How does sun heat the air?

Le mercredi 29 mars 2017 10:00:08 UTC+2, Jim White a écritÂ*:
At 20:17 27 March 2017, Duster wrote:
Not exactly transparent. The sky appears blue because air molecules and
sus=
pended particles absorb and scatter certain wavelengths of light. This
ener=
gy is transduced from photons into heat. However, the majority of
advection=
is due to the previous explanation. Not a physicist, so someone else
take
=
a stab.

The downward energy radiated by the sun is short wave and not absorbed by
the atmosphere. The upward energy radiated by the ground is long wave which
is.

That's not correct.
The energy radiated upward is in the 10 micron region, and the only constituet of the atmosphere which absorbs infrared is CO2. Which accounts to 400 ppm.

So, it's rather that the grounds heats the adjacent air by heat conduction, not by radiation.

Sometimes a good meteorology text book that covers topics like atmospheric physics, radiation, optics and the boundary layer meteorology (thermal layer) would answer a lot of the r.a.s questions.

Here's a very complete, up to date and recently published one that you can read on-line or download the pdf for free!

If you are an engineer, you'll love this book because it explains meteorology with equations and examples... no derivations.

"Practical Meteorology - An Algebra-based Survey of Atmospheric Science" (www.eosas.ubc.ca/book/Practical_Meteorology). I haven't reviewed it, but it does have a very comprehensive 35 page chapter on Boundary Layer Meteorology written by someone who writes well and knows what he's talking about.

I met Dr Stull from the University of British Columbia Vancouver last January and he suggested his book. Dr Stull published in 1986 the classic book on Boundary Layer meteorology. He tried to publish this recent text book... but gave up and made it freely available.

Walt Rogers WX

Hi Walt

Sounds interesting, however the site cannot be reached. Could you please check the URL and repost?

Thanks

Paul

https://www.eoas.ubc.ca/books/Practical_Meteorology/

Thanks for that! Wish I'd had it in December, but I'll start chipping
away, nonetheless.

On 4/1/2017 11:58 PM, danlj wrote:
https://www.eoas.ubc.ca/books/Practical_Meteorology/

--
Dan, 5J

On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 11:31:39 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
Thanks for that! Wish I'd had it in December, but I'll start chipping
away, nonetheless.

On 4/1/2017 11:58 PM, danlj wrote:
https://www.eoas.ubc.ca/books/Practical_Meteorology/

--
Dan, 5J

Good Book! Chapter 3, pg. 68:

"....At the surface this effective flux is entirely due
to molecular conduction, and above about 5 mm altitude
the effective flux is mostly due to turbulence."

Is is a great question, and one I am currently working with. Our understanding of the atmosphere, I think, is incomplete, and needs reviewed and updating. Doing so will easily explain such a problem. As it stands there are deep contradictions and paradoxes associated with radiation and the atmosphere.
Air is a near perfect insulator (it has a conduction value of near zero; 0.024 no units) so the thought heat energy is transferred this way cannot be so .
Add to that: air is assumed to (with the exception of about 1% greenhouse gases) not absorb or emit any IR radiation: this is a contradiction to Radiation theory, and quantum mechanics where all matter above absolute 0 Kelvin radiates IR.

So something is wrong, because the air does increase, and decrease in temperature, and does so quickly.
My hypothesis is O2 and N2 (99% of the dry atmosphere) do absorb and emit IR radiation: I have the quantum theory to show where they do, the experimental instrument to show it does, and the application proof to show it does.

I am currently writing up my work - it is a massive undertaking; I predict the biggest upset is science of our time: greenhouse theory will collapse. Special greenhouse atmosphere theory is pre quantum mechanics 19th Century science; it has not been updated with 20th Century knowledge - yet.

Don't forget to include water vapor in your hypothesising:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electr...ption_by_water



On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 10:44:48 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Is is a great question, and one I am currently working with. Our understanding of the atmosphere, I think, is incomplete, and needs reviewed and updating. Doing so will easily explain such a problem. As it stands there are deep contradictions and paradoxes associated with radiation and the atmosphere.
Air is a near perfect insulator (it has a conduction value of near zero; 0.024 no units) so the thought heat energy is transferred this way cannot be so .
Add to that: air is assumed to (with the exception of about 1% greenhouse gases) not absorb or emit any IR radiation: this is a contradiction to Radiation theory, and quantum mechanics where all matter above absolute 0 Kelvin radiates IR.

So something is wrong, because the air does increase, and decrease in temperature, and does so quickly.
My hypothesis is O2 and N2 (99% of the dry atmosphere) do absorb and emit IR radiation: I have the quantum theory to show where they do, the experimental instrument to show it does, and the application proof to show it does..

I am currently writing up my work - it is a massive undertaking; I predict the biggest upset is science of our time: greenhouse theory will collapse.. Special greenhouse atmosphere theory is pre quantum mechanics 19th Century science; it has not been updated with 20th Century knowledge - yet.

I kinda lost faith in wikipedia after a former global warming evangelist
turned "climate change denier" found his wiki entries deleted almost as
quickly as he would post them.Â* Are they, too, bearers of the banner?

On 11/13/2017 9:07 PM, Steve Koerner wrote:
Don't forget to include water vapor in your hypothesising:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electr...ption_by_water



On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 10:44:48 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Is is a great question, and one I am currently working with. Our understanding of the atmosphere, I think, is incomplete, and needs reviewed and updating. Doing so will easily explain such a problem. As it stands there are deep contradictions and paradoxes associated with radiation and the atmosphere.
Air is a near perfect insulator (it has a conduction value of near zero; 0.024 no units) so the thought heat energy is transferred this way cannot be so .
Add to that: air is assumed to (with the exception of about 1% greenhouse gases) not absorb or emit any IR radiation: this is a contradiction to Radiation theory, and quantum mechanics where all matter above absolute 0 Kelvin radiates IR.

So something is wrong, because the air does increase, and decrease in temperature, and does so quickly.
My hypothesis is O2 and N2 (99% of the dry atmosphere) do absorb and emit IR radiation: I have the quantum theory to show where they do, the experimental instrument to show it does, and the application proof to show it does.

I am currently writing up my work - it is a massive undertaking; I predict the biggest upset is science of our time: greenhouse theory will collapse. Special greenhouse atmosphere theory is pre quantum mechanics 19th Century science; it has not been updated with 20th Century knowledge - yet.

--
Dan, 5J

Sigh ... there's a great deal of misinformation here. A correct answer is long and complicated, but the short of it is that there are numerous gas absorption bands in the "solar shortwave" -- these range from the Hartley-Huggins bands of Ozone in the UV (responsible for the stratosphere), the Chappuis band of O3 in the mid visible, a variety of weak absorption bands of Oxygen, and then a substantial H2O absorption band at 940 nm ... with increasing numbers of absorption bands in the near infrared due to a variety of trace gases starting with H2O and CO2.

So sunlight can and does heat the atmosphere through direct absorption; absorbing aerosols also play a role.

Nonetheless, as is everybody's direct experience -- a lot of light gets down to the ground on a cloud-free day.