric clouds
>>>> (which are seldom and few by comparison) do not contribute to
>>>> precipitation directly, and certainly have nothing to do with
>>>> cumulonimbi.
>>>>
>>>> If you think differently, cite evidence to support your claim.
>>> Well, see the recently posted references to convective overshoots.
>> Your logic is flawed.  Either clouds extend above what is usually the
>> tropopause, pushing, as you claimed, the tropopause altitude up; then
>> they are not stratospheric clouds.  Or, *contrary* to what you claimed,
>> the tropopause is _not_ defined as an inversion layer, only then
>> Michael Strickland’s counter-argument is valid.  Tertium non datur.
> 
> I did not say they are...

If you are not saying that those clouds are stratospheric clouds, then your 
comment is pointless, because that is what Michael Strickland claims.  
Please read his posting again (particularly the part that you snipped from 
mine), and please read more carefully before you reply.
 
-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594523

Dne 24/08/2016 v 18:47 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):

> 
> If you are not saying that those clouds are stratospheric clouds, then your 
> comment is pointless, because that is what Michael Strickland claims.  
> Please read his posting again (particularly the part that you snipped from 
> mine), and please read more carefully before you reply.
>  
> 
I have just posted a reference.
If that makes you offended.. what is wrong with you ?


-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594417

Dne 24/08/2016 v 01:16 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):

> 
> .... Or, *contrary* to what you claimed,
> the tropopause is _not_ defined as an inversion layer, only then
> Michael Strickland’s counter-argument is valid.  Tertium non datur.
> 
Sure it is not, I have expresses myself not exactly.
I apologize.

It is a layer of adiabatically stable air,
covering both isothermia and inversion.
True inversion comes higher in stratosphere.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594499

Poutnik wrote:

> Dne 24/08/2016 v 01:16 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>> .... Or, *contrary* to what you claimed,
>> the tropopause is _not_ defined as an inversion layer, only then
>> Michael Strickland’s counter-argument is valid.  Tertium non datur.
> 
> Sure it is not, I have expresses myself not exactly.
> I apologize.
> 
> It is a layer of adiabatically stable air,
> covering both isothermia and inversion.
> True inversion comes higher in stratosphere.

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>

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594503

On 8/24/2016 12:03 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Poutnik wrote:
>
>> Dne 24/08/2016 v 01:16 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>>> .... Or, *contrary* to what you claimed,
>>> the tropopause is _not_ defined as an inversion layer, only then
>>> Michael Strickland’s counter-argument is valid.  Tertium non datur.

> |
> | 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.


he is right, you in wrong ballpark (in scale);

"inversion" is withing a a thousand feet or much less, not miles like 
tropo vs stato that is Temp profile not temp inversion.

see graph at,

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/atmosphere/q0102c.shtml

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594514

On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 10:16:57 AM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
> On 8/24/2016 12:03 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > Poutnik wrote:
> >
> >> Dne 24/08/2016 v 01:16 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
> >>> .... Or, *contrary* to what you claimed,
> >>> the tropopause is _not_ defined as an inversion layer, only then
> >>> Michael Strickland’s counter-argument is valid.  Tertium non datur.
> 
> > |
> > | 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.
> 
> 
> he is right, you in wrong ballpark (in scale);
> 
> "inversion" is withing a a thousand feet or much less, not miles like 
> tropo vs stato that is Temp profile not temp inversion.
> 
> see graph at,
> 
> http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/atmosphere/q0102c.shtml

This is just a semantic argument.  They are both relatively flat boundaries that have temperature differences and, most importanly, difference in humidity, with the moist layer below (a standing contradiction to convection theory).

BTW, the reason they are called "inversion" layers has to do with the fact that the "inversion" layers that happen in the lower atmosphere are often (especially in the early morning) cooler than the air above, which is inverted from the rest of the troposphere which gets cooler with height.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594538

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.

Your knowledge of QED and GR probably as well,
what is fine, as I am not a physicist.

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,
therefore inversions have negative lapse rate.

L = 2 deg C/km is still mild yet negative gradient,
that makes a "holding layer" for all air climbing adiabatically.

You would do better to review
the overall temperature profile of the whole atmosphere,
and to study some baloon probe measurements of atmosphere profiles.

The approach to own mistakes is best manifested
on the approach to mistakes of others.

When you have nothing to address the objection of your statements,
you disappear, or play distraction game with English ( easy points),
formal things, or the favourite "gibberish" card.

Until to learn to deal with mistakes of others and your own,
you will stay a boy with big portion of earned knowledge,
like a second Sheldon Cooper.

I guess we both have wasted too much time in this thread,
I am not going to follow any more.


-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594619

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594634

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Poutnik wrote:
>> 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*.

_inversion_, of course.
  
-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594649

On 8/24/2016 11:20 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Poutnik wrote:
>

>>> |
>>> | 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.

no.  go look up more stuff in the wiki.


>
> 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.

it is not a temperature inversion.

it is beyond you because you do not understand the common terms of 
meteorology, except via the wiki.

beep beep.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594070

On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 8:57:59 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Michael J.  Strickland wrote:
> 
> > Thunderheads go to 50-60 thousand feet and they must have some
> > moisture.
> 
> Nonsense.  50'000 to 60'000 ft equal 15.24 to 18.29 km.  The troposhere only 
> extends up to ca. 12 km altitude from sea level.  The adjacent higher 
> atmospheric layer of Terra is the stratosphere (from ca. 12 km to ca. 50 km) 
> where there are occasionally clouds, but none that (could) contribute to 
> precipitation (directly).

BTW, there is a lot of photo evidence that thunderclouds (or, more precisely, the hidden vortices and broken-off pieces of vortices therein) shoot moisture above the tropopause into the stratosphere.  I suspect that this is what causes hail.  (Vortices are natures perfect conduits of [heavier] moist air.)

> > I don't think hail can form only 1000 meters up in hot summer air.
> 
> Correct.  But hailstones form when upwinds push water droplets (ca. 200 µm 
> in diameter, too small to see individually, therefore clouds) further up the 
> cloud, where, due to the low temperatures, they freeze to ice pellets 
> (between 200 µm and 5 mm).  Being too heavy to be held in suspension by 
> upwinds, they fall down again, where more water can condense on them, and 
> they are pushed up again, where that water freezes on.  And so on until the 
> pellets are too heavy even in the lower parts of the cloud (or the upwinds 
> slow down due to insufficient convection), when they finally fall out of the 
> cloud.
> 
> While hailstones do form in cumulonimbus clouds that extend up to 12 km 
> altitude, you are neglecting the basic physical fact that the air does not 
> stay “hot” at higher altitudes: as it rises, it cools.  In 3 km altitude and 
> above, so in the *lower* part of a cumulonimbus already, the air temperature 
> is already below 0 °C – low enough for water to freeze – even in summer.
> 
> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Comparison_US_standard_atmosphere_1962.svg>
>  
> > Water vapor rises because water (H2O at 18 grams/mole) is less dense
> > than air which is predominately nitrogen (N2 at 28 grams/mole). When
> > mixed with regular air (non-moist), this brings the air's
> > average/overall density down and causes it to rise above non-moist
> > air.
> 
> Nonsense.  Air contains about 1 % of water which is gaseous (water vapour) 
> under standard conditions.  It is not the water vapour in the air alone that 
> rises, but warm air with water vapour in it.

Nonsense. There is no gaseous H2O in the atmosphere and storms have nothing whatsoever to do with convection, given that moist air is ALWAYS heavier than dry air.  Water's role in the atmosphere has to do with surface tension, which is maximized on wind shear boundaries.

> When it cools, only the water in the air condenses (on condensation nuclei,

There is no need for and, essentially, no such thing as condensation nuclei.  This is a bullshit notion that meteorologists imagined into existence.  


 
> small dust particles in the air, ca. 0.2 µm in size) and freezes; more water 
> condenses and freezes on that, to form ice crystals and eventually ice 
> pellets.
> 
> It does that because the boiling and melting point of water is significantly 
> higher (100 °C and 0 °C under standard conditions, respectively) than that 
> of the other constituents of air – given the same atmospheric pressure that 
> is decreasing approximately exponentially with altitude within the higher 
> troposphere:
> 
>   p ≈ p₀ exp(−g M h∕(R T₀))

Science fiction.  BP and MP of water go down with altitude, however, superchilled water plays a big role in the upper troposphere.


> where
> 
>   p  – atmospheric pressure
>   p₀ – standard atmospheric pressure at sea level (101'326 Pa)
>   g  – Earth-surface gravitational acceleration (ca. 9.81 m∕s²)
>   M  – molar mass of dry air (ca. 0.03 kg∕mol)
>   h  – altitude 
>   R  – universal gas constant (ca. 8.31 J mol⁻¹ K⁻¹)
>   T₀ – standard temperature at sea level (288.15 K = 15 °C)

You are a victim of a lot of the superstitious thinking that is part of the standing myth of meteorology.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594180

On 08/21/2016 05:57 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> ....atmospheric pressure that
> is decreasing approximately exponentially with altitude within the higher
> troposphere:
>
>   p ≈ p₀ exp(−g M h∕(R T₀))
>
> where
>
>   p  – atmospheric pressure
>   p₀ – standard atmospheric pressure at sea level (101'326 Pa)
>   g  – Earth-surface gravitational acceleration (ca. 9.81 m∕s²)
>   M  – molar mass of dry air (ca. 0.03 kg∕mol)
>   h  – altitude
>   R  – universal gas constant (ca. 8.31 J mol⁻¹ K⁻¹)
>   T₀ – standard temperature at sea level (288.15 K = 15 °C)
>

This approximation serves well for low troposhere near sea level,
but does not count with the decreasing of temperature with altitude.

The air of top troposphere has temperature about 218 K = - 55 deg C,
that leads to about 1.32 higher density and pressure gradient,
compared to 288 K.

While the vertical temperature gradient called lapse rate  (*)
canvary a lot, it is well described by typical mean value
chosen for the standard atmosphere :

T=T0 - gamma.h  ,
T0= 298.15K, gamma ( lapse rate ) = - dT/dh = 0.0065K/m, p0 = 101325 Pa.

ro = p.M/(R.T), M is mean air molar mass [ ro = density ]

dp = - g.ro . dh = - g . p.M/(R.(T0 - gamma.h) . dh

dp/p = -g.M/R . dh/(T0 - gamma .h)

[ln(|p|)](p0..p) = -g.M/R . (-1/b) . [ln(|T0-gamma.h|)] (0..h)

ln(p/p0) = +g.M/R/gamma . ln((T0-gamma.h)/T0)

p = p0 . [1 - gamma.h/T0)]^(g.M/R/b)

(*) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594186

Poutnik wrote:

> On 08/21/2016 05:57 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> ....atmospheric pressure that
>> is decreasing approximately exponentially with altitude within the higher
>> troposphere:
>>
>>   p ≈ p₀ exp(−g M h∕(R T₀))
>>
>> where
>>
>>   p  – atmospheric pressure
>>   p₀ – standard atmospheric pressure at sea level (101'326 Pa)
>>   g  – Earth-surface gravitational acceleration (ca. 9.81 m∕s²)
>>   M  – molar mass of dry air (ca. 0.03 kg∕mol)
>>   h  – altitude
>>   R  – universal gas constant (ca. 8.31 J mol⁻¹ K⁻¹)
>>   T₀ – standard temperature at sea level (288.15 K = 15 °C)
>>
> 
> This approximation serves well for low troposhere near sea level,
> but does not count with the decreasing of temperature with altitude.
> […]

This approximation is for higher altitudes within the troposphere.  Unless, 
of course, you find it prudent to correct the Wikipedia article it is from:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_pressure#Altitude_variation>

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594190

On 08/22/2016 06:56 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Poutnik wrote:
>
>> On 08/21/2016 05:57 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> ....atmospheric pressure that
>>> is decreasing approximately exponentially with altitude within the higher
>>> troposphere:
>>>
>>>   p ≈ p₀ exp(−g M h∕(R T₀))
>>>
>>> where
>>>
>>>   p  – atmospheric pressure
>>>   p₀ – standard atmospheric pressure at sea level (101'326 Pa)
>>>   g  – Earth-surface gravitational acceleration (ca. 9.81 m∕s²)
>>>   M  – molar mass of dry air (ca. 0.03 kg∕mol)
>>>   h  – altitude
>>>   R  – universal gas constant (ca. 8.31 J mol⁻¹ K⁻¹)
>>>   T₀ – standard temperature at sea level (288.15 K = 15 °C)
>>>
>>
>> This approximation serves well for low troposhere near sea level,
>> but does not count with the decreasing of temperature with altitude.
>> […]
>
> This approximation is for higher altitudes within the troposphere.  Unless,
> of course, you find it prudent to correct the Wikipedia article it is from:
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_pressure#Altitude_variation>
>

Why should I correct Wikipedia, when it is correct ?

If you read the page carefully, it provides my formula
and the one you have posted as an approximation.

By the higher altitude is not meant the high troposhere altitude.

It is meant just an altitude
where initial linear approximation is not applicable anymore,
and the simple exponential formula is the next one to choose.
But it has significant error for the high troposphere.

BTW, it may seem interesting that you have snipped my post,
while keeping intact your one I was responding to....

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594206

On 08/22/2016 07:14 PM, Poutnik wrote:
> On 08/22/2016 06:56 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>
>> This approximation is for higher altitudes within the troposphere.
>> Unless,
>> of course, you find it prudent to correct the Wikipedia article it is
>> from:
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_pressure#Altitude_variation>
>>
>
> Why should I correct Wikipedia, when it is correct ?
>
> If you read the page carefully, it provides my formula
> and the one you have posted as an approximation.
>
> By the higher altitude is not meant the high troposhere altitude.
>
> It is meant just an altitude
> where initial linear approximation is not applicable anymore,
> and the simple exponential formula is the next one to choose.
> But it has significant error for the high troposphere.
>

For a convenience, see the PNG
of the Excel chart based on both formulas :

https://s20.postimg.org/82d18bz8t/Lapse_Rate_Pressure.png

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web