The search for Anthropogenic Global Warming
One explanation is that CO2 is creating a greenhouse effect and thereby blocking heat from escaping to space.
But blocking heat by blocking convection like in a real greenhouse is achieved by the use of a physical barrier; glass, not by the use of CO2 or any other gas.
CO2 does NOT block convection.
The IPCC explain the Greenhouse effect as follows:
The IPCC’s report from 2013, chapter 1, page 126, “The Physical Science Basis”:
“The longwave radiation (LWR, also referred to as infrared radiation) emitted from the Earth’s surface is largely absorbed by certain atmospheric constituents—water vapour, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs); see Annex III for Glossary – and clouds, which themselves emit LWR in all directions.”
The downward directed component of this LWR adds heat to the lower layers of the atmosphere and to the Earth’s surface (greenhouse effect). ”This explanation is the basic idea of the Greenhouse Effect, and the Greenhouse Effect is the science basis of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
“The second law of thermodynamics asserts that heat cannot move from a reservoir of lower temperature to a reservoir of higher temperature in a cyclic process.”
“..a cyclic transformation whose only final result is to transfer heat from a body at a given temperature to a body at a higher temperature is impossible.” – (Encyclopaedia Britannica)
You can only elevate the temperature on a substance with a substance that is warmer.
You can not elevate the temperature on a substance with a substance that is colder.
The atmosphere cannot elevate the temperature of its own heat source (the Earth surface) because a heat source is always warmer than the substance it is heating. The laws of thermodynamics apply to any kind of energy transfer.
“But CO2 is elevating the mean temperature by insulating Earth like a blanket” might be the response from a believer in Anthropogenic Global Warming.
For CO2 to act as an insulator on Earth would require CO2 to have a higher Specific Heat Capacity than the atmosphere because the cooling rate of a gas is depending on the Specific Heat Capacity.
Mixing a gas with a higher Specific Heat capacity than average air into the atmosphere would result in a higher Specific Heat Capacity of the atmospheric composition.
A Higher Specific Heat Capacity would result in a lower cooling rate, i.e. a better insulation. (“Relationship between Specific heat capacity and Newton’s law of cooling”, physics.stackexchange.com
This phenomenon is known from the way a desert is cooling compared to a location near a coastline. A desert is cooling off very fast because there is no moist in the air, and vice versa for a location with more moist in the air.
This is because water vapour has a Specific Heat Capacity almost twice as high as average air. So water vapour is acting as an insulation agent during the cooling phase at night..
Could CO2 have the same effect as water vapour? The Specific Heat Capacity of CO2 is only 0,844 (kJ/(kg K)) in relation to air at 1,01 (kJ/(kg K)).
This is why CO2 is used as a cooling agent in air condition systems and refrigerators (“A comparative study of CO2 refrigeration systems” , sciencedirect.com).
Mixing CO2 into the atmosphere would lower the Specific Heat Capacity and result in a higher cooling rate.
So the answer is NO.
“High specific heat capacity is essential for a gas to act as an insulator, since it promotes the retention of thermal energy. Conversely, low specific heat capacity results in rapid cooling rates, making the gas more effective as a coolant.” (Stephen R. Turns in “Introduction to Combustion: Concepts and Applications, 3rd Edition)
Specific Heat Capacity of air, CO2 and water vapour:SHC – CO2: 0,844 kJ/(kg K)SHC – Average air: 1.01: kJ/(kg K)SHC – Water vapor: 1.93: kJ/(kg K)(engeneeringtoolbox.com)
Several studies have investigated the effects of CO2 concentration on the radiative cooling of the Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere, using both laboratory experiments and numerical simulations.
For example, a study by Li et al. (2013) used a lab-scale radiation shield system to measure the cooling rate of air with different CO2 concentrations (ranging from 0 to 1000 ppm) under controlled conditions of solar radiation and air flow.
They found that the CO2-induced warming effect on the shield surface increased with CO2 concentration, and that the cooling time constant decreased by up to 30 percent when CO2 concentration increased.
The rational reason to say that CO2 rise will cause warming is yet to be found.
Maybe there is one last possibility. What if CO2 has an effect on the gas parameters (pressure, density and molar mass)?
That would effect the temperature. It turns out that you can calculate the near surface temperature by using the Ideal Gas Law (Thermal Gradients on Planetary Bodies and the Molar Mass Ideal Gas Law, Robert Ian Holmes, semanticscolar.org).
Thereby, we can find the effect on temperature if we double CO2 (climate sensitivity):
PhD Robert Ian Holmes calculate the climate sensitivity for doubling CO2 from 300ppm to 600ppm with the molar mass version of the Ideal Gas Law:
A reasonable expectation would be that a 0.03 perent increase in atmospheric CO2, which is a relatively heavy gas, would result in the following changes in the three gas parameters:
Pressure: An increase of 0.03 percentDensity: An increase of 0.03 percentMolar Mass: An increase of 0.05 percentCalculate for a doubling of CO2 from the pre-industrial level of 0.03 percent (by volume);T = 101.33/(8.314X1.2256/28.984)
Calculated temperature after doubling of CO2 to 0.06 percent ≈ 288.23K Climate sensitivity to CO2 ≈ 288.23 – 288.14 ≈ 0.09K
The climate sensitivity for doubling CO2 (300ppm – 600ppm) is 0,09K calculated with the molar mass version of the Ideal Gas Law.
It is estimated by the IPCC that human CO2 emission is about four percent. Natural emissions are 96 percent. So the anthropogenic contribution to temperature in this scenario is about 0,0036K.
So we found warming.
But before we draw any conclusions we have to remember the fact that CO2 rise is lowering the Specific Heat Capacity of the atmosphere.
This will lead to a higher cooling rate allowing heat to escape Earth faster at night and thereby have a negative impact on the mean temperature of Earth.
So the net effect of CO2 could even be negative to the mean temperature of Earth.
There are other small so called feedbacks from CO2, but as professor Will Happer puts it:
“There are more negative feedbacks than positive”.
In any case the effect is so tiny that it can probably not be measured and is nothing to worry about and nothing to spend trillions on.
Bold emphasis added
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Alan
| #
Why not look at the moon to find out what the daytime temperatures would be without an atmosphere? They would reach 106C and we would burn to a crisp. The atmosphere keeps us cool in the daytime and the opposite at night.
Reply
James
| #
NASA has done that, and seen that the temperature difference between Moon and Earth falsifies CO2 induced Global Warming theory. See Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller, who’s work seems to have been ignored.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
The problem with climatology and meteorology is they do not know what the thermometer or barometer is recording. It is measuring the momentum if the molecules striking it NOT the kinetic energy of those molecules.When energy is added to a gas it expands and there are fewer collisions or molecules striking the thermometer and transferring energy,.So while the kinetic energy being transferred increases the total amount of kinetic energy transferred is decreasing. In order to determine the kinetic energy of the molecules at an altitude you must divide the temperature reading by the density at that altitude to get the kinetic energy per a constant number of molecules instead of a constant volume. This results in a graph of the kinetic energy/molecules that does not pause or reverse course like the temperature graph, but continuously rises as altitude increases. In the troposphere the kinetic energy rises in a straight line as water moderates the flow of energy. Above the troposphere the kinetic energy rises in an exponential curve as energy decreases as a function of the square of the distance. The graph shows that it is the sun that is heating the atmosphere (by the absorption uv radiation by O2 and N2) not the surface of the Earth. If you go out into the ocean in a boat during the day the air heats up while the water remains cool. How can the water be heating the atmosphere?
The second law of thermodynamics is wrong! Objects do not transfer mass only energy so with convection (which is how energy is transferred in the troposphere) the energy goes from the. object with more energy to the object with less energy regardless of the masses, according to the law of conservation of momentum. If you are in a small car and run into the back of a large slower truck your velocity will not increase, even though the truck has more kinetic energy.
There is absolutely no science supporting the GHGT, only fraud from people trying to profit from the ignorance about science in the vast majority of people.
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
This article is mainly nonsense.
Not only does CO2 impede cooling, but that effect, of increasing downwelling infrared radiation, has been measured with CERES satellites.
The timing and pattern of global warming from 1975 to 2014 is mainly (2/3) what is expected from increasing greenhouse gases: Mainly warming at night (TMIN) and mainly warming during the coldest six months of the year. Also, no warming of most of Antarctica, due to a permanent temperature inversion there. Actually, cooling of most of Antarctica. Only increasing greenhouse gases would have that effect.
Solar energy caused global warming (about 1/3) would only affect daytime temperatures (TMAX) during the warmest months of the year. There would also be warming of the Arctic and Antarctica during the half years when they get sunlight. That is NOT happening.
The evidence so far points to manmade CO2 emissions as the primary manmade cause of the 1975 to 2014 global warming. With a lesser effect from more sunlight reaching Earth’s surface due to less air pollution and fewer clouds. Sunlight measured at the top of the atmosphere has DECLINED slightly since the satellite age, so did not cause any of the global warming.
The lack of global warming after 2014 (UAH satellite data) is simply because the warming effect of CO2 has been offset by the cooling effect of other climate change variables. That also happened from 1940 to 1975.
Please try to find authors with some climate science knowledge who do not pretend to know thermodynamics.
What I have summarized is the work of some of the most famous “skeptic” climate scientists ON OUR SIDE, who try r to refute climate scaremongering with real s climate science. Their primary point is that CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas above the curent 420ppm so is unlikely to cause more than _1 degree C. of global warming as CO2 doubles from 420ppm to 840ppm, which could take 168 years at the _2.5ppm a year increase. No one would notice a slight average temperature rise, mainly at night, over 168 years. The predictions, by William Happer and Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., include a water vapor positive feedback that amplifies the effect of CO2 alone. They use the HOTRAN database for greenhouse gas absorption data. You should too.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Richard,
The only way any matter changes the flow of energy is by absorbing that energy and then radiating that energy in all directions. The absorbed energy increases the vibration across the bonds in the object which creates radiated waves with longer wavelengths
CO2 absorbs energy from the infrared spectrum (O2 & N2 absorb uv wavelengths) with the primary absorbed wavelength corresponding to -80 C. The CO2 then radiates infrared radiation with a longer wavelength. Water is far more plentiful in the atmosphere and far better at absorbing IR radiation than CO2,.making CO2’s role insignificant to non existent.
Do not confuse the temperature reading of a thermometer with the energy of the molecules (see above comment).
Herb
Reply
Allan Shelton
| #
@Richard…….
“water vapour gives a positive feedback to CO2”
So, from the above, the water cycle does not cool the earth.
Is that what you are saying?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Alan,
The water in the atmosphere is not a gas (vapor) but a liquid crystal. A phase chart of water shows that water gas cannot exist below 100C at standard pressure. Evidence of this is seen in a tea kettle. It takes 540 calories/gram to convert 100 C liquid water into 100 C gas (steam). The water escapes the tea kettle as a clear gas then on cooling becomes water droplets. These droplets then disappear even though they do not absorb 540 calories/gram but continue to cool. The energy is converting the water into a liquid crystal with an outer shell containing hydroxyl ions and a center containing hydronimium ions. (See Dr. Gerald Pollack’s experiments.) It is the negative charge that causes the liquid crystal to rise in the atmosphere until it reaches an altitude where the energy coming from the sun causes the liquid crystal to reach its second melt point and release the stored electric energy into space. This is why even though a water gas molecule has a lower molecular weight (14) than an oxygen molecule (32) and nitrogen molecule (28) it is confined almost exclusively (99.9%) to the troposphere while the other gases permeate the atmosphere..
Herb
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
Water vapor in the troposphere is a powerful greenhouse gas. the amount of water vapor in the troposphere depends on the average temperature of the troposphere. Water vapor ranges from zero to 4% depending on the temperature. Scientists guess an average of 2% to 2.5% which is obviously not a precise measurement.
As the troposphere warms from any cause, it will hold more water vapor, amplifying the warming. That would be a water vapor positive feedback. Which would be unstable and eventually cause runaway global warming. But runaway warming has never happened before, even with atmospheric CO2 at 4500ppm (now 420pm). That means something must limit the water vapor positive feedback. My best guess is that more water vapor in the troposphere leads to more clouds, blocking more sunlight, and preventing runaway global warming. The Climate Alarmists do not accept any limitation to the water vapor positive feedback, no matter what actually happened in climate history.
Evaporation and transpiration transform liquid water into vapor, which ascends into the atmosphere due to rising air currents. Cooler temperatures aloft allow the vapor to condense into clouds.
Water is constantly cycling through the atmosphere. Water evaporates from the Earth’s surface and rises on warm updrafts into the atmosphere. It condenses into clouds, is blown by the wind, and then falls back to the Earth as rain or snow.
How much water vapor is in the atmosphere?
Global mean water vapor is about 0.25% of the atmosphere by mass and also varies seasonally, in terms of contribution to atmospheric pressure between 2.62 hPa in July and 2.33 hPa in December.
The claim that “water gas cannot exist below 100C at standard pressure”, in the comment below, is FALSE.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Richard,
I did not create the phase chart of water showing the state (gas, liquid, solid) of water at different temperatures and pressures, only read it. It is what says that water cannot exist as a gas at standard pressure below its boiling point.
Your belief tat H20 is a greenhouse gas, increasing the temperature, is nonsense. In order to convert 0 C water into 100 C vapor you must provide energy of 640 calories/gram, which means 85% of the energy is not recorded and has disappeared. The fact that energy is producing structures in the water is evident from the amount of energy needed to cause a temperature change of 1 C (a calorie) varies depending on the initial temperature of the water.
If you add energy to water to make it evaporate then that energy must be given off when the water condenses (1st Law of Thermodynamics). When you sweat the water on your skin evaporates absorbing energy and cooling the skin. The same occurs when water evaporates from the ocean. It absorbs energy, carries that energy to the top of the troposphere where it is released into space when the water condenses into clouds and rain, then repeating the cycle. Water is cooling the surface by removing energy, it is not keeping warmer.
You need to try to understand the peculiarities of water (boiling water freezes faster than room temperature water, why water is not always a gas, how the phases of water when cooling can go from a gas, to a liquid, to a gas, to a liquid, to a solid) and to do this I suggest you look up the experiments of Dr. Gerald Pollack or read his book The Fourth Phase of Water.
Climatologist and meteorologists have no clue on the flow of energy on the Earth (the atmosphere heats the surface), what information the thermometer and barometer are recording, or the role of water as the major reservoir of energy in the atmosphere so all they can does study history and guess that history will repeat itself rather than be scientists who try to understand why things are happening.
Herb
Reply
james McGinn
| #
Hi Richard,
I did not create the phase chart of water showing the state (gas, liquid, solid) of water at different temperatures and pressures, only read it. It is what says that water cannot exist as a gas at standard pressure below its boiling point.
Right. The world is full of morons who think the invisibility of air proves water therein is gaseous.
Your belief tat H20 is a greenhouse gas, increasing the temperature, is nonsense.
Yes. H2O (quite obviously) provides negative feedback thermally. Our planet is filled with morons.
In order to convert 0 C water into 100 C vapor you must provide energy of 640 calories/gram, which means 85% of the energy is not recorded and has disappeared. The fact that energy is producing structures in the water is evident from the amount of energy needed to cause a temperature change of 1 C (a calorie) varies depending on the initial temperature of the water.
If you add energy to water to make it evaporate then that energy must be given off when the water condenses (1st Law of Thermodynamics). When you sweat the water on your skin evaporates absorbing energy and cooling the skin. The same occurs when water evaporates from the ocean. It absorbs energy, carries that energy to the top of the troposphere where it is released into space when the water condenses into clouds and rain, then repeating the cycle. Water is cooling the surface by removing energy, it is not keeping warmer.
You need to try to understand the peculiarities of water (boiling water freezes faster than room temperature water, why water is not always a gas, how the phases of water when cooling can go from a gas, to a liquid, to a gas, to a liquid, to a solid) and to do this I suggest you look up the experiments of Dr. Gerald Pollack or read his book The Fourth Phase of Water.
Pollack is a confused pretender. He literally is clueless, off on a tangent of irrelevance.
Climatologist and meteorologists have no clue on the flow of energy on the Earth (the atmosphere heats the surface), what information the thermometer and barometer are recording, or the role of water as the major reservoir of energy in the atmosphere so all they can does study history and guess that history will repeat itself rather than be scientists who try to understand why things are happening.
Herb
james McGinn
| #
The claim that “water gas cannot exist below 100C at standard pressure”, in the comment below, is FALSE.
It’s not false. The problem is that you are delusional. Nobody has ever presented any real evidence to support this absurd notion. Pull your head out.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
It’s good to see you are still reading and commenting. How do you explain why the charge on theEarth’s surface goes from negative to positive under thunder clouds? Positive charges I a nucleus do not move only electrons.
Herb
Lit
| #
“Not only does CO2 impede cooling, but that effect, of increasing downwelling infrared radiation, has been measured with CERES satellites.”
You can´t measure DLR from space. And no, increasing heat absorption by cold co2-molecules doesn´t impede cooling, it increases cooling. If you want to cool something more efficiently, you increase the heat absorption in the surroundings, which is what co2 does.
“The evidence so far points to manmade CO2 emissions as the primary manmade cause of the 1975 to 2014 global warming.”
There was no warming between 2000 and 2012. “The hiatus”…
“The lack of global warming after 2014 (UAH satellite data) is simply because the warming effect of CO2 has been offset by the cooling effect of other climate change variables. ”
Nothing but guesses. You have no evidence.
Now, show the experiment where cold air increases the power of a heat source by recycling the heat. It must show that the heat source puts out more power than you feed into it, because that´s what the greenhouse theory says.
Reply
Gennady
| #
Dear participants, don’t you think that the G5 plays an important role in the climate imbalance? We currently live in a “climatic microwave”. An increase in temperature, accelerated evaporation of moisture from the surface of soils and natural resources, an increase in atmospheric moisture leads to abundant precipitation, and extensive cloudiness exacerbates the effect of G5 microwave radiation.
While we are studying the effect of G5 on a biological organism, it determines the climatic situation on the globe.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Gennady,
Climate is determined by output of the sun and the position of the Earth. It changes slowly. G5 may effect local weather but things like payment, air conditioning, water distribution, and other works by men have done that for a long time.
Herb
Reply
Koen Vogel
| #
Richard Greene makes some excellent points, the main one can being that one can be an anthropogenic climate change skeptic and still accept the thermodynamic science of the role of GHG’s Stoffregen’s article makes some arguments that confused me too until I read van Wijngaarden and Happer’s excellent primer (https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.00808). Two of my main learnings:
1) Greenhouse gasses such as CO2 and H2O act as thermal resistors: they delay heat transfer to space. This delay causes heat to build up in the troposphere and its temperature to increase.
2) The atmosphere does not have a physical greenhouse barrier – such as glass in a greenhouse – but it’s tropopause fulfils the same function, allowing heat to accumulate below it before it can effectively be radiated to space: the thermal frequencies absorbed by H2O can only be effectively radiated to space at the tropopause.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Koen,
Temperature is a measurement of radiated energy.
Matter is not a resistor but more like a capacitor storing energy. Radiated energy is absorbed by an object and converted into internal energy (vibration atoms across bonds). This does not cause a build up of heat but a reduction as radiated energy is decreased and causes the temperature to be lower.
CO2, being gas, has limited ability to absorb heat and is only absorbs significant energy at a temperature of -80C, At other temperatures it is neutral regarding temperature, emitting as much energy as it is absorbing.
Water, as a liquid crystal, absorbs a large amount of IR radiation to form the liquid crystal structure. This stored or non radiated energy is released at the top of the troposphere when the liquid crystal melts. The tropopause is where the temperature remains constant as the crystal structure melts releasing energy just as the temperature of water will remain at 0C as ice melts.
The troposphere is cooled by the matter in it, absorbing radiated energy and is defined by the water it contains. This is why even thought molecular weight water (18) would cause it to be a gassed permeate all levels of thermosphere it is almost exclusively (99.9%) found in the troposphere. On Venus and Mars, where there are large amounts of CO2 and no water, temperatures are not moderated because CO2, as a gas, has little capacitance.
Herb
Reply
Lit
| #
“1) Greenhouse gasses such as CO2 and H2O act as thermal resistors”
They don´t, they act as coolants. Do you really think that the water in a water-cooled engine acts as thermal resistance? It enhances heat transfer from a heat source, because it absorbs lots of heat while staying low in temperature. Co2 does as well.
” allowing heat to accumulate below it before it can effectively be radiated to space: the thermal frequencies absorbed by H2O can only be effectively radiated to space at the tropopause.”
Nope. Cold air cools. The more heat the atmosphere absorbs, the colder it is. Heat absorption is inversely related to temperature, it increases with dropping temperature.
Take two buckets, fill one with ice-water and one with 10C water. Put one hand in each and feel the difference. Which one absorbs more heat and what does it do to the temperature of your hand? That´s the effect of heat absorbing molecules. If the atmosphere absorbs more heat when co2-levels rise, it means that it gets colder. If the atmosphere gets colder it cools the surface more.
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
Lit, Thank you for a dose of common sense.
Folks like Richard Greene appear to have no understanding of basic thermodynamics.
Reply
MattH
| #
It is an error to conflate CO2 with water vapour.
Hot, dry, desert air cools quickly at night.
The phase change of water to vapour at earth’s water and terrestrial surface is a refrigeration (cooling) process, the water vapour then carrying the heat energy to the higher levels of the troposphere.
The phase change of water to vapour back to cloud releases that heat, as well as the cloud blocking, slowing the release of IR energy out to space.
So, cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights even though atmospheric CO2 concentration is identical on clear and overcast nights.
Water in it’s phases and phase changes is the so-called hot house effect molecule. Stop conflating CO2 with this and confusion is blasted to outer space.
It is called separating the chaff from the wheat.
Reply
MattH
| #
The 6th line should read ‘The phase change of water vapour back to cloud releases that heat, as well as the cloud blocking, slowing the release of IR energy out to space’.
I apologize for not proofreading. Matt done bad.
Reply
james McGinn
| #
Matt:
The phase change of water vapour back to cloud releases that heat,
JMcG:
There is no freekin phase change. This has been explained to you multiple times.
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi James.
Without a phase change the chilling effect of wearing wet clothes or wetsuits as they dry needs to be explained. Fabric on the exterior surface of a surfing wetsuit leads to a much colder wetsuit than a ‘smooth skin’ wetsuit.
This observation needs explaining if there is no phase change and my other reservation is if what is called water vapour is in fact a liquid crystal a dry cloth would become wet when passing the cloth through a high humidity atmosphere.
Another thought. A crystal would not require a particle to nucleate vapour to cloud. The crystals would nucleate each other?
Good to see you are still near.
Have a nice day. (As our good mate Jerry would say.)
Matt
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt,
The liquid crystals are reaching their second melt point at the top of the troposphere.If you look at Dr. Pollacks experiment show that as the water absorbs IR it excludes particles (including salt ions) from the surface concentrating them in the center.
Particles are not necessary to form droplets as they cannot enter the crystal until the shell melts. You can condense pure distilled vwater even without nucleation.
Herb
James McGinn
| #
Without a phase change the chilling effect of wearing wet clothes or wetsuits as they dry needs to be explained. Fabric on the exterior surface of a surfing wetsuit leads to a much colder wetsuit than a ‘smooth skin’ wetsuit.
That water has a huge heat capacity has been explained hundreds of times. You need to explain why you think this is evidence of some kind of magical form of H2O that appears at temperatures lower than the H2O phase diagram.
MattH
| #
‘That water has a huge heat capacity has been explained hundreds of times. You need to explain why you think this is evidence of some kind of magical form of H2O that appears at temperatures lower than the H2O phase diagram.’
A pool of water on the bathroom floor at room temperature dries out through evaporation. Looks like phase change, smells like….. This occurs way below boiling point. I
james McGinn
| #
Matt:
Looks like phase change, smells like…..
JMcG:
It doesn’t look like phase change. In order for it to look like phase change you would have to be able to see individual molecules of H2O.
You need to make a distinction between what you actually see and what you imagine you see.
james McGinn
| #
Herb, you are mildly confused. H2O polarity (on a molecule by molecule basis, which is the only way it can be calculated) is the inverse of it’s (the molecule’s) connectedness to other H2O molecules in its immediate vicinity. Another way of saying this is that H2O is a solvent of 25% of each other’s polarity. I don’t know where you are getting this O3, liquid crystal nonsense, Pollack I suppose.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
It’s not O3 (ozone) its H30+ where a hydrogen ion (proton) binds wit a water molecule.
Certain steels in aircraft (landing structures) are made from high. strength hardened steel alloys. It has a dense crystal structure. If these parts are cleaned with acid or certain alkaline cleaners protons invade the crystal structure where they gain an electron and become hydrogen atoms. This causes embrittlement where the steel shatters like glass.
I know you don’t believe water molecules split into positive and negative ions but I believe the evidence.
Herb
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt,
Water does not convert to a gas in the troposphere. “Evaporation” is an inaccurate term since the water is converting to a liquid crystal nano droplet not a gas. 0C ice will evaporate (sublimation) even though it requires 720 calories/gram to convert the water into a gas. IR radiation is absorbed by the ice, splitting water into hydroxyl and hydrogen ions which then combine with water molecules to produce a liquid crystal having a negative charged crystal surface and a positive charged liquid center. It is the negative charge that causes the crystal to separate from the ice. Have you noticed that dew condenses out of the air on cold surfaces but not the ice it comes from? It is the negative charge that keeps them separated and is the negative charge of the water crystal surface that repels the electrons on the surface under the clouds, giving it a positive charge. When the crystal melts at the top of the troposphere it allows the stored electric energy to neutralize sending energy into space then allowing the neutral liquid water to fall as rain.
Herb
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Herb.
I am happy to keep learning about water and it’s differing forms, especially when it acts as a plasma.
My point is conflating atmospheric water with CO2 is a huge error and perpetuates the climate change/CO2 corruption.
Good on you Herb.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt,
You are correct. Since it takes 600 calories/gram to “evaporate”: water and since water in the atmosphere is 50 times the concentration of CO2, each gram of CO2 must prevent 30,000 calories from escaping in order to counteract the cooling of water and keep the temperature constant.
Herb
Reply
MattH
| #
Hello Herb Rose.
This is about the best I could find so far.
as the area of negative charge builds up near the base of the cloud, it induces an area of positive charge at the ground – opposite signed charges attract each other
the negative charges in the base of the cloud and the positive charges at the ground create a potential difference, or a voltage, just like a battery.
once the voltage reaches a critical strength, the atmosphere tries to reduce it.
first, a stepped leader is created at the base of the cloud
the stepped leader is a channel through which electrons in the cloud can travel to the ground
the stepped leader is invisible to the eye
it travels discretely to the ground, 50-100 meters at a time
it then stops for about 50 microseconds, then travels another 50-100 meters.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt,
Here’s the problem with your solution. Positive charges are found in the nucleus of the atom and in order for the positive charge to move, the entire atom must move. Here’s my solution. The water in the cloud is in the form of nano crystals with a negatively charged shell. This charge push the mobile electrons on the surface away causing it to have a positive charge. When the crystal shell melts the hydroxyl and hydronium (H3O+) neutralize (I think the positive charge in the crystal is H5O2+ with a octagonal shape) releasing energy into space. With the repelling charge of the water removed the electrons on the ground rush back creating lightning. Which hypothesis makes more sense?
Herb
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Herb.
I believe nothing at this stage. A slow thinker.
I had a bit of a read on Gerry Pollock. H3O2 etc.
Only so many hours in a day.
Regards. Matt
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Herb Rose.
Having slept on it I think the most likely hypothesis is that the cumulative negative charge at the bottom of the cloud is repelling electrons on earth surface creating the localized positive charge on earth surface.
That is exactly what you suggested a year or three ago. Go to the top of the class on that one.
Regards Matt.
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Herb Rose again. Eureka!!!
Which means a tornado is not feasting on the earths surface. The negatively charged cloud is drawn down (attracted) to the positively charged earth’s surface and is regurgitating electrons onto the Earth’s surface, seeking electrostatic equilibrium. Doing what lightning does.
Have a nice day.
Jerry. Oops Matt
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt,
Good one Matt. Another piece of the puzzle is put into place.
Herb
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi again Matt,
Perhaps because the electrons (negative charge) is bound in a liquid crystal (that has not melted) it cannot flow into the ground and so positive matter from the surface is being. pulled up into the cloud?
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Herb Rose.
Yes, you are correct on it being a two way energy transfer. Electrons cascading/flowing from the cloud to earth surface and solid matter with a positive charge being drawn/ripped upwards and spat out of the tornado once that solid matter has achieved nearer to electrostatic equilibrium.
They talk about a green light associated with tornados. You get a green light with electric motors.
I was thinking you only get positive charge flows with gases and plasmas such as the solar wind. But the tornado simply feasts on the positive charge by ripping up solids with their locked in proton.
So a tornado is a two way electrostatic exchange, the original brushless electric motor.
Disclaimer. I do not know enough about water vapour to opine on the concept of water crystals in lieu of water vapour. I believe that breathing crystals into the lungs would be detrimental but I concede my almost complete ignorance.
Cheers Herb and casual bystanders.
Matt
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt,
A plasma is a gas where energy has stripped an electron from an atom. In the atmosphere I do not see where there is a high enough concentration of either energy or water toionize the water module. In liquid water, where the molecules with their asymmetrical charges are packed together, it would only take a smaller amount of energy to dislodge a proton from one molecule and have it adhere to the negative charge on a neighboring oxygen atom thus creating hydronium and hydroxyl ions.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
A plasma is a gas
A plasma is a plasma. A gas is a gas.
where energy has stripped an electron from an atom.
You are referring to an ionic plasma, which has nothing to do with the plasma of tornadoes which are an implication of hydrogen bonds not ionic bonds. (Haven’t you been informed of this about 5 times now?)
In the atmosphere I do not see where there is a high enough concentration of either energy or water toionize the water module.
I don’t either. So your premise is nonsense. Yet you still stick to it. Why?
In liquid water, where the molecules with their asymmetrical charges are packed together, it would only take a smaller amount of energy to dislodge a proton from one molecule and have it adhere to the negative charge on a neighboring oxygen atom thus creating hydronium and hydroxyl ions.
This is blatant pseudoscience.
To understand the plasma of atmospheric vorrtices you have to first understand how and why H2O is both a polar molecule and a molecule that is a solvent of up to 25% of one another’s polarity with tetrahedral arrangements reducing all they way down to zero, to explain the low visosity of liquid water.
So, you are wasting your time with this hydronium and hydroxil nonsense–which you undoubtedly got from either or both Gerald Pollack or Martin Chaplin, both of whom are deeply confused.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb,
” . . . where the molecules with their asymmetrical charges are packed together. . . ”
James McGinn:
Here is the incredibly subtle mistake you are making Herb. You are not grasping the all-important fact that when H2O molecules are packed tightly together (as happens in liquid water [and does not happen in ice]) the symmetry of CHARGES is achieved. (Some refer to this as tetrahedral symmetry. But that is a bit confusing. It is tetrahedral for the oxygen atoms that are involved in this but it is not tetrahedral for the hydrogen atoms. It is actually just simple symmetry for the hydrogen atoms.)
So, Herb, you are making the same mistake that Martin Chaplin and the rest of academia is making. You are failing to distinguish between the asymmetry of the arrangement of atoms on the standard H2O molecule (which doesn’t change) and the asymmetry of the charges thereof (which constantly change with any movement of H2O molecules). It is changes in the level of symmetry of the charges that effectuates the variability of the magnitude of the polarity which itself underlies the variability of behavior that makes H2O so quirky, interesting and useful. Chaplin and the rest of academia fail to recognize this. They stubbornly maintain that it is the asymmetry of the H2O molecule that matters and, therefore, they stubbornly assert that the magnitude of H2O’s polarity is static (constant) and deem anything that doesn’t conform with this poor characterization as “anomalous.” This is the reason the study of water is a mess, as is plainly evident on Martin Chaplin’s confused website.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
When you add P2O5 or other metal oxides to water the water becomes acid with hydrogen ions. These hydrogen come from the water. Your denial of the ionic nature of water is delusional. When water molecules absorb energy it causes vibration and stretching of the bonds. This happens to all molecules and when enough energy is absorbed, the bond breaks. The breaking point not only depends on the energy but the environment it is in. When electric energy is added to pure water oxygen and hydrogen are produced. When you use salt water chlorine gas and a sodium hydroxide solution is produced.
You make assertions providing no explanation of causation. You claim that water forms a polymer. Does it form some kind of covalent bond by some unknown chemistry? You maintain that the force between hydrogen bonds increases with distance. How does this occur?
It is the electric properties of atoms form molecules so what is this symmetry you speak of? The water molecules, having 3 atoms is planar. The surfaces of a body of water are different than the body of water. If the surface geometry is more stable than that in the interior why don’t these structures form in the water.
You need to provide explanations giving causes that conform to existing observations. When you support assertions with novel causes it is no different than physicist creating new subatomic particles whenever an aberration from their theories is found.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb,
You are completely clueless about hydrogen bonds in water. It appears deliberate.
You are so far behind and so completely delusional its unlikely anything I will do can help.
This is your only chance:
https://youtu.be/-cLI_nlEbJ4
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
I went to your link and I must commend you for your continued efforts. On one hand you are correct but you make the same blunder that Richard Feynman made. (https://principia-scientific.com/feynmans-blunder-part-2/). Which is fail to recognize how tiny atoms and molecules of only three atoms are.
You and any other reader must go to this link and go to Feynman’s Blunder Part 1.
I will not repeat what you can read. Instead I will remind you of what you probably know but have forgotten.
Feynman was correct when he stated “All things are made of atoms–little particles that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another.” Hence, solid and liquid particles have surrounds and gaseous atoms and molecules do not have a surface from which to emit radiation according to their surface temperatures, as defined by certain observed scientific laws.
And as Feynman concluded: “In that one sentence, you will see, there is an enormous amount of information about the worl, if just a little imagination and thinking are applied.
Have a good day
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Matt Stated:
Yes, you are correct on it being a two way energy transfer. Electrons cascading/flowing from the cloud to earth surface and solid matter with a positive charge being drawn/ripped upwards and spat out of the tornado once that solid matter has achieved nearer to electrostatic equilibrium.
JMcG Responded:
I like the level of detail you are providing in this description, Matt. There are other “electric tornado” people that refuse to provide detail with which their model can be properly scrutinized. A guy named Charles Chandler fits this description.
Electricity is too fast. Ionic plasmas are, obviously, too hot. The only bond in nature that is weak enough and plentiful enough to have a chance of forming a ROOM TEMPERATURE plasma, as is (plainly) witnessed in the sheath’s of tornadic vortices, are hydrogen bonds between water molecules under conditional factors that maximize, or at least amplify, their polarity (producing structural capabilities collectively–as witnessed in the sheaths of tornadic vortices.)
Matt Stated:
They talk about a green light associated with tornados. You get a green light with electric motors.
JMcG Responded:
I think it’s just yellowed sunlight mixed with the blue of the sky.
Matt Stated:
I was thinking you only get positive charge flows with gases and plasmas such as the solar wind. But the tornado simply feasts on the positive charge by ripping up solids with their locked in proton.
JMcG Responded:
I think you have the completely wrong physics and you are focusing on the completely wrong part of nature. Until you understand hydrogen bonds and why they are unique you will remain confused, forever trying to put a round peg into a square hole.
Matt Stated:
So a tornado is a two way electrostatic exchange, the original brushless electric motor.
JMcG: Responded:
I do think vortices may be both the origin of the charge of lightning and a transmitter over long lateral distances.
Matt Stated:
Disclaimer. I do not know enough about water vapour to opine on the concept of water crystals in lieu of water vapour. I believe that breathing crystals into the lungs would be detrimental but I concede my almost complete ignorance.
No, water doesn’t form into crystals. But it does at times form into rapidly spinning polymers under wind shear conditions. If it does so it can form into a plasma–a “room temperature” plasma. Once this plasma comes into existence it is naturally aggressive about surrounding the the flow upon which it depends for its existence (because this is the source of the wind shear that causes the spinning of the H2O polymers) the end result being the highly energized sheath of a tornadic vortice. The only chance you–or anybody–has to begin to understand these dynamics is to first understand what is meant by the phrase H2O is both a polar molecule and a solvent of up to 25% of each other’s (other H2O molecules’) polarity. (Which, with tetrahedral arrangement, gets us down to almost zero polarity, as found in liquid water.)
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi James.
As a person with no scientific training I simply try to understand, conceptually, what we observe.
So the concept of what a tornado is, this is about as far as I can take it.
A tornado is a two way energy transfer, the negatively charged cloud drawn down (attracted) to the localized positively charged earth. Electrons cascading/flowing from the cloud to earth surface and solid matter with a positive charge being drawn/ripped upwards and spat out of the tornado once that solid matter has achieved nearer to electrostatic equilibrium.
I have read eye witness (plural) accounts of an electrical arcing type light within tornados, not the sky itself, Those wishing to debunk these eye witness accounts claim it would be the arcing of power lines in the ferocious winds. It is an issue I will drop, although be mindful of eyewitness claims.
Thank you, James, for taking the time to communicate and I will be mindful to watch for hydrogen bonding and other unique attributes of water, essential in every aspect of life.
Tesla said, “If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.”
Another quote about Tesla, ‘When you’re a genius, you tend to notice things that others don’t. Nikola Tesla did. He envisioned the potential of electricity far before his contemporaries. So, is it possible that Nikola Tesla’s 3 6 9 theory of the universe holds water? Or is it merely evidence of Tesla’s obsessive nature?’
The 3 6 9 theory is something I have always adhered to, in more simple terms than Tesla considered, and this morning is the first time I have found Tesla considered these numbers fundamental. A happy coincidence.
The number three gives a greater likely hood than fifty/fifty odds. But more importantly, in my work in designing and shaping surfboards I always thought in thirds, front, middle, back, and turned thirds into ninths or numbers divisible by three for further subtleties.
Halves, quarters, eighths etc, do not work or fit most templates.
This could be useful in your research.
Best wishes.
Matt
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt,
Have you wondered why that when electrons are free to move neutralization with positive ions literal happens in a flash (lightning) and yet tornados last for a much longer time? What is preventing the electrons from flowing and neutralizing the positive charge on the surface?
Herb
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Herb.
I did write ‘Electrons cascading/flowing from the cloud to earth surface’.
Why a tornado rather than lightning, at least three possible reasons for this. Something to research.
Also, when I mentioned a gas as opposed to a plasma I meant an inert gas as opposed to an ionized gas which could transmit an electrical charge, a plasma.
Enjoy your day Herb.
Matt
Reply
MattH
| #
Oh, of course the raindrops are ionized as well as potentially the surrounding air and much of that which that air contains.
This is a guess, I do not have the knowledge.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt,
I thought it was the energy of lightning that ionized the air converting it to a plasma and that thunder was produced by the neutralizing of that plasma.
Herb
MattH
| #
Hi Herb.
Firstly. Solar wind is supposedly 80% positive charge. If and how this could effect weather is beyond me but it is claimed that with the arrival of solar wind from a corona mass ejection the change in earths charge can be measured.
The main cause of ionization or electric charge in thunder storms and even dust devils is generated through the collision of rain drops and dry particles (dust devils) in a process called The Lenard Effect.
Thunder is the noise generated by lightning and lighting forms ozone.
As one should always consider multiple hypothesis there could be more happening than what I have noted here.
I shall make an entry on the Lenard Effect on the left hand comment below.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
43 comments; but nothing really new. All talk and no go (experiment).
Decades ago I had read about Edward Leedskalnin feat: Coral Castle, Florida USA, which is on the National Register of Historical Places (1984).
Now that it is so simple to do literature sears online, and one thing I found was: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWxNlPnwHtw)
Have a good day
Reply
Matt Holl
| #
Hi Jerry.
Your reference post is interesting.
I can not think how a physicist could come up with a mathematical formula to explain this.
Whilst there has been no experiments in the previous comments there has been subtle evolution of conceptual understanding and clarity, even if the concept is one day refuted.
Be happy and thank you.
Matt
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt,
I purposely drew attention to Edward’s feat (Coral Castle) because I had never read seen (read) anyone here at PSI tackling a possible explanation. So I was trying to give readers something NEW which is quite OLD (Egyptian pyramids) to pounder.
1/11/2023 I caused an auto accident because I didn’t see a red light and I had stopped driving because I was really concentrating on watching for red lights as I was driving. So I have stopped driving. But I have always been slow and have stated that I often get where I am trying to go.
I had called attention of Feynman’s blunder not to be critical of him but to offer the evidence that we are human, so we all make mistakes. Pural, not singular. But the majority of humans have great difficulty in admitting they have ever been (done) wrong.
When one reads about physical science these days, one must come to the conclusion there is only one fundamental physical science–PHYSICS! Except, who did the experiments which lead to the physical laws which could be only explained that all matter is composed of ATOMS. Of course, many well agree that it was CHEMISTS, even though they were so stupid to try to turn lead and other dense metals into GOLD because they were only accepting the reasonably of the ancient and the brilliant philosophers.
These ancient chemists were termed alchemists. About which I read modern chemists writing (COLLEGE PHYSICAL SCIENCE 3RD ED, 1973, by Alfred B Butler and Wendell H. Slabaugh. Slabaugh was a chemistry professor at the university where and while I earned my doctorate in physical chemistry.
I will continue my thoughts but for now: Have a good day.
These two authors wrote: “After 1500, as chemistry began to develop, alchemy persisted only sporadically among certain diehards, who essentially went underground and extracted support from unwary patrons.” (page 5)
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt,
As you can see I make my usual mistakes. This comment is to draw attention to to the fact that the earliest physical scientists were actually NATURALISTS observed the nature world and observable phenomena; like the lighting to which you have referred. And they were the original modelers.
The atoms first attracted each other then repelled each other when squeezed to gather. We all know that magnets are bodies which on one certain position. relative to one another, attract one another and then in the opposite position repel one another.
In the past there were disk magnets with a hole in the center of the disk which were inexpensive (why I have no idea). So I have made models of gaseous atmospheres by placing these disk magnet on a glass tube so each disk repels the next and position the glass tube vertically. And the spacing between discs cab be seen to increase tward the top of the tube. Hopefully you can imagine my description. But better is spend a little money and make your own model.
And you could see that as you add more discs that the distance between discs toward the bottom of the column decreases and the discs are compressed (squeezed) together by the weight of the discs above. And as one adds more discs you get to the point where the discs are so compressed they cannot be squeezed closer together (condensed matter). Except it is not solid matter for these condensed discs are free to spin without moving the adjacent discs. There is no FRICTION.
Have a good day
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Herb Rose and curious bystanders.
Much or all of the electric charge in thunderstorms is generated through The Lenard Effect.
‘Meteorological contributions
Lenard was the first person to study what has been termed the Lenard effect in 1892. This is the separation of electric charges accompanying the aerodynamic breakup of water drops. It is also known as spray electrification or the waterfall effect.[11]
He conducted studies on the size and shape distributions of raindrops and constructed a novel wind tunnel in which water droplets of various sizes could be held stationary for a few seconds. He was the first to recognize that large raindrops are not tear-shaped, but are rather shaped something like a hamburger bun.’ From wikipediphilia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipp_Lenard
I note that the Lenard Effect here suggests the electric charge is generated through the breakup of water droplets where elsewhere I have read the charge is caused by collisions, including particle collisions in dust devils. The science ain’t settled.
We need Jerry to do some experiments to define the parameters.
Cheers all.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt,
Since the water in the clouds have a strong enough negative charge to repel electrons on the surface of the Earth (causing lightning to flow up) I question that it is the falling of the water that is causing it to gain a negative charge.
To generate a static charge, generally you need friction from dissimilar objects causing electrons from one object to collect on the other object. I question whether water droplets falling at similar velocities (gravity cause all objects too accelerate at the same rate) could be the cause.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt and Herb,
Thank you both for keeping this GOOD SCIENTIFIC conversation going.
“I note that the Lenard Effect here suggests the electric charge is generated through the breakup of water droplets where elsewhere I have read the charge is caused by collisions, including particle collisions in dust devils. The science ain’t settled.”
Instead of suggesting an experiment, I review some well known history that seems to be forgotten. I believe there was the instrument known as the electroscope. Now I Know because the spelling of electroscope is accepted. Hence, you both can read about it and the experiments done with it and find the electrons can be simply rubbed off of droplets as they fall.due because of gravity which Newton could not explain. He just knew the gravitational law existed (had been observed). Just as liquid water pasting over waterfall begins to accelerate and a stream of water becomes thinner and thinner and because of surface tension breaks about into large droplets. Which continue to rapidly fall through the atmosphere (a gas) which maybe rub electrons off the surface.
Now as I write the proceeding I remember an experiment I did in my laboratory I Hibbing MN during the very cold winter so the air in the laboratory was very, very dry (low relative humidity). I turned on the water so a quite small stream still existed as if fell a few feet into the drain. Now my memory is very poor, so I cannot claim I used a MAGNET to bend the stream of the falling water. But I know I was able to bend the stream with something.
And I am reasonably sure that the buildup os signifiant “static electricity) requires a quite ‘dry’.atmosphere. What are your experiences with static electricity, if any?
Have a good day
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry and Herb.
I have to go to work but the Russians and Chinese spell electroscope differently so Jerry’s science may be refuted. 🙂
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt,
When water ionizes it splits into a hydrogenation (proton) and a hydroxyl ion OH-). I don’t know if it is even possible to seperate an electron from a water molecule.
Lightning flows up. This means the negative charge of the clouds is neutralized and the returning electrons on the ground then flow up to the more positive clouds.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
I had never read the following (https://www.discovery.com/science/Positive-Lightning-Rare-Super-Deadly) before. What is your take about what you can read?
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
I had never heard of lightning composed of protons. Given the mass of protons I would expect it to do far more damage. It sounds to me that there is an effort towards equalization of charges where a lightning bolt occurs then an excess of electrons causes a reverse of charge. I wonder if this changing of charges of the water in the clouds produces the cloud to cloud lightning?
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Thank you for going to the link. But I don’t read that the lightning discussed is the transfer of protons. So could you quote that which you read that causes you to conclude that protons compose a lightning bolt.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
It says that negative lightning is composed of negative charges while positive lightning is composed of positive charges. Positive charges (hydrogen ions) are protons.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
I vave carefullly reread the entire link again and I cannot find any statement which suggests “positive lightning is composed of positive charges.” as you wrote. Maybe you need to reread the link.
Here I add. Livomg in eastern South Dakota and northern
Minnesota I have observed different types of lightning and different types which likely result from different types of lightning.
So I know that certain bolts of lightning which strike trees can start the tree to burn while other bolts merely spilt the trunk of the tree trunk apart..However, I speculate, based upon what I read, that the negative bolt starts the fire and the positive bol has enough “enerargy to split and tree trunk apart.
But I have observed a third type of lightning which is commonly termed “flash” lightning which produces no thunder because it is occurring so far away that the sounder of thunder produced by is lighting bolt is too far away tp be heard. And this is the lightning bolt between the top of the cloud to the base of the cloud (or vice versa). Obviously flash lightning must be occirring near the top of the troposphere to be seen at a great distance.
Can you agree with my analysis?
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
I reread the article and didn’t find where it said positive lightning was composed of positive charges My mistake. The talk of the positive charge being at the top of the cloud while negative charge the bottom is confusing. Ionized water consists of a proton and a hydroxyl ion so it would stand to reason the positive charge is a result of protons or hydronium ions.
When the wind blows away the negative charged layer the positive lightning strikes the Earth. Is this lightning composed of electrons and creating an even more positive charge at the top of the clouds? If the Earth has a negative charge relative to the remaining positive cloud why aren’t the mobile electrons on the ground going to the cloud instead of the more massive positive charges moving? The whole thing seems rather confused. Why don’t the positive charges in the upper cloud move with the negative charged cloud underneath? It seems since the air is less dense at higher altitudes it would be easier for it to move than to ionize the air.
There are multiple types of lightning: Cloud to cloud (most common going hundreds of miles), ground to Earth or more properly Earth to cloud, ball lightning, and St Elmo’s fire.
The reason some trees explode when struck by lightning as opposed to igniting is because their sap is vaporized. Usually after lightning ionizes the air from the tallest point there are multiple branches of lightning arcing from the surrounding ground to that ionized air and then into the clouds.
Look up pictures of lightning from satellites to see how far ranging the phenomena really is.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb
I finally see my problem. When I referred toe STATIC ELECTRICITY I did not accurately define STATIC ELECTRICITY as being a surface phenomenon which does not effect what occurring beneath the surface of a liquid or solid.
Have a good day.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
My problem is where does that electron that creates the static charge come from? A water molecule does not give up an electron easily, forming hydroxyl ions instead. O2 and N3 are bound by double and triple bonds and are difficult to ionize (lose an electron). So when atmospheric molecules collide what molecule is losing an electron to create the lightning?
Herb
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Herb and Jerry.
Lightning associated with the Hunga Tonga volcano, unprecedented.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230713-how-the-tonga-hunga-volcano-produced-the-most-intense-lightning-ever-seen
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Your question “My problem is where does that electron that creates the static charge come from? ” is very, very good! I will have to ponder it a bit. Matt, are you you suggesting they come from volcanos?
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry and Herb.
I refer to lightning associated with volcanic eruptions because this lightning is often generated by particle collisions other than H20 although in the Tonga eruption there was a lot of agitated water/steam.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and Matt,
“The most obvious is the most difficult to see!”
I believen we can agree that solar radiation is the result of NUCLEAR FUSION REACTIONS in the Sun and other stars. And the Earth’s volcanic activity is the result of NUCLEAR FISSION reactions. And I believe we agree that is a phenomenon we term the SOLAR WIND. And Herb likes the idea (I believe) that the solar wind is composed of electrons and protons. And we observed that the magnetic field of the Earth interacts with the SOLAR WIND.
What do you Guys think about this possibility?
Habe a good day
(Misspelled your first name, corrected) SUNMOD
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Commenters,
72 comments, to be 73. Someone, please give a possible answer to my last question.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
The sun is not powered by fusion but the same force of energy that causes a neutron to spontaneously split into a proton, electron, and gamma ray. Hydrogen and helium are the ashes of the solar reaction, not the fuel.
I do not believe that the solar winds are composed of electrons and protons. They are composed of electrons and the positive ions created as atoms are stripped of an electron by the sun’s energy (The ionosphere is created by gamma and X-ray radiation produced by the sun stripping electrons from atoms in the atmosphere). They are intercepted by the positive and negative electric fields radiated by the Earth creating the Van Allen belts.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Thank you, thank you. Why? Because something stimulated to begin reading a 1935 textbook textbook I had studied in graduate school (1963-1969) had not experience at that Tim, or even decades latter in the 90’s.
The title of the book was “INTRODUCTION TO QUANTUM MECHANICS With Applications to Chemistry” by Linus Pauling and E. Bright Wilson.
The 1st sentence of their Preface was “In writing this book we have attempted to produce a textbook of PRACTICAL (caps mine) quantum mechanics for the chemist, the experimental physicist, and the beginning student of theoretical physics.”
Chapter 1, Survey of Classical Mechanics, began: “The subject of quantum mechanics institutes the most recent step in the very old search for the general laws governing the motion of matter. For a long time investigators confined their efforts to studying the dynamics of bodies of macroscopic dimensions, and while the science of mechanics remained in that stage it was properly considered a branch of physics. Since the development of atomic theory there has been a change of emphasis. I was recognized that the older laws are not correct when applied to atoms and electrons, without considerable modification.”
I now jump to a 1976 general chemistry textbook CHEMISTRY 5th Ed. by Sienko and Plane. Section 2.7 Nuclear Stability: “The difficult thing to understand about a nucleus is how the positive charges can be packed together into a region which if about 0.0000000000000 cm in radius without flying apart as a result of electric repulsion. Neutrons must be at least partly responsible for the binding because, first, there is no nucleus consisting solely of several protons and, second, the more protons there are in a neckless, the nice neutrons are required per proton for stability.”
Herb, b.efore you leap I remind you that the hydrogen atom has only on proton. But you have described how neutron is observed to decompose during nuclear fission reactions. Good going, Herb!
Have a good day
(You have been sloppy lately third time I correct your posting information in the last 24 hours) SUNMOD
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi SUNMOD,
Do you know how sloppy you might be at 82+ years of age?
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
This is just to inform you that I had responded quite positively to your last comment but I evidently gave SUNMOD more work. Because I quoted extensively this comment was long and I will wait a day or two before repeating it My biggest error was not copying it before submitting it. Keep up your good work.
Have a good day
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
The article by Martin Stoffregen is 100% correct.
Folks like Richard Greene and Ken Vogel may have fancy educational degrees, yet lack both common sense and an understanding of Thermodynamics.
Dear Ken and Richard,
ALL gases in our atmosphere, such as oxygen, nitrogen, ozone, water, and carbon dioxide absorb INCOMING sunlight to various degrees, thus shielding the surface of the Earth from excessive sunlight (energy, heat). Sunlight at top of atmosphere is about 1360 watts/sq-m. When it gets to the surface, 400 watts have been ‘skimmed off’.
Do you think that was an ‘Import Duty’ by the United Nations, the British Government, or the Chinese?
Which part of this reality do you not understand?
Ever wonder why the Moon gets really hot during the day? Answer: No atmospheric gases to shield it.
You two really are morons. Please, go back to school for basic lessons in Science and Thermodynamics.
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
All gases in our atmosphere serve to COOL the planet, not warm it.
Adding more CO2, or Un-obtainium Gas, will only serve to COOL the surface.
Reason is simple. The gases absorb more incoming energy than outgoing energy.
My Tariff example is a good mental illustration. If a ‘Magic Gas’ charges an ‘Import Duty’ from the Sun of 30% on all energy imported, yet charges an ‘Export Duty’ of 5%, then the net effect is you still lose 25%.
Thus, ALL so called “Greenhouse Gases’ are in reality COOLANTS.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Kevin,
“All gases in our atmosphere serve to COOL the planet, not warm it.”
I question the validity of your statement. For most days at many locations the air temperature as commonly measured begins to increase some time after sunrise and begins to decrease some time before sunset and continues to decrease until it begins to increase after the next sunrise.
Can you agree the same common atmosphere atmosphere changes little during many days? Can you agree that the fundamental mechanism by which the planet earth is continuously cooled is by the emission of infrared radiation through the atmosphere to space?
Have a good day,
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Kevin,
“All gases in our atmosphere serve to COOL the planet, not warm it.””
I finally saw the most serious fault of your statement is that the Earth’s atmosphere is composed of more than gases (individual atoms and molecules)))..The natural atmosphere is also composed of liquid and solid particles of various sizes and concentrations which SCATTER various radiations according to scattering theories proposed by Richard Feynman (THE FEYNMAN LECTURES ON PHYSICS, Chapter 32. Radiation Damping. Light Scattering
Hence I believe the transmission of radiation (both incoming and outing) through the natural atmosphere can be strongly influenced by this SCATERrING PHENOMENA.
Have a good day
Reply