Proof that the sun, not CO2, drives climate & sea-level change
image source: himalayanwonders.com
This 12-slide presentation, designed for scientists and non-scientists alike, takes no more than 30 minutes to fully absorb.
By the end, you will know that the United Nations INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC) IS GUILTY OF TWO COLOSSAL SCIENTIFIC BLUNDERS, the most expensive mistakes of all time, costing society trillions of wasted dollars ‘tackling’ innocent CO2.
IPCC’s two errors (among others) are: i) dismissal of overwhelming global geological & archaeological evidence for several 1- to 3-metre sea-level rises between 1,000 & 6,000 years ago.
IPCC instead claims the 30 centimetre rise since 1800 is unique in >2,000 years & therefore must be man-made (CO2); and ii) failure to notice the multi-decade time lag between changes in solar output & corresponding changes in global warming/cooling, caused by our vast ocean’s thermal inertia (slowness to react to heat input). Please forward the link to colleagues, friends and family.
We urgently need to get the truth about life-giving CO2, and about the imminent (before 2100) unstoppable ~3-metre sea-level rise (driven not by CO2, of course, but by the sun’s just-ended ‘Grand Maximum’ event of 1937-2004, dismissed as unimportant by IPCC), into schools, universities, governments and the media.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
T. C. Clark
| #
Why does the IPCC pick on CO2 rather than the no. one “greenhouse” gas, water vapor? Well, it would be an absurdity too far even for the IPCC since at least 70% of the earth’s surface is water and stopping evaporation is far beyond any man made scheme. The IPCC does an excellent job of ignoring water vapor…..while attacking man made CO2 as the source of all evil.
Reply
Charles Higley
| #
The question of why water vapor is not targeted has come up before. One enterprising computer programmer made changes to a model and, wow, he “showed” and reported that human activities were increasing the atmosphere’s water content and thus causing warming. Computer programs are fun because they do exactly what you tell them to do.
Reply
John Ward
| #
Hi TC Clarke. Perhaps the real question is not which is the most important greenhouse gas, but whether the greenhouse effect even exists. True both water vapour and CO2 absorb infrared but Swarzschild’s equation, on which the ‘RTE’s’ are based, does not in fact suggest any net warming from the greater absorption they cause because this is balanced by an increase in net radiation. Swarzschild does predict net warming as radiative flux increases and in a cyclically warmed atmosphere this makes its practical application pretty complex and I suspect that this is exploited by computer models aiming to ‘prove’ a preconceived opinion. See Mr. Higley, below. But also look at the studies done by Wood, 1909, Pratt 2009, and Nahle 2011 on why greenhouses (real ones) get hot. Wood and Nahle (who did the most careful and best controlled experiment) find no difference between the heating in sealed enclosures with glass (IR opaque) and Halite (rock salt used by Wood) or plastic (used by Nahle) covers. Both warmed equally suggesting that greenhouses work by restricting convection, not by retaining IR radiation. Pratt found the opposite but his experiment was not well controlled. Check them out and see what you think. I think the greenhouse effect doesn’t even work in greenhouses. Cheers, John
Reply
T.C. Clark
| #
Well, you are pointing out our basic problem…..there is not one explanation for why CO2 or GHG are not resulting in atmospheric warming….Tom Cotten even has an explanation that includes CO2 actually contributing to some cooling. Everyone has at least a slightly different version….Lord Monckton has one….William Happer….there are many names but there is no IPCC for Skeptics….and the politicians and media are mostly onboard with the infamous “97% agree”. A one page explanation for why CO2 does not warm that a majority agree upon would be useful.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi T.C. and John,
I am really curious what is your explanation for ignoring (dismissing) what R.C. Sutcliffe wrote in 1966 that which I brought to your attentions (November 21, 2019 at 3:11 pm)?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi T.C. and john,
I now see that neither of you had chance to read my comment of November 21, 2019 at 3:11 pm, but I will now be watching for your comments with regard to what Sutcliffe wrote in 1966.
Have a good day, Jerry
Charles Higley
| #
The authors need to visit Ernst Beck’s study of CO2 using bottle chemical data from 180 years past. It clearly shows that CO2 has gone up and down three times in the last 200 years, most recently in the 1940s and was a good deal higher than now. Too many people trying to understand and debunk climate “science” persist in thinking that CO2 has been historically low for a thousand years, a myth created by Callendar in his graph of CO2 over time. He cherry-picked the data to create a false narrative that so many have believed, it’s sad.
Reply
Matt Dzialak
| #
There is compelling evidence both for and against the notion that water vapor is a ‘most important greenhouse gas’. Even within this website, if one searches thoroughly, one can find contradictory viewpoints on the importance of water vapor as an influence on atmospheric temperature. An interesting argument against the ‘water vapor is most important’ can be found here as well:
https://www.climatesciencejournal.com/
Can anyone point me toward some clarification on the importance of water vapor versus, say, nitrogen as a greenhouse gas? Many thanks in advance.
Reply
geran
| #
Matt, CO2 and H2O are only called greenhouse gases in pseudoscience. Neither can raise planet temperatures, not alone, or not together. They go after CO2 because it absorbs the infrared wavelengths from the surface. In their pseudoscience, that means CO2 can emit the infrared back to the surface, warming it to a higher temperature. That, of course, violates several laws of physics, hence, it’s pseudoscience.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Matt,
Fourier was wrong. The atmosphere doesn’t make the surface warmer. Solar and Geothermal and availability of untrapped gases determine how much atmosphere there is.
The climate cult merely assumes things work the way they claim, but they can’t prove it from first principles.
https://phzoe.wordpress.com/2019/11/01/why-the-greenhouse-effect-is-a-fraud-p1/
Reply
John Ward
| #
Hi Zoe: Fourier was not in fact wrong, but Arrhenius misunderstood and misquoted him in his (Arrhenius’) initial work on greenhouse effect. Fourier had said that the atmosphere would act like a greenhouse if a layer of air solidified, restricting convection as the layer of glass does in a greenhouse. Fourier treated conduction and radiation as a whole (being perhaps unaware of the mechanisms of radiation) but he was right: there is no sharp physical division of the two mechanisms, while Arrhenius, knowing a bit more about radiation ‘added it on’ to conduction (a little knowledge is a dangerous thing) to come to the conclusions he did. For a better account than I can give see Thomas Casey ‘The Shattered Greenhouse’. He has read Fourier and his physics is better than mine. Cheers, John.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
John,
Fourier was a geothermal denier. He still thought the atmosphere’s presence made the surface warmer, despite his inability to say Exactly why.
The atmosphere is a heat sink. It is downstream from all the thermodynamics of geothermal and insolation.
All climate alarmists and lukewarmists start off with Fourier’s premise that the atmosphere must somehow make it hotter.
Dragon slayers are not immune from this either. Some think that the atmospheric pressure makes it warmer. But I know that it’s the other way around – warmth determines atmospheric pressure.
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
Matt,
Ever spend any time in the Tropics or a humid environment? In these places, the temperature day to night changes at most 10 C.
In a dry, desert like environment day/night temperatures change 20-30 C.
Reality is always a good ‘common sense’ check.
Kevin
Reply
Matt
| #
Hi Matt.
The most appropriate publishing I have read in answer to your question is an article on Raman Spectoscropy published around Feb this year on this site.
Under the PROM heading on this site is the relevant paper by Blair MacDonald which probably covers the issues I recall.
I also recall a comment by somebody on this site or Tony Heller’s site that the term “greenhouse gas” should be replaced with the term “radiative gas”.
Regards Matt
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Matt,
The abstract of MacDonald’s 80 some page Prom article began: “One of greenhouse theory’s key premises – N2 and O2 are not greenhouse gases
as they do not emit and absorb infrared radiation – presents a paradox; it
contradicts both quantum mechanics and thermodynamics – where all matter
above absolute zeroKelvin radiates IR photons. ”
There is no paradox if one admits that the Stefan-Blotzmann Radiation Law is based upon observations of the radiation emitted from the surfaces of liquids and solids (condensed matter). Hence, it clearly cannot be claimed to applied to the third phase of matter–gases. For the diffuse matter of gases have no surface.
And sometimes I have noticed that some scientists do not seem to recognize that that a SCIENTIFIC LAW is not a theory. A scientific law is merely a summary of what has been consistently observed in an accurately defined ‘specific case’.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Matt
| #
Hi Jerry.
I have not read the paper but recall the article on Raman Spectoscropy which basically stated that Raman Spectoscropy shows O2 and N2 do in fact absorb and re emit infrared radiation but of a very small Quantum in comparison to CO2 and CH4.
The article stated that the smaller radiative properties of O2 and N2 (historically unacknowledged by the pioneering spectoscropy method)) was compensated by the large percentage of these gases in the atmosphere therefor contributing a not insignificant radiative effect in the atmosphere compared to CO2 and CH4.
I need to read the article again as the memory dims.
I have emailed John and asked him for your email address so I should be in contact in the near future.
I need to read your above comments again, especially about Laws being non negotiable although I thought that was the case.
Kind Regards. Matt
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
The abstract of MacDonald’s 80 some page Prom article began: “One of greenhouse theory’s key premises – N2 and O2 are not greenhouse gases
as they do not emit and absorb infrared radiation – presents a paradox; it
contradicts both quantum mechanics and thermodynamics – where all matter
above absolute zeroKelvin radiates IR photons. ”
James McGinn:
There is no paradox here, Jerry. You are just confused. There is no rule that says matter must radiate in the IR wavelength. Matter radiates in many different wavelengths. Being smaller than CO2, N2 and O2 tend to radiate at smaller wavelengths than IR.
This collective fascination with IR is the result of propaganda. Don’t fall for it.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=210#p122376
You can’t understand tornadoes (and/or jet streams) unless and until you understand how the composition of the sheath of a tornado is molecularly distinct from that of the air that surrounds it and that moves up through it.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Matt:
Can anyone point me toward some clarification on the importance of water vapor versus, say, nitrogen as a greenhouse gas? Many thanks in advance.
James:
When human’s fail to fully understand something in nature there is a tendency to construct a fictitious or partly fictitious understanding or model of it. The new fictitious understanding/model can sometimes then become widely accepted. Unfortunately, this fictitious or partly fictitious understanding can then stand as a obstacle by way of creating a false sense of certainty.
This is what has happened with H2O:
Are You Confused About Hydrogen Bonding In Water?
James McGinn / Genius
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=150#p117292
One great thing about the internet is that it has a perfect memory.
The worst mistake you can make as a science theorist is to allow your own explanation to seduce you into thinking that you understand it better than you actually do. And the reason it is such a fatal error is because you will then, unavoidably, use that as an excuse to ignore evidence that contradicts with your model or ignore evidence that your model fails to explain. (And once you’ve started doing this you have lost the war.) Don’t allow yourself to be so seduced. Always endeavor to find and explicate all contradictory evidence and always explicate why your model should be excused from expaining what it appears to fail to explain. [When you hide, you lose. And there are lots of ways to hide. It’s easy. Meteorologists have been hiding for almost 200 years now.])
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi James,
You asked Matt: “Can anyone point me toward some clarification on the importance of water vapor versus, say, nitrogen as a greenhouse gas?”
If there is no greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide, water vapor can not be a greenhouse gas either. The greenhouse effect being there is no other valid explanation for the about 30C temperature difference between the average air temperature calculated by Svante Arrhenius and the effective radiation temperature of the ground also calculated by Arrhenius.
I propose that the other possible valid is that proposed by R.C. Sutcliffe: ““Clouds which do not give rain, which never even threaten to give rain but which dissolve again into vapour before the precipitation stage is ever reached, have a profound effect on our climate. This is obvious enough if we only think of the difference between a cloudy and a sunny day in summer or between an overcast and a clear frosty night in winter.”
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
geran
| #
Jerry, someone has misled you.
The “30C temperature difference” (usually portrayed as 33 C), is not “the difference between the average air temperature…and the effective radiation temperature of the ground…”
The 33 C is the difference between Earth’s average surface temperature, “288 K”, and “255 K”. 288 – 255 = 33. (One Kelvin being the same change in temperature as one degree Celsius. So Δ33 K = Δ33 ºC.)
The “255 K” is the theoretical calculated equilibrium temperature of a blackbody sphere absorbing 960 Watts/m^2. IOW, a calculated value from an imaginary object. An object that is nowhere close to planet Earth, nowhere close to reality. They have fooled you again. They have convinced you that the “30C” is a valid value when it is completely bogus.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Geran,
I am still waiting for your response to what R.C. Sutcliffe wrote. I have read Arrhenius’s essay several times and know that he ‘too’ did not consider that cloud had any influence on the transmission of the longwave IR radiation, being emitted by by the ground, to space. Of course, I do not know what you think about the influence of cloud upon the ‘Earth -Atmosphere- Sun’ radiation balance system. I do not know this because I have not read anything thatyou have written about the possible influence of clouds in this system.
Have a good day, Jerry
Have a good day, Jerry
geran
| #
Jerry, I’m still waiting to see if you learned why your “30 C” was bogus. You always seem more interested in dropping names, of people you believe are scientists, rather than learning any science yourself.
Here’s the science related to clouds: Clouds increase albedo, reducing solar insolation.
jerry krause
| #
Hi Geran,
You wrote: “Here’s the science related to clouds: Clouds increase albedo, reducing solar insolation.”
Here’s a report of data which shows there is a bit more about the influence of cloud. (https://cbdakota.wordpress.com/2017/09/10/redux-what-downwelling-ir-radiation-why-condensation-nuclei-andor-cloud-how-tyndall-scattering-andor-downwelling-ir-emission/)
Yes I drop names and refer to their knowledge, as these people have much greater achievements than my little ones. And about your achievements and experiences I have no knowledge except that you like to argue and put the thoughts of others down as if yours are far superior to theirs. And I cannot remember you citing one observed scientific observation (measurement) to make your point.
And I can not believe a fellow as brilliant as you will have to ask what am I seeing in these several figures of the NOAA Surfrad project’s data. Because I have experience as an experimental scientist, I have no doubt about the quality of this data which is being measured and report each minute. No averaging here.
Have a good day, Jerry
jerry krause
| #
Hi Geran,
You recently made this comment relative to different posting.
Geran
November 23, 2019 at 10:47 am | #
“Clown, there could be years of record cold, all over the globe, and you would still cling to your pseudoscience.
That’s because you can’t face reality.”
So I know you have could have looked at the link that I supplied and studied the NOAA Surfrad data which was reviewed at this link if you had read my comment of November 23, 2019 at 4:13 am.
But I realize 6 hours is not much time to ‘absorb’ this Surfrad data. So I am sure you will respond to my comment and the data to which I referred. For surely you will want to explain how it is that Sutcliffe and I cannot face reality. For we must be clowns also.
Have a good day, Jerry
geran
| #
Jerry, to keep the confusiion under control, let’s go one issue at a time.
Were you able to understand why your “30 C” was bogus?
jerry krause
| #
Hi Geran,
Sutcliffe’s and my issue has been cloud from the beginning. Which Arrhenius ignored as being a factor in the transmission of the longwave IR radiation through the atmosphere to space with the result of the about 30C temperature difference between his calculated effective radiation temperature and the average air temperature he calculate.
Everything that Arrhenius reported is documented in his 1986 essay. So the 30C difference which was a result of his studies cannot to claimed to be bogus. It is an historical fact; right or wrong.
Have a good day, Jerry
geran
| #
Very good Jerry, that’s why it’s necessary to consider only one issue at a time.
Here is the 1896 Arrhenius essay that you claim supports “…the about 30C temperature difference between his calculated effective radiation temperature and the average air temperature he calculate.”
https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
The pages are clearly numbered, so please indicate the page and paragraph where you got the bogus “30C” from. Maybe I can help you more when I understand where you got off track.
jerry krause
| #
Hi Geran,
You just wrote: “Maybe I can help you more when I understand where you got off track.” Why should I need to show you anything when you previously wrote: “They have convinced you that the “30C” is a valid value when it is completely bogus.”
You seem not to know where Arrhenius reported the effective radiation temperature which he calculated. So, it seems you have not studied what he wrote, if you have even read it once?
I have already described where I consider he went wrong which it seems you also consider to be bogus.
You have just demonstrated that you write about that which you do not know. My point from the beginning has been, relative to this conversation, that Sutcliffe wrote that cloud has a profound effect on our climate. Recently I gave to a link to Surfrad data that you must explain some other way than CLOUD if Sutcliffe and I am so wrong. But given your written history, I doubt if you gone to the link to look at the data. And if you have gone to the link, you certainly have not commented about what you found there.
Have a good day, Jerry
geran
| #
Jerry, I see you are unable to support your own words:
“Everything that Arrhenius reported is documented in his 1986 [sic] essay.”
In addition, you have resorted to false accusations:
“You have just demonstrated that you write about that which you do not know.”
All of which amounts to your admission that you were wrong on the first issue.
And, you’re starting off the second issue with more false accusations:
“But given your written history, I doubt if you gone to the link to look at the data. And if you have gone to the link, you certainly have not commented about what you found there.”
I have gone to your link and looked at the data. Although the data is incomplete and isolated, it appears to agree with what I stated earlier: Clouds increase albedo, reducing solar insolation.
Jerry, the above just indicates you should think before pounding on your keyboard. And, then think again if what you pounded out can actually be supported, and is truthful. Then, proofread it several times. Hope that helps.
Itz Me
| #
Can someone tell me why there will be 3 meters of ocean rise if the sun has ended a grand maxima and as we now think is entering a grand minimum ? I would have thought that a solar minimum if it produces global cooling will lower the oceans not rise them.
Reply
John Doran
| #
I think climatologist Dr. Tim Ball has correctly identified why CO2 has been demonised as the villain of the climate fraud: it’s the exhaust gas of industry.
The wet dreams of the multi-billionaire banksters & their cronies funding & pushing the fraud are threefold.
A vast depopulation , up to 95% if freakos like Ted Turner, multi-billionaire, get their way.
Deindustrialisation. Forward to a jolly agrarian future of Lords & just enough serfs.
A one world totalitarian govt. No more messing with soppy democracy.
I highly recommend Dr. Tim’s great little handbook for the layman:
Human Caused Global Warming The Biggest Deception In History
In only 121 pages Dr. Tim reveals all: the politics & profiteers, the scandals & the science. He names names. Rockefellers & Soros are called out as chief funders & pushers, alongside many others. A must read.
My own conclusion is that the 1%s multi-billionaires have realised that their fiat money, created out of thin air, as debt, Empire is nearing its end days. They know a major reset is overdue. Look up the phrase “Indurated Down To A Fixture”
If you think this is too far-fetched to be true, click on Quotes. The plotters own comments reveal their motives:
www,c3headlines.com
JD.
Reply
John Doran
| #
http://www.c3headlines.com
JD.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Fellows and a Gal,
A question: How can you all ignore (dismiss) what anyone with eye sight can frequently see during one month at most any location and season?
I doubt if any of you have read R.C. Sutcliffe’s 1966 book–Weather and Climate. And if you haven’t, it seems you cannot know that he was a meteorologist who was invited to write his book by W.W. Norton & Company as part of their Advancement of Science Series which they were publishing at that time.
And if you haven’t read this book, you cannot know that Sutcliffe (a notable meteorologist of that time wrote: “Clouds which do not give rain, which never even threaten to give rain but which dissolve again into vapour before the precipitation stage is ever reached, have a profound effect on our climate. This is obvious enough if we only think of the difference between a cloudy and a sunny day in summer or between an overcast and a clear frosty night in winter.”
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
I doubt if any of you have read R.C. Sutcliffe’s 1966 book–Weather and Climate. And if you haven’t, it seems you cannot know that he was a meteorologist who was invited to write his book by W.W. Norton & Company as part of their Advancement of Science Series which they were publishing at that time.
And if you haven’t read this book, you cannot know that Sutcliffe (a notable meteorologist of that time wrote: “Clouds which do not give rain, which never even threaten to give rain but which dissolve again into vapour before the precipitation stage is ever reached, have a profound effect on our climate. This is obvious enough if we only think of the difference between a cloudy and a sunny day in summer or between an overcast and a clear frosty night in winter.”
James:
Jerry, meteorology and meteorologists are exactly like climate scientists. Meteorologists are not scientists in the same sense that a physicist or a chemist is a scientists. So, truth in meteorology is not informed by empirical evidence it informed by consensus.
Theory (ie theory of storms) in meteorology is conversational, not empirical. Consequently many of their claims and assumptions are blatant nonsense.
The boiling temperature of H2O at 1 atmosphere is 100C. That’s 212 F. Obviously Sutcliffe is a moron if he really thinks that H2O can be gaseous at the low temperatures available in the atmosphere. The same is true for yourself.
Morons tend to assume that if many people believe something that is plainly stupid that it is alright to also believe it.
So, Jerry, be aware, the fact that you believe stupid shit does not mean we are obligated to follow your lead.
Since neither yourself or Sutcliffe is able to demonstrate the strange assumption that H2O magically defies it’s known boiling temperature/pressure when suspended in the atmosphere one can only wonder why you keep harping on this same stupid subject.
My advice to you: Put up or shut up. Show us the evidence that H2O becomes gaseous in the atmosphere or go find another hobby.
Solving Tornadoes: Woke Meteorology
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi James,
As Part 4 of ‘How Prehistoric Glaciers Could Have Been Formed’ I have quoted R.C. Sutcliff, F.R.S., but first I admitted that for decades I never bothered to look up what F.R.S. was. It is “Fellowship of the Royal Society (FRS, ForMemRS and HonFRS) is an award granted to individuals that the Royal Society of London judges to have made a ‘substantial contribution to the improvement of natural knowledge.” (Wikipedia)
After this I quoted something which Sutcliffe had written which I seldom have written. “When liquid water and gaseous vapour are present side by side one needs only to think of the exchange of molecules across the interface to have a clear mental image of evaporation and condensation going on continuously, The molecules in the liquid are in incessant motion and a small proportion, moving more rapidly than the average, escape from the liquid surface by overcoming the inter-molecular attractive force which binds the liquid together; in much the same way a rocket, given sufficient speed, will escape from the earth’s gravitation force. The warmer the liquid the greater the speed of the molecules and the greater the number which have the necessary escape velocity–the warmer the water the more rapid the evaporation. At the same time, any molecules from the vapour which penetrate the liquid surface are captured and condensation takes place, at a rate which depends on the vapour temperature and density–or the vapour pressure. The net effect of the two processes going on continuously is either condensation or evaporation and there is a state of balance when escape and capture are at the same rate: in this case, the air is just saturated with respect to the liquid surface.”
About which I write: No chemist could improve upon this dynamic word picture (the only possible picture because we never see it because of the tiny, tiny size of a water molecule) of evaporation of liquid water and condensation of dew, or frost, upon solid surfaces. Or upon the condensation nuclei (tiny solid or liquid particles in the atmosphere which Sutcliffe and many other scientists accept as necessary to prevent the atmosphere from becoming supersaturated with water molecules.
I could go on and on but I do not need to. For you claim that Sutcliffe, meteorologists, most all chemists (all scientists) have a wrong theory.
So, if you claim to be a scientist, you must know that you, not us, must present an simple reproducible observation or experimental result the refutes our theory. Argumentation, your attempted method, is never sufficient to refute an scientific idea.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
Was Sutcliffe aware that it takes 540 calories to convert 100 C water to 100 C steam? This is 5,4 times the energy it took to raise the temperature of the water from 0 C to 100 C.It is not a minor variation from the mean/average and when you consider that the water molecules are in contact with neighboring molecules (non compressible) it is an impossibility. In order for the bell curve to have an upper limit of 914 K the lower limit of the curve must be at -167 K which is an impossibility. James is right water vapor is composed of liquid water droplets, not a gas.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You wrote: “In order for the bell curve to have an upper limit of 914 K the lower limit of the curve must be at -167 K which is an impossibility.”
Have no idea what this means. But you say it is an impossibility and I tend to agree.
Have a good day, Jerry
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
When you use the Kelvin scale the temperature doesn’t seem that low and and an ionization at STP of 10^-7 doesn’t seem that great.
Herb
James McGinn
| #
Jerry: After this I quoted something which Sutcliffe had written which I seldom have written. “When liquid water and gaseous vapour are present side by side
James: There is no such thing as “gaseous” vapour. Vapor is liquid droplets suspended in the air. Earth’s atmosphere is far too cold to support the existence of gaseous H2O.
Jerry: . . . one needs only to think of the exchange of molecules across the interface to have a clear mental image . . .
James: Thinking will only give you the image you imagine.
Jerry: No chemist could improve upon this dynamic word picture
James: Meaningless.
Jerry: the condensation nuclei (tiny solid or liquid particles in the atmosphere which Sutcliffe and many other scientists accept as necessary to prevent the atmosphere from becoming supersaturated with water molecules.
James: Water is never gaseous in earth’s atmosphere. So your imaginary “condensation nuclei” is just speculative nonsense.
Jerry:
I could go on and on but I do not need to. For you claim that Sutcliffe, meteorologists, most all chemists (all scientists) have a wrong theory.
James:
Right. It is untested, untestable, and vaguely delineated pseudoscience. All you have to do, Jerry, is apply the scientific method. There is as much evidence for convection in storms as there is evidence of CO2 forcing for global warming: none.
Jerry:
So, if you claim to be a scientist, you must know that you, not us, must present an simple reproducible observation or experimental result the refutes our theory.
James: In science the burden of proof is on the shoulders of those making extraordinary claims.
James McGinn / Genius
Listen to my podcast where I reveal the absudity of meteorology’s convection model of storm theory
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi James,
You wrote: ” In science the burden of proof is on the shoulders of those making extraordinary claims.”.
That statement implies that in science that there is a proven truth. There is only one truth in science and it is the reproducible observation (or measurement). And it can only prove an scientific idea to be wrong.
I doubt if you will accept the wisdom of Einstein whom is said to have stated: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
Have a good day, Jerry
jerry krause
| #
Hi James,
You wrote: ” In science the burden of proof is on the shoulders of those making extraordinary claims.”.
I now accept that if I do not agree with your idea—that the earth’s atmosphere does not contain any individual (independent) water molecules, but instead contains tiny liquid droplets composed of several (undefined number) of water molecules—I am obligated to provide an observation (or experimental result) that your idea cannot explain.
First, you need to confirm that I have stated your idea correctly. And if not, you are obligated to provide a precise word definition of what your idea actually is.
So I will await this confirmation or your precise word definition.
Have a good day, Jerry
James McGinn
| #
Hi Jerry:
I’m getting good response from the podcast. By the way, you can respond to the podcast verbally by making a phone call and leaving a message. Or, I think you can. I guess I should check it out before a say. I’m new to this podcast stuff. But everybody says this is the best medium for introducing theoretical advancements.
Jerry:
First, you need to confirm that I have stated your idea correctly
James:
Yes, you stated my idea correctly.
James McGinn / Genius
Listen to my podcast where I reveal the absurdity of meteorology’s convection model of storm theory
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn
jerry krause
| #
Hi James,
The initial experiment I propose is to heat a beaker of water with a Bunsen burner while having thermometer in the water. At the beginning the temperature of the water will begin to increase and we already know, based upon common experience, that at some point the temperature will stop increasing and this steady temperature is the boiling point of the water.
Having done this, a person does not need a thermometer to see when the water is boiling. For it is easy to see the very turbulent motion of the water that began as soon as the temperature stoped increasing. And this turbulent motion quickly, if not immediately, ceases once the Bunsen burner is removed. However, it is difficult to see that the temperature of the water quickly begin to decrease. Hence, we can have water at 100C and it need not be boiling.
I ask—Why does the temperature stop increasing once we see the turbulent motion? My answer is: All the heat (energy) being supplied the water is being removed from water by the boiling process and if I put my hand over the boiling water I will not hold it there very long just I would not hold my hand closely over the burner’s flame. In other words, the boiling actions is removing the heat from water as fast as the burner is adding it to the water.
How is the boiling action removing the heat (energy) being added to the water? To possibly answer this question we must observe the boiling water in the beaker a little while.longer. Then we can clearly see that level of the boiling water is decreasing as the temperature of the boiling water does not change..
Hence, there is no question that the boiling action is removing water from the beaker as well as the energy of the flame heating the water.
This is where you claim that the boiling action removes water as tiny liquid droplets composed of several water molecules and I claim that the water is removed as individual water molecules.
However, I suspect you might not like what I have just summarized. For the condition described involves actual boiling water and not the water which is not.boiling.
So, I held a large metal spoon over the boiling water and observed that liquid moisture (water) formed on the bottom of the spoon. Then, after removing the Bunsen beaker and waiting a minute or two. I again held the dried spoon over the beaker of water, which was clearly not boiling. Again I observed that moisture quickly formed on the bottom of the spoon.
The temperature of the room was about 21C and while heating the water, and after removing the Bunsen burner, I observed ‘cloud’ rising from the beaker when there was no observed boiling action. At the same time, in the confines of the walls of the beaker, I did not observe any cloud formation as whatever began mixing with the colder air molecules (mainly nitrogen and oxygen molecules) of the room.
If tiny liquid droplets composed of several water molecules are being ejected from either boiling water or from non-boiling water, these molecules are already condensed gaseous water molecules and not similar to the nitrogen and oxygen molecules of the atmosphere.. So, since these molecules are already condensed liquid matter, how would you explain a further condensation of these tiny liquid droplets which no longer qualify as being individual gaseous molecules?
Can you, with your idea, explain the further condensation of tiny liquid droplets which is observed by the formation of cloud above the beaker?
Which I can simply explain as the condensation of water molecules which have been independently (individually) ejected from either the boiling water or from the non-boiling water.
Have a good day, Jerry
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
When you add energy 100 C water the temperature does not increase. Where is this energy going? It doesn’t just disappear. What is happening is that hydrogen bond holding the water molecules together as a liquid are breaking and smaller droplets are forming in the water held together by hydrogen bonds. In order to break a chemical bond you must add energy to overcome the attractive force between the atoms. What happens when the smaller units radiate energy? The bonds reform restoring the compound. When you are adding energy to water smaller droplets form and can separate from the main body of water as evaporation. As these smaller droplets lose heat the hydrogen bonds reform creating larger water droplets.
Have a good day,
Herb
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You are amazing. In one sentence you appear to be stupid and in the same sentence you appear to be brilliant.
For example, you just wrote: “What is happening is that hydrogen bond holding the water molecules together as a liquid are breaking and smaller droplets are forming in the water held together by hydrogen bonds.”
I first rejected the idea that there are tiny droplets in water at 100C being held together by hydrogen bonds (intermolecular attractions and not intramolecular attractions which hold the atoms of the water molecule together) which (hydrogen bonds0 require a very precise alignment between water molecules. And now I see that the intramolecular ‘chemical bonds’ also require at very precise alignment between atoms of the molecule. Hence, the water molecule is a ‘bent’ molecule instead of the linear molecule of carbon dioxide.
I first rejected the idea that there are tiny droplets in water at 100C being held together by hydrogen bonds (intermolecular attractions because in my mind (imagination) the water molecules were no longer being held together by hydrogen bonds and that was why the water was boiling. But then I saw, as it seems you saw, that was a reason that water didn’t boil until if temperature reached 100C when the external atmospheric gas pressure on the surface of the liquid was 1atm. So I finally saw there had to still be some hydrogen bonds between some water molecules or the water would be boiling at a lower temperature.
But I wonder if you have aware of the understanding of Kelvin. “The Kelvin equation describes the change in vapour pressure due to a curved liquid–vapor interface, such as the surface of a droplet. The vapor pressure at a convex curved surface is higher than that at a flat surface.” (Wikipedia) So I now claim to understand (imagine), because of what you wrote, that as the temperature of the heated water increases the size of droplets within the liquid water are decreasing. Hence, at the boiling point, the size of the droplets (composed of only a few water molecules) are so small and that the curvature of the tiny droplets are so great that individual water molecules break away from the ‘surfaces’ of these tiny, tiny droplets.
Now a critical fact about the water in the beaker which I am not sure you and others appreciate. This fact is that in 18ml (cubic centimeters) of liquid water there are 6.02 X 10^23 water molecules. Hence, because of the random motions of these many, many molecules there can be momentary droplets of all sizes. So that even 0C there can momentary be droplets of only a few water molecules on the flat surface of the liquid water from which individual water molecules can escape because of the great curvature of the tiny water droplet.
So, you (Herb) helped me to imagine (consistently explain) how individual water molecules can escape (vaporize) from the surface of liquid water between, and including, 0C and 100C when the atmospheric upon the surface is 1atm.
For I must remind you that I (or you) can cause water to ‘boil’ at temperatures far lower than 100C be reducing the gas pressure (vacuum pump) upon the surface of liquid water.
Have a good day, Jerry
Herbb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
I am neither stupid or brilliant but ignorant, which is true for everyone no matter how much they know.
Do you recall our discussion on Dr. Pollack’s work on EZ (exclusion Zone) water? In it he proposed that when a hydroxyl ion (OH-) forms it combines with water molecules to form disks made from alternating oxygen and hydrogen atoms. This appeared to me to match James’ concept of nano droplets. James does not believe that water splits in hydrogen H3O+) ions and hydroxyl ions but I suspect that as a chemist you do. In Dr. Pollack’s experiment when a light shined into the water the Exclusion Zone grew indicating that more of these disks were formed. It makes sense to me that when energy is added to water the disassociation water molecules into hydrogen and hydroxyl ions would increase. This would result in smaller disks (nano droplets) and an increase in the positive hydrogen ions holding the negative disks together. This matches James contention that the bonds that hold the water together increases as they get longer. It would also agrees with the observation that as energy is added to100 C water the temperature does not increase and the water absorbs a lot of energy (540 calories) before individual water molecules could break free as a gas. I am sure James will disagree with me but I thought the observations made by Dr. Pollack provided an explanation and mechanism that supported James’ theories and the behavior of water.
Have a good day,
Herb
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
On the door of my study (a spare bedroom) is the following, which when I wrote it was original with me. But you know I like to quote, so if I knew another author I would credit this other author.
The more I study,
The more I learn,
The more I know,
That which I do not know!!!
I do not know Dr. Pollack, but I with do a little literature search.
But do you accept that there are water molecules in the earth’s atmosphere? Lots of them.
The earth stood still or the earth rotated about an polar axis and orbited about the sun. Both cannot be correct. Either water molecules exist as a gas in the earth’s atmosphere or they do not. And wrong ideas hinder progress. Either there instruments that can measure the relative humidity of the atmosphere or they are fake. But observation shows they are measuring something.
And tell me that your body and mind has not noticed the difference between a hot, dry desert day and a hot humid day. And one does not need to go to the tropics to find a hot humid day. They are common. And I have to ask: What makes a hot humid day humid???
Have a good day. Jerry
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
Of course there are lots of water molecules in the air. The question is are those water molecules in the form of a liquid or gas. By its molecular weight water should be one of the lightest gases on Earth (Hydrogen and Helium) but it is a liquid and a liquid that strongly resists becoming a gas. The challenge is to find out why this occurs. Why would the forces that cause water to be a liquid at 15 C cease if that 15 C was the temperature of a gas? You observed how water easily forms droplets why can’t there be droplets so small that we can’t see them or do they only form in a size that use can detect with our eyes?
Have a good day,
Herb
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
This is in reference to your comment of November 26, 2019 at 5:27 pm |.
R.C. Sutcliffe, F.R.S., Weather and Climate, review the experiments of C.T.R. Wilson with his which demonstrated that the earth’s atmosphere has ‘particles’ in it which prevent the atmosphere from becoming supersaturated with water molecules. Surcliffe wrote: “His [Wilson] method of purifyine the air was to allow the droplets produced during cloud formation to settle out of the chamber and to repeat the process several times with the same sample of air. Ultimately four-fold supersaturations, that is humidities of 400 percent were mecessary to produce condensation in the purified air.”
On the basis of this experimental result, Sutcliffe and many others were convinced what was being removed from the atmosphere were condensed matter (either solid or liquid) particles (condensation nuclei) upon which the water molecules would sometimes ‘stick’ when colliding with the larger, than atmospheric gas molecules, particles.
For it is hard to follow that the repeated formation of cloud droplets which settled from the same were doing anything but removing foreign particles (non gases) from the natural atmosphere.
Having written the preceding, I now demonstrate my creative imagine because I was ignoring what I know. The atmosphere contains carbon dioxide. And carbon dioxide dissolves in cloud droplets. So the repeated condensation could remove the carbon dioxide gas from the air. So some condensation nuclei could be the tiny droplets you and James consider which absorb carbon dioxide molecules and these many, many tiny droplets grow by colliding with each other and absorb more carbon dioxide.
But in my short read of Professor Pollack’s philosophy, if believe, but don’t know that he might consider a far simpler reasoning might be to allow individual molecules to escape from the surface of water than as groups (heavier and more surface area) of molecules to escape from the water surface. .
I am quite sure I will begin to quote Professor Pollack ideas.
Have a good good, Jerry
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
Hi Jerry, When you add energy 100 C water the temperature does not increase. Where is this energy going? It doesn’t just disappear. What is happening is that hydrogen bond holding the water molecules together as a liquid are breaking and smaller droplets are forming in the water held together by hydrogen bonds. In order to break a chemical bond you must add energy to overcome the attractive force between the atoms. What happens when the smaller units radiate energy? The bonds reform restoring the compound. When you are adding energy to water smaller droplets form and can separate from the main body of water as evaporation. As these smaller droplets lose heat the hydrogen bonds reform creating larger water droplets.
James:
When something is widely misunderstood from a fundamental level it makes it extremely difficult to correctly explain it because I first have to untangle the underlying, wrong assumptions of the existing model. Along these lines, let me explain something to you about hydrogen bonds that may help you become more aware of the underlying wrong assumptions that are associated with the currently popular (but wrong) model of hydrogen bonding between water molecules in liquid water. The current model of hydrogen bonding in bulk, liquid water assumes that the magnitude of the polar forces that are associated with hydrogen bonding are static. And this stasis is assumed in two ways. One way it is considered static is that the force associated with the establishment of a hydrogen bond is assumed to be the same as the force of the next. The second way it is considered static is that once a hydrogen bond is formed the magnitude of the force that is holding them together is considered static, unchanging, over time.
Both of these are false. Firstly, the magnitude of the force of one bond can be very different from that of the next. Secondly, even after hydrogen bonds are formed the magnitude of the force that holds them together varies/changes literally from moment to moment. The mechanism of the variability is a function of the relative proximity of H2O molecules to other H2O molecules and it is inverse. The reason proximity is a mechanism and the reason it functions inversely has to do with the fact that the force underlying hydrogen bonds is a polar force.
Undoubtedly, and even assuming you have read carefully up to this juncture of this explanation, you will be somewhat confused. Don’t fret. Let me give you a puzzle that may help you better understand the remarkable complexity of hydrogen bonding in water.
Consider the following: 1) The polarity of each water molecule is the inverse of its connectedness to (having shared hydrogen bonds with) other H2O molecules (Note: the polarity of an H2O molecules is expressed as a percentage from 0% to 100%) and 2) the magnitude of the force of the hydrogen bond that holds two water molecules in each other’s proximity is an average of their respective polarities (the sum of their polarities divided by two).
(Note: Even though it does not happen as such in nature, for the sake of simplicity in this exercise we will assume all bonds are either fully formed or fully broken.)
Keeping in mind what is stated in the two paragraphs above, now consider the following. Five H2O molecules marked #1 through #5. The first, #1 is in the center and it is surrounded by and hydrogen bonded to the other four H2O molecules. So, #1 has four hydrogen bonds, one each with #2 through #5. And #2 through #5 each have one hydrogen bond with #1.
Starting from #5 and going up each of the H2O molecules is subsequently pulled from the cluster. Here is the question. As each of these molecules is pulled what is the force necessary to break the bonds? Which of these is the easiest to break and which is the hardest? Use the assumptions and math above.
Answers:
When #5 is pulled: Polarity of #5 is 75%; polarity of #1 is 0%; (75% + 0%) / 2 = 37.5%
When #4 is pulled: Polarity of #4 is 75%; polarity of #1 is 25%; (25% + 75%) / 2 = 50%
When #3 is pulled: Polarity of #3 is 75%; polarity of #1 is 50%; (50% + 75%) / 2 = 62.5%
When #2 is pulled: Polarity of #2 is 75%; polarity of #1 is 75%; (75% + 75%) / 2 = 75%
As you can see, the force necessary to separate #5 is twice the magnitude of the force necessary to separate #2.
So, since the strength of bonds is a function of polarity and since polarity is the inverse of connectedness the force holding larger groups of H2O molecules together is, generally, less than the force holding smaller groups together. This explains why causing all the molecules in bulk water to break all bonds (boiling) requires a huge amount of energy but causing smaller clusters of H2O molecules to break off from the main body (evaporation) does not require a huge amount of energy.
Through this one can begin to understand how plainly unscientific it is to equate evaporation and boiling.
James McGinn / Genius
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=120#p115048
Here is an interesting concept that might get you back on the right track and into the right frame of mind. Did you know that the instant before water that is being heated in an enclosed container (as in a steam engine, for example) flashes into steam it goes through a phase (maybe no longer than a billionth of a second) in which it is as hard or harder than ice? When you understand why this is the case you will also understand why it is totally impossible for evaporation (at ambient temperatures) to produce gaseous H2O.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James’
I have been thinking about Dr. Pollack’s experiments and have used his experiments to explain your theory.
In his E Z (exclusion zone) water discs (similar to your nano droplets) form when a water molecule splits into a hydroxyl ion (OH-) and a hydrogen ion (H3o+). The hydroxyl ion enables the ring to form with alternating hydrogen and oxygen atoms held together by the attraction between a hydrogen atom of one water molecule with the oxygen atom of another water molecule (hydrogen bonds). The hydroxyl ion allows the droplet to form with no hydrogen to hydrogen juncture breaking the structure and gives the disc negative charge. When light beam enters the water his EZ water grows which indicates to me that when energy is added to the water more water molecules split into hydroxyl and hydrogen ions. This causes the size of the discs/droplets to become smaller and increases the number of positive hydrogen ions holding the negatively charges droplets together with an ionic bond rather than a hydrogen bond. As the discs separate more hydrogen bonds (H3O +) are drawn between the discs increasing the strength of the bond holding the water together like you postulate. The flashing of water you describe may be a result from the water goes from discs/droplets held together by the ionic bonds to complete disassociation of water into hydroxyl and hydrogen ions forming a crystal structure.
A calorie is defined as the energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water 1 degree C. The problem with this definition is that the energy needed varies depending on the starting temperature of the water. It is not a constant variation where the energy increases with increasing temperature but can be more or less at higher temperatures. This would indicate to me that the structure of the water as a whole is changing as the temperature changes and the binding force holding the droplets together changes.
I remember from your previous comments that you have doubts about water splitting into hydroxyl and hydrogen ions but I believe the evidence supports the hypothesis. This combination of hydrogen bonds and ionic bonds holding water molecules together as a liquid would explain why it takes so much energy (540 calories/gram) to convert 100 C water to 100 C steam and water’s large capacity to absorb heat.
Herb
.
James McGinn
| #
Herb: In his E Z (exclusion zone) water discs (similar to your nano droplets) form when a water molecule splits into a hydroxyl ion (OH-) and a hydrogen ion (H3o+). When energy is added to the water more water molecules split into hydroxyl and hydrogen ions.
James: Yes, I know of this from his book and website.
Herb: A calorie is defined as the energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water 1 degree C. The problem with this definition is that the energy needed varies depending on the starting temperature of the water. It is not a constant variation where the energy increases with increasing temperature but can be more or less at higher temperatures.
James: In my model average polarity is higher at higher temperatures because average distance between H2O molecules is higher. And so, as disconnectedness increases the force pulling them back together increases. A more dramatic example of this same phenomenon can be seen in non-Newtonian fluids:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16885&hilit=newtonian+fluid
Herb: This would indicate to me that the structure of the water as a whole is changing as the temperature changes and the binding force holding the droplets together changes.
James: I certainly agree with this statement.
Herb: I remember from your previous comments that you have doubts about water splitting into hydroxyl and hydrogen ions but I believe the evidence supports the hypothesis.
James: Yes, to me it appears to be rather obvious speculation. Specifically, the notion that ions could form at such low temperatures seems nonsensical to me.
Herb: This combination of hydrogen bonds and ionic bonds holding water molecules together as a liquid would explain why it takes so much energy (540 calories/gram) to convert 100 C water to 100 C steam and water’s large capacity to absorb heat.
James: Even if I didn’t have what I think is a superior model to explain said effect, I would be skeptical that ions could form at such low temperatures. But, in comparison to standard theory, which plays down the multitude of observational inconsistencies and contradictions that are associated with what has been labelled the “anomalies” of H2O, the understand that Pollack presents is a step forward in that he at least acknowledges these observations.
James McGinn / Genius
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=150#p119465
Humans are delusional about H2O. And this delusion results in the following: 1) humans generally believe that H2O is simple and obvious and, 2) humans believe that our understanding of H2O is comprehensive and accurate, both in science and in general. The reality is that neither of these are true. Neither of these is remotely true. H2O is extremely complex and poorly understood by science. Currently there exists over 70 anomalies of H2O. That is 70 different observations about H2O (under various conditions) that are inconsistent with or completely unpredicted by theory. However, human delusion runs so deep that the meaning of anomaly has been altered in the context of H2O to essentially serve as an excuse for why theories of H2O fail to explain what is actually observed.
jerry krause
| #
Hi James,
You often write: “Currently there exists over 70 anomalies of H2O.”
But I have never read a one by one list of these 70 anomalies. I would like to read your list of these 70 anomalies.
But there is a problem, you dismiss the ideas of others because your ideas are superior to theirs. Your ‘science’ is built on ‘I thinks’ as you reject their ‘I thinks’. What instruments do you use to observe the behavior of water molecules? What observations do you trust and what observations do you reject?
You want me accept that it is more logical that a droplet of 10 water molecules is more likely to be ejected from a liquid water surface than a single water molecule. For a common observation is that the volume of water in a beaker (cup) decreases over time while it is seldom observed to increase unless precipitation of water droplets fall on its surface.
So, we all have to explain how it is the water disappears from the beaker (cup) when the temperature of the water is far below 100C. I cannot not follow your reasoning when you claim that it is more logical that the droplet of 10 molecules can be ejected from the surface of the liquid water than a single molecule. What I lift a masses of 10 pounds and 1 pounds, I can feel the difference.
Yes, I am stupid to expect you to accept what I have just written and that is your right with which you have to live.
Have a good day, Jerry
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Thank you! Thank you!
Obviously I have haven’t had time to read much about Dr. Pollack. But from the little have read, I know he is the person, for whom, I have been looking for decades.
Now my question is: How is it I have probably disregarded references to him before? But I will not waste my pondering this. Instead I will read what he has written as you have.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
Jerry, you like meteorologists? Go to Youtube….look for John Coleman (deceased) and Tim Ball…..both are excellent.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi T.C.,
Sutcliffe drew attention to common observations and my question is still: Why do you seem to ignore them?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Matt
| #
Hi Jerry. James McGinn makes the comment; “There is no rule that says matter must radiate in the IR wavelength. Matter radiates in many different wavelengths. Being smaller than CO2, N2 and O2 tend to radiate at smaller wavelengths than IR.”
Recent comments on the Tyndal Effect and Rayleigh Scattering support James comment yet I mostly see radiative gases discussed emitting IR. The Raman Spectroscopy method confirms, as you stated, all gases absorb and re emitt.
It appears that many people have been seduced by the serpent that some gases are “hothouse gases” when that is not how a hothouse works and the only thing in the atmosphere that does function in a similar mechanism to a hothouse is the clouds Sutcliffe brings attention to as well as the low clouds that do deliver rain.
Also. I have twice read comments stating the salty olde ocean is heated by ultraviolet radiation and yet it is the blue wavelength that is emitted giving Mr Salty his blue colour. Intuition?
I owe James the courtesy of a reply, hopefully next week.
Regards Matt
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Matt:
Hi Jerry. James McGinn makes the comment; “There is no rule that says matter must radiate in the IR wavelength. Matter radiates in many different wavelengths. Being smaller than CO2, N2 and O2 tend to radiate at smaller wavelengths than IR.”
Recent comments on the Tyndal Effect and Rayleigh Scattering support James comment yet I mostly see radiative gases discussed emitting IR. The Raman Spectroscopy method confirms, as you stated, all gases absorb and re emitt.
It appears that many people have been seduced by the serpent that some gases are “hothouse gases” when that is not how a hothouse works and the only thing in the atmosphere that does function in a similar mechanism to a hothouse is the clouds Sutcliffe brings attention to as well as the low clouds that do deliver rain.
James:
Matt, you are correct. People have, “been seduced by the serpent that some gases are “hothouse gases” when that is not how a hothouse works and the only thing in the atmosphere that does function in a similar mechanism to a hothouse is the clouds Sutcliffe brings attention to as well as the low cloud.”
Gaseous H2O does not have a large or dramatic heat capacity. From this you might assume that the H2O in the atmosphere does not have much of a thermal effect, and you would be very, very wrong. The fact is that H2O in the atmosphere has a huge thermal effect. But, you might wonder, if it is true that the heat capacity of gaseous H2O is not much different than the heat capacities of the other gases in the atmosphere, ie. N2, O2, CO2, CH4, then why does H2O that is suspended in the atmosphere have such a large thermal effect, an effect far out of proportion to it being only 1 to 3% of the atmosphere?
The answer to this question is that there is zero gaseous H2O in the atmosphere. Specifically, earth’s atmosphere is far too cold to support the existence of suspended gaseous H2O. All of the H2O in earth’s atmosphere is liquid H2O. Much of it is in droplets that are far to small to be visible. And, in sharp contrast to gaseous H2O, liquid H2O has a huge heat capacity.
The so-called-greenhouse effect is actually the result of the huge heat capacity of liquid H2O. The fact is that meteorologists and climatologists are all muddle-headed morons with emotional attachments to plainly stupid assumptions.
James McGinn / Genius
Solving Tornadoes: Woke Meteorology
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Matt,
When you wrote: “yet it is the blue wavelength that is emitted giving Mr Salty his blue colour. Intuition?”, you made a statement and then asked a question–Intuition?
Not intuition if you observe everything that can be observed. Do we agree that the sky appears to be blue because of Rayleigh Scattering? What color is the sky during the nighttime? Rayleigh scattering requires there be solar radiation. For there is nothing else, beside the sun, in our natural solar system, which is capable of emitting an appreciable amount of ‘blue light’. Do you agree with this?
Do you agree that twilight is the result of Rayleigh scattering high above the earth’s surface down to near the earth’s surface just before we begin to see the direct light from the sun? Yet when I look west at the sky, before the sun will rise in the east, I see an uniform ‘gray’ light when the sky appears to be cloudless. Hence, I must conclude that the ‘atmospheric’ matter must be scattering more than just than blue light.
Why do I write ‘atmospheric’ matter? Because I know that Sutcliffe had also written about the forced (by observations) conclusion that the atmosphere, no matter how clean it appears, must be composed of tiny, tiny, particles of liquids or solids (condensed matter) as well as the molecules of diffuse matter (gas molecules). Hence, these tiny particles of condensed matter, much larger than the molecules of the atmosphere, must ‘Tyndal’ Scatter (Effect) the visible wavelengths of the solar radiation more strongly than the molecules of the atmosphere do (this according to Feynman’s scattering theory of clouds).
We can never understand much if we ignore what we should ‘know’ because of simple observation. These other guys and a gal seem to believe they do not have to address the common observations that Sutcliffe drew to his readers’ attentions.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt & Jerry,
Nitrogen and oxygen do not absorb IR, but that does not mean they don’t have kinetic energy. Uv radiation break the bonds forming these molecules converting them into elemental atoms of nitrogen and oxygen. The bonding energy of the molecules is converted to kinetic energy of the atoms. The atoms radiated energy in the short wave length creating the blue color of the sky. When the atoms lose enough energy they combine to form N2, O2, and NO molecules (the gases of the upper atmosphere) with added kinetic energy.The breaking and re-forming of nitrogen and oxygen molecules converts uv energy into kinetic energy of the molecules. The problem is that a thermometer does not give an accurate reading of kinetic energy. The energy in the “empty” space between the Earth and the sun is greater than the energy heating the Earth but there are to few molecules to register on a thermometer. At what concentration of molecules does a thermometer become accurate? Not in any gas, where an increase in kinetic energy results in a decrease in density. The thermometer was designed and calibrated for liquids and in order to get an accurate picture of the kinetic energy of gases you must use the universal gas law.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry (in previous post): I now accept that if I do not agree with your idea—that the earth’s atmosphere does not contain any individual (independent) water molecules, but instead contains tiny liquid droplets composed of several (undefined number) of water molecules—I am obligated to provide an observation (or experimental result) that your idea cannot explain.
James (in previous post): Yes, you stated my idea correctly.
Jerry: . . . there is no question that the boiling action is removing water from the beaker as well as the energy of the flame heating the water.
James: Yes, there is no question that some of the molecules are becoming gaseous in the boiling water and that some of them (actually, a very small percentage) are gaseous when they exit the pot of water.
Jerry: This is where you claim that the boiling action removes water as tiny liquid droplets composed of several water molecules and I claim that the water is removed as individual water molecules.
James: Jerry, when you boil a pot of water only a very small amount of the water ever actually boils. Most of the water that is lost is lost as evaporation. Evaporation produces liquid droplets of H2O. Evaporation does not produces gaseous H2O. Moreover, the water that does boil only remains gaseous for about an inch above the surface of the water. Thereafter it reverts back to the liquid phase. There is no gaseous H2O in earth’s atmosphere. Earth’s atmosphere is far too cool to support the existence of gaseous H2O. (If you don’t believe me then go look at an H2O phase diagram.) I think this is about the twentieth time I’ve explained all of this to you. You will never understand any of this because your whole career has caused you to form an emotional attachment to an oversimplified (dumbed down) model of H2O.
Jerry: If tiny liquid droplets composed of several water molecules are being ejected from either boiling water or from non-boiling water, these molecules are already condensed gaseous water molecules and not similar to the nitrogen and oxygen molecules of the atmosphere.
James: Right.
Jerry: So, since these molecules are already condensed liquid matter, how would you explain a further condensation of these tiny liquid droplets which no longer qualify as being individual gaseous molecules? Can you, with your idea, explain the further condensation of tiny liquid droplets which is observed by the formation of cloud above the beaker?
James: I explain it as smaller droplets (many are so small that they are invisible) combining to become larger droplets (once they combine, some become large enough to deflect photons and are, thereby, visible as droplets).
Jerry: Which I can simply explain as the condensation of water molecules which have been independently (individually) ejected from either the boiling water or from the non-boiling water.
James: LOL. Yeah, so in order to keep your explanation simple you allow yourself to pretend like something happens that actually doesn’t happen. To me it is anathema (abhorrent) to simplify something for the sake of creating the illusion that you understand it better than you do.
You have fallen for what I call the certainty delusion. You are a prime candidate for being a victim of the certainty delusion because you harbor deep religious beliefs. The certainty delusion allows you to rationalize the acceptance of assumptions that are demonstrably false in order to maintain the perceived certainty of a model or theory.
Meteorologists and climatologists take full advantage of the certainty delusion. Meteorology’s convection model of storms conceals numerous (3 to 5, depending on the level of detail) plainly false assumptions, as I’ve delineated on my podcast:
Solving Tornadoes: Woke Meteorology
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn
Also, Jerry, I hope you do not think that I am treating you unfairly or singling you out. Many people are susceptible to the certainty delusion. We can think of the certainty delusion as being a flaw in the human character (actually it is not a flaw in that the ability to believe what others believe is important to our ability to be members of groups–(specifically, understanding the how and why of this ‘flaw’ is intrinsically intertwined with understanding the emergence of communal groups in the context of human evolution).
The certainty delusion turns all of us into liars, frauds, and morons on certain issues.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=60#p114924
For example, do you concur with the notion that moist air contains gaseous H2O? Yes? No? Do you dispute my assertion that this notion is nonsense? Yes? No? Undoubtedly we will never know because, like all science pretenders, you are determined to ride the fence, play it safe. And that is too bad. Science isn’t about looking or even being right. It’s about being specific so that if you are wrong you can realize you are wrong when you are wrong. Because realizing you are wrong when you are wrong is the hardest part of any scientific endeavor. More than anything else, science is about defeating your minds desire to take the easy path and just believe.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi James,
You have often written about water’s phase diagram: “Thereafter it reverts back to the liquid phase. There is no gaseous H2O in earth’s atmosphere. Earth’s atmosphere is far too cool to support the existence of gaseous H2O. (If you don’t believe me then go look at an H2O phase diagram.)”
I just looked at several water phase diagram (pressure vs. temperature). Do you understand that the pressure (vertical axis) is of the gas phase along the solid-vapor line and of the gas phase along liquid-vapor line at the differing temperatures of the horizontal axis???
Have a good day, Jerry
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi James,
You often write: “Currently there exists over 70 anomalies of H2O.”
But I have never read a one by one list of these 70 anomalies. I would like to read your list of these 70 anomalies.
But there is a problem, you dismiss the ideas of others because your ideas are superior to theirs. Your ‘science’ is built on ‘I thinks’ as you reject their ‘I thinks’. What instruments do you use to observe the behavior of water molecules? What observations do you trust and what observations do you reject?
You want me accept that it is more logical that a droplet of 10 water molecules is more likely to be ejected from a liquid water surface than a single water molecule. For a common observation is that the volume of water in a beaker (cup) decreases over time while it is seldom observed to increase unless precipitation of water droplets fall on its surface.
So, we all have to explain how it is the water disappears from the beaker (cup) when the temperature of the water is far below 100C. I cannot not follow your reasoning when you claim that it is more logical that the droplet of 10 molecules can be ejected from the surface of the liquid water than a single molecule. What I lift a masses of 10 pounds and 1 pounds, I can feel the difference.
Yes, I am stupid to expect you to accept what I have just written and that is your right with which you have to live.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
James:
Jerry, in order to understand hydrogen bonding in water you have to start with the quantum mechanics of water. Because it is in the context of quantum mechanics that Linus Pauling dropped the ball. So, you have to untangle Pauling’s error first before you have any chance of comprehending my advanced model of hydrogen bonding in water. I made two videos (links below). These videos are not perfect but they are the only source anywhere that you can understand the huge error that delineates the current misunderstanding of water in nature.
Jerry:
I cannot not follow your reasoning.
James:
You seem incapable of following any reasoning.
Jerry:
you claim that it is more logical that the droplet of 10 molecules can be ejected from the surface of the liquid water than a single molecule.
James:
Right. As I explained above it has to do with the variability of polarity which itself is comprehensible through QM.
There are other concepts you need to become familiar with. Tetrahedral symmetry/asymmetry, which is associated with the oxygen atom of the H2O molecule, is one such concept. Another is simple symmetry/asymmetry, which is associated with the H2O molecule’s hydrogen atoms.
Jerry:
I am stupid to expect you to accept what I have just written
James:
I agree.
James McGinn / Genius
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=360#p123034
The sheath of a tornado is a form of surface tension. It is a plasma of spinning, churning H2O molecules. It has structural strength and a surface—common characteristics of plasmas. But the origin of this strength doesn’t involve the forces associated with ionic bonds, as is the case with most plasmas. Instead this is a kind of plasma that involves the forces associated with hydrogen bonds. I thought of it as surface tension that is expressed in three dimensions—surface tension on steroids!
conjectured that hydrogen bonds must be distinctive from covalent or ionic bonds in that with hydrogen bonds the force that creates the bond must be deactivated by the bond itself. And so, whereas with a covalent bond or an ionic bond the force that brings them together remains, with hydrogen bonds the force that brings them together is deactivated–neutralized. Accordingly, the fewer bonds that an H2O molecule shares with other H2O molecules the stronger are these bonds. Conversely, the greater were the number of bonds an H2O molecule shared with other H2O molecules the weaker were these bonds—all the way down to having zero strength when fully bonded.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi James,
Why do you seem to assume I have have not studied QM. I may have studied more about QM than you have, but I do not know what you studied. I have taken Atomic and Molecular Physics and Advanced Physical Chemistry courses. But those are academic classes, and of course, even Pauling, according to you, did not understand hydrogen bonding as you do. This even though he was the one who proposed the idea of hydrogen bonding. And I have no idea if you are aware upon what measurements he based the values, which he termed electronegativities, for the atoms of each element.
I have no idea of what science research you have ever done. For all you seem to write about is what you think; not about you have done beyond telling people that you are a genius.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry: Why do you seem to assume I have have not studied QM.
James: I’m just going by the words your write.
Jerry: I may have studied more about QM than you have, but I do not know what you studied. I have taken Atomic and Molecular Physics and Advanced Physical Chemistry courses.
James: Your understanding is convoluted, dull-witted, and vague. This is consistent with somebody whose thinking is belief oriented. The words you use are the words of somebody who wants to create the illusion that he understands what he actually doesn’t.
James: The point in everything you write is that you don’t have to have a point. The reality is that you don’t have any points because the model you pretend to understand is convoluted nonsense that can never be fully understood.
Jerry: But those are academic classes, and of course, even Pauling, according to you, did not understand hydrogen bonding as you do.
Water is the most understood substance in all of nature. And it is central to just about everything. Starting with Linus Pauling, evidenced by more than 70 observations that are unexplained by the current model, the current paradigm pivots off the pretense that they fully understand what they only partially understand.
Superstition and half-baked theory dominate the atmospheric sciences. Currently meteorological theories on atmospheric flow and storms maintain three superstitious and half-baked notions: 1) Convection. This is the superstition that evaporation makes air buoyant enough to power strong updrafts in the atmosphere (included in this is the strange belief that H2O in the atmosphere becomes gaseous at temperatures/pressures that have never been detected in a laboratory); 2) Dry layer capping. This is a superstition that imagines dry layers having structural properties that explain the how/why convection does not constantly produce storms and uplift; 3) Latent heat. This is the superstition that phase changes from a gaseous phase of H2O (which are purported to exist despite never having been detected and being inconsistent with what is indicated in the H2O phase table) to a liquid phase releases “latent heat” which itself has never been confirmed/verified.
In accordance with which, the current meteorological paradigm assumes hurricanes are caused by warm water. Actually the energy of hurricanes and all storms comes from jet streams and is delivered through vortices in the form of low pressure. Wind shear at low altitudes is the most important predictor of severe weather. This is because wind shear is the mechanism underlying growth of the vortices that are the transport mechanism of the low pressure energy. Warm moist air/water is not the source of the energy of storms, it’s the target of vortice growth.
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply