CO2’s Role In The Great ‘Climate Change’ Deception
World history is replete with imaginary gods and demons that man has blamed for conditions and events beyond human control.
From 1300 AD to 1880, the Northern Hemisphere experienced a cooling period called the “Little Ice Age.”
During that period, many people irrationally believed that the cold temperatures were caused by witches. During the preceeding Medieval Warm Period, witches had been blamed for ‘cooking the weather’. As a result, many witches were identified, tried, and executed.
One hundred years later, people began to complain that the weather was becoming “too warm.” Man’s imagination then again created a new demon to blame for the warmer weather: anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2).
Demon adherents proclaim that if atmospheric CO2 is not immediately reduced to pre-industrial levels, the glaciers will melt, and our coastal cities will be submerged by rising seas.
Unfortunately, the irrational belief that anthropogenic CO2 will lead to future catastrophe, has become a “mass movement” with all the hallmarks of a religion. See, “The True Believer,” by Eric Hoffer (1951).
Computer “climate models” now blame CO2 for the warmer weather and issue dire predictions of impending doom if CO2 levels are not reduced.
Al Gore, the CO2 oracle, and Greta Thunberg, the child prophet, tell their “true believer” followers that burning fossil fuels is sinful and, if not stopped, will result in future catastrophe.
Those “true believers” have closed their minds to opposing views and refuse to acknowledge any information that does not fit the imaginary climate disaster scenario.
They also ignore the harsh reality that modern world economies are based upon massive infrastructures, completely dependent upon fossil fuels that can never be replaced by windmills and solar panels. (Anyone for a battery-powered aircraft?)
Finally, they treat the thousands of scientists, who inform us that the CO2 molecules now being added to the atmosphere have not had, and will not have, any adverse effect whatsoever on the climate, as though they did not exist.
As a matter of scientific fact, only natural forces beyond human control can increase the average temperature of the Earth.
Modern science teaches us that increases and decreases in global temperatures over decades, centuries, and millennia have been, and still are, solely the result of a combination of natural heating and cooling forces that are all beyond human control:
- Changes in the radiation intensity of the Sun (sunspots, mass coronal ejections, etc.).
- Changes in the Earth’s orbit and its tilt to the sun.
- Changes in the radiation and heating of the oceans and land by the Earth’s molten core.
- The aerosol effects of volcanos blocking sunlight.
- The albedo effects of constantly changing clouds, ice, and snow (including the volume of cosmic rays that may affect cloudiness).
All of the many heating and cooling periods the Earth has experienced for millions of years – before the industrial revolution – were solely the result of those natural and uncontrollable heating and cooling forces.
The climate models, however, are programmed on the assumption that additional atmospheric CO2 causes global temperatures to increase.
In reality, however, ancient ice-core data demonstrates that rising global temperatures always precede increases in atmospheric CO2 by several hundred years – not vice versa, as the climate models falsely predict.
Consequently, claims that the recent minuscule increase of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere is the sole “cause” of the current warming trend are scientific fraud.
Modern-day climatologists can roughly approximate changes in average global temperatures and have concluded that since 1960, the average temperature of the Earth has increased by about 1-degree Celsius.
During that same period, they have also found that the CO2 content of the atmosphere, as measured at Mona Loa, has increased from 0.031 percent to 0.041 percent.
Or, in terms of additional molecules, the number of CO2 molecules in a cubic meter of air has risen by 100 parts per million (ppm), from 310 in 1960 to 410 ppm today. [The atmosphere is composed of 78 percent nitrogen, 20 percent oxygen, one percent argon, and 0-4 percent water vapor. The remaining one percent of the atmosphere is comprised of “trace gases:” 0.04 percent carbon dioxide, 0.00182 percent neon, and 0.000175 percent methane.]
The correlation of the tiny 0.01 percent increase in CO2 with the modest one-degree increase in temperature over the last 60 years would normally be dismissed as a mere coincidence. Indeed, the scientific method demands that all other possible causes be evaluated and dismissed before designating a simple correlation as a “cause.”
“True believers,” however, including the climate modelers themselves, simply disregard any other more likely natural causes. That total disregard for all other possibilities, probabilities, and contrary views constitutes scientific fraud.
The trace gas CO2 does NOT act as a “blanket” to increase the Earth’s temperature. Many proponents of a CO2 catastrophe liken the effect of the additional 100 ppm CO2 molecules to an insulating blanket that increases the Earth’s temperature.
Those trace CO2 molecules, however, neither form a “blanket,” “trap heat,” nor send heat back to the surface. Only water vapor can “trap latent heat” for a short time until the vapor condenses, and the heat is radiated to space. [“Heat” is defined as the kinetic movement of molecules. “Radiation” is defined as the energy force that causes kinetic movement].
All of the gases comprising the atmosphere are constantly moving the radiant energy emitted by the Earth’s warm surface, per the Second Law of Thermodynamics, up and out to the vacuum space by conduction, convection, and radiation.
In that massive continuous process, the additional 100 ppm of anthropogenic CO2 molecules are only along for the ride like a few new feathers on a bird. While those CO2 molecules do absorb “fingerprint” IR radiation at the narrow IR 15-micron band, that absorption is an integral part of the basic natural cooling process.
It raises the CO2 molecule’s kinetic motion, which is instantaneously transferred to all surrounding molecules by conduction and radiation. Accordingly, the additional 100 ppm CO2 molecules create NO additional “heat” in the atmosphere.
Nor do they “delay” the emission of radiation to space. They merely participate in the constant transfer of kinetic and radiative energy, by atmospheric molecules, from the surface through the atmosphere to outer space.
The Rise of the CO2 Imaginary Climate Model Demon.
In 1988, NASA scientist James Hansen testified before the U.S. Senate Energy Committee that “the greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now.”
People around the world began to talk about how the “greenhouse effect” from anthropogenic CO2 was creating rising temperatures across the planet. That same year, the United Nations established the Intgovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to study the causes and effects of “global warming.”
The IPCC then developed a contingent of “general circulation climate models” (GCMs) that formed the basis of its First Climate Assessment in 1990. The operators of those mysterious computer models, just like the Wizard of Oz, then announced with – “certainty”:
Emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses: carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and nitrous oxide. These increases will enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth’s surface. The main greenhouse gas, water vapor, will increase in response to global warming and further enhance it.
No one, of course, was in a position to challenge the pronouncements of the climate model wizards because no one knew how the models were programmed.
We later learned that the working hypothesis for programing the models was simply the unfounded assumption that the 1-degree rise in average temperature since 1960 was the result of the additional anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere.
Those 100 ppm new CO2 molecules, in turn, purportedly caused water vapor to increase – an assumption that is conveniently impossible to validate with actual measurement.
The “climate model wizardry” then makes the further assumption, again without evidence, that a doubling of CO2 (300 ppm to 600 ppm) will reduce the radiation leaving the atmosphere by 3.4 watts per square meter, thereby increasing the Earth’s temperature.
The computer models, of course, performed as intended and predicted catastrophe unless man-made CO2 and other greenhouse gases were reduced.
They couldn’t do anything else, they were programmed to reach that conclusion.
All of the so-called “science” that now predicts climate catastrophe is based solely on the predictions of those faulty IPCC models. No other basis in actual physical “science” exists to support the dire predictions.
The international campaign to designate anthropogenic CO2 as the primary cause of current and future global warming culminated in 1997 in a U.N. sponsored conference in Kyoto, Japan. At that time, many nations, including the United States, signed an agreement requiring drastic reductions of man-made greenhouse gases in the future.
Scientific Opposition to the IPCC’s CO2 Climate Model Deception.
The Kyoto agreement sparked a countermovement by scientists who believed that the minuscule 0.01 percent increase in CO2 since 1960 had nothing to do with the one-degree increase in average world temperature over the same 60-year period.
Most scientists viewed that gradual increase in temperature simply as part of the earth’s normal cycles between warm and cold periods and the much longer cycles of glaciation and glacier retreat.
Therefore, in 1998, Arthur B. Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and Frederick Seitz, Past President of the National Academy of Sciences USA, circulated the following petition to thousands of scientists urging the U.S. government to reject the Kyoto Agreement:
“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
The Petition was ultimately signed by 31,487 scientists and is fully set forth on the PetitionProject.org website, where all signatories are listed under various categories. The Exemplar Petition on the website is signed by Dr. Edward Teller, the father of the hydrogen bomb.
Since 1998, no organization has attempted to circulate a counter-petition containing any “scientific evidence” demonstrating that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of the current warming trend. That is because there is no such “scientific evidence” – only conjecture by the climate modelers.
The IPCC, however, paid no attention to the Petition and, in 2007, issued its Fourth Assessment which elucidated the purported basis of its hypothesis that man-made CO2 was leading the world to climate catastrophe.
The IPCC asserted that the increased average temperature of the Earth was caused by “back radiation” from the minuscule 100 parts per million of CO2 molecules that man has added to the atmosphere since 1960.
According to the Assessment, those molecules absorb a certain spectrum of infrared radiation from the surface and purportedly “re-radiate” that spectra back to the surface where it is again absorbed by the Earth to increase the temperature of the atmosphere. A diagram by one of the IPCC’s lead authors illustrated that fictitious process.
The Scientific Take-Down of the Imaginary CO2 Climate Model Demon.
In 2009, two distinguished German physicists published a paper that disproved the IPCC’s unsupported hypotheses of “back radiation.” See Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame of Physics, by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B, Vol. 23, No. 3, (2009) and rebuttal in the same Volume at pp. 1333-59.
Since that time, G&T’s falsification of the anthropogenic CO2 hypothesis has never been effectively challenged by any reputable physicist. On the contrary, many eminent scientists from all over the world have published papers confirming G&T’s basic conclusions.
See, for example;
Slaying the Sky Dragon, various authors (2011);
Observations on ‘Backradiation’ During Daytime and Nighttime, by Professor Nasif Nahle, Principia Scientific International (2011);
Refutation of the Greenhouse Effect Theory on a Thermodynamic and Hydrostatic Basis, by Alberto Miatello, Principia Scientific International (2012);
Is No “Greenhouse Effect” Possible From The Way That IPCC Define It?, by John Elliston, Principia Scientific International (2015) [“The presence of GH gases does not change the energy input. If the absorbed energy input remains unchanged, the output of energy cannot change.”];
Role of Greenhouse Gases in Climate Change, by Martin Herzberg, Alan Siddons, and Hans Schreuder, Energy and Environment, Vol. 28, Issue 4 (2017);
The Layman’s Guide to the Greatest Scientific Fraud in History, by Joseph E. Postma (2019).
Sky Dragon Slayers Victory Lap, various authors (2019);
Bottom line: The imaginary CO2 climate model demon is based upon a demonstrably false physical hypothesis that has been disproved by many eminent scientists worldwide.
Nevertheless, millions of people have adopted the “religious belief” that burning fossil fuels is a sin that will lead to a glacial melt and sea-level rise catastrophe. Therefore, it is long past time that the new “CO2 Climate Change religion” be recognized for what it is – nothing more than sophisticated climate model fraud.
See more here: climatechangedispatch.com
Bold emphasis added
Header image: Facebook
About the author: Don Crockett served the U.S. Department of Energy as an attorney for more than 30 years. During that time, he dealt with many technical and scientific issues such as nuclear waste and the hypothesis that man-made CO2 is the cause of the Earth’s current warming period.
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.
richard
| #
R. W. Wood explained it best in his Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse:
“Is it therefore necessary to pay attention to trapped radiation in deducing the temperature of a planet as affected by its atmosphere? The solar rays penetrate the atmosphere, warm the ground which in turn warms the atmosphere by contact and by convection currents. The heat received is thus stored up in the atmosphere, remaining there on account of the very low radiating power of a gas. It seems to me very doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground, even under the most favorable conditions.”
“Robert Williams Wood (May 2, 1868 – August 11, 1955) was an American physicist and inventor. He is often cited as being a pivotal contributor to the field of optics and a pioneer of infrared and ultraviolet photography. Wood’s patents and theoretical work inform modern understanding of the nature and physics of ultraviolet radiation, and made possible the myriad uses of UV-fluorescence which became popular after World War I.[1][2][3][4] He published many articles on spectroscopy, phosphorescence, diffraction, and ultraviolet light.”
Reply
Alan
| #
Prof Wood’s work was also repeated by Prof Nahle who is mentioned about.
The word “trapped” should never be use by anybody discussing heat, which Wood mentions. It cannot be trapped in the natural world because there is always a temperature difference. Even our inventions, like a thermos flask, eventually lose their heat. Heat loss can be slowed but not tapped.
He goes on to discuss stored energy, He really should be discussing thermal capacity, not just of the atmosphere but the rest of the earth system. The thermal capacity of the atmosphere is insignificant compared to that of the oceans and land masses.
Reply
Alan
| #
Conclusion – humanity was crazy in the past, and now with all our knowledge we are still as crazy. A few witches will have to be burnt before this nonsense is over.
Reply
Max DeLoaches
| #
I regularly visit Timothy Casey’s web site for historical details on the “greenhouse effect”. I think I got wind of it from Joe Postma.
The Shattered Greenhouse: How Simple Physics Demolishes the “Greenhouse Effect”.
http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
PEOPLE WHO CLAIM TO “DEMOLISH’ THE GREENHOUSE
EFFECT have no idea what they are talking about !
Reply
Max DeLoaches
| #
@Richard Greene
For those who have no common sense and afflicted with cognitive dissonance, you are correct. The anthropogenic greenhouse theory is just that, a theory unable to pass through the scientific method, supported by flawed, biased, manmade computer models, flat Earth physics and a hidden agenda.
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
I was talking about the generic greenhouse effect ,
with no attempt to define natural versus man made causes.
Adding CO2 by burning fossil fuels should increase
the greenhouse effect by some unknown amount.
There is no evidence that amount has been,
or will be, harmful, Just predictions of doom.
Reply
Max DeLoaches
| #
@Richard Greene
Wow, political double speak, not anthropogenic but generic. Thanks for my laugh of the day.
Richard Greene
| #
Thanks for the insult, Max.
I hope it makes you feel good.
The greenhouse effect is huge.
There is no way to accurately
measure exactly what warming was
caused by each greenhouse gas
added to the troposphere in the past 150 years.
“Generic” simply meant the causes of the global warming in the past 150 years can not be accurately split between the natural and man made categories.
Glad that my comment make you laugh.
Let’s continue that trend:
— Your mother wears Army boots !.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Richard,
December 30 you wrote: “Adding CO2 by burning fossil fuels should increase
the greenhouse effect by some unknown amount. There is no evidence that amount has been, or will be, harmful, Just predictions of doom.” December 31, today, you just wrote. “The greenhouse effect is huge. There is no way to accurately measure exactly what warming was caused by each greenhouse gas added to the troposphere in the past 150 years.”
In between you insulted Max by writing: “Thanks for the insult, Max. “I hope it makes you feel good.” Based upon What You Have Written, I must conclude that Max was RIGHT ON.
And you have yet to Peer Review my article.
Have a good day, Jerry
Richard Greene
| #
Jerry Krause
Sometimes the reply arrow does not show up so I’ll respond here.
The greenhouse effect is huge and estimated at about +33 degrees Celsius (+60 degrees Fahrenheit),
That effect is caused almost entirely by water vapor and the first 100ppm of CO2.
The +1 degree increase of the global average temperature in the past 120 years is at least partially caused by additional CO2 emissions of about +200ppm, of which it appears +100ppm was absorbed by plants and +100ppm remained in the atmosphere.
The problem is determining how much warming that +100ppm CO2 caused.
There are many natural causes of global warming too, making the answer impossible to calculate. Other causes of warming include the urban heat island effect, .inaccurate / biased measurements, especially measuring the temperatures 120 years ago. Changes to clouds and water vapor, which are very difficult to measure.
The IPCC will never say “we don’t know” They were set up to blame global warming on humans so that is what they do.
Thy started by declaring all natural causes of global warming are just “noise” — too small to matter — simply because they say so.
They go on to predict man made CO2 warming at a rate double to triple what is expected from CO2 alone, and much faster than actual warming in the past 120 years.
They do that by inventing a new unproven theory — the water vapor positive feedback — that allegedly amplifies the warming from CO2 alone by 2x to 4x — I prefer to use 3x. It doesn’t matter — the actual measurements show only a small increase of water vapor as the atmosphere has warmed, and those measurements have accuracy problems.
So predictions of catastropic global warming are slamted by a bias against carbon dioxide, amplified by an unproven, illogical water vaposr positive feedback. Which adds up to junk science.
Real science is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that contributes to the greenhouse effect in some unknown quantity. And there is no evidence the effect matches the predictions of rapid, dangerous global warming.
I insulted Max in response to his insult directed to me. So what?
But I also took the time to explain some climate science to you in simple language, even though I doubt if you will listen. Virtually everuy climate scientists in the world would agree there is a strong greemnhouse effect and CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
I gave you an opportunity to learn the basics of climate science, along withthe politics and junk science of the IPCC. It’s your choice to learn the science or reject the science. .
The climate change movement is mainly leftist politics and climate scaremongering, but there is some real science too.
.
Pravda Pundit
| #
Citation: “the additional 100 ppm of anthropogenic CO2 molecules”
Only max 34 of these 100 ppm are antropogenic.
See Harde & Salby:
What Controls the Atmospheric CO2 Level?
In this Journal
https://scc.klimarealistene.com/produkt/science-of-climate-change-vol-1-no-1-august-2021-print/
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
Humans have added about +200 ppm of C)2 to the atmosphere
by burning fossil fuels since the mid-1800s.
About half of that +200 was absorbed by nature
and the other half increased the atmospheric
CO2 level by about +100 ppm
Reply
Max DeLoaches
| #
@Richard Green
Bogus information right out of the global warming manifesto, that has been debunked many, many times. The climate of the Earth is a vastly, vastly more complicated system that you warmists could ever imagine. Manmade computer models that use solar irradiance as their main “solar forcing” is grade school flat earth physics.
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
I’ve been following climate science since 1997 and never heard of the global warming manifesto.
Where do I find a copy?
Reply
MattH
| #
Open your eyes Dick. The manifesto is observable for all to see. One simple example. Google “ivermectin in India”. Then change your search engine to DuckDuckGo. Then search for “ivermectin in India”. It is all the same players.
CO2 is a radiative gas. Green house gas is simply a misnomer propaganda piece of manifesto.
Explain to yourself how a hothouse works and if you can ever stop lying to yourself you will stop lying to us.
Have a nice day. Matt
Richard Greene
| #
Matt I do use DuckDuckGo and not Google.
What does the successful use of ivermectin in India have to do with the greenhouse effect?
Greenhouse effect is not the most accurate name but we are stuck with that name. In one way is is udeful: Adding CO2 to the atmosphere greens the planet just like adding CO2 inside a greenhouse.
It you want to believe CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, and there is no greenhouse effect, then for you to be right, virtually every climate scientist in the world must be wrong.
Think about that !
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Richard,
I think the 100% figure for climate scientists being wrong is more accurate than the 99.9%. They don’t seem understand that both the thermometer and barometer are completely inaccurate in the atmosphere. The correct units for both is mass.distance/time (momentum) not 1/2 mv^2 or mass/unit area. Like meteorologists they have no concept of energy flow or the nature of water.
Herb
MattH
| #
Hi Richard and readers.
The regular readers of PSI are relatively well informed on matters climate and covid thanks to very astute editorship of the PSI site.
Because of an adherence to free speech the editors will occasionally publish articles that spout some garbage.
Even the unschooled class clown and the village idiot can spot some of the flaws in your over generous mass of comments.
Now for your questions.
Dick. What does the successful use of ivermectin in India have to do with the greenhouse effect?
Matt; I have already answered that question when I stated it is the same players. The anthropogenic climate change hoax and the covid crimes against humanity are perpetrated by the same players. Dr Krause ( Jerry ) has twice recently mentioned the critical necessity of comprehension of the English language for discussing and understanding science..
I presume you are aware the President of Thomson Reuters news conglomerate is also on the board of Phizer. Join the dots.
Richard; Greenhouse effect is not the most accurate name but we are stuck with that name.
Matt; I wrote in my above comment; “CO2 is a radiative gas. Green house gas is simply a misnomer propaganda piece of manifesto.”.
It appears Dr. Krause may need to compile a comprehensive essay on comprehension. If you wish to use the deceipt, propaganda, and manipulation of the masses by calling CO2 a greenhouse gas then that is your free speech right.
Dick; It you want to believe CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, and there is no greenhouse effect, then for you to be right, virtually every climate scientist in the world must be wrong.
Think about that !
Matt. I do not need to think about it. I generally am not into belief systems but prefer qualifiable evidential hypothesis.
Many climate scientists sell their soul to keep their job and many are too lazy or stupid to do a scientific audit of the foundations and paradigms of the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis.
The majority of the most knowledgeable climate scientists are suppressed. Read my note above about Thomson Reuters.
I note Ross Handsaker has answered the question I put to you. “A greenhouse works by suppressing convection, not radiation. It is misleading to use the term greenhouse to describe the effect of the atmosphere on surface temperatures.”
Here are a very few suppressed climate scientists.
https://electroverse.net/new-study-23-experts-in-the-fields-of-solar-physics-and-climate-science-contradict-the-ipcc/
I have allowed you to waste over an hour of my time over questions which I covered in my original comment
Please use the ability to comment on this site a little more judiciously. You are currently the new village idiot.
Have a nice day. Matt
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt,
I like Richards commenting. It is on topic and a legitimate debate of issues as opposed to Frank who just continually ranted anything and everything.
Your reference to Jerry is ironic since he rarely proof reads his comments to try to make them coherent. I consider him to be a self appointed fact checker for PSI who only needs to read the title of an article and a few comments to determine its veracity and whether it meets the standard for what he believes to be true. Usually he doesn’t comprehend what is being said.
It is good to have people like Richard join the discussion because it requires you to examine the reasons for your beliefs by providing a different perspective.
Still your mate,
Herb
Moffin
| #
Hi Herb.
I agree with what you say but would like to see Richard rein in his run away horse.
I mentioned Jerry because I was surreptitiously letting Richard know that many of the informal and casual commenters here are qualified scientists up to doctorate level.
Through the use of Whokoo and other names i am often the class clown but we are all relatively well informed.
And finally best wishes to you Herb. for the coming year. Matt
Richard Greene
| #
There was a large amount of CO2 emissions and a large increase in the atmospheric CO2 level in the past 120 years.
If you believe CO2 emissions DID NOT cause the CO2 level to increase, you must explain where all the COI2 emissions went, and what else could have increased the CO2 level by +100 ppm.
You will not be able to offer an alternative explanation because none exist.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Richard,
The vast majority of the CO2 on Earth is in the oceans, not the atmosphere. 50% of the weight of all the marble, cement, limestone on the Earth is CO2 that has been removed from the the atmosphere and converted to solids in the oceans. The solubility of CO2 in the ocean is determined by temperature and pH. Either additional heat or acidification will cause the oceans to degas. Is the temperature rise because of CO2 or is the CO2 a result of the temperature rise?
Herb
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
The small increase in the ocean temperature in the past 120 years, assuming the haphazard measurements are correct, is far too small to have more than a tiny effect on the balance of CO2 in the atmosphere versus dissolved CO2 in the oceans.
Volcanoes also emit CO2 and they might account for 1% of the CO2 increase in the past 120 years, maybe 2%.
Almost all the CO2 increase must be from the approximately +200 ppm increase from burning fossil fuels. Fossil fuel burning releases CO2 into the atmosphere and the CO2 level in the atmosphere increases.
It’s that simple.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Richard,
It is generally believed that man’s contribution to the CO2 in the atmosphere is 4% of the of the 400 ppm. In order to put an additional 200 ppm plants would need to stop growing (and decaying), mollusks would have to stop making shells, coral would need to stop growing, and water would need to stop absorbing CO2.
I believe you underestimate the effects which changes in the ocean produce. The water is no where near saturated with CO2 and even a small change can produce a large quantity of gas.
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb, Richard, and other PSI Readers.
Herb’s comment of 12/31/2021 at 9:55pm is absolutely observed to be correct. It is an observed fact and not anyone’s “IDEA”. The observed evidence of “converted to solids in the oceans” is the carbonate nodules which various mining ‘companies have been trying to work (for decades) thru the legalist question of WHO owns these nodules. So only a few samples of these nodules have been brought to surface to be analyzed.
Have a good day, Jerry
Whokoo
| #
Hi Herb.
And don’t forget coccolithophores. I have a whole ocean of pet ones and they too create calcium carbonate which is partly from oceanic dissolved CO2.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi WhoKoo and PSI Readers,
coccolithophores, Readers, google “coccolithophores” and learn what WhoKoo’s pets are!!! I certainly did not know anything about his pets but know I DO!!!
Thank you, thank you WhoKoo for informing us.
Have a good day, Jerry
Whokoo
| #
Hi Jerry and readers.
This is of interest although I am not suggesting it is more than hypothetical. Source is wiki.
Coccolithophore’s Impact on the oceans
See also: CLAW hypothesis
The coccolithophorids help in regulating the temperature of the oceans. They thrive in warm seas and release DMS (dimethyl sulphide) into the air whose nuclei help to produce thicker clouds to block the sun.[106] When the oceans cool, the number of coccolithophorids decrease and the amount of clouds also decrease. When there are fewer clouds blocking the sun, the temperature also rises. This, therefore, maintains the balance and equilibrium of nature.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi WhoKoo (Matt),
How did you learn about the word coccolithophores?? My wife has a Masters in marine biology and did not recognize it. I only read its definition after Googling it. I need to go back and read more about it. For it seems these pets could be major players in the atmospheric-ocean carbon dioxide system which maybe hasn’t yet been associated with the idea of the GHE which is absolutely wrong. For the GHE idea has a prediction that if not for atmospheric carbon dioxide molecules, and other molecules with similar properties, the Earth’s average atmospheric temperature would be about 33C (58F) degrees lower.
However, I doubt that many SCIENTISTS are aware that for any ‘idea’ to qualify as being a SCIENTIFIC IDEA that the idea (theory) must include a prediction of something not yet OBSERVED (known). Hence, many SCIENTISTS, even, do not recognize the importance of the volumes of data that the atmosphere’s temperature has never been found to be less that the atmosphere’s dew point temperature at the same location (not only the same geographical location but also the same distance above the earth’s surface) and time.
Do you believe it possible that Richard will accept (understand) that which I (an experimental scientist) write. For it does not take above average intelligence to carefully use instruments to make measurements which are reproducible. But it does require GREAT PATIENCE and MUCH TIME to make the SAME precise, as possible, measurement over and over until one is convinced that one’s measurements are reproducible. Since he stated that he is lazy, it seems he could easily convince himself that the first measurement of many, many different measurements are reproducible without doing the second, or third if needed, to demonstrate that each his final measurements are reproducible.
But we should not be too hard (judgmental) of Richard because he gives us reason to write the information.which you and I write for the possible benefit of other PSI Readers like ourselves.
For I agree with Galileo who wrote (as translated by someone): “I have never met a man [person] so ignorant that I couldn’t learn something from him [her].”
Have a good day, Jerry
.
Whokoo
| #
Hi Jerry.’
It was by following Dr. Patrick Moore videos that the good doctor introduced me to coccolithophores. Once I understood a little about them and could spell their name and then finally learned how to pronounce their name I adopted them as my pets.
Wikipedia say they effect cloud formation through emitting DMS (dimethyl sulphide) but Wikipedia also say the Svensmark hypothesis that cosmic rays influence cloud seeding is garbage.
Wikipedia character assassinates good scientists whose work challenges the globalist agenda.
If you come across how much calcium carbonate the coccolithophores are estimated to deposit on the ocean floor each year please post it. I think it is around 10 million tons but I cannot remember and would not wish to mislead.
Cheers Jerry Whokoo.
Whokoo
| #
Hi Jerry and readers.
According to Nasa it is estimated coccolithophores dump 1.5 million tons of calcite per year.
320 kilograms of carbon go into every ton of calcite.
Approximately 60% of atmospheric oxygen is produced in the ocean.
Okay then.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi WhoKoo and PSI Readers,
The most important thing that WhoKoo has just told us is there are some people who know about coccolithophores and many, many more people like my wife and myself who were totally ignorant about the existence of this word and what it defines.
And this algae has to be a major player in our atmosphere’s and ocean’s and lake’s, etc. in our PLANET’S NATURAL OXYGEN-CARBON DIOXIDE-CARBONATE ION CHEMICAL SYSTEMS!!! So I intend to continue to make brief (hopely) comments about these chemical systems because I pretend (imagine) I, by experience, know a little bit about this NATURAL chemistry which is driven by the Solar Radiation of our SUN.
Thank you, thank you for alerting US to what we didn’t know. And that you learned about by watching and listening to Dr. Patrick Moore videos. You did not sit in a fireplace questioning if you existed.
Have a good (Blessed) day, Jerry
H
Whokoo
| #
Hi Jerry and readers.
Herb made this comment, ” 50% of the weight of all the marble, cement, limestone on the Earth is CO2 that has been removed from the atmosphere and converted to solids in the oceans.”
Dr Patrick Moore has a hypothesis, that no body has debunked, that all the atmospheric CO2 that supports plants and therefore all life on earth, is being converted into a proportion of calcium carbonate. Eventually there would become a shortage of CO2 in the atmosphere and all plants would begin to die off.
Therefore the burning of “fossil fuels” released CO2 back into the atmosphere and saved most of the life on earth.
During the last ice age CO2 got down to 180 PPM and plants die off at 150 PPM.
That would have been the real existential crisis.
Cheers. Whokoo (Matt)
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi WhoKoo,
All I can write is: WOW!!!!!!!!!
We are having a BLESSED day, Jerry
Barry
| #
Did you ever notice that only climate science denies thermodynamics. All other science and engineering disciplines respect these laws but not climate science,only here can cold make hot hotter. Huh!
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
Climate science does NOT deny thermodynamics
You clearly do not understand the subject.
I actually took a thermodynamics course in college.
It was difficult.
I suggest you do too.
Please don’t embarrass climate skeptics by claiming
climate change denies thermodynamics.
You will not be taken seriously by people who know
science if you do that.
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
To be constructive, I found an article from my climate science blog that clearly explains the thermodynamics myth you stated about climate change.
It is titled “Can a Cold Object Warm a Hot Object”
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2021/05/climate-science-101a-can-cold-object_29.html
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi richard,
Radiated energy is not the transfer of energy between objects but the transfer of energy to the energy field the objects are in. (An object reflecting blue light cannot absorb energy from an object emitting blue light.) With radiation the transfer of energy is always from high energy to low energy but this is not true with convection where energy is transferred between object.
Herb
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
A meaningless word salad/
Not science.
Max DeLoaches
| #
@Richard Greene
“Can an ice cube warm my cup of coffee?”
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
A meaningless example.
Greenhouse gases do not “warm” anything, as in adding more energy.
They inhibit the cooling ability of both land surfaces and ocean surfaces.
Greenhouse gases form a partial barrier between our planet’s surface and the infinite heat sink of space.
The greenhouse effect keeps outdoor plants from freezing during every night of the year.
Max DeLoaches
| #
@Richard Greene
All blown away with The Shattered Greenhouse: How Simple Physics Demolishes the “Greenhouse Effect”.
http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
Alt-science nonsense.
MattH
| #
Hi Max. Good reference thank you. Arrhenius misinterpreted or misattributed his thinking to Fourier.
Richard Greene is clearly a troll.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Richard,
Actually, climate change because of CO2 does violate the laws of thermodynamics. The law of thermodynamics states that ALL objects absorb radiated energy but because N2, O2, and argon do not absorb the visible or infrared spectrums believers say they are not absorbing energy from the sun and the Earth is heating the atmosphere. Not true. If you plot the inverse of density in the atmosphere (the volume of a constant number of molecules) you will see the kinetic energy of the gas molecules increases with altitude (no zig zag graph like the one produced by a thermometer>). This is confirmed by the energy of the molecules at different altitudes (O2, O3, NO, O atoms). The energy flow is from the higher molecules, absorbing more energy, to the molecules lower in the atmosphere. Read my article in PSI “How Cold Heats Hot”. It is the upper atmosphere that is absorbing and radiating energy, not the surface of the Earth.
Herb
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
i can’t find your article please provide a link.
I will read your article in spite of the completely wrong opening sentence in your comment:
For you to be right, that means 99.9% (my estimate) of climate scientists MUST BE WRONG.
Sorry, but the greenhouse effect, and CO2 as a greenhouse gas, does not violate any laws of thermodynamics. If you think so, you have a lot to learn..
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Richard, I’m sorry I don’t know how to do links. If you use the search box PSI and type in “How Hot Heats Cold” then return it should bring up the article.
Herb
Herb Rose
| #
Hi richard,
The title is “How Cold Heats Hot”
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
“I’m sorry I don’t know how to do links.” And I thought I was the most computer illiterate here. So for your information consider the following.
As I keyboard this, at the top of my screen is an image of a paddle lock and the words “principle-scientific.com.” If you click on the these words you will see them to be replaced by the LINK!!! Copy it and paste it wherever you want.
Have a good day and NEW Year!, Jerry
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
Thanks for the info.
The reason I do not comment on your article about your “law” is because we have had discussions on it before. (You may recall I maintained “never having been observed” proves nothing).I will try again to explain why it is wrong.
When you heat a gas most of the energy is expressed as kinetic energy. When you heat water most of the energy becomes internal energy (forming liquid crystals) with little showing up as an increase in temperature. Until the water reaches 100C most of the energy is forming these liquid crystal structures, after 100 C the addition of energy will not produce an increase on temperature but melt these crystals releasing the stored energy. When 540 calories are added the crystals melted producing liquid water which is then converted into 100C steam when more energy is added.
The result of this is that water is slow at absorbing energy and releasing energy while a gas is fast. When the energy of the air drops quickly the water in the air is not able to lose its energy. This results in “diamond dust” or clear weather precipitation. The ice crystals produced are different (tubes, columns, and other shapes) from the formation of snow or common ice and is a result of the water freezing before losing its crystal energy.
You can demonstrate this affect yourself. If you put a container of boiled water and an equal amount of room temperature water in a freezer the boiled water will freeze first. The accepted belief is the rate of energy transfer is a function of the difference in temperatures. At some point in the freezing process both containers are at the same temperature, yet the boiled water continues to lose heat faster. The reason for this is the boiled water has become a liquid while the room temperature water contains the internal liquid crystals and stored energy. As the temperature drops the crystals in the room temperature water release the stored energy slowing the freezing process while the boiled water continues to lose its energy according to the difference between its temperature and the temperatures of the freezer.
Have a good New Year,
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You just wrote: “When you heat water most of the energy becomes internal energy (forming liquid crystals) with little showing up as an increase in temperature.” In this statement you did not define that STATE (solid, liquid, gas) of the WATER to which you refer. Unfortunately it’s all downhill from this omission.
Have a good day, Jerry
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and PSI Readers,
“If you put a container of boiled water and an equal amount of room temperature water in a freezer the boiled water will freeze first. The accepted belief is the rate of energy transfer is a function of the difference in temperatures. At some point in the freezing process both containers are at the same temperature, yet the boiled water continues to lose heat faster..”
Herb, I have been waiting for you to write this again, for waiting I have been SEEING better. So I see your lack of accurate definition. You, and others, overlook some obvious facts. Maybe the most serious is you equate energy with temperature. “the boiled water continues to lose heat faster”. The thermometer does not measure heat (energy), it only measures TEMPERATURE.
Hence, by the time the boiling water, at say 212F degrees temperature, has cooled to the cooled temperature of the initially room temperature, say 70F degrees (so I assume the water in both cases is liquid water).
The most obvious fact I believe, but do not know, that you have overlooked the observed fact that by the time the two containers of equal volumes of water have cooled to some temperature less than 70F, the two volumes of water are nowhere still equal!!! Hence, this could be a factor why the lesser volume continues to cool (temperature decrease) faster than that of the greater volume of water.
Hence, I suspect, but do not know, that you have never conducted the experiment you just described.
SCIENCE REQUIRES ACTUAL OBSERVATIONS should never be based upon reasoning as you have just done.
Have a good day, Jerry
Temperature is not the capacity to do WORK.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and PSI Readers,
First it is getting hard to navigate these comments to find the most recent. So I am pleased to find my must recent had the possibility of a direct reply. For after I had submitted my most recent, I concluded I should have admitted that I, like Herb, never conducted the experiment that he had described. So not to become a hypocrite I had to admit this publicly..
As I pondered what I had done, I need to clearly state that I had provided an imagined alternative to Herb’s reasonings. Then, I think back to my youth when I argued with a friend, or two, what the correct answer to mathematics problem was. For we both knew there could be only one correct answer. When I was very sure my answer was correct I regularly would ask: “want to bet??? We never actually bet money, or anything. Which was good for me because a few times it was I who was wrong.
So I write this because we should never be afraid to question another person’s idea that we think could be wrong if we have an alternative idea that we can explain reasons it could be correct. Instead of merely stating the other person’s idea is wrong. Which one can read is often occurring in these comments. Herb clearly stated his ‘reasoning’ and I have stated mine and all you others can peer review both ideas. Which is the sole purpose of the PSI website.
Have a good day, Jerry
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
The phenomena was first observed by a teenage student, Erasto Mpemba, and named after him. As I recall the containers were both closed so the amount of water in them did not change. If you look up the experiment you can find the details.
Herb
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Barry,
Thermodynamics is about the flow of energy not temperature. Objects do not transfer mass, only energy. If you read my article in PSI “How Cold Heats Hot” you will see if cold cannot transfer energy to hot, it means the law of conservation of momentum is wrong. Read it and tell me if the law of conservation of momentum is wrong or if it’s your understanding of the law of thermodynamics.
Herb
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
I’ve presented the best climate science and energy articles I read every day on my climate science and energy blog since 2014 to refute the coming climate change crisis scaremongering. I hope the almost 275,000 page views have changed some minds.
I do this as a public service with no ads, and no money for me.
It is frustrating to read an article like this one, which makes some good points, but also exhibits no basic understanding of the greenhouse effect and what carbon dioxide does as a greenhouse gas. This was all discovered in the late 1800s, yet the author, to be kind, makes the following foolish statement:
“Those trace CO2 molecules, however, neither form a “blanket,” “trap heat,” nor send heat back to the surface.”
This statement is completely wrong, and I estimate that 99.9% of climate scientists would agree with me. Even those climate scientists who are ridiculed as skeptics and deniers.
As a greenhouse gas, CO2 forms a partial barrier in the troposphere, separating our planet’s surface from the infinite heat sink of space. Greenhouses gases partially disrupt Earth’s ability to cool itself.
Although water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas. the first 100 ppm of CO2 is also a powerful greenhouse gas. Each additional +100 ppm of CO2 has a significantly smaller greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect prevents plants from freezing every night.
There is no question that a greenhouse effect exists, and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That is easily proven in a laboratory. The only question that needs an answer is how much of a warming effect CO2 has. That is impossible to measure, because there are so many variables, both natural and man made, that can affect the global average temperature.
It is possible to merely assume all warming in the past 120 years, of about +1 degree C. (with very rough measurements in 1900) was caused by CO2, and nothing else. That worst case estimate has a simple conclusion: CO2 causes mild, harmless warming.
If you look into the details of the warming since 1979, as measured with satellites, most affected were the colder, higher latitude nations in the Northern Hemisphere, mainly during the six coldest months of the year, and mainly at night (the low temperature of the day, or TMIN). Think of warmer winter nights in Siberia. Meaning that the actual pattern and timing of the mild warming since 1979 was good news for people who appreciate milder winters. No climate emergency. Good news. Our planet is also greening from more CO2 in the atmosphere = more food.
More Co2 in the atmosphere means our planet can support more human and animal life.
Unfortunately, climate predictions for the past 64 years, starting with oceanographer Roger Revelle in 1957, have been for rapid, dangerous global warming THAT NEVER SHOWS UP.
Real climate science is the study of the present and past climate, using data. “Climate Change” is always wrong predictions of the future climate, with no data. Because there are no data for the future. Just unproven theories, speculation, and consistently wrong predictions.
There is a little real science behind climate change scaremongering, and I hope the author of this article learns it some day..
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
Roger Ravelle said he did not remember that Al Gore was in one of his classes at Harvard. Ravelle did write a letter to every member of Congress as he neared his death and informed them that he did not believe any massive action was needed due to any climate warming from CO2.
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
Roger Revelle was a real scientist back in the days when scientists had
uncertainty and did not make scary 100 year climate predictions.
He died with even more uncertainty, knowing how difficult it is to predict the long term climate. The global average temperature had been falling from 1940 to 1975, as CO2 levels rose. That global cooling period has since been “revised away” by dishonest NASA-GISS.
Most other ther scientists had jumped on the bandwagon by the late 1980s and led the “Coming Climate Crisis predictions came with with unjustified certainty. They had the advantage of actual global warming since 1975.
Reply
Barry
| #
Thanks for that critique, as I understand the greenhouse gas theory it is simply the co2 and other gases like water vapour returning energy to earth in the form of something called back radiation. No one denies that some energy is returned to earth but not in the form of heat as this would reverse heat flow and cause the colder atmosphere to warm the already warmer earth. Am I missing something?
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
The greenhouse gases only partially reduce earths ability to cool itself. They don’t create more heat. Heat comes from the sun. The effect is most easily seen in cold dry environments because water vapor and CO2 have some overlapping greenhouse effects. Our planat had the following three different CO2 global average temperature correlations in the past 110 years:
1910 to 1940 global warming with little CO2 increase.
1940 to 1975 global cooling with moderate CO2 increase
1975 to 2020 faster global warming with faster Co2 increase
This adds up to: “climate science is not settled.”
That’s the first lesson of climate science.
Here in Michigan USA we love the slightly warmer
winters since the 1970s, and want MORE global warming !
Reply
Barry
| #
Richard I totally agree that the sun heats the earth and I also think that our atmosphere slows warming and cooling by contact and convection as well as radiation overall to space in the end as in has to equal out overall. But that is not at all what the IPCC claim they claim that the sun is only capable of heating the earth to minus 18 and that the atmosphere actually adds more energy to the earths surface than the sun. Don’t quote me on the numbers but they claim something like 240 from the sun and 340 watts from the atmosphere which would lead me to believe they are indeed saying the atmosphere heats the earth. This is not my theory it’s the IPCC basic model. So I don’t have a background in thermodynamics,you are quite right. But I do know that when someone claims you can reverse heat flow that it has never been proven to exist
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
The IPCC starts with the basic science that CO@ at current levels is a mild greenhouse gas.
Then they add an unproven. bizarre water vapor positive feedback theory, that triples the alleged warming effect of CO2 alone, in the long run.
While it is true that a warmer troposphere will hold more water vapor, that is very difficult to measure. So far it appears the increase of water vapor has been quite small.
Without that water vapor feedback theory, there is no argument for catastrophic man made global warming.
According to geologists, the CO2 level in the past has been up to 10X higher than today. Yet there is no evidence of any positive feedback from water vapor causung runaway global warming.
No evidence the positive feedback theory is correct, or else there would be almost no life on our planet today ?
Concerning the IPCC:
Every few years they publish a report. Here’s what they all say:
— Assuming all climate change is man made and dangerous, we predict that future climate change will be man made and dangerous.
I’m not kidding.
This is circular reasoning,
not real science !.
Hrrb Rose
| #
Hi Barry,
Water is not a greenhouse gas. Water actively absorbs heat at the earth’s surface, when it evaporates, then transports the energy to the top of the troposphere where it is released (during condensation) to be radiated into space. A “Greenhouse Gas” is said to inhibit heat/energy from radiating into space, not help it.
The water in the atmosphere is not a gas but micro droplets. If you look at a phase diagram for water it shows that water below its boiling point, does exist as a gas. This explains why water absorbs so much energy and even though its molecular weight (18) is well below that of N2 (28) and O2 (32) but is confined to the troposphere (like argon and CO2) and does not rise into the upper atmosphere.
Herb
Reply
Barry
| #
Thanks Herb. I totally agree as I don’t think there really is any gas that should be called a greenhouse gas. And yes I think that is basically how the water cycle works and that it Carries the heat upward and away.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Hi Herb,
Water is not a greenhouse gas. Water actively absorbs heat at the earth’s surface, when it evaporates,
I think this is generally true. But it may not be as true as we might first assume.
Here are a few points to be aware of.
1) The heat capacity of liquid H2O has to do with both the looseness of the H bond and its elasticity. I believe (I’m not sure) that at lower altitudes there is a severe reduction in the looseness of H bonds that results in a corresponding reduction in their capacity to conserve movement (energy).
Here are a few factors you have to keep in mind in order to make sense of this claim.
a) H2O droplets are under constant bombardment from air molecules moving 700 to 1100 mph.
b) This constant bombardment causes halving of droplets into smaller droplets
C) Smaller and less round droplets have much less looseness in their bonds due to the surface tension properties of H2O. (Specifically it is due to the inverse relationship of connectedness and strength of connectedness that is itself a consequence of the uniqueness of H bonds.
H2O does not absorb much heat at lower altitudes and as it rises its heat capacity increases as smaller droplets combine into larger droplets that have looser H bonds. So, not only does H2O not transport a lot of heat upwards but as it rises it absorbs more heat.
James McGinn / Genius
then transports the energy to the top of the troposphere where it is released (during condensation) to be radiated into space. A “Greenhouse Gas” is said to inhibit heat/energy from radiating into space, not help it.
The water in the atmosphere is not a gas but micro droplets. If you look at a phase diagram for water it shows that water below its boiling point, does exist as a gas. This explains why water absorbs so much energy and even though its molecular weight (18) is well below that of N2 (28) and O2 (32) but is confined to the troposphere (like argon and CO2) and does not rise into the upper atmosphere.
Herb
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
I am of the opinion that the nano droplets are liquid crystals where the absorption of IR causes water molecules to split into hydroxyl and hydrogen ions. The negative charge of the hydroxyl ion combines with other water molecules form a negatively charge outer shell while the inner core contains the positive hydrogen ion combined with a water molecule to form a hydronium ion. As the water absorbs more IR it shell grows thicker and the negative charge increases. This increasing negative external shell is what keeps the water crystal rising in the atmosphere. The IR energy is converted into electrical energy and when the liquid crystals reach their second melt point, the electric energy is released and the water becomes a liquid and falls as rain.
I know you disagree with Dr.Pollack but his experiments showing an electrical difference between the center of a body of water and its edge provides evidence for his theory. They also show the edge is able to exclude particles, including salt ions which would indicate a structural difference between the exterior and interior of the water. To me the electrical properties of the crystal would explain why the water continues to rise in the atmosphere, which is not answered by your hydrogen bond theory. Why do the nano droplets rise? It is not because they ever become less dense than the surround gasses.
I have tried but failed to understand your theory. (I am definitely not a genius.) and since I believe that the kinetic energy of gas molecules increase with altitude the explanation of a liquid crystal melting provides a reason for why it rains.
Herb
James McGinn
| #
Hi James,
I am of the opinion that the nano droplets are liquid crystals where the absorption of IR causes water molecules to split into hydroxyl and hydrogen ions.
JMcG:
This is a plainly absurd assertion.
Herb:
I know you disagree with Dr.Pollack but his experiments showing an electrical difference between the center of a body of water and its edge provides evidence for his theory.
JMcG:
As with that of the current, obscurity ensconced, paradigm of water, Pollack’s model involves deliberate ignorance (and/or deliberate misunderstanding) of the quantum mechanics of water. Pollack is just confused.
On the edge of liquid water there is a resulting reduction in the comprehensiveness of interconnectedness. When you understand the quantum mechanics of H2O you realize that the molecules on the surface have greater polarity as a consequence of reduced connectedness. Therefore the molecules on the surface are more locked against each other (Surface tension) and will, therefore, have different conductivity of electricity than below the surface where the connections are looser.
Herb:
They also show the edge is able to exclude particles, including salt ions which would indicate a structural difference between the exterior and interior of the water.
JMcG:
No duh. I just explained why. (See above.) Poillack can’t explain shit. He’s just confused.
Herb:
To me the electrical properties of the crystal would explain why the water continues to rise in the atmosphere, which is not answered by your hydrogen bond theory.
JMcG:
Nonsense. Your problem is you are not listening. It is the electrical properties on the surface (remember surface tension) that are affected by residual electricity in the atmosphere. This produces the casual uplift of moisture that occurs under calm, warm conditions. (Nanodroplets do have a surface.) But this only pushes H2O nanodroplets upward to about 1000 feet. Only storm activity can pull moist air up to the top of the troposphere. This is achieved through the straming that is produced by vortices.
Herb:
Why do the nano droplets rise? It is not because they ever become less dense than the surround gasses.
JMcG:
Right. (I explained this to you.)
Herb:
I have tried but failed to understand your theory. (I am definitely not a genius.)
JMcG:
Never give up.
Herb:
and since I believe that the kinetic energy of gas molecules increase with altitude
JMcG:
As I clearly and exhaustively explained to you, this is a result of your miscomprehension of the ideal gas law.
Herb:
the explanation of a liquid crystal melting provides a reason for why it rains.
JMcG:
I can only assume that if you (and Pollack) had a better understanding of chemistry and the forces involved with separating and recombing atoms that are joined by covalent bonds that you would be better able to comprehend how plainly absurd it is to suggest H2O molecules reforming into hydroxyl and hydrogen ions.
James McGinn / Genius
Richard Greene
| #
I just discovered this website and was fooled into believing is was a science
website based on “scientific” in the URL
After reading this article and making comments,
I skimmed the website’s other articles.
What I found was alt-science, exaggerations and speculation
about COVID. This is not a website based on facts,
data and real science, so I will be deleting my bookmark.
With real science you collect data.
Sometimes the data are not sufficient to support a conclusion.
Then the answer is “we don’t know”.
Speculation and wild guess predictions are not science.
Although they are very common in the Climate Change Crisis is Coming “religion”..
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Richard,
You just wrote: “I just discovered this website and was fooled into believing is was a science
website based on “scientific” in the URL”
Have you read this? (https://principia-scientific.org/new-scientific-law-greenhouse-effect/). Would appreciate your ‘peer review’.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and Richard and other PSI Readers,
These comments are very good because we can certainly learn (see) the character of each commenter. Herb, Richard is still with us but he hasn’t yet, as I write this, peer reviewed my article to which I provided a link. And Herb, you, and other PSI commenters since Oct. 3, 2016 have not really peer reviewed it either. Maybe for some reason you, Richard and these other PSI readers and commenters have not read it either.
Maybe you can tell me and other PSI Readers why you haven’t specifically reviewed this PSI article, which is more assessable to any reader than an “official scientific article” published in a “official” scientific journal” of highest reputation.
I will keep patiently waiting for a PSI reader to ‘peer review’ this article because we are all ‘peers’ here at PSI.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Max DeLoaches
| #
@Jerry
Jerry I have read your excellent article and agree with it. If you have time check out Tin Casey’s site that I referenced, it has virtually the same message and he delves further into history of the greenhouse effect. I would like to hear your experienced opinion.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Max and other PSI Commenters (Readers),
First, long ago Tim Casey were having an email conversation when when his computers (software) stopped so he had direct his attention to this problem. I certainly recognized that Tim and I were on the same page.
However, you just wrote that Tim “delves further into history of the greenhouse effect.”
Based upon your and others’ comments about the proposed idea known as the greenhouse effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide gas molecules, it seems you and others have not gone back to the scholarship which is termed—SCIENCE. Which began with The Martyrs of Science (Galileo, Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler) identified by David Brewster, a biographer, who studied the ancient historical literature.
I have just reviewed my ‘linked’ article and I cannot explain how it is that you, or anyone else, have not written: The idea of the Greenhouse effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide molecules is DEAD. So let’s forget about it and move to study the SCIENCE which is still alive, even if it is uncertain.
Only you, Max, can explain why you have not done so.
Have a good day, Jerry
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Max,
I have now read your link to Tim Casey’s writings about the GHE of atmospheric carbon dioxide molecules and clearly should have before I wrote my previous.comment.
For in his Bibliography he lists an article by H-B De Saussure (1779) but when I use the find function I cannot find any reference to De Saussure so it is very difficult to find what Tim wrote about De Saussure’s 1779 article. I will follow this comment with links to my PSI article relative to De Saussure’s Hot Box (Radiometer).
Here, relative what I read that Tim has written, I close with the wisdom of Einstein, about I am learning to practice. “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.”
Have a good day, Jerry
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Max,
(https://principia-scientific.com/paradox-three-apparently-different-systems-produce-one-observed-temperature/).
This article is probably too long as I rambled but I work a few other articles about De Saussure’s hot box and it seems this one best summarizes that I believe you might profitably take time to read.
And thank you very much for the opportunity to review some of my history.
Have a good day, Jerry
Richard Greene
| #
I hope this does not offend you but the article
is alt-science nonsense. The author does mention
clouds, which block some sunlight during the day,
and can inhibit cooling at night. Clouds are not
modeled properly in the climate computer games.
Unfortunately, that does not matter much.
Because computer models predict whatever they
are programmed to predict. Governments
that fund the models directly, or through grants,
want predictions of rapid, dangerous global
warming. So that’s what they get.
Accurate predictions are not a goal.
If they were, the Russian INM model
would get most of the attention,
because it over predicts global warming by the
least amount…. Instead, it is binned with several
dozen other models (called CMIP6 now) ,
all of which have over predicted global warming
by more than the Russian model !.
And the CMIP6 models are predicting
even more warming than the CMIP5 models
that predicted, on average about twice
the global warming rate that actually happened.
Wrong predictions for the past 40
years, and getting worse, not better.
That’s why I call them “computer games”.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Richard, (if your still with us)
There is always lots of conflicting opinions when there is inadequate data and it is difficult to determine who to believe. On the COVID issue I suggest you examine the opinions of some of those without a dog in the fight.
Geert Vendor Bossche has spent his career in developing and promoting vaccines. He is not anti vaccine which you can see from his credentials. Back in December 2020 he gave an interview where he adamantly opposed the use of this vaccine. He made predictions on what would occur if the vaccine program was not halted. Look up this interview and compare his predictions to that of Faucci (who gets a royalty from the patents) and compare the accuracy of what has happened, then make your judgement.
Herb
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
Concerning Covid
I publish articles and highlights from articles on COVID and vaccines
every day on one of my blogs/ All refuting the “safe and effective”
nonsense.
What I am “allergic” to is predictions and speculation.
I’ve had enough of that with climate change scaremongering
in the past 25 years.
If 200 people report deaths after ALL vaccines in a typical year in VAERS,
nut now over 20,000 deaths are reported in 2021, I don’t need a guess on what the real number is. It’s very likely to be higher than 20,000 but 200,000 is bad enough.
The vaccine effectiveness does not last long.
They appear worthless with Omicron.
My latest theory based on the structure (over 30 changes
to the spike protein versus Delta Covid, and symptoms,
is that Omicron is NOT Covid.
It is a new coronavirus Common cold.
Omicron spreads rapidly, but is not deadly at all.
How easily does Omicron spread? … Like wildfire !
A friend who had recovered from COVID (a mild case),
who got two vaccines and a booster, decided to throw
a big Christmas Party this year.
She joked to my wife that she was throwing a “super spreader event”, although she and her guests seemed convinced their vaccines would protect everyone.
We are both unvaxxed, so we stayed home.
We told her the vaccines were nearly worthless against Omicron.
Every party guest was vaccinated except for two people.
A few days later. all the guests were calling her to report they caught COVID at the party. except the two unvaxxed party guests, who have never had COVID before, tested negative after the party, and had no COVID or omicron symptoms !! A true story.
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
Let me add:
A typical virus mutation, such as Delta Covid, the fourth named variant, has only two mutations on its spike protein.
Omicron has about 30 mutations on the spike versus Delta. Viruses in the same family are well known to swap genetic material if they infect the same host.
I should have explained that a person could be
infected with both Delta COVID and a coronoavirus
common cold at the same time. Resulting in a brand new
virus mutations, which is called Omicron. This is a reasonable speculation, based on the history of viral pandemics (in a year or two the virus that caused the pandemic has mutated into a much less deadly variant).
We should begin to stop cursing Delta Covid and start celebrating the new Omicron coronavirus common cold. Which evolved to evade vaccines!
For Omicron COVID,
vaccines are nearly all risks
and no benefits
Reply
TBrew
| #
I have had a beaucratic theory for a decade or so. It is so simple and common sense, but its never touched. I think it ties well into the beginnings of ipcc etc, as well as the groups and types of actions granted secrecy by governments (deregulation and trade secrets). So, basically it is on these lines:
Remember when the big deal was getting the CFCs out of spray cans etc? Then the cans say “no CFCs” however they still list ingredients like tetra-chlora, hexafluora– (maybe 6 more chemicals in tow) but not carbon. We all know its these chemicals that bind to the carbon and (various spieces of) oxygen, that make them toxic to the atmosphere, biology and just about every step of the cycle. The lawyerism is that no carbon makes it not a cfc, even though it will immediately bind to carbon or oxy the second it is released, and form similar compounds as cfc.
Also, when something is deregulated, it is not to be looked at as a part of the problem (legally/ court). You can also use it nearly anywhere as long as you write a paper saying it MAY not be as bad as direct release.. You do not even have to actually prove it is better than spreading it, you just need a use for the chemical, a paper saying it MIGHT be better, and a few million bucks. Now you can sell it and distribute it instead of paying toxic waste storage. For example deregulation of coal fly ash, now it can be used as fill, as long as it is not FULLY burried, it must have one or more surface exposed to air so it is not considered burrying toxic waste, but onramp fill, road base gravel, drywall and portland cement are now up to 60% coal ash, and not considered toxic waste, nor is the saftey profile of the product reevaluated. It is only considered toxic before putting to second use.
Now how many of these pollutants in the atmosphere are made of chemicals that the epa and ipcc are not legally allowed to consider after the last few decades of lobbying? Might this have a wee bit to do with why we are blaming the two components that actually drive the cycles of life?
Also since co2 follows the temperature, it was easily conflated as the source instead of a reporter. Its the thermometer, but definitely not the pilot light or the ignition source.
I think major drivers are industrial aerosols (direct- more than what we consumers wind up with in our products) and space/sattelite launches. If there is a climate issue not related to geoengineering and Sailofters (that IS man made) these must have an impact. Is their protection why we are being pointed elsewhere? Space launches eat huge holes in ozone, and lack of that will cause hotter (and increased uvc/ other radiation) summers and colder winters and nights. more extremes and varied patterns due to new radiative patterns from above that where previously stopped by thicker outer atmosphere.
That is, if there is even much measurable difference.. because our sourcesvarent exactly honest or willing to share data that does not propel their position.
Living in the forest,mthe most damage I see, happens after light (misty drizzle) rain in the late winter and spring. Sometimes an entire tree or bush just turns nearly white overnight. Others get one branch bleached, and once it warms up, that spreads. The leaves or needles do not fall. It looks just like glyphosate. I have yet to have the rain tested, but I see the pattern quite clear. Our local drought trees, are dying from the rain, not drought. It is hitting the drought tollerant more than the water lovers. Pines and oaks dying of drought while the dogwood and vine maple thrive? not possible on the same water table. If a pond dries, the fish should die before the frogs do. The camel should go longer withoutvwater than the panting dog. It is not drought killing trees in the west, but it has something to do with the water alright.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi TBew,
The banning of Freon had nothing to do with the ozone or science. It was a fraud engineered by Dupont to maintain control of the refrigerant liquid business. Because their patents on Freon were expiring, when the “ozone hole” was discovered they paid an “expert” to theorize that it was due to CFCs breaking down in the stratosphere and depleting the ozone. Using this scare tactic they were able to get them banned and forced people to use other less stable and more expensive products which they had patented.
Ozone is an unstable molecule that is produced when ultraviolet light breaks the bond in an oxygen molecule creating oxygen atoms. These atoms can combine with an oxygen molecule to create ozone but as the molecule loses energy it will deteriorate and revert to more stable O2 molecules. In winter over Antarctica there is little sunlight and little uv so less ozone is created and the “ozone hole” appears. It is a purely natural phenomena.
The CFCs have a higher molecular weight than CO2 or argon and they also are too heavy to escape the troposphere into the stratosphere to the ozone layer. They are also more stable than CO2 (they will not burn) so they will not break down releasing chlorine and fluorine. It was all an un-scientific scam to make money. Sound familiar?
As a user of Roundup I can assure you that it will not kill woody plants like trees, brush, poison ivy, honeysuckle, and even some weeds. You need a brush killer like 2-4-5 t or 2-4 d to do that. Glycopvhosphates rapidly degrade in soil and the problem with them arose when, instead of using them to kill weeds, they were sprayed on grains that were to be used as food in order to prevent the seed heads from falling off the plants. .
Herb
Reply
Ross Handsaker
| #
If glyphosate is injected (drill and fill method) into trees/bushes such as olives, rhamnus, ash, elm etc the plants will die.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Ross,
I’ve tried that with bamboo without success. Do you have any suggestions?
Herb
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
The author mentions, [In 1988, NASA scientist James Hansen testified before the U.S. Senate Energy Committee that “the greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now.” ]
In 1967, James Hansen wrote his doctoral thesis at Iowa on his ‘theory’ that CO2 made the planet Venus hotter than it should be without such an atmosphere. His “Runaway Greenhouse Gas Theory”. Like most ego driven ‘scientists’, he wants his ‘theory’ to be correct and accepted as true, and disregards any facts which might contradict his ‘theory’.
Unfortunately, Hansen (and his academic advisor, etc) ignored the First Law of Thermodynamics. If they simply applied the ‘thermodynamic gas equations’, they would have realized Venus with an atmosphere 93 times more dense and 3 times thicker than Earth’s should yield a very, very hot temperature. Atmospheric gas temperature is a function of density, height and gravity.
Hansen’s ‘Greenhouse Gas Theory’ is based upon a fundamentally flawed Doctoral Thesis.
Unfortunately, he was embraced by technically illiterate politicians and people who don’t like fossil fuels.
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
Richard Greene, I have three practical questions for you.
You stated in comments earlier, “There is no question that a greenhouse effect exists, and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That is easily proven in a laboratory.”
Question #1: Which laboratory experiment? I have never seen any empirical demonstration of ‘Greenhouse Effect’.
Question #2: If CO2 is such a good ‘insulator’, then why wouldn’t clever folks sell double-pane windows filled with CO2?
Question #3: If ‘back-radiation’ sent energy back to Earth, then why don’t solar panels work at night? Doesn’t ‘back-radiation’ work at night? Surely, some bright entrepreneur like Elon Musk would have created and marketed such miraculous photovoltaic devices?
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
Solar panels will work at night – there is so little energy that it is not practical – solar panels work best with visible light – there is not enough ultra-violet or infrared to make it practical even during the day. Back radiation at night? You may need scientific instruments to measure it. There is significant energy in gamma rays and X-rays…maybe on the moon with no atmosphere to block them, it will be a practical source of energy.
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
T.C. -You are helping make my point. Solar panels do work on IR radiation, as half of the energy from the Sun falls in the IR spectra. However, no ‘back-radiation’ IR exists at night, or so little from clouds as to be unhelpful.
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
In my area, in general, full cloud cover limits day temp by 5 to 10 degrees F and increases night temps by 5 to 10 F. Clouds are a big deal. I sometimes look at the live cam of the ISS and most of the time it is a white and blue picture….clouds and ocean.
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
“no ‘back-radiation’ IR exists at night”
Baloney.
IR exists at night and can be easily measured from the ground with a hand held infrared thermometer.
Climate scientists Roy Spencer, Ph.D. did the experiment himself, and wrote an article about it.
When not measuring IR in his back yard, Mr. Spencer is in charge of the best global average temperature compilation, UAH, at the University of Alabama.
Link to article:
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2021/06/measuring-greenhouse-effect-by-roy.html
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
CO2 in lab using spectroscopy,
first done in late 1800s,
identified CO2 as greenhouse gas.
Air, Argon or Krypton are used.
Temperature transfer between the panes is slowed.
which increases your window’s energy efficiency.
Krypton is slightly denser than Argon,
so provides even more energy efficiency.
3.Solar panels need visible light,
not invisible infrared wavelengths.
Solar panels and windmills are not progress.
They are mainly a waste of money..
Reply
James McGinn
| #
CO2 in lab using spectroscopy,
first done in late 1800s,
identified CO2 as greenhouse gas.
Richard,
You are babbling nonsense here. And you are very gullible. The fact that CO2 has an IR signature is wholly unremarkable. The supposition that this IR signature means that we can label CO2 as a “greenhouse” gas is rather obvious propaganda that has nothing whatsoever to do with science or truth.
Air, Argon or Krypton are used.
Temperature transfer between the panes is slowed.
which increases your window’s energy efficiency.
Nonsense. CO2 is also used. The difference is negligible.
Reply
Ross Handsaker
| #
If air, krypton and argon are better at slowing the rate of heat loss than carbon dioxide, does this mean the former are the better greenhouse gases? A good absorber of energy such as carbon dioxide is also good emitter of energy. It is the loss of energy which adversely impacts the insulating effectiveness.
A greenhouse works by suppressing convection, not radiation. It is misleading to use the term greenhouse to describe the effect of the atmosphere on surface temperatures.
Reply
ChetT
| #
@ Richard Greene
Enjoyed your comments today. I’d like to check out your blogsite. Please post your URL.
Reply
JaKo
| #
Hi,
I think he did that already, in one of the earlier comments:
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2021_11_28_archive.html
An MBA lukewarmist enthusiast, me thinks nothing wrong with that…
I rather sometimes check-out a “pretty lady’s blog” = pure data; e.g.:
https://phzoe.com/2021/02/06/greenhouse-gases-are-coolants/
Enjoy!
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
I’m also the holder of a BS degree, so am a goof BD detector.
Have taken a thermodynamics course in college and didn’t like it for one minute
I also have a Finance MBA and retired at age 51 in 2004 to live on m,y investments because I found I was allergic to real work.
I started a new hobby — blogging — trying to refute all the leftist baloney in the mainstream media I publish my favorite articles, or summaries of those articles, each day. with links provided, . I had also published a for profit financial and economics newsletter — ECONOMIC LOGIC — for 43 years, as a hobby.
None of the education means more than just living with global warming for the past 45 years. Here in Michigan the winters are not as cold as they were in the 1970s. That’s great news. I’d like to retire my snow shovels before I die!
One of my blogs features a lot of COVID articles these days:
The wife and I are not vaxxed, and will stay that way!
http://www.ElectionCircus.Blogspot.com
Another features finance and economics, with a lot of good charts:
http://www.EL2017.Blogspot.com
The blogs are free, with no ads, and no money for me.
They are my antidote for the leftist-biased mainstream media.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi again Richard,
If you like it warmer I would suggest you move south. We have entered a Grand Solar Minimum where the sun’s magnetic fields cancel out and sun spot activity decreases. The sun spots emit UV and X-Ray radiation but the visible light and IR are emitted by the sun’s surface and don’t vary during the sun cycles.
The last time there was a Grand Solar Minimum (they happen regularly) it was called the Little Ice Age and lasted centuries. Since the surface of the Earth is being heated by visible and IR radiation.you would not expect the Earth to cool since the 95% of the uv being absorbed by the atmosphere doesn’t add any heat to it, but for some reason it does.
Herb
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
Sunspot counts are no longer relevant in the satellite age. The Spectral Irradiance Monitor (SIM) on the Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) satellite monitors incoming solar energy across a range of wavelengths, from the ultraviolet to the near infrared.
The Sun’s irradiance has its greatest effect on Earth’s upper atmosphere, while the lower atmosphere insulates Earth from the increased heat. If the Sun were driving Earth’s warming, one would expect to see the upper atmosphere getting increasingly hot. NASA satellites show a dramatic cooling in the upper atmosphere that correlates with the declining phase of the current solar cycle. Researchers can show a link between the Sun and the climate of Earth’s thermosphere, above 100 km, but NOT Earth’s surface.
There is no known correlation of the 11 year solar cycle and the global average temperature, or it is too small to measure.
The low point of a solar cycle does not mean we are in a new solar minimum.
Based on sunspot count history, a sunspot maximum is likely in a few years.
There were several solar minimums during the 1300 to 1800 period: The whole Little Ice Age period was not one long solar minimum. There was the:
— Wolf minimum
— Sporer minimum
— Maunder minimum
Those solar minimums did not cover the entire period There are not sufficient data to know their effect on the global average temperature. There are temperature reconstructions, but they are not accurate enough. Assuming a temporarily cooler climate during a solar minimum does make sense. Degrees cooler is unknown.
The Maunder Minimum from about 1650 to the early 1700s does have some real time temperature measurements at three Central England (CET) weather stations, and lots of anecdotal evidence from Europe. It appears the 1690s were at least 2 degrees C. cooler than the current global average temperatures, from those data.
The solar energy changes from the 11 year sunspot cycle are not strong enough to effect the global average temperature.
The Maunder Minimum appears to have had a significant cooling effect. The next minimum probably will too.
There is no proof we are now in a new solar minimum — that is speculation.
Due Diligence:
As a person who likes global warming and wants more warming, the colder weather in 2021, versus 2020, was bad news.
A new solar minimum would be very bad news for my home state of Michigan, and other areas at similar and higher latitudes
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Richard,
The N2 and O2 in the atmosphere do not absorb visible or IR radiation from the sun so the only energy that matters in heating them is the uv. Since these two elements ( along with a minute amount of helium and hydrogen) are the only components of the upper atmosphere (no argon, CO2, or H2O). The scarce molecules of the upper atmosphere (above the troposphere) absorb a lot of energy (more energy distributed to fewer molecules). This energy radiates in all directions, not just into space, and is adding energy to the lower atmosphere. Before the lower atmosphere loses energy (cools), the upper atmosphere must lose its energy (objects cool from their exposed surface). If you plot the energy of the molecules in the atmosphere (the inverse of density at altitudes (forget thermometer readings they are not designed for gasses where an increase in energy decreases the number of molecules transferring energy)) it shows that the energy of molecules increases with altitude which means it is not the surface of the Earth heating the atmosphere but the sun. The molecules higher in the troposphere (including CO2 and H2O) are “hotter” than the lower molecules and are transferring heat to the surface of the Earth. (If you read my article “How Cold Heats Hot” it explains how this is done.) Cloudy nights are not warmer than clear nights because somehow, magically, -15 degree water is able to reflect heat back down but because there are more “hotter” H20 molecules transferring energy to the gas molecules lower in the atmosphere.
Herb
Kevin Doyle
| #
Richard Greene, So, you once took a course in ‘Thermodynamics’ and, “…didn’t like it”.
Well, as a dumb Engineer thoroughly schooled in Heat Transfer and Thermodynamics, I can offer to you the common knowledge that energy does not flow from cold objects (nor gases) towards warmer objects. This goes for solids, liquids, and gases. It is also the Laws of Thermodynamics which explain all objects (including gases) radiate energy.
A cold object or gas cannot warm an object with greater energy/temperature. That is reality.
When confronted with Thermodynamics, you clowns always revert to, “We didn’t say it warmed, we only meant it slowed down the rate of heat transfer.”
Did you ever consider that it works both ways? Sunlight coming towards Earth is partially absorbed, UV by Ozone and IR by H2O and CO2? Half of incoming Sun energy is in IR spectra. 10%, the nasty stuff is in UV.
When folks claim the Earth’s albedo is 30%, this is nonsense. The Earth’s ‘reflective albedo is about 18%, which is from cloud tops and ice sheets. Ever wonder why pilots wear sunglasses?
The other 12% is from absorption of Sun energy from the gases (and clouds) in the atmosphere.
CO2 absorbs/emits sunlight IR coming in, and going out.
Net zero.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Kevin,
Thermodynamics is a misnomer. Temperature is a function of both mass and energy and objects do not transfer mass, only energy. The law should be named energydynamics.
“Colder” objects do add energy (heat) to “hotter” objects all the time, not by radiation but by convection. If you click on the word “Search” next to the magnifying glass at the top of the first page and type in “How Cold Heats Hot” it will give a link to an article explaining why most people’s understanding of thermodynamics is wrong.
If you have any criticism on why my reasoning or premises are wrong I would like to hear them. I’ve already the argument that I am an idiot and while that may be a valid argument it does not address the topic.
Herb
Richard Greene
| #
Just click on my name when it is in red ink.
Just reached 275,000 page views
Some of the commenters here would be disappointed
that i have been refuting Climate Liars since 2014, and oppose
windmills and solar panels as regressive, not progressive.
Climate Alarmists call me a climate denier,
and much worse.
They specialize in baloney, lies and always wrong
predictions of climate doom. But they have a little
basic science too — CO2 is greenhouse gas
and adding it to the atmosphere should
further inhibit Earth’s ability to cool itself which
is mainly seen as warmer nights.
No evidence the effect is rapid or dangerous.
as all the predictions claim.
Here in Michigan USA we love global warming
and want a lot more. — so i favor more CO2
in the atmosphere, and so do my plants.
No one ever called me a “lukewarmer”.
Reply
JaKo
| #
RG said: “No one ever called me a “lukewarmer”.”
And that is entirely correct!
I hadn’t call you that in my links comment; however, I did use the term “lukewarmist enthusiast” — and that is a rather major difference! Lukewarmer means nothing, really; but “Lukewarmists” include many famous scientists (e.g. Dr. Judith Curry as per a Good Example — see the definition in the URL?)
BTW, we’re of the same age, you and I; but I semi-retired at age of 59, and I loved my real world work…
BTW, I like your stated honesty, but you better re-read Jerry’s article(s) and rephrase your “peer review” comment; it will “do you good.” I think that complete lack of humility has spilled from the successful MBA’s to all “titled personas” — as in: Science became a “for hire” activity with funding predictable outcome.
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
I don’t want to be a lukewarmer enthusiast.
I can’t stand lukewarmers, and have criticized
Ms. Curry about that on her website.
I prefer to be called a Climate Realist.
Climate Alarmists make predictions of climate doom
Climate Realists claim humans can’t predict the climate.
We accept the basic science of a greenhouse effect and that CO2 is part of it. We reject claims that the warming effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is known, or even knowable. There are too many other variables (my personal list is below). Lab experiments suggest CO2 at 400ppm is a mild greenhouse gas that should cause mild, harmless warming in the atmosphere. T here has been mild, harmless warming in the past 45 years.
But correlation does not prove causation,
So we are back to saying climate science is not settled and the exact effect of CO2 is unknown. The lukewarmers imply the science is settled, but the warming effect of CO2 has been overstated, so there is no rush to reduce CO2 emissions. A compromise position that sounds reasonable. I can’t stand that. The right answer is we don’t know, and have a lot to learn, about the exact causes of past climate changes. The future climate is speculation — climate astrology, not climate science.
But no one with an advanced science degree wants to say “we don;t know” I only have a BS degree, so I’m comfortable with “we don’t know” and “climate science is not settled”.
My personal list of climate change variables:
The following variables are known to influence Earth’s climate:
1) Earth’s orbital and orientation variations
2) Changes in ocean circulation,
ENSO and others
3) Solar Irradiance and activity
4) Volcanic aerosol emissions and air pollution
5) Greenhouse gas emissions
6) Land use changes
(cities growing, crop irrigation, etc.)
7) Changes in clouds and water vapor
8) Random Variations of a complex, non-linear system
9) Unknown causes of climate change
The variables above are not all independent.
Have a happy new year.
Reply
JaKo
| #
O.K.
You too have a happy new year, even as a self-proclaimed Climate Realist 😉
Cheers, JaKo
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Richard and other PSI Readers.
Readers, Richard seems to be absolutely honest which has been a rarity since the CREATION OF HUMANS.
His personal list of climate change variables is an excellent list. However, he has not attempted (according to what I have read) the importance (significance) of each of these factors.
I believe, but don’t KNOW, that nearly all meteorologists would agree that #7 is of greatest importance. However, Richard has not, to my knowledge, made any attempted to explain how “clouds and water vapor” influence the EARTH’S WEATHER FACTORS (sunshine, atmospheric temperature, atmospheric dew point temperature, wind, precipitation). Which observed factors are averaged for a given location over a period of time (two decades or so) to define that location’s CLIMATE.
He has of yet to refer to the NATURAL PHENOMENA of DIFFUSION AND RADIATION SCATTERING. So I ask him to briefly explain to us readers how these PHENOMENA influence some of my list of WEATHER FACTORS.
Have a good day, Jerry
Richard Greene
| #
Before I leave here, I want everyone to know that back in 1997, when I started reading climate science, I was shocked that people took 100 year climate forecasts seriously.
After about an hour of reading, I made made the most accurate climate prediction in the history of the world. It is still correct today. Since then I have been patiently waiting for my Nobel Prize, or some sort of honorable mention. Here is all you need to know about the future climate:
“The future climate will get warmer,
unless it gets colder.”
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
I take this opportunity to refer you to WildFiresToday.Com. Where today homes and other buildings are providing a major portion of the Fuel for the wildfires now burning in the urban neighborhoods of Boulder CO USA in the cold of winter. Take a look at this website. It has quite good SCIENCE.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
These 68 comments (as I compose) accurately illustrate the world faced by Copernicus and Galileo as they tried to correct the errors of the all knowing Greek Philosophers.
These 68 comments represent the rough and tumble world of SCIENCE about which a few of my Experienced Graduate School Professors tried to warn us inexperienced students that we might encounter in “MODERN PHYSICAL SCIENCE”. I separate the physical sciences from the ‘LIFE SCIENCES because the observational science of the PHYSICAL SCIENCE is far simpler than that of the LIFE SCIENCE SYSTEMS. The discovered LAWS of the physical sciences are far simpler and therefore more commonly discovered.
Have a good NEW YEAR, Jerry
Reply
JaKo
| #
Hi Jerry,
You too have a great 2022!
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi readers.
Before reposting my earlier reply to Richard Greene’s unfortunate post I will make a couple of oversimplified observations on CO2 influence in the atmosphere.
Conceptual experiment.
Let us imagine earths atmosphere with no CO2 component. All the air movements, convection, jet stream, katabatic winds, temperature and pressure differential derived
air movements, and plasma conduction driven disturbances, which create the rivers of atmospheric air movement. I use the term ‘rivers’ to oversimplify for explanatory purposes.
Now let us introduce 400 PPM CO2 to the atmosphere. What changes?
The rivers of the atmosphere continue in the same manner but carry within them a radiative gas that absorbs and re-emits energy almost instantly in a totally random direction.
Within the rivers of the atmosphere a narrow range of infrared energy is bounced around from CO2 molecule to CO2 molecule like the ball in a pinball machine. This bouncing around infrared energy is still carried along in the atmospheric rivers as it always has been.
The same laws of conduction apply. Nothing changes. There is no atmospheric temperature change caused by the CO2 component.
If the impossible statistical chance allows some infrared energy to be absorbed and continuously re-emitted towards earths surface (positive feedback) then the same impossible statistical chance would ensure an equal quantum of infrared energy would be absorbed and re-emitted directly to space. Exact balance. Nothing changes.
The bouncing around from CO2 molecule to CO2 molecule is contained within the atmospheric rivers. Nothing changes.
Does the molecular weight of CO2 increase the velocity of Katabatic wind? Does the molecular weight of CO2 slow down the vertical convection rate of atmospheric rivers?
Somebody with a calculator can figure molecular weight differential in the 400 PPM equation and some atmosphere physicists on whether they opine it would make a difference. Nothing Changes!!!.
Right. I am out of here . It will be interesting to see if I learn anything from possible comments or if I merely see a dog scrapping over a bone.
Have a nice day Matt
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
Instead of writing: “Let us imagine earths atmosphere with no CO2 component.”; you could have invoked the Ideal Gas Law and suggested we forget about the atmospheric carbon dioxide gas molecules because in this law it does not matter what the gas molecules actually are. All that matters is how many molecules there are and what their temperature and pressure are. For the fundamental hypothesis (??) Is that these molecules have a constant motion (independent of the other molecules) and with the result that all gas molecules are trying to fill all space unless there is container to confine these molecules to its volume of space.
Of course, we know that the container of the Earth’s gaseous atmosphere is the Earth’s gravity which acts upon each individual gas molecule’s motion according to Newton’s universal law of gravity. So you are absolutely correct in drawing our attention to the various air (atmosphere) movements which you listed. For our observed weather is clearly related to a combination of these various motions.
But after referring to JET STREAMS you wrote “I use the term ‘rivers’ to oversimplify for explanatory purposes.” I have to ask: How does the word river oversimplify anything??? Cannot a STREAM be considered a small river relative to the great volume of the EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE?
A historical fact is that we humans have only been consciously aware of the existence of these rivers of atmosphere for less than a CENTURY! And who doubts that these atmospheric rivers have a significant influence upon the local weather centered upon the 45 degree LATITUDE North and South???
I ask: Do we really understand how this river of atmosphere could carry an incendiary device hung from a hydrogen balloon in Japan to as far East of the MIDWEST of the USA???
If so, I would really like to read general explanation of this RIVER. Of course, this explanation must include all the other atmospheric motions that you listed. Excellent WORK Matt!!!
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
In the Universal Gas Law the gas constant changes depending on the type of gas. For the atmosphere as a whole the amount of CO2 is insignificant so the gas constant would be that for a mixture of N2, O2, and argon.
Happy New Year,
Herb
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
Good imagination.
The global average temperature of our planet depends on
incoming solar energy and outgoing infrared energy..
The incoming solar energy barely changes.
So, forr the planet to be warmer, the outgoing
infrared energy has to be declining.
It is declining. It’s that simple.
They call this the energy budget,
which is not a great name,
but we are stuck with it.
All of the best “skeptic” climate scientists,
from Happer to Lindzen, agree with
this basic science. .
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Richard,
The incoming visible and IR radiation that heat the Earth’s surface and water (coming from the sun’s surface) don’t vary. The UV and x-rays heating the atmosphere (emitted by solar flares) do vary. There are two sources of energy contributing to the Earth’s climate: the radiation being absorbed by the surface (vl and ir) and the ir energy being emitted by the atmosphere as a result of its absorption of uv. The input is not constant.
Happy new year,
Herb
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Richard and readers.
The regular readers of PSI are relatively well informed on matters climate and covid thanks to very astute editorship of the PSI site.
Because of an adherence to free speech the editors will occasionally publish articles that spout some garbage.
Even the unschooled class clown and the village idiot can spot some of the flaws in your over generous mass of comments Richard.
Now for your questions.
Dick. What does the successful use of ivermectin in India have to do with the greenhouse effect?
Matt; I have already answered that question when I stated it is the same players. The anthropogenic climate change hoax and the covid crimes against humanity are perpetrated by the same players. Dr Krause ( Jerry ) has twice recently mentioned the critical necessity of comprehension of the English language for discussing and understanding science..
I presume you are aware the President of Thomson Reuters news conglomerate is also on the board of Phizer. Join the dots.
Richard; Greenhouse effect is not the most accurate name but we are stuck with that name.
Matt; I wrote in my comment to you; “CO2 is a radiative gas. Green house gas is simply a misnomer propaganda piece of manifesto.”.
It appears Dr. Krause may need to compile a comprehensive essay on comprehension. If you wish to use the deceit, propaganda, and manipulation of the masses by calling CO2 a greenhouse gas then that is your free speech right.
Dick; It you want to believe CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, and there is no greenhouse effect, then for you to be right, virtually every climate scientist in the world must be wrong.
Think about that !
Matt. I do not need to think about it. I generally am not into belief systems but prefer qualifiable evidential hypothesis.
Many climate scientists sell their soul to keep their job and many are too lazy or stupid to do a scientific audit of the foundations and paradigms of the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis.
The majority of the most knowledgeable climate scientists are suppressed. Read my note above about Thomson Reuters.
I note Ross Handsaker has answered the question I put to you. “A greenhouse works by suppressing convection, not radiation. It is misleading to use the term greenhouse to describe the effect of the atmosphere on surface temperatures.” Thank you to Ross.
Here are a very few suppressed climate scientists.
https://electroverse.net/new-study-23-experts-in-the-fields-of-solar-physics-and-climate-science-contradict-the-ipcc/
I have allowed you to waste over an hour of my time over questions which I covered in my original comment
Please use the ability to comment on this site a little more judiciously. You are currently the new village idiot.
Have a nice day. Matt
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
There is a surprising amount of misinformation here
about basic science and the greenhouse effect
I tried to correct the misinformation
but some / many people don’t want to learn.
Virtually every scientist in the world agrees with the greenhouse effect
and that CO2 is part of it. that includes scientists called skeptics and
deniers. I only write “virtually every” because I assume there are a few scientists
that deny the greenhouse effect, but i have not read such claims in my
25 years of reading climate science articles and studies.
Getting an advanced science degree and getting a climate study peer reviewed and published does not automatically create science truth. Especially when predictions of the
future climate are involved.
Thanks for telling me I’m the “new village idiot”
I love internet insults when they are funny
And that was funny.
I’ll add that phrase to my resume,
which I last updated in 1977.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
An a quantitative instrument (thermometer) does not measure AVERAGE anything. I measures a temperature to the best of its design, construction, and calibration against standards like the melting point of pure solid water (ice). To read the temperature to a tenth of a degree Celsius with a common mercury laboratory thermometer requires that a person estimate within maybe a +/-tenth or more reasonably +/-2 tenths a degree requires great care and excellent eye sight. Many readers from the USA are probably still familiar with an inexpensive thermometer which measures degrees Fahrenheit. And this thermometer can be long enough so there is also a marking (di for each degree. And because there are 180 degrees F between the melting point of ice and the boiling temperature of liquid water the degrees F are smaller than degrees C which has only 100 divisions between melting and boiling temperatures. Hence, a person can ordinarily ‘read’ the temperature to the nearest degree F.without great effort.
Regardless of its short comings (must read between the lines) of the Celsius scale, most nations had adopted the metric system temperature scale. But there is one observed fact of which many people are not aware. It is that the temperature of boiling water changes with the varying atmospheric which means that it is known to change with altitude as well as the varying atmospheric temperature at a fixed location. Hence, every chemistry laboratory had, and probably still has a Torricelli mercury barometer mounted on a wall.
Recently I have begun to question (ponder) how it is that the Fahrenheit scale has 180 degrees F between the of standard melting temperature of ice and the variable boiling temperature of water. Most of us know that the standard body temperature of all health humans is 98.6 degrees F. However, Fahrenheit did not know this because because he not yet chosen for the scale of his thermometer so he put 100 divisions between his body temperature on the thermometer and melting temperature and continues this scale to unknown higher temperatures which had not yet been measured yet.
I make this comment because it is an example of things I actually do not KNOW but ponder because they seem to need a probable explanation. And if a reader knows someone who has given a similar explanation, or a different explanation, for the Fahrenheit temperature scale, please share it with me and other readers.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Virtually every scientist in the world agrees with the greenhouse effect
There is literally no such thing as a greenhouse effect, literally. It’s propaganda that is intentionally vague to make it easier for “everybody” to believe it.
Nobody has ever found a link between atmospheric CO2 and any thermal warming in earth’s atmosphere..
It’s 100% BS.
Reply
James
| #
If there seems to be a numerical relationship between two phenomena, such as air-borne carbon and ground level temperature, how do we know that they are linked by cause and effect, and how do we know which is the cause and which the effect? How do we know the various effects do not derive from some other common cause?
NASA observations of temperature on all rocky planets seem to show (Nikolov and Zeller) that there is an empirical relationship between surface atmospheric pressure (or density) and temperature.
We have Moon and Earth with similar albedos and same distance from the Sun. What are the observed temperatures? Does any available theory predict the same numbers?
Using greenhouse theory, if it exists, what surface temperatures does it predict for Earth and Moon? Do they correlate with reality?
After all, science is there for us to use; not to follow. If theories and hypotheses do not predict what we see, what purpose can they have, apart from making money for their supporters?
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
I published a slightly edited version of an article by a Ph.D. author from CFACT.com this morning. They are often called climate deniers and climate skeptics. i call them Climate Realists. many good short articles each week.
It covers the basics of climate and energy in one concise easy to read article.
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2022/01/basic-facts-on-climate-and-energy-by.html
I shortened the long introduction, and eliminated a few words that were exaggerations.
I don’t allow exaggerations or climate predictions on my climate science blog.
But you can always read the whole unedited article at the link I provided
For those here who don’t believe in the greenhouse effect
or that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, you are entitled to your
own wrong opinions, but you have not created any new facts.
There seems to be an attitude by some commenters that virtually every
climate scientists in the world is 100% wrong on everything
they say about climate change. That is a strange position.
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
Climate is very complex. Complexity is the workshop of the Devil and Mikey Mann and Hansen and others. Nasa makes up temp records to cool the past so that it appears warming and CO2 coincide.The past 10000 years seem to have been a series of cycles of warm/cool that last a few centuries …very rough cycles – not clockwork. CO2 is a Demon….can’t duplicate climate in a lab experiment….average person does not have enough scientific knowledge or time to contemplate the climate….here’s where Mann, Hansen, et al come in…tell those media and pols we are all gonna die if something is not done. It’s that C in CO2…black stuff…obviously Evil…Man is Evil too for producin’ it. Bad Man must stop…or else.
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
“Nasa makes up temp records to cool the past
so that it appears warming and CO2 coincide”
NASA-GISS revisions to past temperature measurements are a disgrace.
There is no reason to take their data seriously.
But their biggest arbitrary revision was to warm the past !
In 1975 NCAR had reported almost -0.5 degrees C. of global cooling
from 1940 ti 1975, as CO2 levels rose. That was an inconvenient fact.
Climate Alarmists could not explain that relationship.
So over the past few decades, NASA-GISS
“warmed up” that period to show
no global cooling at all.!
Due to haphazard measurements,
repeated changes of measurement methodology,
and excessive guessing (aka infilling) for areas
with no temperature data, I ignore all surface
temperature compilations.
I believe the UAH satellite data are reasonably accurate,
since 1979. And the ARGO floats are accurate enough
for ocean surface temperatures, for the past 20 years.
The surface measurements before 1920
have few Southern Hemisphere data
— so they are not global.
They used to be called “Northern Hemisphere”,
but even the N.H. had too few measurements
before 1900. The global average temperature
is just a guess before 1900..
“so that it appears warming and CO2 coincide”
In the 4.5 billion years of Earth’s history,
there are not many years where
CO2 levels and the global average temperature
have had a strong positive correlation.
In the past 800,000 years
we have used Vostok, Antarctica
ice cores to discover that
temperature changes of the oceans,
from natural causes, led CO2 level
changes by an average of about 800 years.
That does not prove adding man made
CO2 to the atmosphere in the past 150
years did not cause some amount
of global warming.
But, in the past 150 years of adding man made
CO2 to the atmosphere, there was only
one period where CO2 levels and the global
average temperature were strongly
positively correlated
— from 1975 through 2020.
And to be more specific,
within that period
there was a flat temperature trend
from 2003 through mid-2015.
So the bottom line is the years from
1975 to 2003, and from mid-2015 though 2020,
are the only years of the past 4.5 billion years.
where we know CO2 levels and the global average
temperature had a strong positive correlation !
Those periods add up to a mere 33.5 years,
assuming i added them right.
That’s not much evidence to claim
CO2 is a satanic gas and also
the control knob of the
global average temperature.
That’s why climate science is not settled.
No science is ever settled.
Except junk science.
The global average temperature is not a measurement,
It’s a statistical compilation of measurements and infilling (guessing).
Not one person lives in the global average temperature.
That statistic hides the details of the actual warming
since 1979, as measured with satellites:
Actual warming was mainly:
(1) In higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere,
(2) In the coldest six months of the year, and
(3) At night
Think of wamer winter nights in Siberia !
Which is good news for the few people who live there.
A global average temperatures hides those details.
That’s why the Climate Liars use the global average !
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi WhoKoo, Richard and PSI Readers,.
Whokoo and Richard, because of the present Format of PSI we can kee conveniently keep our fruitful conversation going. Which is one purpose of this comment. For there presently is not recent comment to direct anyone to the previous article.
WhoKoo watches and listens to video, I read used, introductory textbooks which are inexpensive. In the USA a popular textbook has been ‘Meteorology Today’ by C. Donald Ahrens. My criteria of poplar is that I now read the 9th Edition. I read this introductory textbook because it has an exhaustive index and because, like many introductory SCIENCE textbooks, there is summary of a many page chapter which is less than a page. After this brief summary are the Key Terms, Questions for Review, Questions for Thought. Problems and Exercises.
These are to help a student to learn the many pages of information about which Ahrens wrote. For he was a teacher who knew what Galileo, a TEACHER is said to have written: “We cannot teach people anything; we can only help them discover it within themselves.” Which is the purpose of the brief summary, the key terms, etc. etc.
This morning I went to this reference book to read about ‘condensation nuclei’, ‘super cooled water’, ‘Supersaturation’.
And I ask all readers of PSI, what might you, individually, know about these terms (topics)??? And ask: Are you curious enough to try to find what you might read about these TERMS???
So my closing comment is: If you are not curious enough to do this, do not waste your time reading the PSI Articles and comments by your peers.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
T.C. – Amen!
As said by the ‘Wizard of Oz’, “How dare you question the great, and powerful OZ?!?!”
Simply stated, the Sheep follow the words of Michael Mann and James Hansen. Both of these folks disregard Laws of Thermodynamics and Heat Transfer in order to promote their delusional fantasies…
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Stop whatever you are doing and listen to this podcast:
Correcting Common Misconceptions About Energy in the Atmosphere
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Correcting-Common-Misconceptions-About-Energy-in-the-Atmosphere-e9moua
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James and other PSI Readers,
I have just listen to the entirety your link (?) which I seldom have ever done. However, I have often quoted a saying which Louis Elzevir, the publisher of Galileo’s ‘Two New Sciences’, wrote to the readers of this book. “Intuitive [without reasoning] knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition.”
You spoke the words ENERGY and PLASMA many times but I never heard a fundamental physics definition of either.
At one point you referred to some force that might act upon the individual atmospheric molecules and change their motions. But in your entire lecture (?) I never heard the word GRAVITY once.
You referred to atmospheric jet streams and I agree that meteorologists (atmospheric scientists) do not really understand them because the previous atmospheric circulation models did not include them because they had not been generally observed and considered until after WWII, less then a century ago. And as you referred to jet streams (large MASSES and VOLUMES moving 100 mile per hour (or simnifically more) relative to the Earth’s surface beneath them near the top of atmosphere layer termed the troposphere whose bottom is the earth’s surfaces of solids (land or ice) or liquids (seas, lakes, etc. of liquid water (fresh or salty with possible large populations of WhoKoo’s pet algae)
Your idea of large pipes is not bad because a fact is that the atmosphere is basically a gas which has no surface. For a pipe with which we are familiar provides the small atmospheric vortexes which must exist in the narrow (not thick) atmospheric boundary layer between the fast moving (relative to the earth’s surface) atmosphere at the interior of a jet stream and the slow movement (relative to the movement of the earth surface beneath the atmospheric masses) of the atmospheric masses outside the jet stream.
During WWII we (in the USA) observed that jet streams carried at least 1000 hydrogen balloons from Japan (Latitude less than 45 degrees N to latitudes more or less than 45N in the USA. And this was a well kept war secret which I have encounter some who do not yet believe this about the jet streams.
Now I have pondered the problem which maintains fast motions the atmosphere inside your imaged ‘atmospheric’ pipe when there is evidence of your small vortexes in the boundary layer.
A common consideration is to maintain the masses velocity is the Law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum. Which I did not hear you to mention.
However, we know that Newton reasoned that the centrifugal effect of the rotating Earth caused the surface of the earth to be about 27km further from the earth’s center of mass than the earth’s surfaces at the poles.
Not commonly stated is that the centrifugal effect is a vector force which is the sum of two vectors; in horizontal to the earth’s surface and the other perpendicular to the earth’s surface. And Newton’s analysis only considered that which was perpendicular to the earth’s surface with the result that the earth’s surface was not a sphere but an ellipsoid. But not the ellipsoid that Newton calculated because he clearly ignored the horizontal influence upon the fluid of the oceans and of course the fluid of at the atmosphere also.
I certainly do not have the mathematical skills to analyze how the distance of an atmospheric mass from the earth-atmosphere’s center of mass varies with its latitude position. Hence I imagine that near 45 degree latitude this distance varies at its greatest rate. And I imagine the atmospheric river motion accelerates as it moves to higher latitudes just a the flow of river’s rate of flow in creases as the gradient of the river bed increases.
And I have no idea if any reader can grasp what I am imagining and writing.
But maybe you, James, can. Or maybe WhoKoo can. Or I welcome any other Reader who would like to help me.
This comment ended being longer then I intended but I do not know how to shorten it.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
The problem with James theory is his belief that the pressure in the ideal gas law is atmospheric pressure not gravity and that the thermometer is accurate in a gas. Why would changing an instrument from having its mercury enclosed (thermometer) to having it exposed (barometer) convert the units of the molecules striking it from md^2/2t^2 (kinetic energy) to m/d^2 (pressure)? Both instruments are measuring momentum, mv. It is the distribution of energy from the sun that causes weather.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
currently have a mistaken understanding of the physics of storms
JK:
Your idea of large pipes is not bad because a fact is that the atmosphere is basically a gas which has no surface.
JMcG:
Yes. We currently have a mistaken understanding of the physics of storms and atmospheric flow. The proper role for water in the atmosphere is structural. Water is not the source of the energy of flow (ie. convection, capping, latent heat) as is currently believed by most scientists, it is the source of the structural properties associated with the plumbing of the atmosphere which functions to facilitate and focus the flow and protect it from friction. The source of the energy that facilitates all of the above is differential pressure, intertwined with vortices, originating on wind shear boundaries–this being the basis of the spinning that allows the plasma–a non-newtonian version of moist air to spin up.
JK:
For a pipe with which we are familiar provides the small atmospheric vortexes which must exist in the narrow (not thick) atmospheric boundary layer between the fast moving (relative to the earth’s surface) atmosphere at the interior of a jet stream and the slow movement (relative to the movement of the earth surface beneath the atmospheric masses) of the atmospheric masses outside the jet stream.
JMcG:
The tropopause is the place where the conditions of moist/dry wind shear are greatest.
JK:
Now I have pondered the problem which maintains fast motions the atmosphere inside your imaged ‘atmospheric’ pipe when there is evidence of your small vortexes in the boundary layer.
A common consideration is to maintain the masses velocity is the Law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum. Which I did not hear you to mention.
JMcG:
No, but you are right that this is a very important concept. I think this concept might be instrumental in helping us understand what we are seeing when we see that sheath of a tornado.
In my model there are trillions and trillions of H2O nanodroplets that have spun up into a plasma–“nonNewtonian” moist air. The spinning effectuates conservation of angular momentum, as you suggest above.
JK:
I imagine the atmospheric river motion accelerates as it moves to higher latitudes just as the flow of river’s rate of flow in creases as the gradient of the river bed increases.
One of the significant questions that remain is what maintains the momentum of the atmosphere. Along these lines check this out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N36vjLK8Ggc&t=346s
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James and other PSI Readers,
Just made the mistake of not composing my comment at WORD and lost this obviously GREAT COMMENT to you and other PSI Readers. I will now go to WORD and try to reproduce this GREAT COMMENT. But in the mean time I want you to know I am not ignoring what James just wrote that you ‘all’ might consider.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James and other PSI readers,
Hopefully this comment will be shorter than the one I lost.
The central point of it was: “Most people say that it is the intellect which makes great scientist. They are wrong; it is character.” (Einstein)
In the particular present I was considering Richard Green whom I just recently met. Who I now consider is so ‘honest’ that many people seem to not understand that which he plainly writes.
But one example of an honest science was Alfred Wegener. Who saw, as soon as geographers could produce a reasonably precise globe of the earth’s surfaces, that the west coast of Africa nearly fit the east coast of South America like jigsaw pieces. So he and others leaped with this, and other supporting, evidence to the possibility that these two continents had drifted apart. Hence creating the very unreasonable idea that contents could drift. Which caused the ‘established’ geologists of that time to ‘laugh’ Wegener, an outside, out of the Geological Community.
So, what did Wegener the SCIENTIST as a meteorologist promptly do?? He and other meteorologist technicians, lost their lives trying to set up a weather station on the summit of Greenland.
But this story does not end here. During WWII we all learned that the atmosphere had air mass rivers which flowed with speeds great than 100mph. The result of this discovery was an international project was begun to learn as much as possible about the circulation of the troposphere (the lowest layer of the atmosphere by launching weather balloons from sites and following these balloons with the radar which was also learned about during WWII.
I complete this story with a lament. A weather balloon launch site was placed at the summit of Greenland but for the past several months it seems to no longer exist. At least I cannot even access its previous historical data which I can access for other launch sites.
And I have a possible explanation why it seems the Greenland launch site no longer exists. The USA has a RAWS (remote automated weather stations0 with more than a 1000 USA sites. And maybe Denmark has replaced the Greenland weather station with a automated system. But weather balloons cannot be automatically launched and who wants to spend a winter, or even a summer, at Greenlands summit??? Especially when NASA and other nations space programs are promoting the idea that there nothing useful that can be observed at the earth’s surface which cannot be better observed (measured) from SPACE.
Have a good idea, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
One of the significant questions that remain is what maintains the momentum of the atmosphere. Along these lines check this out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N36vjLK8Ggc&t=346s
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James and other PSI readers,
I watched about 5 minutes of your video and could not listen to MORE. Why you might question; but I doubt if you care because this is not your problem; it is mine.
You began: “The vortices that emerge out of the JET STREAM are what POWER the JET STREAM. … They were living in the world of steam engines. … They know it is nonsense but they are afraid to pull the plug. … Superstitious notion of convection etc …”.
I have just spent nearly ten minutes getting this far because I wanted to respond to what you ACTUALLY said. And I am not even into 5 minutes of your video. But I did catch, but did not write, that you are focused entirely upon STORM THEORIES. Which I had not caught before. But now I just saw below the video “The Momentum of the Jetstream is Maintained by Vortices.” So it seems you have Tunnel Vision as you Focus upon the localized Tornadoes which recently occurred in the mid to eastern parts of the USA (North America).
Clearly no storms occurred as the Jetstream flowed over Japan, over the Pacific Ocean, over the western coast mountain range of Oregon, over my home in the Willamette Valley, over the Cascade Mountains, over the Rocky Mountains, down the east slopes of the Rocky Mountains, across the vast agricultural fields of central USA finally to the localized locations where the Tornado Storms finally did their storm damage.
You seem to disregard the latent heat of the conversion of gaseous water molecules into liquid cloud droplets and the latent heat of the conversion of these liquid water droplets into solid water (ice). Are these latent heats mere superstitions???
Have a good day. Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Clearly no storms occurred as the Jetstream flowed over Japan,
Don’t jump to conclusions. Vortices cause all storms and they ultimately initiate from and empty into jet stream. But this does not mean that storms only happen in the vicinity of the jet stream
You seem to disregard the latent heat of the conversion of gaseous water molecules into liquid cloud droplets
Yes. This notion is blatant lunacy–science fiction.
Are these latent heats mere superstitions???
Yes, exactly as you stated it, they are mere superstition.
Same is true for “dry layer capping.”
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
If you read about the observation (experiences) of other people, you can ignore that which they report or write that it is nonsense (mere superstition).
I have watched a CUMULONIMBUS CLOUD blow its quickly expanding top so this top portion of the cloud completely separated from the portion of this cloud which remained below this separated portion above it. And this change happened in minutes. YOU (or ONE) must explain this unquestionable observation!!!
My explanation is that the super-cooled cold liquid droplets of the upper portion of the CUMULONIMBUS CLOUD suddenly FROZE and this action suddenly released the latent heat (energy) of the transition from liquid to solid, which quickly warmed (expanded) the atmosphere in which the droplets and ice crystals were suspended, so that this localized portion of the atmosphere was quickly lifted by the principle of buoyancy, as the colder environmental atmosphere surrounding the cloud, flowed under the cloud to lift it.
And I also printout the observed fact that small air planes have crashed when they were flown into a supercooled cloud and ice quickly froze on its surfaces; altering its aerodynamics which caused the plane to crash. No superstition here. SIMPLE OBSERVED FACT!!!
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry, looking at clouds isn’t more reliable than going to a haunted house and looking for ghosts.
Check this out:
Deep Dishonesty About Water Has Rendered Meteorology Feckless
https://youtu.be/t38tSlrLoY4
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
I know nothing about what your life-experiences have been because you have only written and spoken about some of your WEIRD IDEAS, relative to long observed and accepted SCIENCE.
So I ask: Have you ever actually seen an ACTUAL ‘dust devil’ or an ACTUAL ‘tornado’??? I have ACTUALLY seen both and that which I just described about which you just wrote: “Jerry, looking at clouds isn’t more reliable than going to a haunted house and looking for ghosts.”
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Superstition and half-baked theory dominate the atmospheric sciences. Currently meteorological theories on atmospheric flow and storms maintain three superstitious and half-baked notions: 1) Convection. This is the superstition that evaporation makes air buoyant enough to power strong updrafts in the atmosphere (included in this is the strange belief that H2O in the atmosphere becomes gaseous at temperatures/pressures that have never been detected in a laboratory); 2) Dry layer capping. This is a superstition that imagines dry layers having structural properties that explain the how/why convection does not constantly produce storms and uplift; 3) Latent heat. This is the superstition that phase changes from a gaseous phase of H2O (which are purported to exist despite never having been detected and being inconsistent with what is indicated in the H2O phase table) to a liquid phase releases “latent heat” which itself has never been confirmed/verified.
In accordance with which, the current meteorological paradigm assumes hurricanes are caused by warm water. Actually the energy of hurricanes and all storms comes from jet streams and is delivered through vortices in the form of low pressure. Wind shear at low altitudes is the most important predictor of severe weather. This is because wind shear is the mechanism underlying growth of the vortices that are the transport mechanism of the low pressure energy. Warm moist air/water is not the source of the energy of storms, it’s the target of vortice growth.
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Fifth-Episode-Why-Meteorologists-Will-Not-Discuss-or-Debate-Their-Convection-Model-of-Storm-Theory-e9a20l
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
You just wrote: “(included in this is the strange belief that H2O in the atmosphere becomes gaseous at temperatures/pressures that have never been detected in a laboratory)”
In our home we have a common instrument which measures air temperature and percent relative humidity and displays these measurements. When I plug 71F and 36% into an internet dew point calculator, the dew point is calculated to be about 43F. So I know I can cut the aluminum lid off of an empty pop can, add a couple inches of water to the pop can, add a few ice cubes to the water because I have done this experiment before and observed its result Which I is that eventually tiny water droplets will begin to be seen on the outside portion of the can in contact with the inside water and ice cubes. Then I can add warm water to the can to melt the ice cubes and then begin to warm the can’s water maybe to about 50F. Then I see the tiny droplets on the can’s outside begin to disappear. So you can now describe (explain) to any PSI readers how it is these tiny droplets appeared and then disappeared.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Hi James,
You just wrote: “(included in this is the strange belief that H2O in the atmosphere becomes gaseous at temperatures/pressures that have never been detected in a laboratory)”
In our home we have a common instrument which measures air temperature and percent relative humidity and displays these measurements. When I plug 71F and 36% into an internet dew point calculator, the dew point is calculated to be about 43F. So I know I can cut the aluminum lid off of an empty pop can, add a couple inches of water to the pop can, add a few ice cubes to the water because I have done this experiment before and observed its result Which I is that eventually tiny water droplets will begin to be seen on the outside portion of the can in contact with the inside water and ice cubes. Then I can add warm water to the can to melt the ice cubes and then begin to warm the can’s water maybe to about 50F. Then I see the tiny droplets on the can’s outside begin to disappear. So you can now describe (explain) to any PSI readers how it is these tiny droplets appeared and then disappeared.
Everything you wrote here is irrelevant.
We’ve had this conversation already. Let’s make this the last time. I think its not within your capability to envision a distinction between clear moist air in which the water therein is invisibly small nanodroplets and clear moist air in which the water therein is genuinely gaseous (which I say is impossible in earth’s atmosphere). So it is impossible for you to understand my argument.
Let’s leave it at that.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers and James,
James concluded: “We’ve had this conversation already. Let’s make this the last time. I think its not within your capability to envision a distinction between clear moist air in which the water therein is invisibly small nanodroplets and clear moist air in which the water therein is genuinely gaseous (which I say is impossible in earth’s atmosphere). So it is impossible for you to understand my argument. Let’s leave it at that.”
“Let’s leave it at that.” When there are clear differences of opinion, one opinion must be wrong and the other possibly correct. Or possibly both opinions are wrong. But Galileo has demonstrated that observations (experimental results) can some times prove a SCIENTIFIC OPINION to be absolutely WRONG. So I, a SCIENTIST, cannot leave it at that.”
I, chemistry instructor for 20+ years never wrote the laboratory exercise I have described. Why??? I did not THINK of it. And I have many more times than once stated: When I say I THINK, it is code for “I don’t know”!!!
I came here this morning to report that I had taken my environmentally conditioned IR thermometer outside to measure the surface temperature of the street in from of our home and to point it upward to measure the temperature of the “sky”. For something that many readers and commenters here at PSI do not seem to accept that the “sky” has a temperature and that this is critically important to understand weather, hence climate.
This morning there was a light mist and consistent moderate wind from the west (the direction of the Pacific Ocean, which is about 50 miles distant, whose temperature is maybe little more than 50+F. My outside weather station reported that the air temperature was 51F, my IR Thermometer ‘reported that the street temperature-was 51F+/- tenths a degree and the sky temperature was 50F+/- tenths a degree. Which it the first time, during my history of doing this, that these 3 temperature measurements have been so nearly the same.
Of course, this has nothing to do with James and my disagreement. But this comment makes it easier for a brief time to find the conversation we are having. For which I thank and thank James. For I belIeve that conversations, like ours, are absolutely necessary to resolve SCIENTIFIC DIFFERENCES OF OPINIONS. Which was, and still is, the reason that PSI was founded.
So, James, I cannot leave it at that. Because in SCIENCE we can never be absolutely correct, but we can be absolutely wrong.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James and PSI Readers,
I have encouraged PSI reader to take a look at WildfiresToday.com. Yesterday Bill Gabbert reported the fact that a meteorologist was not acknowledging the GREAT difference between the definitions of HUMIDITY and PERCENT RELATIVE HUMIDITY.
This alerted me to the FACT that I had not considered the HUMIDITY nor the PERCENT RELATIVE HUMIDITY of the atmospheric mass of a JET STREAM. I have just checked the atmospheric sounding data at (http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html) and confirmed that the temperature of a JET STREAM at its base is seldom less than negative 40C or negative 40F which I have long known to be the same temperature.
Hence, the HUMIDITY (the concentration water vapor in the JET STREAM (JS for convenience) must be very low (small). So I agree with you that water molecules are not a significant factor in maintaining the high speed of a JS.
However, I also confirmed that the atmospheric pressure at the base of the JT is seldom ever greater than 400hPa at an elevation below about 8000m (26000ft). Now, I am aware that passenger jet planes generally fly at elevations above 30000ft. So, I question: Why so high??? I ponder there possibly are two reasons and feel free to offer any alternative explanations. One reason is to get above the atmospheric turbulence of the weather beneath the plane. The second is economy because there is less friction in the less denser air at all greater elevations. Which might explanation that it possibly requires very little ‘power’ to maintain the MOMENTUM OF a JS at much higher elevations.
Since this consideration is NEW TO ME, I will stop here and wait for any comments from you (James) or any other PSI Reader.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
JK:
I have encouraged PSI reader to take a look at WildfiresToday.com. Yesterday Bill Gabbert reported the fact that a meteorologist was not acknowledging the GREAT difference between the definitions of HUMIDITY and PERCENT RELATIVE HUMIDITY.
JMcG:
I wanted to explain this to you in my last response but having explained this to you before and you didn’t listen I knew you wouldn’t listen this time either. I am glad that you found a source you can trust so that you can start to comprehend the degree in which meteorology is fibbing about what they comprehend about the physics of storms.
Because of its pertinence to what you are discussing here, I do highly recommend you listen to the podcast I just published today. Here is the link:
Traditional Storm Theory is Scripture
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Traditional-Storm-Theory-is-Scripture-e1cl9eo
James McGinn
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
I did not get to end of Tradition Storm Theory (TST) as you rambled on saying nothing new and certainly not trying to explain common everyday observations of specific weather events like a generally localized and often short lived THUNDER STORMS. About which R. C. Sutcliffe, a meteorologist whom I TRUST, wrote ‘Weather and Climate’ (1966).
For I lived in the midwest of USA for my first 20 years where most summers I observed exactly that which Sutcliffe describes in his book. And we flew from Cairns, Australia to Hong Kong and after we crossed the equator the pilot began dodging the ‘hot towers about which I had read. And I have a picture of clouds, just off to the side, which were above us, as we were flying at 36000ft.
And you want me (and others) to believe that H2O is never a gas molecule and that vertical convection is a superstition!!!
Other PSI Readers might believe what you state. However, that is their problem for I have challenged much of that which you state.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
I observed exactly that which Sutcliffe describes in his book.
James:
Confirmation bias.
Jerry:
the pilot began dodging the ‘hot towers about which I had read.
James:
There is no such thing as a hot tower. Thunderstorms are caused by vortice’s introducing low pressure above.
Jerry:
And you want me (and others) to believe that H2O is never a gas molecule and that vertical convection is a superstition!!!
James:
I have zero faith in Sutcliffe or yourself. I have a lot of faith in the H2O phase diagram.
Jerry:
I have challenged much of that which you state.
James:
You are not a scientist, Jerry. You are a believer. Believers lack the ability to apply critical thinking to the things they believe.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
For some reason my previous comment didn’t get there (here). In it I had questioned what this source to which you referred and questioned if you understood what I had written. And that I was going to dinner. So now maybe the following will make a little more sense.
While eating the thought came to me that you consider that I agree with you that there is no significant concentration of water molecules at lower elevations down to sea level. No, the near absence of atmospheric water molecules to which I referred is because of the negative 40 degree air temperatures which some even occur at the Arctic Ocean atmosphere during its winter season. Now I will.listen to your podcast.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
I too have ideas about JET STREAMS which one might not read about in the conventional meteorology literature and which in some ways are consistent with James’ idea that their formation and momentum is not generally being powered by the latent heat of the condensation of atmospheric water vapor nor the latent heat of the conversion of liquid water droplets to solid water (ice, snow).
For in the Northern Hemisphere the JET STREAMS are most numerous and strongest during the winter season. Another fact which I observe by studying atmospheric sounding data is that the JET STREAMS are normally observed in the vicinity of 45N latitude. I have not studied the Southern Hemisphere enough to make any comments relative to it. I will try to give you information bit by bit to give any reader a chance to jump in with other ideas.
I begin with the observation that during the summer season, at most latitudes, the surface of a flat, dry, level grounds quite hot after midday until near sunset, as does a foot of the air over this surface. My explanation for this layer of hot air being there is little cooler, more dense, air to flow beneath this hot, less dense air. And a thermodynamic heat engine requires a difference of temperature to do work; which lifting the less dense air would be (work).
On the wall directly in front of me, as I compose is a map of the earth which colored coded as to elevation. Brown is most extreme elevation and to the north of Mount Everest is Tibet with a quite large area of brown with many peaks and valleys. Most of its surface is more nearly vertical than nearly horizontal.
I will stop here to give a reader time to consider this information and to imagine a bit about the possible consequences of this information during the later fall and most of the northern winter season.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
For Richard Greene and others,
Chemistry and thermodynamics teach us if you add a substance to a mixture, whether soup or atmospheric gases, the Molar Specific heat of the substance is important.
Thus, if you add a chopped potato or lead brick to a kettle of soup, the kettle will require more energy to bring it to a boil.
Similarly, if you add CO2 (higher Molar specific heat) to a mixture of N2 and O2, then the mixture of gases will require more energy from the Sun to reach the same temperature.
As they say in Jamaica, “Sun shine same each day, mon”.
Thus, adding CO2 or Ping-Pong Balls to the atmosphere will only make atmosphere COOLER.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
Bill Gabbert, WILDFIRETODAY.COM, shared the following this morning.
“A documentary about the 1977 Honda Canyon Fire is now available for streaming. Firestorm ’77 is based on Beyond Tranquillon Ridge, the book by Joseph N. Valencia about the brush fire that burned across Vandenberg Air Force Base on the California coast northeast of Santa Barbara. It started on December 20 during Santa Ana winds gusting to 100 mph and was fought by over a thousand personnel ranging from full time firefighters to military personnel who had zero experience or training in battling a wildfire.”
Sound familiar???
And welcome Kevin.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH, James, and other PSI Readers,
Matt, first address this to you because in the past you have referred to the factor (skill) of COMPREHENSION. I question how it seems that only James and I write, here at PSI, about this CHEMISTRY thing termed hydrogen bonding, between water molecules and a limited number of other molecules, This IDEA was given to CHEMISTS by Linus Pauling? And I question how it is that I read so little about Richard Feynman’s simple theories of light (radiation) scattering which he taught to Caltech students (The Feynman Lectures On Physics)? And I question how it is so few SCIENTISTS seem to have NOT read Crew’s and de Salvio’s English translation (1914) of Galileo’s ‘Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences (1638)?
I believe an answer to these question might involve what I term HUMAN NATURE. Being a chemist I am aware of that which other of his peers thought about Pauling’s personality. Which was he would frequently take shortcuts by stating this or that was OBVIOUS when it was not OBVIOUS to these other chemists. Hence, they concluded he was ARROGANT to an extreme degree.
I review the known history of the GEOLOGICAL COMMUNITY during the 19th and 20th Centuries. First, Louis Agassiz, a naturalist whose primary scholarship was the study of the fossils of prehistoric fish, came along convinced the GEOLOGICAL COMMUNITY that the very large ERRATIC BOULDERS, of which the GEOLOGISTS were well aware, was evidence the PREHISTORIC GLACIERS had covered large portions of the Northern Hemisphere’s continents down to and beyond the 45N latitude. Then a meteorologist, Alfred Wegener, came along and pointed out the west coast of Africa fit the east coast of South America like two jigsaw pieces. And relative to this observation Wegener proposed that these two continents had to have drifted apart which the GEOLOGISTS knew was an IDIOTIC IDEA. I end this historical review with the comment that the GEOLOGISTS (NATURAL SCIENTISTS) problem of rejecting IDEAS which conflicted with their “ESTABLISHED IDEAS did not end here.
Matt, I ask do you believed this human problem of resisting DIFFERENT IDEAS of people, with significant achievement, is due to what might be termed: Envy??? And the apparent fact that certain people have had the ability to COMPREHEND the significance of certain information. For the central point of this comment is that one cannot comprehend anything without first having (gathering) INFORMATION!!! Pauling’s famous book “The Nature of the Chemical Bond’ has an AUTHOR INDEX (PP 625-635 Two Columns) which lists the page number(s) of where Pauling refers to the information that each author had written and been used by Pauling. He was very ARROGANT indeed!!!
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry and readers and those loitering with intent.
Resisting alternate ideas is more likely ego than envy. The other factor is groupthink. Be an independent thinker and you stand out for criticism and ridicule.
To admit a mistake is to learn and grow. When have you heard a politician admit an error.
To err is human, to forgive, divine. There appears to be a shortage of divinity.
To explore all the possibilities to explain an observation or phenomenon the explorer must traverse many mountain passes that must be retreated from, many blind canyons where progress is back the way one came from.
With out exploring the wrong ideas one will never find the truth and some of these perceived wrong paths open up a vista of knowledge.
We all know the importance of stable foundations. Stable foundations sometimes begin with an audit of what we all think we know.
The point where centrifugal force transcends from majority force lateral near the poles to majority force perpendicular near the equator is 30 degrees North and thirty degrees South.
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. 🙂
Cheers Matt
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt,
Several very good comments but I have to ask: How did you learn–“The point where centrifugal force transcends from majority force lateral near the poles to majority force perpendicular near the equator is 30 degrees North and thirty degrees South.” For you have explained personal experiences which caused you to learn that which all biologists should be taught. Because even I know that algae is the reason that our atmosphere has about 20% oxygen. But I certainly did not know about its ability to convert carbon dioxide into carbonate ions of inorganic ionic compounds.
Yes, I am using you and your unique experiences to learn and to help James and myself to better understand our atmosphere’s circulation ect. etc. by keeping this good, informative, conversation going. For 140+ comments is like the old days. And a fact is we have not accomplished much because some of the data we should be considering to understand ANYTHING.
For the best stuff is only about a decade old.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt,
It seems you have lived most of your life in a natural ocean laboratory just a little south of 30S. And I have lived most of my life on land at about 45N at several different longitudes across the USA. And I consider that Jet Streams (JS) have their origins near 30 degree latitude North or South hemispheres. Which two hemispheres are quite different. For the Southern Hemisphere has very little land between 30 and 45 degree latitude.
I have to ask: do you recognize the wisdom which you often write?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers and James,
I discovered PSI May 29, 2016 and the article I first read was ‘Prevailing Theories Have Been Proven Wrong Before’ written by Keith Bryer. I read that PSI was founded to provide a forum, more then 13 years earlier than my discovery of it, where its founders and anyone else could share their scientific ideas about the idea commonly known as the Greenhouse Effect of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (GHE). Which had the prediction that the Earth’s average temperature would be about 33C (58F) cooler if not for the atmospheric carbon dioxide and other atmospheric gases with similar radiation absorption-emission properties.
But now, nearly two decades later, an argument about the GHE still exists. And my all my essays and comments have not proven this GHE idea, with its clear prediction, to be absolutely wrong. But what should I expect when it seems what a Nobel Prize winner, a physicist who headed up two Los Alamos groups which helped to designed three nuclear bombs which worked the first three times they were tested, seems to have been basically ignored also.
This scientist was Richard Feynman and in his book ‘The Feynman Lectures On Physics’ (1963) he taught his Caltech students about Einstein’s Laws of Radiation. And I suspect that the name, Einstein, is a name which most all PSI readers recognize.
And Feynman summarized a half page description of Einstein’s Laws with this four line summary: “Thus Einstein assumed that there are three kinds of processes: an absorption proportional to the intensity of light, an emission proportional to the intensity of light, called induced emission or sometimes stimulated emission, and a spontaneous emission independent of light.”
This was in Feynman’s 42nd lecture. Earlier, in the 32nd lecture, Feynman had concluded this lecture with a three page section titled ‘Scattering of light’. And he began this section “The above leads us to an effect which occurs in air as a consequence of the irregular positions of the atoms.” Which statement should be understandable by most PSI readers regardless of their intelligence ‘level’ to lack of a scientific background. And the effect is the scattering of light in two different circumstances. Here, Feynman summarizes what he will do. “Earlier, we remarked that the phenomenon of scattering of light of this nature is the origin of the blue of the sky. The sunlight goes through the air, and when we look to one side of the sun—say at 90 [degree] to the beam—we see blue light, what we now have to calculate is how much light we see and why it is blue.” This should be enough to define for a reader what the RESULT of the phenomenon of light scattering by air molecules actually is without the need to calculate how much light we see and why it is blue. I skip over the his detail mathematical reasoning to its RESULT–“This means that blue light, which has about twice the frequency of the reddish end of the spectrum, is scattered to a far greater extent than red light. Thus when we look at the sky it looks that glorious blue we see all time!”
And he immediately continued: “There are several points to be made about the above results. One interesting question is, why do we ever see the clouds? Where do the clouds come from? Everybody knows it is the condensation of water vapor.”
I stop here to give James a chance to correct Feynman’s explanation of where the clouds come from with his explanation of where clouds come from.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Feynman, like yourself and millions upon millions of others, made the goonish mistake of assuming that the moisture in clear moist air is gaseous when in actuality it contains invisibly small nanodroplets of liquid (not gaseous) H2O.
There is not and can never be gaseous H2O in earth’s atmosphere..
This is about the tenth time I’ve explained this to you Jerry.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,,
James, you can repeat to me a thousand times that there are Nanodroplets of water in the air and therefore no water molecules and I can ask what is your evidence there are no independent water molecules in the air?
Heres the evidence for what I and most others believe. R. C. Sutcliffe, a meteorologist, Weather&Climate (1966), page 47-48, wrote: “When liquid water and gaseous vapor are present side by side one needs only to think of the exchange of molecules cross the interface to have a clear mental image of evaporation and condensation going on continuously. …. It has been necessary to labour over this image of the processes in terms of molecular movements in order to appreciate the difficulties which arise when the vapor exists in the atmosphere far removed from any liquid surface. The air might be supersaturated, in the sense that if there were liquid present the vapor would quickly be captured by it, but in the absence of any liquid there is no obvious reason why condensation should ever begin and EXPERIMENT PROVES THAT THE ARGUMENT IS A VALID ONE. If air is carefully purified by filtering, it will not produce cloud droplets even if cooled by expansion far beyond its normal saturation point or dew point. C.T.R. Wilson, working with his famous expansion cloud chamber, was able to show this quite conclusively late in the last century. His method of purifying the air was to allow the droplets produced during cloud formation to settle out of the chamber and to repeat the process several times with the same sample of air. Ultimately four-fold supersaturations, that is humidities of 400 our cent, were necessary to produce condensation in the purified air.
“These results, obtained first by Wilson and broadly confirmed by many later experimenters, have a very important bearing on natural meteorology, not because supersaturation occurs in the atmosphere but because it does not occur: why is it that in the atmosphere condensation to clouds invariably happens as soon as narmal saturation is reached? The answer is that the natural atmosphere, however clean it may appear to be, is always supplied with a sufficient number of minute particles of salts, acids, or other substances which serve just as well as liquid water in capturing water molecules from the vapor. These are the ‘nuclei of condensation’, and are effective as soon as the air becomes even slightly supersaturated. 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.”
This morning the National Weather Service at the local airport reported fog, which reduced the visibility to 1/2 mile and a relative humidity of 92%.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
james McGinn
| #
Jerry:
What is your evidence there are no independent water molecules in the air?
James:
H20 phase diagram
Jerry:
R. C. Sutcliffe, a meteorologist,
“When liquid water and gaseous vapor are present side by side
James:
This tells me that Sutcliffe was a moron. Here he is referring to “gaseous” vapor when actually he should be referring to clear, moist air.
Sutcliffe’s poor word usage is the problem here, Jerry.
James Mcginn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
I now SEE that you do not understand water’s phase diagram. The axises of the diagram are pressure and temperature and the line which divides two phases are the pressures and temperatures at which the two phases are at equilibrium. One phase on one side of the line and the other phase on the other side of the line. Hence: side by side equilibrium. Off the line only one phase present at a given temperature and a given pressure.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry: I now SEE that you do not understand water’s phase diagram.
James: Jerry, you are delusional.
Jerry: The axises of the diagram are pressure and temperature and the line which divides two phases are the pressures and temperatures at which the two phases are at equilibrium.
James: Irrelevant. You are just babbling, confused. The part of the diagram that is relevant is the part in which the air pressure is around 1ATM and thereabouts.. As anybody can see–and I do mean anybody, even a deeply delusional person like yourself, Jerry–at ambient temperature/preesures H2O is liquid.
There is no gaseous H2O in earth’s atmosphere.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
James McGinn
| #
James:
Jerry, don’t change the subject, you evasive nitwit. Look at your phase diagram and tell us the boiling temperature of water at ambient pressures.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
Do you not know that any liquid’s boiling temperature depends upon the atmosphere’s pressure??? Place 60C (140F) in a sidearm flask and pull a vacuum upon it and the this water will come to a rolling boil. One of the simplest experiments one can do!!!
Have a good day. Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry: Place 60C (140F) in a sidearm flask and pull a vacuum upon it and the this water will come to a rolling boil.
James: Common knowledge.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
Do you know why PRESSURE COOKERS were invented??? My answer: Water doesn’t boil at 100C (212F) at the ambient atmospheric pressure of mile high cities like Denver CO USA.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
James:
Jerry, don’t change the subject, you evasive nitwit. Look at your phase diagram and tell us the boiling temperature of water at ambient pressures.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
Same comment at 8:30pm and again at 9:13pm. Why are you stubbornly losing your reputation with PSI Readers? You are the nearly the only other one (besides me) who considered the hydrogen bonding between water molecules which the explanation for water’s large latent heats of its phase transitions. And you recognize that the cause of Jet Streams is not yet really understood and their importance relative to the atmospheric storms which occur in the lower troposphere. And you have helped me me that the latent heats of water are not a significant factor of the Jet Streams because they apart of the cold and much dense atmosphere of the upper troposphere. So I am not giving up on you because of your stubborn MISTAKE. I make mistakes all the time but I give them up when I SEE them.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James McGinn,
Please Peer Review (https://wildfiretoday.com/2022/01/18/analysis-of-how-weather-affected-the-spread-of-the-marshall-fire-in-colorado/) for me!!!
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
No time. Answer the question above and I will reconsider.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
Thank you for replying. I am not sure to which question you refer. So I have to assume it might be: “Look at your phase diagram and tell us the boiling temperature of water at ambient pressures.”
When I follow the line which separates gaseous water phase from the liquid water phase, I see that the boiling temperature of liquid water decreases as the ambient atmospheric pressure decreases.
Is this the question you ask and is my answer the one which you can accept as being valid?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
For ambient pressure assume 1ATM.
Try again.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James and other PSI Readers,
I cannot an assume an ambient atmospheric pressure of 1ATM because this would not be HONEST. For nearly everyone since Torricelli’s invention of the mercury barometer have observed that the ambient atmospheric pressure decreases with increasing elevation (distance from the earth’s center of mass. Whether on the earth’s surface or in the atmosphere.
But while waited for your reply I read the comments to the Wildfire Today article and discovered this article: (https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2022/01/the-colorado-wildfire-and-global.html). Which is something I should have done before. It is a much more a detailed, quite complete explanations and contains factual (my opinion) information (in one place) whichI doubt could be found anywhere else. So I urge all interested PSI Readers to TAKE A LOOK!!!
Have a good day, Jerry
H
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James McGinn,
A few days ago I discovered the Atmospheric Science department of the University of Washington because of the Marshall Wildfire that accorded 12/30/2021). And I cannot explain how it is that I had not learned about its longtime Professors and their attempts at scholarship which are clearly related to your scholarship.
So take a look Professor Robert A. Brown’s lecture given at the European Geophysical Society annual meeting, Nice, France, March 26, 2001 (https://atmos.uw.edu/~rabrown/egshistory.htm)
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply