Ferdinand Engelbeen – Another Zeta 5th Columnist
The saga with the CLINTEL group continues. One problem I faced with them is that, other than Nikolov and Zeller, none on the team seemed to be familiar with thermodynamics and mathematical physics.
Of course, that makes for perfect feeding grounds for the noetic parasite which feeds off of cognitive dissonance and lives purely in the realm of Gödel-incomplete word salads in place of actual mathematical equations correspondent with physics.
One of the major thorns in the group is a character named Ferdinand Engelbeen who from the beginning has done nothing but gatekeep, corral, and funnel the discussion away from clarity on the issue of the non-existence of the climate alarmist greenhouse effect.
We’ve seen this type many times before, particularly in the other members of the CLINTEL group such as Christopher Monckton. Of course, we now know that these people, who refuse to acknowledge the most trivial facts of mathematics and empiricism, are Zeta parasites defending the existence of their feeding grounds, ultimately with a goal of eradicating all life on Earth.
This radiative greenhouse effect psy-op seems to be the most important thing for them, and they must defend it at all costs, even if in the short-term it means that they have to concede that it won’t have a big effect on the climate: they absolutely must maintain that it exists, rather than concede the truth that it doesn’t.
And of course, that was the final message of the CLINTEL group – that the radiative greenhouse effect exists (it doesn’t, though), and that it just won’t have a big effect. Telling.
When we’re at a point in debate where all an opponent is required to do is to acknowledge that there is a difference between flat Earth vs. round Earth, between cold and hot, and that this difference has scientific and mathematical relevance, when the opponent gaslights you and claims that there is no difference and that it is not even a sensible question to ask (see: Planet Wars for such responses in scientific peer-review!), and when you see them inexplicably coordinated in such maneuvers of sophistry, then you are necessitated to perform a meta-analysis with the comprehension that the debate revolves around something else entirely above its ostensible innocent scientific nature.
Such an analysis reveals that planet Earth is infested with a noetic parasite which feeds off of cognitive dissonance and off of the destruction of human mentation in general, and which has a goal of eradicating all life on Earth, and the pseudoscientific non-existent “radiative greenhouse effect” is central to that parasite’s operation.
By “feeds off of cognitive dissonance and off of the destruction of human mentation in general,” I mean that it is destroying human consciousness, that it is destroying the human ability to think, that it is making humanity self-destructively stupid. Look around.
In any case, what follows is just a bit of discussion of thermodynamics, which, interestingly enough, seems to have shut-up Ferdinand from continuing to respond with sophistical takes on the radiative greenhouse effect and thermodynamic principles.
The backstory to what follows is my having had the usual argument with a climate-alarmist greenhouse effect defender (Ferdinand) about the First Law of Thermodynamics and how heat is what is required to increase temperature:
FE: “I was writing about radiation energy. If that results in heat (warming, or less cooling) depends of the sum of all radiation energy inputs and outputs.”
So of course, Ferdinand uses the sophistry of referring to energy, and makes the assumption that all energy must increase temperature, and he ignores what I had just explained about heat, not merely energy, but heat, being required for temperature increase.
Ferdinand’s supposition is incorrect. That is not how thermodynamics or the heat equations work. The heat equations for radiation (and any other mode of heat) show that it (heat, what is required to increase temperature) is what occurs between two bodies only.
Therefore, the correct way to calculate heat when you have multiple objects is not to sum the radiation from all other objects onto one, but, to sum the individual heat from each other object onto the one. The reason is because heat is work, and work is something that one body performs on another.
If thermodynamics worked as Ferdinand and the climate alarmist greenhouse effect are postulating, then, we could add many ice-cubes together to keep getting higher and higher temperature. Alas, in reality you only get ice-cube temperature, and that’s it.
Ferdinand, and the climate alarmist greenhouse effect (which he defends, thus defending alarmism and all of its policies), postulate “the sum of all radiation energy inputs and outputs” being what results in heating. We can understand that this is incorrect with a simple example:
One ice-cube at -18C (255K) emits 240 W/m^2. Now, let’s have two ice-cubes, producing a sum of radiation of now 480 W/m^2, according to the logic of Ferdinand and the RGHE. Thus, do two ice-cubes give us 30C (303K from 480 W/m^2 via the Stefan-Boltzmann Law). Can we keep adding N ice-cubes to get N * 240 W/m^2?
Nope, that is not how thermodynamics or heat flow works.
Instead, if you have one object at Thot = 30C, then you calculate the heat between it and ice-cube n = 1, between it and ice-cube n = 2, between it and ice-cube n = 3, etc., using heat Qn = sigma*(Thot^4 – T_icecube_n^4) = sigma*(303^4 – 255^4)
In each and every case, the heat flow is only from the hot object at 30C, to each and every ice-cube which it is heating up. Adding more and more ice-cubes will never result in the ice-cube warming up the hotter object.
In other words, Ferdinand, and the climate alarmist fake-greenhouse effect which he supports, postulate that you can keep adding ice-cubes together to make higher and higher temperature. The question to ask would be: how many ice-cubes does it take to re-heat your cold cup of coffee?
Of course the answer is that temperature do not add, and hence fluxes do not add, and you can not simply add up radiation this way with regards to determining potential temperature changes. You have to add up heat from each other object, onto one object, by taking the difference of their energies, and this is a very different thing than simply adding up energy.
If we simply add up energy, then adding up ice-cubes will lead to higher and higher temperature. However, if we add up heat, which is the result of the difference of energy, then adding up ice-cubes will only ever get you ice-cube temperature. That’s neat, and important, how that works!
FE: “Thus my questions to you are:
1. Does the earth’s surface absorb radiant energy from CO2 in the atmosphere or not.
2. Do the back radiation measurements show around 300 W/m2 of downwelling radiant energy
3. And is that absorbed by the earth’s surface or not.”
So you can see how, now with his re-jigging of how heat and temperature increase works, he can pretend to force you into rhetorical questions to which he’s attempted to design the answers for. The answers he seeks are of course all “yes”.
However, the answers are 1: NO, 2: YES, and 3: NO.
Just because you can measure radiant energy from an ice-cube, does not mean that that energy can warm a hotter body. It is as simple as that, and that is what determines the correct answers above.
Here’s the basic thought experiment: envision a universe with nothing it, and obviously, no temperature since temperature can only exist in matter and space has no temperature. Now add a hot object at 30C.
Great, it’s emitting thermal radiant energy to space. Now add an ice-cube at -18C a few meters away from the hot body, which of course also emits in all directions. Where before there was only empty space and the hot body only “saw” empty space around it, now there’s an ice-cube in the field of view.
Is that ice-cube at -18C going to heat the warm body at 30C? There’s new radiation present – that from the ice-cube; will it warm the hotter body now? Well why would it? Use the heat equation. The heat equation shows that the hot body just warms the ice-cube. That’s it.
Why would the cold body warm the hot body? There’s literally no thermodynamic equations or theory which would show that. It should be trivial to show, since there’s only 2 bodies…but there are no such trivial equations to show the result which Ferdinand and the alarmist greenhouse effect postulate.
The only equations which do exist for thermodynamics and in this scenario say that the hot body warms the cooler…and that’s it.
So there you have it. Your climate alarmist greenhouse postulate simply has no basis in reason, math, physics, and thermodynamics. It can only be created with word-games.
One last comment from Ferdinand was:
FE: “That has nothing to do with real greenhouses, which work with a different principle, but with the radiation energy balance: all energy of whatever source must be conserved.”
This is very clever, subtle, expert-class cognitive dissonance sophistry, and simple lying. The point about real greenhouses is that they contain all of the conditions necessary to demonstrate the action of the radiative greenhouse effect, but they do not, which is an experimental debunking of that postulate which goes along with the debunking in theory.
The add-on is that real greenhouses get warm because of convective-stoppage, not from a radiative effect. To get around and hide this fact from exposure which is an empirical debunk of the climate alarmist greenhouse effect, Ferdinand dissimulates and pretends that real greenhouses do not apply because they work with a different principle.
You see what he did there? The fact that real greenhouses work with a difference principle than the climate alarmist radiative greenhouse effect is itself the proof that the RGHE does not exist!
So to funnel away from this fact, the Zeta parasite Ferdinand (and I’ve seen this routine from others) pretends that the experimental scenario which debunks the effect does not apply…because it debunks the effect!
Hilarity. These parasites are incredibly clever with their word games, but once you see how they do it, it becomes so obvious.
See more here climateofsophistry.com
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Brendan
| #
Ferdinand is not a skeptic, although he claims to be. He is an infiltrator and is destroying Clintel from the inside.
Reply
Bevan
| #
Thank You Joe Postma,
I have had the same conversations on-line with Ferdinand and eventually gave up trying to answer his garbage that radiation from a cold body adds heat to a hotter body. We all know from experience that a cold body needs heat from a hotter source in order to raise its temperature. If the reverse also applied then everything in the Universe would be heating everything else, the temperature of the Universe would have risen continuously and we would have been fried long ago.
If Ferdinand and the other climate alarmist wish to think that, then they have a problem. Unfortunately it is also our problem as their paymasters control the Main Stream Media so the public continues to be mislead.
Reply
Lit
| #
Always, always, always ask for experiments that confirms that cold greenhouse gases can raise temperature of a hot body immersed in the gases. There are no experiments that show such a relationship. And if there are no such experiments it´s just a hypothesis without evidence, The GHE is lives only in their ignorant minds, and they must understand that without observation in controlled environment it has no value at all. That´s how physics works. Hypothesis->confirming experiment->theory
Reply
Tom Anderson
| #
Physicists Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf Tschneuschner called the CAGWH a “conjecture” in their 2009 paper for the absence of supporting facts. The conjecture is well supported, however, by assumptions, simulations and conclusions.
Reply
Geraint HUghes
| #
Well done Joe. There are so many stupid people out there, pretending to be clever who think 2 cold ice cubes make one hot cup of tea. Its just daft beyond words. They always blab on about how CO2 slows the rate of cooling, it just does not. No matter how you frame it to them, they just dig their heels in and act like babies throwing tantrum simply just demand that they are correct. Its just bonkers. The climate cult needs culling.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
GH:
. . . stupid people out there, pretending to be clever who think 2 cold ice cubes make one hot cup of tea. Its just daft beyond words.
JMcG:
Postma gratuitously put words in Ferninand’s mouth and you are patting him on the back for it? Ferdinand never stated that ice cubes can increase the temperature of the hot object. This was Postma’s gratuitous mischaracterization of what Ferdinand said.
Ferdinand has a correct understanding of thermodynamics. Postma, unfortunately, fails to comprehend that All matter is producing EMEs at a rate proportional to their temperature. This means that EMEs are moving in ALL DIRECTIONS AT ALL TIMES. However the preponderance of the flow will be from hotter to cooler. Or, another way to say this, is that NET flow will be from hotter to colder.
Postma has some kind of mental block where he can’t distinguish between general flow (all directions) and net flow (hot to cold).
I explained this distinction to Joe way back in 2013. It’s surreal that he is still confused on this issue.
James McGinn / Genius
Secrets of Flow
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Secrets-of-Flow-e1smmfr/a-a93hei9
Reply
olav ankjær
| #
I am a layman in these matters, most are.
Question and claim: climate alarmists’ claim is not that CO2 (back radiation) warms the earth’s surface, but that it reduces (delays) the surface’s loss of heat. If you add more of what -hypothetically- reduces heat loss, the equilibrium temperature (average temperature – if such a thing can be described) will increase. So: the day side of the earth receives x-watts – the night side of the earth loses slightly fewer watts than it did earlier with a lower proportion of CO2. The next day, the earth is heated from a somewhat higher level, which thus gives a somewhat higher average temperature.
As the earth also has heat loss during the day which is naturally lower than the input, they believe this can be described via an equation that describes 24 hours.
Do we agree that this is what they claim?
In other words: they do not claim that a colder object can heat a warmer one, but is their hypothetical physics such that this should also be possible? Is the consequence of their claim that this (heating up a hotter object further up) should also be able to happen?
Then I must be allowed to ask and claim: how can Postma claim this without giving an explanation that this will and must be the consequence? I can’t understand that such an explanation/summary has been put forward, but now I’m just little me, a layman.
We must all agree that heat/temperature is a description of how fast the different atoms vibrate. To increase the speed of this vibration, energy must be added. If this vibration is not maintained by added energy, the vibration speed will fall. In other words: the energy drops and thus the object’s temperature.
That the supply of too little energy to increase or maintain the vibration in the atom (atms) should reduce the drop in energy – and thus the drop in temperature – is incomprehensible to me.
As you can probably understand, I am not a supporter of the back-radiation hypothesis, but I would like to try to understand and be able to use Postma in my argument, I find this somewhat difficult as I do not understand his claims myself.
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Olav. Grab a computer and search; frequencies at which CO2 absorbs and re-emits infrared.
Those frequencies will give corresponding temperatures.
Search also; greening of the earth.
This will show how increasing atmospheric CO2 has increased vegetation in sub desert arias and this increases evapotranspiration thus cooling of the surface.
It is prudent to understand how sun cycles, geothermal activity, the Milankovitch cycles, and the 18.6 year lunar standstill cycles affect climate.
Good Luck.
Matt
Reply
MattH
| #
This reference to Major and minor lunar standstills is a good one.
https://www.astro.com/astrology/iam_article170717_e.htm#:~:text=In%20fact%2C%20at%20in%20far%20north%20latitudes%2C%20the,years%20later%2C%20the%20Moon%20reaches%20its%20minor%20standstill.
Most scientists ignore these cycles, increased tidal circulation and oceanic replenishment of the arctic ocean at major standstill, La Nina’s at major standstills, and El Nino at minor standstill.
Reply
olav ankjær
| #
Answers to your four suggested topics are MattH,
I know this.
So I will repeat what I don’t understand.
Climate alarmists do not claim that back radiation leads to heating of an object with x degrees temperature due to radiation from an object with x degrees lower temperature. Radiation from this object with x degrees lower temperature should, on the other hand, reduce the rate at which the object with a higher temperature loses heat/energy.
Do we agree that this is their claim?
Postma’s analogy with ice cubes concerns the further heating of an already hotter object than the object from which it receives radiation. This analogy will quickly be contradicted with the fact that it is not what he/she or climate science claims.
Then I ask, since Postma uses this analogy, the physics the climate alarmists use to describe this reduction in speed objects lose energy/heat must have the consequence that heating must also take place.
It is this consequence of further heating that I do not understand. It would be very useful to be able to argue against the alarmist’s alleged reduction in the rate at which the earth’s surface loses energy/heat through the physics of background radiation, that the same physics will necessarily also lead to an increase in the earth’s surface energy/heat, also at night.
As you probably understand, I hope other readers also, I believe that this reduction in energy or heat loss does not exist – due to back radiation – read what I write about the vibration of atoms in my previous post.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Olav,
The problem with alarmists is they aren’t dealing with reality.
First: The transfer of energy in the troposphere is not done by radiation but convection so the laws of radiation transfer do not apply. With radiation objects cannot achieve the same energy levels because of the distance between them and the decline of energy with distance. With convection the laws of conservation of momentum apply and equalization of energy occurs instantly. The laws of radiation apply to the thermosphere which expands and contrasts as it gains and loses energy.
Second: The thermometer does not measure the energy of molecules but the momentum of the molecules striking it. The more molecules transferring energy the greater the thermometer’s reading. It is energy that objects transfer, not mass so gas molecules with their greater velocity will transfer energy to solids and liquids even though their temperature (less mass) is lower. (see my article in PSI How Cold Heats Hot) The surface of the Earth is not heating the atmosphere, the atmosphere is adding heat to the surface. The O2 and N2 in the atmosphere are absorbing UV light from the sun (over 90%) and converting it into kinetic energy. The contention that because these gases do not absorb visible light and longer radiation they do not absorb radiated energy from the sun is nonsense and violates the premise that all matter absorbs radiated energy. The density and temperature in the atmosphere decline with increasing altitude but the kinetic energy of the molecules increases with increasing altitude. (Divide the temperature at an altitude by the density at that altitude to compare the kinetic energy of a constant number of molecules in the atmosphere.)
Third: As long as there is water on the Earth it will absorb energy by evaporating and transport that energy to the top of the troposphere where it is released into space. Water cools the surface and every gallon of rain that falls is the result 2,200,000 calories of heat being sent into space. To believe that the rare “green house gases” can heat the surface is to believe that a 2000 BTU furnace can heat a house with a 1,000,000 BTU air conditioner running.
To argue with fools you must point out the fallacies of their premises not accept them.
Herb
Reply
olav ankjær
| #
I just have to apologize and capitulate as I am not from an English speaking country.
Your reply Rose, oh thank you for that, does not contain anything to remedy my lack of understanding which I am trying to elucidate.
My English skills are clearly so lacking and bad that people think I am a novice in all discussions of climate science.
To account for what I do not understand is clearly not possible.
Thanks for trying to answer, by by.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt,
Linea Van Horn’s article is so long that I did not finish reading it. Being long is it must not be simple. And Einstein is said to have stated: “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” And Louis Elzevir, the publisher of Galileo’s famous book, in his preface to a reader of the book wrote, as translated by Crew and de Salvio: “For, according to the common saying, sight can teach more and with greater certainty in a single day than can precept even though repeated a thousand times.”
You have written to me that you are a fisherman who has lived at the same place on the coast of New Zealand. And you have written that as an youth you predicted the best suffering conditions where one could uniquely surf a swell for more than a mile. Only you really know how you were somewhat accurately predicting these unique times that surfers learned to pay attention to the predictions of a youth.
You live on a west coast and therefore you have natural sea horizon to see where the sun and the full moon set, relative to each other, and see the tides which occurred before, during, and after the standstills of the full moon. And once you learned to count you could count the days between the full moons.
I stop here to ask: Do you see what you were naturally learning without really being aware that you were learning (seeing) about the natural laws of Nature?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry.
You can skim down Linea Van Horn’s article until finding the relevant headings.
Two key things she states is that the standstill, minor or major, lasts around three years, and that the moon is at the same place, relative to earth surface, 18.6 years later. I have not audited these statements for accuracy. Also, I do not follow astrology but emergency service personal claim to witness weird and wonderful behavior on some full moons.
The next major lunar standstill is early 2025 so one could expect the arctic ocean to start cooling again from around 2027 or a little later, everything else being equal.
The 1998 and 2016 El Ninos correlate with Lunar Minor Standstills and troughs in global temperatures correlate with Major Lunar Standstills. There is an anomaly in the 1930s but if these correlations are merely coincidence I am hoping they will not hang me for being seduced by shadows.
On reading weather maps. The friction of a long straight air movement (fetch) on the ocean surface generates long swells (corduroy waves). I have never stated the waves where I live break for a mile, but you do get a continuous surf ride of 80 metres or more in a series of surf breaks.
Is nitrogen gas the other major gas component in aircraft exhausts?
Have a nice day.
Matt. Whokoo. Moffin. and Moofsonian Institute.
Reply
MattH
| #
PS. I am fully aware of what nature teaches me. Less discussion and more analysis.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt,
Yes, nitrogen. Again you have demonstrated an ability to see the obvious (the point of my question) what other people have not seen and reported.
Sorry I remembered somethings you did not say. However, I have another question. Do you believe the aborigine people of New Zealand could have seen and reasoned as you did as a youth about the natural laws of NATURE.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
MattH
| #
The polynesian people had to understand many natural laws of nature, especially their ability to read the heavens for their impressive sea faring excursions.
Linea Van Horn’s article on lunar standstills makes the claim that many standing stone arrangements around the world chart the lunar major and minor standstills as well as solar.
For the ancient people, life was a challenge from many quarters, and people had to learn the secrets of nature or perish.
In lands without mammals for food, people had to eat their enemy lest the tables be turned. The way of nature.
Cheers Jerry
Matt
James McGinn
| #
Olav,
Everything you are saying here has been explained to them over 20 times in the last 10 years. I myself have presented no less than 3 responses that reflected everything you are saying here. They represent a complete lost-cause of deeply delusional dolts.
James McGinn / Genius
Secrets of Flow
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Secrets-of-Flow-e1smmfr/a-a93hei9
Reply
olav ankjær
| #
Answers to your four suggested topics are MattH,
I know this.
So I will repeat what I don’t understand.
Climate alarmists do not claim that back radiation leads to heating of an object with x degrees temperature due to radiation from an object with x degrees lower temperature. Radiation from this object with x degrees lower temperature should, on the other hand, reduce the rate at which the object with a higher temperature loses heat/energy.
Do we agree that this is their claim?
Postma’s analogy with ice cubes concerns the further heating of an already hotter object than the object from which it receives radiation. This analogy will quickly be contradicted with the fact that it is not what he/she or climate science claims.
Then I ask, since Postma uses this analogy, the physics the climate alarmists use to describe this reduction in speed objects lose energy/heat must have the consequence that heating must also take place.
It is this consequence of further heating that I do not understand. It would be very useful to be able to argue against the alarmist’s alleged reduction in the rate at which the earth’s surface loses energy/heat through the physics of background radiation, that the same physics will necessarily also lead to an increase in the earth’s surface energy/heat, also at night.
As you probably understand, I hope other readers also, I believe that this reduction in energy or heat loss does not exist – due to back radiation – read what I write about the vibration of atoms in my previous post.
(Rescued from spam list) SUNMOD
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
The CLINTEL organisation, or anyone else can believe whatever they like. The problem occurs when they expect me to constrain my way of life, because of what they believe. This can apply to global warming, Covid-19, veganism, religious belief, etc.
These issues are where we need the whole community to express an opinion. It is called direct democracy and can be accessed through citizens initiated referendum. This requires a change to the constitution we operate under. It is a minor change, but will ‘step on many elite toes’, and so be strongly resisted.
Unless we find a way to unlock the intelligence of the whole community, then I am afraid we are doomed to be ‘jerked around’ by a vocal minority, who usually occupy elite positions of privilege within the community.
Being ‘jerked around’ carries on until, as history shows us, a period of anarchy, or civil war breaks the cycle.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Robert,
What nation in the known history of the earth, formed a united nation of people from other nations, then fought a civil war, and immediately, at the end of this civil war. formed the same united nation without legal slavery?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Hi Jerry,
I am surprised to get a history request from such an expert on rear view vision, but here goes.
The basic French Revolution of 1789 which postdates the American revolution of 1776 was so different in that the latter revolution divided America, lasting to this day. History has clearly defined various periods of social unrest through the ages – all of which resulted in a form of top-down government. This includes the communist states.
The American path has resulted in two competing forms of top-down government. (Republican and Democrat). The competition is now so aggressive that another revolution seems possible.
My interest is in the alternative bottom-up form of government which has applied in Switzerland over hundreds of years. It dates to the Federal Charter of 1291 – following a period of anarchy – that is considered as the country’s founding document. It was consolidated in 1848 and 1999 to form the Swiss Constitutions. These define a system of direct democracy that has offered lasting stability, whereas the top-down form has universally, only offered temporary relief before some new form of autocracy appears.
The basic differences between the two forms of government is that bottom-up unlocks the combined intelligence of the whole community. Top-down government restricts intelligent input to only the elites. Also top-down administration effectively separates the spenders from the tax payers, in stark contrast to a bottom-up system.
Your thoughts always welcome.
Reply
MattH
| #
” bottom-up unlocks the combined intelligence of the whole community”
Good summation, Robert.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
I do not like short lines. Hence where I place this short comment relative to Linea Van Horn’s article and Stonehenge.
I question if she/he(?) know there are 56 equally spaced holes dug in chalk (which is why the holes still exist) in a near circle, which are generally considered to have been dug before someone began erecting stones in a circle. (https://principia-scientific.com/ancestors-tracing-history-scientific-method/)
Of course, one is free to disregard what I have written. It is only history.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry.
I did not mention Stone henge but many different standing stones around the world.
I will do some casual reading on global standing stones over the next few months and hope those writing summaries are familiar with the 18.6 year cycle.
Stay healthy for a few more years so we can determine which of us comes out smiling the widest. (chuckle chuckle)
Best wishes
Matt
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt,
Have you read about New Zealand’s GHOST BALLOON atmospheric circulation project? I just learned of it and it appears very interesting. Which the fact that I had never heard of it makes it more interesting. For my question is why have I not knowingly encountered it? Maybe you have.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt,
Have you read about New Zealand’s GHOST BALLOON atmospheric circulation project? I just learned of it and it appears very interesting. Which the fact that I had never heard of it makes it more interesting. For my question is why have I not knowingly encountered it? Maybe you have.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry.
The balloon releases are reported on when postponed due to the weather being unsettled.
I study the Mean Surface Level Pressure maps of the same area most days.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt,
I cannot see (understand) how your comment has anything related to The Ghost Balloon project. So I conclude that you are not aware of it either. Why have the observed results of this project not commonly known (written about)? For I have checked and records of their results are available. And it would seem the academic New Zealand atmospheric scientists of New Zealand should be very familiar with them as the project is not ancient history.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt,
I learned of the Ghost balloons in Weather Systems (1988) by Leslie F. Musk. Where on page 111 is figure12.3 with the caption: “The Rossby waves of the southern hemisphere as determined by the trajectory of a GHOST balloon launched from New Zealand on 30 March1966. It drifted at an altitude of 12 km with a mean speed of over 110 km/hr for 49 days. Its daily position is shown together with its inferred daily path.
“Waves in the ocean come in many different shapes and sizes. Slow-moving oceanic Rossby waves are fundamentally different from ocean surface waves. Unlike waves that break along the shore, Rossby waves are huge, undulating movements of the ocean that stretch horizontally across the planet for hundreds of kilometers in a westward direction. They are so large and massive that they can change Earth’s climate conditions. Along with rising sea levels, King Tides, and the effects of El Niño, oceanic Rossby waves contribute to high tides and coastal flooding in some regions of the world.” (https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/rossby-wave.html)
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt,
While you find time to do your literature search, I will continue what I hope to be brief comments as I share that which I have found on my literature search (google).
For one cannot ignore the observed fact reported that there is a relationship to the atmospheric circulation at 12 km altitude and the ocean surface current (circulation) beneath this atmospheric circulation at 12 km altitude.
Now I read that Einstein stated: “All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree.” Can I consider that this TREE might be history?
Historically, most humans (scientists even) were unaware of the jet streams which carried the GHOST balloon with them. Except there was a Japanese observer who saw something was carrying clouds rapidly, west to east, over Japan. So it seems some Japanese military people considered that they could construct hydrogen balloons to use the observed jet streams to carry incendiary devices across the Pacific Ocean to the USA during the winter when the jet streams were observed to be most numerous. I must add to establish the point that “the most obvious is most difficult to see.” For anywhere at latitudes greater than, say, 40 degrees it is very difficult to start a fire during the winter. However a fact is that more than a thousand incendiary devices came down in the USA as far east as its midwest.
To further establish the point of my quote, it seems a historical fact that the readers of Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes mysteries believed they were reading fiction when they read: “It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence, it biases the judgment.” And “The temptation to form premature theories upon insufficient data is the bane of our profession.”
Matt, I am sure there are historical records of tides along the coasts of New Zealand and Australia for the 49 days of Ghost ballon launched from New Zealand 30 March 1966.
Can you access this tidal data for these 49 days and report it?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James MacGinn, Herb Rose and PSI Readers,
If you don’t believe that individual water molecules evaporate from surfaces of liquid water, or solid water, consider this data.
Sodium Chloride (common salt NaCl) melting point 801C boiling point
1413 C
Potassium Chloride (KCl) melting point 776 C sublimation point 1500 C
Lead Chloride (PbCl2) melting point 501 C boiling point 950 C
Cadmium Chloride (CdCl2) melting point 568 C boiling point 960 C
(Hand Book of Chemistry & Physics 40th Edition)
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herg Rose
| #
Jerry,
Ammonia (NH3) melt point-77.7C boiling point -33.3C. Since this molecule has a covalent bond structure like water and similar molecular weight (17 vs 18) why aren’t you comparing it to water rather than those heavier crystals formed by ionic bonds?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
My answer to your question is quite simple. For it seems your and James argue is that liquid water and solid water do not have significant energy to eject a single water molecule from the surface. Hence, even ionic matter has a vapor pressure caused by more massive “ionic molecules” of the condensed matter which have very high melting points.
Given the boiling point of liquid sodium chloride and the sublimation point (temperature) of liquid potassium chloride after which increasing the rate of heating does not increase the temperature of the liquid, but only increases the rate of sublimation (evaporation).
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
You maintain that water converts to a gas below its boiling point. Are you saying that we should keep our salt in an air tight container to prevent it from evaporating even though it is well below its boiling point?
Herb
Reply
MattH
| #
I will see if this works.
http://wxmaps.org/pix/precip_anim.gif
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry and readers.
Whack the above reference. There is a similar animated jetstream site that is in colour and allows animations at differing atmospheric pressures. It is similar to Ventusky but superior.
If anyone knows this please post a reference.
Jerry, you will note the intense energy area North of Australia which is an indication of the La Nina intensity on the animation.
Cheers.
Reply