It’s not CO2… It’s H2O!
Water vapor plays a crucial role in Earth’s climate system, acting both as a natural greenhouse gas (GHG) and as a participant in the hydrologic cycle.
It’s the most abundant GHG in the atmosphere, surpassing carbon dioxide (CO2) in its greenhouse effect contribution. This significant role is primarily because water vapor absorbs infrared radiation emitted from Earth’s surface, trapping heat in the atmosphere and warming the planet.
Water vapor’s concentration in the atmosphere is not uniformly distributed; it varies greatly in space and time, primarily due to differences in temperature and availability of moisture sources. Warm air can hold more water vapor than cold air, which explains why tropical regions have higher humidity levels than polar regions. The global distribution and movement of water vapor are influenced by atmospheric circulation patterns, including wind currents and storms, which transport moisture around the globe.
The relationship between water vapor and climate is complex and involves numerous feedback mechanisms. One of the most important is thought to be the water vapor feedback loop, where an initial warming of the atmosphere (for example, due to increased CO2 emissions) causes more water to evaporate. Since water vapor itself is a potent GHG, this additional moisture further warms the atmosphere, leading to more evaporation and even higher concentrations of water vapor, thus amplifying the initial warming in a positive feedback loop.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has detailed the significant role of water vapor in climate change across various reports, highlighting its impact on the water cycle and its feedback mechanisms within the climate system.
Schematic representation of fast and slow responses of the atmospheric energy balance and global precipitation to radiative forcing. Source: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-8/
Water vapor is recognized as a key climate variable, the most important gaseous source of infrared opacity in the atmosphere, and accounts for about 60-80% of the natural greenhouse effect for clear skies. This makes it the largest positive feedback in model projections of climate change, accounting for a substantial amount of projected warming.
The detailed consideration of water vapor by the IPCC underscores its critical role in understanding and predicting climate change impacts. However, a new study published this month challenges many of the IPCC’s assumptions about the role of water vapor in the climate system.
The article explores the role of water vapor in global warming and questions the common assumption that CO2 and other nonaqueous GHGs are the primary drivers of climate change. It challenges contemporary climate models that largely consider water vapor within positive feedback loops initiated by CO2 and other gases, suggesting that direct anthropogenic emissions of water vapor might play a more critical role than previously acknowledged.
Source: Substack
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorpor
ated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Herb Rose
| #
How do these people get degrees. Hasn’t the man ever sweated or gone swimming. Water absorbs heat then evaporates. (Not turning into a gas). It takes 600 calories/gram to evaporate water from the surface. That water is then carried to the top of the troposphere where the heat is released and the water returns to the surface as rain. How is this removal of heat from the surface and carrying it up to the stratosphere making the Earth hotter?
Since, when. the water in the atmosphere is at .2% it is 50 times the amount CO2 in the atmosphere every gram of CO2 must add 30,000 calories of heat to the surface just to negate the cooling by water. If it was ever able to raise the temperature the amount of water in the atmosphere would rise while the CO2 stayed constant requiring the CO2 to add even more calories to the surface.
How can these people become educated when they are so stupid?
Reply
Alan
| #
Well said!
Reply
Allan Shelton
| #
Thanks Herb…
am still ticked off calling CO2 a GHG. It was a radiative gas when I went to University. The Alarmists made it into a misnomer, IMO.
Also, I thought that it was proven that all gasses expand and rise in an open system when heated.
Thus they don’t “trap” heat.
Reply
JFK
| #
Personally, I doubt ANYONE has any idea on how each element (water, CO2, CH4, dust particles in the stratosphere, etc) affects the climate. The earth is a complex system. And, if modern scientists fail to recognize the risk of mRNA jabs, it is undeniably certain they cannot find out anything about the climate.
At the end of the day, you cannot trust scientists (morally or intellectually) and the climate science is primitive, while the planet was able to maintain itself habitable during much riskier periods of time without any help by humans. Simply put, nature always works out of the box. Human creations and interventions never do. Well, unless they are meant to destroy everything to begin with… We are discussing now on ways to change the climate, without even understanding how the climate works. Not to mention that the climate is perfectly fine…
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and others,
Herb began: “How do these people get degrees. Hasn’t the man ever sweated or gone swimming. Water absorbs heat then evaporates. (Not turning into a gas). It takes 600 calories/gram to evaporate water from the surface. ”
When water evaporates, where does it go? If, “It takes 600 calories/gram to evaporate water from the surface.”, where do these 600 calories come from?
Have a good day
Reply
crackpot
| #
Less than 20 words into this article, I knew it’d be a waste of time to read on. There is no such thing as a “greenhouse gas effect.” The claimed cause of it, “back-radiative forcing,” was disproved experimentally over a century ago, upholding the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Even that was only a formality. The first thing to do when considering a hypothesis is to calculate the implications of it: You would burn your face with your own reflection in the mirror. A microwave oven would go off like a photon torpedo. The hilarity goes on.
“If your theory doesn’t agree with experience or experiment, it’s wrong” (Feynman).
“A thousand experiments will never prove my theory correct, but a single experiment can prove it wrong” (Einstein).
You can add “proof” to a theory or just assert it’s true till the cows come home, but once proven wrong, it’s wrong – permanently.
All “global warming” is now is money making through gaslighting and fearmongering, or in the case of this article, either controlled opposition or sincere tilting against windmills.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Crackpot,
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is wrong. If a small car collides with the rear of a larger slower truck, the car will slow down, the truck speed up. An example of an object with less kinetic energy adding energy to an object with more kinetic energy.
Herb
Reply
crackpot
| #
Clausius 2nd Law: Heat does not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer body.
What you speak of is momentum transfer causing velocity changes, not heat transfer to a body causing higher temperatures. Near-perfectly elastic billiard balls do not get hot by the end of the game. Only by mechanical damping, plastic deformation, friction, etc. does the kinetic energy involved in a collision become heat transfer.
What was once a theory is now called the 2nd “Law” because over a long time many thousands of controlled experiments and everyday experiences have not yet disproved it. The evil CO2 molecule is no exception.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Crackpot,
The law of conservation of momentum says that in an elastic collision velocity will flow from an object with greater velocity to an object with less velocity regardless of their masses. Since kinetic energy (heat) is 1/2mv^2 any increase in velocity of an object will result in an increase of energy.. Energy flows from an object with greater energy/unit mass to an object with less energy/unit mass even when that object has more total energy because of its larger mass. It’s a matter of amplitude of the energy, not the amount being radiated as heat.
A CO2 molecule with greater velocity will transfer heat to the Earth even though the Earth has a greater temperature due to more molecules radiating heat. Two logs on a fire make a hotter fire even though both logs burn at the same temperature.
Herb
Reply
Raelene McFadyen
| #
Just clarifying, the H20 first traps and absorbs reradiated heat from earth. Then shifts that heat to the upper atmosphere where it continues out to space. How does CO2 rate in these 2 processes, or does not do either?? Does CO2 add to the trapping then to loss of heat?
I read in the past that light quanta rather than heat quanta are absorbed at surfaces and are responsible for water molecules getting enough energy to escape the liquid surface. Evaporation from water bodies would be only 1 source of w. vapour in a location. Is there any evidence that locations with much light (as distinct from heat) are responsible for having lots of w. vapour that absorbs reradiated heat and transports it to outer space? Does cloud cover reduce the number of light quanta, so reduce the amount of vapour so lessen the heat loss to space?? Thanks Raelene
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Raelene,
Both water and CO2 absorb energy from the infrared spectrum not the visible spectrum (they are both transparent). When they absorb energy they radiate that energy in all direction changing the direction of flow energy. CO2 primarily absorbs energy at -80C so that is where it delays the flow of energy. At higher temperatures it transmits the energy it receives from collisions with other gas molecules, having no effect on the flow of energy.
Water absorbs infrared energy through a broad range of temperature (-30C to 100C) and converts most of it into internal structures rather radiating it as heat. If you look at a water phase chart you will see that at standard pressure (sea level) it cannot be a gas (vapor) below its boiling point (100c). What is happening below 100C is water is converting into micro droplets of liquid water (actually liquid crystals) and entering the atmosphere. Because it is liquid it continues to absorb heat, unlike a gas which obeys the Ideal Gas Law. It takes 540 calories/gram to convert 100C water into 100C water vapor. When you boil water in a tea kettle it first appears as an invisible gas (does not absorb visible light). When this steam cools it appears as water droplets. These droplets evaporate (even though they are not gaining heat) as they convert into invisible liquid crystals. With further cooling these liquid crystals will lose stored energy and again convert into water droplets.
The liquid crystals are a result of water molecules splitting into hydroxyl and hydronium ions and the hydroxyl ions combining with water molecules to form an outer shell with a negative charge. It is this charge that cause the water to rise in the atmosphere. At the top of the troposphere the crystals reach their second melt point releasing the stored energy into space and falling to the Earth as liquid water. This is why water with a molecular weight of 18 is almost exclusively found in the troposphere while N2(28) and O2(32) occur through out the atmosphere. (Use the SEARCH button in PSI to find my article Why it Rains).
The liquid drops of water in clouds do not absorb visible light. They reflect a little but most is transmitted through the water. It is due to refraction as the light enters and exits the droplets that clouds scatter light in all directions allowing us to see them.
The O2 and N2 in the atmosphere absorb UV light (>90%0 and convert it into heat (IR). This is what heats the atmosphere, not the surface of the Earth. Energy does not flow in the zigzag line the thermometer shows. Since the transfer of energy in the troposphere is almost exclusively done by convection (Use the SEARCH function to see An Interview with Tom Shula) as the density of the atmosphere decreases fewer collisions occur with the thermometer and less energy is transferred to it. To determine the kinetic energy of the molecules in the atmosphere you must divide the recorded temperature at an altitude by the density at that altitude to get a measurement of ke for a constant number of molecules instead of a constant volume of molecules. This show the ke of molecules increase in a straight line in the troposphere where water moderates the temperature.
Herb
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
Umm, Herb, I’m going to try to bail you out of the hole you are digging.
H2O is transparent?
Last time I checked, clouds (made of H2O) are not transparent.
Seawater is not transparent. Try diving at 500 ft depth. No light there.
CO2 is transparent?
Last time I checked, the atmosphere of Venus is not transparent. In fact, it is so dense sunlight never reaches the surface.
Just trying to help you.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Kevin,
Always appreciate (and need) help. Are you claiming that CO2 and H2O absorb light from the visible spectrum? Objects either absorb, reflect, or transmit electromagnetic radiation. Since water reflects a small portion of visible light (at an angle equal to the angle of incidence and refracts the light transmitted the direction of light will change dispersing it in all directions causing it to disappear in clouds and the ocean. Why are clouds white (combination of all no colors) on the bottom, top, or sides or grey why the sky is blue?
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
The liquid crystals are a result of water molecules splitting into hydroxyl and hydronium ions and the hydroxyl ions combining with water molecules to form an outer shell with a negative charge.
JMcG:
Herb, this is impossible. Specifically, the notion that water can readily or regularly split, “into hydroxyl and hydronium ions and the hydroxyl ions combining with water molecules to form an outer shell.”
Nevertheless there is an “outer shell (it’s more accurate to refer to it as “surface tension.”.” And it’s not completely inaccurate to describe this phenomena as involving “liquid crystals,” however, your assertions about this involving, “hydroxyl and hydronium ions,” is just pseudoscience.
You don’t understand hydrogen bonding of water. if you did you would realize how completely unnecessary is this, “hydroxyl and hydronium ions” nonsense.
Be aware, academia is completely confused about hydrogen bonding of water. This confusion runs deep and serves as the basis for an ensuing mountain of intellectually dishonest (and extremely confusing) rhetoric. And this has opened the door to other speculative nonsense, as we see from Martin Chaplin and Gerald Pollack. Don’t take their word for any of this. Make them prove their assertions. Of course they won’t and can’t, this being my point.
Don’t let confusion be your guide. If you can’t explain it then you don’t understand it. And be honest with yourself about the fact that you can’t explain it. Don’t allow yourself to believe it for convenience sake. (Don’t be a “Jerry’.)
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
I work with acids and caustics all the time so I believe in water being ionized. Why does absolutely,utely pure water composed of covalent bonds conduct electricity (pH)? Hydrocarbons (formed with single covalent bonds) do not act as conductors but insulators. The size of H2O makes it more like an atom than a molecule and atoms can lose electrons and become ions. The peculiarity of water is that it has positive charges on its surface instead of confined to the nucleus.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
I work with acids and caustics all the time so I believe in water being ionized. Why does absolutely pure water composed of covalent bonds conduct electricity (pH)?
JMcG:
Did you make a mistatement here? Are you saying pure water does or doesn’t conduct? And why would or wouldn’t it?
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
The size of H2O makes it more like an atom than a molecule and atoms can lose electrons and become ions. The peculiarity of water is that it has positive charges on its surface instead of confined to the nucleus.
JMcG:
You aren’t making much sense here.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
Pure water conducts electricity because 10^-7 molecules have split into ions. Paraffins, with their single carbon-hydrogen bonds, do not conduct and are sold as dielectrics used in switches to prevent arcing.
Herb
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
In H2O the electron of the hydrogen tom is attracted to it by 1 proton. It is attracted to the oxygen atom by 8 protons. The hydrogen nucleus appears as a positive charge on the surface of an oxygen atom with 8 electrons in ts outer orbit.
Herb
James McGinn
| #
Herb;
Pure water conducts electricity because 10^-7 molecules have split into ions.
JMcG:
Obviously you are just speculating. I think water is conductive because of the high degrees of freedom and the fact that the molecules instantly reorient themselves to form low resistance polymers of H2O.
Your notion that it is only possible through ionization seems speculative at best.
Paraffins, with their single carbon-hydrogen bonds, do not conduct and are sold as dielectrics used in switches to prevent arcing.
The higher resistance of parafinn’s probably has to do with there longer sections of only positive or only negative, which would not be the case ever with water.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
If you add more ions to water it becomes a better conductor.
The distance between the H-C bonds and the H-O bonds is not much.
A Paraffin will insulate to over 40,000 volts. If there are double bonds or aromatic structures in the hydrocarbon the charged areas will cause it to conduct.
If you add electrons to a salt solution you will produce caustic soda (NaOH) and chlorine gas (Cl2) or bleach (Sodium hypochlorite)
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Crackpot and Raelene
Crackpot, right on! Raeiene, have you noticed that, as Herb’s comments get longer, they get fuzzer?
Have a good day
Reply
VOWG
| #
A lot of words here. Question, how does a gas that is 0.04% of atmosphere drive anything?
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
Great question big V.
Let’s assume a cold molecule of CO2 at 5,000 ft elevation is warmed by the radiation emanating from the surface of Earth. The CO2 molecule goes from a chilly 40 deg F up to a balmy 41 deg F. Then, it bumps into its neighbors named Nitrogen and Oxygen. The neighbors outnumber the CO2 fellow by about 9,996.
Thus, all of that ‘heat’ is distributed to the neighbors. Like good Socialists and Communists, gases share all of their energy with their comrades. So, let’s divide one degree of thermal increase by 9,996.
This distributed heat then goes in one direction. As it is all still colder than the surface, it all heads towards space.
Reply
MattH
| #
So it is official then. Oxygen and nitrogen are communist gases. I like it.
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
Having read this article twice, I must conclude the author, Dr. Mathew Wielicki, has no understanding of basic heat transfer via radiation.
Radiation is not additive.
Radiation heats things because one object is warmer than another object. It is the difference/delta of the two. Only a moron would think you could ‘add’ them together, thus making a super-heated lump of stuff.
You cannot take a lump of coal burning at 800 degrees F, then bounce its radiation off a fire-brick kiln wall at 600 deg F. and thus end up with a 1,400 deg F. fire.
To think so so is idiotic and childish.
The fire will never get hotter than 800 deg F. even if surrounded by mirrors and magic CO2 gas.
Mathew, please go back to school for Thermodynamics 101? Then go ask people in the real world at steel foundries and nuclear reactors how the world actually works? if you pedaled this manure at the U.S. Navy Nuclear Power School, they would laugh at you.
Stop wasting our time with your fantasies. This is really embarrassing…
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Kevin Doyle:
Having read this article twice, I must conclude the author, Dr. Mathew Wielicki, has no understanding of basic heat transfer via radiation.
This is his interview on the Tom Nelson channel. However, his understanding of paleoclimates is exemplary.
https://youtu.be/GFRzDf0T8NY?si=nrFUSiiUs_05eH-z
You are right that his background is in Geography. He is not a “hard” scientist. And this shortcoming comes through in his approach to the subject matter. He also is not able to discuss details of H2O, but that is a problem with all of academia.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Kevin Doyle:
Having read this article twice, I must conclude the author, Dr. Mathew Wielicki, has no understanding of basic heat transfer via radiation.
This is his interview on the Tom Nelson channel. However, his understanding of paleoclimates is exemplary.
https://youtu.be/GFRzDf0T8NY?si=nrFUSiiUs_05eH-z
You are right that his background is in Geography. He is not a “hard” scientist. And this shortcoming comes through in his approach to the subject matter. He also is not able to discuss details of H2O, but that is a problem with all of academia.
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
Mr. James,
I certainly appreciate his efforts in unveiling the geologic history of Earth, and the clear fact CO2 has not ’caused’ any temperature changes, but been a mere symptom. I believe we can all agree sneezing does not cause allergies.
However, my bone to pick with him is the silly assumption that fabled ‘Greenhouse Gases’ warm the Earth. Utter nonsense.
Atmospheric gases simply modify the rate of heat transfer from surface to dead cold space. I.E. – As all gases (and substances) have this trait termed ‘Specific Heat’, they all can absorb and lose thermal energy. When you analyze it, you realize the entire atmosphere can store no more ‘heat’ than the Nile River.
The atmosphere is neither a Greenhouse nor cardboard box, rather to quote others, “It is a chimney. Warm air rises, cool air falls. This is how we have this wonderful thing called Wind.”
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Kevin,
The Energy heating the Earth comes from the sun. That energy decreases with distance from the sun. Energy always flows from higher Lebel to lower. Why would energy flow back from the surface of the Earth to higher levels of energy at higher altitudes. Even though the energy coming to heat the Earth is able to heat the surface of the moon to 250 F the temperature outside the atmosphere is close to 0 K. It is because there is no matter for the energy to interact with. How is it that even as the temperature in the atmosphere drops as altitude increases the density decreases?
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Kevin,
You’ve misinterpreted the LoT’s. You are being dogmatic. Energy moves in all directions at all time. Net flow of energy is from hotter to cooler. This is what the LoT’s say. The LoT’s DO NOT say that energy only moves from hotter to cooler. If the atmosphere could not heat the surface the temperature at night would be as low as it is on the moon during the moon’s night.
If you choose not the believe then the onus is on you to explain why the surface of the earth is never as cool at night as it is on the moon’s surface during the moon’s night.
Also the uplift that happens during storms has nothing to do with convection. This is a common misconception.
Warm air does not always rise and cool air does not always falls. Most winds have to do with the dynamics of storms, but I am the only person that fully understands this and would waste me efforts in this forum
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
Mr. McGinn,
Respectfully, having lived in the Tropics for many years, I can assure you these strange things, termed ‘Trade Winds’, do in fact exist. They are caused by lots of sunlight heating a rotating globe, much like a chicken over a fire.
The heated ocean water in the Tropics draws in cooler air from the North. Warm Cuban air rises, cold Canadian air replaces it.
The greater the differential in temperature creates the greater wind speed, storm intensity, etc.
I hope I am not being mislead by those pesky Laws of Thermodynamics which you dismiss?
Cheers!
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Kevin,
Tell it to your dog. You don’t understand LoT’s. Find a new hobby.
James McGinn / Genius
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Kevin,
Here’s my reasoning for the 2nd LoT being wrong. Tell what is wrong with my logic or what premise is incorrect.
PREMISES
1: Objects radiate energy in all directions. T or F
2: Energy decreases with distance from the source. T or F
3: What wavelengths of energy an object absorbs or radiates is determined by the structure and composition of the object: T or F
Assertion: Since an object receiving energy radiated by an object occupies a small portion of the area around the object, since the object is a distance from the object radiating the energy, and since the object cannot have the same composition or structure of the object radiating energy: therefore the object absorbing energy can never gain enough energy from the radiating object to have energy equal to the energy of the radiating object.
The reality is that object do establish equilibrium even though it is not possible. Conclusion:
Objects are not transferring energy to other objects but are equalizing with the energy field they are in.
Herb
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
Mr. Herb,
You ask three fine questions. The answers are “yes’, ‘yes’, and ‘yes’.
Ping-pall balls absorb and emit radiation.
Warmer ping-pong balls only warm cooler ping-pong balls.
Cold ping-pong balls only get colder.
If one takes the time to stare at Planck’s Curves of radiation from a given source, an observant student might recognize the curves of a hotter substance, such as the Sun, always envelope the curve given off by a cooler object in the Universe. Some folks who have been seduced by the ‘Greenhouse Gas Theory’ believe energized photons can add together to create a ‘hotter’ photon. In reality, a photon of a level of energy of X only exchanges kisses with another photon of level X. If an object emits photons of X+1, then that object will send groovy photons to object nearby of merely X stature, thus enhancing it to X+ something.
If a ham and cheese sandwich is at 25 deg C. The delicious ham and cheese sandwich does in fact radiate energy, however, if it is cooler than the Reuben sandwich next to it, the Reuben Sandwich does not get warmer.
Savvy?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Kevin,
Are you trying to make me hungry or discussing physics?
There are two ways to transfer energy: radiation and convection (collisions). In the troposphere the primary transfer is collisions (Did you see the “Interview with Tom Shula” (PSI SEARCH function) which is an instantaneous equalization of energy governed by the Law of Conservation of Momentum. According to it the mass of objects is irrelevant in elastic collisions and the object with greater velocity will add energy to the object with less energy even if that object has greater kinetic energy.
Radiation is a slow way to transfer energy with the rate of transfer, slowing as the energy approaches equilibrium. For the reasons stated before, radiation of energy between objects will never reach energy equality because the energy level reaching the cooler object will always remain less than the energy level being emitted from the source object.
Since both objects radiate energy the equilibrium point, where energy flow stops, will be between the two objects. Unless the energy from the source divided by the distance is greater than the energy being emitted by the cooler object it can never add energy to it. If it does add energy to the colder object, it will then radiate more energy moving the equilibrium point (where flow stops) to a point outside the cooler object. It will always remain colder (less energy) than the source.
Planck’s law is wrong. The energy of light is a function of the amplitude of the wave, not its frequency. A blue shift light coming from a distant star does not mean an increase in energy.
Kepler’s law is right. dv^2 = C. Energy decreases as a function of distance from the source and all object at the same distance will have the same energy, regardless of their composition or mass, and that energy will always be less than the source energy.
Herb
Kevin Doyle
| #
Mr. Herb,
I am not exactly sure what you are questioning?
However, I might attempt to to correct your statement about heat transfer. There are not two methods of heat transfer. There are three: Conduction, Convection, and Radiation.
I don’t particularly care if you have a mathematical disagreement with the dead Max Planck, however, I would prefer if you explained what ever it is you are proclaiming in simple language?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Kevin,
What I am trying to point out is that “heat” is a function of both mass and energy and since objects do not transfer or radiate mass, only energy, the 2nd LoT is wrong.
The example I use for convection is a small car running into the rear of a large slower truck, traveling in the same direction. The smaller object (the car) with greater velocity will lose velocity (energy) while the truck, with greater kinetic energy, will gain energy.
Since the energy in an object is distributed to all its mass, in a collision, the object with greater energy/unit mass will transfer energy to the object with less energy/unit mass so both objects will have the same energy/unit mass. The amount of total kinetic energy remains the same.
With radiated energy the amount of energy (amplitude) reaching the cooler object will be lower than the amount of energy being radiated by the “hotter” object and the amount of energy the cooler object can absorb is limited to the amount that reaches it. Look at the sun and planets. The planets will equalize with the amount of energy reaching them but will never have the same temperature as the sun. They equalize with the energy field of the sun.
The 2nd LoT is also wrong when it comes to radiated energy. Instead of being called the Law of Thermodynamics it should be called the Law of Energy Flow where the total kinetic energy remains the same (no creation energy) but the distribution changes..
Herb
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi again Kevin,
Let me explain why this makes a difference. A thermometer receives energy from the momentum of molecules striking it. The amount of energy it receives causes the measuring liquid to expand recording the temperature. In the water there are 1,000 molecules transferring energy to the thermometer for every air molecule transferring energy to a thermometer in the air. Just because the reading of the thermometer in the water is recording a higher temperature does not mean that the molecules of the water have more energy than the molecules in the air and yet people maintain that because the temperature is higher the surface of the Earth is transferring energy (heating) the air molecules, even when the flow of energy is from the air to the water.
Herb
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
It is bad enough I need to tolerate technically illiterate retards from the Labor Party in UK and Democrat Party in USA, it is most disturbing I need to tolerate stupidity from pretend ‘smart people’ on this forum.
Basic heat transfer is via three mechanisms: Conduction, Convection, and Radiation.
They all operate in the same way. No magic involved.
I am not sure what the long winded people here attempt to display, other than their own need for hugs and affection?
If you need a hug, then go find your dog, or a prostitute.
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Kevin Doyle. Possibly a hedgehog or skunk would be appropriate cuddle muffins for some.
As coincidence would have it I just searched for mechanisms of Infra Red energy leaving Earth’s surface but only found diatribe on energy budgets without acknowledging geothermal.
So I understand conduction and convection and radiation from the sun but do not understand if there is radiation from Earths surface and the speed and mechanism.
I have felt the heat from a home fireplace and presume that is conduction at work.
Anybody other than Herb or the genius are welcome to elucidate.
Thank you.
Reply
MattH
| #
Correction. I understand there is radiation from Earth’s surface but have not encountered an explanation of mechanism other than convection and conduction.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Kevin,
Settle down. Stop trying to force the square peg of your simple understanding into the round hole of reality. Living in the tropics doesn’t make you an expert in meteorology.
Here are some questions that will help you realize your place.
1) Describe the physics of uplift witnessed in storms
2) Describe how heavier moisture is able to achieve moderate heights in the atmosphere despite being heavier than surrounding drier air
3) Describe the circular motion of molecules on the sheath of atmospheric vortices which appear to be in violation of Newton’s ‘first law of motion.
4) Describe how the momentum of the jet streams is maintained despite the massive amount of friction it experiences.
5) Describe the origins of CAT (Clear Air Turbulence) and explain why it is most often experienced in the vicinity of jet streams.
6) Explain the difference in magnitude between sometimes massive tornadoes and always gentle water spouts
7) Explain the molecular composition of tornadic vortices
8) Explain how and hurricanes gain leverage to become massive
By the way, nobody gives a flying f**k about your politics.
James McGinn / President of Solving Tornadoes / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb
March 29, I asked “When water evaporates, where does it go? If, “It takes 600 calories/gram to evaporate water from the surface.”, where do these 600 calories come from?”
Please answer these two questions.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
March 2 I asked ‘When water evaporates, where does it go? If, “It takes 600 calories/gram to evaporate water from the surface.”, where do these 600 calories come from?
Please answer these two questions.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb
March 29, I asked “When water evaporates, where does it go? If, “It takes 600 calories/gram to evaporate water from the surface.”, where do these 600 calories come from?”
Please answer these two questions.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James. Kevin and others,
You wrote (March 31, 9:26pm) to Kevin: “If you choose not the believe then the onus is on you to explain why the surface of the earth is never as cool at night as it is on the moon’s surface during the moon’s night.”
I can not believe why none of you have pointed to the commonly observed fact of the time difference between the period of the earth’s night and the period of the moon”s night.
Have a good day, or night
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry Krause.
The earth has an atmosphere and more gravity than the moon.
Have a good evening or morning yourself.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
You write “he earth has an atmosphere and more gravity than the moon.” Are you suggesting that these gravity difference better explain the night time temperatures of the earth and the mon than the longer period of the moon’s night time than that of the earth’s night time period ?
Have a good day, or night
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry. As well as the issue you identified, Earth’s atmosphere slows down the dispersal of heat to outer space.
The atmosphere regulates Earth’s temperature from overheating and overcooling, unlike the moon.
Thank you Jerry.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
What would you propose the earth’s’ max and min temperatures at its equator would be near its equinox if it had no atmosphere (hence no clouds)? Would these surface temperatures be little different from those normally observed or would they more like the observed moon’s temperatures?
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Jerry,
You keep bringing up irrelevant factors.It doesn’t matter if the sun is over the equator or the Tropic of Cancer it will add energy to half the Earth.
The length of day and night are also irrelevant. During a lunar eclipse the temperature will go from +200+ F to -200+ F in an hour.
It is the water on Earth that moderates the temperature, not the gasses in the atmosphere. In the Sahara Desert the temperature goes from over 100F during the day to below freezing at night. The oceans are giant reservoirs of heat that keep the range of temperature on the Earth in a narrow range..
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You just wrote “During a lunar eclipse the temperature will go from +200+ F to -200+ F in an hour.”
How do you know this? You could be correct but explain the critical factor that would allow this rapid cooling to occur. And explain how it is that the earth’s surface does not cool that much during several hours when there is no solar radiation during a long winter night.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Jerry,
Goggle “Temperature on the moon during a lunar eclipse”
Google “Temperature range in the Sahara desert”
Water absorbs and retains heat, losing it when it cools. This is why dew forms.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
I do not accept that you have fundamentally answered ny questions by stating I have read about them. In looking for this article I discovered an article which described the observations teams of scientists hope to make April 8 during the total solar eclipse.
Do you know what phenomenon bends light? Einstein tricked scientists into believing that gravity bends light as they ignored this known known phenomenon. But Einsteirn was honest as as he tricked them because he accepted (understood) that observations cannot prove any idea to be true; observations can only prove ideas to be absolutely WRONG! Another fact which many scientists ignore.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and others,
I just wasted a half hour because I hadn’t copied my comment before I tried to submit it. The lost comment had two parts, one which was less important than the other. So this comment is only about the more important one
During April 8 there is going to be a total solar eclipse . This reminded me that Einstein tricked many scientists into believing that sun’s gravity could bends light. as he used a known (observed) natural phenomenon to predict how much the star’s light, passing near the sun, r would be bent. This trick was harmless because Einstein and some other scientists accepted that observations could never prove any idea to be true while a single observation could prove an idea to be absolutely WRONG!
What was the observed natural phenomenon which Einstein used to predict how much the light of that star would be bent?
Have a good day
.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Please directly answer my question. I don’t want to assume that you, or any others, cannot find a possible answer. I make this comment so my question does not become lost.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and others,
A clue. “Teinkle,Twingle,little star; I wonder… ”
Have a good mornin g
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and others,
The phenomenon is refraction by the earth’s atmosphere.
Have a good morning
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and others,
The phenomenon is REFRACTION by the earth’s atmospher.
Have a good morning
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
So there’s no refraction except when there’s an eclipse.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Says who besides you?
Have a good morning
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
During the night no star light passes near the sun.
Have a good day
Reply
James McGinn
| #
It’s refraction from the sun’s atmosphere.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
It’s from the sun’s magnetic field. The sun has no atmosphere as the energy converts atoms into ions and the solar winds disperses them through the solar system.
It could also be as Jerry says that the rotation of the Earth shuts off a switch preventing the light from stars getting close to the sun.
H:erb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and James,
I never wrote “that the rotation of the Earth shuts off a switch preventing the light from stars getting close to the sun.” We see star light during the night because we are looking away from the sun.
have a good day
Reply
James McGinn
| #
You may be right, Herb. I don’t know. To me, however, It doesn’t seem unreasonable to suggest that the Sun would have some atmosphere. Moreover it always seemed rather dubious to me that photons (which have no mass/weight as far as I can tell) would be effected by gravity. I am aware of the concept of gravitational lensing, however to me it seems this phenomena should be a lot more common if light can be bent by gravity. How can we know for sure? I don’t know. I mostly know that I don’t trust “experts.” Too often they get caught lying.
Reply