Hunga-Tonga Driven Temperature Spike?
The lower troposphere temperature has spiked this month, to +0.64C above baseline, and nobody–and I’m mean nobody–can definitively explain why
First and foremost, this rise CANNOT be tied to the dogma of the day: ‘climate change’.
There was no anomalous-increase in atmospheric CO2 in July, or in any prior month, to justify such an uptick.
July’s spike is a naturally-driven event — this is widely agreed upon.
And although the explanations behind this temperature increase are lacking, and the forcings involved poorly understood –due in no small part to today’s climate ‘science’ coffers funding AGW-affirming theories only– a change in ocean currents, atmospheric winds, and the infamous Hunga Tonga eruption of Jan 15, 2022 appear top of the list.
Hunga Tonga, being a submarine volcano, fired excessive amounts of water vapour (the only true greenhouse gas – Ed) into the atmosphere. Some postulate that this water vapor, after an initial cooling lag, is now exerting a temporary warming effect — water vapor being Earth’s most abundant GHG.
Then there are others that say the warming is not due to the water vapor itself, rather the disruptions it caused to upper atmosphere winds, with these effects being both oscillatory and temporary.
‘Temporary’ is the key here: climatic events always are.
July’s results “suggest something peculiar is going on,” writes Dr. Roy Spencer, who collates the lower tropospheric satellite data at the University of Huntsville Alabama.
“It’s too early for the developing El Nino in the Pacific to have much effect on the tropospheric temperature record. The Hunga Tonga sub-surface ocean volcanic eruption and its “unprecedented” production of extra stratospheric water vapor could be to blame,” Dr. Spencer contends, adding that he will come back with a formal theory once he’s had time to properly evaluate the data.
Hunda Tonga does look to have caused cooling, at least initially, due to the release of particulates into the atmosphere–muted though they were compared to something like a Mt Pinatubo. Dr. Peter Kolb, PhD Forest Ecologist Adjunct Professor, links the effects of the Hunga eruption, “the highest in the atmosphere of any volcano in history,” to North America’s long cold winter just gone.
“[The eruption] blew something like a trillion tons of water into the upper atmosphere … increasing the water vapor in the Stratosphere by 10 percent. We talk about greenhouse gases increasing by one or two one-hundredths of a percent causing global climate change, and here we had a volcano that increased the water content of the stratosphere by 10 percent.”
Dr Kolb continues to be mystified by the lack of coverage the Hunga Tonga volcano and its impacts have garnered from both the global scientific community and mainstream media alike.
“So when the Tonga volcano blew and through all this water into the atmosphere, I go ‘Holy smokes, you know, all the literature everything I’ve read about atmospheric modeling and atmospheric gases. Why isn’t everybody jumping up and down going, oh my god, you know, this is huge’?” he asked.
“There’s this massive vapor cloud, especially over the southern hemisphere that has reflected an enormous amount of solar energy right back out to space and it hasn’t come back to the earth.”
Cooling was indeed the initial and expected consequence of such an ejection of particulates. However, with the vast amount of water vapor involved, “58,000 Olympic-size swimming pools”-worth, according to a NASA study, was the eventual effect always destined to be warming? I honestly don’t know. But NASA seems to think it was.
Measurements from the Microwave Limb Sounder on NASA’s Aura satellite indicate the excess water vapor is equivalent to around 10 percent of the amount of water vapor typically residing in the stratosphere, “where this ‘excess stratospheric H2O will persist for years, could affect stratospheric chemistry and dynamics, and may lead to surface warming.’”
Previous volcanic eruptions have all led to a cooling effect on Earth as ejected matter reflects the Sun’s rays back into space. However, in the case of the Tonga blast, the caldera was situated nearly 500 feet below the surface of the South Pacific Ocean.
This resulted in a smaller particulate ash cloud, but a vastly enhanced vaporizing of the surrounding water.
NASA’s estimate, conducted in late 2022, has since recently been revised upward from a 10 percent increase in stratospheric water vapor to a 30 percent increase by the European Space Agency. Higher atmospheric concentrations of water vapor leads to higher surface temperatures, with water vapour being the greenhouse gas that does drive temperature. Unlike CO2, which doesn’t.
As explained by the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory:
“Volcanic eruptions rarely inject much water into the stratosphere. In the 18 years that NASA has been taking measurements, only two other eruptions –the 2008 Kasatochi event in Alaska and the 2015 Calbuco eruption in Chile– sent appreciable amounts of water vapor to such high altitudes.
But those were mere blips compared to the Tonga event, and the water vapor from both previous eruptions dissipated quickly. The excess water vapor injected by the Tonga volcano, on the other hand, could remain in the stratosphere for several years.
This extra water vapor could influence atmospheric chemistry, boosting certain chemical reactions that could temporarily worsen depletion of the ozone layer. It could also influence surface temperatures.
Massive volcanic eruptions like Krakatoa and Mount Pinatubo typically cool Earth’s surface by ejecting gases, dust, and ash that reflect sunlight back into space.
In contrast, the Tonga volcano didn’t inject large amounts of aerosols into the stratosphere, and the huge amounts of water vapor from the eruption may have a small, temporary warming effect, since water vapor traps heat.
The effect would dissipate when the extra water vapor cycles out of the stratosphere.”
So here we have two major agencies (NASA and ESA) official forecasting a temporary and natural bout of warming, forecasts that went completely untouched by the media and IPCC alike. “Why isn’t everybody jumping up and down going oh my god, you know, this is huge’?” asked Dr. Peter Kolb of the Hunga eruption.
Well, maybe we have our answer. Maybe it also explains this season’s low sea ice extent around Antarctica, too.
My contention (honestly, my ‘guess’) is that this temporary spike in warming is tied, in some way, to the Hunga Tonga eruption.
The pieces appear to fit. Even the delay between the initial blast and the warming –around 16+ months– fits with prior eruptions, only the impact from Hunga has been exaggerated, as you would expect, given the larger ejections of water vapor.
Time will of course tell, but this is almost certainly a climatic ‘blip’; Mother Nature throwing us a few final curve balls, a final ‘short squeeze’ before the inevitable plunge south.
“[Nothing] will avert the onset of the next deep temperature drop, the 19th in the last 7500 years, which without fail follows after natural warming” — Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov.
See more here electroverse.info
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.
Koen Vogel
| #
Well done. I think you are perhaps on to something here, namely a major event resulting in a temporary climate effect.
Reply
Wisenox
| #
Data from centralized weather stations manipulated to give the appearance of climate change and disseminated to media and weather applications.
Reply
herb rose
| #
Let’s see. a volcano explodes transferring geothermal energy to water. This water then carries the energy (the plumes over the water are water droplets, not water vapor0 into the atmosphere where it is added to the solar energy. Now what possibly could cause an increase in temperature/
Water vapor is a clear transparent gas. It cannot be reflecting light from the sun back into space. Clouds are composed of transparent water droplets and do not reflect light into space. When light enters liquid water a small portion is reflected (by surface tension) with the rest being refracted and transmitted through the droplets. This cause a dispersion of the light in all directions which is why most appear white instead of black, which would be the result if the light was reflected back into space.The clouds in the sky are a reservoir of heat (IR) which is why on cloudy nights their continued loss of heat cause the temperature to be higher than on a clear night.
The water in the atmosphere due to solar radiation is not a vapor but nano-droplets. They do not block the sun’s radiation, which is why when you go to the beach on a summer day the sun is bright even though there is a lot of water in the atmosphere.
The volcano was able to produce water gas that escaped into the stratosphere, while the heat from the sun (far greater in amount but cooler than the temperature from a volcano) only produces these nano- droplets which remain in the troposphere.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
“Let’s see. a volcano explodes transferring geothermal energy to water.” NO! I believe kinetic energy was transferred to the water.
“It cannot be reflecting light from the sun back into space.” But it (water vapor) can scatter some solar radiation back toward space as the cloudless atmosphere twilight downward before the sun over the eastern horizon and after the sun setting below the western horizon.
“Clouds are composed of transparent water droplets and do not reflect light into space.” True, but cloud droplets do strongly scatter solar radiation back toward space and strongly scatter the infrared radiation being emitted from the earth’s surface according to these surfaces ‘ temperatures.
Herb, you really should not just make up your ideas as you write. Please return to the discussion we were having.
Have a good day.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Jerry,
during elastic collision mass is not transferred from one object to another, only energy (Law of conservation of momentum). Geothermal refers to the source of the energy.
Water vapors a clear transparent gas. It does not reflect, it does not refract, it does not absorb visible light. The water in the troposphere is not a gas.
Very little of the light being shattered by water droplets goes back into space Are the clouds a lot whiter on top because more light is going up?
The surface of the Earths being heated (gaining kinetic energy) by the atmosphere as high velocity gas molecules transfer energy to the surface according to the law of conservation of momentum.
The problem is Jerry, you never learn anything but just maintain your existing beliefs. In a comment you stated that two temperature station you monitored recorded a temperature below the Dew Point. Despite this being your evidence you still repeat the same nonsensical law you made up, saying that the GHGT is disproven because a temperature below the dew point has never been observed. Discussion with you is like talking to a parrot. Its just repeats what it has learned.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb
You ask: “Are the clouds a lot whiter on top because more light is going up?”
Have you seen, from the Earth’s surface during the daytime clouds with very dark bottoms? Where do you think the solar radiation incident upon their tops is going?
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
In all directions. The thicker the cloud the more a light ray is refracted and the less penetrates through the cloud. Why are the bottoms of thin clouds white if the water is reelecting the light?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
“Why are the bottoms of thin clouds white if the water is reelecting the light?”
They are thin, slight thickness and low cloud particle density. The solar rays might be refracted because of the variable atmospheric and the variable.cloud particle density.
But the white one sees is due to the scattering phenomena involving the cloud particles.
Yes, I believe the reasoning of the scientist (Richard Feynman) who was directly involved in designing of the nuclear bombs which worked the first three times they were tested.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Jerry,
Feynman was a 24 year old grad student working on the Manhattan project. I don’t think he was in charge of design. You bestowing of authority on people because of work on unrelated subjects is absurd. Why don’t you say Feynman was right because he developed how to get chrome to adhere to plastic?
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Have you read either of Feynman’s NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLERS?–“Surely You’r Joking, Mr. Feynman!” or ‘What Do You Care What Other People Think?”.I have read both; each .more than once.
Have a good day
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You wrote: “In a comment you stated that two temperature station you monitored recorded a temperature below the Dew Point.” Maybe, I miswrote but I didn’t write this comment here. I tried to find where I could have written this but I could not find the discussion where I considered that I had recently intended to write that the tropospheres atmospheric temperature had NEVER been measured to be less than the troposphere’s dew-point temperature when measured at the same place and time. When you make a claim as you just made, you need to reference the date and time and where I made the comment which isn’t correct. This reference so both the Reader and I can verify the accuracy of your statement and I correct what I intended as I have just done.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Jerry,
I could not find it either so it could be that I misread something.
Reply
Tom Anderson
| #
Water vapor is the Earth’s major infrared radiation (IR) active gas. IR-active means it is not “transparent” to infrared light, hence its absorption and emission of radiant energy could have a warming effect. Lightfoot & Mamer calculated it to be 29 times more plentiful on a weighted average than CO2. In the tropics the ratio is 97 to 1, they note, and at the poles 1: to 1. It radiates over a far wider energy range than CO2 and much of that radiation could warm.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Tom,
Water absorbs IR and holds that energy as internal energy. It will not begin to release that internal energy until the velocity of the gas molecules striking it is less than the vibrational velocity of the atoms in its bonds. When it releases this energy at the dew point it steadies the temperature by transferring energy to gas molecules. Of the 640 calories needed to raise a gram of 0 C water to a boil only 100 calories appears as radiated energy, the rest remains internal energy.
Again, the water in the atmosphere is not a gas. If it were, with a molecular weight of 18, it would be lighter than neon (20) and reach the thermosphere instead of concentrating in the troposphere (99 +%)
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
Water absorbs IR and holds that energy as internal energy. It will not begin to release that internal energy until the velocity of the gas molecules striking it is less than the vibrational velocity of the atoms in its bonds.
Herb, you are spouting nonsense. There is no such thing as storing energy between the atoms of H2O molecules. I bet you got this from that moron Martin Chaplin. The high heat capacity of H2O–as with all of H2o’s anomalies—has to do with hydrogen bonding BETWEEN H2O molecules.
By the way, what you are saying here is obviously false by way of the fact that if your notion was true it would be a characteristtic of ALL compound molecules.
How was all of this no obvious to you? Can you explain?
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Herb, Jerry and PSI readers,,
I think you guys are missing an important fact or two.(Perhaps even five).
Firstly there was not enough time to transfer all the heat into steam. The high-pressure steam is what caused the explosive nature of the event.
Secondly the SEA water that was forcibly ejected went up to 50km way higher than any other water vapor or otherwise. This was sea water that formed the surface of the bubble of high-pressure steam many feet thick and from quite a large area.
Thirdly that sea water FROZE very quickly, look ate the satellite video, that plume was essentially dirty white, therefore it was present at ,50km as ice crystals which do reflect rather well.
Fourthly when sea water ejected that far upwards freezes as ice and lots of other stuff like dead fish, just a few tons of assorted carbon, and rather a lot of Sodium Chlorate which also reflects sunlight well.
Fifthly there is NO PRECEDENT for the climate people to base their reasoning upon..
I predicted at least five years of unusual weather while all that stuff comes back to earth.
I’m having a good day .
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Michael,
Good to hear from you again.
I agree that it was heat that converted water to steam that propelled the water into the stratosphere not the initial explosion. That’s why there is more than 1 ejection into the stratosphere.
You are familiar with steam, if the cone of the volcano was not blown apart how was it possible for unconfined steam (free to expand) to propel that amount of water through 300 m of water then 50 km into space? How far does a high pressure steam leak go in the atmosphere without cooling (especially if there is more water around to absorb heat)?
Do you think the surface tension of water can maintain thickness of several feet on a bubble? The volcano’s explosion doesn’t change the properties of water.
You still believe that the thermometer is recording the kinetic energy of molecules instead of the momentum of the molecules striking it. Look at a graph of temperature vs altitude in the atmosphere. Is that the way energy flows? No. It goes from higher to lower.It doesn’t pause or reverse direction.
Why does the density of the atmosphere continue to decrease in the mesosphere when the temperature is dropping? Since gravity is measured from the center of the Earth it does not change significantly from the surface to the top of the atmosphere so it is not the cause. Try making a graph of the temperature at an altitude divided by the density at that altitude (energy per a constant number of molecule) and see how that looks.
The volcano put out a lot of energy but it was minuscule compared to the energy coming from the sun. If evaporation from the sun creates water gas that remains in the troposphere (99.9%) why did this small amount of added energy cause such a large increase in water in the stratosphere? It was because the volcano was hotter and able to convert the water to a gas (molecular weight 18) while solar evaporation (which eve occurs below 0 C) cannot convert water to a gas.
Herb
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Herb, Jerry and PSI readers,
The entire caldera collapsed!
Around 15 Sq. Km of rock and 600 m of sea water fell who knows how, far while, the gas escaped and the magma began to rise, VERY Quickly.
There was not enough time for all that water to flow off the sides of the immense bubble of superheated explosive steam that rose from the depth. Look at the video it took one frame to expand to many many sq. Km, the second frame has the explosion several tens of Km wide, the pressure wave was huge.
This was an explosion of gas sea water and magma several sq km wide rising with enough velocity to hurl all that water 50 km high.
We got off lightly, the caldera reformed and stopped the eruption!
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
I agree with your model of super-heated-pressurized steam and carbon dioxide . Which is so compressed that the molecules are only repelling each other. A question is how did these molecules get into these unique state?
In trying to discover what had been observed previously I learned that the large crater ob previous eruptions was above sea level and before this most recent eruption had totally sunk below sea level so it group scientists has mapped the crater’s surface below sea level.
And I read that the lead scientist of the group you had reported their observation of five years ago, rushed back to quickly observe any current changes. And one their preliminary observations was that a large area of to this large crater had fallen 10 meters during the last unique eruption.
I hadn’t commented yet about this possible information for a few reasons. The major being my memory of what I read is extreme short so it taking some time to compose this comment. And Herb is almost the only who responds with a connect. And the model of this eruption I am leading toward the mechanism by which milk is homogenized.
I1st principle–inertia–yes. 2nd–inertia–yes. 3rd–forgets inertia–no. 4th–maybe inertia–yes%th–YES–YES–YES.
Have a good day
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
All that water exploded very very quickly and then had to rise at least 600m through the water Colum increasing in pressure al the time!
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Wrong Jerry, and psi readers.
The volcano was a side vent on one of the two/perhaps three islands on the side opposite to Tonga.
The earthquakes that had been happening for centuries had weakened the caldera which was some 15 SqKm s0 that the eruption that began on the 14th January had only to send a few larger earthquakes for the entire Caldera to collapse entirely.
The sides of the caldera acted like that of a blunderbuss some 15Sqkm wide!
There is no way to know how far the caldera and the sea water fell before meeting the upwelling Magma.. The gas was escaping first and caused pyroclastic flows.
Back to basics observe what a drop of water dropped upon a hot plate does, it explodes! Think of all that sea water hitting the magma at 1500 degrees C, that was trying to escape and that explains the explosion.
The fact that the Ocean was deep enough to seal the wound is very fortunate.
There were two or three tsunamis. There was an underwater pyroclastic flow that went many KN towards Indonesia. The Tsunami that struck the few islands was 60 m high.
The water rushing back in after the explosions’ mitigated that tsunami and it did not reach Tonga as 60 m high just a few m high.
I repeat we got off very lightly.
I have studied this and the reported findings VERY thoroughly!
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Michael,
I am of the opinion that the water in the stratosphere is not from the eruption acting like a cannon but from the magma creating steam creating a giant geyser. As the steam pushed upwards and cooled it cleared the way for the hotter steam following it to push to a higher altitude.
I’m not sure this was the biggest or loudest ever, just the biggest seen. What will happen when Yellowstone blows?
It will be interesting to see what the water in the stratosphere does (I’m betting not much.but maybe some additional cooling added to the grand solar minimum.)Initially it certainly added heat in the form of hat water to the atmosphere.
Keep us informed.
Thanks,
Herb
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Herb Jerry and PSI readers,
The volcano that erupted on the 14th January was to the side of the caldera, at the rim!
That vent was from a long way down, think of a syphon in reverse. The gas in the chamber just below the caldera acting as a pump forcing the Gas, Ash and some lava up into the air some 2km. That volcano was active for most of the 14th January.
The gas pressure was NOT constant, look at what that does to those Icelandic volcanos. The earthquake that started on the morning of the 15th was quite large, the caldera dropped a significant distance followed by all that sea water.
The pressure of steam was incredible, enough to make the loudest know BANG ever.
We got off lightly!
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
,I agree with the importance of the earthquakes,. However, am I correct when I reason it that the ejected matter, regardless of its state, had to have a minimum velocity to lift it to 50km when if cleared the ocean surface? As I wrote this I that vaporization of the compressed matter at the base provided continued lift just as gases being ejected by rockets continued to be accelerate the rocket as it was lifted from the earth’s surface. Do you see what I am getting at?
Have a good day
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry and loiterers with intent.
First principles. The depth of 150 feet below sea surface is approximately 4 1/2 atmospheres of pressure. Your points are insightful.
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
That was fathoms not feet and the caldera roof was at a depth of 600 Fathoms. Do you know what the pressure was down there?
The earthquakes were at a depth of 7 to 12 KM! Which is where that side vent started.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Michael,
An atmosphere is 15 prior a depth of 30 ft in salt water. At 600 fathoms the presume would be 1200 atmospheres. When you speak the depth of the earthquake being 7 – 12 km is that from the sea floor or the top of the volcano/
Herb
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Herb and PSI resders,
The depth of earthquakes is usually measured from zero altitude but is very much guess work as the instruments that measure it are a LONG way away. like thousands of miles away!
The volcano that erupted 14th January was shooting stuff up two km? It was thought to be a sort of damp squib regarding volcanoes.
What does that indicate the pressure down there was?
The explosion’s caused some weather instruments in CANADA to register an increase in atmospheric pressure spaced about ten minutes apart(Speed of sound).
The caldera had a cavity of unknown size beneath it with gas at pressure. Below that was a magma puddle of unknown size at a temperature of around 1500 degrees C..
Water EXPLODES when s
subjected to sudden changes of temperature, watch a hot plate and water droplets!
The new caldera is a featureless plain around 2000 yes 2000 fathoms deep. They have yet to measure the deepest part in the center!
We got off Lightly.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Michael,
Earthquakes cause volcanos, volcanos cause earthquakes. When Mt St Helens was going to erupt the warning signs were increased earthquakes as the magma rose. It erupted when the rising magma caused the side of the mountain to slide off. (It was not a landslide where rocks falling from the top caused rocks below to come loose. The whole side slid down.) I was wondering if this eruption was a sideways explosion?
Water droplets dance when dropped on a hot surface but here we are not talking about droplets with surface tension but massive amounts of water being converted into steam.
I wonder about the increase in barometric readings in Canada. Since the atmosphere is an unconfined gas the increase in number of molecules should produce an increase in volume not pressure. Of course I don’t believe the barometer is measuring the pressure from the air molecules above but indicates the horizontal velocity of the molecules striking it.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
I am curious; given the following definition of “experiment”, have you ever done an experiment? If so, please give one example.
EXPERIMENT n 1. A trial made to confirm or disprove something doubtful; an operation undertaken to discover some unknown principle or effect, or to test sone suggested truth, or to test some suggested truth demonstrate denon state some known truth; as, a laboratory experiment. 2. The conducting of tests. (Webster’s)
Have a good day
Herb Rose
| #
Jerry,
Another off topic attempt to bait me.
You cannot think, so you have no ability to interpret the results of any experiment.
Even though you worked as an experimenter you were unable to do an experiment to see what happened to the level of water in a glass of water containing ice, when the ice melted
Here’s an experiment that has been repeated and verified. Give us your explanation for the results.
Two identical containers, one containing boiled water the other with an equal amount of room temperature water, are placed in a freezer at the same time. The container containing the boiled water freezes first. This means that even though at one point the boiled water had the same temperature as the room temperature water, it continued to lose heat faster.
Explain..
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb.
You just wrote: “Another off topic attempt to bait me.” There are now several articles about the Hunga Tonga sub-surface ocean volcanic eruption and I did not focus on the title of this one and my attention was first focused on how the condensed matter (cloud or whatever) reached an altitude of about 50 km.
I have not read that you, or anyone else, has considered the principle (phenomena) of adiabatic warming of a descending column of atmosphere. So, thank you for reminding me what the topic of this article was.
Have a good day
Howdy
| #
The Mpemba effect, Herb. There are various guesses as to how this can occur, but no solid evidence it does occur, and previous attempts have not worked at every try, and thus it is considered an anomaly with no scientific explanation.
If there’s anything to it, it’s something to do with the greater energetic state of the molecules and heat removal, even as they cool. That’s my guess.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Howdy,
Inconsistent results are usually due to inconsistent procedures.The fact that it does occur means there needs to be a cause or reason. Magic is not an acceptable answer in science.
Since energy is constant it must mean that boiled water is different than room temperature water.
Hers’s my answer. Room temperature water contains absorbed energy. Most of the energy added to the water has become internal energy building structures (crystals) while a smaller amount becomes radiated energy (temperature). This is why the calorie (amount of energy needed to raise 1 gram of water 1 C) varies depending on the starting temperature. When the temperature reaches 100C these crystals start melting, releasing the stored energy. It takes 540 calories/gram plus the released internal energy to melt all the crystals and start converting the water to a gas.
Boiled water has lost all its stored energy so as it cools there is less internal energy being released. When the boiled water reaches the same temperature as the unboiled water the unboiled water still contains stored energy that must be released before it can freeze. Result the boiled water loses energy faster.
Herb
Howdy
| #
“Inconsistent results are usually due to inconsistent procedures”
It appears the experiment is so sensitive to testing conditions that a “universal” test is not possible Herb.
“But if measurements were off by even a centimeter, they could produce false evidence of the Mpemba effect. Surveying the literature, Burridge and Linden found that only Mpemba and Osborne, in their classic study, saw a Mpemba effect too pronounced to attribute to this kind of measurement error.
The findings “highlight how sensitive these experiments are even when you don’t include the freezing process,” said Burridge.”
https://www.quantamagazine.org/does-hot-water-freeze-faster-than-cold-physicists-keep-asking-20220629/
Excuses, or genuine difficulties with a commonplace subject such as water, that by now, should hold no secrets. I guess the reader decides.
“Water Consciousness – Dr. Masaru Emoto’s Water Experiment”
Double-Blind Test of the Effects of Distant Intention on Water Crystal Formation
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1550830706003272
Gallery:
https://masaru-emoto.net/en/crystal/
Thoughts Herb?
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Howdy,
Have you seen any of Dr. Gerald Pollack’s experiments? (Sorry I don’t have links but I did buy his book “The Fourth Phase of Water”.) He explores some of the peculiar properties of water (why is it liquid) and it is from his work that I get the belief in the liquid crystal structure of water. I think his experiments are titled EZ (Exclusion Zone) water.
Herb
Howdy
| #
Intention activated water not your cup of tea Herb? Intention is massively over-rated anyway.
Structured water, alias EZ water. I did a bit of digging and it seems a bit of a fringe attraction. You’ve mentioned it before.
“In bulk, water has forgotten its neighbours within picoseconds and has switched its hydrogen atoms in milliseconds. This is why it is liquid. ”
https://theconversation.com/dont-fall-for-the-snake-oil-claims-of-structured-water-a-chemist-explains-why-its-nonsense-188159
No idea if that is true or not.
I am aware of liquid crystal displays that align according to the voltage presented to them, but water doing that is a bit too much for me.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Again Howdy,
When a kid is behind in a school project he will take his boiled project and stick in the freezer. A scientist will try to eliminate all variances to do the experiment. As soon as the water stops boiling heat is converted into internal structures. The longer the delay the more heat becomes internally stored even as the radiated heat remains the same. The goal of experimentation is to have only one variable and to see what effect that one variable produces. This is not how reality works. Sea level varies everywhere but it is the base standard for barometric measurements.
In the case of this volcano the water injected into the stratosphere was a gas unlike the water due to evaporation. Those gas molecules, separated from other water molecules, will behave differently than the water we are familiar with, which makes the outcome unpredictable.
Our beliefs determine not only our expectations but also our interpretation of results.
Herb
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Howdy,
I am open to intention driven water.I have reservations that “electromagnetic shielding” is effective in blocking the transfer of energy. All objects composed of atoms radiated an energy field that extends to the energy field of another object. Everything is connected to everything else by these fields. When a disturbance in one field is transferred to another object’s field it continues though its formal change. How do you block the flow of energy? You can’t.
Herb
Howdy
| #
I recover lead acid batteries Herb, The variables are so many and so varied that a single method of guaranteeing success cannot be given.
Since every battery has it’s own age, construction, materials, usage pattern, abuse etc, It is a totally hands on process to reach maximum recovery. This is the unpredictability, and an innate consideration of the experiment. It is still scientific regardless, and the end result proves it works in most cases. No point trying to recover a battery with exhausted active materials for example, it is done for. A battery with much plate shedding is also no use.
So minimum variables do not allways work. Even two batteries from the same manufacturer will differ, even if new.
James McGinn
| #
Howdy:
The Mpemba effect, Herb
it is considered an anomaly with no scientific explanation.
it’s something to do with the greater energetic state of the molecules and heat removal, even as they cool. That’s my guess.
JMcG:
Solids transfer heat with greater proficiency than does a liquid. H2O has the ability to be either a solid or a liquid. H2O surface tension, which occurs on the surface of liquid H2O, is a solid. So the trick is to create more surface within the body of bulk H2O to thereby increase its percentage of solid bonds and thereby increase its ability to transfer heat, allowing it to cool faster.
This premise can be tested and the Mpemba effect can be demonstrated, simultaneously, by following these steps: Add one part corn starch to one part water and mix them together and put it into a glass or metal container. Do this two times so that you now have container A and container B with equal parts of the mixture. Heat both of them to 120 degrees F and then track their rate of cooling with an internal thermometer.
In both of these, as they cool, mix the contents with a spoon to cause equal distribution of heat throughout the mixtures. Our experiment will pivot off differences in how we perform the mixing. Let’s designate container A as the control in our experiment. In container A be careful to move with smooth movements in order to avoid causing non-Newtonian spikes in viscosity. In container B you purposely make jerking movements to cause non-Newtonian spikes in viscosity.
Container B will cool faster than container A. The reason is because container B will have been a solid a higher percentage of the time than container A, allowing it to cool faster.
James McGinn
http://www.solvingtornadoes.com/landing
Howdy
| #
Am I the only one in the discussion or something?
Anyway, Mr McGinn, your example is specific, and not water as the question asked.
As I’ve allready indicated, the experiment does not allways succeed, and indeed seems to be sensitive to many variables including the conditions, freezer temp as well as those who perform it. I do not accept your example as an answer.
Herb Rose
| #
Five stars moving in an odd manner were an anomaly for thousands of years.
The Michelson-Morley experiment got unexpected and inconsistent results, not negative results. The theory of aether being a constant flow through the planets and universe was wrong. It did not prove the speed of light was constant (actually showed it wasn’t) but that the aether (actually the energy field emitted by all objects) in which light traveled was not uniform throughout the universe.
Anomalies provide the path for advancing science. (Water does not behave properly.)
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
Finally I see what you see (H2O has the ability to be either a solid or a liquid. H2O surface tension), which, solid surface layer occurs on the surface of liquid H2O, is a solid. due to the possibility of the hydrogen bonding of water molecules. I cannot disagree with that which you propose. Small molecules like carbon dioxide do not condense to a liquid phase but must be cooled further to condense to the solid phase.
Will not comment further until you confirm I have the correct understanding.
Have a good day
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
Solids transfer faster than liquids because they are denser and the distance between atoms is shorter. With water the solid is less dense so the distance between molecules increases. What makes you think ice transfers heat faster than liquid water? Does a layer of ice on water increase or decrease the rate of freezing of the water below?
Herb
james McGinn
| #
For water molecules to form solid bonds two situational factors have to be in effect. Firstly, it must have hydrogen bonds with other H2O molecules. I suppose this is obvious. The second part is not obvious at all. In fact it is very counterintuitive. Secondly, the molecules that take part in any such hydrogen bond must have some polarity. The factor that complicates this is the fact that hydrogen bonds neutralize polarity. Liquid water is the most comprehensively hydrogen bonded form of water. But it is not solid because the comprehensiveness of hydrogen bonds reduces polarity to almost zero. So, for the solid phase to emerge there must be some factor that reduces or prevents the comprehensiveness of hydrogen bonding.
For surface tension this reducing factor is the geometric difficulty (impossibility) of achieving comprehensive hydrogen bonding along a surface.
For non-Newtonian fluids the reducing factor is the corn starch which forces its way between H2O molecules, breaking hydrogen bonds, when external force is applied.
For ice it is H2O molecules twisting into itchy other, amplifying occlusions, causing breaking of bonds (and forcing surface to exist within the bulk).
The correct algorithm of H2O is that 1) it is a polar molecule and 2) H2O molecules are solvents for each other’s polarity at 25% increments per completed hydrogen bond. If you don’t have a comprehensive understanding of this algorithm then you have about zero chance of explaining any of water’s anomalous behaviors.
The Subtle Error That Has Everybody Perplexed About H2O
https://spotifyanchor-web.app.link/e/XmEqAchWPCb
james McGinn
| #
Hi James,
Solids transfer faster than liquids because they are denser and the distance between atoms is shorter.
Ice is less dense and has less bonds than water. So, you got it wrong. The difference is that the H2O molecules in ice are not comprehensively hydrogen bonded and ;therefore have some polarity, and therefore some solid bonds.
Herb, you seem to have a mental block that is preventing you from comprehending that H2O has variable polarity with the mechanism thereof being comprehensiveness of hydrogen bonding.
Until you fix this mental block you will be forever confused about water (just like the rest of academia).
What makes you think ice transfers heat faster than liquid water?
What makes you think it doesn’t?
Does a layer of ice on water increase or decrease the rate of freezing of the water below?
Increase.
James McGinn / Genius
Herb Rose
| #
No James. Ice acts as insulation, slowing the rate of the freezing of the water below. The increase in ice thickness does not accelerate through the winter.
james McGinn
| #
Herb:
No James. Ice acts as insulation, slowing the rate of the freezing of the water below. The increase in ice thickness does not accelerate through the winter.
JMcG:
Apples and oranges. Indisputably the rate of cooling is greater with liquid H2O on the surface rather than ice. But this is because the rate of evaporation is greater in liquid water.
Also keep in mind that liquid H2O has a huge capacity to absorb and conserve energy (movement) whereas Ice does not. This is something you don’t get and it is extremely significant.. And you will never get it if you continue to maintain the common delusions that are part of the current paradigm.
Herb, you are so confused that it is preventing you from making any progress.
Howdy
| #
Yes, seen a similar reference in regard to the discussed experiment during my research Herb, where scientists were saying the cooler starting vessel developed an ice coating which the hotter vessel did not, which insulated the contents slowing the heat loss.
I have also noted this in regard to plants subject to frost layer as an insulator.
James McGinn
| #
Howdy:
Structured water, alias EZ water. I did a bit of digging and it seems a bit of a fringe attraction. You’ve mentioned it before.
“In bulk, water has forgotten its neighbours within picoseconds and has switched its hydrogen atoms in milliseconds. This is why it is liquid. ”
https://theconversation.com/dont-fall-for-the-snake-oil-claims-of-structured-water-a-chemist-explains-why-its-nonsense-188159
No idea if that is true or not.
I am aware of liquid crystal displays that align according to the voltage presented to them, but water doing that is a bit too much for me.
JMcG:
You are way to nice. :Pollack is a whack job. Much of academia is as bad or worse than Pollack. For example, the silly notion that hydrogen bonds are constantly turning on or off (either with or without intention) is part what they teach in universities currently.
I’ve talked to Pollack. He completely doesn’t care about the details of the science. He has some kind of scheme where some rich person funds his “research” to the tune of a billion dollars.
When everybody is confused: My thoughts on Gerald Pollack’s Water Theory
https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/james-mcginn/episodes/When-everybody-is-confused-My-thoughts-on-Gerald-Pollacks-Water-Theory-e1sudli
James McGinn / Genius
James McGinn
| #
Howdy,
Yes, seen a similar reference in regard to the discussed experiment during my research Herb, where scientists were saying the cooler starting vessel developed an ice coating which the hotter vessel did not, which insulated the contents slowing the heat loss.
I have also noted this in regard to plants subject to frost layer as an insulator.
JMCG:
What you say here is true. But it’s not relevant to the issue..
Solids transfer energy (almost) instanteneously. Obviously liquids do not.
Would you rather be hit by water or ice?
Herb us confused.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James and Howdy,
Dr. Pollack shows experiments that support his theories. Why when you shine a light into the water would that water exclude other materials, including salt ions? James, the evidence you show to support your theories consist of videos of you saying its true. You do not believe that water splits into hydrogen and hydroxyl ions but their is lots of evidence that it does. Your experiment with the dissolved starch doesn’t show anything. What energy an object radiates depends on its area, not its volume or mass. When you agitate it vigorously you increase the area losing energy so it cools faster.
When ice thickens it has nothing to do with evaporation rate of water and ice since the water is covered by ice and not evaporating.If ice was better at transferring energy then when the air got cooler more energy from the water under the ice would be lost into the atmosphere and the rate of ice formation would increase (less water hindering the transfer.)
Your comparison being hit by ice or water is completely irrelevant because it is about the the energy being absorbed.
Your contention that solids transfer energy faster than liquids is nonsense. It all depends on the structures and bonding of atoms. In welding you need molten metal to transfer heat to the metal being welded. If not you you don’t get a good weld.
Herb
Howdy
| #
“What you say here is true. But it’s not relevant to the issue..”
There is no issue I am aware of other than true proof of the Mpemba effect, which your earlier described ‘experiment’ did not address, and left much to be desired, including interpretation of what is smooth, vs jerky movements, among other things. It’s no different to telling two people to blow over a hot cup of coffee, but one blows lightly, and the other blows profusely, which will cool the coffee quicker, but how hard is one meant to blow? Interpretation of instructions is not scientific in my view.
Your ‘experiment’ describes a forced method to achieve a desired outcome by purposefull tampering with the containers, which are both heated, and the contents tainted, thus is not relevant to the effect being discussed which depends on static placement and differing temperatures…
My comment is relevant to the question Herb asked, so there is no confusion from Herb or myself.
James McGinn
| #
Hi James and Howdy,
Dr. Pollack shows experiments that support his theories.
His theories are speculation. He is not a real scientist like myself. A real scientists should be trying to formulate a theory that explains ALL OF THE EVIDENCE. And this includes all of the anomalies.
Why when you shine a light into the water would that water exclude other materials, including salt ions?
This is so trivial. We already have multiple anomalies. Why isn’t Pollack addressing these?
James, the evidence you show to support your theories consist of videos of you saying its true.
If you find anything that says that anything I am saying isn’t true then bring it to my attention.
You do not believe that water splits into hydrogen and hydroxyl ions but their is lots of evidence that it does.
It’s obvious nonsense, AFAIC.
Your experiment with the dissolved starch doesn’t show anything.
Wrong, it plainly demonstrates H2O’s underlying structural properties, ie surface tension. Pollack can’t explain surface tension. His model ignores the things that matter and makes up new pretend observation. He is a bad or worse than a climate scientist.
What energy an object radiates depends on its area, not its volume or mass. When you agitate it vigorously you increase the area losing energy so it cools faster.
Relevance?
When ice thickens it has nothing to do with evaporation rate of water and ice since the water is covered by ice and not evaporating.
This is my point. You brought surfaces into the discussion
If ice was better at transferring energy then when the air got cooler more energy from the water under the ice would be lost into the atmosphere and the rate of ice formation would increase (less water hindering the transfer.)
Your comparison being hit by ice or water is completely irrelevant because it is about the the energy being absorbed.
Your contention that solids transfer energy faster than liquids is nonsense. It all depends on the structures and bonding of atoms. In welding you need molten metal to transfer heat to the metal being welded. If not you you don’t get a good weld.
All we are discussing is the abiliity to transfer energy over disdance. You keep bringing up irrelevancies.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
There is a difference between surface tension and the interfacial tensions between water and different surfaces. This is why there are so many different types of detergents and surfactants.
There are surfactants used in floor finishes and paints that reduce the surface tension down to 19 dynes/cm^2 at concentrations of .0001 %. These surfactants are used to produce a smooth, bubble free surface but they have no detergency or coupling (emulsification) properties. There are surfactants that have detergency with negative charges, positive charges, both charges (amphoteric), and no charges that are designed to remove soils from surfaces and prevent them from re-adhering to the surface. There are cationic surfactants that are added to asphalt that allows it to stick to wet surfaces. The interaction of water with different surfaces is not the same as surface tension.
Dr. Pollack does experiments that form the basis of his theories. Do you do experiments to form your theories or confirm them. Your experiment with a starch solution is no more than an example of a thickeotrope where agitation causes a solid to liquify..
The transfer of energy we are dealing with is convection where energy is transferred by contact between objects, not radiation.
Herb
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
Hi James,
There is a difference between surface tension and the interfacial tensions between water and different surfaces.
JMcG:
Obviously. My model explains why. All you have is confusion.
Herb:
This is why there are so many different types of detergents and surfactants.
There are surfactants used in floor finishes and paints that reduce the surface tension down to 19 dynes/cm^2 at concentrations of .0001 %. These surfactants are used to produce a smooth, bubble free surface but they have no detergency or coupling (emulsification) properties.
JMcG
Who cares? Do you have a point or are you just trying to create obfuscation to conceal the fact that your model completely fails to explain the cause of this phenomenon, surface tension? (Answer this question. Don’t be evasive.)
Herb:
There are surfactants that have detergency with negative charges, positive charges, both charges (amphoteric), and no charges that are designed to remove soils from surfaces and prevent them from re-adhering to the surface. There are cationic surfactants that are added to asphalt that allows it to stick to wet surfaces. The interaction of water with different surfaces is not the same as surface tension.
JMcG:
What is your point here? This reads like more obfuscation. Just explain the mechanics of surface tension. You are elaborating on something the fundamentals of which you are clueless.
Herb:
Dr. Pollack does experiments that form the basis of his theories. Do you do experiments to form your theories or confirm them.
JMcG:
No. There is plenty of data. Pollack is just confused. Just like you, he refuses to apply the data rigorously. So his model (and your model, by way of association) is nonsense. Worthless.
Your experiment with a starch solution is no more than an example of a thickeotrope where agitation causes a solid to liquify..
I have no idea what you are trying to say here. I suspect you don’t either. Besides, it wasn’t an experiment. It was a demonstration THAT MY MODEL EXPLAINS PERFECTLY. Obviously you have no explanation for this phenomenon. Right? (This is not a rhetorical question.) You are very typical in this respect. You can’t explain shit but somehow you gain all of this self-confidence from the confusion. All of mankind (accept me) is deeply delusional about water.
You can’t explain anything. For example, you can’t explain why the boiling point of H2O is so sensitive to pressure whereas the freezing/boiling temperature is not. All you have is confusion. You can’t even explain simple things, like surface tension.
James McGinn / Genius
Why I Am World’s Number One Expert On Physics of Water, Storms, and Atmospheric Flow
https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/james-mcginn/episodes/Why-I-Am-Worlds-Number-One-Expert-On-Physics-of-Water–Storms–and-Atmospheric-Flow-e28kvau
James McGinn
| #
Howdy:
There is no issue I am aware of other than true proof of the Mpemba effect,
JMcG:
Obviously I was pointing out that my model explains Mpemba. All you have is confusion. You can’t explain shit.
James McGinn / Genius
Howdy
| #
“Obviously I was pointing out that my model explains Mpemba. ”
It does not explain anything except how to force a result that is not Mpemba. The experiment is quite specific and you do not adhere to it. Thus my earlier comment your ‘experiment’ is considered invalid, which Is still maintained.
“All you have is confusion.”
Odd, well not really, that everybody else, including minds planet wide, are confused, but not yourself. Your tunnel vision and superiority complex betray you every time you comment, yet you have the gall to comment on others about humility.
“You can’t explain shit.”
Obviously a lie borne from your own confusion. One expects better from a self claimed “real scientist”, but unfortunately your mask slipped and rage has a hold on you..
Thank you for the outburst, I knew If I waited long enough you would show your true self, and how irritated and none scientific. professional you really are when you don’t get your way. Classic outcome actually.
I think that’s It. Good day to you.
Howdy, the genius antithesis.
Herb Rose
| #
James: “you can’t explain why the boiling point is so sensitive to pressure while the freezing/boiling temperature is not. You are confused.”
You say I’m confused.
The reason people can skate on solid water (ice) is because the pressure on the blades of their skate melt the ice providing water as a lubricant. If the water is too cold the ice will not melt and you can’t skate.
Your brain may qualify to make you a genius but you ego makes you an idiot
James McGinn
| #
James: “you can’t explain why the boiling point is so sensitive to pressure while the freezing/boiling temperature is not.
The reason people can skate on solid water (ice) is because the pressure on the blades of their skate melt the ice providing water as a lubricant.
Once again you are bringing up trivia to avoid the issue. The ability to skate on ice is only partly the result of pressure. It is mostly the result of the fact that the MOVEMENT of he blade has instantaneously increased the temperature of the now melted ice. This assertion is proven by the fact that you don’t sink into the ice when you are standing.
My model explains the sensitivity of the boiling temperature to pressure. With your confused model all you can do is evade the fact that your model fails to explain this and many other anomalies that my model explains easily.
IOW, You got nothing!!!
You can’t even explain surface tension. You also cannot explain how it is possible for a polar molecule can have almost zero viscosity (regardless of temperature) in the liquid phase.
My model explains the high heat capacity of liquid H2O. Your just evade that issue also.
Note how much care you take to avoid discussing the observations that reveal your abject confusion.
James McGinn / Genius
Water’s Hidden Algorithm of Storms
https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/james-mcginn/episodes/Waters-Hidden-Algorithm-of-Storms-e28bumn
James McGinn
| #
JMcG:
“Obviously I was pointing out that my model explains Mpemba. ”
It does not explain anything
JMcG:
It explains it perfectly. You are just confused.
Mpemba. The experiment is quite specific
JMcG:
Obviously, you have no clue. BTW, Mpemba was a culinary student, He noticed the phenomena when he was making custard. He re-introduced the topic, It was known previously but largely forgotten.
and you do not adhere to it. Thus my earlier comment your ‘experiment’ is considered invalid,
JMcG:
Meaningless. You barely understand any of this.
This is one of about 70 observations that your vague, confused paradigm cannot answer.
“All you have is confusion.”
Odd, well not really, that everybody else, including minds planet wide, are confused,
JMcG:
All you got is consensus. Just like climate scientists. Real science involves facts. Like all pretenders you will forever refuse to address the multiple observations your vague model fails to explain.
Yes! The whole world is confused. None of you can even explain the simplest anomaly, surface tension.
JMcG:
You got nothing but confusion and group delusion. In this respect you all are no different that climate scientists.
but not yourself. Your tunnel vision and superiority complex betray you every time you comment, yet you have the gall to comment on others about humility.
JMcG:
Humility is the bastion of confused pretenders. You got nothing.
James McGinn / Genius
Why Part of Meteorology is Delusional and How Anyone Can Determine This For Themselves
https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/james-mcginn/episodes/Why-Part-of-Meteorology-is-Delusional-and-How-Anyone-Can-Determine-This-For-Themselves-e2210nc
James McGinn
| #
Hi James,
Finally I see what you see
JMcG:
Not likely.
(H2O has the ability to be either a solid or a liquid. H2O surface tension), which, solid surface layer occurs on the surface of liquid H2O, is a solid. due to the possibility of the hydrogen bonding of water molecules. I cannot disagree with that which you propose. Small molecules like carbon dioxide do not condense to a liquid phase but must be cooled further to condense to the solid phase.
Will not comment further until you confirm I have the correct understanding.
JMcG;
Jerry, if you had the correct understanding you would find it relatively easy to explain/describe the anomalies of H2O.
Linus Pauling screwed over all of academia when he mistakenly assumed that H2O polarity is the result of the arrangement of its atoms.
This is literally one of he greatest mistakes in all of science.
Your confusion is a direct result of this error by Pauling. Your thinking is so convoluted there is about zero chance you will ever be able to understand Pauling’s mistake.
Howdy
| #
Normally, I wouldn’t think twice about responding to your pointless rant, but in the interests of completeness, honesty, and truth, in the real scientific spirit:
“So the trick is to create more surface within the body of bulk H2O to thereby increase its percentage of solid bonds and thereby increase its ability to transfer heat, allowing it to cool faster.”
A “trick”, is not science.
“Our experiment will pivot off differences in how we perform the mixing.”
Experiment, not model, as you later claim. You also pulled Herb on the same matter when he called it what it was, but after you changed tack to call it a model, so he is owed an apology from you.
How many times do you want to drag your face through the dirt…
You claim I cannot explain shit. I obviously have you down to a tee.
I claim no credibility for myself, in all of this, so the claims made against me don’t mean a thing. I lose nothing, because I started with nothing. Others risk much, particularly those in towers on shaky ground. And this is supposed to be science. What a lark, eh?
Over and out.
James McGinn
| #
JMcG;
Jerry, if you had the correct understanding you would find it relatively easy to explain/describe the anomalies of H2O.
Linus Pauling screwed over all of academia when he mistakenly assumed that H2O polarity is the result of the arrangement of its atoms.
This is literally one of he greatest mistakes in all of science.
Here is the error, you simpletons. The reason you pretenders are so confused is because of this error by Pauling. And because you are not smart enough to backtrack and find the subtle error.
You dimwits can’t grasp the fact that your inability to explain the anomalies of H2O is blatant evidence that your model is wrong on a fundamental level..
None of you have any business in a acientific discussion.
James McGinn / Genius
MattH
| #
I had read the caldera was at 150 ft. but I now read in wikipedia the caldera was at approximately 150 metres.
Michael, have you a reference for the 600 fathoms?
Herb, a second atmosphere is at 33 feet.
Jerry, have a nice day.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt,
You’re right it’s 33 feet. It’s been a long time since I went Scuba diving.
Herb
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi MattH, The depth of water at the rim of the caldera was between 1100m a high and 120 Fathoms deep according to Old maps, Two or three islands and deep ocean. The caldera was some 15 sq Km and had a depth of 2000 ft according to another more recent map of which I was only able to find three that gave the info, it is a remote area of the world.
Reply
MattH
| #
Thank you Michael. I found this informative;
https://phys.org/news/2023-01-year-tongan-eruption-violent-wake-up.html
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=GiDFpEMc&id=178C109BA5FA09D39B9A3FE4678D03E6AD333D8D&thid=OIP.GiDFpEMcmuo3-nqrx57jGQHaEn&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fth.bing.com%2fth%2fid%2fR.1a20c5a4431c9aea37fa7aabc79ee319%3frik%3djT0zreYDjWfkPw%26riu%3dhttp%253a%252f%252fsciencevibe.com%252fwp-content%252fuploads%252f2015%252f02%252fvolcan_Hunga-Tonga-Hunga-Haapai-1024×639.jpg%26ehk%3dlWTwZkF4o0Eux07v6vKdN6DdheXaNiw8NSWsg%252bx2EaE%253d%26risl%3d%26pid%3dImgRaw%26r%3d0&exph=639&expw=1024&q=hunga+tonga-hunga+ha%27apai-subsurface+maps&simid=608047759126976887&FORM=IRPRST&ck=7E83BFE2B0B899D049F5B74A85964274&selectedIndex=0&idpp=overlayview&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Excellent links thank you MattH,
it is a shame no depths are shown but they stack up well with the deep ocean outside the caldera. The full depth of that hole has still not been ascertained.
Please not and try understand Herb and Jerry and PSI readers,
WE GOT OFF LIFGHTLY!
MattH
| #
Hi Michael Clarke and readers.
I have put the colour coded chart next to the topographical chart on split screen on my computer and the turquoise colour at the bottom of the caldera equates to the deep sea turquoise at around 800 metres, best guess, which roughly endorses your original comments.
In the November before the eruption the climate appeared to have a significant switch of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation as well as a prolonged positive Southern Annular Mode which combined with the silica particulates from the eruption nucleating atmospheric water vapour leading to significant rain events in New Zealand and Australia every time the eruption detritus rotated the Earth.
As this eruption detritus dispersed in the atmosphere the related rain events spread globally.
Best wishes
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
You are doing a great literature search. Stick with Michael. I know his history and he is a documented GENIUS. I write this comment that this volcano was part of a unquestionable .island not many years ago. So ‘in the beginning one need to start any reason with this unquestionable fact just as you compare the ocean’a color with at after the eruption. Every OBSERVED derail can be critically important
Have a good day.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt,
I began this comment (the previous) to focus attention to your comment “In the November before the eruption the climate appeared to have a significant switch of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation as well as a prolonged positive Southern Annular Mode which combined with the silica particulates from the eruption nucleating atmospheric water vapour leading to significant rain events in New Zealand and Australia every time the eruption detritus rotated the Earth.
As this eruption detritus dispersed in the atmosphere the related rain events spread globally.”
Which I obviously Didn’t do. I forget in a split second and I fall hard regularly, as I did today and have my key board getting bloody. But as I have written before, I am SLOW but I eventually gat where I want to go.
And and we all should should remember that Einstein stated.”If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.”
Have a good day.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers. Herb, Howdy,
First, Herb and Howdy are having an EXCELLENT scientific discussion.
Which I join. For Herb asked me to explain (9/3/2023 at 6:56pm) how it was that the boiled hot water froze faster than the room temperature water. I haven’t done thia experiment but for discussion purposes I accept Herb’s experimental results.
Water molecules evaporate more rapidly from the surface of the hotter water and if he looks he will see frost forming on the cooling coils of the freezer. So by th time the hot water cools to the temperature of the room temperature water, which also has water evaporating from its surface,, there is less hot water to freeze. If the two glasses of water had been weighed before they had been placed in the freeze and then weighed after both had frozen, I reason (predict) that the hot water glass would have lost the most weight.
Have a good day
Reply
Howdy
| #
Evaporation was claimed as a cause, Jerry, but this was taken into account in previous experiments, where no lid was used as it would taint results due to its insulating qualities. It is not taken as a contributing factor.
“four factors as possibly contributing to the Mpemba effect, namely: (a) evaporation, (b) dissolved gases, (c) mixing by convective currents, and (d) supercooling”
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep37665
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Howdy,
,
I quote from your link: “An interpretation of the first law”. Scientific Laws require no interpretation. These laws are based upon reproducible results of an experiment performed in the same manner. First law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with energy considerations-
the name of the law is “The Conservation Of Matter”..As experimentally confirmed by the experimental experiments of Antoine Lavoisier. Hence I question the validity of this link.
Have a good day
Reply
Howdy
| #
“Scientific Laws require no interpretation. These laws are based upon reproducible results of an experiment performed in the same manner.”
Fair comment Jerry, but I don’t think that is what the paragraph is trying to do. It appears the Mpemba effect is the thing being interpreted. In any case, one should never base their mind on a single source, but shop around and look for patterns that fit. While what you point out is correct, it is often in the eye of the beholder as to what laws actually mean
The link is provided as a source of the 4 guesses currently used in place of fact. I don’t consider it authoritative. Indeed, check a few others, there are many of them all saying the same basic thing..
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Excellent links thank you MattH,
it is a shame no depths are shown but they stack up well with the deep ocean outside the caldera. The full depth of that hole has still not been ascertained.
Please not and try understand Herb and Jerry and PSI readers,
WE GOT OFF LIFGHTLY!
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Michael Clarke and readers.
I have put the colour coded chart next to the topographical chart on split screen on my computer and the turquoise colour at the bottom of the caldera equates to the deep sea turquoise at around 800 metres, best guess, which roughly endorses your original comments.
In the November before the eruption the climate appeared to have a significant switch of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation as well as a prolonged positive Southern Annular Mode which combined with the silica particulates from the eruption nucleating atmospheric water vapour leading to significant rain events in New Zealand and Australia every time the eruption detritus rotated the Earth.
As this eruption detritus dispersed in the atmosphere the rain related rain events spread globally.
Best wishes.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Jerry,
You are probably the only person who doesn’t put lids on containers before putting them in the freezer. Have you noticed a lot of ice and frost build up inside your freezer? Try putting lids on the containers and see if that helps.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
In the experiment, which YOU described, you never mentioned placing a cover on the glasses. And when one freezes ice cubes, I have yet to find an ice cube tray that has a cover. I don’t freeze water in a glass because the ice, which floats on the liquid beneath it, might break the glass as the liquid water freezes.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Jerry,
You are the only one to mention glasses. I said containers. Ice cubes trays don’t have covers because evaporation is not the problem, expansion is.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb, Howdy, James and others who commended relative to the Mpemba effect’
You all have offered no evidence that you have ever done a reproducible quantitive experiment. For even before one begins experimenting one needs to define, in detail, a procedure that might produce a reproducible result. Then you must test this “standard procedure” to see , in this case, if the proposed result can be seen (observed). And it is wise, if the proposed result is observed. to use the procedure a 2nd time to see if the same quantitative difference is observed.
And as one reports the results, one must also report your standard procedure so a doubter can test your results by doing the experiment him/her-self.
Have a good day
Reply
Howdy
| #
“You all have offered no evidence that you have ever done a reproducible quantitive experiment.”
You forget the bucket and cylinder experiment I told about in the past Jerry. It is a widely documented procedure that anybody can try for themselves with the required items, and the result is consistent.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Howdy,
Jerry, like James, ignores, dismisses and forgets anything that challenges his beliefs. We have had many discussions on experiments I have done that show that a thermometer is not measuring the mean kinetic energy of gas molecules and that the formula for the force between magnets is not F=M1M2/d^2. The inability to admit that they could be wrong means progress is impossible and discussion is useless.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
He Howdy,
“You forget the bucket and cylinder experiment I told about in the past Jerry” Yes, howdy, have always had the problem of forgetting, And in the past two years it has become a very great problem so would you please give me the reference (article and date and time of your comment) so Imight refresh my memory. Or just repeat the comment again. Or better yet, fully describe the standard procedure one (I) must use to get a reproducible result.
Have a good day
“
Reply
Howdy
| #
I told you it was a science experiment performed in school. I didn’t describe the procedure because it is widely documented, thus no point reinventing the wheel. I believe I left you a link.
Here’s a pdf file you can download that describes it.
https://sciencefirst.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/24-3120-30-120-611-2110-bucket-and-cylinder.pdf
I also remember the experiment to define heat conductivity of metals using gas flame playing on various metal rods, steel, brass, copper etc, with a wax blob at the opposite end oft he flame holding a small weight. The blobs fell off in sequence as the wax melted according to the conductivity.
My life is full of experiments as is that of others, some scientific, some not, but I think the science experiments account for the greater number.
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Please return to the subject, the Volcano and the explosion!
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Michael,
The volcano and explosion are done. What remains is the consequences of the water vapor in the stratosphere and those consequences will be a result of the nature of water. Why doesn’t water evaporated by the sun get into the stratosphere?
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Do you have an observation that there are no water molecules in the stratosphere? Gas molecules are observed to be trying to fill al space somewhat uniformly. Convection of an atmospheric volume is not necessary to move them through the stratosphere into the mesosphere and beyond.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
99.9% of the water in the atmosphere is in the troposphere. Look it up. The volcano propelled enough water into the stratosphere to increase the level of water by many times, even though the energy it released is a small fraction of the energy the sun adds to the oceans. Because the molecular weight of water (18) is less than N2 (28) or O2 (32) it should act like the Hydrogen (2), Helium (4), and neon (20) that rise to the top of the atmosphere. It doesn’t because it is not a single molecule (gas). The types of gasses in the atmosphere varies with altitude.
Reply
MattH
| #
Noctilucent clouds occur in the mesosphere. Predominantly first observed 2 years after the Krakatoa eruption.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noctilucent_cloud
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt,
The orbit of Earth is in the region where comets shed water. That water, the water coming from the sun (as hydrogen and oxygen ions) in solar winds, and that water ejected into the stratosphere and mesosphere by volcanos eventually makes it the surface of the Earth. IMO We are continually gaining water.
Herb
Michael Clarke
| #
The water and other stuff took just a few seconds to reach 50km. It is still up there. There is no precedent to begin to understand what it will do.
The sea water will be atoms and/or ions of water. The Salt will be crystals’ or atoms highly reflective. The gasses Carbon Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide will be there at atoms or irons.
ALL are relatively hot so buoyancy will persist as there is very little up there to transfer heat to.
My answer is therefore ‘Wait and See’
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Michael,
Salt crystals melt at 800 C so it will be there as NaCl molecules, not crystals. CO2, SO2, and H20 will exist as gasses, not atoms or ions. Since the atmosphere in the stratosphere and mesosphere is very thin the transfer of energy by convection is rare and the molecules will equalizes with the energy field radiated by the Earth. Bouncy is not a factor just as satellites do not fall because they ate in equilibrium with the energy field of the Earth, neither will the gas molecules
The answer “wait and see” is correct.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael and Matth,
I suggest you might go bask to the topic of CONTINENTAL DRIFT. What and where is the force that cause North and South America to drift away from Europe and Africa?
The Tonga deep trench is not where near the deep trench that defines the RING of FIRE.
IIa the Plate on which Australia reside being pushed over a PacificlPlare or is The Pacific Plate being pushed under the Australia Plate? Note the lesser trench along the west coast of South America. notice the mid-Pacific Ridge between South America and and the Tonga deep trench
have a good day
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
The Australian plate is moving North East. the Pacific plate is expanding North West. the bit that is trying to stop that movement (Philippines or Indonesia or some older plate) is effectively stationary hence the chaotic movement of Australian and the Pacific plates.
Reply
MattH
| #
Hello curious bystanders and those loitering with intent.
Some recent findings on the Tonga eruption.
https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/hunga-tonga-hunga-ha-apai-eruption-triggered-fastest-underwater-debris-flow-ever/ar-AA1gppFt?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=3780b04d317748aa93f4cb23b4e3e41c&ei=25
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt,
Thanks for the info. It seems strange that all the material went that high into the atmosphere then came down and landed on the sides of the volcano. Did the Earth stop rotating?
Herb
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Herb, we both need a night or two to sleep on it but after the initial release of greatest pressure (explosion) we have relative “oozing” pyroclastic flow at before unknown underwater velocities and magma.
We just had a 6.6 earthquake (a couple of hours ago) south of the Kermadecs which is a part of the same system.
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Herb and volcano botherers.
For the underwater pyroclastic flow to reach the stated velocities it would require the flow to not over top the mountain rim but to be blown out of deep side vents with tremendous water weight (pressure) confining the pyroclastic flow to proportional ocean floor.
Perusing the below referenced article again I note the after eruption survey suggests the caldera depth is at almost a kilometer and a diagram (map) in the midst of the article does in fact show deep water side vents.
https://phys.org/news/2023-01-year-tongan-eruption-violent-wake-up.html
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
So True MattH, there are two low spots that relieved some of that explosive force. I read somewhere that the lower gap (at 10 O/clock) went 60 km!
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi Herb, you are missing an important fact or three as most of what went up to 50km is still up there!
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
I am composing this on a document which I titled ‘In The Beginning”. You are doing a good job reviewing “Current Events”. But it is a mistake to ignore (forget) “Historical Events”.
I have tried to draw attention to the case of “Continental Drift” when for decades after the early 1930s no main stream geologist dared even to write the words—continental drift.
I write this comment to draw attention to a 1968 publication of the McGraw-Hill Book Company titled”Man’s Domain—A THEMATIC ATLAS OF THE WORLD”. The scholarship of the geographers upon which this book is a product is amazing. And in my opinion caused geological community to take a 2nd look at “Continental Drift”. And I do not believe these geographers have received the credit due them.
Have a good day
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Matt and other interested readers,
I have checked and find it is a rare book but find there are a few used copie that may be available at a modest price. This illustrates how few have been interested in actual SCHOLARSHIP.
Have a good day.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael and Matt,
Have you both forgot your life histories. Matt how, as a youth, you were predicting supreme surfing conditions and Michael how, as a much younger actual Genius, finally solved the British government’s accounting problem by experimenting night after night until you found solution to the problem.
And Michael have you forgotten how you used your experience (knowledge) of satellite orbits to correct the mistake I had made as I attempted to understand the ancient glacier that had deposited erratic boulders at my family’s farm at about 45 degrees North latitude in eastern South Dakota, USA. Beyond concluding it has to snow a lot to create any glacier we never got any further.
I have now read, from several sources (one of which is ”Man’s Domain—A THEMATIC ATLAS OF THE WORLD”.), that there are observed evidences of glaciers occurring at various locations on the Earth’s surface millions and even billions of years ago. What is most interesting is how the general location have shifted over these ancient period to the last period of the present which is very different from the previous two. While this book is rare, one can read about the Earth’s major glacial periods in Appendix A of John P. Bluemle’s 2016 book “North Dakota’s Geological Legacy”.
Have a good day
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi Jerry, Herb, Matth, and psi readers,
Try answer this simple question. What will happen to one liter of water that comes into contact with several meters cube of material at 1500 degrees C.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Michael.
If the 1000 grams of water has a temperature of 10 C it will turn into 100 grams os steam with a temperature of 870 C (90 degrees to raise the temperature to100C plus 540 degrees to convert the water to steam). Its volume will go from 1 liter to well over 2500 liters (depending on the expansion factor of water gas (The r in PV=nrt)) in the atmosphere where it is an unconfined gas. (gravity is measured from the center of the Earth and doesn’t change significantly with increasing altitude.) There will be an explosion of superheated steam..
Herb
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi Jerry, and Herb, explosion would be quite devastating like nuclear bomb going off!
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MIchael,
Louis Elzevir, the publisher of Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences, in his preface to the readers, wrote: “intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition” as translated to the English language bt Crew and de Salvio, (1914)
You asked: “What will happen to one liter of water that comes into contact with several meters cube of material at 1500 degrees C/“. You have not defined where the one liter of water is relative to the several meters cube of material at 1500 degrees C. Nor have you defined what this material is and where it is relative to the surface of the ocean (above or below). So I have no answer to your question.
Have a good day
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Michael. I have been loitering with intent.
When I was working in applied hydrodynamics I used to imagine myself a water molecule to comprehend accelerated pressure gradients, lift, and stable pressure release. I didn’t have computers or mafmatics or nuffin. Resistance, lift, drag, cavitation.
If I was a liter of water near instantly heated to 1500 degrees Celsius I could hypothetically enable a one hundred carriage locomotive to accelerate from 0 to one hundred MPH in 8.67 seconds, but alas the explosiveness of my instant expansion would blow the steam engine apparatus apart.
There were horizontal vents blown out of the side of the Hunga Tonga volcanic mountain deep below the rim. Imagine a whole mountain accelerating from 0 to 100 MPH in 0.0867 seconds and accelerating with decreasing water pressure.
Were we lucky?
Reply
MattH
| #
Oh, to partially counter the lack of computers and maths, we had observations and records. Alas, redundant in modern warfare but a basis for recreation.
Reply
MattH
| #
And if I was a liter of water instantly heated to 1500 degrees Celsius., I would be really pissed off.
I would throw the baby out with the bath water then rip the bath off the floor and throw it through the bloody wall.
The Neighbour from five houses down the street would tremulously tap on the door and ask, “excuse me, have you lost a bath?”
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi MattH, and others, Yes even if that water was dropped from an airplane over Kilauea the airplane would do well to survive the expansion. So Consider the explosive force of 15sq KM of water dropping several km on to the 1500degree C magma and gas and ash.
KA-BOOOM-MMM at least.
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
There are two low spots in the rim Ten and Four O’clock, both sent underwater flows away from the insides of the falling caldera therefore lowering the pressure.
We were very lucky!
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Michael, Jerry, Herb, and readers.
I have scanned the comments and re-read all of Michael’s contributions.
It is interesting how we find new things in rereading previously read articles as our comprehension has evolved.
When Earth was a younger planet there must have been many violent interactions between seawater and undersea volcanoes.
Asteroid strikes?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt,
Good going! We most first try to see all possibilities and then try to find observations that eliminate some.
have a good day.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
I intended to comment about “It is interesting how we find new things in rereading previously read articles as our comprehension has evolved.” Yes, read and reread again and again.
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi There Jerry MattH, Herb and PSI readers,
Talking about new ideas and facts.
The explosion and the behavior of all that was taking place just before the explosion is a brand new realm, an area where no experiment can be carried out, a realm where we have to rely entirely upon observed data with time lines that are very small and size matters!
The fact that the explosion occurred is well established, just what was happening is poorly understood.
It is known that water explodes when subjected to vast swift temperature changes. The size of that change is unprecedented, the temperatures are also guessed at. the progression timescale is known to be short. Exactly what happened down there is also pure guesswork. The ejected cloud (I don’t have a word to describe exactly what exploded) contained many disparate parts, It is thought that exploded water is consisted of atoms and ions. It is not known what exploded sea water consists of. Nor is it known what other material like dead sea creatures will disintegrate to when subjected to such immense temperature changes. It is known that at the very bottom of that mass there existed some mixture of Magmas at a temperature of the upper mantle, It is known the there was gasses and ash and magma, just how much is also guessed at.
A SMALL MASS!
It is known that those earthquakes were at depths between 12km and 7 km, the temperature down there is guessed at as 1500 C.
Are you all still with me?
It is q requirement to know what was in that bubble that exploded when it reached the surface and then rose to 50km to begin to understand what that sheer volume at those elevated temperatures did when it finally ran out of energy.
The sides of that bubble became to source of the Tsunami the top continued to explode for some 12 seconds as it rose. (See the pressure wave in Canada to determine the time line of the explosion).
It is my contention that much of it stayed up there as there is very little mass to exchange energy with in order to sink back towards earth. (Check the satellite data regarding the temperature of that ejected cloud).
What it consists of and its temperature become important in understanding what it will do!
Michael Clarke Logician.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Michael,
It is not temperature but energy. Temperature is a function of mass and energy and only the energy flows. A satellite in orbit will have a temperature of 250F on the side exposed to the sun and -250F on the shaded side, just like the moon. During the day these molecules will. gain energy based on the energy level of the sun and how many molecules (mass) that energy is distributed to. At night they will not gain energy but will lose energy, by radiation, to the greater mass of the lower molecules.
At an altitude of 80 km the density of the atmosphere is .00005 kg/m^3 while at sea level the density is 1.2 kg/m^3 so the energy level of molecules at the altitude of 80 km (at equilibrium) with the energy source (the sun), will be 60,000 times the energy of the molecules at sea level.
It was the energy of the volcano that got the molecules up there it will be the energy of the sun and the wavelengths the molecules radiate that will determines how they get back down.
Herb
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi Herb, thanks for the reply.
I agree with the statement about those satellites though non at 80km. That posit relies upon the molecules being in contact with each other. The ejecta cloud is very dispersed of very very small objects, atoms and ions. I do not think that anything heavier made it all the way up there. So all can be at the same temperature with nothing to transfer the energy to.
The IR satellite image taken a day or so later sorry no link, clearly shows a vast ejecta cloud hundreds of KM round at significant temperature . Not enough for them to continue upwards but enough to keep them up there for quite a while.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Michael,
Above the troposphere there are few collisions between molecules so energy loss is by radiation. An object will lose or gain energy until it is in equilibrium with the energy field around it. In the stratosphere and mesosphere this means matter consist of molecules (N2, O2, O3 NO). It is only in the upper region of the thermosphere that the energy is high enough to break O2 into oxygen atoms (The energy is not enough to break N2 molecules (triple bond) so those molecules do not make it too that altitude and it consists of helium and oxygen atoms.) Ions are not created by heat (IR has too long a wavelength to be absorbed by atoms) but by gamma and x rays from the sun stripping electrons off of atoms (ionosphere).
The atmosphere is created by the kinetic energy of the gas molecules. the molecules will remain in an area where the neighboring molecules have similar kinetic energy. At night when the molecules are not gaining energy from the sun they will cool as their energy is transferred to the cooler molecules below and the atmosphere will contract. The next day sunlight will heat the upper molecules causing the atmosphere to expand. Molecules with more mass will sink faster causing the stratification of molecules in the atmosphere (top layer helium and hydrogen, next oxygen atoms and helium, next layer NO molecules, It is because of its mass (40) that argon remains in the troposphere.) The cooling and heating cycle will cause the return of the ejected matter downward.
In the case of water (with a molecular weight of 18 (neon is 20)) it will be a slow process as water molecules must go through multiple cycles combining to form structures with enough mass to return to the troposphere.
Herb
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Michael Clarke.
You made the following comment. ‘The IR satellite image taken a day or so later sorry no link, clearly shows a vast ejecta cloud hundreds of KM round at significant temperature .’
Could you give an approximation on what ‘significant temperature’ means in this context, the cloud’s altitude, and what expected atmospheric temperature is at that altitude?
Just approximations to provide context and concept.
Thank you. Matt
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt,
The thermometer does not give an accurate indication the kinetic energy of gasses because as the molecules gain energy the gasses expand and fewer molecule transfer energy to the thermometer.
Satellites are no better. They are looking down the top of the thermosphere trying to tell the temperature of the cooler gas molecules below.
The temperature at the top of the atmosphere is 250 F just like moon. The temperature drops with declining altitude as the energy is distributed an increasing number of molecules.
Herb
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
The thermometer does not give an accurate indication the kinetic energy of gasses
JMcG:
Right. Thermometers measure heat. Heat involves a rate of flow of energy. Only energy that is moving can be measured by a thermometer. Energy that is conserved (not moving) can’t be detected/measured with a thermometer.
This is one point of potential confusion. But this is one of many. Moreover it is not the most troublesome because most people get this right most of the time. You are wasting your time to keep bringing this up.
Here is something you don’t know yet:
Paradigm of Confusion
https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/james-mcginn/episodes/Paradigm-of-Confusion-e29bn6j
James McGinn / Genius
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
I recall you and I having a discussion where I disputed the accuracy of the thermometer in the atmosphere saying that the kinetic energy of molecules (divide temperature by density to get the ke for a constant number of molecules instead of a constant volume) increased with increasing altitude and you not believing it.
You are missing the most important factor in the formation of molecules; the magnetic attraction between atoms. A hydrogen atom has a single electron in a circular orbit. This represents a changing electrical current resulting in a magnetic field. Once a magnetic field is established any additional electrons will take a path perpendicular to that magnetic field, adding to the strength of that field. Since the first four elements have electrons in circular paths around the nucleus the magnetic field will prevent additional electrons from going into p and d shells. This is why they add the disclaimer that the shape of these shells were determined by the probability of finding an electron in that area IN THE ABSENCE OF A MAGNETIC FIELD. This magnet force is what holds atoms together in molecules (sharing electrons is absurd) and is why the atoms in diatomic molecules spin in opposite directions. It is the electric fields of atoms that keeps them separate. (magnetic and electric forces act in opposite fashions. When dissimilar magnetic poles come together the radiated magnetic force increases. When opposite charges move together the radiated electric fields disappear.)
By solely focusing on the atom’s electric force of matter and ignoring their attractive force of energy your theory of hydrogen bonding and the nature of water is flawed.
Herb
james McGinn
| #
Herb:
kinetic energy of molecules (divide temperature by density to get the ke
James:
Did we not just establish that there is no proportionality between temperature and energy?
james McGinn
| #
Herb:
You are missing the most important factor in the formation of molecules; the magnetic attraction between atoms.
JMcG:
I’m not missing it. I just think you are confused.
A hydrogen atom has a single electron in a circular orbit.
JMcG:
Jesus Christ, this is a silly, irrelevant statement. The hydrogen is attached to Oxygen. It’s water.
This represents a changing electrical current resulting in a magnetic field.
JMcG:
Yeah, so? What’s your point?
Once a magnetic field is established any additional electrons will take a path perpendicular to that magnetic field, adding to the strength of that field.
JMcG:
Significance?
Since the first four elements have electrons in circular paths around the nucleus the magnetic field will prevent additional electrons from going into p and d shells.
JMcG:
I don’t know. And I don’t get why you think this is significant.
This is why they add the disclaimer that the shape of these shells were determined by the probability of finding an electron in that area IN THE ABSENCE OF A MAGNETIC FIELD.
JMcG:
Sorry, I can’t make any sense of this at all. I literally have no idea what you are talking about.
This magnet force is what holds atoms together in molecules (sharing electrons is absurd)
JMcG:
So, you have a dispute with the standard model in regard to the underlying dynamics (underlying causal factors) of covalent bonding. Fine. You may be right for all I know. But as regards the subject of this thread, so what? Explain its relevance.
and is why the atoms in diatomic molecules spin in opposite directions.
JMcG:
Yeah, so?
It is the electric fields of atoms that keeps them separate. (magnetic and electric forces act in opposite fashions.
JMcG:
Magnetic fields and electric fields are the same thing. likewise magnetic forces and electric forces are the same thing. So your assertion above make no sense to me.
When dissimilar magnetic poles come together the radiated magnetic force increases. When opposite charges move together the radiated electric fields disappear.)
JMcG:
Yeah, so?
By solely focusing on the atom’s electric force of matter and ignoring their attractive force of energy
JMcG:
Sorry, but this is convoluted nonsense. You are drawing upon a distinction without a difference.
your theory of hydrogen bonding and the nature of water is flawed.
JMcG:
I think you are just confused.
James McGinn / Genius
Moffin
| #
Hi James.
Such a Shakespearian soliloquy. I did not realize the Bard was so eloquent on the drama of covalent bonds.
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi MattH,
Sadly all the the report said was aa significant hot spot had appeared at 50+km above the eruption site, that was drifting slowly westwards. It explained that there was no precedent for such a phenonium and gave no hard data just a pretty picture. Long gone of course.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
This is an experiment. My cousin emailed this to me and I have been unable to open it; so I copied it and now paste it.
“AMAZING SIGHT IN THE SOUTH PACIFIC
The yacht ‘Maiken’ was traveling in the south Pacific when the crew came across a weird sight –
It was sand in the water, and the sand was floating ON TOP of the waves…
Look at these photos and try to imagine the feeling, the thrill of experiencing this phenomenon close-up.
This is not a beach, it is volcanic stones floating on the water.”
This worked better than I expected. The photos I cannot open are not needed. They only document what the text tells us: “volcanic stones floating on the water.”
Could this observation have anything to due with the Tonga eruption?
Have a gook day,
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Fellows,
(https://www.industrytap.com/crew-sailing-south-pacific-witness-birth-island/35456#:~:text=The%20crew%20of%20the%20yacht,the%20middle%20of%20the%20ocean)
Have a good day
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Fellow.
I found this map interesting. Pacific ocean floor topography.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=LEeZtpxl&id=9BF66ACB77E11DE5663EEB56E927F65492DF4906&thid=OIP.LEeZtpxlK-afg8oRjmaLbgHaFn&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fth.bing.com%2fth%2fid%2fR.2c4799b69c652be69f83ca118e668b6e%3frik%3dBknfklT2J%252blW6w%26riu%3dhttp%253a%252f%252fwww.mappery.com%252fmaps%252fPacific-Ocean-Floor-Map.jpg%26ehk%3d514yo3JJFPGN49B7Y2Q%252f7JLQZpo7aTsPvMx3nmS%252fFkM%253d%26risl%3d%26pid%3dImgRaw%26r%3d0&exph=1516&expw=2000&q=pacific+ocean+topographic+map&simid=608019270643958501&FORM=IRPRST&ck=EAE42D30CF30FA8378121D9AEB321B30&selectedIndex=0&idpp=overlayview&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0
And this map shows the position of the Vava’u Island group where the pumice was encountered and also shows the Hunga Ha’apai eruption site and it’s near proximity to Tonga Tapu.
https://media.istockphoto.com/vectors/tonga-political-map-vector-id577975170?k=6&m=577975170&s=612×612&w=0&h=62mbZTV4n8bGciu4xMJ-W0VSw4Ol48CijhNxVMDJkOM=
And the big picture for reference.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=zUay1pNz&id=D2BECDFDE0A6C2FB2720B3750FA2E87AB82DE0E1&thid=OIP.zUay1pNzjEdSCMKFBswhKwHaFx&mediaurl=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn3.vectorstock.com%2Fi%2F1000x1000%2F48%2F72%2Fpacific-islands-map-vector-2934872.jpg&cdnurl=https%3A%2F%2Fth.bing.com%2Fth%2Fid%2FR.cd46b2d693738c475208c28506cc212b%3Frik%3D4eAtuHroog91sw%26pid%3DImgRaw%26r%3D0&exph=780&expw=1000&q=pacific+islands-map&simid=608009327795527191&form=IRPRST&ck=39540D5BA780428C6812191758EA9E28&selectedindex=0&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0&vt=0&sim=11
Reply
MattH
| #
And the position of Tonga in relation to the Tonga Trench.
http://www.freeworldmaps.net/ocean/tonga-trench/tonga-trench-map.jpg
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt,
Did you personally observe any ocean abnormality due to the ERUPTION?
Have a good day,
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry Krause. I did not notice the eruption but a few people I know heard the explosion.
What was significant is that in the November before the eruption a warm moist stable airstream came over New Zealand, sourced from the Coral Sea and surrounds.
This weather system lingered for five days or so and the water in the back of Raglan Harbour was at 27 degrees C whilst the ocean temperature was at approx. 18 degrees C. Flounder seek cooler water once the water temperature hits 23 degrees C.
We have predominant South Westerly winds but after this November event we only had one and a half days of southwesterly winds during the following 18 months.
We did, however, have 11 flooding events during this 18 month period, this weather originating from the Coral sea. The south westerly winds returned in may this year.
From observing at ocean temperature changes it appears to me this was a flipping of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation from a positive phase to a negative phase.
https://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/data/el-nino-la-nina-watch-and-pdo/pacific-decadal-oscillation-pdo/
What is freaky is this negative phase PDO is occurring whilst we have an El Nino forming leading to freaky widespread warmer than normal sea surface temperatures.
When the El Nino conditions started to develop it appeared to be geothermal upwelling near the coast of Peru/Ecuador. There was also warm water forming off the coast of Japan, near Fukushima which also appeared to be geothermal upwelling.
Things have evolved significantly but this animation is informative.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_90day_large.gif
OK then.
(Rescued from spam bin) SUNMOD
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt and Sunned,
First Sunmod, can you tell us why (how) Matt’s comment ended up in the spam bin? Nest point out the two different spellings of your name. One you wrote and the other was produced by AI.
Matt, great data ‘I’ produced by asking you a question! Your observed data and explanations are consistent with what I read about natural phenomena, which I have only read and claim to understand. What is most important is that you are not quoting something you looked up on the internet. You are merely being a scientist who observed because you were in the right place and right times.
Have a good day
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
Have no idea as he passed all of my checks and no spam history either.
Cheers
MattH
| #
Hi Sunset. I have sprayed myself with Teflon so I should get past the spam checkers in future.
MattH
| #
Hi Michael Clarke and Jerry.
I found this interesting.
‘The Pacific plate is subducted beneath the Mariana Plate, creating the Mariana trench, and (further on) the arc of the Mariana Islands, as water trapped in the plate is released and explodes upward to form island volcanoes and earthquakes.’
So it appears to suggest the eruptions are caused by water trapped by subduction explodes when finally being introduced to magna, the explosion being the eruption.
The Tonga Trench is where the fastest subducting plate on earth is occurring. At up to 24 centimeters per year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonga_Trench
Michael. There are at least two deep water vents blown horizontally out the side of the Hunga Tonga mountain. The relevant survey map is above the last 5 paragraphs of this article. The deep water side vents, well below the mountain rim, are ate 2 o’clock and 8/9 o’clock.
The 2 o’clock vent has left quite a scallop on the ocean floor.
https://phys.org/news/2023-01-year-tongan-eruption-violent-wake-up.html
One can not but wonder if a deep water side vent was directed at Tonga Tapu whether a tsunami would have inundated the main island.
OK then
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
HI Matt,
“So it appears to suggest the eruptions are caused by water trapped by subduction explodes when finally being introduced to magna, the explosion being the eruption.”
This and your other comments to Michael seem plausible mechanisms; however the observations you cite are not clear to me, Are they about the sand floating on the ocean surface or about the more recent massive eruption? Where are the islands relative to the deep trench? Is there a ‘map’ of the ocean bottom near the trench or the islands?
Have a good day,
Reply
MattH
| #
G’mornin’ Jerry Krause and cool readers.
I misspelled “magma”.
The concept that it is trapped water exploding on contact with magma that causes eruptions, or some eruptions, is something that needs more cross referencing.
If you count back 9 comments on this page you will find a comment of mine with three references to maps. The map of the Pacific Ocean Topography is interesting.
Tonga is not somewhere I would choose to live.
The comment that exploding water causes eruptions was sourced from this article on the Mariana Trench. The third section of the article, Geology, has a section on the right side of the page, Cross-section sketch of Mariana Arc, which includes the relevant narration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariana_Trench
Have a nice day.
Matt
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH and Michael,
We need to study (https://principia-scientific.com/how-one-volcano-can-ruin-your-climate-dogma/)
Have a good day
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Herb, Jerry MattH and PSI readers,
This is important so try understand!
Just before the explosion occurred there were three distinct parts to that column of stuff.
At the bottom was a small pool of mixed Magma.
Above that there was a mishmash of falling rocks and ash and a lot of high pressure GAS (CO2 and SO2).
Above that there was high pressure exploding water that was trying to escape.
Above that was 1000+ feet of ocean trying to slide off the bulge caused by all that stuff below it.
REMEMBER that ocean was at 26 degrees Celsius and was some 15 SQ Km!
A dome was formed that accelerated very rapidly upwards, much too fast for all that ocean to get out of the way. The contents of the column was destructed water, gas, some magma and ash. It was continually expanding.
When the gas got above the low spots in the Caldera rim, (It had risen from 7 km to a few meters) a pyroclastic subsea flow escaped Norths Westwards severing the sub sea cable some 80km away!
By then the column was almost at escape velocity!
At some point the dome broke and a tsunami set off, circular in shape BUT with a hole in the ocean behind it rather than ocean thus it did not have much power just a wave 18m tall.
The bulb was then free to expand every which way and hence the explosion, which lasted for some 12 seconds!
During that 12 seconds the top of the bulb which was still in contact with all that hot gas and stuff was propelled faster and faster as the water continued to explode.
I do not know which happened next, either the hot gas was exhausted or the water turned to steam which ever the result was destructed water at 50 +km and sea water, I suspect both!
Destructed water is atoms and irons, no molecules!
The sea water was flash frozen atoms but still way hotter than the surrounding atmosphere!
There is no precedent for any of this and we will have to wait and see what happens next.
Sorry such a long post.
Michael Logician
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Michael,
It takes 237,000 joules/mole (18 gm) of electrical energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen atoms. You cannot do it with thermal heat. The volcano did not convert the water to atoms. The explosion was from superheated steam.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You just replied to Michael’s commen as you reply to most of my comments. However, there is a great difference between Michael and myself. Michael in his past activities is an obverse genus and I certainly am not.
Have a good day
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi Herb Jerry MattH and others,
Another thing you guys are forgetting. The 1000+ lightening bolts that occurred as that ‘Cloud’ rose to great height. Is that plasma not de-construction enough?
Michael Logician
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
Very,very good. I believe you have put most all the parts together. And we have to wait to see what the others ‘think’.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Jerry,
Magma’s temperature is 3000C max. Do you think that can split water into hydrogen and oxygen atoms?
j
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Michael, Jerry, Herb and casual bystanders.
Experiments that describe thermal decomposition do not describe the effects of extreme pressure and my default setting is these experiments describe an experimental environment under normal, near sea level, atmospheric pressure.
One could speculate that under extreme pressure environments the required temperature for thermolysis could be lower than that required at pressure of one atmosphere.
Experiments show that thermolysis can lead to an explosion and in the dim recesses of my memory I believe the was an explosion associated with Hunga Tonga eruption which could be a rather compelling observation.
The following are a couple of excerpts relevant to the postulate and observations.
Thermal decomposition (or thermolysis) is a chemical decomposition caused by heat. The decomposition temperature of a substance is the temperature at which the substance chemically decomposes. The reaction is usually endothermic as heat is required to break chemical bonds in the compound undergoing decomposition. If decomposition is sufficiently exothermic, a positive feedback loop is created producing thermal runaway and possibly an explosion or other chemical reaction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_decomposition
Water is a very stable compound that requires extraordinary conditions to decompose12. The decomposition of water requires temperatures in excess of 2,000 degrees Celsius or an energy exceeding 486 kilojoules1. Even in this extreme environment, only 0.02 percent of the water decomposes1. At ambient temperatures, only one molecule in 100 trillion dissociates by the effect of heat2. At the very high temperature of 3000 °C, more than half of the water molecules are decomposed2.
(wikipedia)
I reiterate, none of these references include observations of the effect of extreme pressure. The explosion is undeniable.
Have a nice day.
Matt (Conceptualist)
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt,
In chemistry where a reaction is occurring (in this case H2O = 2H + O) an increase in pressure would favor the H2O structure driving the reaction in that direction (less volume).
I don’t see how the strength of the structures could resist the expansion pressure of the water and allow the water to split into atoms. When these gasses escaped into the atmosphere any lightning would cause a secondary explosion as they recombined to form H2O.
Herb.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt,
You taught me a new word: thermolysis. But then you wrote: “Thermal decomposition (or thermolysis)”. According to my Websters thermolysis is merely the lost of heat from a body which suggests that thermolysis has nothing to do with thermal decomposition.
As you wrote we have almost no experience with very high pressures which we acknowledge occur during explosions. We seldom consider the ‘stable’ extreme pressure at the bottom of a deep ocean and I doubt that Michael has pondered at what depth might the attractive force become a repulsive force. We can only determine this by some sort of observable experiment. Possibly like suspend a heavy weight on a thin steel cable and see at some point as the weight is lowered does the cable break.
This is something to do instead of only pondering this question. And we need to remember that an explosion creates an additional pressure wave. And we cannot ignore the I believe we know a fusion bomb must be ignited by a fission bomb explosion. Yes, I have pondered the importance of pressure but drawn no conclusions because I am .NOT a genius.
Have a good day
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry.
The definition you have found for thermolysis is only in relation to medical or biological science.
Here is a definition which is not from wikipedia.
Thermolysis is breaking one or more covalent bonds in a species using heat as the source of energy.
Jolly good then.
Matt
Herb Rose
| #
Jerry,
Your idea of pressure is wrong. The pressure is not increasing gravity or a downward force. It is a compressing force. There are fish that live at these great depths and they do fine because the inward pressure is negated by an outward pressure. When they come to shallow depths they disintegrate.
When I was young there was talk of a false bottom to the oceans where the pressure got so great that objets couldn’t sink any further. It is false, as long as the density of the sinking object is greater than the density of water (very little compressibility) it will continue to descend until it reaches the denser material at the bottom.
Originally fusion bombs were triggered by atomic bombs but now they use a chemical explosion for compression.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Marr,
I am not trying to start a debate but the word ‘species’ seems to be a word I associate with biological science and not with a physical science as chemistry or physics. Could you give a specific example.
Is an example that the sulfuric acid molecule decomposes to SO3 and H2O molecules. And SO3 further decomposes to SO2 and an O atom (?) maybe.
I really do not know any thing specific other than the fact that the Handbook of Chemistry reports that sulfuric acid (H2SO4)
does not boil. I have two homes and the Handbook is at the other; so I cannot check the exact terminology written as I clearly have questions now about what is described as decomposing instead of reaching a temperature at which the liquid boils–boiling point–which we see (observe) as physical action. Which clearly changes as the atmospheric pressure upon the liquid’s surface changes
Derails are important to me and I certainly do not know the details.
So relative to your definition I must only say: I don’t know.
MattH
| #
hi Jerry.
Try to do some heavy lifting yourself please.
If you search ‘molecular species or chemical species you will find relevance to my comment.
‘A chemical species is a chemical substance or ensemble composed of chemically identical molecular entities that can explore the same set of molecular energy levels on a characteristic or delineated time scale. These energy levels determine the way the chemical species will interact with others (engaging in chemical bonds, etc.).’wikipedia
Howdy
| #
If I may, ‘species’ is related to living organisms. It has no use in atomic science, nor chemistry.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
Do you ever ask yourself who wrote what I just read? As I have written before: That is the first thing I try to check out when I read a new article or comment. And the only thing I have to evaluate other people’s abilities is my personal experiences of my life. I trust Michael because I have listened to several lectures by people who have been awarded Nobel Prizes because their past achievements have withstood the tests of time. I believe his stories of his life and I believe your stories of your life which you have told me.
What you just wrote about a definition is not your definition nor Michael’s nor Webster’s. And even if I sometimes quote Wiki I don’t believe what I read because I read that it has been written by unknown (unreferenced) authors.
Jerry Krause
| #
And I know I that I daily make many mistakes and so do genie from time to time because we are all human and not the Creator God.
Have a good day
Matt Holl
| #
Hi Jerry, Howdy and Herb.
Michael Clarke wrote, “This is important so try understand!” He took a number of days before writing his thesis on the reactions involved in the volcanic eruption.
Within a few minutes or hours Herb starts arguing against that which was observed and now we have dispute over the word “species” rather than evaluating the merits of the foundational science involved in that which Michael Clarke wrote.
Could you please show Michael, science, and exploring the understanding of the world around us some fundamental respect rather than impersonating mad dogs chasing cars. Get back to Michael’s thesis or hold your peace.
Species, specimen, special, specialist, specific, specialty. etc, etc.
Species: A distinct class, sort or kind. (Shorter Oxford Dictionary. Revised Addenda 1956 )
Species: sight, look, appearance, shape, form, kind, class, ornament, beauty. (Webster Universal Dictionary. Unabridged International Edition 1975)
Get back to the volcanic eruption or at least try thinking and evaluating and analysis rather than empty vessels emanating cacophony. FFS.
Have a nice day.
Matt
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt,
The question I am trying to raise is: Is it possible to provide enough heat to a water molcule in nature to split into atoms? High pressure boilers are made from high strength steel to resist the pressure of the steam and they get no where near the temperature produced by the volcano. How could the volcano have the tensile strength to hold together as the temperature got hot enough to split the molecules into atoms? It is my opinion that it would have erupted/exploded long before the molecules could be split.
Herb
MattH
| #
Hi Herb. Your point is valid and I appreciate exploring options to explain that which we observe.
It is possible the volcanic explosion debunks some of the scientific literature or there was a different mechanism than Michael’s explanation. The intense pressure at depth is one alternate.
I still have not given the courtesy of responding to Michael and I am clearly not amused with people distracting and challenging the word “species” without bothering to authoritatively check the word’s meaning.
Best wishes to all.
Matt
Howdy
| #
“Get back to the volcanic eruption or at least try thinking and evaluating and analysis rather than empty vessels emanating cacophony. FFS.”
Do you really have to lower the tone to one of vulgar ‘shouting’? A term was used that is challenged. Deal with it and control your own cacophony of irrelevance, FFS!
“I am clearly not amused with people distracting and challenging the word “species” without bothering to authoritatively check the word’s meaning.”
You brought the term into the discussion, and answered the first challenge from Jerry, Matt. You invited the distraction.
Search terms: what does species mean authoritatively.
Result: https://www.startpage.com/do/dsearch?query=what+does+species+mean+authoritatively
I’ll leave this ‘chat’ in peace.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
(https://principia-scientific.com/how-one-volcano-can-ruin-your-climate-dogma/)
Next I want (would like) you to consider the effect of the eruption on the US weather of 2023 of which I am most familiar. Out door sporting events have been disrupted by localized lightning storms with a frequency that I cannot remember even locally in the Willamette Valley, OR USA we have heard thunder and seen ‘lightning bolts which is not part of NORMAL weather here at anytime of the years. I am not saying that these storms never occur here, the factor is their frequency.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi ALL,
On the wall of my living room I have a poster which is titled ‘Grant Wood: The Regionalist Vision’. Grant Wood is the artist of the painting of which the image of the poster is a copy. I have an artist friend after the old masters of pointing who taught me that every painting should tell a story. Which, because of my early life ln the midwest of USA, I know I am a character (a farm boy who had collected eggs) in Wood’s painting. The major focus of the painting is 14 men dressed in the conventional overalls of farmers at that time and several women who had prepared the food and were serving the food. But there was one more man outside with the boy. Whom I believe was the boy’s father and the owner of the farm which the 14 men had come to help with the harvest. And I know, because of my experience, that this farmer would go with some of the 14 men, whom were also farmers, to help with their harvests. But not all the 14 men, at the table, were farmers. They were town men, whose work was such that they had time to help with the harvest. These men could have been preachers and school teachers, because school hadn’t yet begun, and they were friends of the farmers who needed help to bring in the harvest as rapidly as possible.
I make this comment because there aren’t many of us left who lived Grant Wood’s Regionalist Vision.
For I believe the founders of Science and PSI were REGIONALISTS and the authors of the articles and the commenters, like us, who are trying to help with the harvest of GOOD SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE are also Regionalists also.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
If you scan back you will find that I wrote to Michael: “Very,very good. I believe you have put most all the parts together.” Real (actual) scientists understand that their ideas can never be proven to be correct. As Einstein stated: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong”.
To my limited understanding the fundamental issue begins with transfer of heat (energy) from molten magma to water under a great deal of pressure because of the depth of liquid water above the molten magna relative the observed result of this natural transfer of this energy to the observed kinetic energy and finally to the gravitational potential energy of this lifted matter to whatever state (solid, liquid, gas) it might be. And the question is if the water In contact with the molten magma already gaseous atoms in a very dense state because of the extreme pressure of the liquid water over it. AT issue is the phenomenon of inertia which has no scientific explanation (it is just observed to exist). But most generally accept that no action can be instantaneous. And I doubt that many do not comprehend the possible consequences of the measured fact that 18 grams of water is composed of 6.02 times 10 to the 23rd power.
Have a good day
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi Herb, Jerry, MattH and others,
The explosion started well down that caldera which was/is some 15sqkm.
The interface between that sea water with all it contained took place under the force of gravity in what was effectivly a tube, a Blunderbus of enormous proportions. I do not have access to exactly what happened BEFORE the explosion!
This is important as that pyroclastic flow that destroyed the under sea internet cable was at about 2000 f?y?m? depth so clearly the explosions started below that level!
The earthquakes that were going on were at two distinct levels 12km and 7km deep. If the volcano was connected to the magma pool at that level it would have been ash and gas not including Magma!
Therefore the volcanic activity was started at some level above 12km and below 7km. The volcano had been going off for over 24 hours with little change, shooting Magma ash and gas 2km into the sky.
The vent from which that volcano was erupting was off to the north western side of the caldera. So sea water fell to some great depth, at some point that descent turned around and began to rise, which once started became ever faster due to reduced pressure with depth and ever increasing pressure due to exploding water. The interface between magma ash and gas was at the temperature of the magma at 12km or close to it. The pressure was enormous and when that column of stuff reached the top of the rim it exploded. BUT! the explosion had been going on for some short time. Check the atmospheric pressure readings from Canada that recorded the pressure wave, remember the it was traveling at the speed of sound and try understand where my statement of ‘Exposition lasting 12 seconds’ comes from!
As an interesting aside.
What causes the bang when a drop of water comes into contact with a hot plate?
I am fairly confident that I know exactly what it is caused by but you may have different explanations.
One drop, Hot plat almost red hot, Observe BEFORE that drop boils away!
Regards All
Michael Logician
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Michael,
Keep the information coming so we can try to figure outwit happened.
Water at 550 F has a pressure of 1000 psi. Did the water ever make contact with the magma during the eruption or did it vaporize in the gasses before making contact? What I envision is not a Blunderbus but a 15km steam nozzle pointed into the sky. The steam would continue to push higher into the atmosphere until sufficient cooling occurred to reduce the pressure.
Herb
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi Herb, wouldn’t steam cause a hiss not a continuous explosion?
15SqKm of water falling 7km would eventually come in contact with the Magma. Yes it would be getting hot on the way down but not hot enough to cause the expulsion.
Regarding the destruction of water into its constituent parts requires a lot of energy which is exactly what the magma has it was at an extremely high temperature. the force exerted at the water/magma interface was sufficient to destruct rock to ash so why not destruct water to its constituent parts?
The wate would continue to fall down the sides of the caldera all the way down to that interface how ever down that was, I suspect 7km?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Michael,
You have gravity causing the water to fall and steam at over 1000F pushing the water up. I don’t know what the pressure would be but believe that it would be a lot greater than the pressure of gravity pushing down. I think of the explosion as the heat being the propellent and water being the projectile.
A hiss is from a steam leak this is more like a steam explosion in the form of a shaped charge.
The rock that formed the volcano was lava that had cooled. It is easy to pulverize into ash because the bonds holding it together are weak. A water molecule is held together by very strong bonds, difficult to break, making it very stable. Think of it as a lump of charcoal versus a diamond.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH and ALL,
(https://principia-scientific.com/ocean-tides-explained/). Take a look!
Have a good day
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry Krause and all.
It was good to see the differing size tanks of water demonstrating tidal resonance. I had the process explained to me by a Canadian scientist about 30 years ago.
The tidal bores (a tide change wave travelling up a river) are caused by wide apart headlands that slowly narrow creating a funneling effect, focusing and concentrating the tide change energy into a wave in areas where tidal differentials are six meters or more.
He covered all the bases but I do need to check the 18.6 year lunar standstill analysis.
Best wishes Jerry and Y’all.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
Relative to the 18.6 year cycle is an about 56 years cycle, both of which were likely observed at Stonehenge more than a couple thousand years ago. For the 56 holes could have been used to predict the tides associated with the lunar phase cycle.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
You asked “What has this to do with the explosion and effects upon the climate?” It has nothing to do with the explosion and I do not use the word climate or average anything. in my reasoning there is ‘normal’ weather and abnormal weather. Normal weather is cyclic and abnormal weather is not. I have lived my normal life of 82 years neat 45 degrees Latitude North where normal weather can be quite different from one day to the next. This is commonly the case during all season but more so during the spring and fall seasons. And there is a geometric factor of the position of moon relative to the Earth with regards to ocean tides and I believe ocean tides and atmospheric tides might have an influence upon weather. I am sure you can understand this simple answer. And I wait for you to improve upon it with more details.
Have a good day
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi Jerry,
What has this to do with the explosion and effects upon the climate?
Michael Logician
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi All
Another thought occurred to me.
If the event resulted from a small vent causing contact with water would have caused steam to form and water to enter the space surrounding it from all sides causing a Burp or continuous vent.
The rocks of the caldera rim all the way down to 7km prevented water from penetrating
from the sides containing the growing explosive pressure that eventually stopped falling and then rose to reach the surface with a Ka-Boom-Mmm that lasted 12 seconds.
Michael Logician
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi All,
This comment is merely to remind you all of this discussion we were having before we got distracted by other articles and comments. I cannot remember even reading this last comment of Michael. Who reminds us the nothing is INSTANTANEOUS
Have a good day.
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi All, this is probably a question for Herb,
let us accept that the pressure exerted by the depth of water in the caldera was 1200psi.
That pressure is a mere trifal to that which causes rock to get crushed. Look up Moh’s.
Does a cubic meter of water from way down there weigh the same as from the surface?
I can easily de-construct water in my garrage using a 112v battery, ever heard of electrolysis.
Michael Logician
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Michael,
Steam at 1000 psi has a temperature of 550 F. I don’t know what the temperature of 1200 psi steam is but it is well below the temperature of magma so the upward pressure of the steam would exceed the downward pressure by gravity, long before the water could make contact with the magma and the water would be forced up.
The pressure at which rock is crushed depends on the type of rock. Lava with its porous nature is easier to crush than granite.
A cubic meter of water’s weight is its mass (almost constant since water is almost incompressible) times gravity (which since measured from the center of the Earth is almost constant with depth) so the weights are the same only changing due to temperature changes (change of density). A cubic meter of ice or hot water at the bottom would rise to the top because they are less dense not from the pressure. I think you are confusing the pressure from the water, which is a compression pressure, with gravity which is a pressure directed to the center of the Earth.
Your electrolysis is converting water into ions not atoms. After you create H2 and O2 by electrolysis you most then split this molecules into atoms (392,000 joules/mole for O2). It is hard to split water into atoms using heat. (See Matt’s comment above where 486,000 joules/mole only converts .2% of the water into atoms). The water wants to convert to a gas and lose contact with the heat source (magma).
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You just wrote: “I don’t know what the temperature of 1200 psi steam is but it is well below the temperature of magma.” And I add that I bet you don’t know the temperature of magma either. So I must conclude that your statement has any validity via your own admission.
Have a good day
(Corrected your e-mail misspelling) SUNMOD
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael and Herb,
Thank you both for keeping this good scientific discussion going. I have finally concluded that a’violent’ this eruption was it is no big thing. For the amount (mass) of matter lifted high in the atmosphere, it is a drop in the bucket of the oceans’ total mass and according to MattH’s refort and the current weather of the Willamette Valley (OR, USA) it seems normal weather has already occurred. Still the mechanism of the eruption which lifted matter so high in the atmosphere should be generally resolved. And I certainly do not yet claim to understand this mechanism. So we need to keep working on this topic.
Have a good day
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi Folks,
As the eruption ‘Cloud’ occupied around 10% of the atmosphere in a small section it will only effect around 110% of the ‘normal’ weather.
So one day does not make a summer or winter or abnormal weather!
Michael Logician
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi You All,
“The New York Times Accuses PragerU of Rationalizing Slavery
Now that PragerU is approved for use in schools throughout multiple states across the country, we are under attack from leftist media like never before. Dennis dissects a recent New York Times piece claiming that he is a racist, that PragerU is propaganda, and that PragerU Kids is using Frederick Douglass to rationalize slavery. Are they right?” (PragerU)
There are several reasons I post this comment. The first is that for years I have been receiving emails from PragerU and not reading them because I thought PragerU was just another Green academic university. One reason I thought this was I had never read the word “PragerU” here at PSI. A 2nd reason I place this comment to an article that was posted August 16, 2023 was it has received 180 comments (most primarily about a ‘scientific’ topics was being commonly being Sdone when I first discovered PSI in 2016. So I want to express my appreciation to those who have kept ‘this’ physical science discussion going in these times when there are “no wrong answers” to scientific questions. For while there are “no right answers” to scientific questions there have historically been wrong answers. And we need to find these wrong answers and expose them.
Have a good day
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi All will the 1000+ lightening bolts the occurred while the ‘Cloud’ of stuff rose to 60,000meters, provide enough Joules. A few million or so I believe.
Come on guys I have thought this through very carefully!
Michael Logician
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Michael,
At different energy levels matter takes on different forms. 100 C water will turn into 100 C gas using 2260 joules/gram. Oxygen molecules will split into oxygen atoms with 392,000 joules/ gram. Water will split into oxygen and hydrogen atoms at 486,000 joules/gram. The amount of energy decreases as energy is used to change the state of the matter. Did the area ever go dry so that the water vapor could gain enough energy to split into atoms? Before the water could convert to atoms the oxygen in the air must also split into atoms.
Lightning splits O2 molecules into oxygen atoms which combine with N2 molecules and O2 molecules, which is why lightning produces an ozone smell and fixes nitrogen into the soil.
There is no argument that the volcano produced a lot of energy and that energy began at a high temperature but where and in what form was that energy distributed. My belief was that it was in super hot steam, not the splitting of water molecules into atoms.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi All,
I begin with an edited version of what Herb wrote: “There is no argument that the volcano produced [involved] a lot of energy and that energy began at a high temperature [and high pressure] but where and in what form was that energy distributed.[?]
Before the eruption began there was large mass of molten magna and its energy was in the form of kinetic energy (temperature) and the gravitational potential energy of ocean water at the ocean bottom over the molten magna. Herb, can you agree with my answer?
Michael asks “will the 1000+ lightening bolts the [that] occurred while the ‘Cloud’ of stuff rose to 60,000meters provide enough Joules.[?] I ask Michael: Did you assume the 1000+ lightening bolts or were they observed and reported?
After you both respond to my questions, I will comment further upon Herb’s further comments concerning lightening bolts and the atmospheric chemistry they are observed to cause.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael and All,
“A geyser is a rare kind of hot spring that is under pressure and erupts, sending jets of water and steam into the air. Geysers are made from a tube-like hole in the Earth’s surface that runs deep into the crust. The tube is filled with water. Near the bottom of the tube is molten rock called magma, which heats the water in the tube. Water in the lower part of the tube, close to the magma, becomes superhot. Gradually, it begins to boil. Some of the water is forced upward. The boiling water begins to steam, or turn to gas. The steam jets toward the surface. Its powerful jet of steam ejects the column of water above it. The water rushes through the tube and into the air. The eruption will continue until all the water is forced out of the tube, or until the temperature inside the geyser drops below boiling (100 degrees Celsius, or 212 degrees Fahrenheit, at sea level). After the eruption, water slowly seeps back into the tube. The process begins again. In some small geysers, the eruption process can take just a few minutes. In larger geysers, it can take days. The most famous geyser in the United States, Yellowstone National Park’s Old Faithful, erupts about every 50-100 minutes.
FAST FACT
Geyser Central Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming has more than 300 geysers about two-thirds of the number of geysers in the entire world. Other geyser hot spots are Siberia, Chile, Iceland and New Zealand. ” (https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/geyser/#)
Have a good day
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Yes documented with satellite view. Esa I believe two days after the eruption.
I may have been 10,000.
Reply