Earth’s Climate is Heterogeneous and not Homogenous
Image: Stephen Kreig
TWO WORDS: HETEROGENEOUS and HOMOGENEOUS. Heterogeneous: “Differing in kind, having unlike qualities; opposed to homogeneous.” (Websters) Homogeneous: “Of the same kind or nature; consisting of similar parts or elements; —opposed to heterogeneous.” (Websters)
Average: “n. A mean value, median sum or quantity, made out of unequal sums or quantities; an arithmetical mean. —v.i. To do, get ect., as an average sum or quantity. —v.t. 1. To find the mean of; reduce to a mean.” (Websters)
Mean: “—n. 1. Obs. Something intermediate.” (Websters)
“Intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition.” (Louis Elzevir, Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences, as translated by Henry Crew and Alfonso de Salvio, 1914)
We know (observe) the Earth is heterogeneous and not homogenous. Averaging anything about the Earth makes it homogenous; unreal. So I ask: Why do some average what is observed? My answer: One cannot program a computer to analysis a heterogeneous system. Even if a computer can be programed to have its own intelligence, I cannot imagine how the computer can deal with a heterogeneous system which is accurately defined.
As I have read about this heterogenous system of the Earth’s weather and experienced its heterogeneous weather, I claim to see, quite simply, what the major factor involved in creating this heterogenous weather, is. It is unquestionably CLOUD. And if one watches common clouds, it is very apparent that they can quickly form and then a little while later dissolve (disappear). Now this commonly observed fact needs to be questioned and pondered.
One conclusion I come to is the atmosphere is compose of heterogenous parcels of ‘air’ (a gas). So to understand the formation and dissolving of a cloud, I must understand a ‘gas’ and what a cloud actually is.
Now based upon my experiences with some humans, I suspect some readers of this musing consider it is going nowhere slowly. Muse: “v.i. & t. To meditate; ponder. n. A state of profound meditation.” (Websters). Now it might surprise these readers that Galileo likely spent a lifetime of musing. It is okay that they maybe do not spend much time musing; for we all are heterogenous, but they should not criticize those who are different from themselves. Fortunately we all have special and different interests and skills (abilities which have been strengthened by
Hence, I suggest an interested reader make a list of possible factors that need to, might, be considered while musing about the formation of a common cloud and the dissolution of a common cloud.
I conclude this essay with a brief, little known, portion of Galileo’s book which illustrates a portion of his apparent life long musings.
“The exquisite transparency of water also favors this view; for the most transparent crystal when broken and ground and reduced to powder loses its transiency; the finer the grinding the greater the loss; but in the case of water where the attrition is of the highest degree we have extreme transparency. Gold and silver when pulverized with acids [acque forti] more finely than is possible with any file still remains powder,* and do not become fluids until the finest particles [gl’ indivisibili] of fire or the rays of the sun dissolve them, as I think, into their ultimate, indivisible, and infinitely small components. *It is not clear what Galileo here means by saying that gold and silver when treated with acids still remain powders. [Trans.]”
I now suggest that an interested reader comment upon what Galileo meant.
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.
Barry
| #
Hi Jerry kind of interesting the wx and clouds probably have fascinated children and some of us adults for eternity. When very young I read somewhere that you only need to ask two questions to answer most things,why. And why not. This has served me very well through out my life,as in I always try to make the argument from both sides and see which one comes out most logical and then following that path until proven wrong. I always find people with closed minds very odd as if they have no interest in learning something that may not follow their exact thinking,usually this type of person is ignorant of any fact but quick to tell us what they were told by a not necessarily expert. To me Galileo was contemplating that no matter how small the particle it is still a particle.
Have a good day Barry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
My cousin just sent to me an an email about a statement Ian Rutherford Plimer (Earth Science, Geology, Mining Engineering) had recently made: “The volcanic eruption in Iceland. Since its first spewing of volcanic ash, it has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet.”
After reading all of Plimer’s statement I find he focused entirely on the carbon dioxide gas and wrote nothing about the ‘volcanic ash.”
Might this volcanic ash have an influence upon the Earth’s weather in the near future?
So I repeat: “Intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition.” (Louis Elzevir, Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences, as translated by Henry Crew and Alfonso de Salvio, 1914).
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Charles Dougherty
| #
Jerry. I digress when I comment on your cousin’s email. Do you think Pilmer really said that? One would think that emission that profound -worth 5 years of man made emission- would result in a spike in the mana loa atmospheric CO2 measurement.
My muse of the day.
Chuck D
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Charles,
“One would think that emission that profound -worth 5 years of man made emission- would result in a spike in the mana loa atmospheric CO2 measurement.”
Only if one disregards the small fraction of the atmosphere which is carbon dioxide, the volume of the atmosphere involved, the prevailing winds involved, and the distance (both latitude and longitude) between Iceland and mana loa.
By the time the localized spike diffuses to create a well mixed atmosphere, there is probably a unmeasurable spike at mana loa.
However, I commend your musing of actually observed events because there is little evidence that many do any musing as they argue this and that without referring to any actual evidence.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Charles Dougherty
| #
Jerry
I have caught up on some other work, so I want to respond to you.
Plimer must be wrong about the volcanic release of CO2 because anything that large would have caused a blip in the measured concentration of CO2 at Mauna Loa.
There are many charts depicting the carbon cycle, The one I just used in my posting of 12May21 is workable and reasonably simple. In summary the chart says that 420 Gigatonnes of natural Carbon/ year (GtC/y) circulates with half being taken out of the atmosphere while the other half is released back into the atmosphere. The chart also shows 9GtC/y of man-made carbon entering the atmosphere however, 5 GtC/y are taken out of the atmosphere because of an increase in Earth’s greening. The imbalance, is 4GtC/y in the atmosphere making it 214 GtC/y. Those 4 will boost the CO2 concentration nominally 2 ppm.
If the volcano’s emission is 5 times the man-made emissions over several days in a single year, it would raise atmospheric carbon by 45 GtC/year. That would be enough C to make about a 20ppm concentration spike.
Converting the tonnes of C to tonnes of CO2 is easy however it would have required making a new chart, but it would not have made the conclusion any different. An updated chart with current numbers would likely not make much difference either, except for a slightly bigger bump in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Man-made emissions have grown since the making of this carbon cycle chart about 5 years ago.
Chuck
Reply