How does the Earth’s Greenhouse Effect work? (Hint: It doesn’t)
Lurking behind the scary stories of people burning fossil fuels and thereby releasing Carbon Dioxide, which threatens to overheat our planet, is the theory of the Greenhouse Effect, the notion that certain gases trap heat and prevent the Earth from cooling off.
So let’s look at a simple model of how this happens, the way it’s taught in colleges. Take the University of Washington, for instance.
The idea here is that light from the Sun passes freely through the air and heats the surface but that a layer of greenhouse gases absorbs the outgoing heat rays.
- Even complicated models of the greenhouse effect show that the outward rate of solar-derived heat is equal to the inward rate, meaning that greenhouse gases cannot be regarded as trapping heat, despite what you’ve been told.
- Instead, these models show that greenhouse gases actually PRODUCE heat by an unknown means. No insulative (i.e., heat trapping) device has ever been invented that can generate more watts than are being consumed.
- Far from being a settled science, the physics of the Earth’s greenhouse effect isn’t scientific at all. The misleading term “greenhouse gas” should be abandoned.
About the author: Alan Siddons is a former radio chemist but now leading climate researcher and science writer Alan has been a pioneer exposing a myriad of errors woven into post-normal climate science. Alan uses clear examples and common sense reasoning to illustrate where and why it all went wrong for politicized ‘goal-oriented’ government climate research.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Allan Shelton
| #
q.e.d.
Reply
Alan
| #
Simple arithmetic and logic is now beyond most people, especially the youth of today. It is hardly surprising when they are easily brainwashed by Attenborough and Thunberg.
Reply
Barry
| #
It’s a little hard to believe that this is actually taught in universities and no one questions it. People have to be as stupid as a hammer not to see through this rediculous scam. If the green house effect was real they would have already solved the world energy problem by creating energy from nothing. Their idiotic idea that the sun doesn’t heat the earth but co2 does is against thermal dynamics and known physics. The sun has a great amount of energy and does a lot of work lifting billions of gallons of water into the sky and creating the wx and then the extra 240 watts is emitted back to space. They like to skip over the part about the work the sun does which uses up energy. Without the atmosphere the earth would be 120 Celsius the same as the moon,it is simply insulation that keeps us cooler during the day and warmer at nights. And the idea that a trace gas has any effect on the temp is laughable.
Reply
Alan
| #
The only explanation I have seen is that humanity is easily influenced by cults. They are never based on evidence and the more the beliefs of the cult are challenged the more they invent ideas to back up the objective of the cult. Cults do exist but personally I cannot understand what sort of mind can be influenced by them. Unfortunately, cults now seem to have taken over academia and government bureaucracies.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Barry, Alan, and Allan,
The fundamental foundation of SCIENCE is the Scientific Law. In 1972 John W. Hill wrote a somewhat controversial chemistry textbook for students with no prior interest in chemistry. It was titled ‘Chemistry for Changing Times’. A question (to help the student understand what he had written in the first chapter) was: How does a governmental law differ from a scientific law? In the 4th Edition (1984) this question had disappeared even though the first chapter 4th Ed. was little different from that of the 1st Ed…
First, you need to answer this question. Next you need to answer the question: Why possibly did this question disappear?
Neither question is intended to be rhetorical; so if no one tries to answer either of these questions by Monday, I will give you my answers to both so you (or other readers) might ‘grade’ my answers..
Have a good day, Jerry.
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry, can I play?
Guvmint laws are based on belief systems and compromise.
Scientific laws are based on infallible observations of cause and effect.
Guvment laws are often a result of discussions about issues.
Scientific laws are the result of analysis of issues.
Discussion versus analysis!!!!
Have a great day. Mtt
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
Of course you can play. But you were so quick I want to wait a little while to see what other answers might be and maybe how others might grade your answers. And I now see you didn’t attempt to answer the second question (my question).
Thank you for playing.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH and others,
I forgot to give you all the information which Hill gave the students.
“Scientific laws merely summarize experimental data. For example: Lavoisier found that in each of the reactions he carried out, the total weight of products was equal to the total weight of reactants. He summarized these findings as the law of conservation of mass. This law has been verified repeatedly through the years.”
Maybe with this information you may better answer the questions. Sorry! Sorry!
Have a good day, Jerry,
Reply
Finn McCool
| #
I always find it funny when climate alarmists say the CO2 ‘traps’ heat.
Reply
Moffin
| #
I thought clouds DO trap heat, or more correctly, inhibit the flow of vertical convection currents and as such could be referred to as a hothouse gas.
The other blokes, CO2 and mefayne, could be called radiative gasses as they do absorb and re-emit but do so whilst being carried up by convection currents into the cold upper atmosphere.
Could somebody correct this if it is wrong as I am not the brightest sparkler in the fireworks display.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Moffin,
The term “cold” is ambiguous. It can either refer to the total heat or the kinetic energy of the molecules. Objects radiate energy in all directions not just up. They do not radiate temperature (kinetic energy,1/2 mass times energy) as their mass doesn’t change..
100 C water will cook food faster than a 150 C oven because, even though the individual water molecules have less kinetic energy (heat), there are 1000 times as many of them so the water contains more total heat which it can transfer to the food.
The same is true for the atmosphere. The uv radiation from the sun heats the O2 and N2 in the atmosphere. The molecules higher in the atmosphere are exposed to more uv energy and each molecule gains more kinetic energy. Because there are fewer of them transferring energy to the thermometer (like the food) it says that the greater the altitude the colder the temperature is.
In order to get an accurate indication of the kinetic energy at different altitudes you must use the universal gas law where for an unconfined gas, like the atmosphere, the kinetic energy of the molecules is comparable to the inverse of the density. (when you heat the gas molecules the volume of gas expands, like a hot air balloon.)
The molecules higher in the atmosphere are hotter (have more kinetic energy) than the molecules lower in the atmosphere so when all the molecules radiate energy each molecule lower in the atmosphere loses energy slower because it also gains some energy being radiated by the higher molecules..It is the molecules in the upper atmosphere that are primarily gaining energy from the sun during the day and losing energy into space at night. (The atmosphere acts as insulation.)
Since the water molecules in the clouds. are more numerous than gas molecules and have more energy, a cloudy night will feel warmer than a clear night.
Herb
Reply
Moffin
| #
Hi Herb. You are obviously a thunderbolt in the fireworks display.
I was referring to surface temperatures and upper stratosphere temperatures and how that relates to hothouse gasses and whether that term is a misnomer. A part of my error is not looking at the big picture so I thank you for your comment.
Your comment compelled me to take a look at the thermosphere and I discovered this;
“The temperature of atmosphere increases linearly with altitude from around 90 Km and this happens due to density of atmosphere is very low.
The density of atmosphere in thermosphere above 120 km is very low that, the atmosphere gradually mixes with the interplanetary space. from thermosphere the atmosphere becomes more and more affected by high-energy particles from the sun.
In the thermosphere, O2 molecules absorb the energy from the Sun, which results in the increasing temperature of the air. Because low density molecules and atoms in the layer, absorbing small amounts of solar energy can leads to increase the air temperature.”
I realize one of the high energy whodickies is ultra violet light.
Thank you Herb. I note some people have been challenging you rather than challenging your hypothesis. In science, abusing the messenger is usually the flashing red light signaling lies, corruption, coverups, and or brainwashed sheep.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Moffin,
Isn’t it curious that the temperature also increases in the stratosphere when there is no source of energy to cause the increase?
If you look at the composition of the atmosphere at different altitudes it will also indicate the energy of the molecules.
The highest level consists of hydrogen and helium. The next layer consists of oxygen atoms and helium (Nitrogen percentage declines after 100 km while CO2, water, and Argon are confined to the lower atmosphere.). It takes 450,000 joules/mole to split an oxygen molecule which the uv from the sun provides. (it takes 920,000 joules/mole to break the triple bond of N2.)
Below the oxygen atom/helium layer the atmosphere contains nitrogen-oxygen molecules (N2O and N2O2) where the uv has split the oxygen molecule and partially split the nitrogen molecule.
In the stratosphere the energy has declined and the oxygen atoms resulting from O2 molecules splitting produce the ozone layer.
The uv penetrates into the troposphere where it continues to add energy to the O2 and N2 molecules but because of the higher number of molecules and collisions the energy is dispersed before the O2 molecule can split.
If you look at the atmosphere apart from the temperature it show a continuous increase in energy with altitude. By using the universal gas law it shows a steady rise in energy through the troposphere (where water absorbs energy moderating the energy in the gases). At the top of the troposphere the energy of the gases increases in an exponential curve showing that the sun is the source of energy producing our climate.
Herb
TL Winslow
| #
[[The term “cold” is ambiguous. It can either refer to the total heat or the kinetic energy of the molecules. Objects radiate energy in all directions not just up. They do not radiate temperature (kinetic energy,1/2 mass times energy) as their mass doesn’t change..]]
ROTFL. Objects don’t need to change their mass to radiate energy and raise the temperature of other objects. Radiant energy is emitted by some molecules then absorbed by other molecules, increasing their kinetic energy AKA temperature, after which they can reemit radiant energy, but never at shorter wavelengths (higher temperature), violating the 2nd Law of Thermo. There is no need for mass transfer. Temperature cannot be “radiated”. It is a measure of kinetic energy, not a physical quantity in itself like a photon. In radiant exchange, mass is a constant not a variable. The quantity mv^2 can change without changing m.Watch him try to bring up Einstein’s equations 🙂
Not being able to understand the most basic physical concepts or logic yet insisting on lavishly pontificating doesn’t make HR an expert, but P-S’ court jester 🙂 I wonder how many he fooled this time. I got a good laugh out of it this one time, although the bulk of his mental farts are too disgusting to read, like a version of Mad Magazine for physics students. I thought P-R was founded to take on a conspiracy in Big Science and lead it out of darkness, not to let a crackpot take shots at every physical theory and only expose himself.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
T. L.
Congratulations. You just repeated what I said. The molecules higher in the atmosphere with more energy radiate that energy in all directions and the molecules lower in the atmosphere with less energy absorb some of that energy slowing their loss of energy.
If you read my third response to Moffin (below) I explain how during collisions (convection) an object with less kinetic energy can transfer energy to an object with more kinetic energy because energy (V^2) is not the same as kinetic energy (1/2mV^2).
Since you have decided to chime in perhaps you can answer my question which the other idiots, Guido, T. C., and Peter have not. When an electron and proton combine to form a neutron it produce energy. When a neutron is not in a nucleus it will spontaneously split into an electron, proton, and gamma ray producing energy. Hoe does this not violate the first law of thermodynamics?
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Moffin,
You correctly wrote: ““The temperature of atmosphere increases linearly with altitude from around 90 Km and this happens due to density of atmosphere is very low.”
Certain solar photons have sufficient energy to dissociate molecules into parts which a very chemically reactive. Density becomes an issue because these parts must collide with each other before the original molecules could be reformed.
Maybe I should stop here. For what I have just written must be obvious to most readers. So there is no sense in confusing anyone with what we also have observed about the stratosphere where the density of gas molecules is much greater than that of the thermosphere.
Have a good day, Jerry.
Reply
Moffin
| #
Hi Jerry.
There was a very good comment a month or three ago which stated that a hothouse/greenhouse works by the glass panels trapping the warmed air in the hothouse and stopping the warmed air from being released into the atmosphere and being replaced by cooler air.
You and Herb have given me enough to contemplate and I have and will study Richard Feinman’s (spelling) writing you have referenced.
Thank you for your stewardship. I have to go to work.
Have a nice day. Matt
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
I had forgotten, which is usual. Thanks for reminding me.
Have a dood day, Jerry
Doug Harrison
| #
Heat cannot be trapped as it is not a thing but an activity, the product of work.
Heat occurs when energy is being transferred from one object (body) to another and ceases to exist when the energy between the two bodies is equalised. Hope this helps . It’s a bit late but i live on the other side of the world from most commenters.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Moffin,
Clouds SCATTER the infrared radiation being emitted by the Earth’s surface back toward the Earth”s surface just they scatter solar radiation back toward space. Go to The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume 1, 1963, Chapter 32 (Radiation Damping. Light Scattering), 32-5 (Scatering of light 32-6).
It’s available online.and pages 32-8,9.are about scattering by cloud droplets. Feynman specifically only refers to visible solar radiation and I pick up his conclusions “That is to say, the scattering 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 as infinitum? No! When does this analysis begin to fail? How many atoms can we put together before we cannot drive this argument 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 droplet lets 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.”
According to R.C. Sutcliffe, a meteorologist, (Weather and Climate, 1966) a ‘common’ cloud droplet has a diameter of about 20 micrometers (far greater than the ‘average’ photon being emitted from the Earth’s surface.
I do have to admit that most physicists, meteorologists, and climatologists seem to ignore what Feyman taught to his students ar Caltech. I have read no reason (knowledge) why!!! I can only speculate that maybe most physicists are not concerned about meteorological phenomena and that most meteorological don’t read about quantum mechanical phenomena.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Moffin
| #
Hi Jerry. Thank you for the guidance and direction.
I appreciate Allan Siddons article but it feels to simplistic.
For an article to be evidential, in other words, to contribute to a winning argument in a law court in a case about climate change, it would have to explain how a hot house works and, therefore, why atmospheric gasses can not be called hot house gasses. That was the paradigm of my original comment about vertical convection currents.
The anthropogenic climate change sceptics have an issue that needs resolving. They need to gain a consensus on atmospheric CO2 effect and individually explain it scientifically.
The Israeli Astrophysicist says CO2 contributes to less than half the climate warming.
Dr Will Happer says CO2 contribution is minor and the feedback mechanisms probably do not exist and that CO2 contributes to cooling the the polar regions.
Then we are told CO2 has an absorption -emission frequency that equates to a temperature of -80 degree celsius.
Then we have “scholars” suggesting a cold object can warm a warmer object. That one is easy. Convince the sailors of World War Two that when their ship was sunk in the North Atlantic by u-boats it was the cold ocean over heating them that killed them. Yeah right.
When Attenborough, Little Greta, Mann et. el. comment they never criticize each other but are united in their mantra. Surely a group of the worlds scientist can agree on the science of CO2, methane, and water in the atmosphere rather than handing the high ground to the warmests by behaving like dischordant rabble.
Have a nice day. Mofflingtonhead.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi again Moffin,
Water in clouds does not scatter infrared light (heat) but absorbs it. If the temperature is -50 C the water droplets will absorb all the heat coming to it, just as the water in the ocean pulled all the heat out of the unfortunate sailors.
You know I hate to disagree with conventional beliefs and raise dissension but I would like to explain how an object with less kinetic energy can add kinetic energy to an object with more kinetic energy.
The conservation of momentum means when two objects collide energy will be conserved which is different from kinetic energy because objects do not transfer mass.
If a small car going at a high speed runs into the rear of large slow truck with more kinetic energy will the truck be pushed forward (increasing speed and kinetic energy) or will the truck slow down and the car speed up as kinetic energy is transferred from the truck to the car?
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Moffin,
You just wrote: “I appreciate Allan Siddons article but it feels to simplistic.” I will not comment about Allan’s article but I will comment about ‘too simplistic’ by quoting Einstein. “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.”
Consider the following:
Scientific laws merely summarize experimental data. For example: Lavoisier found that in each of the reactions he carried out, the total weight of products was equal to the total weight of reactants. He summarized these findings as the law of conservation of mass. This law has been verified repeatedly through the years.”
The testable prediction of the idea known as the Greenhouse Effect of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide is that the measured atmospheric temperature would be about 33C (58F) lower (less) than that measured if not for the presence of carbon dioxide (and like gases) in the atmosphere.
The proof that the measured atmosphere temperature can never be less (lower) than that measured is ‘that an atmospheric temperature has never been measured to be lower (less) than the atmospheric dew point temperature measured at the same place and time’. A scientific law which has been verified repeatedly through the years.
There is no evidence that atmospheric carbon dioxide has any influence upon the atmosphere’s dew point temperature. But atmospheric water molecules do when they condense to form dew or frost on the Earth’s surfaces or on condensation nuclei in the troposphere to form cloud droplets.
Observations (experimental results) can never prove an idea or hypothesis or theory to be absolutely correct but observations (experimental results) can prove an idea or hypothesis or theory to be absolutely wrong.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
ChetT
| #
What would be the surface temp of the earth with a 100% CO2 atmosphere?
I’m sure I’m not the first to wonder. Can somebody point me to a paper on this.
Reply
Doug Harrison
| #
For a start no oxygen breathing animal would be able to live in such an atmosphere so the question is irrelevant.
Reply
ChetT
| #
Thanks for that brilliant response Doug. It added so much.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi ChetT,
Both Venus and Mars have atmosphere composed of over 90% CO2. One is very hot the other very cold.
The role of CO2 is insignificant in moderating temperature compared to water.
Herb.
Reply
Pierre-D Bernier
| #
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323106609_Molar_Mass_Version_of_the_Ideal_Gas_Law_Points_to_a_Very_Low_Climate_Sensitivity/link/5e3d1c32458515072d862e65/download
I’m too lazy to do the maths. Sorry.
Reply
ChetT
| #
thank you both
Reply
Joseph Olson
| #
Alan Siddons is coauthor of “Slaying the Sky Dragon” with excellent analysis of the simplicitic, linear, single parameter false Carbon forcing hypothesis. Our deceptive ‘leaders’ have squandered a billion dollars in faux science research, and wasted trillions in unsustainable solutions.
Many thanks for your dedication to Truth.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
‘The misleading term “greenhouse gas” should be abandoned.
Too true
http://phzoe.com/2021/02/06/greenhouse-gases-are-coolants/
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi there readers. Below is the address for a video presentation showing “absolute proof” the US election was stolen.
It shows how cyber specialists set up processes to surveil and record a comprehensive cyber attack.
It shows records of every single flipped vote is documented. It claims President Trump received app. 79,000,000 votes to Biden’s 68,000,000.
Things could get interesting. I came across it on Tony Heller’s site. Walt Disney could not make this stuff up.
https://uploads1.newtube.app/uploads/TonyHeller/rZzmoZz.mp4?_=1
Reply
Carbon Bigfoot
| #
Matt the link only worked for about 10 minutes and then the censors blasted my ears with a sound and stopped the video. I guess it is pretty damaging content (evidence). Do you or anyone have a secure to view the entire video.
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Carbon. The link below should do it. I watched it a second time.
Other wise you will find it on realclimatescience.com.
https://realclimatescience.com/2021/02/mike-lindell-absolute-proof/
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Carbon and readers.
the referred to video can be searched under it’s title. mike lindell-absolute proof.
The video has been deleted by you tube and the usual suspects. Using an alternative search engine is a must.
When you search for the video there are factcheckers sites saying it is all conspiracy.
I am aware of the court cases in relation to the electoral challenges and the information provided in the video conciles with my understanding of the court cases status.
Reply
Chris
| #
One fact that gets overlooked all the time is that the greenhouse gases only comprise 0.05%, at most, of the atmosphere. Therefore, any theory that they use must reflect this. They claim that these gases “reflect” or “re-emit” all of the heat that is leaving the Earth. The trouble is that the light will have to reach a molecule to do so. So only 0.05% of the light entering the atmosphere from the Earth can be reflected back, I know that this process doesn’t work I’m just using their theory. It’s a concentration problem.
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
Co2 is a trace gas whose volume is 0.04% of all radiative gases, all radiative gases make up 1% by volume of the ”whole atmosphere” to use your terms.
CO2 by volume is 1 part in every 1o.ooo parts of the whole atmosphere as you put it,…
That is 0.004% of the whole atmosphere as you put it and 0.04% of the total radiative gases in the atmosphere.
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
oops 4 parts in every 10.000 parts.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Chris,
I have read a historical fact: “Amadeo Avogadro (1776-1856) first proposed that the volume of a gas at a given pressure and temperature is proportional to the number of atoms or molecules, regardless of the type of gas. Although he did not determine the exact proportion, he is credited for the idea.”
Gordon Barrow in his introductory chemistry textbook (General Chemistry, 1972) asked: “How many molecules are there in 22.4 liters [a cubic yard volume] of any ideal gas at STP [25C and 1atm]? (pp 59). And answered: “6.02 X 10^23” (pp 62)
0.05% of this ‘big’ number is 3.o X 10^20. Still a very big number which I suspect you have not considered..
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Carl
| #
I know that “greenhouse gases” cause a very powerful “greenhouse effect” because I have seen it with my own eyes.
What are greenhouses designed to do?
I have the good fortune of living just down the street from a row of commercial greenhouses and have seen with my own eyes that plant life within these greenhouses is flourishing, is green and lush, while outside of the greenhouse the native plant life is dormant most of the year since I live in a high desert and there is relatively little of the most potent “greenhouse gas”–water–of all in the air. The structure of the greenhouse is such that it keeps the water content of the air within the greenhouse very high and the plants just love it.
It is said that water in the air, both in the form of humidity and cloud cover, is responsible for 80-90% of this miraculous “greenhouse effect” and I believe it because during my travels around the world (actual and virtual) I have noticed that those areas of the planet where humidity and cloud cover are the highest have the most productive biological system–systems that are teaming with both plant and animal life. Southeastern U.S.A. for example as well as the jungles of Central America, the equatorial jungles of Africa, the jungles of Southeaster Asia, etc. Conversely those areas where humidity and cloud cover are sparse like deserts, native plant life is sparse and struggling to survive, as is the animal life.
I also did a science experiment with two trays of barley grass. Tray #1 was left alone and I just watered it every day, but tray #2, along with watering it every day, I simply exhaled my breath onto it several times a day. Using a CO2 meter I measured the comparative ambient CO2 levels.
Tray #1 = ~380 ppm
Tray #2 = ~1800 ppm
After 7 days Tray #2 miraculously had 50% more growth! This, of course, is why commercial greenhouse owners often pump this second most potent “greenhouse gas” into their greenhouses to promote the greenhouse’s “greenhouse effect”–an effect that massively enhances the growth of plant life.
Why self-proclaimed “environmentalists” would want to lower the atmospheric levels of these two life-giving gases–gases that are the very foundation of organic life on planet Earth–and even label one of them a “pollutant” is a mystery to me. Perhaps they should get up from their computers, turn off their TVs, go outside and just look at the profoundly positive effect carbon dioxide and water actually have on the Earth’s biosphere?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Carl,
I have been planning and planning to reply to your comment and did forget where and when you made it. But I was obviously able to find it.
I wanted to ask you about these commercial greenhouses. Given your experiment with carbon dioxide, do they inject carbon dioxide in them to keep its concentration higher than its ambient levels outside the greenhouses. If not, maybe you should describe the results of your experiment to them!!!
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
There (here) you have an example of a REAL SCIENTIST! He not only observes the world around him but also does simple experiments to test his ideas.
Thank you Carl!!! From the first email conversation you were having with Joe P about Horace de Saussure’s ‘solar oven’ or hot box I recognized that you were a SCIENTIST and that he was not.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Macha
| #
The main feature if clouds ie water, is it changes phase. Formation requires losing energy which heats surrounding air. Evaporation requires gaining energy which cools surrounding air. This is why cloudy feels warmer. Also the same for skin, less sweat evaporation FEELS warmer. All those tonnes of water vapour is lifted into the sky from the ground to the point where its too cold and condenses only to return as rain. Doh!
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Macha,
Water vapor cannot exist below the boiling point of water (James McGinn). Evaporation involves the removal of heat by micro droplets of water. I would recommend you watch some of Dr. Gerald Pollack’s videos or read his book “The Fourth Phase of Water”.It explains how when water absorbs heat it becomes a liquid crystal and this explains many of the unique properties of water.(it only takes 100 calories to raise 0 C water to100 C water but it takes 540 calories to turn 100C water into 100 C steam.because the energy is changing the internal structure of the water). How can clouds be liquid water at 15 km when the temperature is – 50 C? Why doesn’t it condense at -30 C? Does the concentration of water increase with increasing altitude?
Herb
Reply