New Paper Eviscerates UN IPCC’s Climate Term ‘Radiative Forcing’
Principia Scientific International (PSI) has published an original new paper exposing the linguistic trickery employed by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It can be shown that the IPCC intentionally or incompetently misrepresents key scientific terms.
On December 19, 2023, PSI posted in its ‘Our Publications’ section an analysis titled Epistemic Integrity and Quality of Information: A refutation of IPCC’s term ‘radiative forcing’ with thermodynamics of atmospheric processes [1] by Michael Galvin. It which shows that IPCC’s term for radiative forcing is not measurable due to thermals and mixing and interactions between the troposphere and stratosphere.
Michael Galvin, a qualified environmental engineer, shows that even one turbulent fluid cannot currently be modeled using the Navier-Stokes equations. Over a hundred climate models arriving at different results is not reproductive evidence therefore not science. Only radiation, conduction, convection, and latent heat of vaporization and condensation exist in thermodynamics heat transfer.
Galvin explains:
“I hope this refutation of radiative forcing in the form of an exposition of global warming theory, definition of terms and theories, and declaration of the more truthful and exact science can help advance the truth in science and make people aware of the misinformation and impacts of this post modern resentment ridden ideology. “
For dry surfaces, there is sensible heat flux as warmed air mass is less dense and rises removing heat. For moist surfaces, there is the latent heat of vaporization and condensation. At solar noon due to the first law of thermodynamics conservation of energy a trace gas in the cooler air that only absorbs a tiny fraction of the weak upgoing IR thermal radiation cannot further the already hotter surface more than the powerful and penetrating solar radiation already has, the cooler air does no work and adds no extra energy and therefor doesn’t increase the internal energy of the already hotter surface.
Even water vapor only increases the heat index, not air temperature, and generally precipitates around a wet bulb temperature of 35C. In fact, water vapor has a regulatory and cooling function through evaporation cooling, low-pressure atmospheric circulation, and convective overturning, condensing into clouds and coalescing into rainfall where latent heat is released to space.
Due to the second law of thermodynamics heat transfer is irreversible from hotter object to cooler object. One can see a hot air balloon or the breath on a cold morning. Sensible heat flux, latent heat flux, low pressure, atmospheric circulation, convection, lapse rates, clouds, and rainfall are all cooling processes.
Galvin explains that:
“Climate is just weather over time which is dictated by pressure systems not atmospheric composition of a trace gas. In fact heatwaves from high pressure reduces relative humidity preventing clouds and allowing much isolation to reach the surfaces.”
It gets far hotter in cloudless deserts along the subtropical high-pressure ridge than it does along the moist equatorial where the natural greenhouse effect is highest. It also gets colder as clouds reduce incoming solar radiation by day and slow the rate of heat loss at night.
Bare earth and built environments including solar and wind farms do raise surface temperature amplitude warming air mass via conduction which is removed by convection. Some major drivers of climate change include changes in solar, changes in the magnetosphere, cosmic radiation, magnetic polar shift, Rossby waves, geothermal and the Earth releasing its internal energy from various geological processes, planetary seismic tidal pulls, gravitational waves, core angular momentum CAM and length of day LOD, Milankovich cycles, Asteroids, Volcanoes, as well as bare earth and built environment.
Galvin adds:
“The trillion-dollar carbon tax, mining and energy development cause is doing much environmental damage including pristine environments and our most important biodiversity areas.”
From worldwide damming, global deforestation for biomass, biofuels, and balsawood, an estimated five times new minerals mining, worldwide fracking transition fuel, and functional habitat loss for mega solar and wind farms and associated mega transmissions.
Speaking as a qualified expert in environmental engineering, Galvin sums it up thus:
” The ‘Fossil fuels’ lie for pricing and taxation are really vast abiotic resources produced by the Fischer and Tropsch Equations, Sabatier Equations, and Serpentisation. The only true fossil fuel is thermal coal lignite from peat bogs that is shallow and easy to mine unlike hard to get rare earth mining with Uranium and Thorium waste that will always be in low concentrations.”
The fossil fuels and climate lies have increased the costs of living, fuel, food, and energy, sent manufacturing overseas, businesses close, and household poverty.
Read the full paper at principia-scientific.com
Reference:
Epistemic Integrity and Quality of Information: A refutation of IPCC’s term ‘radiative forcing’ with thermodynamics of atmospheric processes, (Principia Scientific International), December 19, 2023, By Michael Galvin, Environmental Engineer, Bush Regenerator, Naturalist and Permaculture. B.Eng(Env), M.Sci(EnvMan), Dip.SustainableLiving, Cert3.CALM, Cert. permaculture design
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend the Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL is 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.
Richard Greene
| #
The greenhouse effect is back radiation
That radiation is caused by water vapor, clouds and CO2
It is most easily measured at night
It is measured 365 daya a year and exists
The warming of earth’s surface offsets some of the cooling which is radiation rising toward the infinite heat sink of space. This violates no laws of thermodynamics.
Some upwelling radiation gets reflected back down
Earth’s cooling is the net sum of upwelling radiation and downwelling radiation
Not that complicated and easily measured
This report appears to be claiming that back radiation does not exist
Unless I am misinterpreting it, the report is a tall steaming pile of farm animal digestive waste products.
This website has always had some sketchy articles.
This may be one of the worst.
I’ve decided to delete this website
from my large bookmarks list
This is pure junk science
The greenhouse effect was discovered in the 1800s with measurements of CO2.
At least 99.9% of scientists believe there is a greenhouse effect and manmade CO2 is part of it.
There has been over a century for skeptical scientists to refute the greenhouse effect or that CO2 is part of it. They have failed because that consensus is based on data
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Let’s see how this back radiation from CO2 works. The sun heats the molecules on the Earth and these molecules radiate energy n all directions. This energy decreases with distance so the level of energy reaching a single CO2 molecule and being absorbed by it can never exceed the energy reaching it, which is now lower than the level the molecules radiating it (cooler). When the molecules on the ground stop gaining energy from the sun the level of energy reaching the CO2 molecule decreases and it radiates energy in all directions. A small portion is directed back down towards the surface of the Earth and this energy again decreases with distance meaning the level of the energy reaching the molecules on the Earth will again be lower than the energy being radiated by the CO2 molecules. Since the number of molecules on the Earth is greater by a factor of many millions to the single CO2 molecule in the atmosphere and this reduced energy is dispersed to all these molecules, and yet you maintain that this minuscule amount of energy is able to significantly heat all the molecules on the surface. You give stupid a bad name.
Reply
JaKo
| #
Hi Herb,
You could also mention that the CO2 can radiate only at certain temperatures; in the atmospheric case, its peak wavelength is about 15um and therefore its black-body temperature is about -80C (193K)! So, how many molecules on the Earth surface could absorb this radiation remains Z KWESCHON.
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jako,
I already went through the -80 C absorption and re-radiation of energy by CO2 with Richard in the Geothermal article. He called it “Herb Rose clap trap” not worthy of rebuttal. With Richard it doesn’t how many times or how many ways you show him to be wrong about science, since 99.9% of scientist agree with him it makes what he believes right.
Herb
Reply
Mic Galvin
| #
In response to your comment. The proposed back radiation is highest at solar noon. At solar noon when the weak up going Ir thermal radiation is highest of which CO2 at 0.04% of air absorbs a tiny fraction, the cooler air cannot further heat the already hotter surface more than powerful and penetrating solar radiation already has.
Climate is just weather over time which is dictated by pressure systems not atmospheric composition of a trace gas. It gets far hotter in cloudless deserts along the horse latitudes subtropical high pressure ridge than it does along the moist equatorial where the natural greenhouse effect is highest. It also gets colder at night as clouds reduces incoming solar radiation by day and slows the rate of heat loss at night.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Mic,
The Earth is not heating the air. The contention that because nitrogen and oxygen molecules do not absorb visible or IR light they do not absorb radiated energy is a violation of the laws of thermodynamics which states that all matter absorbs radiated energy. N2 and O2 are absorbing 95% of the UV radiation coming from the sun and converting that energy into kinetic energy. Ozone is created because 320,000 joules/mole has split an oxygen molecule freeing an oxygen atom to combine with an oxygen molecule. The higher N-O layers and oxygen atom-helium layer of the atmosphere are a result the greater solar energy at higher altitudes, not because the surface of the Earth is able to heat the atmosphere from the top down resulting in the hottest molecules being in the thermosphere.
The molecules higher in the atmosphere have greater kinetic energy than the molecules at lower altitudes. The reason the temperature is lower at higher altitudes is because there are fewer (Less dense because of greater kinetic energy) molecules striking the thermometer and transferring energy to it, not because the energy of the molecules is less. The gas molecules in the atmosphere are adding the converted UV energy to the Earth’s surface according to the law of conservation of momentum which states that an object (gas molecule) with greater velocity will transfer energy to an object with less energy regardless of the masses of the objects. (The second law of thermodynamics sounds good but is wrong.)
The clouds in the sky are blocking the sun’s energy by absorbing heat. The reason cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights is because the water droplets in the clouds are now losing heat to air molecules during collision rather than gaining heat from those collision.
Have you ever wondered why there are liquid water droplets in the sky when the temperature is -30 F or why these droplets are reflecting heat rather than absorbing it.
Climate is the result of the energy coming from the sun and the position of the Earth. Weather is how that energy flows from the high concentration at the equator to the rest of the planet.
Herb
Reply
MattH
| #
Herb, you appear to be saying that clouds have no albedo effect on incoming sol.ar.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt,
Water reflects less than 10% of light striking it at near perpendicular angle. Because water droplets are round most of that reflected light is directed into the atmosphere not into space.
The light entering the droplet is not absorbed but refracted at an angle where it then strikes a concave surface resulting in some some being directed back into the droplet while the rest exits the droplet and again refracts. Water does not absorb visible light (transparent) but scatters it. Clouds are white on the sides, bottom, and top because of the emitting of light due to refraction through multiple droplets. Very little of the energy of the light is being reflected back into space with most of it being dispersing into the troposphere where it is eventually absorbed by matter.
What the water in clouds does is absorb heat from the collisions with gas molecules and store it. When the air temperature drops this energy is transferred back to the air molecules. Clouds are storing energy rather than blocking energy.
Herb
Mic Galvin
| #
Evaporation cooling, water vapour is light and rises removing latent heat, creating a local low pressure atmospheric circulation and convective overturning, condensing into clouds and coalesce into rainfall where latent heat is released to space. Clouds reduces incoming solar radiation by days and slows the rate of heat loss at night. Water vapour only increases the heat index not air temperature and generally precipitates around a wet bulb temperature of 35C. A trace gas in the TOA doesn’t miraculously beam weak Ir up going thermal radiation in the cooler air further heating the already hotter surface more than powerful solar radiation already has. Less dense rises.
Heatwaves and drought are from high pressure systems that reduces relative humidity preventing clouds and allowing much insolation to reach the surfaces. High pressure also from foehn winds down hills such as gusty dry hot winds on the lee side of the Australian Alps and Great Dividing Range increases fire risks and usually followed by low pressure fronts from the South. Foehn winds might raise temperature 20C in Penrith for example.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Mic,
Water vapor is very light. Lighter than O2, N2, and neon and yet it remains in the troposphere (99.9%) just like argon while these other gasses go into all the layers of the atmosphere. This is because water in the atmosphere is not a gas under 100 C at standard pressure.(see water phase chart) but nano droplets.
It takes 740 calories/gram to convert 0 C ice to a gas. When ice sublimes where does this energy come from? When you boil water in a tea kettle it escapes as a clear gas. On cooling it forms droplets in the air. With further cooling these droplets disappear. Are they somehow gaining the 540 calories/gram needed to convert back into a gas?
The gases in the atmosphere do not absorb the visible light heating the surface but they do, like all matter, absorb radiated energy. 95% of the UV to be precise and convert that energy into kinetic energy. Do you believe that the O2 in the stratosphere is getting the 320,000 joules/mole necessary to split the molecule into atoms and form ozone from the ground?
The atmosphere is a result of energy converting O2, N2, and argon into a gas and then expanding that gas to form the atmosphere. The greater the energy the greater the volume of the atmosphere (Venus has an atmosphere 100 times the size of the Earth’s atmosphere). When gas molecules lose energy the atmosphere contracts. This contraction due to a loss of energy does not cause the molecules to gain energy (adiabatic heating). The increase in temperature at lower altitudes is due to increase density and more molecules striking a thermometer and transferring energy to it.
The bottom of the Grand Canyon is always 10 F hotter than the top. If the air molecules had more energy they would expand, become less dens, and rise to the top. The hotter temperature is due to more molecules transferring less energy to the thermometer.
The barometer, like the thermometer is measuring the momentum of the gas molecules striking it. (why would a thin layer of glass convert units from mass per unit area to mass times velocity squared?) A high pressure area is warmer than a low pressure area so why would a liter of this less dense air be heavier than the denser cold air? What a barometer measure is the momentum of the air molecules striking it. In a calm high pressure area those molecules are striking it vertically while in a low pressure area the molecules have horizontal motion and only transfer part of their energy.
Herb
Bevan Dockery
| #
The “Greenhouse Effect” only occurs in man-made greenhouse structures. There is no such atmospheric effect because there is no atmospheric “back-radiation”. John Tyndall proposed the idea in his 1869 paper “Heat considered as a mode of motion” in order to explain why the presence of CO2 gas in a tube reduced the amount of heat being passed through the tube. He had no knowledge of the molecular structure, vibrational modes and their discrete radiation frequencies, of radiative gases. In fact there is no controlling factor for the direction of emission for a free-floating atmospheric radiative gas molecule thus, in all probability, it may be in any direction in 3-dimensional space.
The atmospheric temperature depends on the humidity of the air. Dry air allows the Earth’s surface to mainly radiate directly to space. Humid air slows that process as it also involves more conduction and convection, a significantly slower process than cooling directly by radiation from a surface.
Unfortunately our World leaders, politicians, bureaucrats and scientists, to this day, promote Tyndall’s error, some out of ignorance, others out of fear of career consequences, lack of integrity, and some in order to gain control over the frightened, ignorant public.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Bevan,
The surface of the Earth only radiates .4% of its energy by radiation, the remainder by convection (collisions). If you use the PSI search function and look up Tom Shula he explains how the Pirani gauge shows conclusively that the loss of heat by radiation occurs in the upper atmosphere, not the surface.
The transfer of energy by radiation is a slow process where the rate of energy loss decreases as the difference in energy decreases. With convection there is instantaneous equalization, where the energy flows from an object with greater energy/unit mass flows to the object with less energy/unit mass, regardless of the kinetic energy of the two objects.
Water in the air is transporting energy from the surface to the top of the troposphere where it is released. It takes 600 calories to evaporate one gram of water (it is not a gas but micro droplets). Little of this energy results in a higher temperature (of the 720 calories needed to convert 0 C ice to 100 C steam only 100 calories shows up as temperature.) Every liter of rain that falls is the result of 600,000 calories of heat being removed from the surface and transported to space by the water cycle. The evaporation of water (sweat) cools the surface, it is not a “greenhouse gas” keeping the surface warmer. It is water that prevents the surface of the Earth from reaching the 230 F temperature that the surface of the moon reaches in sunlight.
The GHGT is pure fraud with gobble gook support, not real science.
Herb
Reply
Mic G
| #
Agree. Definitely bare earth and the built environment including solar and wind farms does raise surface temperature amplitude warming air near surfaces via conduction which is removed by convection. Solar and wind was always great for off grid, mobile and remote power applications however billion dollar mega development and on every roof is useless as solar solar surges when demand is low ie. duck curve and lines run full anyway duty of care. Go nuclear for industrial economies.
Reply
Mic G
| #
Agree. Solar and wind was always great for off grid, mobile and remote power applications however billion dollar mega development and on every roof is useless as solar solar surges when demand is low ie. duck curve and lines run full anyway duty of care. Go nuclear for industrial economies.
Reply
James
| #
“Greenhouse effect”is an effect, not a cause. The cause of the effect is that greenhouses have a roof, walls and a door (which must be kept shut) so avoid all convection. But convection is just what we have in free air, and it provides us with just what we need: rain.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Convection is a word that has no relevance to anything happening in earth’s atmosphere. Yet it is definitely true that moist air rises in earth’s atmosphere. It is also definitely true that the form of the moisture in moist air is liquid micro and nano-droplets–it’s not gaseous. Consequently (and in accordance with Avogadro’s law) moist air is ALWAYS heavier per volume than any drier air in its vicinity. So, the notion that air rises due to buoyancy is nonsense.
Moist air rises because the earth emits an electric field and the combination of water’s surface tension and this electric field causes nanodroplets of H2O to rise. As droplets rise they cool and start to combine into larger droplets. On a relative basis larger droplets have less surface tension. As they get larger and larger in the cooler temperatures with height eventually the ratio of surface tension to weight decreases and they begin to fall.
In storms, however, water and it’s surface tension play a much more pivotal role as wind shear causes nanodroplets to spin and this results in the emergence of a water based plasma in which water’s surface tension is amplified. This plasma serves as the structural basis of the vortices that transport energetic low pressure from jet streams to the locations that storms take place. Convection plays no role in storms.
Climate misinformation has deep roots in meteorology’s convection model of storms.
Meteorologists Are Not Physicists
https://spotifyanchor-web.app.link/e/PTSXh2a5TFb
It is also a myth that water provides energy to storms through latent heat of condensation. Respective of the physics of storms, meteorology is a bullshit paradigm
Reply
Mic Galvin
| #
Most heat transfer is from convection. How would there dry adiabatic and wet adiabatic lapse rates if no convection? Sensible heat flux for dry surfaces and latent heat flux for moist surfaces are cooling processes.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi again,
The Earth is not a black body in a vacuum so the Stefan-Boltzmann theory does not apply. Almost all energy transfer in the troposphere is done by convection not radiation. The loss by radiation does not exceed the loss by convection until well into the thermosphere. Use the Search function on PSI to look for Tom Shula. His interview shows how the Pirani gauge provides experimental evidence that the GHGT is utter nonsense.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Mic:
Most heat transfer is from convection.
JMcG:
Nonsense. You don’t know that. You are just parroting back what other’s have told you. Nobody can/will even define it (convection) concisely enough that it is potentially testable. It’s just a word dumb people use to pretend that they understand what they don’t.
Mic:
How would there dry adiabatic and wet adiabatic lapse rates if no convection?
JMcG:
Mic, I think you are just revealing your confusion with this question. Nobody has ever established a causal relationship between lapse rates and convection. You really aren’t making any sense at all here.
Mic:
Sensible heat flux for dry surfaces and latent heat flux for moist surfaces are cooling processes.
JMcG:
So what? Explain your point if you still think you have one.
James McGinn / Genius
CEO of Solving Tornadoes
https://www.solvingtornadoes.com/
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
They do test for convection when make thin film and chips. In order to precisely place their circuits they must work in an extreme vacuum to prevent air molecules from deflects the ions. They use a Pirani gauge to test how good a vacuum they have.
The gauge consist of a metal container contains a filament heated to above the surrounding temperature. By adding power they keep the filament at a constant temperature. The more gas molecule in the gauge the more power is needed to maintain the temperature as the molecules colliding with the filament will transfer heat to its body to be exchanged with the the air surrounding the gauge. Fewer molecules means less power needed to maintain the temperature of the filament. When the vacuum is total the only power needed would before the heat being lost by radiation. By comparing the vacuum in the gauge to the density of the atmosphere they can determine how much heat is being lost by collisions (convection) and how much by radiation. It turns out that the surface of the Earth 99.6% of the heat transfer is done by collisions.
Use the Search function to look up Tom Shula and watch his interview.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb: Hi James,
They do test for convection when make thin film and chips.
JMcG:
What? How is it not obvious that I was speaking of convection in earth’s atmosphere?
Herb:
By comparing the vacuum in the gauge to the density of the atmosphere they can determine how much heat is being lost by collisions (convection)
JMcG:
Heat loss by collision is conduction, not convection. Convection has erroneously (I assert) been attributed to the upward movement of moist air in storms. As I have indicated previously, the correct explanation of upward movement of air in storms involves vortice activity in the upper troposphere.
Herb:
look up Tom Shula and watch his interview.
JMcG:
I’m the one that told you about Tom Shula and Pirani gauges.
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
Sorry for the misunderstanding. With the reference to transfer of heat by convection I thought it was convection, conduction, or radiation as types of energy transfer not as weather.
Herb
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Mr. Galvin,
James McGinn is a crackpot from way back. He believes that moist air is heavier than dry air because he cannot fathom the molecular mass of the atoms making up, for instance, N2, O2 and H2O.
Further, he’s the guy who calls himself a “tornado researcher”, who’s only ever seen one small tornado in his youth, at a distance. And on tornadoes, he yet again gets everything wrong.
It’s pointless trying to shake him out of his delusion. Lord knows, I tried, back in the day… more than a decade later, and he’s still spouting the same unphysical babblefroth as he ever did.
Reply
james McGinn
| #
Kkook:
James McGinn is a crackpot from way back. He believes that moist air is heavier than dry air because he cannot fathom the molecular mass of the atoms making up, for instance, N2, O2 and H2O.
JMcG:
I can read an H2O phase diagram.
You got nothing, you vague nitwit.
James McGinn
http://www.solvingtornadoes.com
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Jimmy McGinn dribbled:
“I can read an H2O phase diagram.”
Wow, that ultra-complicated water phase diagram! Jimmy McGinn can read it! LOL
https://biomodel.uah.es/Jmol/plots/phase-diagrams/pvt_h2o.gif
Of course, reading it and understanding it are two entirely different matters. LOL
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
If the air is cooling with increase altitude why isn’t its volume decreasing and the air becoming denser, as the universal gas law dictates? In space there is no temperature but a satellite will have the side exposed to the sun at 250 F while the shade side is -250 F. The energy is there but there is no matter to create kinetic energy. This is also why the higher altitude (except the thermosphere) register low temperatures (cold). It is doe the lack of matter transferring energy to the thermometer, not the energy of the molecules. Divide the temperature at an altitude by the density to get the kinetic energy of a constant number of molecules rather than for a constant volume of molecules.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
Hi James,
If the air is cooling with increase altitude why isn’t its volume decreasing and the air becoming denser, as the universal gas law dictates?
JMcG:
What? It’s temperature decreases as pressure decreases with height, which causes it’s volume to increase, all of which is in compliance with the universal gas law. So I think you are confused here.
Herb: In space there is no temperature but a satellite will have the side exposed to the sun at 250 F while the shade side is -250 F. The energy is there but there is no matter to create kinetic energy.
JMcG:
Relevance?
Herb:
This is also why the higher altitude (except the thermosphere) register low temperatures (cold). It is doe the lack of matter transferring energy to the thermometer, not the energy of the molecules. Divide the temperature at an altitude by the density to get the kinetic energy of a constant number of molecules rather than for a constant volume of molecules.
JMcG:
Your point is that temperature does not correlate to, and is not necessarily even proportional to, temperature. I understood this point a long time ago, well before you first enunciated it 3 to 5 years ago (as I recall). And, as I stated many times before, I agree. However, your point is not relevant to what I was stating above.
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes Podcast:
https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/james-mcginn/episodes/Narrow-Range-of-Situational-Factors-Underlie-Emergence-of-Structural-Properties-in-the-Atmosphere-e2d4jr3
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
The pressure you speak of is the gravitational attraction by the Earth on the molecules. Since gravity is measured from the center of the Earth it does not change significantly in the atmosphere. The volume changes not because of an increase in the number of molecules (n) or the gas constant for the atmosphere (R) but because the kinetic energy of the molecules (t) increases. PV=nRt.
Weights only combine when masses are in contact, hence you are not crushed by things that are suspended over your head.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
The pressure you speak of is the gravitational attraction by the Earth on the molecules.
JMcG:
Gravity is instrumental (obviously) but not the same as pressure. Pressure is a result of the weight of the molecules above. Higher up there are less molecules above, so the pressure is less.
Since gravity is measured from the center of the Earth it does not change significantly in the atmosphere. The volume changes not because of an increase in the number of molecules (n) or the gas constant for the atmosphere (R) but because the kinetic energy of the molecules (t) increases. PV=nRt.
Weights only combine when masses are in contact, hence you are not crushed by things that are suspended over your head.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
Gravity is the container that holds the atmosphere to the Earth. At near 0 K the atmosphere would be a layer of liquid on the surface. It is energy that converts this liquid into an atmosphere and it is more energy that causes the atmosphere to expand against gravity. All the molecules in the atmosphere are a result of them bouncing off the Earth or other molecules bouncing off the Earth. The atmospheric pressure is not a result of an addition of the masses of molecules but downward momentum of those molecules. A high pressure area is a mass of warm still air while a low pressure area is a cold active air mass. Since the warm high pressure is less dense the weight of its molecules/liter is less than the weight of the molecules/liter of the low pressure are. The high pressure is a result of the verticle momentum of molecules while the low pressure is receiving less momentum due to the horizontal motion of air molecules. It is not the weight of those molecules. The atmosphere is created by energy and its expansion and contraction occurs in the thermosphere where the energy heating the atmosphere (UV) is absorbed and its energy is radiated (IR).
Herb
Herb Rose
| #
Hi again James,
1 atmospheric pressure (15 lb/in^2) is defined as the pressure at sea level which means its has a varying base line. Sea level varies with latitude and longitude. The inertia of water causes a higher sea level on the west coast of a body water than on the east coast. The diameter of Earth is 22 km greater at the equator than at the poles so sea level also decreases as you move towards the poles, as well as decreasing from less inertia of the water. On a mountain the atmospheric pressure will be less even though it is closer to the center of the Earth than the coast at the equator.
Herb
James Bernard McGinn
| #
Herb:
Gravity is the container that holds the atmosphere to the Earth. At near 0 K the atmosphere would be a layer of liquid on the surface. It is energy that converts this liquid into an atmosphere
JMcG:
Isn’t this all obvious?
Herb:
It is not the weight of those molecules.
JMcG:
Semantics. It’s the net effect of their weight/mass interacting with gravity.
Herb:
The atmosphere is created by energy
JMcG:
Again, isn’t this obvious.
Herb:
and its expansion and contraction occurs in the thermosphere where the energy heating the atmosphere (UV) is absorbed and its energy is radiated (IR).
JMcG;
Herb, it seems to me that you are rehashing concepts that have already been thoroughly established when the gas laws were formulated.
James McGinn
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
There is a difference between weight and momentum. Weight is mass directed towards the center of the Earth why momentum is is mass times velocity in any direction. If you place an object on a scale it will register a weight. If you drop an object on a scale it will show a larger weight. You can cross a bridge that will not hold the mass of your car by driving fast over it converting downward weight into horizontal momentum (not recommended). Why do you think that when a race car loses the downward force from their spoilers they become airborne?
The reading on a barometer is not the weight of the air molecules but their momentum.
Herb
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
There is a difference between weight and momentum.
JMcG:
Herb, everybody knows this. It doesn;’t seem like you have a point.
Herb:
Weight is mass directed towards the center of the Earth why momentum is is mass times velocity in any direction.
JMcG:
Didn’t everybody learn this in high school?
Herb:
If you place an object on a scale it will register a weight. If you drop an object on a scale it will show a larger weight. You can cross a bridge that will not hold the mass of your car by driving fast over it converting downward weight into horizontal momentum (not recommended). Why do you think that when a race car loses the downward force from their spoilers they become airborne?
The reading on a barometer is not the weight of the air molecules but their momentum.
JMcG:
Relevance?
James McGinn
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
The point is that the barometer is not measuring the inertia of the atmosphere but the energy in it. If you can’t understand the difference then you are just as far off track in your theories as Einstein was by claiming that gravity and acceleration are the same.
Herb
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Hi, Jimmy McGinn! Remember me? I’m the guy who drubbed you about the head and shoulders for months, proved you wrong on every single one of your contentions, and drove you from a forum after exposing you as a crackpot.
Your hobby hypothesis (that micro- or nano-droplets of water are electrically levitated via Earth’s atmospheric electric gradient) is easily testable by you. Show us a micro- or nano-droplet of water magically levitating in still air due to your claimed effect.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence… you’ve provided none for more than a decade.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi LOL,
Brownian Motion is evidence that the air is not still. And how can we directly observe nano or even micro except as giggling particles being moved by the air molecules?
Have a good day
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Brownian motion is, by necessity, equal in all three vectors and thus there is no net vector… IOW, you’re being pedantic while attempting to conflate mass air movement with Brownian motion.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi LOL,
And many a Nobel Prize Winner has agreed with Richard Feynman that all accepted scientific knowledge is to some degree uncertain and if you don’t believe a proposed theory the burden is upon you to prove it is absolute;u wrong with the evidence. Which has been done by Galileo long ago.
Have a good day
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
As I told the crackpot Jimmy McGinn years ago, I have a “proposed theory” (known in scientific circles as a hypothesis… you should learn the actual definitions of these terms before you throw them around) that pink unicorns farting rainbow-colored glitter is what causes CAGW. We don’t see the glitter because… magic.
It is now incumbent upon YOU to prove the hypothesis wrong, and failing that, to accept it en toto as gospel truth. LOL
Reply
James McGinn
| #
So, just to be clear, you don’t dispute that H2O nano and micro droplets do levitate. Right? You only dispute the involvement of earth’s electric field. Right? You do not dispute the assertion that earth produces an electric field. Right?
Explain what force you envision that causes H2O microdroplets (which can only be many times more dense and massive per volume than the surrounding air molecules–even you are not so dense as not to realize this) to levitate? Fairy dust?
You got nothing!!!
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
James McGinn,
Black ice forms on paved rides when super-cooled liquid water falls on these roads.and immediately becomes solid ice. Ice storms bring down poser line and trees the same way. The super-cooled liquid water is NOT on the line between the liuquid phase of water and the solid phase of water in the phase diagram of water. The line between the gas phase and the solid phase is the vapor pressure of ice when the two phases are at equilibrium with each other on the line between each phase and the triple point is when all three phases are at equilibrium with each other.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
When the rain falls on you it does not become black ice and is not much colder than normal rain. It is the temperature of the surface that causes black ice, not the rain. Super cooled water cannot occur in the atmosphere where there is agitation and seed particles..
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
Black ice forms on paved rides when super-cooled liquid water falls on these roads.and immediately becomes solid ice. Ice storms bring down poser line and trees the same way. The super-cooled liquid water is NOT on the line between the liuquid phase of water and the solid phase of water in the phase diagram of water.
JMcG:
Obviously.
What is your point?
Jerry:
The line between the gas phase and the solid phase is the vapor pressure of ice
JMcG:
Apples and oranges. You aren’t making sense here Jerry.
when the two phases are at equilibrium with each other on the line between each phase and the triple point is when all three phases are at equilibrium with each other.
JMcG:
So what? Seriously, what is your point/
James McGinn / Genius
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
They do not ‘levitate’ at all, it is the convection caused by the heat energy being used to evaporate the water which causes air movement which carries the water microdroplets along with the air.
Cold fog generated via, for instance, a piezoelectric element, demonstrates this fact rather easily… the fog rolling off does not rise unless the surrounding air is already rising.
https://fogging.co.id/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/cold-fogging.jpg
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi LOL,
0 C ice will lose water through sublimation even though it has not gained the 720 calories needed to convert to a gas. Even when protected from air movement there is a loss of water into the air.
Herb
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Herb Rose wrote:
“0 C ice will lose water through sublimation even though it has not gained the 720 calories needed to convert to a gas. Even when protected from air movement there is a loss of water into the air.”
That’s because of the Maxwell-Boltzmann Speed Distribution function, wherein air atoms and molecules have a distribution of speeds… once in awhile, a faster atom or molecule smacks the ice, imparting enough energy to it to evaporate. This can also occur if a particularly energetic photon strikes the ice and its energy is absorbed.
https://image3.slideserve.com/5773416/slide10-n.jpg
This takes place even in still air.
I’m not sure where you got 720 calories for a single molecule of water to undergo phase change from solid to gas. It requires 680 calories PER GRAM to sublimate water. There are ~3.34e22 molecules in a gram of water, so each molecule would require ~2.0359281e-20 calories to sublimate.
James McGinn
| #
Kkook:
They do not ‘levitate’ at all, it is the convection caused by the heat energy being used to evaporate the water which causes air movement which carries the water microdroplets along with the air.
JMcG:
Obviously you lack self-awareness of how perfectly inane is your explanation. If we heat rocks why do they not rise?
Answer the question, you evasive twit.
You got nothing!!!
James McGinn / Genius
Cold fog generated via, for instance, a piezoelectric element, demonstrates this fact rather easily… the fog rolling off does not rise unless the surrounding air is already rising.
https://fogging.co.id/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/cold-fogging.jpg
Herb Rose
| #
Hi LOL,
The 720 calories the figure is per gram. It takes 80 calories/gram to convert 0 C Ice to 0 C water, 100 calories/gram to raise the temperature to 100 C, and 540 calories/gram to convert 100 C water to 100 C steam.
The trouble with your distribution curve is there must be a molecule below the temperature to balance any molecule with greater temperature If the boiling point is 373 K and to vaporize a molecule you need an energy equivalent to 913 K you must then have a molecule at minus 167 K and there is no negative energy.
Herb
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Jim Jim McGinn dribbled:
“If we heat rocks why do they not rise?”
“Duurrrhhh! If we heat rocks, they don’t rise, so air doesn’t either! Duurrrrhhh!” LOL
Actually, heated rock does “rise”, when intermingled with other, not as heated rock… volcanoes being a perfect example. Because it’s all about buoyancy, you goober. LOL
Poor little Jimmy McGinn… desperately grasping at increasingly ridiculous straws to justify his utter inability to grasp reality. LOL
James McGinn
| #
Kkook:
it’s all about buoyancy,
JMcG:
It’s “all about buoyancy,” to you and to all the rest of the lowest common denominator of dimwitted science believers.
To get to the truth in science precision is utmost. Vague, convoluted nitwits — like yourself — can never comprehend this.
Are you unable to read an H2O phase diagram?
Since it is impossible for H2O to ever become gaseous in earth’s atmosphere moist air is ALWAYS HEAVIER THAN ANY DRIER AIR IT ITS VICINITY. Therefore buoyance FAILS to explain the rise of moist air that is commonly witnessed in earth’s atmosphere.
Fools change facts to fit what they believe.
You are a convoluted moron.
James McGinn / Genius
http://www.solvingtornadoes.com
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
You deny everything that science knows about thermodynamics, Avogodro’s Law and water vapor. But that’s not surprising… you’ve manufactured fantasy fizics to explain many things.
The hydrogen bonding that makes water molecules aggregate has a typical enthalpy of ~3.487132e-20 J bond-1 for the water dimer, with each additional bond reducing the hydrogen bond strength (remember that it’s an electrostatic bond), and with a typical bond rate of 3.59 in bulk water. So we must decrease the dimer hydrogen bond strength 3.487132e-20 / 3.59 = 9.7134596e-21 J bond-1.
The average translational (kinetic) energy per atom or molecule in a mole of air at 288 K is:
3/2 * 1.380649e−23 J K-1 * 288 K * 6.02214076e23 mol-1 = 5.9644037e-21 J molecule-1.
“But that would mean the average kinetic energy isn’t enough to break the hydrogen bonding of the water micro- or nano-droplets!”, you may drool… but you’ve forgotten about the Maxwell-Boltzmann Speed Distribution Function because you’ve denied so much of reality that you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about.
The kinetic energy to break those hydrogen bonds must be at least 9.7134596e-21 J molecule-1, right?
If you do the calculations upon the Maxwell-Boltzmann Speed Distribution function for the Boltzmann Factor, that means 61.64% of air molecules have sufficient kinetic energy to disrupt those hydrogen bonds.
BOOM! You just got every single bit of your deluded blather blown out of the water yet again. LOL
James McGinn
| #
Kkook:
You deny everything that science knows about thermodynamics, Avogodro’s Law and water vapor. But that’s not surprising… you’ve manufactured fantasy fizics to explain many things.
JMcG:
You got nothing, you convoluted moron.
Kkook:
The hydrogen bonding that makes water molecules aggregate has a typical enthalpy of ~3.487132e-20 J bond-1 for the water dimer, with each additional bond reducing the hydrogen bond strength (remember that it’s an electrostatic bond), and with a typical bond rate of 3.59 in bulk water. So we must decrease the dimer hydrogen bond strength 3.487132e-20 / 3.59 = 9.7134596e-21 J bond-1.
JMcG:
Any idiot can cut and paste.
Kkook:
The average translational (kinetic) energy per atom or molecule in a mole of air at 288 K is:
3/2 * 1.380649e−23 J K-1 * 288 K * 6.02214076e23 mol-1 = 5.9644037e-21 J molecule-1.
JMcG:
Do you have a point?
Kkook:
“But that would mean the average kinetic energy isn’t enough to break the hydrogen bonding of the water micro- or nano-droplets!”,
Kkook:
Relevance?
Kkook:
you may drool… but you’ve forgotten about the Maxwell-Boltzmann Speed Distribution Function because you’ve denied so much of reality that you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about.
JMcG:
Tell us what your frickin point is, you convoluted moron.
Kkook
The kinetic energy to break those hydrogen bonds must be at least 9.7134596e-21 J molecule-1, right?
JMcG:
I can’t help you. I don’t think anybody can. What the fuck is your point?
Kkook:
If you do the calculations upon the Maxwell-Boltzmann Speed Distribution function for the Boltzmann Factor, that means 61.64% of air molecules have sufficient kinetic energy to disrupt those hydrogen bonds.
JMcG:
Relevance?
Kkook:
BOOM! You just got every single bit of your deluded blather blown out of the water yet again. LOL
JMcG:
Convoluted moron. You have just confused yourself into believing you understand what you don’t.
Here is a question for you. Do you dispute that the magnitude of H2O polarity is variable and the mechanism of this variation is hydrogen bonds.
Each shared hydrogen bond lowers the polarity in both molecules by 25%. And, since all H2O molecules can and will readily form hydrogen bonds (at ambient temperatures) this explains the low viscosity of liquid water. Do you agree?
Answer my question you evasive jackass.
James McGinn / Genius
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Jimbo “The Dunce” McGinn dribbled:
“Each shared hydrogen bond lowers the polarity in both molecules by 25%. ”
Well, at least you’re sane enough to recognize that additional bonds will reduce bond strength… but where you get your “25%” number is beyond me… that’s not how electrostatic bonds work.
The relevance of my prior post is that it disproves all of your idiotic blather… you’re too dense to even grok that, though.
Your “water forms nano- or micro-droplets” blather only works when atmospheric temperature is low enough that the atoms and molecules constituting the atmosphere do not carry sufficient kinetic energy to disrupt those hydrogen bonds. Which means your blather is wrong for the majority of the atmosphere.
I’ll leave it as an exercise for you, you dunce, to calculate the exact temperature at which a sufficient population of molecular species no longer carry sufficient kinetic energy to disrupt those hydrogen bonds, and hence form your “nano- and micro-droplets”.
I’m betting you don’t have the mathematical chops to do so.
James McGinn
| #
Kkook:
“Each shared hydrogen bond lowers the polarity in both molecules by 25%. ”
Well, at least you’re sane enough to recognize that additional bonds will reduce bond strength…
JMcG:
Right. That’s because I am the scientists that made this discovery.
Kkook:
but where you get your “25%” number is beyond me…
JMcG:
Right. Because you are not a scientists. You are just a science groupy. You don’t really understand any of this. I’m not running a hand holding service. If you are too dimwitted to comprehend the logic of why/how H2O is polar in the first place then you will never understand how H bonds reverse polarity at 25% increments per bonds.
By the way it really isn’t simply 25% but UP TOO 25%. This is because hydrogen bonds are rarely complete when water is in the liquid phase, this (obviously) being an implication of low polarity that is associated with comprehensive H bonding (as we find in liquid water).
By the way, I happen to be the number one expert in the world on this topic!
Kkook:
that’s not how electrostatic bonds work.
JMcG:
You got nothing, you convoluted nitwit.
Kkook:
The relevance of my prior post is that it disproves all of your idiotic blather… you’re too dense to even grok that, though.
JMcG:
LOL. You got nothing!!!
Kkook:
Your “water forms nano- or micro-droplets” blather only works when atmospheric temperature is low enough
JMcG:
The temperature of the atmosphere is NEVER hot enough to cause water to boil!!!
Kkook:
that the atoms and molecules constituting the atmosphere do not carry sufficient kinetic energy to disrupt those hydrogen bonds. Which means your blather is wrong for the majority of the atmosphere.
JMcG:
Convoluted moron. We can’t measure energy directly you fucking moron. So you can make any stupid claim you want any nobody will ever dispute you or any of the millions of convoluted morons who pretend understand what actually doesn’t make any sense.
We use temperature as a highly accurate proxy of energy. H2O phase table does not lie.
There is no gaseous H2O in earth’s atmosphere you convoluted moron.
Kkook:
I’ll leave it as an exercise for you,
JMcG:
Obviously you are just confused.
Kkook:
you dunce, to calculate the exact temperature at which a sufficient population of molecular species no longer carry sufficient kinetic energy to disrupt those hydrogen bonds, and hence form your “nano- and micro-droplets”.
JMcG:
H2O phase diagram is your friend, you confused nitwit.
H2O phase diagram
Kkook:
I’m betting you don’t have the mathematical chops to do so.
JMcG:
You got nothing!!!
James McGinn / Genius
https://spotifyanchor-web.app.link/e/NrcwX1GP0Fb
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Jimbo “The Dunce” McGinn dribbled:
“The temperature of the atmosphere is NEVER hot enough to cause water to boil!!!”
It doesn’t have to be, you dunce… the kinetic energy of the atmospheric atoms and molecules merely need be high enough that a high enough proportion of the atmospheric constituents can disrupt those hydrogen bonds.
Go on, do the calculations… you’ll discover there’s a gradient for temperature vs. the proportion of atmospheric atoms or molecules with sufficient kinetic energy to disrupt the hydrogen bonds. As I said, I’ll leave it as an exercise for you to perform the mathematics to determine at what temperature the proportion of atmospheric constituents is no longer high enough such that nano- and micro-droplets can persist… but I’m betting you don’t have the mathematical chops to pull that off, and even if you did, you’d never admit that you’ve dedicated your wasted life to inventing fantasy fysics for more than a decade. LOL
James McGinn
| #
Kkook:
“The temperature of the atmosphere is NEVER hot enough to cause water to boil!!!”
It doesn’t have to be, you dunce… the kinetic energy of the atmospheric atoms and molecules merely need be high enough
JMcG:
WE CAN’T TEST WHAT WE CAN’T MEASURE AND WE CAN’T MEASURE KINETIC ENERGY DIRECTLY, YOU FUCKING MENTAL RETARD. We use temperature as a (highly accurate) proxy for kinetic energy.
Kkook:
Go on, do the calculations…
JMcG:
The H2O phase diagram doesn’t lie.
You got nothing!!!
James McGinn / Genius
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Jimbo “The Dunce” McGinn dribbled:
“WE CAN’T TEST WHAT WE CAN’T MEASURE AND WE CAN’T MEASURE KINETIC ENERGY DIRECTLY, YOU FUCKING MENTAL RETARD.”
Your all-CAPS screeding is noted, as is your being so perturbed that you now expose that you haven’t the first faint clue what the relationship between absolute temperature, pressure and kinetic energy is. You’re now denying the Kinetic Molecular Theory (an empirically-derived theory, not experimentally-derived), so there’s no way you could grok the more-complex equipartition of Total Energy across all available degrees of freedom of a molecule, whether that be rotational mode quantum states, vibrational mode quantum states or electronic mode quantum states (do you even know the proper terminology for that phenomenon? LOL)… which just so happens to very precisely tells us what the kinetic energy would be for any given pressure and temperature.
So essentially, you’ve just blathered, “DUURRHHH! We can’t directly measure pressure, volume, density and temperature! {drool}” LOL
Your “You’ve got nothing!” mantra is mere psychological projection, you dunce. LOL
In statistical mechanics the following molecular equation is derived from first principles: P = n k_B T for a given volume.
Therefore T = (P / (n k_B)) for a given volume.
Where: k_B = Boltzmann Constant (1.380649e−23 J·K−1); T = absolute temperature (K); P = absolute pressure (Pa); n = number of particles
If n = 1, then T = P / k_B in units of K / m³ for a given volume.
Now, knowing that you’re a pedant, you’ll likely bleat something like “Temperature does not have units of K / m³ !!!“… note the ‘for a given volume‘ blurb, Dunce. We will cancel volume in a bit. LOL
We can relate velocity to kinetic energy via the equation:
v = √(v_x² + v_y² + v_z²) = √((DOF k_B T) / m) = √(2 KE / m)
As velocity increases, kinetic energy increases.
Kinetic theory gives the static pressure P for an ideal gas as:
P = ((1 / 3) (n / V)) m v² = (n k_B T) / V
Combining the above with the ideal gas law gives:
(1 / 3)(m v²) = k_B T
∴ T = mv² / 3 k_B for 3 DOF
∴ T = 2 KE / k_B for 1 DOF
∴ T = 2 KE / DOF k_B
See what I did there, Dunce? I equated kinetic energy to pressure over that volume, thus canceling that volume, then solved for T.
You’re just a mathematically-innumerate and scientifically-illiterate kook. LOL
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks wrote:
“Combining the above with the ideal gas law gives:
(1 / 3)(m v²) = k_B T
∴ T = mv² / 3 k_B for 3 DOF
∴ T = 2 KE / k_B for 1 DOF
∴ T = 2 KE / DOF k_B”
Now, Jimbo “The Dunce” McGinn… can you tell everyone what scientific principle the above equations describe? It starts with a ‘B’ and ends with an ‘i’… but I’m betting you’re not bright enough to figure it out. LOL
Herb Rose
| #
Hi LOL,
Water magically levitates in the atmosphere because it is liquid crystals formed when IR energy splits water molecules into hydroxyl and hydrogen ions. (See Dr. Gerald Pollack’s experiments.) The hydroxyl ions with their negative charge combine with water molecules to form a shell around the hydronium ion. As the liquid crystal absorbs more energy its shell grows thicker increasing its negative charge causing it to rise in the atmosphere. Why do the water droplets that condense after steam comes out of a tea kettle disappear while cooling? They are not gaining the 540 calories/gram necessary to convert back into a gas but forming liquid crystals.
The Earth’s surface has a negative, charge except under thunderstorms where it has a positive charge. That positive charge is the result of a negative charge in the clouds repelling electrons on the ground (positive charges in the nucleus do not move) but what in the clouds is produce that negative charge? The gasses and water molecules do not ionize and produce electrons and even if they could the result would also produce a positive ion resulting in no net negative charge. What is happening is that the liquid crystal reaches its second melt point and as its shell melts (from the outer surface) the freed electrons are adhering to the surface because of the positive charges in the interior. When the shell is finally breached the charges neutralize, releasing the stored energy and causing the electrons on the ground rush back under the clouds and create lightning bolts between the ground and the clouds.
James does not believe that water molecules split into hydroxyl and hydrogen ions but I do believe in pH and that those ions do combine with other water molecules.
Herb
Reply
james McGinn
| #
Herb:
Water magically levitates in the atmosphere because it is liquid crystals formed when IR energy splits water molecules into hydroxyl and hydrogen ions.
JMcG:
Silly nonsense.
Herb:
(See Dr. Gerald Pollack’s experiments.)
JMcG:
Pollack is a quack.
I explain in this podcast:
https://spotifyanchor-web.app.link/e/IATkoYyVWFb
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
What you state makes no sense. Yes, microdroplets of angstom size have an electric field anisotropy, with a slightly negative outer surface and slightly positive interior, due to dangling O-H bonds, but overall it is electrically neutral… any reaction with an external electric field would destroy that electric field anisotropy and thus destroy the microdroplet, causing it to evaporate into individual H2O molecules.
https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41467-021-27941-x/MediaObjects/41467_2021_27941_Fig4_HTML.png
But your hypothesis certainly has more evidence for it than the twaddle that Jimmy McGinn proffers. Yours is closer to a working hypothesis, whereas Jimmy McGinn’s, not even breaching the low hurdle of plain old hypothesis (let alone a working hypothesis), is merely the machination of a badly malfunctioning brain attempting to reconcile its inability to process reality. LOL
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi LOL,
If you look at Dr. Pollacks experiments or get his book “The Fourth Phase of Water”you will find evidence. Water in a glass container will exclude and expel contaminants (including salt ions) from the water in contact with that surface. There will be an electrical potential between that water and the water in the interior. His experiments provide explanations for the many anomalies of water.
Herb
Herb Roser
| #
Hi again,
If water in the atmosphere were a single molecule gas with a molecular weight of 18 it would permeate the entire atmosphere and concentrate in the top layer with hydrogen, helium, and neon. Instead it, like argon, remains almost exclusively (99 + %) in the troposphere.
Herb
James McGinn
| #
Kkook:
What you state makes no sense.
JMcG:
Herb is just confused.
Kkook:
Yes, microdroplets of angstom size have an electric field
JMcG:
As I indicated.
Kkook:
anisotropy,
JMcG:
It’s just surface tension, moron. We don’t need a special word for it, you gullible simpleton.
Kkook:
with a slightly negative outer surface and slightly positive interior, due to dangling O-H bonds,
JMcG:
This is called surface tension, you pedantic fool. My model explains it. It isn’t either positive or negative because the molecule flip depending on the charge of the electric field.
Kkook:
but overall it is electrically neutral… any reaction with an external electric field would destroy that electric field anisotropy
JMcG:
Nope. You are just confused. Provide a direct quote you evasive twit.
Kkook:
thus destroy the microdroplet, causing it to evaporate into individual H2O molecules.
JMcG:
This assertion is not evidence of anything but your incompetence. It’s brain-dead easy to demonstrate a stream of water reacting to static electricity.
You failed to quote anything from your reference that supports your silly assertion.
You got nothing!!!
James McGinn / Genius
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers and Commenters,
I suggest you take a look at Surfed data (https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/dataplot.htm)
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers and Commenters,
I suggest you take a look at Surfed data (https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/dataplot.htm)
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
the previous link does not work. Try this one (https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html)
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Folks,
You are doing a GREAT JOB! However, you have not yet considered the SURFRAD (Surface radiation) DATA Yes I make many mistakes but you are doing fine.
Have another good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Folks,
While I make many mistakes, the designers of the Gobal Monitoring Laboratories only made one. If you go to the beginning of the Fort Peck, Mt data, you will find they designed instruments to measure five different traditions. but when they calculated the frist 24 hours data they did not find a radiation balance. So they pondered a bit and designed a sixth which did produce an 24hr experimental radiation balance.
And to these designers credit, they , as you can see, did not try to hide their mistake.
Have a good day.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Fellows,
I began to compose a comment about the Surfrad Data when I questioned if I had ever written about it here at PSI. And I found that I had. (https://principia-scientific.com/diffuse-solar-radiation-a-history/). However this article has five comments and my hard copy had only one; and it isn’t one of these five.comments you can read now.
What I didn’t do back then was to provide a reader with a link (https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html) to the data of this project. And this link does work.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hello LOL,
No reply to my rebuttal to your Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution curve? Don’t you think at 0 C a deviation from the norm of over 1000 calories is not believable?
With the energy being absorbed and converted to electrical potential as a crystal you have a capacitor storing energy and do not need to provide the one time amount of energy needed to convert the ice to a gas at. As IR energy is absorbed the crystal grows and when its negative exterior charge becomes great enough, it separates from the 0 C ice and levitates.
The calorie is a lousy measure of energy because in water so much of the energy becomes internal energy instead of radiated energy. The fact that the energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water 1 C changes with the initial temperature shows that the structure the water changes with temperature. Liquid crystals are being formed in the water until the temperature becomes 100 C. At that point added energy begins to melt the crystals releasing stored energy. It is like the activation temperature for an exothermic reaction. When the 540 calories/gram have been added and stored energy is released you then have enough energy to convert the water into a gas. An explanation for why boiled water can freeze faster than room temperature water is that by boiling the water you have released stored energy and that energy, being greater than the energy shown as temperature, when the water cools there is less of that energy being released and less energy is needed to form solid crystals.
Isn’t that explanation for sublimation more reasonable than molecules with negative energy?
Herb
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
You have so many fundamental misconceptions that addressing all of them would be a waste of time (and proving you wrong on each of them wouldn’t shake you out of your delusion, you’d only double-down and burrow through ever-more ridiculous avenues to justify your beliefs). I suggest you wipe your brain clean of all this EZ-water nonsense and embrace empirically-discovered and long-corroborated science.
I’d suggest you learn about quantum mechanics (and especially vibrational mode quantum states ‘freezing out’). But we all know you won’t.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi LOL,
You, having studied physics for a long time, are willing to believe anything tells you, even when it is contradicted by evidence or just plain ridiculous. Einstein dictates that the speed of light is constant so when time expands due increased velocity or a stronger gravitational field, distance must also increase. So when you get closer to a center of gravity and the gravitational field gets stronger time expands and the distance to the center of gravity increases.
I’d suggest that you learn to think and question what you so firmly believe to be true. But we all know you won’t.
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
The only Einstein-related theory which postulates that the speed of light in vacuum is invariant is Special Relativity. This was later found to be not true, as any parcel of space-time with any gravitational potential whatsoever affects c. Einstein reiterated this fact many times:
1913: “I arrived at the result that the velocity of light is not to be regarded as independent of the gravitational potential. Thus the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is incompatible with the equivalence hypothesis.”
The Equivalence Principle states that there is no functional difference between actual translational acceleration and gravitational acceleration. The reader will observe that Herb Rose denies the Equivalence Principle, one of the most-tested and most-verified scientific hypotheses.
1916: “In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity.”
1920: “Second, this consequence shows that the law of the constancy of the speed of light no longer holds, according to the general theory of relativity, in spaces that have gravitational fields. As a simple geometric consideration shows, the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable.”
Had you studied the history of scientific progression, you’d know these sort of things. It appears that you’ve cherry-picked which bits of science you’ll accede to, in order to fit your odd hobby theory.
Reply
Moofsonian Institute.
| #
But, but, but… Well that sat me down on my buttocks. I think I will change my name.
Hey Mr Kooks. About three years ago, roughly, you had a comment showing the vibrational frequency extrapolations of CO2.
I wanted to print them off but did not find them again.
If they are at your fingertips could you print them off again please, in the left hand column.
Also, if you had the same for methane that would be far out and starry. Them bovines look to me like innocent victims.
My name is merely the satire of an ignoramus.
Best wishes.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi LOL,
The Equivalence Principal was postulated by Einstein using the assertion that there was no experiment that could be performed in a closed container that could distinguish between acceleration and a gravitational field.
If you were to take laser and reflect it between two walls of he container the light would remain at the same level in a gravitational field but move lower in the accelerating container.
It is because of your unwavering faith in Einstein’s infallibility that you have been able to do experiments that prove that something (acceleration) which is a function of a variable (distance) is equal to something (gravity) that is an inverse function of the same variable.
Herb Rose
| #
Also LOL,
The second law of thermodynamics is wrong. When two objects collide the object with the greater velocity will transfer energy to the object with less energy regardless of mass (Law of Conservation of Momentum). A “cold” object can make a “hot” object hotter.
Since Planck created the quantum theory to resolve the discrepancy between black body (do not exist in reality) and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (which is wrong) it is not surprising that it is nonsense.
Since the energy (v^2) of light decreases with distance from the source its velocity must also decrease, except where there is a blue shift where, according to Planck’s Law, the energy increases with distance.
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Herb Rose wrote:
“The Equivalence Principal was postulated by Einstein using the assertion that there was no experiment that could be performed in a closed container that could distinguish between acceleration and a gravitational field.
If you were to take laser and reflect it between two walls of he container the light would remain at the same level in a gravitational field but move lower in the accelerating container.”
Yes, folks, denial of scientific reality is rampant. In point of fact, gravitational acceleration warps the geodesics of space-time and thus causes light deflection just as Herb Rose’s accelerating container would.
This is exactly why (and how) gravitational lensing occurs.
http://complex.gmu.edu/www-phys/phys262/soln/The%20equivalence%20principle%20and%20the%20deflection%20of%20light.pdf
https://useruploads.socratic.org/cCI9KfxT9CFVnr24OYgy_sdp81_2_E.jpg
As I said, Herb, it appears you’ve cherry-picked which bits of scientific reality you’ll accede to, in order to bolster your odd hobby theory.
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Herb Rose wrote:
“The second law of thermodynamics is wrong. When two objects collide the object with the greater velocity will transfer energy to the object with less energy regardless of mass (Law of Conservation of Momentum). A “cold” object can make a “hot” object hotter.”
Given that temperature is a measure of kinetic energy of the atmospheric atoms and molecules, and given that kinetic energy is one half the product of mass and the square of velocity, I’d like for you to calculate exactly how a faster but lighter molecule will have more energy than a slower but heavier molecule in an atmosphere in which the energy is “smeared out” over all the molecules.
You’ve taken an edge case (in which a lighter molecule is imparted greater than average energy) and attempted to conflate it with what happens in the atmosphere, as means of bolstering your odd hobby theory. In the process, you’ve denied 2LoT, one of the most-verified of the fundamental physical laws.
You’re no longer arguing against me, you’re now arguing against reality. LOL
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Herb Rose wrote:
“Since Planck created the quantum theory to resolve the discrepancy between black body (do not exist in reality) and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (which is wrong) it is not surprising that it is nonsense.”
Boltzmann was the first to suggest quantization in 1877, based upon empirical observation of light emission and absorption spectra from elements.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/49/18/9a/49189ac258abb486b567ddf570c71df0.jpg
20 years later, Planck put forth the quantum theory… again based upon empirical observation of emission and absorption spectra from elements.
You’re entitled to your own opinions, but when you start making up your own “facts”, you take a step too far.
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Moofsonian Institute wrote:
“Hey Mr Kooks. About three years ago, roughly, you had a comment showing the vibrational frequency extrapolations of CO2.”
Did you mean this:
The CO2 molecule (a triatomic covalently-bonded linearly symmetric molecule with an axis of symmetry along the nuclei and a plane of symmetry perpendicular to this axis) has two rotational mode quantum states, three vibrational modes (one with two degenerate states) and four fundamental vibrational mode quantum states at 3 radiation wavelength bands centered on:
4.25677 µm ({v3}; 2349.2 cm-1 wavenumber) {v20(0)} -> {v3(1)}
Wien Displacement Law equivalent temperature: 680.7 K, 407.6 C, 765.7 F
Asymmetric stretch mode; this mode is very IR-active, but the dipole moment oscillates parallel to the molecule’s symmetric axis, and therefore ΔJ = 0 Q-branch transition is forbidden (photon angular momentum is transferred to electronic mode degrees of freedom instead of rotational mode degrees of freedom, and since the resonant radiation for the vibro-rotational fine structure of the electronic mode doesn’t have sufficient energy to excite the electronic mode, it cannot be absorbed), making this very narrow-band. The radiance at this narrow frequency band is also minimal, falling at the minima between the Planck curves of solar (incoming) and terrestrial (outgoing) radiation. As discussed below, however, the CO2{v3(1)} vibrational mode quantum state is the main route for v-v (vibrational-to-vibrational) transfer of energy from vibrationally-excited N2{v1(1)} to CO2{v3(1)}.
7.20357 µm ({v1}; 1388.2 cm–1 wavenumber) {v20(0)} -> {v1(1)}
Wien Displacement Law equivalent temperature: 402.3 K, 129.12 C, 264.4 F
Symmetric stretch mode; this mode is IR-inactive and Raman-active, it cannot absorb IR radiation since the molecule has no change in net magnetic dipole moment unless the molecule is perturbed via collision at the same time that it absorbs a resonant photon. It does, however, Raman-scatter.
14.98352 µm ({v2}; 667.4 cm-1 wavenumber) {v20(0)} -> {v21(1)}; {v21(1)} -> {v22(2)}; {v22(2)} -> {v23(3)}
Wien Displacement Law equivalent temperature: 193.4 K, -79.75 C, -111.55 F
2 degenerate bending modes with 3 practically-degenerate vibrational states.
There is a narrow absorption band centered on ~2.7 µm, but it is swamped by the {v3} (asymmetric stretch) fundamental of H2O centered at 3755 cm-1, the {v1} (symmetric stretch) fundamental of H2O centered at 3652 cm-1 and the {v2 + v3} band of H2O centered at ~5000 cm-1, and thus has little radiance available to it except in extremely low humidity locales:
– 2.76785 µm ({v20(0) -> v22(2) + v3(1)}; 3612.91 cm-1 wavenumber)
– 2.69209 µm ({v20(0) -> v1(1) + v3(1)}; 3714.59 cm-1 wavenumber)
…the only one of those vibrational modes which has any appreciable radiance available to it, and which is IR-active is 14.98352 µm, and hence this wavelength band is the largest contributor to CO2 vibrational mode quantum state energy from IR absorption.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190702035254/https://i.imgur.com/gXgJQ0C.png
Note that the lowest excited vibrational mode quantum state of N2 has a (very) slightly lower energy level (2.9 cm-1) than the highest vibrational mode quantum state of CO2 (when accounting for N2 anharmonicity, centrifugal distortion and vibro-rotational interaction… without accounting for those, the energy differential is 18 cm-1). This energy differential is more than made up by translational kinetic energy during collision, as discussed below. Were this not so, CO2 lasers could not work. (reference linked below)
The Interaction of O3, N2 and CO2:
https://web.archive.org/web/20190702035313if_/https://i.imgur.com/0fpVtzQ.png
Satellites see CO2 and (a bit of) water vapor radiating at the temperature of the lower stratosphere (at the ‘characteristic-emission surface’ altitude, or just less than one optical depth from TOA for any given wavelength) all over the planet. This is because ozone (O3, excited by incoming solar radiation) and collisional processes excite nitrogen (N2) to its {v1(1)} (symmetric stretch) vibrational mode, and N2 then transfers energy to the {v3(1)} (asymmetric stretch) mode of CO2 via collision as shown in the image, whereupon the vibrationally excited CO2 partially de-excites by dropping from the {v3(1)} (asymmetric stretch) mode to either the {v1(1)} (symmetric stretch) mode by emitting a 10.4 µm photon, or to the {v20(2)} (bending) mode by emitting a 9.4 µm photon.
This is the same method by which a CO2 laser works… the laser filling gas within the discharge tube consists of around 10–20% carbon dioxide (CO2), around 10–20% nitrogen (N2), and a few percent hydrogen (H2) and/or xenon (Xe), and the remainder helium (He). Electron impact vibrationally excites the N2 to its first vibrational mode quantum state {v1(1)}, the N2 collides with CO2, the CO2 becomes excited in the asymmetric stretch vibrational mode quantum state {v3(1)}, and de-excites to its {v1(1)} or {v20(2)} vibrational modes by emission of 9.4 µm or 10.4 µm radiation (wavelength dependent upon isotopic composition of the CO2 molecules) as described above. The helium is used to fully de-excite the CO2 to the {v20(0)} ground state after it’s radiatively de-excited to maintain population inversion (which is necessary for stimulated emission), but this is unimportant to the process of energy transfer from vibrationally excited N2 to CO2 in the atmosphere (since most CO2 is already in the {v20(0)} vibrational mode quantum state in the atmosphere). The process by which the N2 becomes vibrationally excited (in the case of a CO2 laser via electron impact; in the atmosphere via translational-to-vibrational collisional processes and via vibrational-to-vibrational collisional processes with solar-excited O3) is similarly unimportant… the concept of energy flowing from N2 to CO2 is the same. Laser wavelength can be tuned by altering the isotopic ratio of the carbon and oxygen atoms comprising the CO2 molecules in the discharge tube, with heavier isotopes resulting in longer wavelength emission.
Radiation transmitted by the atmosphere
https://web.archive.org/web/20190403055127if_/https://i.imgur.com//bKdUHrB.png
Adapted from image at: https://web.archive.org/web/20190613014104/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png
You’ll note the immediately-above two paragraphs describe the energy flow from vibrationally-excited N2 to CO2, which then emits at either 9.4 µm or 10.4 µm, both of which are in the Atmospheric Infrared Window. Thus this radiation has a nearly unfettered path out to space.
The radiative cooling of air via solely translational mode energy converting to radiation
CO2{v20(0)} (at 288K+) + CO2{v20(0)} (at 288K+) -> CO2{v20(0)} + C02{v21(1)} -> CO2{v20(0)} + CO2{v20(0)} + 667.4 cm-1
You’ll note the above interaction is a direct conversion of translational mode energy (which we perceive as temperature) to 14.98352 µm radiation. This directly cools the air, and the effect is significant, since nearly all the translational mode energy is converted to radiation, leaving the CO2 molecules at a very low temperature, whereupon they absorb energy by colliding with other atmospheric constituents. The effect begins taking place significantly at ~288 K, the temperature at which a large enough proportion of the molecules will have sufficient translational mode energy to convert to vibrational mode energy.
288 K also happens to be the stated average global temperature… that is not a coincidence, it is a mechanism long known (study linked below), partly a result of CO2 radiative emission ramping up at ~288 K. As CO2 concentration increases, this effect will become more pronounced, increasingly damping any temperature excursions above ~288 K by increase of radiative emission via this interaction, and below ~288 K by reduction of radiative emission via this interaction.
It is not necessary for CO2{v20(0)} to collide with another CO2 molecule for this interaction to take place, any other molecule will do… the Equipartition Theorem dictates that all atmospheric constituents at the same temperature will have the same translational mode energy. So in reality, the above interaction could be represented thusly:
X (at 288K+) + CO2{v20(0)} (at 288K+) -> X + C02{v21(1)} -> X + CO2{v20(0)} + 667.4 cm-1
where X is any atmospheric molecule.
Further, you’ll note that if a CO2 molecule is already in the CO2{v21(1)} vibrational mode quantum state, a collision at just 0.1 K higher temperature (ie: ~288.1 K) can excite it to the CO2{v22(2)} state, whereupon it can emit a 14.97454 µm photon to de-excite to the CO2{v21(1)} state, and a 14.98352 µm photon to de-excite to the CO2{v20(0)} state.
Even further, you’ll note that if a CO2 molecule is already in the CO2{v22(2)} vibrational mode quantum state, a collision at just 0.1 K higher temperature (ie: ~288.2 K) can excite it to the CO2{v23(3)} state, whereupon it can emit a 14.96782 µm photon to de-excite to the CO2{v22(2)} state, a 14.97454 µm photon to de-excite to the CO2{v21(1)} state, and a 14.98352 µm photon to de-excite to the CO2{v20(0)} state.
This implies that for temperatures above ~288 K, more of the translational energy of atmospheric molecules will flow to CO2 vibrational mode quantum state energy, rather than vibrational mode quantum state energy of CO2 flowing to translational energy of other atmospheric molecules, simply for the fact that at and above that temperature, the combined translational energy of two colliding molecules is sufficient to excite the CO2 vibrational modes. This increases the time duration of CO2 vibrational mode quantum state excitation and therefore the probability that CO2 will radiatively emit, breaking LTE. Therefore the energy flow is to CO2, not from it.
In other words, at and above ~288 K, the combined translational mode energy of two molecules is higher than C02{v21(1)} vibrational mode energy, and therefore energy will flow to CO2 from other atmospheric molecules’ translational mode energy during molecular collision, simply because CO2 can radiatively emit that energy and break LTE, rather than that energy flowing back to other molecules.
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Herb Rose wrote:
“Since the energy (v^2) of light decreases with distance from the source its velocity must also decrease, except where there is a blue shift where, according to Planck’s Law, the energy increases with distance.”
I’m not sure if you merely don’t understand simple concepts, or if you’ve intentionally twisted scientific reality to fit your odd hobby theory, but the more you write, the more I lean toward the latter.
E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2
where:
pc = hc/λ
λ = wavelength
The first right-hand expression is for invariant mass objects, the second right-hand expression is for massless entities such as photons.
Light doesn’t red-shift with distance, you’re conflating the reduction in photon flux over an ever-expanding spherical shell with a reduction in photon energy… it’s not the energy of each photon that’s going down, it’s the number of photons per cubic volume that’s going down as those photons race away from the light source in an ever-expanding sphere.
In point of fact, light entering a gravitational well will blue-shift, and will red-shift climbing out of that gravitational well… something your odd belief system compels you to deny.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi LOL,
I need more space to respond to you so I will expand to this comment.
First: The light bouncing between walls in a gravitational field may bend from gravity but it will still hit the same spot on the wall. In an accelerating container the wall moves up depending of the speed of the container so the light will move down the wall at a rate determined by how fast the wall is moving up and the time it takes for the light to travel from one wall to the other. Your denial of this result shows a lack of ability to think.
Second: If you look at a graph of the temperature in the atmosphere and believe this zig zag line with its pauses represents a flow of energy you are delusional. What is the source of energy at the top of the stratosphere heating the molecules in the troposphere and mesosphere? A thermometer receives energy from gas molecules colliding with it. It is the momentum of the molecules that the thermometer measures, not the kinetic energy of the molecules. In the atmosphere, unlike measuring temperature of a liquid, the number of molecules decreases with altitude so you have two variables, energy of the molecules and mass (number of molecules). In order to determine the kinetic energy of molecules you must divide the temperature at an altitude by the density at that altitude in order to get the kinetic energy of a constant number of molecules rather than a constant volume. A graph of this kinetic energy shows it increases in a straight line in the troposphere where water moderates the radiated energy and in an exponential curve in the higher atmosphere, which is how energy would flow if the sun was heating the Earth.
You don’t believe in the law of conservation of momentum? That is how energy is transferred in the troposphere, not radiation. Any gas molecule with velocity greater than the vibrational energy of a larger object, be it solid or liquid, will transfer energy to it. The laws of physics are not generalities where there are exceptions. or involve averages They always apply in every case.
Third: Any observation of energy is a result of its interaction with mass. What energy matter absorbs and emits depends on the bonds and atoms in the matter. This is what produces the quantum nature of light observed, not the energy. Any assumption that the nature of energy being emitted or absorbed by an object is a result of the nature of energy is unwarranted.
Planck’s law states that the energy of light is a function of frequency. Does that mean the light that has a blue shift gains energy as it travels through space? Why do the wavelengths with the lowest energy (infra red and radio) travel the greatest distance? Light is a wave and its energy is determined by its amplitude. The energy from the sun reaching Neptune is a lot less than the energy reaching the Earth but there is no significant red shift.
You continue to mistake your belief in theories as facts.
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
This will be my final response to you… attempting to educate the deliberately obtuse is a waste of time and effort.
Herb Rose wrote:
“The light bouncing between walls in a gravitational field may bend from gravity but it will still hit the same spot on the wall. In an accelerating container the wall moves up depending of the speed of the container so the light will move down the wall at a rate determined by how fast the wall is moving up and the time it takes for the light to travel from one wall to the other.”
Your verbiage implies there to be a rest frame for photons. It is not the speed that deflects the light beam (under either gravitational or translational acceleration), it is the acceleration itself. It matters not the speed in either case.
Herb Rose wrote:
“What is the source of energy at the top of the stratosphere heating the molecules in the troposphere and mesosphere? ”
The sun.
Herb Rose wrote:
“That is how energy is transferred in the troposphere, not radiation. ”
Convection, advection and latent heat capacity account for ~76.2% of Earth’s surface energy removal, the remainder being radiative emission.
Herb Rose wrote:
“Any gas molecule with velocity greater than the vibrational energy of a larger object, be it solid or liquid, will transfer energy to it.”
Your confusing velocity and kinetic energy… any atom or molecule with kinetic energy equal to or greater than (or photon with EM energy resonant with) the activation energy for a given rotational or vibrational mode quantum state will impart energy to the target molecule when the molecules collide or the photon incides upon the target molecule, whereupon that energy will equipartition into all available quantum states of the target molecule. Again, I encourage you to study up on quantum modes and states, and specifically upon certain states ‘freezing out’ (making some states not available).
Herb Rose wrote:
“Does that mean the light that has a blue shift gains energy as it travels through space? Why do the wavelengths with the lowest energy (infra red and radio) travel the greatest distance? Light is a wave and its energy is determined by its amplitude. The energy from the sun reaching Neptune is a lot less than the energy reaching the Earth but there is no significant red shift.”
1) Light doesn’t red-shift or blue-shift as it travels through vacuum absent an impetus (gravitational well, universal expansion).
2) There is no mechanism by which higher-energy photons would be annihilated in vacuum preferentially over lower-energy photons, therefore longer wavelengths do not travel a greater distance than shorter wavelengths in vacuum.
3) Light is analogized to a wave (a sinusoid), but in reality, it is a spiral. This is because a sinusoid is a circular function.
https://web.archive.org/web/20161024110935/http://staff.washington.edu/bradleyb/spiralsynth/fig3.1.gif
https://web.archive.org/web/20190713215046/https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e3/8c/bd/e38cbd99fb30ac00ea2d0ac195bb980c.gif
You’ll note the peak amplitude of the sinusoid is analogous to the radius of the circle, the peak-to-peak amplitude is analogous to the diameter of the circle, and the frequency of the sinusoid is analogous to the rotational rate of the circle. You’ll further note the circumference of the circle is equal to 2 π radians, and the wavelength of a sinusoid is equal to 2 π radians, so the wavelength of the sinusoid is analogous to the circumference of the circle.
Thus the magnetic field and electric field (oscillating in quadrature about a common axis) of a photon is a circle geometrically transformed into a spiral by the photon’s movement through space-time. This is why all singular photons are circularly polarized either parallel or antiparallel to their direction of motion. This is a feature of their being massless and hence having no rest frame, which precludes their exhibiting the third state expected of a spin-1 particle (for a spin-1 particle at rest, it has three spin eigenstates: +1, -1, 0, along the z axis… no rest frame means no 0-spin eigenstate). A macroscopic electromagnetic wave is the tensor product of many singular photons, and thus may be linearly or elliptically polarized if all singular photons comprising the macroscopic electromagnetic wave are not circularly polarized in the same direction.
4) The light reaching Neptune has less flux because of that ever-expanding sphere I wrote of earlier as the photons race away from their source. The individual photons have not lost energy, there are fewer photons per unit volume.
You continue to make basic mistakes, covering up your lack of knowledge with manufactured ‘facts’ that have no basis in reality.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
In a closed container with no outside reference ii is the speed of the container times the time it takes for the light to travel a path perpendicular to the motion (does not effect the light) of the container that will determine the distance (sine) the wall travels up. In an accreting container that speed will increase causing it to move further per unit time while the time for the light to travel a path of the same distance will remain the same.
If the sun is heating the molecules at the top of the stratosphere why isn’t it heating the identical molecules in the mesosphere even more, they’re closer?
If the red shift/blue shift does not occur in transitive then it occurs when emitted, how can light have both a red and blue shift (blurring of spectral lines)?
If longer wavelengths do not travel further in the vacuum of space why do she need infrared and radio telescopes to see further into space?
Light and energy radiate in a sphere so why are you using two dimensional models? It is the same stupidity as the representation of Einsteins warping of space time. The 4 dimensions of the space time continuum is represented as a two dimensional plane while the mass is pictured as a three dimensional sphere warping the space time continuum into a fifth dimension.
It is Planck who says the energy of light is determined by its frequency (Planck’s law).
The universal gas law is not an equation but a statement of how the macro properties (pressure and volume) are determined by the properties of its components. You cannot treat it as an equation treating the macro properties as component properties. When a macro property changes the other macro property changes, not the components. When filling scuba tanks from a high pressure source tank it is an increase in volume and a lowering of pressure. The number of molecules, the gas constant, and the kinetic energy of the molecules doesn’t change (no energy, matter, or different type of matter is added).
No need to reply but you might want to read an article I wrote (to be published) for PSI explaining why your bell curve is in reality bull shit.
James McGinn
| #
Moofsonian Institute:
MI:
Hey Mr Kooks. About three years ago, roughly, you had a comment showing the vibrational frequency extrapolations of CO2.did not find them again.
JMcG:
It being a desperately stupid hypothesis that appeals to the lowest common denominator of our dimwitted public, it is common for the AGW A-holes to post vibrational frequencies of CO2 pretending they indicate drama even though they don’t.
Dumb people, like Kkook, believe science. It’s literally his religion.
Reply
Moofsonian Institute.
| #
James wrote. ‘it is common for the AGW A-holes to post vibrational frequencies of CO2 pretending they indicate drama even though they don’t’.
As the main relevant vibrational frequency of CO2 equates to an absoption/emmission temperate of -79 degrees C it is very unlikely the AGW A-holes would promote something that requires an explanation of how -79 degrees C heats the earth environment through back radiation.
Has James got evidence or is he telling more porkies?
Reply
Mic Galvin
| #
Interesting comments. Certainly allot more to learn and refutation of Radiative Forcing is a thermodynamics of atmospheric processes phenomenon.
I mentioned that Foehn winds on the lee side of the Great Divide Range creates elevated fire risks and can raise temperatures 20C in Penrith I meant 10C.
I will revise the paper to expand on first order equations and include gravity variations and tidal pulls from the Moon as another driver of weather and climate.
The ideal gas law is idealisation and doesn’t work for condensable real gases with zero mass and volume. There is observations and measurements to provide empirical evidence of the pressure and relationship however. Also if pressure is force/area and force is mass x gravity then gravity would effect atmospheric pressure and hence temperature as well.
Cheers.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Mic,
Thank you for this comment for I must admit I did not read the article writtten by PSI Editor because I did not know which PSI editor had written the bulk of the article.. I will now inform myself beyond your comments.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Mic,
If it was up to gravity there would he no atmosphere only a layer on the surface. It is the kinetic energy of the molecules that creates the atmosphere and their energy is transferred to a thermometer or barometer by momentum, not radiation. The pressure reading is not mass times gravity/unit area but velocity times mass/unit area.
The reason the temperature is greater at lower altitudes (like at the bottom of the Grand Canyon) is not because the molecules have more kinetic energy but because there are more of them transferring energy (denser). To get a comparison of the kinetic energy of molecules in the atmosphere at different altitudes divide the temperature by the density to gat measurement of the kinetic energy for a constant number of molecules rather than a constant volume of molecules. The zigzag graph line disappears.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Mic,
In this comment you refer to the Ideal Gas Law and in your PSI Publicatiom you quote the equation PV=nRT, identifying each letter of the equation. You are correct when you state that “n” is the quantity of the gas. But it is a serious omission when you do not identify the ordinary unit (mole) of the gas. For 1 mole of gas is about 6.02300000000000000000000 tiny particles of any ideal gas whose particle mass does not matter. Hence the term ‘Ideal Ga’s”.
Have a good day
Reply