Will CO2 absorb photon in all directions?

[Robittybob1]

The Earth is not a good example as we have a modest amount of atmosphere.
Not only that the Moon is taking momentum out of the Earth and by all likelihood out of the atmosphere as well. The two planets I'm looking at in particular are Venus and Jupiter.
Mars and Mercury have virtually no atmosphere so are not useful to the study.
If you helped me on this one I don't see any reason for not getting the Nobel Prize in Physics if we can prove it. That would be a boost to a career!

 

[Believe]

I'm good with concepts, not so much with the math. Sorry, I won't be of much more help.

 

[Robittybob1]

A lot of it is still conceptual as I'm not sure of the mechanism yet. I would need help with the maths too. AlphaNumeric could help with that.

 

[Billy T]

To Robittybob1: Why do you think/strive to find a new theory for the winds when they are quite well undersood by nearly universally accepted theory in terms of differential heating? (Thermal gradients caused by more solar energy per meter square near equators than near the poles.)

In giant, gas planet, Jupiter´s case, because the solar energy / M^2 is much less than near Earth plus the fact that there is considerable gravitational enery release still, the thermal gradients also have a radial component.

You have very inadequate understand of the math and physics but have learned some with my (and other´s posts) and your reading, none-the less your ideas often violate well established physics / facts.

Before you reject a well accepted theory you need to point out at least one error in it. - Show some reason (other than ego) for even wanting a new theory.

 

[Robittybob1]

Do you accept that there is a net super rotation of the atmosphere on Venus?
Can the existing mechanisms explain this?
I have not seen a clear explanation and in general there is an admission it isn't known.

 

[Believe]

Do you accept that there is a net super rotation of the atmosphere on Venus?
Can the existing mechanisms explain this?
I have not seen a clear explanation and in general there is an admission it isn't known.

If there is a net rotation in the wind, is not feasable that it is caused by the rotation of the planet, rather then the other way around?

 

[Robittybob1]

If there is a net rotation in the wind, is not feasable that it is caused by the rotation of the planet, rather then the other way around?

Sorry @Believe but your sentence didn't have perfect sense. Did you mean "that if the wind is circulating faster than the planet the wind contributes to the speed of rotation of the planet rather than the wind is caused by the underlying rotation?"

 

[Believe]

Sorry @Believe but your sentence didn't have perfect sense. Did you mean "that if the wind is circulating faster that the planet the wind contributes to the speed of rotation of the planet rather than the wind is caused by the underlying rotation?"

No, the rotation of the planet is what CAUSES the net rotation in the atmosphere.

 

[Robittybob1]

No, the rotation of the planet is what CAUSES the net rotation in the atmosphere.

I have no problem with the net rotation of the atmosphere (1:1 ratio) but when it exceeds the rotation of the planet 60 fold there is something going on that hasn't been explained.

 

[Believe]

I have no problem with the net rotation of the atmosphere (1:1 ratio) but when it exceeds the rotation of the planet 60 fold there is something going on that hasn't been explained.

? Where is this happening? Are you talking about jupiter? Jupiter has many moons and is mostly atmosphrere so I'm not really sure that you can separate the rotation of the planet from the rotation of the atmosphere as they are one and the same. Faster then normal wind speeds could be due to interactions with the gravity of the moons, as well as circulation of heat from the hot inner core of the planet.

If your speaking of venus, it is closer to the sun then we are are covered in green house gases. The surface tempurature of venus about 460 C which would explain faster winds then there are on earth, though I've never heard of that.

 

[Billy T]

Do you accept that there is a net super rotation of the atmosphere on Venus?
Can the existing mechanisms explain this? {ABSOLUTELY - if not there would be many pier-reviewed papers with Ph. D. educated physicists discussing the problem.}
I have not seen a clear explanation and in general there is an admission it isn't known.

Then read post 229:

{part of post 229} You wanted to know about Venus. I don´t know the details but am nearly sure the basic story as to why it has high (400 mph) winds high up, were we can measure them is due to:

(1) Venus is is much closer to the sun than earth so every square meter of cross section has much greater solar energy incident upon it.
(2) Venus has and opaque atmosphere. Thus essentially 100% of this stronger solar input is absorbed. Earth has many white clouds that reflect solar energy so we don´t get all of the lesser amount the sun is sending to Earth.
(3) As Venus is opaque, it act like a black body radiator, and a quite hot temperature one.
(4) Thus there is great radiative cooling occuring on the side turned away from the sun - significantly lower temrperature there after a few hour of being in the dark with this large radiative loss of energy.
(5) In contrast on the sunlight side there is great heating of this black body absorber in the very intense sunlight.
(6) Points (4) & (5) make for atmospheric temprature gradients much greater than on Earth (even contrasting the equator with the poles) I would guess at least 500 degrees F temperature differentials.
(7) Large atmospheric temperature gradients ALWAYS drive very strong winds.

Frankly I am surprised some winds of Venus are not faster than 400 mph. When that cooled off during the night time gas mass first comes back into the sunlight the max thermal gradient I would guess exceeds 100 F / mile! i.e. There would be storms like you can not image, if this is true. - Seeing this "reheating region" of Venus from its "top side looking down" from Earth is not easy as the line of sight would need to be close to the sun, if not thru the sun.

SUMMARY: There is no need for your theories, which contain several violations of well established physic, to "explain" the high winds of either Venus or Jupitor. Well accepted physics does quite a good job of that. although a few minor details may still need computer modeling to get complete agreement {Which very likely has been done}

Or if you want to see (but will not be able to follow the math details) read: techdigest.jhuapl.edu/TD/td2602/Zhu.pdf
(This paper comes from the Applied Physics lab where I worked for 30 Years and compares all the planetary atmospheres, with math models.)

The problem is NOT that the current accepted theories fail to explain. It is that currently the data available is not sufficient to chose which of their minor variations is correct.

You might also benefit from this non-mathematical discussion:http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/The_Restless_Atmosphere_Of_Venus_999.html
, which tells of the thermal gradient driven convection cells - much like those of Earth. For example, to quote:
"... Planetary scientists believe that the double hurricane-like feature is formed when warm air from the equatorial regions of Venus rises into the atmosphere and travels down towards the pole of the planet. Once there, it begins to cool and sink, spiralling down to create the vortex. ..." As I understand with quick skim, there are as I guessed very strong thermally driven huricane strength vortexes esentially continuously, driven by the hot equatorial winds rising and flowing North before sinking. Their N/S motions would be converted into E/W motions by the Coriolis forces as on Earth, but make much stronger winds.

 

[Robittybob1]

This is all part of the debate. Do these points explain it or not? That is the question.

One thing is certain, that is if the wind does rotate the planet faster than the planet spins I would say without a doubt the wind will be shortening the rotation period, even if it is only a micro second every year.

So if you say the situation has a natural explained cause, the cause is intensifying because the rate of rotation must be increasing as I have explained.

 

[Believe]

This is all part of the debate. Do these points explain it or not? That is the question.

One thing is certain, that is if the wind does rotate the planet faster than the planet spins I would say without a doubt the wind will be shortening the rotation period, even if it is only a micro second every year.

So if you say the situation has a natural explained cause, the cause is intensifying because the rate of rotation must be increasing as I have explained.

You need to pay attention. This is only possible if the winds blow in ONE DIRECTION and ONE DIRECTION ONLY. We know for a fact that they do not. The net effect of the winds blowing in EVERY DIRECTION, which they DO is 0.

 

[Billy T]

... the situation has a natural explained cause, the cause is intensifying because the rate of rotation must be increasing as I have explained. *

No. The overwhelming effect on changing the length of the day on Venus is tidal disapation, same as on Earth. The solar gravity gradient** flexes Venus as it rotates, making tides even in the "solid" part which is hotter than molten lead. I am quite confident that Venus´s days are growing slightly longer, not shorter. -You have "explained" many false facts. Time to stop. Learn what is well understood, then point to any flaws you find in the math models.

* Your "explaination" has net result backwards, as I have already pointed out to you. For IR absorption the net effect is to speed up the rotation but for the dominate visible & UV (any photon not just the very few with molecular band energies) the net effect is to slow the rotation down.

It also has to due with the relative intensity of the "absorbable" IR vs. visible photons than can be absorbed in specific bands - IR is on one side of the solar peak and most of visible + all of the UV is on the other. Combined this with the red vs blue shifts required for absorption at specific wavelengths.

** The gradient at Venus is (Re/Rv)^3 times stronger (about twice) than at Earth, where Re & Rv are their radial distance to the sun. This means that the sun´s tidal forces on Venus are about the same as the moon´s tidal forces on Earth. (Those tides act on the atmosphere too; possibly contributing more to the winds than your differential absorption of photon momentum does!)

 

[Billy T]

You {Robittybob1} need to pay attention. This is only possible if the winds blow in ONE DIRECTION and ONE DIRECTION ONLY. We know for a fact that they do not. ...

Don´t confuse him with facts that contradict his verbal ideas. After many such efforts, I learned that has little effect.

 

[Believe]

Yeah, if this isn't enough for the guy then I give up.

 

[Billy T]

Yeah, if this isn't enough for the guy then I give up.

Me too. I use ignorant posters to give me a chance to teach some physics to "lurkers" and others who do learn, while correcting the false posts, without appearing to be lecturing just to hear myself talk.

But I have put forth nearly all I have to say so will just "unsubcribe" myself from this thread now.

 

[Robittybob1]

You need to pay attention. This is only possible if the winds blow in ONE DIRECTION and ONE DIRECTION ONLY. We know for a fact that they do not. The net effect of the winds blowing in EVERY DIRECTION, which they DO is 0.

You seem to swap from discussing Venus back to the Earth all the time. I have not read anywhere that the wind is blowing in all directions on Venus.

 

[Believe]

You seem to swap from discussing Venus back to the Earth all the time. I have not read anywhere that the wind is blowing in all directions on Venus.

Venus winds are generated by the same processes as earth winds, so they also blow in all directions.

 

[Robittybob1]

Yeah, if this isn't enough for the guy then I give up.

Did you read that study and understand it? It was fairly complex, it might take me a week or so to understand and critique it. That is why I said I was willing to include it in the body of evidence to study. But I not drawing any conclusions from it too soon.