How does the Air get Hot?
How does the air get hot? How does the air warm at all? Just consider this – 99{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the atmosphere is comprised of Nitrogen and Oxygen which are both transparent to infrared radiation, both incoming and outgoing. Is this a scientific fact, agreed by both Warmists and Skeptics? Yes, it is.
So how does the air get warm? How is it that the Weather forecasters routinely broadcast the temperature in a given place and also project the highest temperature likely and the lowest also?
So we are all agreed on two things. The first is that 99{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of air is transparent to infrared radiation and second that there is a given but moving temperature in any certain location – say London or Paris, Singapore or Jakarta. But what actually affects the warming?
There are three means of heat transference, namely Radiation, Conduction and Convection. We have already ruled out Radiation, since 99{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the atmosphere is transparent to this Radiation. So, is it only the supposed “Greenhouse gases” that get hot? I don’t think that anybody considers that to be a possibility. It would be totally ridiculous to say that 1{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the air is hot and the 99{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} is cold.
So if Radiation is ruled out, then the only real possibility left is Conduction. It cannot be Convection since that is a means of cooling. Sure, there are what are called Convection Heaters, but is not that a misnomer? When one examines them more closely one finds that the air is heated by an electrical coil that is hot, so in fact the air is heated by Conduction and Convection occurs by itself or with the help of a fan.
In the same way a Radiator does radiate a little when hot water passes through it, but the air is actually heated by touching, by Conduction and Radiation plays a minor part. Holding one’s hand close to a hot radiator and then touching the same radiator easily prove this. At 3 inches away the heat is barely felt. But the heat transferred to the hand when it is laid on the radiator is instant. To be absolutely certain of this, try putting a hand on a kettle of boiling water!
In this way we can see that the mantra of Hans Schreuder ‘Sun heats Earth and Earth heats Atmosphere’ is correct. The Atmosphere does not heat the Earth – on the contrary the Atmosphere is a giant cooling system. The radiation from the Sun passes through the Atmosphere and collides with the mass of the Earth, be it rocks, sands, prairies, forests, lakes, rivers and oceans. Over the whole surface of the Earth there is this great unending heat transfer by Conduction. The heat everywhere is carried upwards and away by Convection. As the molecules of the air are heated they burst out of their cage and the molecules spread out in a giant fan, getting farther and farther apart with altitude.
Only in this way can we understand why, as we ascend a hill or a mountain, the air gets progressively colder, which is even more noticeable in aviation. As the air gets thinner, that is to say as the molecules get farther and farther apart, so the temperature drops.
Yet it is true that some of the molecules of the “Greenhouse gases” may indeed be warmer for a split second. The Warmists argue that these warmer molecules effectively warm surrounding air molecules and even radiate back down towards the surface of the Earth. This is where a great error occurs, even amongst certain Physicists. They have overlooked one thing, namely that between the molecules at altitude there is ‘nothing’, there is space, and there is vacuum.
I have quite often written ‘One cannot heat “Nothing” only for the built in Grammar check in Word to rule out what it senses as a double negative. But this concept is essential. The Radiation from the Sun passes through Outer Space precisely because it is a vacuum. A vacuum cannot get hot for there is ‘Nothing’ to get hot. Only ‘Something’ only ‘mass’ can get hot and have a temperature. So we see that a Space Ship, which does have mass, has to take enormous pains to keep cool on the sun-facing side when moving in this vacuum. .
The Warmists argue that the average mean surface temperature has risen by 0.8º Celsius since 1900. That is 8 tenths of 1 degree in over 100 years. They may well be right although they admit that they have to make thousands of calculations from weather stations, ships at sea, radiosonde balloons and satellites in space to arrive at their conclusions. Above all we must remember that an ‘average’ temperature is not a temperature at all. If it were, then the Moon, with its extremes of temperature, would be a habitable place!
Furthermore, they argue that this same average temperature would be some 10s of degrees less without the “Greenhouse gases” in the Atmosphere. They might indeed make a case with Water Vapour impeding the exit of heat, as indeed it does. But what is interesting is that they show and acknowledge that the Sun is the main source of energy, of heat and light.
When we examine these arguments seriously we can see they have got a lot right. The Earth and the Oceans do indeed absorb Solar Energy. The intense heat in the dry Sahara does dissipate quickly as the Sun sets, while in Jakarta where the air is full of moisture the temperature declines slowly. However, slowly or quickly, they are conceding that the atmosphere is a great travellator for carrying heat away to Outer Space. The Atmosphere does not warm the Earth – only the radiation from the Sun does that. And it is the surface of the Earth that both warms and cools the atmosphere.
The Warmists also make a bizarre claim that the molecules of Carbon Dioxide radiate heat back to the Earths surface. A molecule is tiny, not visible to the naked eye. Just how far can a molecule radiate? Not very far, since it is governed by the Inverse Square Law. So indeed a molecule of Carbon Dioxide may indeed absorb infrared radiation, but neither Carbon Dioxide nor Water Vapour generate heat. It is important to realise that the Warmists do not claim that the so-called Greenhouse gases ‘generate’ heat, only that these “Greenhouse Gases” prevent the escape of heat thus making the Lower Atmosphere warmer.
So the science is agreed by both sides, that is to say the data. The trouble is that while it is true that Water Vapour may well inhibit the exit of heat from the surface, it can clearly be shown that clouds break up and scatter incoming infrared radiation. So while Nitrogen and Oxygen are transparent, the “Greenhouse gases” are opaque and therefore both inhibit the entry and the exit of infrared radiation. Ergo Water Vapour can clearly be observed as a coolant.
When a cloud on a fine sunny day passes across the face of the Sun it cools. When raindrops fall the atmosphere cools. When ocean water evaporates, the sea may warm but the atmosphere above is cooled.*
The Warmist scientists are not so stupid as to claim that that the Greenhouse Gases ‘generate’ heat, but their claim effectively is that these same gases prevent ‘heat loss’ – called the Greenhouse Effect. But greenhouse or ordinary brick-built house is all the same – heat always seeks an equilibrium, which is actually never achieved. In my own house, since I hate the cold, I may have the central heating on for hours, until the temperature has risen to a comfortable degree. What is the difference? My boiler is generating heat. The moment it clocks off at 11 PM the heat disperses. Nothing can prevent this dispersion. The heat will pass through walls, through windows, under doors seeking equilibrium with the outside temperature.
Why then is equilibrium never achieved? For the very simple reason that the outside air masses are also seeking equilibrium and awaiting the radiation from the Sun. All sorts of other factors kick in. There are winds, there are weather fronts where one mass of warmer air may collide with a colder mass, there is the Coriolis effect, and there is rain and frost. So there is a continuous fight for equilibrium, which is never achieved.
We live in a world of flux. Those who attempt to arrive at a Global temperature are striving in vain. And those who attempt to blame mankind for upsetting the balance of Nature by burning fossil fuels ignore at their peril the enormous cosmic influences, which affect the tides, the monsoons, and even the movements of the Continents.
Surely the Earth is warming and cooling, surely the climates everywhere are indeed changing and evolving, for in spite of wars and technological advances, the cosmic forces demand that mankind makes progress at an ever increasing speed.
To return to my initial question: What heats the air? Once we realise that only Conduction can possibly heat the Air, then all the talk of the “Greenhouse Gases” trapping the radiation from the Earth falls into place. It is utterly impossible to trap heat.
So we may pose the question to ourselves? Is there any such thing as Anthropological Global Warming? Surprise! Surprise! Yes, there is some man-made Global Warming, by means of the prevention of heat loss, through the Greenhouse Gases. But since the “Greenhouse Gases” are together in sum only 1{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the atmosphere, then only half of 1{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} can be attributed to Mankind, as night follows day.
And since Great Nature produces 96{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of Carbon Dioxide and only 4{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} is produced by man, the effect of Mankind on the Warming of the Earth can be reduced by a further 96{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}. So the Warmists may indeed claim 0.0048{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the Warming and the Luke Warmers may agree, but dare I say it, the Slayers of the Sky Dragon are the only ones to have understood the whole picture.
The quantities I have mentioned are so derisory as to be risible. In any case evaporation alone would negate any theoretical warming.
Just Notes: A ‘Black Body’ is a hypothetical perfect absorber and radiator of energy, with no reflecting power.
What is a cloud? Is it a solid, a liquid or a gas?
Answer: – The invisible part of clouds is water vapour and dry air. The majority of the cloud is just plain air with which the invisible water vapour is mixed, in which the very tiny water drops and ice particles are suspended. A cloud is then a mixture of gas, liquids and solids.
*CORRECTION (November 06, 2018): I must confess that one passage in my essay was expressed clumsily and that refers to evaporation. It was expressed clumsily because it was difficult to express that two opposing actions were taking place at the same time. In other words the action of the infrared radiation on the water must be warming as radiation encounters mass. However since this very warming causes evaporation at the surface, this must cause that surface to cool (just as when we sweat) and if it is cooling then it must have an appropriate effect on the air. I don’t mind being corrected on this, so I am obliged for all your comments.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Telephone: Calls from within the UK: 020 7419 5027. International dialling: (44) 20 7419 5027.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Al Shelton
| #
Please explain this: ” When ocean water evaporates, the sea may warm but the atmosphere above is cooled.”
Which is the source of the “heat of vaporization” ? According to the statement it is the atmosphere. and not the ocean.
I was always led to believe that it was the other way around.
My wet body is cooled when I get out of a swimming pool as the water on my body evaporates.
Reply
Carl
| #
“Only in this way can we understand why, as we ascend a hill or a mountain, the air gets progressively colder, which is even more noticeable in aviation. As the air gets thinner, that is to say as the molecules get farther and farther apart, so the temperature drops.”
The phenomenon called “free expansion” demonstrates that the simple act of a kilogram of air occupying a larger volume of space does not cause its temperature to drop. See – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpUO88GmTM8
“Fee expansion” is a manifestation of Boyle’s Law which is defined as “at a constant temperature the pressure of a gas is inversely proportional to volume.”
In order for the “temperature” of a kilogram of air to change its “internal energy” must change and “internal energy” is quantified by mass, not by volume. Specifically in joules/kilograms.
According to the First Law of Thermodynamics there are two ways in which the “internal energy” of matter can change. One of them is the subject of your article–the transference of “heat” into and out of that kilogram of air. The other method by which the “internal energy” of a kilogram of air can change is “work”.
First Law of Thermodynamic says: ΔU=Q+W
where:
ΔU is the total change in internal energy of a system,
Q is the heat exchanged between a system and its surroundings, and
W is the work done by or on the system.
That air cools when it ascends skywards is not simply because its molecules are further apart, rather it is because it is doing “work” against progressively lower pressure surroundings. This is called “adiabatic cooling” and is the same phenomenon that causes an aerosol can to cool when you spray it.
The reverse happens when a kilogram of air descends towards the ground into higher pressures. “Work” is done “on” the air by its higher pressure surroundings which raises its “internal energy” and therefore raises its temperature. This is the same phenomenon that raises the temperature within the cylinder of a diesel engine during its compression cycle high enough to ignite diesel fuel without a spark plug.
So, going back to the question asked by title of your article “How does The Air Get Hot?” and let’s say that we are talking about surface level air because that is where most of the weather station thermometers are sited. The answer is two-fold. 1) one is by the transference of “heat” into surface level air from the ground and 2) the other is by the adiabatic process, i.e., the “work” done on descending air.
Within the Earth’s atmosphere there is a constant great mass movement of air called the Hadley Cell in which the air that is being heated at the Equator rises to the tropopause and then travels within the upper troposphere towards the poles and descends around the 30th parallel both north and south. As this great mass of air ascends at the equator it cools adiabatically and as it descends in the mid latitudes is warms adiabatically which manifests itself as the relatively stable temperature lapse rate seen in weather balloon soundings.
A great many weather stations whose temperatures are being averaged to yield what is called “the global temperature” are sited in the mid-latitudes and are measuring the combined effect of the heat being transferred into surface level air from the ground and the “work” that was done on the air as it descended from the troposphere to the ground.
Remember that the air temperature at the tropopause is around -60 °C but by the time it descends to the ground from 11km to be warmed further by coming into contact with the ground it has already warmed significantly due to the adiabatic process.
In my view, when the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis asserts that surface level air is “warmer than it should be” it is not factoring in the “internal energy” that is gained by air due to the adiabatic process as it descends from the tropopause to the ground to be further warmed by the ground.
Reply
lifeisthermal
| #
“Warmer than it should be” is the first failure of the GHE. “Warmer than it should be” according to who or what?
According to the known physical laws and principles. Which means they’re saying that those laws doesn’t apply for Earth. That is the worst start for any theory, starting with throwing proven physical laws out the window. The scientific approach would be: I did something wrong in my calculations, not that the physical laws doesn’t apply for Earth.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Anthony,
A very good essay again, except I must disagree, or explain, what I consider you missed.
A list in no order of importance (they are all important) is: “In the same way a Radiator does radiate a little when hot water passes through it, but the air is actually heated by touching, by Conduction and Radiation plays a minor part.” Here and in others places you ignore that the system you are considering is a room with walls, a ceiling, and a floor. So there is a wall opposite the radiator which is being heated by the radiation from the radiator whose temperature is greater than that of the wall, floor, and ceiling. And if the wall is an outside wall and if the outside temperature less than the ‘temperature’ of the room, this wall leaks heat (energy) to the outside by conduction even if the wall has some matter between the inside wall and outside wall which inhibits the motions (convection) of the air molecules. So the radiation from the radiator does heat the opposite wall whose surface temperature is greater than the surface temperatures of the other walls, floor, and ceiling which are not directly absorbing the radiation from the hotter radiator. You are correct when you say there is no thermal equilibrium because there is no perfect insulator so the room always has heat leak when the outside temperature is less than the inside temperature.
“Over the whole surface of the Earth there is this great unending heat transfer by Conduction.” The heat everywhere is carried upwards and away by Convection.” The earth is not continuously radiating (emitting) energy due to its temperature just as the radiator in a room is? Except now there are no walls and no ceiling; only a floor which is the earth’s surface which is radiating upward.
“When a cloud on a fine sunny day passes across the face of the Sun it cools.” Anthony, I believe you do not understand what you have written in referring to this very common observation. You do not tell us how it is the surface, which was absorbing energy from the incident solar radiation is cooling. Is it really cooling by conduction? The surface was radiating energy upward as the loss of energy was being balanced by the absorption of the solar radiation before the cloud and it does not stop radiating because of the cloud. Before the cloud there was ‘direct’ solar radiation and ‘diffuse’ solar radiation incident upon the surface, the cloud blocks the transmission of the direct solar radiation but it does not block the diffuse solar radiation which might be the result of other clouds.
Although there is more I could list, I stop now because I my purpose is not find fault with your excellent essay, but scientists need to correct (alert) each other when one does not see everything that can be seen. I believe I have alerted Anthony and readers about what it seem Anthony has not seen. What Anthony and readers do with this comment is up to Anthony and a reader.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Anthony:
There are three means of heat transference, namely Radiation, Conduction and Convection. We have already ruled out Radiation, since 99% of the atmosphere is transparent to this Radiation.
JMcG:
No, you/we ruled out infra-red radiation. How many times do I have to point this out to you brain dead robots? UV and other bandwidths do heat the atmosphere.
Stop pretending like you understand what you don’t.
Reply
richard
| #
hmmm-
https://principia-scientific.com/does-carbon-dioxide-trap-heat/
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
Right. Radiation is a disturbance in the electric and magnetic fields. What wave length a molecule absorbs depends on the molecule’s electric and magnetic fields. The molecules converts the absorbed energy into kinetic energy which is radiated as heat. The reason for infrared telescopes is because these wavelengths are not absorbed by small molecules allowing you to look deeper into space.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Anthony and Readers,
You might read, or reread, these three esssays. (http://principia-scientific.org/new-scientific-law-greenhouse-effect/), (https://principia-scientific.com/record-temperature-result-of-cloud-revised-updated/), and (https://principia-scientific.com/the-corvallis-or-uscrn-site-a-natural-laboratory/), to better see what it seems you have missed.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
oldbrew
| #
There are three means of heat transference, namely Radiation, Conduction and Convection. – says the post.
Compression due to gravity precedes any heat transfer mechanisms, e.g.:
When air flows downhill from a high elevation, its temperature is raised by adiabatic compression.
http://meteorologytraining.tpub.com/14312/css/14312_85.htm
Nothing to do with fictitious greenhouses that can’t be observed.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Oldbrew,
When a gas cools it becomes denser and sinks and when it is heated it less dense and rises. The sinking or rising of a gas is a result of the heat of the gas, not causing the heat of the gas.
When compressing gas for scuba diving the tanks are placed in water to remove heat from the tanks. The compression doesn’t increase the kinetic energy of the gas molecules it increases the number of molecules striking the tank and transferring heat to it. Temperature is not the same as heat. If there was no energy in the atmosphere it would be liquid on the surface of the Earth. It is the energy of the gas molecules that cause the atmosphere to be a gas and rise and fall.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
oldbrew
| #
Gravity keeps the whole atmosphere under compression. The greatest density and pressure are at the surface. The ideal gas law is your guide:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law
Or just look up Standard Atmosphere.
Reply
Hrb Rose
| #
Hi Oldbrew,
Yes the greatest density is at the surface but the pressure at the surface and at the top the atmosphere (distance 4000 and 4030mi) is not significantly different. The ideal gas law states that the density of a gas is inversely proportional to the temperature of the gas molecules, so the gas molecules at the surface have the lowest kinetic energy or heat despite what the temperature says.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
oldbrew
| #
not significantly different
Er, no. See the pressure and density graphs here.
https://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/graphs.htm
Herb Rose
| #
Atmospheric pressure is the weight of the molecules in the atmosphere. It is not the pressure confining the atmosphere and holding it to the Earth, that is gravity. If you look at the graph of temperature you see that it decreases, then increases, and then again decreases while the graph of density is a declining exponential curve. Temperature is a function of the kinetic energy of the molecules and the number of molecules transferring the energy to the thermometer. If you divide the absolute temperature at an altitude by the density you get the kinetic energy per gram of molecules. This graph shows the kinetic energy increasing with altitude in a smooth exponential curve.
The difference between the pressure of gravity at the top the atmosphere and the surface of the Earth is 1.5% which is less than the difference in weight between an oxygen and nitrogen molecule. It is not significant.
Cosmos
| #
Let me add a couple of missing points:
1) Solar Radiation penetrates the atmosphere, looses about 20% of its energy and arrives on the surface of the Earth where 50% (on the average) of the energy is absorbed by the surface. The remaining 30% of the energy is reflected out to space in the visible spectrum. That is why we can see the Earth from the space.
2) Over the seas some the energy absorbed by the surface is transported away by currents. Also, some of the energy is causing “evaporation” ie “enthalpy” energy that is warm enough and light enough to rise. So natural convection causes warm air and vapor to rise in a thinning and continuously cooling atmosphere. On its way up it uses vapor’s enthalpy energy to expand. As a result it appears that the rise is close to isothermal.
3) when the air/vapor/CO2 mixture passes the 5 km elevation, the vapor begins to condense and by the time it passes the 7 km level most of the moisture has been condensed. It forms droplets. The enthalpy energy of vaporization is released and carried away by “:Dispersion” in the upper level air currents. (Dispersion is the conduction among moving molecules)
4) The presence of water vapor contributes 96% of the effectiveness of the GHG’s to slow down the departure of heat. By the time the air/vapor/CO2 reach the 7 km elevation the total effectiveness of GHG has been reduced by 96%. Also the density of the atmosphere (with its GHG’s) has been reduced to about 1/3. As a result the Heat energy can now travel unimpeded to space via “Outgoing Long Wave Radiation” (OLR).
5) The water droplets are forming clouds when seeded by cosmic ionized particles. and returns to the surface as rain. All one has to do is multiply the amount of rain (on a global scale) and multiply it by the enthalpy of vaporization per gram of water to see the vast amount of cooling that vapor provides to our Earth – not withstanding the existence of GHG closer to the surface. While IR radiation is impeded by GHG, the convection of vapor is not effected and it provides a very effective cooling to the surface.
6) Incoming solar radiation that fails on land warms the surface, causing to the atmosphere some evaporation heat transfer and some conduction. That is why the wind is blowing from High pressure areas to Low. To cool the surface and to concentrate the energy into a low pressure system, where the air rises as it rotates due to Coriolis effects.
7) Cold dry air becomes heavier than atmospheric molecules and sing forming a High pressure on the surface. The potential energy difference between High and Low pressures is converted into kinetic energy of the wind along the surface where it removes heat and enthalpy. Thus completing the cycle that removes the heat absorbed by land and sea.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Cosmos,
So natural convection causes warm air and vapor to rise
JMcG:
Although I agree with your main point, that H2O cools the lower atmosphere and warms the upper atmosphere, there is a major flaw in your thinking. Convection is one of those things that seems to make sense as long as you don’t look at the details. And for many people the possibility that it could be wrong is so inconceivable that they absolutely refuse to consider the details that prove it is impossible. Humans are extremely gullible, stubborn, and emotionally attached to their beliefs.
The first hint that convection is nonsense comes when one considers the shear stupidity of the belief that moist air contains gaseous H2O. The H2O phase diagram clearly contradicts the notion that H2O is gaseous in the atmosphere. But people are so emotionally attached to this silly notion that they ignore and dismiss this inconvenient fact. There is no gaseous H2O in earths atmosphere and, therefore, moist air is heavier than dry air and, therefore, moist air convection is a fairy tale.
Do not become emotional. I am not saying moist air does not rise in the atmosphere. So settle down. All I’m saying is that the reason it rises has nothing to do with convection:
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
lifeisthermal
| #
“Warmer than it should be” is the first failure of the GHE. “Warmer than it should be” according to who or what?
According to the known physical laws and principles. Which means they’re saying that those laws doesn’t apply for Earth. That is the worst start for any theory, starting with throwing proven physical laws out the window. The scientific approach would be: I did something wrong in my calculations, not that the physical laws doesn’t apply for Earth.
Reply
Michael R Morris
| #
If I may, I would like to clarify the difference between mass and matter. though the terms are often used interchangeably, they in fact, are not synonyms. Understanding what matter is fairly straightforward. It is the stuff that comprises the physical universe. Mass, on the other hand, is a property that belongs to matter and is dependent on a number of factors. Most of us and heard the terms ‘gravitational mass’ and ‘inertial mass’. What is the difference? Let’s ask Wikipedia: “Inertial mass is a measure of an object’s resistance to acceleration when a force is applied. It is determined by applying a force to an object and measuring the acceleration that results from that force. … Passive gravitational mass is a measure of the strength of an object’s interaction with a gravitational field.”
A word about gravity, for a long time it has been assumed that gravitation was a constant, the same everywhere in the universe. This is assumptionis contravene by empirical evidence and is in error. Gravity is one of the most inconstant constants of all. It’s strength varies considerably over the surface of our planet and it appears to the curiously subject to a variety of conditions. For example, it has long been known that the swing of a Foucault Pendulum will alter while a total solar eclipse is occurring. The path of its swing will alter in response to the gravitational changes. How do we explain that within the confines of the standard model?
See the following link for a more thorough discussion of gravity, mass and matter:
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/newtons-electric-clockwork-solar-system/
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Michael,
The data Newton used to create his force of gravity (distance of planets from the sun and velocity planets) have no mass units. The mass units come from the gravitational constant (G) which Newton created to provide a source for his force. Gravity (orbits and object falling) is a product of energy not mass. If you take the velocity of a planet squared times its distance from the sun you get the same value for all the planets (Kepler’s law). This V^2 is the energy of the sun which decreases with distance. Objects in this energy field will equalize with the field. Newton’s premise that an object in motion will traveling a straight line unless a force acts upon it should be replaced with, an object will maintain its energy unless energy is added to it or given off by it. An object with an energy field will combine its energy field with the energy field in which it exists. The high tide on the far side of the Earth from the moon is a result of water equalizing with the combined energy fields of the Earth and moon.
The discovery of binary asteroids, where one asteroid orbits another, shows that gravity is not a function of mass.
If you want further explanation you can go to my article in PSI titled A NEW THEORY OF GRAVITY.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Michael,
“For example, it has long been known that the swing of a Foucault Pendulum will alter while a total solar eclipse is occurring.” Need more details. Where is the Pendulum? Inside a building where it is not exposed to solar radiation or outside where it is exposed to the solar radiation when there is some? A reference to this long known observation would be appreciated.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
gallopingcamel
| #
“To return to my initial question: What heats the air? Once we realise that only Conduction can possibly heat the Air, then all the talk of the “Greenhouse Gases” trapping the radiation from the Earth falls into place. It is utterly impossible to trap heat.”
Your question can be answered using models. Back in 1967 Carl Sagan used a model that predicted the surface temperature of Venus with amazing accuracy. Since then the models have become increasingly sophisticated.
My personal favorite is the Robinson & Catling models that can be found here:
http://faculty.washington.edu/dcatling/Robinson2012_AnalyticRadConv_ApJ.pdf
http://faculty.washington.edu/dcatling/Robinson2014_0.1bar_Tropopause.pdf
These models calculate the effect of conduction, radiation and convection from “First Principles” and they also account for the effect of phase changes (gas to liquid and liquid to solid) on bodies with oceans (Earth and Titan).
The R&C models correspond closely to observations on Venus, Earth, Saturn, Titan, Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune at all altitudes from the surface to the top of the stratosphere.
On the gas giants no surface has been identified but the models agree with probe data until the pressure became great enough to cause the probes to fail.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Gallopingcamel,
Thank you for this information. I must admit I have not yet gone to the links you supplied, but I must question: “It is utterly impossible to trap heat.” And since i am slow, I almost missed that this was not your comment but that of Anthony. And this proves how slow I am because I did not catch it when I first read his essay.
I conclude that Anthony wrote this because It seems almost everyone rushes to average the actual temperatures which are measured by several different projects funded by the USA government. And I am not sure if ahy other governments are funding projects like NOAA’s SURFRAD and USCRN projects. Like the the US Department of Agriculture’s SCAN project. And maybe like the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s (NWS)meteorological station at the William L Finley National Wildlife Refuge which is within, say 50 feet, of the USCRN’s station (https://principia-scientific.com/the-corvallis-or-uscrn-site-a-natural-laboratory/) which I visited two days ago. There is a practical reason for the NWS’s station because they do controlled burns at this refuge similar to the practice of the native Americans who regularly burned the Willamette Valley to improve hunting by killing the natural brush that does naturally grow there. Which before the native Americans began to do this was done less regularly by natural wildfires caused by lighting during the dry summers of the Valley’s natural climate whose weather naturally varies from year to year.
But the fact is there are these two meteorological stations within 50 feet of each other measuring some of the same things and measuring some different thing and recording these measurement each hour.
And it is very easy to see that there is something that is commonly called a diurnal temperature oscillation and these stations measure several different temperatures: air, surface, soil at various depths, ‘fuel temperature’.
The temperature record of these four temperatures all undergo a diurnal temperature oscillation but relative to the trapping of heat it is temperature oscillations of the soil at 5, 10, 20, 50 and 100cm which is ‘storing’ (trapping) the solar energy which is absorbed by the soil during the daytime and emitted during the nighttime so that when these soil temperatures begin to increase after sunrise the next morning these temperatures are very similar to those of the previous morning. But if it is only the average temperature of a day which is calculated from these diurnal temperatures oscillations and the diurnal temperature oscillations disappear from people’s minds.
But it has to be acknowledged that the sensible heat stored in the soil is trapped energy for a several hours each day. And of course these soil temperatures are commonly observed to have a seasonal oscillation also.
Have a good day, Jerry .
Reply