The top of the atmosphere receives 1366 W/m2. On sunlight’s way down, the atmosphere reduces this to 1000 W/m2 at Earth’s surface. So: 2.7 times as much energy delivered to the surface, which transfers it to the air by conduction, and I don’t think conduction goes further than a few meters, VS 1 unit of energy spread over 1,000,000 meters.
“As solar energy strikes the earth’s surface each morning, a shallow (1–3 cm) layer of air directly above the ground is heated by conduction. Heat exchange between this shallow layer of warm air and the cooler air above is very inefficient. On a warm summer’s day, for example, air temperatures may vary by 30°F from just above the ground to waist level.”
This would be true if we were talking about locations at two different latitudes (e.g. the north pole versus the equator), but Lhasa and SA are at the same latitude, and so both receive the same insolation: for both places, the sun follows the same path through the sky, and the ground receives the sun’s radiation at the same angle.
The question remains unanswered: why is Lhasa cooler than San Antonio?
No, at higher altitudes, the rays strike the side of the mountain, at an angle. You could say the top of the mountain is flat, but that’s negligible compared to the area of the sides.
Just search for “temperature inversion” and see for yourself. Air is heated by the ground. That’s why air near the ground is warmest.
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/slc/climate/TemperatureInversions.php
Well, duh. You split my paragraph in two and answered the second half out of context.
Less insulting atmosphere will make Lhasa cooler. Your example doesn’t distinguish between those two causes.
If the bottom is warmer than the top, there will be energy flowing from the bottom to the top via radiation. That could be tapped into to do work.
We agree that a perfectly insulated column of quiescent air will equilibrate to a single temperature.
Do you agree that a perfectly insulated column of air that is forced to circulate vertically will develop a temperature gradient due to adiabatic heating/cooling, and that a heat engine operating on the difference in temperatures between two different altitudes can be made to produce mechanical work without violating the laws of thermodynamics?
I’ll accept that. Do you agree that the atmosphere will act as an insulator, causing a temperature gradient even in the absence of vertical circulation, or adding to the gradient when there is vertical circulation?
Of course. I have no idea why you keep bringing this up. I never said or implied otherwise.