Many people have puzzled over the introduction of the virial theorem (note 1), which relates
total kinetic energy of the atmosphere to total potential energy of the atmosphere.
The atmosphere is a gravitationally bounded system and constrained by the virial theorem:
the total kinetic energy of the system must be half of the total gravitational potential energy.
«What has the efficiency of latent heat transport by water vapour got to do with calculating the total potential energy or
the total kinetic energy in the atmosphere?»
Temperature is analogous to
the total kinetic energy of all the billiard balls.
Total kinetic energy shows an increasing global trend.
2) A: eK is
the total Kinetic energy, however total A: eK comes as a product of two types of heat energy machines within the system.
If we have a large number N of monatomic particles we say that the thermodynamic temperature is T, where
the total kinetic energy is 3/2 NkT.
8 by N and separate out the terms in the brackets, we can see that
the total kinetic energy basically comprises the ordinary thermal energy of the gas (f / 2)(N - 1) kT, independent of height, plus a term -LRB-- mgz) for the N = 1 projectile, close enough.
The «temperature» of a gas (if you must use a compound term) is a measure of
the total kinetic energy of the molecules in the volume of gas being measured.
Turbulent processes will alter residual Kinetic Energy within a System, this residual is presented within measures of Temperature and so «observations» show short term fluctuations of «temperature» un-associated to alteration of
total Kinetic Energy induction.
Not exact matches
The
total energy is not lost; the
kinetic energy is transformed into other forms of
energy such as heat.
The car's weight has much less of an impact on
total energy use, since any extra battery mass translates to more
kinetic energy that can be recovered with the regenerative braking system.
Because of the rapid transformation of
energy from one form to another in the climate system... i.e. going from latent heat to sensible heast to
kinetic to geopotential, the only accurate way to discuss the
energy imbalance is to look at as big a snapshot of the
total energy we can.
In physics the word «heat» relates to a transfer of
kinetic energy and is not
energy itself, let alone the
total of potential
energy and
kinetic energy.
The
kinetic energy of the in the the molecules at the top of the box and the molecules at the bottom of the box are different, in the additive fashion of
kinetic energy plus potential
energy equals a constant
total energy.
Over a sufficiently long period of time, it follows from the equipartition theorem and other principles of statistical mechanics that every molecule in a gas will have the same average
kinetic energy, the same average potential
energy, and the same
total energy, as any other molecule.
But my understanding is that entropy discussions usually deal with macrostates rather than microstates, and it seems to me that the macrostate defined by a small volume and a given
total molecular
kinetic energy consists of fewer equally probable microstates than the macrostate defined by a larger volume and the same
total molecular
kinetic energy.
For Velasco et al.'s purposes, the state of a molecule is totally defined by its location and momentum, and the state of an ensemble of molecules is the combination of the individual molecules» states: for an ideal - gas ensemble consisting of N monatomic molecules, each of which is characterized by x, y, and z components both of position and of momentum, the ensemble's state can be represented by a point in 6N space, in which a surface I think of as a hyperparaboloid represents the states that exhibit a given
total (potential +
kinetic)
energy.
However, entropy is about
total energy not justy
kinetic energy.
Total energy of each (the Lagrangian) is
kinetic energy plus potential
energy.
It is when it inelastically collides at the bottom, and the organized
kinetic energy (which is quite capable of doing reversible work still) becomes disorganized, moving into the far more probable state with the same
total energy but with the particles of gas moving every which way, that we might talk about «heat», but even that is really a false idea.
All it does is change the way
total energy at any given altitude is apportioned between
kinetic and potential.
The individual molecules in the upper atmosphere can indeed be very hot (high
kinetic energy), but there are so few of them, their
total temperature on any thermometer is very low.
This must drop the temperature of the molecules in question, since temperature is only a measure of the
KINETIC ENERGY side of the
TOTAL ENERGY equation.
If you read Velasco et al.'s Equation 8 for mean single - molecule
kinetic energy K as a function of altitude z, you'll see that the expression for K is the product of a constant and (1 - mgz / E), where m is molecular mass, g is the acceleration of gravity, and E is
total system
energy.
The device in figure 2 doesn't work because it's a closed system and the work extracted will reduce the
total energy of the column until eventually there's no more
energy to extract at which point the gas reaches a temperature of absolute zero and has presumably vanished from this universe being totally converted to
kinetic energy in the extracted useful work.
Does he mean the individual the temperature of individual molecules (molecular
kinetic energy), or does he mean the temperature of the
total airmass?
Joe: «You additionally observe that I am «taking the extreme and irrelevant sub-thermodynamic case of a minuscule
total number of isolated particles — in which regime the macroscopic temperature is increasingly ill - defined and no longer simply proportional to the
kinetic energy per particle.»
He appears to think it's fine that molecules in the upper shell have more
total energy, on average, than molecules in the lower shell so long as average
kinetic energy is the same.
You are wilfully taking the extreme and irrelevant sub-thermodynamic case of a minuscule
total number of isolated particles — in which regime the macroscopic temperature is increasingly ill - defined and no longer simply proportional to the
kinetic energy per particle — and torturing it to produce something that looks a bit like a macroscopic lapse rate, but is really nothing more than a mathematical artefact of absolutely no significance.
So what we have is that * the «rotational
energy temperature» is always constant * the «
kinetic energy temperature» is greatest at the bottom * the «potential
energy temperature» is greatest at the top The «
total temperature» could well be constant everywhere (and I am convinced it is).
At least I agree if by that you mean that according to Velasco et al. the rate at which per - molecule average translational -
kinetic -
energy in a microcanonical ensemble changes with altitude approaches zero — i.e., the system approaches isothermality — as the
total system
energy approaches infinity.
So, in our example of the boulder rolling down a hill, when the potential
energy decreases as it gets closer to the bottom, its
kinetic energy increases, and the
total energy remains constant.
The
total energy of a substance will include the thermal
energy of the substance, its latent
energy, its potential
energy, and its
kinetic energy:
However, this is not necessarily the case — if the colder substance has more latent, potential or
kinetic energy then its
total energy might actually be the same as that of the hotter substance.
ALSO, those alterations to the Land surface made within the past 15 years are still to be expressed in observations, as is the cumulative effect «building up» within the past 15 years of
kinetic energy induction from the past 400 years of Human produced surface alterations «IN
TOTAL».
At all stages
total energy is equal to
kinetic plus potential.
Where E represents
total atmosphere
energy content (KE + PE) and the value of Rspecific determines how much of E can be in
kinetic form (KE) as heat and how much in potential form (PE) as height.
Regarding the origin, EU is more closely related to the
total internal
kinetic energy of the atmosphere, which — according to the virial theorem — in hydrostatic equilibrium balances the
total gravitational potential
energy.
Re David @ 20, seeing as the direct thermal contribution of global annual fossil fuel combustion has repeatedly been shown here to be miniscule compared to the increase in greenhouse forcing, (most recently here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/an-open-letter-to-steve-levitt/) is there any reason to think that capturing a small portion of
total wind and wave
kinetic energy would a more significant effect?
Total Energy — Joules and ergs — The total amount of energy in various forms (kinetic, potential, magnetic, thermal, gravitati
Total Energy — Joules and ergs — The total amount of energy in various forms (kinetic, potential, magnetic, thermal, gravitat
Energy — Joules and ergs — The
total amount of energy in various forms (kinetic, potential, magnetic, thermal, gravitati
total amount of
energy in various forms (kinetic, potential, magnetic, thermal, gravitat
energy in various forms (
kinetic, potential, magnetic, thermal, gravitational)
The
kinetic energy recovery system, or KERS, output would be increased to a
total of 500 kW, up from 120 kW in today's cars.