Does the atmosphere cool with altitude due to gravity?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the cooling of the atmosphere with altitude and its relationship to gravity, referencing the hydrostatic lapse rate. Authors Vanquish Opprobrium and Robert G. Brown present conflicting views on the compatibility of this phenomenon with the second law of thermodynamics. While Brown asserts that a hydrostatic gas is isothermal, Opprobrium challenges the validity of the second law. The consensus among participants indicates that atmospheric temperature decreases with altitude due to adiabatic processes rather than gravity alone, supported by established scientific principles.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the hydrostatic lapse rate
  • Familiarity with the second law of thermodynamics
  • Knowledge of adiabatic processes in thermodynamics
  • Basic principles of atmospheric science
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the hydrostatic equation and its applications in atmospheric science
  • Study the principles of adiabatic cooling and heating in gases
  • Explore the implications of the second law of thermodynamics in thermodynamic systems
  • Investigate the temperature profile of the atmosphere and its variations
USEFUL FOR

Atmospheric scientists, physicists, meteorologists, and students studying thermodynamics and atmospheric dynamics will benefit from this discussion.

  • #61
Drakkith said:
If the situation was solely about how the kinetic energy of a gas particle behaves as it moves away from a source of gravity, then you would probably be right. But there are many other effects to take into account, such as convection, radiation, etc.

Convection some posters have stated the whole reason that we have lapse rate in our atmosphere is due to adiabatic cooling and heating of convected parcels of air. Their logic is that no convection = no lapse. Are those people wrong?

Radiation makes a lot of sense, but would could completely overwhelm the effects of gravity or just reduce the lapse?
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #62
kyle Bacon said:
Convection some posters have stated the whole reason that we have lapse rate in our atmosphere is due to adiabatic cooling and heating of convected parcels of air. Their logic is that no convection = no lapse. Are those people wrong?

No idea. My point was simply that trying to think of this in terms of the kinetic energy of a single gas particle moving against gravity isn't likely to get you anywhere because the situation is far more complicated than that.

kyle Bacon said:
Radiation makes a lot of sense, but would could completely overwhelm the effects of gravity or just reduce the lapse?

I would think that depends on the altitude, density of the gas, type and intensity of the incoming/outgoing radiation, etc. The thermosphere is a good example. It's warmer than the underlying air layer because it absorbs X-ray and UV radiation from the Sun.
 
  • #63
kyle Bacon said:
Convection some posters have stated the whole reason that we have lapse rate in our atmosphere is due to adiabatic cooling and heating of convected parcels of air.

That's the reason for the adiabatic lapse rate. There would also be a lapse without convection but it would be dominated by radiative heat transfer.
 
  • #64
kyle Bacon said:
some posters have stated the whole reason that we have lapse rate in our atmosphere is due to adiabatic cooling and heating of convected parcels of air. Their logic is that no convection = no lapse. Are those people wrong?

I'm pretty sure I said that :cool:

And I get where your coming from with the whole "one molecule in a box", but Drakkith is right. A gas isn't just one molecule, it's many and that makes it way more complicated.

Despite earlier successes, this VO is once again insisting that hydrostatic equilibrium must exist because his "Drop Down Cycle" would create energy. Last time a wrong formula was used, so what is it going to be this time?
 

Similar threads

Graduate Can Altitude Hypothesis Challenge the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
  • · Replies 137 ·
5
Replies
137
Views
23K