Climate Changes. It Always Has, It Always Will
Image: Yale University
Since reliable climate records exist only for the past two or three centuries, figuring out what the environment was like before that time is an inexact science. There’s some empirical data that can be examined, but even that can only be accurately interpreted when cross-referenced with the historical record — diaries, works of art, etc.
For instance, we partly know about the period known as the Little Ice Age because of the descriptions of the frigid weather of New England as described by the Puritans when they arrived in Massachusetts Bay in June of 1629.
Suffice it to say, they weren’t used to seeing ice flows in the ocean in the middle of summer.
Along these same lines, Suzannah Lipscomb has written an article detailing the bizarre climatic irregularities of that same era.
It’s an illuminating read at a time like ours when every environmental event — blizzards, tornados, forest fires, hurricanes, heavy rain, droughts — is blamed on “climate change.”
- In February 1540 rainfall effectively ceased, falling only six times in London between then and September. It was not only exceptionally dry but warm: it is probable that the highest daily temperatures were warmer than 2003 (the warmest year for centuries)…
- Edward Hall noted that the drought dried up wells and small rivers, while the Thames was so shallow that “saltwater flowed above London Bridge,” polluting the water supply and contributing to dysentery and cholera, which killed people in their thousands.
- In Rome, no rain fell in nine months; in Paris, the Seine ran dry. Grapes withered on the vine and fruit rotted on trees. Even the small respite of autumn and winter was followed by a second warm spring and another blisteringly hot summer. Forests began to die until, in late 1541, rain fell and fell. 1542 was a year of widespread flooding.
Just a few decades later, there was incessant rain and years-long dampness across Europe, coupled with extremely low temperatures, with predictable results — four harvests in that ten-year period were complete failures, causing widespread famine.
Shortly after that, in the “Great Frost” of 1607-1608, England grew so cold that “the trunks of large trees split open, and the Thames froze so solidly (pictured) that people sold beer and played football on it.”
A frozen Thames meant no ships entering the port of London, with disastrous economic results, and related civil unrest.
In the end, Lipscomb transitions to a discussion of how this history is relevant today because “the slowly unfolding disaster of global warming means extreme weather events.”
This is unfortunate since she had just been discussing the unpredictable nature of the Earth’s climate. She even admitted that “the warmest year for centuries” was 2003, almost twenty years ago!
But overall, it’s a valuable read, and bears out an observation of our contributor Christopher Horner, who said: “[C]limate changes – it always has, it always will. Of course, saying ‘climate changes’ makes one a ‘climate change denier.’ Go figure.”
See more here: climatechangedispatch.com
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.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Tom Flinnerty and hopefully PSI Readers,
My first question after reading this article was: who wrote it? So I went to Climate Change Dispatch and found it was written by Tom Finnerty a prolific writer and editor of Climate Change Dispatch. And that is all that I have learned about you with the exception that you began your article: “Since reliable climate records exist only for the past two or three centuries, figuring out what the environment was like before that time is an inexact science. There’s some empirical data that can be examined, but even that can only be accurately interpreted when cross-referenced with the historical record — diaries, works of art, etc.”
That you wrote, “Along these same lines, Suzannah Lipscomb has written an article detailing the bizarre climatic irregularities of that same era.”, is illuminating in that she is an historian and has written books about historical characters whom I do not identify as being scientists. I really cannot understand how a non-scientist can write anything about any scientific topic.
For Einstein stated: “The only source of knowledge is experience.” I certainly agree with Einstein. Hence, as an empirical physical scientist I am offended by the suggestion that my empirical data and that of other empirical physical scientists cannot be accurately interpreted without being cross-referenced with historical record diaries, works of art, etc.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Tom,
Here a a link (http://weather.uwyo.edu/cgi-bin/sounding?region=naconf&TYPE=TEXT%3ALIST&YEAR=2021&MONTH=04&FROM=0100&TO=0112&STNM=72694&ICE=1) to empirical atmospheric sounding data from a weather balloon launched yesterday at 4pm and 4am PST from an airport about 3 miles from my home.
Can you see that a little above 10000 meters there was a layer of atmospheric at the cold temperature of about -60C with a relative humidity (ice) approaching 100% in the afternoon and this this morning and that this morning there is no doubt that there was a thin layer of high cirrus clouds and that this layer was this morning a part of ‘jet stream’.. And this international atmospheric sounding project was only begun after WII. For it was only during WII we became aware of these atmospheric jet streams existed. And because of their empirical data we know they have a profound influence on the weather that occurs beneath them where we live.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Tom,
I make too many mistakes But this is to report that because of experience I was aware of the probable high cirrus yesterday and because of the appearance of the moon before sun rise this morning there no doubt the presence of this thin layer because of the appearance of the moon. I had forgotten to report this in the previous comment.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
4caster
| #
As a meteorological forecaster for 40 years, now retired, I prefer to see these data in graphical form thus: http://weather.uwyo.edu/cgi-bin/sounding?region=naconf&TYPE=GIF%3ASKEWT&YEAR=2021&MONTH=04&FROM=0100&TO=0100&STNM=72694
Yes, there is moist airand therefore cirriform cloud beneath the tropopause in a weak jet stream. But I cannot see any connection between this and the article, nor Jerry’s first comment.
Climate changes and always will. But it doesn’t change spontaneously. There is always a cause, usually a change in the earth’s orbit around the sun or its angle of inclination. During a natural warming phase the warming has begun before the increase of atmospheric CO2, which then augments the warming until biological processes stabilise CO2 and then the temperature. Today we are seeing rapid warming caused by the release of CO2 due to the extraction and combustion of carbon laid down by natural processes some 300 million years ago.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
it was only during WII we became aware of these atmospheric jet streams existed. And because of their empirical data we know they have a profound influence on the weather that occurs beneath them where we live.
James:
I think it tells us something about meteorology as a scientific paradigm when we consider what didn’t happen after the discovery of the jet stream. And what it tell us is not too flattering for meteorology as a scientific paradigm.
One question is, what sustains the momentum of the jet stream? Is something pushing it? Pulling it? These questions were never raised amongst meteorologists. Why not?
Another question is why do jet streams occur along the tropopause–the boundary between the dry stratosphere and the moist troposphere? Again, these questions never arise amongst meteorologists. (The impression is that they are afraid to broach these kind of questions out of fear that their inability to answer will expose their confusion.)
Another question is why do storms track so closely to the jet stream. Even when the jet stream strays the track of storms follow suit. Why is this? And, more importantly, what does it tell us about meteorology that they are not asking these kinds of questions.
And then, of course, there is a whole host of other questions that I have posed that members of this incredibly evasive discipline refuse to address. This include the mother of all questions, what is the molecular composition of the sheath of tornadoes/vortices.
So, Jerry, do you have a theory on what sustains the momentum of the jet streams?
James McGinn / Genius
President of Solving Tornadoes
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&sid=5d55ebfa0ebb55e50880ee5b1c03d46a
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
James: “One question is, what sustains the momentum of the jet stream? Is something pushing it? Pulling it? These questions were never raised amongst meteorologists. Why not?”
I cannot speak (write) for meteorologists, but I have pondered the question you ask. Now, before I explain (answer) I must remind you that a SCIENTIST is never absolute certain that his hypothesis is absolute correct. And I have only pondered the jet streams of the Northern Hemisphere. There are two primary regions in which the jet streams commonly originate. These regions are the Tibet mountain north of India and the Pacific islands between Asia and Australia.
There are two different causes (mechanisms), In the region of the Pacific Islands water vapor, via short lived afternoon thunder storm fuel the atmospheric heat engines which rapidly lifts a significant volume of atmosphere from the surface, which significantly expands as it is lifted. Which forces the atmosphere at the top of the troposphere to move out. I can say the simple general reason the jet streams generally flow from west to east is that the Earth rotates from west to east. Some people like to work out the specific details after the general has been reasonably established as probable but my objective is only to generally explain (understand). If you study atmospheric sounding data you will generally that the top of troposphere is highest in this region. Which is the basis of my general conclusions.
Hence there are factors which keep the jet streams moving. One is that it is all down hill from this starting point. The other factor I have read about somewhere and of course, where I have forgotten. But the unquestionable fact this mass of atmosphere at the top of the troposphere has the greatest possible angular momentum which is increased by the fact it is flowing west to east faster than any other atmospheric mass. So conservation of momentum might even accelerate as it flows toward the northeast.
The mountains of Tibet occupy a large area (region?) of the Earth’s surface, are very rugged, have the highest average elevation of a large area, and is entirely NORTH of 25N, outside of the tropics. Which might appear to disqualify this region as the origin of jet streams. Especially during the winter season when the jet streams are generally observed to be most numerous and strongest.
However, the climate of the these high mountains is very dry, hence the atmosphere is generally cloudless. Another fact is there are generally a greater area of nearly vertical surfaces than the area of nearly horizontal surfaces. So, for several hours of a day, these nearly vertical rock surface are directly ( 90deg incident angle) illuminated with solar radiation which has not passed through 10,000 of more dense atmosphere. At the same time there are nearby vertical surfaces which receive no direct sunlight during a winter daytime. And from my studies of thermodynamics I somewhat remember that the maximum possible efficiency of heat engines depends upon two temperatures–a maximum temperature and a minimum temperature. Hopefully, you see the picture I am generally describing. Hence, these dry natural heat engines nearly daily lift a good volume of surface atmosphere to the top of the troposphere over these high, rugged, rock mountains to the top of the area’s tropopause. And it’s all downhill as gravity moves this mass of the atmosphere to the north and the conservation of angular momentum also plays its role in keeping moving.
I naturally exoect you will peer review (correct any possible errors) that which I have submitted for your consideration.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Hi Jerry,
Nice answer. And fast. I wasn’t expecting so much detail. Good to hear you had thought of this before. I don’t disagree with the facts you mention. I was, however, looking for something a little bit different. As you can imagine, I wouldn’t have asked the question if I didn’t think I knew the answer.
In my model the entity that maintains the flow of the jet stream and the thing that causes updraft in storms is the same thing, its a vortice (a tornado).
Consider the following common observation. Vortices or tornadoes if you view them, following your eyes up, they will appear to lean generally toward the northeast, the same direction that they travel. And they will even appear to curve to take more of a lateral trajectory along the path of flow. It is the flow of multiple vortices/tornadoes constantly jetting into the flow that maintains the momentum of the flow of the jet stream.
One question that arises from this is why would these vortices just happen to jet into the jet stream. Well, part of the answer is that the jet stream is where these vortices originate as the jet stream itself is the source of the low pressure energy that enables this origination and that enables these entities to start growing upstream (to the west south-west [in the US]) and down, along wind shear boundaries, to areas of relative high pressure at lower altitudes, to cause storms.
The molecular composition of these vortices–the sheath of the tornado–is a form of H2O based plasma that spins up on wind shear boundaries. Think of it as extreme form of H2O surface tension that naturally spins up into a tube.
The reason this all takes place at the boundary between the dry stratosphere and the moist troposphere is because this is where the conditions for moist/dry wind shear are the greatest. Moreover, wind shear is necessary for growth of vortices down and upstream and is the reason they grow against the general flow.
In my model vortices that channel low pressure energy from jet streams is the source of the energy for all storms (including tropical storms and hurricanes) convection plays no role whatsoever. Likewise, this is the source of the flow for Hadley cells.
Thanks for listening,
James McGinn / Genius
The Roof Leaks at the Top: Conversation with Edwin Berry Phd.
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum3/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=446
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
And I can follow much of what you wrote even though I really have not given tornadoes much pondering because they are rarer than thunder storms and jet streams. But I can make remarks based upon that which you just that you did not write about.
I will start with a question”. Why are the ordinary thunderstorms
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
Not sure what happened that my incomplete comment got submitted.
I was about to write that somewhere I read ten thousand thunderstorm are occurring at the same time around the globe. And we have to remember that most of these are short lived after producing a ‘heavy’ precipitation for maybe as long as a half-hour at most.
As I wrote that water vapor is the fuel for the natural heat engine which does most of the heavy vertical lifting. From mechanical heat engines we know the engine will quickly destroy itself if its cooling system fails. A common thunderstorm has no natural cooling system so it quickly destroys itself.
But if the top of the thunderstorm extends with into a jet stream the jet stream rapidly carries the top of the thunder cloud away (the anvil cloud top) along which the ‘waste heat’ and cools the natural heat engine vertically lifting the moist atmosphere from the surface.
But have you considered the Bernoulli effect of the jet stream pulling the slower moving atmosphere up into the jet stream. Not only lifting but also cooling as it lifts. And this thunderstorm is long lived and moves with the jet stream above it.
And as this mass of atmosphere is vertically lifted from the surface it expands both vertical and horizontally. Now, I see that I have not given this rising mass any revolving motion which obviously critical because we plainly see the rotation (vortex) of the dust devil and it hasn’t yet even lost contact from the surface as it moves along the surface,
As I ponder about vortexes, I have read about Einstein stood on a bridge observing the random motions of the streams surface which I know from observation randomly forms vortexes in the water. So I conclude that to form an atmospheric vortex on most have an somewhat rough surface over which a fluid slowly flows randomly and he saw how an organized vortex motion could spontaneously. form. Have you worked this in your modem of high atmospheric pressure regions and low pressure regions because the atmosphere is compressible and the liquid water which Einstein watch was not.
We have to remember that tornado vortexes are large compared to dust devils and surface water vortexes.
Any thing stimulate a thought?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry: Not sure what happened that my incomplete comment got submitted.
I was about to write that somewhere I read ten thousand thunderstorm are occurring at the same time around the globe. And we have to remember that most of these are short lived after producing a ‘heavy’ precipitation for maybe as long as a half-hour at most.
James: All storms are caused by vortice tubes. They are very common. They rarely come to the ground. When they do they are viewable as a tornado, water spout, or dust devil. The reason vortice tubes seem rare is because they are usually very slight (incoherent) as in dust devils, very high, running along or close to the tropopause, and/or very invisible, being perfectly clear.
Jerry: As I wrote that water vapor is the fuel for the natural heat engine which does most of the heavy vertical lifting.
James: In my model water vapor is not the fuel it is the source for the nanodroplets that begin spinning on windshear boundaries to create H2O surface tension based plasma that comprises the structural sheath of the vortice tube. So, in my model water is the engine, not the fuel. The vortice tube provides isolation for the flow. Specifically, it isolates the flow from the dispersion and friction it would normally experience. But there is fuel in my model. It is the difference in air pressure from the entrance end of the vortice tube to the exit end that is the fuel in my model. The flow along the inner wall of the plasma tube is also what sustains the wind shear that maintains the plasma so the tube can persist. So, wind shear is the means by which the water is processed to create the structure of the engine. These factors allow the flow to accelerate. The flow going through the tube is from the dry body of air and the sheath that encircles the flow comes from the moist body of air. So, for wind shear to work there must be two bodies of air moving in different directions along a long, smooth boundary initially. One body of air must be moist and the other must be dry. This will cause the nanodroplets along the boundary of the moist layer to begin to spin, producing hard polymers chains of H2O on the microscopic level, maximizing surface area to thereby maxmimize surface tension, making them rigin and thereby making them even more capable of spinning faster–due to the increase leverage of a polymer relative to a molecule or droplet–and beginning to churn into one another resulting in a plasma of spinning, highly polar molecules with extreme surface tension serving as the structural component of a vortice.
Jet streams are the exhaust of the engines and vortices, all of which initiate on the wind shear near the jet stream, are the engine.
Jerry: From mechanical heat engines we know the engine will quickly destroy itself if its cooling system fails. A common thunderstorm has no natural cooling system so it quickly destroys itself.
But if the top of the thunderstorm extends with into a jet stream the jet stream rapidly carries the top of the thunder cloud away (the anvil cloud top) along which the ‘waste heat’ and cools the natural heat engine vertically lifting the moist atmosphere from the surface.
But have you considered the Bernoulli effect of the jet stream pulling the slower moving atmosphere up into the jet stream. Not only lifting but also cooling as it lifts. And this thunderstorm is long lived and moves with the jet stream above it.
James: Yes, the Bernoulli effect is instrumental as the means by which the low pressure energy of storms enters the tubular vortices to eventually be delivered to the location of the storm on the other end of the vortice tube. Vortice tubes can deliver negative pressure energy down the tube at the speed of sound, exactly the way hydraulics work.
Jerry: And as this mass of atmosphere is vertically lifted from the surface it expands both vertical and horizontally. Now, I see that I have not given this rising mass any revolving motion which obviously critical because we plainly see the rotation (vortex) of the dust devil and it hasn’t yet even lost contact from the surface as it moves along the surface,
As I ponder about vortexes, I have read about Einstein stood on a bridge observing the random motions of the streams surface which I know from observation randomly forms vortexes in the water. So I conclude that to form an atmospheric vortex on most have an somewhat rough surface over which a fluid slowly flows randomly and he saw how an organized vortex motion could spontaneously. form. Have you worked this in your modem of high atmospheric pressure regions and low pressure regions because the atmosphere is compressible and the liquid water which Einstein watch was not.
We have to remember that tornado vortexes are large compared to dust devils and surface water vortexes.
James: For atmospheric vortices to become large there must be a huge difference level of moisture betwen the dry layer and the moist layer of the wind shear (involving bodies of air moving in opposite or near opposite direction along a common boundary). These differences in moisture levels don’t occur much west of the rocky mountains. But they occur in abundance east of the rocky mountains in tornado alley.
There is no such thing as convection or a convective storm. This is just superstition. It is impossible for the moisture in moist air to be gaseous (consult an H2O phase diagram for details). So, moist air is always heavier than dry air and therefore always has negative buoyancy. Low pressure delivered by vortice tubes at higher altitudes is the cause of the uplift witnessed in all storms, not convection.
There is no such thing as “dry layer capping.” This is just superstition created by meteorologists to conceal the fact that their model of convection contained a fatal flaw.
There is no such thing as “latent heat of condensation.” This is just superstition created by meteorologists. However, H2O does have a high heat capacity. And so a lot of energy is tranferred upwards in updrafts in storms. But there is no phase change involved in condensation. (There is no gaseous H2O ever in earth’s atmosphere. Earth’s atmosphere is far too cold to support the existence of gaseous H2O).
Jerry: Any thing stimulate a thought?
James: Meteorology is a timid paradigm lacking in the courage of imagination.
As Feynman stated, nature’s imagination is much greater than that of man.
James McGinn / Genius
The Roof Leaks at the Top: Conversation with Edwin Berry Phd.
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum3/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=446
James McGinn
| #
“In the case of science I think one of the things that makes it difficult is it takes a lot of imagination. It’s very hard to imagine all the crazy [ways] that things really are like… The fun of it is that all these things you notice in the world you can understand from simple pictures. It’s fun to think about. I don’t wanna take this stuff seriously. I think we should have fun imagining it..” ~Richard Feynman (1918-1988), Nobel Physicist
Excerpt from “Fun to Imagine with Richard Feynman” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYg6jzotiAc&t=0s
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James and hopefully PSI Readers,
We, you and I, well know we have not yet agreed about some very fundamental factors of the Earth’s atmosphere and the natural phenomena that is occurring in this atmosphere.
So please do my be offended when I quote what you just wrote and question if in this quote you consider you are being perfectly consistent.
“In my model water vapor is not the fuel it is the source for the nanodroplets that begin spinning on windshear boundaries to create H2O surface tension based plasma that comprises the structural sheath of the vortice tube.”
How can there be “H2O surface tension” when the “structural sheath of the vortice tube” is a “plasma”???
Can we agree that your nanodroplets could be condensation nuclei whose surfaces are not purely water surfaces? But first can we agree that the diameters of these nanodropets could 10^-8 meters instead of 10^-9meters?
For I do not know what the diameter of the smallest condensation nuclei might be, or how many water molecules could be attracted (condensed) upon its surface at its smallest finite size.” However, I hope you can agree that some of your nano droplets of water molecules do condense upon the condensation nuclei surfaces to form a slightly larger dropout.
And I would be quick to agree that the surface of these condensation nuclei which, have become water droplets, are not composed of only water molecules. For we know most all atmospheric gases are to some degree soluble in liquid water. And I hope we can agree that the most soluble atmospheric gas is carbon dioxide. And I hope we can agree that, when carbon dioxide molecules dissolve in liquid water, sometimes a water molecule ‘reacts’ with a carbon dioxide to form a molecule which Svante Arrhenius termed carboxylic acid.
I know we both agree that water molecules can to attracted to a few other molecules. beside itself, significantly more strongly than many other molecules are attract to each other and any other molecules. And Pauling termed this stronger intermolecular attraction ‘hydrogen bonding’.
So I expect to find these larger molecules on the surface of your tiny nanodroplets, whatever they might be, instead of your undefined plasma that comprises “the structural sheath of the vortice tube”
Yes, I am substituting carboxylic acid molecules for your surface plasma. Could you entertain this possiblity??? The key word is ‘possibility’.
Have a good day, Jerry
James McGinn
| #
erry: We, you and I, well know we have not yet agreed
James: If you were to agree with me on all points I would assume that either you were crazy or you had an advanced understanding of hydrogen bonding, as I do. (This is not to say that others won’t consider both of us crazy for even considering such.)
Jerry: So please do not be offended when I quote what you just wrote and question if in this quote you consider you are being perfectly consistent. “In my model water vapor is not the fuel it is the source for the nanodroplets that begin spinning on windshear boundaries to create H2O surface tension based plasma that comprises the structural sheath of the vortice tube.” How can there be “H2O surface tension” when the “structural sheath of the vortice tube” is a “plasma”???
James: So, you are suggesting there is a contradiction in this. (There isn’t.) I do have to admit that I am a little bit disappointed that you, Jerry, are not being more explicit with respect to elucidating the percieved contradiction. For example, instead of writing what you wrote what if you wrote the following: “How can there be ‘H2O surface tension’ when the ‘structural sheath of the vortice tube’ is a ‘plasma’ and plasmas involve ions at temperatures far exceeding the boiling temperature of H2O???” If you had stated it as such I would know how to respond. But you didn’t state it as such. So now I’m in the position of having figuring out what you mean, and I’m usually really bad at that.
If you were an engineer I would understand. Because engineers are trained to only accept what has been demonstrated to be true. But you represent yourself as a scientist. In contrast to that of engineers, the training of scientists should allow you to consider all things that have not been proven false. And so, as a scientist are you aware of any reproducible experimental evidence that a non-ionic, plasma of spinning, surface-tension-activated H2O molecules cannot exist at ambient temperatures?
James McGinn / Genius
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James and hopefully PSI readers,
James: “So, you are suggesting there is a contradiction in this. (There isn’t.)””
James, I just asked a question which you ignored. And you have yet to describe what the ions of your plasma might be. So please do not be critical of our’s lacking when you are not so perfect yourself. You have been quite critical of Linus who created the intermolecular attractions between water molecules themselves and a few other molecules on the basis of observed physical properties and the study of these molecule’s structors as determined by electron diffraction studies. The same diffraction studies to determine the double helix structure of DNA macromolecules where the helixes are held together by hydrogen bonding.
I a read others routinely are critical of Galileo and Newton. Yes, these scientists are human and have made mistakes like other humans. But if seems you cannot conceive that you could be wrong because you are a self-proclaimed Genius.
Now, I read from one of Newton’s comment to his third law of reasoning in what some time he referred to as observational philosophy instead of just Philosophy, a statement that indicates there were sometimes people very much like you and Herb are at times.
“We are certainly not to relinquish the evidence of experiments for the sake of dreams and vain fictions of our own devising; nor are we to recede from the analog of Nature, which uses to to be simple, and always consonant to itself.”
But at times both you and Herb and I can agree.
And this is especially for PSI Readers. James: “If you were to agree with me on all points I would assume that either you were crazy or you had an advanced understanding of hydrogen bonding, as I do. (This is not to say that others won’t consider both of us crazy for even considering such.)”
You have quoted Richard Feynman. But he also stated that a Scientist can never be absolutely certain that he ideas (understanding, explanations) are absolutely correct (the truth). So if you state you have no doubts about the correctness your ideas, you are not a SCIENTIST.
But good SCIENTISTS do have conversations like this to learn from each other.
Have a good day, Jerry
James McGinn
| #
Jerry: . . . you have yet to describe what the ions of your plasma might be.
James: I didn’t say there were any ions in the plasma of my model.
Jerry: You have been quite critical of Linus who created the intermolecular attractions between water molecules
James: We know that Pauling’s model for water is flawed because it has produced upwards of 70 anomalies. So, I’m not critical of Pauling. The evidence itself is critical of Pauling.
You are arguing that what I an asserting is so overwhelmingly incredulous that it cannot be considered. This is the same dumbass argument they used against Galileo. If everybody thought this way humanity would still be in the stone age because novelty always appears incredulous at first.
Jerry: But it seems you cannot conceive that you could be wrong because you are a self-proclaimed Genius.
James: If I am right can you conceive of me not being a genius?
Here is something that is more constructive for you to consider.
https://solvingtornadoesdotcom.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/what-is-the-molecular-mechanism-underlying-non-newtonian-fluids/
There is also this:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16582#p117060
The initial hunch involved the plainly observable tubular structure of atmospheric vortices. It seemed reasonable to assume (regardless of whether you viewed it from the perspective of the principles of fluid dynamics or just common sense) that in order for structure to exist and persist in the context of the collective particles of the atmosphere it must be comprised of a substance that has more structural resilience and a harder surface than the gases through which if flows and that flow through it. Otherwise it would be unable to maintain its coherence. It would succumb to friction; becoming chaotic as the substances inevitably mixed into each other. Therefore the fact that vortices exist and persist in our atmosphere indicates that the sheath of a vortice must be comprised of a substance that has greater structural resilience—such as in a plasma—than the gases through which it flows and that flows through its tubular structure.
There was personal history behind this hunch. When I was 10 years old I was given a picture book on meteorology. Therein was a section that discussed tornadoes and one of the side sections discussed the phenomena whereby a whole stream or pond is sucked up into a vortice, carried for miles and dumped all at one location, causing fish, frogs and other creatures to fall out of the sky, in an area no bigger than a football field. Winds alone—no matter how strong—could not do this. Tornadoes must act like the hose of a vacuum cleaner, I reasoned. They are genuinely structural. They had to be. There was no other way to explain that kind of directed low pressure. It requires a tubular structure. Or, to be more specific, it requires a tubular structure made from a substance that has greater structural resilience than the gases through which it flows and flow through it. Plasma seemed an obvious choice.
James McGinn / Genius
Jerry Krause
| #
He Fcaster and hopefully PSI Readers,
A pictures its worth a thousand words. However, you have studied these pictures for 40 years and from the beginning you knew what the two lines (not straight) were that did not even come close to each other. You know that the ‘colder’ line is the measured (possibly calculated from the measured relative humidity and the measured air temperature [the ‘warmer’ line]). The PSI Reader who comes to PSI to learn a little bit about SCIENCE (meteorology), which he or she have not formally studied, likely is clueless of what these fundamental lines actually are and why they are so critical to your profession.
But your comment might encourage a reader to click on the link and see for the first time what atmospheric sounding data might look like when graphically displayed.
You wrote: “But I cannot see any connection between this and the article, nor Jerry’s first comment.” So because I do not have a good memory I looked back at what I had written and actually read everything you have written.
You have just alerted a PSI reader that there are other natural factors which influence the very variable atmosphere (whose temperatures were measured over maybe (I don’t claim to know) of an hour at a specific location on a very large Earth surface. But even knowing this you focus upon one possible cause why climates might change. Except, what physical evidence do you have that atmospheric carbon dioxide has any influence upon the atmosphere’s measured air temperature???
The issue to which I referred in my first comment was the author of this article likely do not even know about the data of atmospheric soundings as you and I do. But they (other authors are referred to in the article) wrote to “inform” a PSI Reader about a controversial scientific idea which, if wrong, is causing a great waster of our (human) resources which could be more productively be used to solve other human problems over which we do have some control.
4Caster, I thank you very much for providing my comments some context for a PSI Reader.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
4caster
| #
In your first paragraph, the reason why the lines cannot coincide is simply because the air is saturated only with respect to ice, and the line to the left of the temperature is a graph of dew point, with respect to water. If supercooled water exists along with ice crystals, the ice crystals will grow at the expense of the water droplets.
In paragraph 4 you ask what physical evidence I have that atmospheric carbon dioxide has any influence upon the atmosphere’s measured air temperature. The evidence was demonstrated by John Tyndall, who in 1859 placed a low temperature (non-luminous) radiation source at one end of a tube and measured the proportion of radiation that reached the other end, filling the tube in turn with various gases. He identified water vapour and carbon dioxide as effective absorbents of radiation. Nitrogen and oxygen were totally transparent and absorbed no radiation. But the reason why CO2 does not absorb incoming solar radiation is that, owing to the higher temperature of the emitting source, it is at a much smaller wavelength than terrestrial radiation. Greenhouse gases like CO2 have absorption bands that coincide with terrestrial radiation wavelengths.
The extent of CO2 being a greenhouse gas was first calculated by G S Callender in 1938. Callender solved a set of “primitive equations” linking greenhouse gases and climate change, and observed: ‘… man is now changing the composition of the atmosphere at a rate which must be very exceptional on the geological time scale’. His results agree with those produced by modern supercomputers. He found that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration resulted in an increase in the mean global temperature of 2°C, with considerably more warming at the poles, and linked increasing fossil fuel combustion with a rise in CO2 and its greenhouse effects. World leaders took no notice due to the looming world war.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi 4caster,
Your citing of Tyndall’s experiment does not support your assertion of CO2 warming the Earth. Water and CO2 absorb radiation in the infrared wavelength but every gas absorbs radiated energy. In the case go N2 and O2 they absorb energy in the UV and X-ray wavelengths. It takes 450,000 joules/mole to split an oxygen molecule into oxygen atoms. The fact that this process in the stratosphere creates the ozone layer (along with the NO and oxygen atoms in the upper atmosphere) shows that the N2 and O2 are absorbing radiated energy from the sun (not the Earth) and are converting that energy into kinetic energy. (people can use hot air furnaces to heat their homes even though the gas molecules do not absorb heat, because they can be heated (given kinetic energy). The UV and X-ray energy absorbed by the gases will be radiated as kinetic energy or heat.
A thermometer does not give an accurate indication of the kinetic energy of gas molecules in an unconfined gas like the atmosphere, because it expands as the molecules gain kinetic energy and fewer molecules transfer energy to the thermometer (thermometers register energy transmitted through convection, not radiation.). In order to get an accurate indication of the kinetic energy of gas molecules at different altitudes you must use the universal gas law. (since the gas is unconfined it is free to expand and pressure remains constant.) By comparing the inverse of density (the volume of a constant number of molecules) at different altitudes it shows the kinetic energy of the gas molecules increases with altitude (slowly in the troposphere where water absorbs much of the energy) and that it is indeed the sun that is heating tha atmosphere, not the Earth.
Herb
Reply
4caster
| #
N2 absorption bands are all below 150 nanometres (nm) wavelengths except for one narrow band near 270 nm. But most solar radiation is in the range 400 to 1000 nm. So N2 is transparent to both solar and terrestrial radiation. O2 absorption is below 250 nm with one band near 8000 nm and an extremely narrow one near 700 nm which I agree will absorb a little solar radiation at the red end of the visible spectrum.
A thermometer should always be shielded from radiation whether from the sun or any other body.
Your last sentence is totally wrong. The sun does not heat the atmosphere. That is why the air temperature over the oceans does not respond to whether the sun shines or whether it is daytime or nighttime. The sun heats the earth, which heats the air in contact with it, mixing with air above through convection, turbulence, forced uplift over hills and mass ascent near fronts and depressions. As air rises it expands and cools adiabatically (that means without loss of heat energy); conversely subsiding air in anticyclones and between convective clouds, air warms adiabatically.
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi 4caster and readers.
The Eddy (Jack Eddy) minimum is the name given to that which includes the current solar cycle. Scientists say the Sun may be going through a long period of decreased activity known as the Modern Grand Solar Minimum from 2020 to 2053.
The Maunder Minimum, also known as the “prolonged sunspot minimum”, is the name used for the period around 1645 to 1715 during which sunspots became exceedingly rare, as was then noted by solar observers. This coincides with the mini ice age.
We also have low solar activity periods called the Sporer Minimum and the Dalton Minimum.
Of course, everybody knows the earth went through a global cooling period from 1940 to 1970 (approx.) even though anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 was increasing dramatically.
The next 20 years are going to refine or confine a lot of climate hypothesis to the dustbin.
Will multiple hypothesis gain traction? Without the sun even the Milankovitch cycles become redundant.
The only way to save the deceptions may be to increase the Torturing of Data. (tomO)
Of course, the winter the whole Northern Hemisphere has just experienced will require a new set of deceptions to apportion blame, solely, to human activities.
Have a jolly nice day. Matt
Reply
4caster
| #
Solar output variation over the cycles you mention are in a range of ± 0.1% of the mean. They are insignificant in the face of the massive forcing caused by increased greenhouse gases. CO2 in particular lay in the range 180 to 280 parts per millions for around a million years if not more, yet in the last 270 years, when we started to burn fossil fuels in significant quantities. Since then it has increased to 417.6 ppm today, 2nd April 2021, as measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii.
Variations like the standstill in mean temperatures between 1940 and 1970 can be explained by fewer El Niño events. Between 1942 and 1973 there were only two, 1958 and 1966. But there were six La Niña years. La Niña events cause more upwelling of cold water from the ocean floors, which cools the atmosphere and counters the effect of greenhouse heating. El Niño events subdue upwelling and raise sea surface temperatures. That is why 1998 was the warmest year of the 20th century: but the record didn’t hold for long. In 15 of the last 21 years that temperature has been exceeded. Man-made global warming is accelerating and I fear for our grandchildren.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi 4caster,
Tho 0.1 variation of output is for the visible spectrum produced by the surface of the sun. The UV and X-rays are primarily produced in solar flares and vary greatly with the sunspot cycle.
We will see if it gets colder during the minimum. I fear your grandchildren will still be paying for useless solar panels and windmills that won’t work in the cold and have no resources to create the needed reliable sources of energy.
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi 4Caster and hopefully PSI Readers,
4Caster you began: “In your first paragraph, the reason why the lines cannot coincide is simply because the air is saturated only with respect to ice, and the line to the left of the temperature is a graph of dew point, with respect to water.” I seldom, at first read beyond the first paragraph because in a staff development activity I learned that write a good first sentence and the first paragraph will follow and write a good first paragraph and a good first page will follow, etc.. I admit that I do not always succeed in doing this. I certainly find that others do. But it doesn’t necessary follow that the entire comment is correct.
If we look at the link you supplied, we see that the closest approach of the dew point temperature to the air temperature occurs in the atmospheric layer between 10,550 and 11,950 meters . Which is a difference of 4 to 5C. In my number data for this sounding, both the values for the dew point temperature and the frost point temperatures are given. And the difference between these temperatures are about 4 to 5C.
However, after writing the first sentence of the first paragraph, you wrote: “If supercooled water exists along with ice crystals, the ice crystals will grow at the expense of the water droplets.” Now, from the graph you brought to the PSI reader’s attention, the air temperature of this atmospheric layer is below the freezing temperature of water. But you and I know that liquid water has a naturally tendency to ‘supercool’ so we do not know if there are any ice crystals in this atmospheric layer of interest.
But whatever way you cut the cake, you (and I) know that atmospheric sounding data is that the air temperature has never been measured to be below the reported dew point temperature or the reported frost point temperature. And you (and I) know that either the dew point temperature or the frost point temperature is directly related to water vapor (molecules) content of the atmosphere.
Hence, we must conclude that the measured air temperature, anywhere in the troposphere, cannot be 33C less (as [predicted by the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide) that measured. Absolutely refuting this INCORRECT hypothesis.
Again 4Caster, I thank you very much for providing my comments some context for a PSI Reader.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
4caster
| #
I don’t see what any of your last comment has to do with man-made global warming, but I’ll answer it all the same.
On the subject of near-saturation on the quoted radiosonde ascent for Salem at 00Z on 1st April, the tabulated temperatures in your original link say it all. For example at 250 HPa (millibars to us old-timers!), altitude 10,550 metres, the temperature was -54.3, dew point -59.3 and frost point -55.1ºC. Thus the frost point depression was 0.8º, whilst the dew point depression was 5.0º. At such temperatures the dew point will never become much closer to the temperature than that, otherwise the air would be supersaturated with respect to ice. A frost point depression of 0.8º is the nearest to saturation that can be measured with present instrumentation. And we are talking about infinitesimal amounts of moisture anyway, with a humidity mixing ratio of 0.1 grams per kilogram of dry air at these temperatures and pressures, or 100 parts per million if you want to compare it with CO2.
You said there was cirrus cloud, which you should know is made of ice crystals. Yet you now say you don’t how whether there were any ice crystals. Cirrocumulus may contain some supercooled water droplets, but that is a fairly rare cloud type.
Your last paragraph about 33C does not make sense to me.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi 4 Caster and hopefully PSI Readers,
You began: “I don’t see what any of your last comment has to do with man-made global warming, but I’ll answer it all the same.” I just read my comment two times and I cannot see any question I asked. I merely reviewed data which didn’t need any interpretation to conclude that which I concluded.
You are correct that I wrote I had observed cirrus clouds. This is not an excuse but a fact was that I had not considered the face that the air temperature was only a few degrees less than the melting temperature of water at the top of the troposphere. And I had not considered the probably that warm atmosphere at the top of the troposphere had flowed from the lower latitudes as part of the jet stream. So, thank you for bringing this fact to my attention.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
4caster
| #
The melting point of ice, or the freezing point of water, is 0ºC at all atmospheric pressures. Supercooled water droplets often occur down to about -20ºC. Individually they don’t last long, but those that accrete with ice crystals may be continually replaced by new water droplets. They cause instant severe icing on unprotected airframes, and engine icing in some cases. But at tropopause heights where -50 or colder are typical temperatures liquid water droplets are very rare. They can never co-exist with ice crystal clouds, because the dew point is lower than the frost point at those temperatures. Therefore evaporation takes place from the water droplets and condensation takes place onto the ice crystals.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi 4Caster and hopefully PSI Readers,
I too agree with much you wrote!!! So we seem to be making progress. However, I have a question about: “Supercooled water droplets often occur down to about -20ºC. Individually they don’t last long, but those that accrete with ice crystals may be continually replaced by new water droplets.” Once there are nearby ice crystals where water molecules evaporate from supercooled water water droplets and condense on the surface of an ice crystal; why would water molecules continue to form supercooled water droplets???
Just after writing the previous I saw I had forgotten about the condensation nuclei (condensed matter, either solid or liquid).
So now our cirrus cloud as an equilibrium condition between the condensation nuclei and the ice crystals (two different forms of matter). Of course, the ice crystals do still have the condensation nuclei that the supercooled droplets had just before they quickly froze.
Can you agree with this?
Again 4Caster, I thank you very much for providing my comments some context for a PSI Reader.
Have a good day, Jerry
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi 4Caster and hopefully PSI readers,
In the midst of your comment you wrote: “And we are talking about infinitesimal amounts of moisture anyway.” Which is true not because of the atmosphere’s temperature but due to the density of atmosphere above 10,000 meters (more than 30,000 feet) where passenger airplanes must be pressurized so the passengers will have enough oxygen to breathe.
And reminded of a comment that R. C. Sutcliffe (Weather & Climate, 1966) had made in his book relative to ‘relative humidity’s and condensation nuclei and their specific system we are discussing. He wrote: “As a matter of fact, there are many observations of clouds in air whose relative humidity is considerably below 100 per cent, evidence of nuclei which are hygroscopic, but methods of measurement within natural cloud are not sufficiently refined to prove that even slight supersaturation ever occurs.” With which it seems you agree as you wrote: “At such temperatures the dew point will never become much closer to the temperature than that, otherwise the air would be supersaturated with respect to ice.”
You haven’t questioned why I addressed my comments to you and hopefully other PSI Reader’s. But in this specific case it is because I hope they can read: “I don’t see what any of your last comment has to do with man-made global warming,” when maybe they can.
Again 4Caster, I thank you very much for providing my comments some context for a PSI Reader.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
4caster
| #
Dear Jerry,
I can agree with everything in your last comment. Supersaturation is almost impossible even above 10,000 metres because there are almost always enough condensation nuclei to initial condensation. My point was that even saturated air at 10 Km altitude, where the pressure is only a quarter of that at ground level, and the temperature around -50ºC, cannot hold more than 0.1 grams of water vapour in 1,000 grams of air. As you write, it is the low density of air that requires aircraft cabins to be pressurised. Fortunately the energy expended to pressurise it, normally to about 70% of the sea level pressure, raises the cabin temperature to a comfortable level. But the air in the cabin is very dry indeed unless artificial humidifiers are used.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Both meteorology and climatology are not sciences but studies of history. When certain conditions reoccur they guess that similar results will follow. Without knowing causes and effects they can only make guesses and not predictions.
One of the reasons they are not sciences is because they do not know what information their instruments are telling them. The atmosphere exists because of the kinetic energy of the molecules. Without that energy it would be a layer of liquid on the Earth’s surface. It is energy that converts these compounds into gases and causes them to expand into an atmosphere.
A barometer is said to measure the weight of the molecule in the atmosphere. If you hold a weight over a scale the scale it will not register any weight. If you put the weight on the scale it will records its mass. If you drop the weight on the scale it will momentarily have a reading greater than its mass before recoiling back to zero when the weight bounces off. The scale is measuring the momentum (both mass and energy) of the weight and this is what a barometer does, measure the momentum of the molecules in the atmosphere,. If you add energy to a gas it expands and there are less weight/molecules per unit area. A barometer will show that these fewer molecules weigh more (high pressure system). and if you cool a gas the increase (contraction of the gas) in the number of molecules (and mass) will result in the barometer recording less mass (low pressure).
When you enclose the pool of mercury of the barometer it becomes a thermometer and somehow becomes able to record the number of molecules striking it and calculate the mean kinetic energy of the molecules. No, it is recording the momentum of the molecules striking it just as the barometer does. Both instruments show lower readings with increased altitude because there are fewer molecules (less mass) and the reason there are fewer molecules is because the molecules have more energy causing the gas to expand.
The conservation of momentum dictates that when there is a collision between two objects energy will be conserved and the object with more energy (greater velocity) will transfer energy to the object with less energy, regardless of their masses. (When a small fast moving car runs into the rear of a slow moving truck it will slow down and the trucks speed will increase even if the truck has more kinetic energy). This means that gas molecules in the atmosphere with greater velocity will transfer energy (heat) larger molecules (with less velocity) on the Earth’s surface even though the surface molecules have a higher temperature (more kinetic energy).
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
No one considers that the mercury barometer measures the weight of molecules; it measures air pressure. It is an instrument by which we can observe something about the natural atmosphere as the height of the mercury column varies from time to time. One has to explain what this variation is that the instrument allows one to see!!!
So what is your explanation of ‘what is varying’ if it is not ‘air pressure’???
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
HI James, 4Caster, Herb, and hopefully PSI Readers,
I am moving here because short lines are difficult for me to study for they require way too much scrolling. So when you comment, just refer, in your comment, to whose comment you are referring and specifically what it is, as James does. And thereby keep the lines as long as possible.
James: ““In my model water vapor is not the fuel it is the source for the nanodroplets that begin spinning on windshear boundaries to create H2O surface tension based plasma that comprises the structural sheath of the vortice tube.”
James: “There is no such thing as “latent heat of condensation.” This is just superstition created by meteorologists.”
James: “As you can imagine, I wouldn’t have asked the question if I didn’t think I knew the answer.
In my model the entity that maintains the flow of the jet stream and the thing that causes updraft in storms is the same thing, its a vortice (a tornado). But there is fuel in my model. It is the difference in air pressure from the entrance end of the vortice tube to the exit end that is the fuel in my model. The flow along the inner wall of the plasma tube is also what sustains the wind shear that maintains the plasma so the tube can persist. So, wind shear is the means by which the water is processed to create the structure of the engine. These factors allow the flow to accelerate. The flow going through the tube is from the dry body of air and the sheath that encircles the flow comes from the moist body of air. So, for wind shear to work there must be two bodies of air moving in different directions along a long, smooth boundary initially. One body of air must be moist and the other must be dry. This will cause the nanodroplets along the boundary of the moist layer to begin to spin, producing hard polymers chains of H2O on the microscopic level, maximizing surface area to thereby maxmimize surface tension, making them rigin and thereby making them even more capable of spinning faster–due to the increase leverage of a polymer relative to a molecule or droplet–and beginning to churn into one another resulting in a plasma of spinning, highly polar molecules with extreme surface tension serving as the structural component of a vortice.”
Now I am going to submit this comment so any PSI Readers might study it as I study it.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James and hopefully PSI Readers,
James, you have stated: “There is no such thing as “latent heat of condensation. This is just superstition created by meteorologists.” Webster: “Latent—Not visible or apparent; hidden, dormant.” Not much help there.
As I tried to find a better definition of latent anything, I discovered had been making a big mistake. I had forgotten that the change from liquid water to solid water was a reversible process. That solid water (ice) could melt to form liquid water. I actually discovered this because I was not having success in finding the word ‘latent’ in a few introductory chemistry textbooks. So I switched to an old (1938) introductory physics textbook by Alpheus W. Smith, Ph.D.
In a chapter titled ‘FUSION’ Smith began: “If a vessel of ice or snow is heated , the temperature at first rises until it is 0C and then remains stationary until the ice is melted.”
James, need I go further to prove to you that water’s latent heat of fusion is not “just [a] superstition created by meteorologists”? James, you not only state fundamental things that clearly are not TRUE such as this example; but you have not answered questions that I have asked which are not rhetorical. So I question if you will answer this one to which only you know the answer.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry: James, you have stated: “There is no such thing as “latent heat of condensation. This is just superstition created by meteorologists.” Webster: “Latent—Not visible or apparent; hidden, dormant.” Not much help there.
I was not having success in finding the word ‘latent’ in a few introductory chemistry textbooks.
James: Well, much of the verbiage of meteorology is conversational, rhetorical, and even propagandistic. In other words, there is no underlying devotion to being explicit and explanatory in the sense that we expect from a genuine scientific discipline. Instead the goal of much of this verbiage of meteorology (as is more obviously the case in climatology) is to be convincing that they are genuine scientists looking for answers. So, meteorology is not devcted to finding answers as much as theya re devoted to looking like they have already found them. They are pretending. And, one trick of pretending and not getting caught pretending is to use phrases that don’t really have concise meanings. This way you can always sound like you know what you are talking about but you can never be refuted or disputed.
Jerry: In a chapter titled ‘FUSION’ Smith began: “If a vessel of ice or snow is heated , the temperature at first rises until it is 0C and then remains stationary until the ice is melted.” James, need I go further to prove to you that water’s latent heat of fusion is not “just [a] superstition created by meteorologists”?
James: Jerry, you have nothing but an inane argument that putting the term “Fusion” on this mundane observation brings us some deeper meaning. I don’t know what else to say. You seem plainly delusional here.
Jerry: James, you not only state fundamental things that clearly are not TRUE such as this example; but you have not answered questions that I have asked which are not rhetorical. So I question if you will answer this one to which only you know the answer.
James: This is obvious sophistry.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James and hopefully PSI Readers,
The reason I also address my comments to PSI Readers because they must ‘peer review’ what you and I write. I have peer reviewed what you wrote and gave these readers an simple experiment which Smith (another claimed SCIENTIST) which I believe and trust an ‘ordinary’ reader, who does not claim to be a genius, can understand because more than a few maybe have melted snow as I have.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
In a recent comment I just reminded Herb of something he maybe never knew. “My belief (understanding) is that there is never ESTABLISHED SCIENTIFIC FACT. There is only REPRODUCIBLE OBSERVED FACT!!!.
I wrote and I repeat for emphasis: “In a chapter titled ‘FUSION’ Smith began: “If a vessel of ice or snow is heated , the temperature at first rises until it is 0C and then remains stationary until the ice is melted.” James, need I go further to prove to you that water’s latent heat of fusion is not “just [a] superstition created by meteorologists”?”
About which you wrote and I repeat for emphasis: “Jerry, you have nothing but an inane argument that putting the term “Fusion” on this mundane observation brings us some deeper meaning. I don’t know what else to say. You seem plainly delusional here.”
Jame, when you describe the simple and common experience of many readers as being a MUNDANE OBSERVATION; you advertise to the WORLD that you are not a SCIENTIST nor a GENIUS.
However, James, when you concluded: “This is obvious sophistry”. You are correct about that which you had just written.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Hi Jerry,
When dealing with water in the realm of science there is always confusion and emotion. That is what I am seeing in what you wrote here Jerry. There are reasons for this and a big part of the reason is that there are not words that allow us to untangle what people believe about water relative to what the evidence indicates. Us humans start from a deep bias that water is or must be simple and well understood. And this bias is reflected in the role that water plays in the many different models of the many different disciplines of science. Many of these “roles” are anomalous/contradictory relative to observation and the fact that they are as such is common knowledge. And the fact that many of us choose to ignore these contradictions and their larger implications is customary, accepted and even expected. Why, is this the case, you might wonder? In other words, if what I am saying is true why is there little or no general outcry to arrive at the correct understanding and reject the superstition that allows us to continue to maintain these contradictory notions. The answer is, simply, because we are human.
The key to advancing in any scientific discipline involves not letting our human emotions dictate what we observe. It is well known that H2O is a very powerful solvent. It has been called the universal solvent. In fact it is such a good solvent that it is a solvent for itself. Water is also said to be a polar molecule. This too is true, however, in the liquid phase it has solved its own polarity. This is the reason liquid H2O has such a consistently low viscosity throughout its whole temperature range in the liquid phase. It has turned off its own polarity.
There are a number of situational factors that occur naturally in nature that defeat the ability of H2O to solve its own polarity, activating its polarity and, thereby, revealing structural properties. One of these situational factors occurs on the surface of liquid water, causing “surface tension.” Another of these occurs at temperatures below 0C. This is generally referred to as freezing. But it only occurs when there is a general lack of uniformity in the arrangement of H2O molecules and is, more specifically, the result of them grinding against each other and breaking bonds (this is the reason ice is lower density than liquid H2O). When there is a high degree of uniformity in their arrangement the grinding against each other does not occur, producing super-chilled water. Another situation where this occurs is on wind shear boundaries and involves H2O molecules spinning rapidly. There is an intermediate stage involved with this that involves nanodroplets elongating into solid polymers, allowing them to be better able to absorb higher degrees of rotational energy. The result of this is a plasma that encircles the flow, conserves the wind shear, producing vortices that are the transport mechanism of the low pressure energy that causes storms.
James McGinn / President of Solving Tornadoes
Links:
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum3/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=446#p4592
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi 4Caster,
I consider we have a very productive conversation even if we are not in total agreement about one important ‘thing’. But for this comment I want to take this thing off of the table and ask you questions about your history as a weather 4caster.
I had a close cousin who too was maybe a weather 4caster for about 4 decades. Except his 4 decades of experience maybe began 2 decades earlier than yours when radar we first beginning to be used to see where precipitation events were exactly occurring. And he remarked that a few older 4casters had difficulty accepting these radar observations. So this comment is about the history of your profession.
First I must ask where did you practice your profession? For I am aware that at some locations the weather of tomorrow is going to be much like the weather of yesterday and that of a day of the previous week.
I quote frequently from a book, Weather and Climate (1966) by R. C. Sutcliffe ; who at the end of WWII the Chief Meteorological for the British Forces in Europe. Therefore, I reason he was part of the meteorology team which was trying to forecast the weather for the generals who were planning the timing of the Normandy Landing. Probably the most critical 4cast ever made.
Now, from personal experience and reading I conclude that weather is somewhat cyclic on the long term even though from day to day at some locations it appears to be somewhat random. And I suspect that the UK and the English Channel is a location with this apparent random weather from day to day and from week to week and even from month to month.
I have read nearly all the books published about Stonehenge because I had asked the question: What had prehistoric astronomers observed? And I learned that the moon cyclicly rises along its eastern horizon during the moon’s phase cyclical just as the sun rises along its eastern horizon during a yearly cyclical. And I learned that the plane in which the moon orbits the earth is inclined to the plane in which the earth orbits the sun. And I learned that the observed result of these two planes is that there is an approximate 18-19 year cyclic of the limits the extent of the ‘breadth’ (extent) of the extremes, north and south, where the moon rises over the eastern horizon.
Now a fact is the moon rises over the eastern horizon during the daytime as well as during the nighttime. Which is a reason most of us have never noticed this cycle of the moon rising over the eastern horizon. And if one reads astronomy books only a page or two is commonly devoted to the observed fact of this 18-19 year period of this moon’s cyclic behavior.
And because little attention is given to the observed fact that there is an approximate 56 year period (3 18-19 year periods) of the moon-earth system. For we know at the higher latitudes there are seasons during which weather is regularly occurring on the average. So, every 56th year the moon rises over the eastern horizon at the same location on the same day when it rose approximately 56 years earlier.
Now, if one is a meteorologist, one might ask: What was the weather this day 56 days earlier? And I expect, you, 4Caster, might ask: Are you kidding Jerry? Are you kidding that we 4casters should credit the same weather that had occurred 56 years earlier? We can never know until we study the records of 56 years ago and compare them with the weather of yesterday.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply