How Air Pressure & the Water Cycle Affect Our Climate
An open letter to Nadir Jeevanjee at the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration.
Re: your paper – “Simpson’s Law and the Spectral Cancellation of Climate Feedbacks” published by the American Geophysical Union.
You are very correct in citing water as the dominant factor in cooling the planet. We are, after all, the water planet, not the CO2 planet. Venus is the CO2 planet and it is the heat of thermal compression caused by the thick atmosphere of CO2 exerting 90 atmospheres of pressure on the surface that heats the surface of Venus to 460+ C. (Carl Sagan).
However, I believe that your analysis of Relative Humidity in place of Absolute Humidity to simplify climate modeling is an inherent oversimplification.
Nowhere in your analysis did you consider the effects of barometric pressure which, as any psychometric chart will show, is the other determinant in the phase change of water.
Both Svente Arrhenius (1896) and Gilbert Plass (1956) also oversimplified the cooling effects of the Water Cycle.
Arrhenius held the effects of water vapor and clouds as constant, ignoring the net cooling which results from the condensation (rain) and freezing of water (snow).
Abstract from Gilbert Plass (1956), re: effects of CO2 in the atmosphere at varying concentrations.
“…. provided that no other factors change which influence the radiation balance.”
No other factors affecting the radiation balance ? Say like water vapor and clouds ?
As we heat up on the surface, for whatever reason, we have more evaporation-water vapor convection-cloud formation and precipitation, which casts off the Heat of Evaporation (condensation to produce rain) and the Heat of Fusion (freezing to produce snow) by Infrared radiation emitted from cloud tops into the nearly infinite heat sink of outer space.
Moreover, greater cloud formation provides greater albedo to block solar radiation from even reaching the surface.
the carbon dioxide theory of climatic change
Header image: Freebie Supply
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.
Herb Rose
| #
Both the thermometer and the barometer are wrong. The barometer say the weight of the air per unit of area in a warm air mass is greater than the weight per unit area in a cold denser air mass. How can fewer molecules weigh more? The thermometer says the temperature/energy in the atmosphere declines with increasing altitude as the density of the atmosphere declines. This violates the universal gas law that says a gas gets denser as the energy of the molecules decl;ine. Both instruments are measuring the momentum of the molecules transferring energy to them. The Earth is not heating the atmosphere, the sun is with UV light. The assertion that because the O2 and N2 in the atmosphere do not absorb visible or infrared radiation they are not absorbing radiated energy from the sun violates the law of thermodynamics which says that all objects absorb radiated energy. The greenhouse gas theory is utter nonsense because it violates basic laws of physics.
Reply
TL Winslow
| #
Ordinarily I skip posts by this Herb Rose crackpot, but this time it was at the top so I inadvertently read it.
[[Both the thermometer and the barometer are wrong. The barometer say the weight of the air per unit of area in a warm air mass is greater than the weight per unit area in a cold denser air mass. How can fewer molecules weigh more?]]
It’s not just the number of molecules per unit area, it’s their kinetic energy.
[[Cool temperatures cause air pressure to drop. When gas molecules cool, they move more slowly. Decreased velocity results in fewer collisions between molecules and air pressure decreases. Air density plays a role in the correlation between temperature and pressure because warmer air is less dense than cool air, allowing molecules to have more space to collide with greater force. In cooler air, the molecules are closer together. The proximity results in collisions with less force and lower air pressure.]] – https://sciencing.com/temperature-affect-barometric-pressure-5013070.html
[[The assertion that because the O2 and N2 in the atmosphere do not absorb visible or infrared radiation they are not absorbing radiated energy from the sun violates the law of thermodynamics which says that all objects absorb radiated energy.]]
Jeesh! Only Planck black bodies absorb all radiated energy, and gases aren’t included, only solid or liquid objects with surfaces that can emit so many watts per square meter like Planck’s Black Body Law says. Most gases at atmospheric temperatures don’t absorb any radiated energy, only polar gases and only at specific wavelengths.
“To a first approximation gases do not emit black body radiation. You only see radiation from rotational, vibrational and electronic transitions, and these produce discrete lines. Gas molecules do interact when they collide, so if you increase the number of collisions by making the gas denser and hotter it will start to produce more black body radiation and eventually transition to radiation dominated by the black body spectrum.” – https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/222092/blackbody-or-characteristic-emission-of-radiation
As to UV light, yes, which has high Planck black body temperature, CO2 can absorb it at certain wavelengths, and does, in the stratosphere, providing a shield for solar flares. The stratosphere is above the bottom layer of the atmosphere, the troposphere, 6 mi. high. The rest of the UV light makes it to the ground after passing through all that atmosphere, although dust and smoke can block it. – https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/UVB/uvb_radiation3.php
“How much UV light reaches the earth’s surface?
Most of the natural UV light people encounter comes from the sun. However, only about 10 percent of sunlight is UV, and only about one-third of this penetrates the atmosphere to reach the ground, according to the National Toxicology Program (NTP).” – https://www.livescience.com/50326-what-is-ultraviolet-light.html
These are well-known facts, easy to Google. So, Rose is not as smart as a 5th grader?
No need for Rose to Google. He already knew it all by the 4th grade. I’m just as sure he’ll never study or master real atmospheric physics, while I’m gaining more students every day for my cool free Climate Science 101 course, which straightens out the mess of IPCC lies and gives a crystal clear understanding of pure sweet thermal physics. Start studying now and join my new generation that will eat the world: To test how right I am, trying messaging your favorite IPCC climate science with my criticism of their lies and watch them block you because you’re threatening their income.
http://www.historyscoper.com/climatescience101.html
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi PSI readers.
“You are very correct in citing water as the dominant factor in cooling the planet.”
One could suggest the temperature of space is the dominant factor in cooling the planet.
Yother thing for heating the planet, with Earth being 6 million miles closer to the sun at the peak of the Southern Hemisphere summer (2nd January) than the peak of the Northern Hemisphere summer we have a huge slurp of ocean receiving and storing extremes of energy, heat.
Reversing this scenario with everything else being equal, that is the Northern Hemisphere summer being 6 million miles closer, the Northern Hemisphere continents land masses would release that higher energy at night, rather than storing the energy as the ocean does, leading to an overall cooler planet.
Whilst earths perigee to the sun is a parabolic curve and brief, that relatively brief increase in received energy is partially stored by that there Equatorial and Southern ocean.
Just one contributory variable.
Have a lovely day.
Matt
Reply
davejr
| #
Agreed. And furthermore the planets parabolic orbits are in constant flux, changing in relation to each other according to where they are in their periodic orbits. For example, if several large planets are on the opposite side of the sun from the earth, then earths orbit is going to be pulled closer in toward the sun and vise versa if the planets line up on the same side. This also would have an effect on magnetic densities between the sun and its’ planets. The amount of conductive material (iron) in the core and the amount of being dragged through magnetic a field determines the amount of heating by magnetic induction for each planet. is it possible that this source of heat is greater than the solar radiation reaching earth?
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Davejr. Thank you for the comment. I had to look up “planetary magnetic induction”.
I am still trying to understand the concept of electromagnetic influences of ionized gases, (plasma) without magnetic induction unsettling the natives.
We need a pet astrophysicist.
Cheers Matt
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb, MattH and PSI Readers.
Matt, we should not forget (ignore). that ground might be characterized as having ROUGH surface while liquid water has a smooth surface which reflects solar radiation depending upon the radiation’s incident angle upon the smooth surface. And there are other differences between water surfaces (whether liquid or solid) and the ground’s surface which is tremendously rough when one begins to consider mountains, hills, valleys, plants etc.
PSI Readers, if you accept the validity of Herb’s initial statement: “Both the thermometer and the barometer [measurements] are wrong.” You are just as stupid as he is; for it must only be downhill from it.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Joseph Olson
| #
Static pressure of 90 atmospheres of CO2 does NOT warm Venus, the Sun and newly discovered volcanism warm Venus. I’ve run hundreds of ASHRAE Air Conditioning load analysis over the last 50 years using psychometric charts, there is NO barometric pressure variable. Water vapor absorbs in 37,000 EMR spectrum frequencies, liquid water and ice add more bands. Everything about consensus science is bovine excrement.
Reply
Joseph Olson
| #
Clarification: there is NO barometric pressure variable at a single location, there is a barometric pressure adjustment for ALTITUDE, where Denver has 11 psi and heat transfer in condenser coils is reduced by 10%
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Joseph, Jerry, and curious bystanders.
I was out in the sun today observing how barometric pressure effects tide heights at fixed datum points. I would be one of the most proficient people on the planet at setting a fishing net at high tide and the next day at low tide have that net sitting in 6 to 12 inches of water. Dry is illegal. Too deep and the flatfish sit between the net and the shore.
In the middle of a high pressure system there is a dangerous difference between setting a net in windless conditions in a 2025 millibar high and a 2040 millibar high will leave your nets dry. (poor syntax)
To keep it interesting one must assess wind strength and direction and overnight wind direction reversal. Also when assessing tide chart predictions one must be cognizant of 0.05 meter tidal differences which are not recorded on the charts.
Curious to read intelligent people say barometers do not work or barometric pressure is only vertical. Oh well! I will leave it to Jerry to bark at them. Get ’em Jerry. Good boy.
Cheers. Matt (chuckle chuckle)
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH and PSI Readers,
Thank you Matt!!! You just gave PSI Readers of why Galilea demanded that ‘Two New Sciences’.be published in the common language of the Practical People, who among their other practical activities, feed themselves as well as other people who don’t produce any food. So, I will quote the beginning of an essay titled ‘Bacon’s Philosophy of Fruit’ found in 1923 book titled ‘English and Engineering’ (subtitle ‘A Volume of Essays for English Classes in Engineering Schools’). Which textbook was edited by Frank Aydelotte (President of Swarhmore College. Which editor wrote this about Macaulay’s essay: “I is perhaps not unfair to take this extract from Macaulay’s essay on Bacon as typical of view of 19th Century scientific materialism.” Now, I am unsure what Frank intended to communicate because of the double negative “not unfair”.
Finally, how Macaulay’s began his essay: “Two words form the Baconian doctrine, Utility and Progress. The ancient philosophy disdained to be useful, and was content to be stationary. It dealt largely in theories of moral perfection, which was so sublime that they never could be more than theories; in attempts to solve insoluble enigmas; in exhortations to the attainments of unattainable frames of mind.”
Need I go on???
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
“psychometric charts”? One atmosphere is not much pressure compared to the pressure within a typical air conditioner so that is why there is just a small correction for Denver. When air is pumped into a scuba diver’s tank, it heats up, no? If you suddenly release the pressure, it cools , no? Mars receives much less solar radiation from he sun than Venus but has practically no atmosphere….what if Mars had an atmosphere like Venus….what would that do to temp of Mars?
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Water is the most severely misunderstood chemical compound in all of science. Spiritualistic thinking from the outset created confusion. The confusion has been compounded with superstition and blatant stupidity. And this blatant stupidity has been incorporated into all models in the natural sciences.
You all are just scratching the surface,
Watch this video:
Solving Tornadoes
https://youtu.be/4TGGFo0QsGM
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Bernie MacBeetle
| #
About plurry time you made an appearance.
Reply
Bernie MacBeetle
| #
And what ever happened to Geran to give Zoe a rark up.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James and PSI Readers,
PSI readers, I am finding it very difficult to begin this comment for James and I have been nearly the only ones, here at PSI, commenting about water molecules’ unique, observed abilities to be significantly attracted to other water molecules and certain other molecules. For a historical fact is that Linus Pauling’s well-known, but seldom read, book ‘The Nature of the Chemical Bond’ was not published until 1939.
In his preface to the first edition Pauling began: “For a long time I have been planning to write a book on the structures of molecules and crystals and the nature of the chemical bond. With the development of the theory of quantum mechanics and its applications to chemical problems it became evident that a decision would have to be made regarding the extent to which the mathematical methods of the theory would be incorporated in this book. I formed the opinion that, even though much of the recent progress in structural chemistry has been due to quantum mechanics, it should be possible to describe the new developments in a thorough-going and satisfactory manner without the use of advanced mathematics.”
Now a fact is that when I graduated with a BA degree in 1963 as a chemistry major; I had not yet been introduced to this quantum mechanical model of the atom. One might ask: How was this? If you subtract 39 from 63 the answer is 24. So my answer is my professors at time could have never been taught about the quantum mechanical nature of the chemical bond. So any chemistry of that time had to have read and studied on their own about this new mathematical idea about the Nature of the Chemical Bond.
James, relative to your negative comments about Pauling’s and others’ understanding of the properties of WATER, Pauling began: “For a long time”. A probable reason for this long time is that my copy of Pauling book (3rd Ed) has s 12 page, double column, single spaced Author Index with the page, or pages on which Pauling wrote, about that which they had written, in the context of what he was writing.
James, do you have a one page author list giving the time at which you use their contributions to the context of your video???
James, I have been reading more and later I will review some of what I have learned from these readings.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James and PSI Readers,
The title of Pauling first charter was and is: Resonance and the Chemical Bond”. And I had totally forgotten about the general quantum mechanical, principle of RESONANCE as James and I focused on the specific principle of hydrogen bonding between water molecules in pure water.
And I cannot remember that James and I actually discussed the structure of the ice crystal beyond the fact we both understood that ice (solid water) had cage like structure with an unfilled void in its center which reduced its density from that liquid water, which has no such rigid solid crystallin structure, because its molecules, like those of other liquids, are understood to be in perpetual random motions relative to each other which allows all liquids to flow. Another observed fact about all liquids is that their ‘liquid’ molecules, even though in perpetual motion, are measured to be generally incompressible.
And I believe many readers, and maybe you, are not aware how tiny a water molecule actually is. (https://principia-scientific.com/?s=Feynman%27s+blunder),
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
And I cannot remember that James and I actually discussed the structure of the ice crystal beyond the fact we both understood that ice (solid water) had cage like structure with an unfilled void in its center which reduced its density from that liquid water, which has no such rigid solid crystallin structure,
James:
This notion that in ice H2O molecules suddenly stand atop each other hand to foot, so to speak, to create this “cage-like structure,’ may be one of the dumbest notions in all of science. It is only the desperation of a confused paradigm that allows them to lower their standards for such a ridiculous notion.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers and James,
After pointing to Feynman’s blunder it is critically important that I share what he also taught during the first year of his lectures. For his SIMPLE light scattering theory of clouds (water droplets) is seldom referred to in what I have read.
“If we have N atoms in a lump, which is a tiny droplet of water, then each one will be driven by the electric field in about the same way as before (the effect of one atom on the other is not important; it is just to get the idea anyway) and the amplitude of scattering from each one is the same, so the total field which is scattered is N-fold increased. The intensity of the light which is scattered is then the square, or N2-fold, increased. We would have expected, if the atoms were spread out in space, only N times as much as 1, whereas we get N2 times as much as 1! That is to say, the scattering of water in lumps of N molecules each is N times more intense than the scattering of the single atoms. So as the water agglomerates the scattering increases. Does it increase ad infinitum? No! When does this analysis begin to fail? How many atoms can we put together before we cannot drive this argument any further? Answer: If the water drop gets so big that from one end to the other is a wavelength or so, then the atoms are no longer all in phase because they are too far apart. So as we keep increasing the size of the droplets we get more and more scattering, until such a time that a drop gets about the size of a wavelength, and then the scattering does not increase anywhere nearly as rapidly as the drop gets bigger. Furthermore, the blue disappears, because for long wavelengths the drops can be bigger, before this limit is reached, than they can be for short wavelengths. Although the short waves scatter more per atom than the long waves, there is a bigger enhancement for the red end of the spectrum than for the blue end when all the drops are bigger than the wavelength, so the color is shifted from the blue toward the red.
Now we can make an experiment that demonstrates this. We can make particles that are very small at first, and then gradually grow in size. We use a solution of sodium thiosulfate (hypo) with sulfuric acid, which precipitates very fine grains of sulfur. As the sulfur precipitates, the grains first start very small, and the scattering is a little bluish. As it precipitates more it gets more intense, and then it will get whitish as the particles get bigger. In addition, the light which goes straight through will have the blue taken out. That is why the sunset is red, of course, because the light that comes through a lot of air, to the eye has had a lot of blue light scattered out, so it is yellow-red.” (Chapter 32)
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Hi Jerry,
Pauling’s error caused us to fail to recognize that H2O is a very aggressive solvent of its own polarity. This has resulted in a mountain of misthinking from which it may take humanity hundreds of years to recover.
Deep Dishonesty About Water Has Rendered Meteorology Feckless
https://youtu.be/t38tSlrLoY4
Thanks for the interest
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers and James,
“We need to take the statement “Water is the universal solvent” with a grain of salt (pun intended). Of course it cannot dissolve everything, but it does dissolve more substances than any other liquid, so the term fits pretty well. Water’s solvent properties affect all life on Earth, so water is universally important to all of us. (https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/science/water-universal-solvent?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects)
Evidently James doesn’t believe in doing a literature search!!!
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
Evidently James doesn’t believe in doing a literature search!!!
James:
Meaningless.
In science belief causes mistakes. Mistakes cause confusion, Confusion causes cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance causes more mistakes . . . and the cycle continues.
All in all, Pauling’s mistake has resulted in a mountain of confusion.
The only way to make progress is to throw out everything since Pauling and start over.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
I have confidence that some who seldom ever cite unquestionable observations (measurements) of the past are the ones trying to create confusion. Feynman, in a public address at the 1955 autumn meeting of the National Academy of Science emphasized that “Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty–some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN.” Which Einstein later endorsed with his quote: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
I suspect these two statements of unquestionable SCIENTISTS may CONFUSE some people, but it is not these SCIENTISTS fault, it is the fault of those who read what they wrote, and still do not believe what was clearly written.
Have a good day,, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
You don’t have confidence, Jerry, you have faith. The current paradigm on water has over 70 experiments that prove it wrong. These are referred to as the anomalies of H2O. But you won’t hear this mentioned much because, in a subconscious effort to hide their confusion, people of faith have created a false narrative.
Can you explain how a polar molecule can have the low viscosity (throughout its whole temperature range in the liquid phase) that we witness in H2O? No, of course you can’t. You and the rest of your confused paradigm just pretend not to notice this paradox.
My model explains it as a consequence of the fact that H2O is an aggressive solvent of its own polarity. My model goes on to solve all of the anomalies of H2O. In the meantime your paradigm will continue to churn out the pretentious rhetoric that conceals your confusion.
James McGinn / Genius
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
These are links to present and historical environmental data which I have reguallarly studied. I should have brought them to to attention anyone who might have an interest in previewing what data is easily available.
https://raws.dri.edu
https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html
http://polarportal.dk/en/sea-ice-and-icebergs/
https://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/scan/
https://fever.byrd.osu.edu/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-82.98,39.98,335
http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html
https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/hourly02/
https://follow.mosaic-expedition.org. (this one is not on going but provides daily information about two attempts to drift an ship (boat) from the northwest Arctic Ocean to the North Pole and beyond.). I find its information very interesting and worthy of study.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
I do not consider it is enough to just list these links to encourage a PSI Reader to actually CLICK the link. I need to advertise what will be found there beside many numbers of measured data.
(https://raws.dri.edu) is a good link to begin with because raws stands for REMOTE AUTOMATED WEATHER STATIONS of which there are more than a thousand and it is quite USER FRIENDLY. For one can study the data measured and averaged hourly each day and compare it with another nearby station. For the latitude, longitude, and elevations of each station is reported and sometimes photographs of the station and its surrounding landscape are provided. Most important to me, an experimentalist, this allows one to not only compare the differences between the two sides but to also compare the quality (precision) of instruments’ measurements. For often temperatures, wind speeds and directions, incident solar radiations can be quite different from day to day. So it is important that one can know that such is not a malfunction of an instrument. So one can develop confidence that the data is REAL and not instrument error when the measurements of two nearby instruments do tend to agree with each other in most all cases, at the same time when the values of the measurements can vary considerably from day to day.
While most of the listed projects report the daily hourly dats, the RAWS project analyzes certain measurements for each hour and reports that averaged value at the same time at another place the average averaged hourly temperatures are reported for a day and for a month. And one can simply compare the averages for a given month for each year of a given site’s history simply see how much this monthly average might vary from year to year.
I write this comment for I do not believe most non-scientists can review this reported and analyzed data of any more than a few of the more than1000 RAWS sites and NOT CONCLUDE THAT THE AVERAGED ANYTHING OF THIS PLANET (EARTH) IS ABSOLUTE STUPIDITY!!!
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply