Hypothetical Air Circulation on Earth: Balancing Radiation and Its Impact

AI Thread Summary
If incoming and outgoing radiation were hypothetically balanced at every point on Earth, air circulation would still exist due to other factors. However, the current imbalance, where the equator receives more radiation than it emits and the poles lose more, is crucial for driving major atmospheric currents. Without this imbalance, the three-cell circulation system would cease, but circulation might still occur from variations in heating rates between land and water, as well as the Coriolis effect. Additionally, temperature inversions caused by solar radiation absorption at the surface play a significant role in driving air circulation. Overall, while radiation balance impacts circulation, other dynamics ensure its persistence.
sarahsbs
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
hypothetically, if incoming and outgoing radiation balanced at every point on earth, would there still be air circulation? What do you think?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Since the incoming and outgoing radiation balance, and since we have air currents the only possible answer is, yes.
 
Integral said:
Since the incoming and outgoing radiation balance, and since we have air currents the only possible answer is, yes.

But incoming and outgoing radiation isn't in balance at individual points on the earth. The equator receives more than it emits, and the poles lose more than they recieve. This is what drives the major atmospheric currents. Were this difference not present, the major 3-cell circulation we have would shut down, but I think circulation in some form would still persist due to differences between continental & oceanic heating rates, as well as smaller scale differences, and coriolis force.
 
matthyaouw said:
(snip) This is what drives the major atmospheric currents. (snip)

Nope. What drives the circulation cells is the temperature inversion created by absorbtion of solar radiation at ground level rather than in the atmosphere.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top