How Geology Tells The Story Of Earth’s Climatic Past
I am a geologist which means I have rocks in my head and some of those rocks have recorded the climate history of Earth. Here is their story
We will start with the big picture.
The graphic below [after the jump] shows the estimated temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) content for the past 600 million years.
The blue line is the estimated temperature; the black line is the estimated CO2 content of the atmosphere.
Notice that for much of the past 600 million years, the temperature has been about 12°C warmer than it is now and life has flourished. (Note that the climate crazies claim that if the global temperature increases by 2°C above present, we will die.)
The dips in the temperature curve are ice ages. Ice ages have occurred on a cycle of about 145 million years. Ice ages consist of glacial epochs and warmer interglacial periods. We are now in an interglacial period. (In the popular vernacular, glacial epochs are often called “ice ages.”)
The glacial epoch cycle happens whenever our solar system, in its travels around the center of our galaxy, goes through some spiral arms of the galaxy with very dense clusters of stars that bombard the Earth with more cosmic rays, which produce more clouds and other effects in the atmosphere, which limit the amount sunlight that gets to Earth’s surface.
Cosmic ray flux can be deduced from the so-called cosmogenic nuclides, such as beryllium-10, carbon-14, and chlorine-36 as measured in ancient sediments, trees, shells, and meteorites.
A general estimate of climate is given by the types of sedimentary rocks deposited, such as limestone, siltstone, shale, sandstone, and glacial deposits. Each type of rock is deposited under certain climatic conditions.
Fossils within the rocks give an even better picture.
Another method of estimating temperature is by using oxygen isotopes, a method that is claimed to estimate temperature within one degree.
Normal oxygen is O16 with six protons and six neutrons. There is also “heavy” oxygen with eight neutrons. When combined with hydrogen to produce water, each molecule has a different reaction to temperature.
The geologic reconstruction of temperature is based on oxygen-18 isotopes from fossils and cave stalagmites.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is also estimated by rock types and especially by fossil leaves. Leaves have pores called stomates whereby the plant takes in CO2 and expels oxygen.
If CO2 is abundant, the leaves have fewer and/or smaller stomates than when CO2 is scarcer.
Notice the graphic above the Carboniferous Period circa 300 million years ago. This was an age when most of Earth’s coal deposits were formed. That sucked up lots of CO2.
Notice that CO2 started to decline about 375 million years ago but the temperature decrease of the ice age started about 320 million years ago.
CO2 rose again after ice-age temperatures warmed the ocean driving some CO2 in the ocean into the atmosphere.
Besides rocks, ice cores also give us some information about climate in our current age:
Image: Gregory Wrightstone
Now let’s take a look at our current interglacial period, called the Holocene, which began about 11,000 years ago.
Here, too, we see a temperature fluctuation (recorded by lake-bed sediments and ice cores). The fluctuations are due mainly to several different solar cycles, which when combined produce a 1,500-year cycle of warming and cooling.
Notice that the magnitude of warm periods is declining with time. Does that mean we are heading for another glacial epoch?
History shows that the cool periods were usually times of famine because crops would not sufficiently grow.
Another influence on climate is the relationship of the Earth to the sun. Earth’s orbit around the sun is elliptical which varies in eccentricity. The tilt of Earth’s axis of rotation relative to its orbital plane also varies.
These are called Milankovitch Cycles and may be caused by the varying gravitational attraction of the large planets in our solar system. These cycles cause variations in sunlight reaching polar regions.
The climate also changes with the position of the continents, which control ocean currents. Submarine volcanoes must be considered when evaluating the causes of ‘climate change’.
Usually, these changes are regional, not global, however, they may have global influences such as changing precipitation patterns as seen with the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO).
A Note on the ‘Greenhouse’ hypothesis:
There is much hype about so-called “greenhouse” gases. The “greenhouse” hypothesis deals with heat transfer by conduction and radiation but completely ignores heat transfer by convection (i.e. wind).
As the sun warms the Earth’s surface, heat is reradiated into the atmosphere as a broad spectrum of infrared radiation, some of which is captured by water vapour and sent back to the surface.
Greenhouse gases don’t warm the surface, they slow the cooling. Without them, nighttime temperatures would drop to freezing.
The table above shows the contribution of each “greenhouse” gas. Water vapor is the principal player. CO2 from burning fossil fuels comprises only 0.1 percent of total “greenhouse” gases; methane represents only 0.06 percent.
Neither has any effect on global temperature.
See more here climatechangedispatch
Header image: iStock / Getty Images Plus
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
| #
This is a repeat of the article below with a different author. It contains the same errors as the first copy. Oxygen normally contains 8 protons and 8 neutrons and the isotopes with 9 and 10 neutrons are not radioactive so they don’t decay like carbon 14. I don’t see how these isotopes can provide any dat information on the temperature in the past. They are chemically identical to oxygen 16 and react the same making ny measurement of them just a measurement of how common the isotopes were. Since fossils have a different chemical composition than the organism that made them, this is an invalid use of a scientific test that is irrelevant.
Water is NOT a greenhouse gas. It actively absorbs heat from the surface and through evaporation transports that heat to the top of he troposphere, where it is released into space when it condenses into rain drops. How is that keeping the Earth warmer? It takes 600 calories/gram to evaporate water and since the water in the atmospheremis 50 times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere every gram of CO2 must add 30,000 calories of heat to the Earth to negate the cooling of by the water and keep the temperature constant.Utter nonsense.
The article wasn’t worth publishing the first time much less repeating.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Correction: Same author.
Reply
Brian Taylor
| #
Water Vapour is different to Water.
Reply
Al Shelton
| #
Thanks Herb.
Also, CO2 is a gas.
All gasses expand and rise in an open system. Right?
Therefore, CO2 is not trapping heat but expanding and rising like WV.
And, thus, is a coolant. IMO
The term Greenhouse Gas is a misnomer.
They should be called by their original name; Radiative Gasses
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Al,
The atmosphere is a result of the kinetic energy of the gas molecules. The greater the kinetic energy the greater the expansion. All the gas molecules are bouncing off the surface of the Earth due to collisions with the surface or other molecules that have bounced of the surface. The molecules don’t rise but transfer energy to other molecules during collisions.
The only way a gas molecule can delay the transmission of energy is by absorbing energy then radiating it in all directions changing the direction of flow of energy. Since the temperature where CO2 absorbs energy is -80 it doesn’t delay the flow of energy but just transmits it to other molecules acting to transmit energy.
In the troposphere there is very little transfer of energy by radiation (see the PSI article: An interview with Tom Shula) so both the term “Greenhouse Gas” and “Radiative Gas” are misnomers.
The atmosphere is heated by N2 and O2 absorbing uv radiation from the sun and converting it to IR (heat), so the flow of energy during the day is from the top of the atmosphere to the surface of the Earth, while at night the flow reverses with the top of the atmosphere cooling and contracting before the lower atmosphere.
If you look at a water phase chart you will see that at standard pressure water does not exist as a gas (vapor) below its boiling point. The reason water nano droplets rise in the atmosphere is because when they absorb IR radiation hydroxyl ions (OH-) are created and this negative charge is repelled by the negative charge on the surface of the Earth.
Herb
Reply
Paul Saunders
| #
Water vapor rises because it is a lighter molecule than Air (N2 and O2), NOT due to charge repulsion —
— H2O = 18
– Air = .2 X 32 + .8 X 28 = 28.8
— N2 = 28
— O2 = 32
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Paul,
Water is concentrated in the troposphere (>98%) unlike O2 (32) and N2 (28) which permeate the entire atmosphere. Argon (40) is also almost exclusively in the troposphere. If water was a gas it would escape the troposphere and concentrate in the upper atmosphere like hydrogen, oxygen atoms, helium, and neon. The location of water shows that it is not a gas.
If you read a water phase chart it shows that at standard pressure water does not exist as a gas belt 100 C.
Here’s more evidence. The Earth has a negative charge except under a thunderclouds where it becomes positive. The only way it can get a positive charge is if the cloud has a negative charge that repel the electrons on the surface (protons are in the nucleus and do not move).
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
“Water is concentrated in the troposphere (>98%) unlike O2 (32) and N2 (28) which permeate the entire atmosphere.” Is there not more oxygen and nitrogen by mass than there is in the rest of the earth’s atmosphere? What is the mass of water in the troposphere compared with the mass of these two gases in the troposphere.?
And liquid water in the nano droplets do not “absorb IR radiation [to form] hydroxyl ions (OH-)”.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Jerry,
The ratio of nitrogen to oxygen remains about 80 to 20 until the top regions of the atmosphere where the oxygen increases and nitrogen decreases. Argon and water are not present in the upper atmosphere.
As a chemist you should look at the types of molecules at different altitudes. The higher the altitude the greater the energy of the types of gases with the 2nd layer consisting of helium and oxygen atoms. The reason these energetic gases exist is because they cannot lose energy and convert to more stable structures.
Why does the pH of water change when the temperature changes and why does water rise to the top of the troposphere then stop? It is because as water absorbs IR energy hydroxyl ions are created forming liquid crystals and the negative charge of the shell increases until the crystals reach their second melt point at the top of the troposphere..
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
And liquid water in the nano droplets do not “absorb IR radiation [to form] hydroxyl ions (OH-)”.
JMcG:
Yes, you are correct Jerry. This notion has been introduced by a quack named Gerald Pollack.
Pollack is a complete whack-job who represents himself as a scientists.
James McGinn
James McGinn
| #
The boiling temperature of H2O is 100C.
There is no gaseous H2O in earth’s atmosphere. It is far too cold.
Heavier nanodroplets of H2O are suspended by static electricity, just like particulates.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
Static electricity occurs when one object gains electrons from a different object. From what are the nano droplets acquiring extra electrons? Not from other water molecules since they have the same structure. Not from the gasses in the atmosphere since they do not give up electrons. Not from the Earth since that would give the Earth a positive charge instead of the negative charge needed to levitate the nano droplets. We need an explanation on how water gets a negative static charge.
Herb
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
Static electricity occurs when one object gains electrons from a different object.
James:
You are very confused. The earth’s atmosphere is electrified by the solar wind and by it’s own magma flow. Where do you get this silly rhetoric about singular objects. You need to stop turning common observations into pseudo-principles.
James McGinn / Genius
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
If you rub a glass rod with a silk cloth it will get a static charge. If you rub a rubber balloon in your hair it will get a static charge and stick to the ceiling. If you walk around some stores with rubber soled shoes you will acquire a static charge that will produce a shock when you touch metal. When you take a sweater off it will gain a static charge that causes your hair to stand out.
Solar winds are primarily positive nuclei whose electrons have been stripped off and are intercepted by the Earth’s magnetic field. Water continues to evaporate and rise in the atmosphere at night when the solar winds are blocked by the Earth.
You are looking for any thing that will justify your theory rather than something that can cause what you claim. Water in the middle of the ocean will move into the atmosphere even though the only thing it is contact with is other water molecules and there is no solar winds.
Herb
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
Solar winds are primarily positive nuclei whose electrons have been stripped off and are intercepted by the Earth’s magnetic field.
JMcG:
You may know the details better than me. All I’m saying is that charge is influential in earth’s atmosphere. We are not relegated to desperately stupid explanation, like H2O magically becoming gaseous at ambient temperatures or Pollack’s nonsense about hydroxyls.
Click on this link for more on this topic:
https://youtu.be/ejJ4HLfQWRM?si=ZcMIzPL5983V-nfb&t=2617
James McGinn / Genius
Water continues to evaporate and rise in the atmosphere at night when the solar winds are blocked by the Earth.
You are looking for any thing that will justify your theory rather than something that can cause what you claim. Water in the middle of the ocean will move into the atmosphere even though the only thing it is contact with is other water molecules and there is no solar winds.
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James and Herb,
On a phase diagra, what do the lines between two different phases, of some pure matter like water, represent?
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James and Herb,
How is it that hours after my question you both you both write comments while ignoring my question? Should I expect that there will be no answer to this question? But I hope you bothe understand that no answer is an answer to both of these questions.
Have a good day
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
Should I expect that there will be no answer to this question?
JMcG:
In science there are people that constantly seek to uncover and understand the actual truth. There are also people who are not concerned with truth but are focused upon finding a rationale to continue believing what everybody believes. The former are rarely successful. The latter are rarely unsuccessful.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
You wrote: “In science there are people”. In science the truth is data and it does not matter who measures it. But it does matter if one choses to ignore it. What data have I ignored? You are ignoring the data of a phase diagram.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Jerry,
It is amazing that you have a PHD in chemistry and can’t understand a phase diagram
On the left axis is pressure. Look at where it read 1 atm. You will see that water only exists as ice or liquid (never a gas) until the temperature axis (bottom line) reads 100 C., where it converts to a gas. At higher pressure the water will remain as a liquid until it coverts to a gas at a higher temperature.
At pressures under 1 atm you can convert water into a gas at lower temperatures (freeze drying) but at standard pressure the temperature must be at 100 C (you still must add 540 calories/gram to convert it to a gas) in order to convert it to a gas phase.
This is the data, which you insist on ignoring because it doesn’t agree with what you believe.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Other Readers.
Unfortunately we can not directly show water’s phase diagram. So here is a link (https://www.expii.com/t/phase-change-diagram-of-water-overview-importance-8031) Now, one can see the lines to which I have referred and see what the pressure is at 0C. Since Herb states that I don’t understand this phase, I will allow Herb explain to what this pressure (and all pressures) refers.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
The diagram is describing the phase of water based on 2 variables: pressure and temperature. Pressure is indicated on the vertical line while temperature is indicated on the horizontal line. Where the two axis lines intersect the pressure is zero and the temperature is 0 C. The pressure increases with the height of the vertical line. The temperature increases as the line moves to the right and decreases, below 0 C, as it moves to the left (there is no negative pressure). By looking at the chart (except Jerry) you can determine what the phase of water (solid, liquid gas) is at different temperatures and pressures by seeing where perpendicular lines from the two axises intersect.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and PSI Readers,
I admit the phase diagram of the previous link is confusing which I did not notice. So with this link I well try to correct this problem. (https://chemistrytalk.org/phase-diagram-explained/)
The problem is on a pressure scale of atmospheres (ATM)the pressure of freezing water is nearly zero ARM and the freezing point is nearly that of the triple point. The previous diagram suggest the triple point and boiling point has the same pressure (1 ATM)
I have a very bad memory so until I submit this comment I really cannot remember what I will see. I the previous case I admit I never saw the problem.until I submitted the comment..
So here goes
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Editor, Need help
Reply
JaKo
| #
Hi Jerry, Herb and James,
(I’m not PSI Editor; however, …)
Something to consider — there is a little fact somehow ignored/denied in many comments about water on Earth:
In the Phase Diagram The border between states is not inviolable
The proof is in the pudding of Partial Pressures
“The water vapor is not held by the air. The amount of water in air is determined by the vapor pressure of water and has nothing to do with the properties of air.”
Just go to the table…
BTW, I do not dispute the tendency of “bunching” of water molecules in liquid and/or gas phase which is an interesting phenomenon, often ignored for its short duration and negligeable thermodynamic effect.
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
MattH
| #
You can have a nearly perfectly clear sky with one cloud laughing at it’s own absurdity. Bunching.
Possibly electrostatic attraction manifested by the Lenard effect.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
MattH:
You can have a nearly perfectly clear sky with one cloud laughing at it’s own absurdity. Bunching. Possibly electrostatic attraction manifested by the Lenard effect.
JMcG;
All of the water in earth’s atmosphere is bunched. Below a certain size they are invisible. Never is it gaseous.
Reply
JaKo
| #
Hi MattH,
Funny, I like that, laughing at its own absurdity! To be really helpful, let’s extend that to the Cloud Joe B. etc. 😉
BTW, I never meant this “bunching” of water molecules to be understood as coalescence while forming droplets (visible* or not) where the water changes phase and gives out appropriate latent heat.
(*) Some people, who have flown gliders/sailplanes, are sometimes sharing a thermal with a bird of prey. If one opens the vent in the canopy, one can feel and smell the changes in this rising column of warm and moist air — the birds and human senses would detect before the flight instruments when the thermal is about to expire — it sometimes doesn’t form any visible (cumulus) cloud — it just expires, as if there may not be enough of water vapor to form visible droplets (more complex than that, but well-fitting this polemic).
I do have my own pet theory = BTW #2: Lenard effect — psst, not here, on PSI!
(That may be one of the mechanisms how puny “soluble impurities” in the air could sway the atmospheric water cycle and affect such things as climate }8-o
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jako:
I never meant this “bunching” of water molecules to be understood as . . .
. . . water changes phase and gives out appropriate latent heat.
JMcG:
Good. Because this too is group-think stupidity
Jako:
gliders/sailplanes, are sometimes sharing a thermal
JMcG:
“Thermals” involve bad thinking. It is a myth that buoyancy of warmer air plays any role at all in the flow of the atmosphere.” The proper paradigm of flow in earth’s atmosphere involves vortices. This is why a “thermal” has a spin to it, why it is circular, and why they get stronger with height.
James McGinn
Reply
MattH
| #
Thank you for that JaKo.
I interpret one of the drivers of dust devils is the collisions of dry matter generating an electric charge from the Lenard effect.
Is the termination of the thermal a simple matter of cooling with height?
Reply
MattH
| #
Thank you again JaKo. At days end I will reread your comment and metamorphosis my self into one of the atmospheric participants and live it, feel it, smell it.
If I wake up covered in feathers, wanting to feast on a field mouse, I will have profound understanding.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jako,
When water comes out of a tea kettle it first appears as a transparent gas. On cooling it condenses into visible water droplets. With further cooling these visible droplets disappear. In order for these droplets to again become a gas don’t they need to absorb 540+ calories/gram of “latent heat”?
Herb
Reply
JaKo
| #
Yes, MattH,
The two lonely clouds, you mentioned, not dispersing in otherwise clear sky, spell two moderate thermals feeding them.
Also, the temperature gradient with altitude is not as linear when enough water vapor is present as it would be in “dry” air (something Jerry would like — the dew point’s too low for the cloud to form at that particular altitude/temperature).
Then, one thing not many people realize: “What rises up must come down!” The center of most regular thermals is rising the fastest and just outside the perimeter of the rising column, there starts a down-draft. It is quite educational to observe a hawk leaving the thermal — they just bloody cook it like an arrow out of that down-draft…
BTW, the downdraft brings down some of the moisture what made its rise possible — and guess what — part of that moisture is in form of tiny droplets (LIQUID) which would again gradually evaporate (cooling the down draft), accelerating its down movement and then finally warm up close to the surface and rise up again…
Nice stories to tell my grandkids, when they’re old enough to be interested.
Cheers, JaKo
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jako,
The “bunching” of water in the atmosphere is how water is able to absorb so much energy without having a corresponding increase in temperature. It is that negligible thermodynamic effect that prevents the sunlit surface of the Earth from having a temperature of 230 like the sunlit surface of the moon.
Herb
Reply
JaKo
| #
Hi Herb,
I’m replying first to the boiling kettle here as more room for my confused scribbling is available here.
Just for fun, I’m having an ongoing feud with Consumer Reports: they claim that boiling water humidifiers are “less energy efficient” than the ultrasonic or mechanical ones, as they “consume more power” (they changed their tune a liddle bit, but still don’t admit their blunder).
Guess what — them “engineers” in their testing department are, well, really confused. Don’t you think that something must supply the energy, maybe it could be the incandescent lights, or, eureka, perhaps, the home heating system, eh?
Another issue, if you look at the water PP table, you’d notice that the water doesn’t really like to leave its solid form (ice) to form a vapor at temperatures encountered on top of troposphere (tropopause ~ -50°C), me guess — that may be why not much water leaves into higher layers of Earth’s atmosphere.
And finally, Earth surface’s albedo is lower than that of the Moon so, in theory, when no water (clouds, snow & ice) were present, the sun-lit Earth would heat up to higher temperature (and cool down lower at night) than the Moon.
Sorry JMcG, I gotta run now, perhaps later…
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jako,
I’ve had many discussions with experts who tell me it is the surface of the Earth that heats the atmosphere not the sun. These experts also tell me that the reason the Surface of the Earth doesn’t get as hot as the surface of the moon is because the atmosphere is absorbing the excessive heat.
A question is, why doesn’t the water vapor condense at lower altitudes when the temperature is -10, -20, or -30 but wait until the top of the troposphere?
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jako:
Something to consider — there is a little fact somehow ignored/denied
JMcG:
You are confused. Like many others, you have gone your whole life believing something that is plainly wrong based on the plainly wrong assumption that clear moist air could only be invisible if it contained gaseous H2O. This is just group think stupidity.
Jako:
in many comments about water on Earth: In the Phase Diagram The border between states is not inviolable.
JMcG:
Meaningless.
Jako:
The proof is in the pudding of Partial Pressures
JMcG:
Dalton’s law is a gas law. It is not a moist air law. It has no relevance here.
Jako:
“The water vapor is not held by the air. The amount of water in air is determined by the vapor pressure of water and has nothing to do with the properties of air.”
JMcG:
This is a convoluted explanation. You are just confused. Don’t feel bad. Almost everybody is confused, including all meteorologists. The fact that water has vapor pressure DOES NOT dictate that clear moist air contains gaseous H2O.
Jako:
Just go to the table…
JMcG:
Phase diagrams don’t lies. Humans lie, constantly. We lie to ourselves and constantly adjust our explanations to fit what we choose to believe.
Jako:
BTW, I do not dispute the tendency of “bunching” of water molecules in liquid and/or gas phase which is an interesting phenomenon, often ignored for its short duration and negligeable thermodynamic effect.
JMcG:
“Bunching” of water molecules is the result of hydrogen bonds in the liquid phase. There are no hydrogen bonds in the gaseous phase. You are just confused.
James McGinn / Atmospheric Physicist / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi JaKo,
Thank you! Tank you! For what? For your comment: “BTW, I do not dispute the tendency of “bunching” of water molecules in liquid and/or gas phase which is an interesting phenomenon, often ignored for its short duration and negligeable thermodynamic effect.”
MattH, James, and Herb accepted this concept of ‘bunching” which ended up with James’comment: “Bunching” of water molecules is the result of hydrogen bonds in the liquid phase. There are no hydrogen bonds in the gaseous phase.a” With which I totally agree! For I want you all to consider the observed fact'(phenomenon) of comet tails.
Have a good day
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry. I have often wondered why on a clear sky day with one or two isolated clouds those clouds do not disperse into a light haze.
Naughty old water.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
Most everyone, scientists and nonscientists, are aware that Isaac Newton wrote a book (1687) with the English title “The Principia” as translated (1848) to English by Andrew Motte. It would seem that every scientist should have read this foundational book of physical science. But an observed fact seems that not all have.read Book III (Phenomena, Or Appearances) which begins on page 322 of my copy. On page 396 I read “That comets are higher than the moon, and in the regions of the planets.” Newton and other astronomers of that time had the rare opportunity to observe two rare comets (1680-1681 and 1682-Halley’s comet). After much discussion about comets and their observed phenomena Newton concluded: “And to us it is enough that gravity does really exist, and act according to the laws we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies and of our sea.”
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers and James McGinn,
I have been totally wrong because I had NOT understood that which I had read and hopefully everyone may accept that the vapor of the atmosphere may be individual water molecules (a gas). The following are the first two sentence of three consecutive paragraphs on pages 47-48 of R.C. Sutcliffe’s book “Weather & Climate” (1966).
“When liquid water and gaseous vapor are present side by side one needs only to think of the exchange of molecules across the interface to have clear mental image of evaporation and condensation going on continuously. The molecules in the liquid are in incessant motion and asmall proportion, moving more rapidly than the average, escape from the liquid surface by overcoming the inter-molecular attractive force which binds the liquid together ; in much the same way a rocket , given sufficient speed, will escape from the earth’s gravitational force. …. .”
“It has been necessary to labor over this image of the processes in terms of molecular movements in order to appreciate the difficulties which arise when the vapor exists in the atmosphere far removed from any liquid surface. The air might be supersaturated, in the sense that if there were liquid present the vapor would quickly be captured by it, but in the absence of any liquid there no obvious reason why condensation should ever begin and experiment proves that the argument is a valid one. … .”
These results, obtained first by Wilson and broadly confirmed by many later experimenters, have a very important bearing on natural meteorology, not because supersaturation occurs in the atmosphere, but because it does not occur: why is that in the atmosphere condensation to clouds invariably happens as soon as normal saturation is reached? The answer is that the natural atmosphere, , however clean it may appear to be, is always supplied with a sufficient number of minute particles of salts, acid or other substances which serve just as well as liquid water in capturing water molecules from the vapor. … .”
A common experience is that it is much easier to tear things apart than to put them together
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
You are consistently wrong and will remain wrong because your idea of learning consists or re-reading and repeating the same bad ideas that gave you the wrong belief to begin with.
Try going somewhere with a monsoon season and it rains for a month. It is always wet and never dries out and tet even though the minute particles are being continuously removed from the atmosphere by the rain and not replaced there is no reduction in the amount of rain.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
pages 47-48 of R.C. Sutcliffe’s book “Weather & Climate” (1966).
JMcG:
Sutfcliffe was a moron who had no business in a scientific discussion, just like yourself Jerry.
Sutcliffe: When liquid water and gaseous vapor are present . . .
JMcG:
There is no such thing as “gaseous vapor”.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James and Herb,
On the dust cover of Sutcliffe’s book the publisher reviewed his prior history. “Previous he was Director of Research in the Meteorological Office. Professor Sutcliffe combines scientific eminence with an exceptionally wide experience of the practical application of meteorology. At the end of World War II,he was Chief Meteorological Officer for the British Forces in Europe.”
I consider the key word of this history to be “practical'”. From which I conclude he was part of the allied team which predicted the weather for the Normandy invasion well in its advance; which could be a reason why I writing this in English and not Germain.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
You continue to present credentials of “experts” and ignore actual evidence. In science every expert will be shown to be wrong as new evidence is discovered. It was explained to you how to read the phase diagram and yet you continue to deny that evidence and keep your antiquated beliefs.
Because you have a Phd some might consider you an expert but your degrees are a result of you repeating what you were told and you have no ability to think, so you cannot question the “right answer”. You have successfully demonstrated to all who read your comments that a degree is worthless and destroyed the credibility of all who use that their credentials in discussions to justify their beliefs.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
Professor Sutcliffe combines scientific eminence . . .
JMcG:
LOL. So, he was like the pope of meteorology. (Or the “Al Gore” of the meteorological cult.) Did he get to wear a funny hat?
Jerry:
he was part of the allied team which predicted the weather for the Normandy invasion
JMcG:
Uh . . . er, uh? D day? Do you know anything about the weather on D day? Well, let’s just say that I would have advised him to not put that on his resume.
James McGinn
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
I assume you come to PSI to read about science. Linus Pauling, in a book about chemical bonding between atoms, molecules, ions, etc. described the strongest attraction between the common small molecules, which has been termed “hydrogen bonding”. It seems no-one except James McGinn and myself refer, to hydrogen bonding. And James does this as he is critical of Pauling, the “chemistry professor”, who knows nothing.
Back to Herb, he wrote “your degrees are a result of you repeating what you were told and you have no ability to think”, NO, my doctorate is due to the results of the diffusion experiments I, and only I, did. For three years I studied the higher knowledge of physical chemistry, which was based upon the experimental results of previous others and then for three more years I did my own original experiments with meaningful results. You and James have never, to my knowledge, ever reported anything about your scientific backgrounds here at PSI. Correct me with evidence if this is not true .
Have a good day
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
Linus Pauling, described “hydrogen bonding”.
JMcG:
Yes, and Pauling completely blundered in that he failed to recognize that H2O is both polar and a solvent of it’s own polarity. His misthinking has taken root and has since morphed into a cottage industry of intractable and pretentious rhetoric that has been labelled the “anomalies of H2O.”
The Most Devastatingly Subtle Misconception in the Whole Dang History of Science
https://youtu.be/-cLI_nlEbJ4?si=tbvCmu6-YNRewKEF
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
It seems no-one except James McGinn and myself refer, to hydrogen bonding. And James does this as he is critical of Pauling, the “chemistry professor”, who knows nothing.
JMcG:
My discovery is that the electrical gradients that cause polarity overlap and contradict each other as H2O molecules form hydrogen bonds.. Consequently the most highly bonded form of H2O, liquid water, has no structural properties due to an almost total absence of polarity. Structural properties appear in instances when the comprehensiveness of hydrogen bonding can be reduces so that any remaining bonds have the polarity they require to achieve structural capabilities. Pauling had no idea about any of this. Nor do you.
Jerry:
my doctorate is due to the results of the diffusion experiments I, and only I, did. For three years I studied the higher knowledge of physical chemistry, which was based upon the experimental results of previous others and then for three more years I did my own original experiments with meaningful results.
JMcG:
Your “meaningful results” amount to nothing more than false confidence in a model that continues to fail to recognize that the the electrical gradients that cause polarity overlap and contradict each other — this being the cause of the anomalies of H2O that your dimwitted model constantly attempts to distract your audience from noticing.
Any idiot an pretend to be an expert by blabbering on about their credentials and avoiding the details of their convoluted thinking.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry.
I appreciate your guidance on hydrogen bonding
James, and Herb to a lesser degree in some ways, to a greater degree in others, behave like the gatekeepers of all scientific knowledge. They would have been successful propaganda agents for Stalin. Everybody must believe what they say or you will be sent to the death camp where starvation and cold will kill you. Of course, Stalin only exterminated 60 million of his own people.
James repeated abuse to those who say water vapour does not exist is easily resolved. James could write an article to be published in PSI on micro droplets of water and readers could support the ideas or challenge and possibly debunk the ideas.
That is what PSI was established to do. Follow the process or the editors should ban
the ongoing abuse.
Do what I say, SunsetTommy, for my name too, is Stalin.
Herb keeps saying the atmosphere warms the earth. Lets look at what we believe is the state of knowledge.
Over fifty percent of incoming solar radiation is IR. That energy which is not reflected heats the earth and water surfaces which in turn heats the immediate overlaying atmospheric layer.
But we also have higher frequency solar incoming. We understand that some of the higher frequency incoming solar heats molecules and atoms in the thermosphere, shatters molecular bonding in the stratosphere, and has effects in the atmospheric layers in between.
We understand the atmosphere blocks much of this incoming energy from reaching the surface but we still get sunburn and other effects so clearly some of this higher frequency incoming solar heats the near earth surface atmosphere to some, relatively minor degree.
After snowfall, on a cold still morning the air temperature is cold like the snow, but once the wind stirs there is often a mass of warmer air brought in to displace the colder air. Cold snowy earth surface, warmer air temperature.
This is the rough concept which may have technical errors.
I have received more useful observations from JaKo on some atmospheric dynamics than I have for a while. For his effort he was personally attacked. I fear he may now be hiding under his bed, trembling and traumatized. Challenge the idea, not the man. But minimize being a repeating stuck record on ideas that could be half pie loopy tunes.
Have three good days Jerry and readers, or I will send you to the extermination camp, you morons. 🙂
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt,
There is a large boulder that you want to get rid of. You take a sledge hammer and strike the boulder to break it into smaller pieces. A friend with an identical sledge hammer comes over to help you. He begins to strike the boulder with the same force and as often as you do. Will the efforts of your friend help you break up the boulder faster by adding more energy to it?
Now instead of a boulder and sledge hammers we have a thermometer and air molecules. Will two molecules striking the thermometer traveling at the same speed transfer more energy to the thermometer than one? Will that additional energy cause the mercury in the thermometer to expand more registering a higher temperature?
When measuring the temperature at different altitudes the reading is regarded as the kinetic energy of the molecules at that altitude, no matter how many molecules are transferring energy to the thermometer. This produces the zig zag graph you see as the temperature of the atmosphere.
If you were to divide the temperature reading by the density of the molecules at that altitude you would get the energy per a constant number of molecules instead of a constant volume of molecules. A graph of this value would show the energy of the molecules increases in a straight line in the troposphere (where water moderates the temperature) then in a increasing exponential line in the higher atmosphere. Since energy flows from higher to lower this graph shows that it is the sun adding energy to the molecules, not the surface of the Earth.
Herb
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Herb. Thank you for discussing issues rather than personal attack.
At the end of January I mentioned iron sand burning and blistering victims’ feet on North Island, West Coast, NZ beaches. When we were children we used to twist our feet into the sand then scrape back the burning surface sand from around our shins.
If the atmosphere was causing this heating we would all be cooked alive.
I propose these to be irrefutable observations and my comment in my acerbic comment on solar incoming heating either earth or atmosphere depending on lower or higher solar energy frequencies is avoided and unaddressed.
Have 14 good days.
Matt.
P.S. I don’t believe JaKo is actually traumatized but he does often avoid some commenters, which is our loss.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt,
You have it right Matt. Visible light heats the surface of the Earth while uv heats the N2 and O2 in the atmosphere so even though it is the sun heating both there are two sources of heat for the molecules on the surface; the visible light from the sun and the ir coming from the gases. The surface has a higher temperature because there are over a thousand times the molecules radiating heat than air molecules radiating heat but that doesn’t mean that the molecules on the Earth have more kinetic energy than the molecules in the air. The flow of energy is from an object with greater energy (v^2) to an object with less energy (law of conservation of momentum) so even though there are more molecules on the Earth radiating energy, making it feel hotter, the flow of energy is from the air molecules to the molecules on the surface. (the 2nd LOT is wrong) as shown by the graph of kinetic energy/molecule.
The metal sands you speak of are very good at absorbing IR allowing them to get very hot but if it weren’t for water removing heat by evaporating their temperature would reach the 230 degree temperature that the surface of the moon reaches.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
The first thing I would suggest for anybody who is interested in natural temperatures to get an inexpensive infrared thermometer.to measure surface or skin or cloud bases or the apparently cloudless sky directly above as you measure the ground’s or water’s surface temperatures. If one has never done this, I expect one might be amazed what one might see.
And if one is not interested enough to do this, one should never make comments about temperatures here at PSI . For the S stands for scientific and science is based upon data or tested with data such as common temperature.
Have a good day
Reply
James McGinn
| #
LOL. Just like global warming fanatics, you meteorological science groupies always think its the responsibility of your opponents to explain-away your confusion. The truth is that you lazy-minded simpletons are incapable of formulating a coherent argument. So all you do is wallow in self pity.
James McGinn / Genius
The Most Devastatingly Subtle Misconception in the Whole Dang History of Science, Part Two
https://youtu.be/ejJ4HLfQWRM?si=9Opw23ZzWNHwh9UA
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
I finally saw what I a consider is a fact. It is that you have not, in our exchanges of opinions about water, noted the most fundamental reason that water is a polar molecule. So I ask: what is this most fundamental reason? A clue: What is a difference between a water molecule and water molecule?
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
What is a difference between a water molecule and a carbon dioxide molecule?
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Hi Jerry,
The name of my YouTube site is Solving Tornadoes. Therein you will find my full explanations.
If you have any questions respond in the comments on the particular video.
Regards,
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
First you criticize a chemist’s chemical understanding for not applying it to understand tornados, Now you ignore my elementary question about common elementary molecules of the atmosphere. And you expect me to review your most recent effort to explain tornados after working on your principal scholarly interest for years: evidently without success. Because if you had there is no reason for you not to share it here at PSI
I asked you: “What is a difference between a water molecule and water molecule?” because I do not know if you know the answer and I expect many nonscientists, who have never taken a college level introductory chemistry course, need to know this answer to understand why water is a polar molecule and a carbon dioxide molecule is not.
Have a good day
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry,
Do you accept the fact that moist air in earth’s atmosphere (including clear moist air) is never gaseous therefore moist air is always heavier than drier air and buoyancy plays no role in storms or atmospheric flow?
You do accept this, right?
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry krause
| #
Hi James,
Should I assume that your answer to my question is “I, (James) don’t know?
Have a good day
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
You got nothing!!!
James McGinn
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
We (all PSI readers) have the fact that you haven’t attempted to answer my question.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
The simple answer is both water and carbon dioxide molecules are composed of three atoms; water (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2), Diffraction data indicate the three atoms of CO2 lie on a straight line (O-C-O) and that the three atoms of water do not. So the structure of the water molecule is a “bent’ molecule. Hence a polar molecule.
Hydrogen bonding has nothing to do with water being a bent molecule. This is because of a quantum mechanical phenomenon and the electronic structures of the oxygen atom, Of course this is only what Pauling, a physicist and a chemist, imagined. as the result of the analysis of the diffraction patterns of these two different gaseous molecules.
Have a good day
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
carbon dioxide (CO2), Diffraction data indicate the three atoms of CO2 lie on a straight line (O-C-O)
JMcG:
CO2 is straight. And the bonds are double bonds. The bonds are axially twisted at a 90 degree angle. It is based on the underlying tetrahedron, as is the case for all atoms that have four base pairs in their outer valence (Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Fluorine, and Neon).
Jerry:
the structure of the water molecule is a “bent’ molecule. Hence a polar molecule.
JMcG:
It is bent, but that has nothing to do with why it is polar. As explained by Linus Pauling, it is polar because of the electronegativity difference between it’s Oxygen and 2 Hydrogen. These electronegativity differences generate two sets of electrical gradients.
These electrical gradients are the manifestation of the mutual attraction associated water being “polar”. But this is not the whole story. Pauling blundered. Pauling did not attribute the polarity of H2O to electrical gradients–a subtle error that has huge implications. When H2O molecules make hydrogen bonds their electrical gradients contradict each other and cancel each other out. The ensuing confusion of this blunder has resulted in multiple generations of confused nitwits, like yourself Jerry, who are incapable of but endless circular arguments, pretending to understand what they don’t. Unbeknownst to simpletons like yourself, the polarity of H2O is highly variable and H-bonds are the mechanism thereof.
This fact has huge implications with respect to understanding the correct physics of storms and atmospheric flow:
https://youtu.be/-cLI_nlEbJ4?si=OgHvs7p7-Oq6h6bT
James McGinn / Genius
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
A regular tetrahedron has angles of 60 degrees so the axial twist of the oxygen atoms in CO2 cannot be 90 degrees.
Herb
James McGinn
| #
They are double bonded. The opposing lateral on a tetrahedron is always at 90 degrees.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
The tetrahedron is formed from 4 triangles with four points (electrons)
The oxygen atoms must bond with two adjacent electrons so unless the oxygen atoms somehow distort the tetrahedron into a 2 dimensional square there’ll be no 90 degrees only 60 degrees. Look up what a tetrahedron (a solid with 4 sides) looks like. There are no 90 degree angles..
Herb
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
The tetrahedron is formed from 4 triangles with four points (electrons)
JMcG:
Right
Herb:
The oxygen atoms must bond with two adjacent electrons
JMcG:
All of the electrons are “adjacent,” or equidistant.
Herb:
so unless the oxygen atoms somehow distort the tetrahedron into a 2 dimensional square there’ll be no 90 degrees only 60 degrees. Look up what a tetrahedron (a solid with 4 sides) looks like. There are no 90 degree angles..
JMcG:
Get four toothpicks. Arrange them into a tetrahedron. Look at any cross member through the center point of the tetrahedron. It will be at 90 degrees to the cross member on the other side.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
You need six toothpicks (edges) to form a tetrahedron with 4 corners where 3 toothpicks meet.
Herb
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
You need six toothpicks (edges)
JMcG:
Yes, if you are representing it as a solid you must use six. But that doesn’t seem necessary in this instance. Either way the cross members are at 90 through the center point of the tetrahedron
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
The definition of a tetrahedron is a 4 sided solid. The double bonds are of equal length and attach to adjacent electrons on the tetrahedron not to the center point of the tetrahedron. There are no 90 degree angles. You need to take a refresher course in solid geometry.
Herb
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James.
Correction: You can have a tetrahedron with right triangles but when you are speaking of a tetrahedron formed by the force coming from equally charged electrons the distance between electrons is equal there will be no right angles.
Herb
James McGinn
| #
Herb,
You are confused. A line from the center point of any lateral extended through the center of the tetrahedron will also pass through a lateral on the other side that is at a 90 degree angle relative to the first lateral.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
If by lateral you mean an edge then in an equilateral tetrahedron, where all the edges are the same size, a straight line going through the center of an edge and the center of the tetrahedron will not intercept another edge. You are talking about a cube not a tetrahedron.
Herb
James McGinn
| #
And I’m saying you are confused and don’t know what you are talking about. Prove me wrong.
James McGinn / Genius
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
Get yourself some styrofoam balls to represent electrons and toothpicks to make a tetrahedron. Use three toothpicks and three balls to form an equilateral triangle. Take three toothpicks and another ball to form the equilateral tetrahedron where each ball has 3 toothpicks in it representing the formation of the 4 electrons of the outer shell of the elements you named. Now use a ball with 2 toothpicks to represent the oxygen atom and connect the toothpick to any of the two balls forming the tetrahedron. Use another 2 toothpicks and a ball to form another oxygen atom and connect it to the other 2 balls of the tetrahedron. Tell me the 2 oxygen atoms are perpendicular..
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb
Not sure where this will end up but I want to complement you on your excellent model building exercises which you are suggesting James to do.
Have a good day
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
Tell me the 2 oxygen atoms are perpendicular.
JMcG:
Surreal. I never used the word, “perpendicular.” I stated that CO2 is straight. The bonds are double bonds. The bonds are axially twisted at a 90 degree angle due to the tetrahedral arrangement of electrons on the carbon atom. (The axis being a center line along the length of the CO2 molecule.)
I don’t understand how you got so confused. Moreover, you could have looked this up on the internet. Beyond that I can only say that it does seem to be that every interaction I have had with PSI adherents involves a general attitude of arrogant disregard for fundamental facts and stubborn dimwittedness.
James McGinn / Genius
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
I see where I made the mistake. I have the oxygen atom combining with the electrons of the carbon’s tetrahedral shape when in fact it is the oxygen nucleus combining with the tetrahedron electron’s and the oxygen’s electrons then converting it into a cubic structure. Jerry’s comment on my model made me question it.
Thanks,
Herb
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
. . . when in fact it is the oxygen nucleus combining with the tetrahedron electron’s . . .
jMcG:
What?
. . . and the oxygen’s electrons then converting it into a cubic structure.
JMcG:
i can’t make much sense if this.
Oxygen has two unpaired electrons and two sets of paired electrons. These are arranged in a tetrahedron around its nucleus. Carbon has 4 unpaired electrons. These too are arranged in a tetrahedron around its nucleus. The unpaired electrons in the Oxygen form covalent bonds with 2 of the four unpaired electrons in the carbon. On the other side of the Carbon atom the remaining two unpaired electrons form covalent bonds with the unpaired electrons from a second Oxygen atom
James McGinn
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
First, is it a theory that the water molecule is bent and carbon dioxide molecules are straight or are these facts os observed by the results of diffraction experiments?
Relative to what you wrote, it seems the two unshared pairs of electrons in two sp3 orbitals (3-d regions of space) of the oxygen atom have nothing to do with the molecule’s polarity. Science is built upon observed facts; which is the diffraction data. And the throaty is built on the assumption the electron (having mass and electric charge behaves as a photon of light which has neither a rest mass nor an electrical charge. Without the diffraction data the quantum mechanical reasons are a dream without any support.
And I have yet to read your detailed description (mechanism with all the parts)) of how a tornado is formed. And given what you have just written, I can understand why you did not immediately answer my question when first asked. See, I often honestly state “I don’t know.”
Have a good day.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
First, is it a theory that the water molecule is bent and carbon dioxide molecules are straight or are these facts os observed by the results of diffraction experiments?
JMcG:
Facts. Look into Lewis structure and the concept of steric number. A steric number of four always dictates a tetrahedron.
Jerry:
Relative to what you wrote, it seems the two unshared pairs of electrons in two sp3 orbitals (3-d regions of space) of the oxygen atom have nothing to do with the molecule’s polarity.
JMcG:
What!?!?!? Why not? Jerry, you are just a confused buffoon.
Jerry:
Science is built upon observed facts; which is the diffraction data. And the throaty is built on the assumption the electron (having mass and electric charge behaves as a photon of light which has neither a rest mass nor an electrical charge. Without the diffraction data the quantum mechanical reasons are a dream without any support.
JMcG:
We don’t just get to ignore quantum reality. You are just a confused, poorly educated, nitwit.
James McGinn / Genius
And I have yet to read your detailed description (mechanism with all the parts)) of how a tornado is formed. And given what you have just written, I can understand why you did not immediately answer my question when first asked. See, I often honestly state “I don’t know.”
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
I wrote “Relative to what you wrote, it seems the two unshared pairs of electrons in two sp3 orbitals (3-d regions of space) of the oxygen atom have nothing to do with the molecule’s polarity.” because you hadn’t mentioned this detail to the Psi readers. And these four un shared electrons (negative charges who’d seem to have something to do with the molecule’s polarity. Were you trying to confuse these readers by not mentioning them. And bathe way, Where did you get your education? Oh, I forgot, maybe a genius doesn’t need an education.
Have a good day
Have a
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
I wrote “Relative to what you wrote, it seems the two unshared pairs of electrons in two sp3 orbitals (3-d regions of space) of the oxygen atom have nothing to do with the molecule’s polarity.”
JMcG:
This is just a dumb comment. You assume something based on something I didn’t say.
Jerry:
because you hadn’t mentioned this detail to the Psi readers.
JMcG:
It’s irrelevant.
Jerry:
And these four un shared electrons (negative charges who’d seem to have something to do with the molecule’s polarity. Were you trying to confuse these readers by not mentioning them.
JMcG:
Jerry you are always confused.
Reply
jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
How is it that no one knows anything but you? I learn from what others have written, including your writings, But I cannot remember you ever quoting even Galileo nor Newton. Nor modern scientists as Albert Einstein or Richard Peynman. Are, these men, like me, stupid and poorly educated?
Have a good day
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
I cannot remember you ever quoting even Galileo nor Newton. Nor modern scientists as Albert Einstein or Richard Feynman.
JMcG:
I think it better to discuss the words of people that have actually discussed this subject matter. In the link that follows I discuss the thinking of Dr. Wayne Breslin. As you should realize, I have deep disagreements with Dr. Wayne’s conceptualization of hydrogen bonding of H2O.
https://youtu.be/-cLI_nlEbJ4?si=BgEw8YgXS0LV_s7w&t=744
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and other PSI commenters and other PSI readers,
A reader might question: How it is that I continually make my many comments? On the wall in front of my computer hangs a well known print of someone’s painting titled “perseverance” with the quote “Continuous effort is the key to unlocking our potential.” (Sir Winston Churchill)
Have a good day
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry,
You got nothing!!!
James McGinn
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
On March 12, 6;57pm Herb introduced the topic af a regular tetrahedron in his conversation with James. March 13 1:56 Herb wrote : “Hi James, Get yourself some styrofoam balls to represent electrons and toothpicks to make a tetrahedron. Use three toothpicks and three balls to form an equilateral triangle. Take three toothpicks and another ball to form the equilateral tetrahedron where each ball has 3 toothpicks in it representing the formation of the 4 electrons of the outer shell of the elements you named. Now use a ball with 2 toothpicks to represent the oxygen atom and connect the toothpick to any of the two balls forming the tetrahedron. Use another 2 toothpicks and a ball to form another oxygen atom and connect it to the other 2 balls of the tetrahedron. Tell me the 2 oxygen atoms are perpendicular..” To which I immediately responded: “Hi Herb. .Not sure where this will end up but I want to complement you on your excellent model building exercises which you are suggesting James to do.”
To date no one (including Herb) has recognized the great importance of what Herb wrote. So again I call attention to what Herb wrote.
Have a good day
Have a good day
Reply
James McGinn
| #
I introduced the topic of tetrahedron to Herb.
Also be aware that there is no literal tetrahedron. It is useful as a heuristic for understanding the relative position of electrons on the outer valence of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, fluorine, and neon.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
Molecules and atom react to have an outer shell of 8 electrons (why neon is no reactive). Carbon is the only element you named where there are 4 electrons making a tetrahedron shape, due to the repelling force between electrons. Nitrogen’s 5 electrons will arrange themselves so they are equidistant from each other and the positive nucleus. Oxygen and fluorine with six and seven electrons will also form non-regular shapes where the forces are equal. Neon with 8 can be represented by a cube but the forces that form these atoms are not bound by the roles of solid geometry. Electrons are in constant motion and their shape will be affected by the internal electrons just as they are affected by the nucleus.
I am of the opinion that the shapes of the electron shells is based on a fallacy that there no magnetic field. How can there be moving electrons and changing electric fields without a magnetic field? The force of energy surrounding the protons produces a directional (magnetic) field that is perpendicular to the horizontal orbiting electrons, making the appearance of an atom to be like the appearance of a solar system which is produced by the same forces.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
Carbon is the only element you named where there are 4 electrons making a tetrahedron shape,
JMcG:
Herb, you are ignorant of the concept of electron pairing. Look it up. Anything above four the electrons pair up.
Herb:
due to the repelling force between electrons. Nitrogen’s 5 electrons will arrange themselves so they are equidistant from each other and the positive nucleus. Oxygen and fluorine with six and seven electrons will also form non-regular shapes where the forces are equal. Neon with 8 can be represented by a cube but the forces that form these atoms are not bound by the roles of solid geometry.
JMcG:
Be aware that your thinking on this is nonstandard. I do not claim to understand why, but the standard model is that electrons pair up above four. So the tetrahedron is the rule in this valence at 4 electrons and above up to 8 (at this valence).
Herb:
Electrons are in constant motion and their shape will be affected by the internal electrons just as they are affected by the nucleus.
I am of the opinion that the shapes of the electron shells is based on a fallacy that there no magnetic field. How can there be moving electrons and changing electric fields without a magnetic field?
JMcG:
I don’t know. Maybe nobody really knows. All I can say is that you seem to be ignorant of a concept that is widely accepted, electron pairing.
Herb:
The force of energy surrounding the protons produces a directional (magnetic) field that is perpendicular to the horizontal orbiting electrons, making the appearance of an atom to be like the appearance of a solar system which is produced by the same forces.
JMcG:
I can’t claim to know otherwise, but I think you should be aware that your thinking is not standard.
James McGinn
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
Half the elements have odd number of electrons so your concept of pairing is wrong.
Atoms have energy levels and the electrons in a level will equalize.
A hydrogen atom has one proton and one electron. That electrons in a circular orbit around the nucleus. Helium has 2 protons and 2 electrons. The proton increases the attraction the electrons which increases their energy. The electrons will both have the same velocity and direction, traveling on opposite sides of the nucleus.
When an additional proton adds more energy this energy creates a new energy level where the new proton orbits in a circular orbit but with less energy than the energy of the electrons in the lower orbit. Beryllium with 4 protons will have 4 electrons in circular orbits at 2 different energy levels (How can 4 electrons in a circular path not be a solenoid?). When an additional proton is added creating boron the additional electron remains in the same energy level but instead being in a circular orbit it enters an orbit perpendicular to the other electrons (Standard thinking, not mine) and all the electrons will have the same energy. The addition of a proton to create carbon will have the additional electron in the same perpendicular axis creating a circular disk with a vertical line of 2 electrons (this is what they mean by electron pairing). This is what you call a tetrahedron shape, which would be the case if all the electrons in the energy level had the same energy (the circular orbit of the energy level would be converted into the tetrahedron.). An additional proton (nitrogen) would have the electron in another perpendicular orbit (horizontal to the electron disks) and then oxygen would pair the electron in the horizontal axis with all electrons having the same energy. Fluorine and neon would form the third perpendicular (front-back) and fill the energy level where all the electrons would have the same energy. (Neon would form a cubic structure).
The addition of more protons and electrons would create a new energy level with electrons filling s and d shells before creating diagonal shells in the energy level. The outer electrons of an atom never exceeds 8 so as electrons are added they enter lower energy levels keeping the number of electrons at the highest (weakest) energy level the same.
When energy is added to an element’s nucleus (energy is attracted to positive matter) it causes the electron energy levels to expand. When this energy is lost the levels contract giving off light and producing the spectrum that is unique to that element.
Herb
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
Half the elements have odd number of electrons so your concept of pairing is wrong.
JMcG:
You are just confused, again.
You don’t need to trust me on any of this in that it is all standard. Do some research.
James McGinn
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
Since electrons have identical charges there is no impetus for them to pair. In fact the repelling force between them would have them separate as far as possible.
It is their attraction to the protons in the nucleus and energy that causes them to pair. Both electrons and energy are attracted to positive matter and since energy is the stronger force (forming the compressing strong nuclear force) it displaces electrons from protons causing them to orbit the nucleus creating atoms. Why do you think as a nucleus gains more protons the size of the atom increases? The increase in force between all the protons and an electron should cause contraction, not expansion. It is the increase in energy around the nucleus that increases the distance between the electrons and the nucleus.
You should know better than most that standard belief doesn’t mean correct belief.
Herb
James McGinn
| #
Since electrons have identical charges there is no impetus for them to pair. In fact the repelling force between them would have them separate as far as possible.
JMcG:
That would leave you in the precarious position of explaining why we don’t find H6O, NH5, or H7Fl. Bond pairing is the traditional way of explaining why we don’t find these molecules in nature. Do you have a better explanation. Go ahead, present it.
Also keep in mind that bond pairing is essential to the existence of and strength of covalent bonds.
Herb:
It is their attraction to the protons in the nucleus and energy that causes them to pair. Both electrons and energy are attracted to positive matter and since energy is the stronger force (forming the compressing strong nuclear force) it displaces electrons from protons causing them to orbit the nucleus creating atoms.
JMcG:
I’m not saying I understand the underlying logic. I’m just saying we can’t just dismiss it without simultaneously dimissing the phenomena it purports to explain. Can you explain why Neon is inert without invoking electron pairing? Go ahead. Show us.
Herb:
Why do you think as a nucleus gains more protons the size of the atom increases? The increase in force between all the protons and an electron should cause contraction, not expansion. It is the increase in energy around the nucleus that increases the distance between the electrons and the nucleus.
JMcG:
This is the basis for quanta or quantum theory. Nobody really understand it. All we know is it works. if you have a better theory then feel free to present it. You aca start by explaining why we don’t find H6O in nature. Go ahead.
Herb:
You should know better than most that standard belief doesn’t mean correct belief.
JMcG:
Of course, but I’m careful not to use my confusion as an excuse to make shit up.
James McGinn
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
The force of energy, whether gravity or magnetic, attracts energy coming from another source. The electric force coming from a neutron does not radiate until that neutrons split by energy creating positive and negative charges. The energy dislodges electrons creating a negative field around an atom or molecule. As objects come together the strength of the electric repelling force increases while the strength of the attractive energy force decreases.
When an electron and proton combine the electric fields of the protons and electrons decrease. When the opposite poles of a magnet come together the size and strength of the magnet increases. When similar charges are forced together the size and strength of the electric field increase while when similar poles are forced together the size and strength of the magnet decreases.
When the electrons of atoms form a cubic structure the repelling force prevents other electrons from being added. (The correct formula for HF is H2F2 making it a weak acid). H2O has 8 electrons in the outer shell while H6O would have 4, NH3 has 8 electrons in the outer shell while NH5 has 3. The electrons are not pairing they are forming an outer shel (actually spherical shaped) where the electrons’s negative field that negates the attractive force coming from the protons How do you explain how hydrates of matter form stronger bonds with the water than the bonds holding the molecule together?
Quantum physics is garbage. Planck confused the nature of energy being radiated from an object as a property of the energy rather than a property of the matter. Energy is attracted to positive matter creating the strong nuclear force. This force does not stop at the edge of the nucleus but is radiated as gravity and converted into magnetic force by the electrons of the matter.
Planck created created quanta and quantum physics trying to combine black body radiation theory (which doesn’t exist in reality) with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which is invalid.
Here’s my theory on reality. There are two components and two forces. Matter with an electric force and energy with an attractive force. Energy is attracted to positive matter and is able to separate negative matter from positive matter. This is why a neutron outside of the nucleus will spontaneously decay into a proton, electron and energy (gamma ray) within 10 minutes but an alpha particle is completely stable. When a nucleus’s outer shell is composed of protons the electrons (neutrons) in the nucleus are protected from attack by the force of energy creating a stable atom. If an electron moves onto the surface there will be beta decay and the electron (plus gamma ray) will be expelled from the nucleus. If there aren’t enough electrons in the nucleus (weak nuclear force) the force of energy can split the nucleus into smaller more stable structures (Neutron is a hydrogen atom, alpha particle is a helium atom.)
The sun is a chunk of matter which is surrounded by energy breaking it into smaller more stable structures. Light is a disturbance in the electric and magnetic fields surrounding the sun. It is no different than a radioactive atom. The laws of physics do not change because of perceived size.
Herb
James McGinn
| #
Herb, this is way too ambitious. You want to reform the basis of all chemistry.
Before you go down this path, which would take multiple lifetimes to complete (assuming you are right) I would suggest a more realistic shorter-time-frame goal. I there any smoking gun evidence? Just one thing? Try to sell that first and see if you can convince anybody.
James McGinn
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
I’ve pointed out that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is wrong and the conservation of momentum is correct.
I’ve shown that Einstein is wrong in that when you get closer to a center of gravity and time expands the distance (c is constant) does not increase.
I’ve pointed out that binary asteroids prove Newton’s law of gravity is wrong and gravity is not a function of mass.
I’ve pointed out that the electric force and magnetic force behave in opposite manners and cannot be one force.
I did an experiment showing that the correct formula for the force between magnets is not F=M1M2/d^2 but M3 = M1/d1 + M2/d2 where d is the size of the magnet field of the magnet (measured from the surface to the equilibrium point between the two magnets).
I’ve shown that under current theory beta decay is impossible that the weak nuclear force cannot provide the energy to expel an electron from a nucleus then increase in strength to overcome the increased force resulting from an additional proton.
I explained why the speed of light cannot be constant in a vacuum (if the velocity (v) is constant then the energy of he light (v^2) would not decrease with distance.
The red and blue shift proves that light is a wave, not a photon, the speed varies with the strength of the energy and electric fields it travels in.
Planck’s law is wrong. A blue shift from distant stars should mean an increase in energy of the light.
The atomic clocks on satellites prove Einstein’s theory wrong not right.
None of this has changed the beliefs of an “expert” at all and they continue to believe the fantasy they’ve created represents reality. There are no small steps that can be taken that will convince an “expert”that they have been a fool..
Herb
James McGinn
| #
Water vapor rises because it is a lighter molecule than Air
Nonsense. It is impossible for H2O to be gaseous at ambient temperature. Look at an H2O phase diagram, for heck’s sake.
Water does go up in the atmosphere. But it has nothing to do with buoyancy.
(N2 and O2), NOT due to charge repulsion —
— H2O = 18
– Air = .2 X 32 + .8 X 28 = 28.8
— N2 = 28
— O2 = 32
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
“Water vapor rises because it is a lighter molecule than Air.” (James)
Evidently You have never read about The Ideal Gas Lae. One of the older Scientific Laws–“A summary of experimental data; often expressed in the form of a mathematical equation. PV = nRT
Have a good day
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Another dumb comment from Jerry. The question is whether or not H2O can become gaseous below it’s boiling temperature. There is zero empirical evidence that this is possible. Nobody cares what you believe.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Jerry,
The R is a factor accounting for the different properties of the gases.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James and Herb,
have either of you read about the phenomenon of diffusion? My thesis research was wes a study of the simultaneous diffusion of lead and cadmium divalent cations sodium chloride and potassium choride crystals. What experiments have either of you studied?
Have a good day
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rosd
| #
Jerry,
Your experiment is about the movement of ions in a crystal structure, formed from ionic bonds due, to an imbalance in electric charges and is caused by the electric force.establishing equilibrium within the crystal. What has that to do with gases in an atmosphere formed by the kinetic energy of molecules in a gravitational field gradient? The molecules are not homogeneous in the atmosphere as they are in your crystals so your experiment in no way confers any expertise to you. Stop trying to use credentials to validate beliefs. It is no more justified than an Oscar winning actor telling you what deodorant to use.
Reply
Javilk
| #
H2O not a gas (isolated molecules) below boiling temperature? Have you hard of the term “Vapor Pressure”? Everything has a theoretical vapor pressure, even platinum. (A rather low one!) It is why cold water, even ice evaporates. Plenty of evidence for that, including the regular, molecule by molecule growth of snowflakes.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Javlik:
H2O not a gas (isolated molecules) below boiling temperature? Have you hard of the term “Vapor Pressure”?
JMcG:
Meaningless. Vapor (evaporate) isn’t gaseous. (Also, vapor is sematically ambiguous. Some equate vapor to steam. So it is potentially a specious argument.)
Javlik:
Everything has a theoretical vapor pressure, even platinum. (A rather low one!) It is why cold water, even ice evaporates.
JMcG:
Evaporate is not gaseous. It is small droplets at ambient temperatures.
Javlik:
Plenty of evidence for that, including the regular, molecule by molecule growth of snowflakes.
JMcG:
Not the case. Snowflake growth is not molecule by molecule. You are drawing conclusions based on imagined evidence.
James McGinn
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Commenters and other PSI Readers.
I am calling your attention to a new topic which is an old topic: Calling people stupid with whom one does not agree. When asked, Richard Feynman served of the National Commission to investigate the SPACE SHUTTLE CHALLENGER DISASTER. He reported about his role in a book he wrote “What Do You Care What Other People Think?” before he died; however the book was not published until after he died. For the book is very critical of the NASA managers who ignored the advise of the NASA engineers and of the Commission head William P. Rogers.
At the end the Commissioners had voted on 9 recommendations but Rogers had inserted a 10th “The Commission strongly recommends that NASA continue ti receive the support if the Administration and the nation” for which Feynman had
never voted.
And I read: “When I got home , I talked to Joan, my sister. I told her about the tenth recommendation, and how I had been c“out-voted.” [She asked] “Did you call any of the other commissioners and talk to them … “Uh, no.” “So I called up three other commissioners—I’ll call them A, B. C. I call A,who days, “What tenth recommendation?” I call B , who says, “Tenth recommendation? What are you talking about? “ I call C, who says, “Don’t you remember, YOU DOPE? I was in the office when Rogers first told us, and I don’t see anything wrong with it.”
So I am not the only one who gets called “stupid”. when some of you disagree with what I write About which practice Albert Einstein stated: Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.”
Have a good day
Reply