Despite Recent Results There is Still No Greenhouse Effect – Fourier was Right
TLDR: Fourier was right – the atmosphere would have to behave like solid barriers, which it does not and cannot.
There have been some recent results with multi-pane enclosures showing higher-than-SB-equivalent-input results being obtained, which makes it look like there is a radiative greenhouse effect and that cold can send heat to hot.
So let’s just confirm, don’t you worry, I am aware of these results and I even collaborated with the people who did it and instructed on how to do it.
The results are very scientifically interesting but I am still not worried about having to throw out my position that there is no radiative greenhouse effect. Here’s why.
The first thing to consider is the proviso that poor experimental conditions produce positive results.
This means that experiments with insufficient control of known and unknown quantities tend to lead to results which confirm the hypothesis, in a form of false-positive conclusions.
I just mention this because the first thing to consider is the emissivity of the panes, which when stacked together will add up together such as to make the lowest pane the most difficult at emission.
Which then produces higher temperature, which is of course not the radiative greenhouse effect. This is a possibility of concern, but it is not my main concern nor main analysis.
Let’s have a little bit of framing before we continue, as well. Remember, the claim of the radiative greenhouse effect is that -18°C can be amplified to +15°C with its own -18°C spectral energy. And where does this claim originate?
It originates in the idea that the Sun cannot heat anything to above -18°C on Earth, which is a result of flat-Earth averaging of the solar flux over the surface area of the entire globe.
I’ll just use a bunch of memes to make the point, but suffice it to say, that even if there were a radiative greenhouse effect (there’s not), it still would be wrong to say that the Sun cannot heat anything above -18°C and that the Sun isn’t responsible for creating the climate, as pedagogical climate science claims.
The point is that the extrapolations of flat Earth pedagogy modelling of the Earth which states impossible and untruthful things about the ontological nature of the Sun and the Earth…by definition cannot be true.
The effect must be equal to the cause, and the effect is the greenhouse effect as postulated for how the climate works, and the cause is a flat Earth with cold Sunshine which cannot create the climate:
The latter is certainly not true, not ontologically valid or meaningful, hence, the former cannot be true.
And so the first statement of truth to consider is, with regard to the de Saussure enclosures: are they how the atmosphere behaves; do they represent a function of the atmosphere; do they model the properties and behaviours of the atmosphere?
The answer to that is just as Fourier point out: the atmosphere would have to be able to form solid barriers with the density and thermal conductivity properties of glass, in order for the atmosphere to demonstrate the effect of those devices.
If the atmosphere cannot create the physical conditions necessary for the effect, then it cannot manifest the effect. But here’s what’s so important about this, because one might be tempted to claim that the only conditions necessary are those of the production of backradiation, not solid barriers.
However, the latter is indeed the case: solid barriers with a significant thermal conductivity effect are indeed the active factor.
Also think of what is being deposited into the bottom panes in the first place: it is solar-spectrum radiation. It is not actually -18°C spectrum being put in there, but 5778K spectrum. Do the thought experiment:
If actual ice at -18°C were being faced into the de Saussure device, could the -18°C spectrum radiation amplify itself? In this case it is absolutely clear and certain.
No! You’re definitely up against the thermodynamic laws then. It is totally clear that the basic mechanism or postulate of the radiative greenhouse effect is flawed as a general phenomenon given that scenario.
These are the mistakes I myself have myself been overlooking, as it makes all the difference that there is 5778K spectrum input, not -18°C spectrum input, and there are solid barriers which require physical diffusion heat transfer, not near-instantaneous radiative transfer.
Now, while both the atmosphere and the de Saussure boxes share the same input spectrum, they do not share the same requirement of physical diffusion heat transfer through solid matter, which is extremely slow as compared to radiation, i.e., the speed of light.
The physical panes of the de Saussure boxes require many minutes of time for the heat to transfer through.
This therefore means that the high-frequency incoming solar spectrum can keep acting upon the bottom panes without those panes being able to spontaneously emit the incoming energy given their own thermal emission.
When unobstructed, the bottom pane will spontaneously emit what comes in, and this is where you get, like the surface of the Earth which has very little obstruction to emission, the usual input=output equality at equilibrium and the resultant temperature given the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
However, if you obstruct the bottom pane from being able to freely emit, this is essentially an imposition of reduced emissivity:
It is not that the backradiation from the higher pane causes temperature increase – that definitely cannot happen, due to the usual and known Laws of Thermodynamics – it is that the incoming much higher-frequency solar spectrum of 5778K radiation has more time to act on the bottom pane bumping up frequencies in the molecules to higher states (and thus higher collective temperature) before the energy of those higher frequencies can be discarded (i.e., emitted), as they normally would be.
It is not backradiation which causes the temperature increase inside the de Saussure box, rather, it is the incoming solar spectrum high-frequency radiation which has more time to act on the molecules bumping them up to higher frequency states of vibration before those states can spontaneously shed that higher frequency vibratory energy, and this opportunity only manifests because the solid & IR-opaque barriers require a significant time for physical diffusion energy transfer.
It takes, say, a few or dozens of minutes for energy to transfer through a pane of the de Saussure box. That gives the incoming solar spectrum lot of extra time for heating given their much higher frequencies corresponding to a temperature of 5778K.
However, for the open atmosphere, if we are needlessly generous and say that the atmosphere is 100km thick for radiation to transfer through, which is so generous it gives ample room for a few mean-free-path bounces of IR photon delay, then the time to traverse that is only 100km/300,000km/s = 0.0003s.
If you then just use that as a factor over 1s to increase the time that the incoming energy gets to act, then the average of 240 W/m² gets bumped up by 0.08W/m²; if you use 1000 W/m² as zenith input then you get 0.3W/m². Or, let’s just call it 0.03 percent, in general. It’s negligible, in any case.
So, there is still no backradiation greenhouse effect, and the effect that might occur is not proportional to the amount of backradiation because if the transfer was instantaneous through a negligible layer which nevertheless emits of full component of “backradiation”, the effect would not manifest at all, because what you require is significant time delay.
And then to go back to the info graphics above, we still have the fact of the lapse rate requiring that the bottom of the atmosphere being its warmest part.
Which means that the bottom of the atmosphere must be warmer than the average of the atmosphere and hence of the expected average. And of course that the Sun can indeed create the climate.
And here’s the final word on this. What I’ve been telling you, for example in the previous post, is still entirely the situation we seem to be in. Remember that video (reviewed in the video of previous post) where the “crazed scientists” want to create a reversible solar shield?
What does reversible even mean, in terms of a shield? And remember how they said that it would move between the L1 and L2 (Lagrange points) positions? Why would it need to move to L2?
Do you see what’s happening there? They’re “baking something in“, so to speak. L1 is between Earth and Sun. L2 is behind the Earth from the Sun. Why there?
“To fight climate change and cool the planet we need a solar shield at L1.”
-Okay, that sounds great! Save the planet!
“Yes. Right. Ugh, for added bonus to stop climate change it can also be reversible and move to L2, and we need lots of money to test this innovative solution to solve climate change.”
-Wonderful, here’s your money! Save our planet!
What just got baked in, that didn’t need to be, if the point is to cool the planet? What got baked in is that the reversal of a shield is a magnifier, and, a magnifier could only work if it was at the L2 position! And they want to make it millions of square meters or even kilometers in size.
That is an Earth-destroying weapon. Firstly, it would so radically cool the planet at the size that they show in the video as to freeze out the atmosphere when at L1.
Then, they would move it to L2, and blast the surface with an atomizing-matter-evaporating magnifier. The result after a few cycles would be like I said was their goal in my Planet Wars book: to leave the surface of the Earth as barren and desolate as the moon. That’s what this device would do.
And why would they do that? Because of Three Body Problem solution to Fermi’s Paradox: preemptive self-protection. And how would they do that?
Through infiltration and subversion of our noosphere. And how would an enemy get us to agree to do this to ourselves? By being as close to the truth as possible, but inverting and perverting the truth in some subtle and final way incredibly difficult to detect.
See more here ClimateofSophistry.com
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATI ONAL, 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.
Herb Rose
| #
If the sun is only able to heat the Earth to -18 C, how is it able to heat the moon to 186 c when they are both receiving the sane solar energy? Don’t be stupid and say the atmosphere is absorbing energy then claim that it doesn’t absorb solar energy and is being heated by the surface.
Reply
Alan
| #
You seem to have found some energy from somewhere since the maximum temperature on the moon is usually given as 120C.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Alan,
You are correct. Too early in the morning and too poor eyesight.
Herb
Reply
Jan
| #
Here is what I know about it so far after years of studying it:
What is actually absorbing most of the energy coming from the Sun to the surface of the Earth is the ocean in turn converting it to heat in turn then manifesting as its water temperature.
Ocean absorbs more than 90% of the absorbed solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface despite ocean covering only about 70% of the Earth’s surface.
The water there has about 835 times higher density than air and has about 4800 times higher volumetric heat capacity than air. Just the upper ~3 meters of the ocean have same heat capacity and content as whole the atmosphere around the Earth.
Moreover the water has much higher refraction index than air causing most of the scattered EM radiation/light below the ocean surface getting reflected back down-in and eventually getting absorbed and all this together cause the albedo of the ocean is very close to zero, even much darker than the surface of the Moon and across much wider absorption spectrum with peak in blue band (making its color very dark blue). This means virtually all incident solar radiation as well as the Wien IR back-radiation of the atmosphere gets absorbed and converted to the heat below the ocean/atmosphere interface and that happens even at quite very steep incidence angles due to the ocean waviness.
The extremely steep absorption spectrum of the water has its peak in the blue region and the absorption in this region is 6 orders of magnitude lower than in the UVA and nearIR regions which causes that the visible light band penetrates deep into the ocean water, most of it still way below the waves, creating so called epipelagic zone where it is converted to heat.
This heat cannot much escape back up into the air at the insolated spot as several most fundamental physics phenomenas prevent it from happening (newton law of gravitation – cooler water further down from the surface is denser than the warmer above, so doesn’t upwell, 2nd law of thermodynamics – theres no heat conduction in direction up in the insolated ocean and the extreme optical properties of the water/air interface reflecting most of the escaping radiation back down-in) in other way than by relatively very low thermal conduction of both water and air, by residual Wien radiation and, mostly, by converting liquid water into water vapor at the interface removing the latent heat with it (But most of the heat stays inside the depths of the epipelagic zone and only moves horizontal way forming warm ocean currents distributing the heat into the higher latitudes where they upwell – as a giant “heat pump”.)
The peak of water absoption/transmission spectrum closely coincides with the peak of solar radiation spectrum, which is the Great Coincidence making this all including existence of liquid water and thus life on the Earth’s surface possible (yet due to the steepness of both water absoption spectrum and the solar radiation spectrum any even relatively low shift of the solar spectrum due to changing solar EM activity would inevitably change the way how the solar radiation is absorbed in the ocean and at which depth changing in turn the climatic patterns).
This all together causes the average ocean surface temperature being about 16°C heating then the atmosphere from below which is then transporting the heat in form of latent heat up with the much less dense water vapor than is the air going with convection up to the higher parts of the atmosphere and at the same time distributed also horizontally by the amospheric currents/winds.
To the lesser extent the absoption of the solar radiation converting it to the heat happens also at the landmass, which nevertheless has both considerably higher albedo and at the same time both much lower transparency and lower heat capacity than the ocean, so there are in turn much higher temperature swings between day and night over the land, aspecially arid lands as deserts. And generally just about 10% of the solar radiation absorbed on the Earth surface is absorbed and converted to heat (unlike in the ocean with high transparency) just slightly below the landmass/air interface due to its usually very low transparency.
To recap: Most of the solar radiation reaching the surface of the Earth which is there converted to the heat (manifesting then as the temperature of water, land and air at the Earth’s surface) is absorbed below the ocean surface causing its average surface temperature being about 39°K higher than is the average surface temperature of the Moon (-23°C), and moreover due to immense heat capacity of the ocean water and its depths its temperature is very stable as is then the temperature of the air immediately above it constantly heated by the ocean.
P.S.: Where the “greenhouse effect” is actually happening on the Earth, big time, is below the ocean/atmosphere interface which due to extreme difference between the refraction index of water and air serves as literal optical prism from the direction Sun->atmosphere->ocean and as a literal mirror from the opposite direction reflecting most of the escaping radiation back. To use the analogy the ocean/atmosphere interface behaves like the glass on the greenhouse roof. All in turn causing the ocean having much higher average surface temperature than is the average surface temperature of the Moon surface, despite both are at more or less same distance from the Sun, and moreover despite a sizable part of the solar radiation reaching the Earth, unlike on the atmosphereless Moon, is immediately reflected back to the space by the clouds in the atmosphere and therefore sizably lower part of the solar radiation reaches all the way down to the Earth’s surface than on the Moon.
Generally the Sun heats the ocean and to the lesser extent also the land, which then heat the atmosphere. Not. vice. versa.
Proofs?
– The average surface air temperature is generally lower than is the average surface temperature of the ocean so the 2nd law of thermodynamics in general prevents the atmosphere net heating of the ocean.
-There is a well known thermal gradient in the troposphere – the troposphere is in general the warmer the lower we are. Therefore, clearly, there must be net heating of the air by the surface of the Earth, not vice versa, as the other way around it would again violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
To use an analogy: if we have a “greenhouse effect” on the Earth, We, unlike fish, live higher than is the roof of the greenhouse.
Dr. J. Zeman
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Dr. Zeman,
You have it wrong. Water is transparent to visible light but very good at absorbing heat (IR). The reason the oceans are blue is because they are reflecting the shorter wavelengths.
Temperature is a measurement of radiated energy and most of the energy (720 calories to raise the temperature from 0 C to 100C steam) is internal and not radiated as temperature.
If you consult phase chart of water you will see that water, as a gas, does not occur at sea level. The water in the atmosphere is in the form of micro droplets and they contain most of the energy in the atmosphere.
It takes 600 calories to cause a gram of water to enter the atmosphere and this happens even when the water is a solid.
Water is the coolant for the surface and the thermostat is set at -30 C. Every gallon of rain that falls is the result of 2,241,000 calories of heat being removed from the surface and released into space. As long as the humidity is less than 100% water will continue to be absorbed from the surface and enter the atmosphere.
In order for CO2 to heat the surface it must add more heat than the water is removing. When the water in the atmosphere is .22 % it is 50 time greater than the level of CO2 so every gram of CO2 must add 30,000 calories to the surface to keep the temperature constant. Even with a constant temperature, as long as the humidity is not 100%, more water will evaporate. When the level of water in the atmosphere reaches .33% every gram of CO2 must now add 45,000 calories to keep the surface constant. If the surface is heating the CO2 and its temperature remains constant, where is it getting the additional 15,000 calories?
The 2nd LoT is not true. it says that energy will flow from an object with greater kinetic energy (1/2 mv^2) to an object with less kinetic energy. This is wrong because in elastic collisions or radiation objects do not transfer mass, only energy (v^2). In a collision a small car running into the rear of a large slower truck will not gain velocity.
While the temperature, as measured with a thermometer, decreases with increased altitude in the troposphere, the ke of the gas molecules actually increases. The apparent decrease is due to fewer molecule colliding with the thermometer and thereby transferring less energy to it. If you divide the temperature at an altitude by the density (providing a measurement of the energy of a constant number (mass) of molecules instead of a measurement of a constant volume of molecules, you will see that the energy of molecules increases in a straight line in the troposphere (where water moderates the radiated energy) and in an exponential curve in the atmosphere above.
The zigzag curve of a temperature graph is due to changes in density. The atmosphere is being heated by the sun (UV) and the closer to the source and fewer molecules absorbing energy the greater the ke of the molecules.
Herb
6
Reply
Jan
| #
Hello Herb.
Water is not completely transparent to visible light. Water as any substance has its absoption spectrum (see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Absorption_spectrum_of_liquid_water.png – coinciding quite closely at its peak with the solar emission spectrum – https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2017/12/Solar_spectrum – which nevertehless changes alot and moreover in paradox non-planckian way during the cycles of the solar EM activity – as the SORCE satelite data confirmed – see Ermoli et al 2013), which in blue region and around is the lowest and thus allowing the visible light penetrate the ocean throughout the epipelagic zone and warm it at depth by its absoption. And because ocean is much deeper than its epipelagic zone its albedo at the right angle of incidence is virtually zero disturbed only in a case of surface foaming and even at steep angles is still very low due to high refraction on the interface and its waviness. The blue color of the ocean is caused by the highest transmissibility of the water in the blue band and has literally nothing to do with the reflectivity of the ocean/air interface. Water is almost transparent and the wavelength at which it is the most transparent is its color seen in depth, not just at its surface.
Temperature is also NOT a “measurement of radiated energy”. Temperature “reflects the average kinetic energy of the vibrating and colliding atoms making up a substance” (its definition).
Also, most of the water in the lower troposphere during the sunny day is there in the form of gaseous phase of water – water vapor (having considerably lower volumetric density than air and therefore causing violent convection) and not in form of droplets (having much higher volumetric density than air and thus falling down). Condesation into the droplets in the air moreover comes only if the dew point is reached. Above it stays in its gaseous phase.
Atmospheric CO2 content has almost nothing to do with the heating of the atmosphere, it is a trace gas and the amount of heat contained in the CO2 in the atmosphere is a really minuscule part (less than half thousandth) of the whole heat contained in the atmosphere. Not even the IPCC claims anything like that. What they claim is that it somehow causes a positive feedback with the water vapour, which is not true either – as water vapour actually transports the heat from the surface higher into the atmosphere via latent heat convection, released then during the condensation back to liquid phase in form of your droplets forming then nontransparent clouds which among other things block the sunlight, scattering most of it back to space, so in fact works as very powerfull negative feedback of the surface temperature which therefore never can reach runout point as that would be only possible beyond ocean reaching boiling point temperature which at our orbital distance from the Sun is utterly impossible.
It is true, that the atmosphere has highest temperature at its most insolated top. But it is not true in the troposphere (which contains ~80% of the atmospheric mass and heat content) – there the temperature steadilly falls with altitude all the way to the tropopause and be sure you would fast freeze to death if being there unprotected.
But if you want to know, what is the real reason, why there was a slight warming of the Earth surface since the second half of 20th century I’ll tell you the secret:
As the JPL-NASA project Horizon extremely accurate data confirm, the average anomalistic year orbital distance of the Earth from the Sun decreased since then more than 1000 kilometer in the Aphelieon-Perihelion orbital phase while it stayed almost same in the Perihelion-Aphelion phase, likely mainly due to Julian cycles caused orbital irregularities and so because the insolation increases with inverse square of orbital distance that alone explains whole the order of magnitude of the observed warming since. You can check for yourself from the Earth-Sun distance data here: https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons/app.html#/
And of course, if you can you’re encouraged to tell everybody your result.
And just BTW: In a collision a small car running into the rear of a large slower truck the speed of the truck will INCREASE although not so much as the speed of the small car decreases. Its momentum lost due to the collision will be conserved via the large truck spead increase. Exactly that way the heat is conducted.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jan,
Water does reflect visible light which is evident when you see things reflected. Blue light penetrates further than longer wavelengths because it is not being absorbed and adding energy to water molecules It is being scattered (just as in clouds) because it is being both reflected (slightly) and changing direction (refraction) as it is transmitted from one molecule to another. It is the lack of absorption and scattering that has blue light being emitted from water, giving it its color as other wavelengths are absorbed.
The top, sides, and bottom of a cloud can all appear white as it scatters light with very little visible light being absorbed by droplets.
The amount of energy being reflected back into space by clouds is minimal. A full moon appears white because the entire surface is reflecting visible light and yet its surface temperature is over 100 C. During an eclipse it turns red as there is no reflected visible light and the energy it has absorbed is radiated in the red/infrared spectrum as the temperature drops to below -100 C.
Temperature, as measured by a thermometer, is not the average or mean kinetic energy of the molecules despite its definition. If you submerge an entire thermometer into boiling water (which is how a thermometer is used in the atmosphere) it will produce a reading of over 100 C even though the average ke of the water molecules has not changed.
A thermometer measures the flow of energy from one medium to another medium, when used to determine the temperature of an object and the amount of energy being absorbed from the collisions by molecules when used in a single medium like as gas. Its reading depends on the momentum of the molecules which is a function of both energy and mass (number).
Water in the atmosphere is not a gas. If it were, because of its low molecular weight (18), you would expect to find it through out the atmosphere like N2 (28) and O2 (32) or concentrated at the top like neon, not confined almost exclusively to the troposphere.
When you boil water in a tea kettle it first appears as a transparent gas before cooling into water droplets. Those droplets then disappear. Where are they getting the 600 calories/gram to convert back into a gas? Water in the atmosphere is in the form if micro droplets or more specifically liquid crystals, where energy is stored as ions in the crystal structure. These crystals then rise in the atmosphere due to the negative charge of their shells being repelled by the surface of the Earth, not convection (for every updraft here is a downdraft). The reason the surface of the Earth has a positive charge under thunderclouds is because the negative charge of the liquid crystal’s shell repelling electrons on the surface. When these liquid crystals reach a level of the atmosphere where the surrounding energy field is great enough, the crystals reach their second melt point releasing their stored energy and producing liquid water. Water in the atmosphere never converts into a gas that rises further into the upper atmosphere.
We agree that the climate is determined by the energy coming from the sun and the position of the Earth. Since we are now in a Grand Solar Minimum, where less UV is being produced by solar flares to heat the O2 and N2 in the atmosphere, it is going to get cold.
If the truck’s velocity increases then the car with its lower ke is adding energy to the truck with its greater ke. How is that not a violation of the 2nd LoT?
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Jan,
in the midst of too many words I find that you wrote: “theres no heat conduction in direction up in the insolated ocean”. This comment ignores the great quantity of geothermal energy which must cause continents to drift, earthquakes, violent volcanic eruptions, and probably warm the ocean waters at their bottoms. To ignore this geothermal is a common mistake.
Have a good day
Reply
Charles Higley
| #
As the upper tropical troposphere is about -17 deg C and Earth’s surface at 15 deg C, no IR radiation from -17 deg C can warm the surface. It’s that simple. The energy levels equivalent to -17 deg C are all full at the surface and the IR will be reflected back upward, enetually lost to space. It’s that simple. When you are in a room *25 deg C and you are 37 deg C, do you warm the room or rhe room warm you? Teaching in a classroom for decades, I know that the students warm the room.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Charles,
Radiation cannot, convection, because it follows the law of conservation of momentum, can.
Herb
Reply
Jan
| #
Reply to Herb (impossible to continue the thread, there’s no reply button for me)
-water is transparent so at its interface with air “reflects” (actually it is a form of refraction) light only at and above Snells incidence angle, below it refracts it.
-water scatters the light and because it has lowest absorptivity in the blue region it then appears blue as other wavelength bands are absorbed.
-much more light from insolated cloud is scaterred back towards the space than towards Earth surface on the other side of the cloud.
-the property of truly boiling liquid body is that it has same temperature throughout the whole boiling body as “boiling” itself means the state change goes on throughout the whole body of the liquid, not just at its surface. The boling point is dependent on pressure. Higher pressure-higher boiling point and vice versa. For instant example the boiling point of water at the troposphere-tropopause boundary at the equator is about 31°C – so don’t go unprotected there if you don’t want to get boiled before you freeze… 🙂
-the incident energy of the direct solar radiation is way high enough to change the state of the water on the water body surface into the gaseous state. So free, single molecules, gas! Condensates back to liquid state only if dew point reached.
– generally denser droplets, crystals have no known mechanism to rise (attain the kinetic energy) in the much less dense air and the opposite mechanism is well known. And the electric pseudohypothesis is patent nonsense. Sorry, I have diploma in electricity and so I know how weak the electric field is. It plays its role in clouds, but not generally in the water cycle and definitely not with the water evaporation from the ocean.
-Although I agree the solar and to lesser degree also interstellar irradiation is the factor determining the water cycle – in the atmosphere and in the oceanic currents – I do not agree that changes in the solar EM activity is the sole factor driving climate. In fact the orbital cycles (from the planetary to the galactic) are much more powerfull climate drivers than the solar activity cycles – although they play a role too. It is actually the Milankovich cycles which cause the big climate changes, not the Sun. And it is also – arguably and supported by the available data – the slight changes in the Earth orbital parameters making it slightly closer to the Sun than in 1960, which is the cause of the slight warming of the Earth surface last half of century, not the changes in the solar EM activity which are basically none during the period and across the six solar cycles since respectively.
-And we definitely are not in a “Grand Solar Minimum”. Actually we are now at the peak of the solar cycle maximum – see https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression … 😉
And that’s it, end of discussion.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jan,
The angle of refraction of light entering a droplet is 39 degrees and in air is 57 degrees. How can you maintain that most of the light entering a cloud is being redirected back into space?
As I’ve tried to point out to you the temperature of a gas does indicate the kinetic energy of the molecules. Do you believe the kinetic energy of the water molecules in 100 C steam is the same as the kinetic energy of the water molecules in 100 C water or that the ke of water in 0C ice is the same as the ke of water molecules in 0 C liquid water?
The density of the atmosphere continues to decrease as altitude increases, no matter if the temperature is increasing or decreasing. This means either the universal gas law is wrong or the thermometer is wrong. Since the air at the bottom of the Grand Canyon is always 10 F hotter than the air at the top of the canyon and it does not rise to the top, I believe the thermometer to be inaccurate at measuring the ke of molecules.
If the water gas molecules condense at their dew point why aren’t winter days covered by low level fogs instead of clouds high in the atmosphere? If the temperature is as you say, how can the clouds contain liquid water? Super cooling can only occur with pure water and no agitation. This is not the case in the atmosphere.
Since you have a degree in electricity perhaps you can tell me where the electrons that create lightning come from. N2, O2, Argon, H2O, and CO2 will not release free electrons.
You know how weak the electric field in the atmosphere is because you are measuring the difference between the positive electric field and the negative electric field, not the strength of the fields.
Your belief that the variance in solar activity during the sun spot cycle is due to you equating the solar activity to the visible light spectrum. The surface of the sun produces visible and IR radiation while X-ray and UV come from solar flares. Although climatologist believe that because the atmospheric gases do not absorb visible light the N2 snd O2 are not gaining radiated energy (violating the LoT). This is not the case. N2 and O2 are absorbing UV radiation and converting it into ke. Do you really believe the 492.000 joules/mole needed to split an oxygen molecule into oxygen atoms and create ozone and NO molecules at higher altitudes. Is the energy coming from the surface able to avoiding all the O2 molecules in the troposphere and creating the ozone layer in the stratosphere and the NO layer above?
We have just started a new 22 year cycle and the effects of the cancelation of magnetic fields on the sun has just begun. Let us hope that this Grand Solar Minimum will be shorter and less severe than the little ice age produced by the last one. Not my problem, I won’t be around to see it.
Herb
Reply
Jan
| #
Hello Herb,
I’ll take it from the end.
The EM cycle of the Sun which is caused by its wobbly-like orbit around the Solar system barycenter is not completely regular. See https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/14684/what-does-the-suns-orbit-within-the-solar-system-look-like (The same as is not completely regular the orbit of the Earth around the Sun. For example the length of the Earth’s anomalistic year length varies several days and the longer the anomalistic year is the closer the Earth is to the Sun during the respective anomalistic year – which btw violates Kepler laws and is caused by the gravitational forces mostly of Jupiter and Venus aspects as the solar orbit around the solar system barycenter with about 21 years period is caused mostly by Jupiter and Saturn aspects)
I’m certainly not equating the solar activity variance to the visible spectrum. I was on SORCE data research for years, so really, I’m not a rookie as you maybe believe.
Electric fields are defined by their strenghts, the electron or lack of electron (proton) charge.
If you are in hunt for the surplus charged particles, my hint is try solar wind.
Dew point temperature depends on pressure and water content saturation, humidity. The more humidity the higher dew point. A hint for your winter question: If below freezing point of water at the given pressure it is called frost point.
The atmospheric pressure at the given altitude is equal to the weight of the air column above the altitude point per unit of area perpendicular to the Earth surface below, say pounds per square feet. For that reason it must always go down with rising altitude. The temperature decreases with the altitude in the Grand Canyon due to decreasing air pressure. The altitude difference is about thousands of feets which explains the temperature difference.
Kinetic energy of water molecule in ice is lower than in liquid water at same temperature and pressure, the difference is the latent heat of fusion. Similarly the kinetic energy of liquid water molecule is lower than kinetic energy of water vapour molecule at the same temperature and pressure, the difference is the latent heat of vaporization. Similarly the kinetic energy of molecule in ice is lower than in gas at same temperature and pressure, the difference is the latent heat of sublimation.
Your first question I unfortunately do not understand. A droplet is a small ball like optical body, so there are all possible refraction and reflection angles on its interface with the air, moreover depending on the incident light wavelength(s). But the reason why more light is bounced from the cloud back to the space than scattered to its lower side is simple. The typical lower troposphere cloud types average albedo is way over 50% and the cloud has moreover nonzero absorptivity, so less than half of the insolation from above gets to the other side.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jan,
Solar flares are caused by the magnetic fields of the sun. The sun has 4 magnetic fields, two sets of upper and lower fields. The 2 fields move in opposite directions north to south and south to north. When the magnetic field reinforce each other there is greater sunspot activity, when they cancel each other out there is less. When all 4 field are being cancelled out it is a Grand Solar Minimum and just like the 22yr cycle it occurs on a regular basis.
The solar system is like an atom with the sun at the nucleus. When the nucleus moves all the electrons move. They form a unit and all wobble together so the changes on Earth are not the result of galactic motion of the solar system.
Kepler’s law (C= dv^2) is the data used to (mistakenly) create gravity as a function of mass. Saying it is wrong because of gravity is a contradiction. Gravity is a function of energy associated with mass. All the objects orbiting the sun are equalizing with the energy field emitted by the sun (Kepler’s Law). The accepted masses of the planets are all wrong (as shown by the composition and density of the moon and Mars) and Newton’s and Einstein’s formulas are wrong (as shown by binary asteroids).
An atom has a negative charge even though it has the same number of protons and electrons. It is the result of the distance between the nucleus and electrons. The Earth has a similar charge creating the van Allen belts which stop solar wind’s ions from reaching the surface. A hydrogen atom and a neutron have the same composition, a proton and an electron (quarks are an invention of quacks), yet have vastly different electric properties.
Dew point and humidity are both expressing the same thing, the water content of the air. Dew point expresses it as the temperature where the amount of water would be 100% humidity while humidity expresses it as the percentage of water the air could hold at that temperature. temperature.
Atmospheric pressure is not the weight of the molecules in the atmosphere. Both the thermometer and barometer have similar designs with the difference being that the reservoir of liquid is toady enclosed in a thermometer while exposed in a barometer. How does that thin layer of glass convert units prom mass/unit area to mass distance squared divided by time squared? A high pressure area is a body of warm air while a low pressure is a body of cool air. How can a volume of less dense air have more mass than the same volume of denser air? Both instruments are measuring the momentum of the molecules striking it. In a calm high pressure the molecules are moving vertical while in a low pressure there is horizontal motion which lessens the amount of energy transferred to the instrument.
Energy doesn’t disappear. It becomes internal energy not radiated energy. At absolute zero objects do not fall apart because they still have internal energy binding the object together even though they don’t radiate energy. Water is a lousy material to use in measuring energy since most of the energy added to it becomes internal energy building structures (which is why the size of a calorie changes at different initial temperature).. Kinetic energy is transferred tons thermometer by molecules colliding with it. It measures the mass of the molecule times its velocity not the internal energy. The velocity of a steam molecule is greater than the velocity of a liquid molecule at 100C and they both have the same mass. A thermometer is inaccurate at measuring ke.
Since water is transparent and the greatest amount of light is striking the droplet at an angle most of the light is being refracted downwards not back to the source.
I’m running late and do not have time to proof read this reply so I apologize for any errors.
Herb
Reply
Jan
| #
When you mention the neutron I must interject that the neutron is NOT composed from the electron and proton as is the Hydrogen atom and as you maybe believe but from the electron antineutrino and proton. It is stable if bound and unstable if not bound with halflife 14 minutes 39 seconds after which it in average decays into proton and the antineutrino. Which is BTW likely the reason why the amount of water on the Earth’s surface slowly rises, but there’s not enough place here to explain why besides pointing out that every proton eventually finds its electron and the so created Hydrogen atoms eventually find their Oxygen creating water in the most exothermic chemical reaction known in the nature. The empirically measured neutron radiation of the Sun is approx 3-4 times higher than the standard main sequence star model predicts. The relatively recently measured color temperature of the solar surface is also several hundreds of degrees higher than the standard main sequence star model predicts. Also the isotopic composition of the solar system doesn’t correspond at all to even a 2nd generation main sequence star model. Therefore our Sun is most likely at least 2nd generation neutron star with corona and solid neutron core which came to existence after a hypernova explosion, judging from the isotopic composition, its main power source is therefore completely other than the thermonuclear fusion (-which is anyway unable to create elements above Fe56 isotope as such reactions are endothermic and need temperatures of order of magnitude higher than even in the centers of the stars) and the future viability of such a star is at very least hundreds of billions of years if not practically infinite. The time due to the already significantly relativistic orbital speed around the center of the gallaxy (828 thousand kilometers per second – which itself is likely extremely rare in our gallaxy as we don’t know any other star orbiting so fast – caused most likely by the hypernova explosion about 4.5 billions of years ago) runs slower here than in the rest of the gallaxy, the difference is in order of dozens of thousands of years per orbit lasting about 230 million years during which the solar system travels through all arms of our gallaxy at the same time oscilating around the galaxy ecliptic and so it during its orbit encounters very significantly different intensities of space radiation causing the most profound cyclical and uncyclical/upredictable climate changes on Earth.
I write all this solely to show that the things can be much more complicated than the mainstream climatology and its neverending disputes about rather insignificant details even imagines not speaking knows. And in any case a trace content of CO2 in the atmosphere or the Solar luminosity changes do not play any major role in it. The Solar constant at century levels of timespans is always almost SAME (varies cyclicaly about 1W per square meter crossection at the average Earth’s orbital distance while the insolation of Earth during just one orbit of Earth/1 year around the Sun varies almost 100W per square meter of the same crossection due to the Earth’s orbit excentricity and moreover the precession of equinoxes causes diferent mutual phases of perihelion with the solstices and so with a cycle of approx 25780 years itself causes much more profound climate changes on Earth than the slight changes in the solar EM ativity can ever cause – because there is much more ocean area on the southern than on the northen hemisphere of the Earth or in other words the southern hemisphere has much lower albedo than the northern one so the phase of perihelion with the solstices plays tremendous role in the climate changes, orders of magnitude bigger than any solar EM activity changes). And what significantly changes with the solar EM activity cycles is the solar radiation spectrum (the sun shines considerably more in the UV – absorbed at the very surface of the ocean – and considerably less in the visible bands – absorbed orders of magnitude deeper in the ocean – during the sunspot solar cycle maximums and vice versa) which has some minor consequences in the sea surface temperatures, but generally, even if we forget about the galactic orbit completely, the inner solar system factors driving the cyclical climate changes are the Milankovich cycles not the changes in the solar luminosity which over spans longer than the 21 years long polar EM solar cycles are almost none.
Dew point and humidity do NOT express the same thing as the Dew point is dependent on the pressure. And I’m already really tired to have discussion with individuals repeatedly writing nonsenses beyond triviality without even having time to reread them after themselves, so this is my last post in this thread.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
The
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
Horace’s experiments with his hot box and their results must be explained if the controversy involving the proposed influence of atmospheric carbon dioxide is to be resolved. PSI has posted three of my essays about Horace’s hot box experiments and my experiments with a more modern one. Here is a link to the first posted June 23,1916. (https://principia-scientific.com/the-horace-de-saussure-hot-box/)
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jan,
When a proton and an electron combine to form a neutron it produces energy. When a neutron is not in a nucleus it spontaneously splits into an electron and a proton giving off energy as gamma radiation. This is an obvious violation of the LoT that says energy cannot be created or destroyed.
The neutron is a subatomic molecule composed of a proton and electron. It is unstable despite being formed from opposite charges while an alpha particle is extremely stable although it contains 2 protons and 2 neutrons. The neutron has both a negative and positive charge. (Just as atoms have both a negative and positive charges.) As a neutron travels through energy field it represents two equal currents going in opposite directions. This causes a shearing force (right had rule) that splits the molecule creating a hydrogen atom.
The force of matter (electric) and the force of energy (gravity and magnetism) act in opposite fashions. As similar poles of magnets are forced together the force becomes internal and the radiated magnetic field decreases. When similar charges are forced together the internal force becomes a stronger radiated electric field. The opposite occurs when opposite charges and pole come together.
When an object gains energy (increased attraction) it shortens the distance between the objects, compressing their negative electric fields. When the energy is lost the electric force forces the objects apart creating an electromagnetic wave.
Energy is attracted to positive matter and repels negative matter creating atoms, which have both electric and energy fields. Since energy is a subatomic, force acting on the nucleus it creates a compressing force that counter acts the repelling force between protons. As long as the electrons are within the proton shell of the nucleus it will form a stable structure that the compression force cannot split. If there are too many electrons in the nucleus and an electron is exposed, it will be expelled as beta radiation. How can an unstable nucleus expend energy to expel an electron then form a stable nucleus that contains an even stronger repelling force?
The sun is composed of neutrons and the energy attracted to the positive charge creates an energy field around it, that decreases with distance. As energy converts neutrons into atoms (hydrogen is the ashes not the fuel) it creates the disturbance we call light which is then transferred to the energy field surrounding other objects.
The neutrino and the ever growing number and types of subatomic particles are all a result of the refusal to believe that energy and mass are not the same (E does not equal mc^2). The speed of light is never constant but varies with the strength of the energy fields in which it travels. The blurring of spectral lines (both red and blue shifts) is the result of the disturbance traveling through multiple energy fields that cause its velocity to decrease as it moves away from a source and increase as it travels towards another source.
The reason the Earth becomes cooler during the solar cycle is because the decrease in UV means less radiated energy heating the N2 and O2 in the atmosphere (over 90% being absorbed which is not the result of 10 ppm ozone in the stratosphere). They in turn add energy to the surface by convection following the law of conservation of momentum.
The idea that the molecules in the atmosphere create a weight on the surface is absurd. If you place an object on a scale it will register a weight, if you pick it up so it is no longer in contact with the scale, it has no weight. If you drop the object on the scale, the scale will register a weight greater than the mass. The atmosphere is created by the ke of the gas molecules striking the surface and bouncing off. If they had no ke (0 K) they would just be a layer on the Earth, held there by gravity.
The measurement of pressure setting the base line as sea level is nonsense, Pressure is a result of gravity which is measured from the center of the Earth. A variation of 100 miles over a distance of 4000 miles is negligible The Earth has a 22 km greater diameter at the equator than at the poles making sea level there greater than the top of mountains. Sea level varies with longitude and attitude as the rotational rate of the surface and inertia of water changes it everywhere.
Dew point and humidity are both measuring the. water in the air. One is expressed as the temperature where the humidity is 100% and does not vary with changes in temperature. The other is expressed the percentage of the water the air can contain and decreases with increasing temperature. They are inverse just as temperature is a measurement of energy for a constant volume gas while temperature divided by density is a measurement of the energy of a constant mass of molecules.
I understand that you have spent lot of timed money to get your degrees. The teachers provided you with all the answers to the questions they posed and if you repeated them you became an expert. The problem is that all experts turn out to be wrong. You got the answers but lost the ability to question and therefore to think. You’ve become a disciple preserving the orthodoxy instead a scientist questioning it.
Good bye and be prepared for a long cold spell.
Herb
Reply