NOAA Scientists Are Not Corrupt: Discuss
Figure 1. USCRN (United State Climate Reference Network) project’s weather station.
It is generally accepted that scientific ideas cannot be proven to be true but that wrong ideas can be proven ‘by observations’ to be absolutely wrong.
The image of Figure 1 is proof that that the idea that NOAA scientists are corrupt is wrong. However, in this image we cannot see the third aspirated, 1000 ohm, RTD temperature probe as described in the following description of NOAA’s weather station.
“The two primary variables for the USCRN, air temperature and precipitation, are both measured with triple-sensor configurations. Each station features three aspirated, 1000 ohm, RTD temperature probes and a rain-and-snow gage with three sensors. These instruments are installed inside a small, double-fence intercomparison reference fence to maximize precipitation catch efficiency. Secondary variables include wind, solar radiation, infrared radiation, soil moisture, soil temperature, relative humidity, and snow depth.” (https://www.campbellsci.com/uscrn)
The ‘three aspirated, 1000 ohm, RTD temperature probes’ are proof that NOAA scientists honestly believe that the hourly averaged air temperature (measured to a tenth of a degree Celsius) is a (the?) critical measurement required to understand climate.
And, in this brief description of the USCRN weather station, we can further see the belief that the air temperature measurement is more critically important than the secondary surface temperature (infrared radiation) measurement. And more important than the secondary soil temperatures (measured at five soil depths).
These NOAA scientists are not corrupt; they merely are blindly following the lead of Svante Arrhenius who wrote an article with the title: On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground. (Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science Series 5, Volume 41, April 1896, pages 237-276). For in this article Arrhenius used average air temperature as a proxy for the ‘Temperature of the Ground‘.
So, I must conclude that the NOAA scientists are not corrupt; they are merely as blind as Arrhenius was.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Telephone: Calls from within the UK: 020 7419 5027. International dialling: (44) 20 7419 5027.
Please DONATE TODAY
Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Al Shelton
| #
I asked a school science teacher to send me evidence of AGW. [he was teaching it]
This is what I got: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/if-carbon-dioxide-makes-u/
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
That is an embarrassingly bad article, not only that this “teacher” couldn’t answer your question in his own words. He felt the need to have a junk article do the answering for him.
That is pathetic!
Reply
Geraint Hughes
| #
A silly know nothing journalist talking the same old rubbish doesn’t count as “Evidence.” Some science teacher he is. I find all the alarmists are of a similar ilk.
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
What about the 1906 paper he published?
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Tom,
Maybe I have read the 1909 paper but definitely have forgotten what Arrhenius wrote. But it does not matter, for I have not found anyone who has measured air temperature measurements at the sane time that surface temperatures were reported to have been measured until the USCRN project was begun under a different title.
Please look at (https://principia-scientific.com/the-corvallis-or-uscrn-site-a-natural-laboratory-part-two/) to see how the Fuel Temperature measured by the RAWS (Remote Automated Weather Station) project compares with the Surface Temperature measured and reported by the USCRN project. But until this nature laboratory was equipped with these two weather stations, it could not be suspected that the measured Fuel Temperature had a such a near relationship to the USCRN measured Surface Temperature.
I believe what is actually measured is far more reliable than what anyone writes without reference to actual measurements. Of course, an averaged temperature is not an actual temperature. But when one measures something which varies with time, averaging over an hour period is a necessary, practical, evil. But the USCRN project does measure and report some actual measurements (the maximum and minimum values which are measured during the previous hour) as well as the averaged value for the previous hour.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Baron
| #
Then you realize NOAA is managed by the US Dept of Commerce. Who in Trump’s Cabinet runs the Dept of Commerce? Why Mr Rothschild banker himself, Wilbur Ross. Hmm?!
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Baron,
Do you know when the USCRN project was begun? Answer: Long before Trump announced he would run as a candidate for President of the USA.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
I have a 1 cubic meter oven heated to 100 C and a pan with1 liter of water heated to100 C. I have two 50 gram eggs with the same temperature. I put one egg in the oven and one egg in the pan and cook them for 5 minutes. When I take the eggs out the one from the pan is cooked while the one from the oven uncooked. The reason this occurs is because in the oven there is 1 gram of molecules transferring heat to 50 grams of egg. When their kinetic energy equalizes the energy of the air molecules drops significantly while the energy of the egg molecules increase little.
In the pan there are 20 grams of molecules transferring energy to each gram of egg. When these molecules equalize energy the water molecules’ energy drops a little while the egg’s molecules increase significantly. There is more heat in the water than in the oven and that egg cooks faster.
Initially the thermometers read the same 100 C which means the air is transferring the same amount of heat to the thermometer as the water in the pan. In order for this to occur the kinetic energy of the molecules in the air must be 1000 times the kinetic energy of the molecules in the water. I repeat The temperature of a gas is not an accurate indicator of the kinetic energy of the gas molecules (thermometers are calibrated using water).
In the atmosphere the water droplets and gas molecules have the same temperature but the gas molecules have greater kinetic energy and transfer energy to the water molecules, even though the water has more total kinetic energy than the gases. Water in the atmosphere does not exist as gas, as James McGinn has shown, but as liquid droplets that act not as a green house gas but as an energy storage unit. that moderate the temperature of the atmosphere by absorbing energy from gas molecules heated by the sun during the day and transferring heat back to the gas molecules at night when their energy drops. The energy that the water in the atmosphere contains make the energy of the gas molecules insignificant so using temperature readings of the atmosphere has little to do with the energy contained in the atmosphere.
For those unfamiliar with James’ theory on why water does not exist as a gas below 100C I will try to explain my understanding of the theory. Liquid water molecules are in close contact with each other (this is why water is not compressible) and form hydrogen bonds binding the molecules together. At 100 C these bond begin to break absorbing energy and creating smaller bundles of water molecules. After absorbing enough energy and breaking enough bonds these nano droplets break from the main body of water removing heat as evaporation. When water droplets condense into larger droplets they form more hydrogen bonds releasing this heat. The heat of evaporation for water (the energy needed to convert 1 gram of 100 C water to 1 gram of 100 C vapor) is 540 calories. This means that in order for a single molecule to break away from the water it must absorb 540 times the energy of its neighboring water molecules without equalizing any of the energy with them Cannot happen according to the laws of thermodynamics. Water in the troposphere exist as water droplets not as a gas.
The measurement of atmospheric temperature does not give an accurate reading of the energy in the atmosphere.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
Squidly
| #
Hi Herb,
I have had this water/gas discussion with McGinn in great depth several times in the past. On this point, I believe Jim is correct. Water in our atmosphere is not “monomolecular” like gasses are. Water molecules like to clump (attract one another) as observed by water tension. Water is a bizarre molecule and has many phases. A college friend of mine is a renowned chemist that has dealt with water molecules for decades and has produced many papers on the subject, their phases changes (he discovered a previously undiscovered phase during our college years and was published in Scientific American, back when SA actually published “science”) and water molecule behavior in general. He agrees with Jim and I on this water/gas issue and has observed such behavior in a variety of ways, including through gas-chromatography and proton-annihilation.
Aside from this, Jim McGinn is a total loon. I eventually had to block his emails from my servers. He turned into a stalker. Just bombarded me with BS and wouldn’t stop despite my repeated requests.
-Squidly
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Squidly:
Water molecules like to clump (attract one another) as observed by water tension.
JMcG:
Surely you mean surface tension (not water tension).
On the surface of liquid water there are tensional forces that essentially makes the very thin surface of water hard. Can you (and/or your friend) explain the mechanism by which these tensional forces appear exclusively on the surface (at ambient temperatures)?
I can:
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
James McGinn
| #
HR: I repeat The temperature of a gas is not an accurate indicator of the kinetic energy of the gas molecules (thermometers are calibrated using water).
JMcG: I get your point here and I agree. (Unfortunately nobody else is going to get it.)
The weird thing is that the liquid state of water really isn’t analogous to the liquid state of anything else. Liquid water is actually more like a gas with the molecules trapped in each other’s orbit–in a sense.
HR: In the atmosphere the water droplets and gas molecules have the same temperature but the gas molecules have greater kinetic energy and transfer energy to the water molecules, even though the water has more total kinetic energy than the gases.
JMcG: Right. On a molecule per molecule basis what you are saying here is accurate. But unless you actually state “on a molecule per molecule basis” people aren’t going to get it. Moreover, they are also not going to get it unless they have an intimate understanding the quantum mechanical factors that underlie H2O polarity and even then they aren’t going to get it unless they understand “Pauling’s Omission”.
I think you are starting to comprehend that water–if and when it is correctly understood–is categorically different from any other substance and this makes it very hard to describe to others in that most people don’t have the mental fortitude to consider the uniqueness of water. More concisely, it is very hard to describe the behavior of water without drawing upon analogies to other known substances and it is also very hard not to mislead people in so doing.
HR: Water in the atmosphere does not exist as gas, as James McGinn has shown, but as liquid droplets that act not as a green house gas but as an energy storage unit. that moderate the temperature of the atmosphere by absorbing energy from gas molecules heated by the sun during the day and transferring heat back to the gas molecules at night when their energy drops.
JMcG: Yes. It is funny that the the only greenhouse gas of any significance in the atmosphere isn’t even a gas. It is liquid water.
HR: The energy that the water in the atmosphere contains make the energy of the gas molecules insignificant so using temperature readings of the atmosphere has little to do with the energy contained in the atmosphere.
JMcG: Excellent point!
HR: For those unfamiliar with James’ theory on why water does not exist as a gas below 100C I will try to explain my understanding of the theory. Liquid water molecules are in close contact with each other (this is why water is not compressible) . . .
JMcG: There is space between them but this space is filled with constant movement. And so, the reason collectives of H2O molecules are not very compressible is because of the energy that is trapped therein.
HR:. . . and form hydrogen bonds binding the molecules together.
JMcG: I don’t thing “binding” is the right word to use here. It’s mostly important to be aware that hydrogen bonds actually get stronger with distance. (This appears to be a contradiction to Coulomb’s law, but actually it isn’t. I can explain why.) And getting stronger with distance is the epitome of elasticity. And so, even though hydrogen bonds are not as strong as most covalent or ionic bonds they bring a huge amount of elasticity into the equation that those other bonds don’t bring.
HR: At 100 C these bond begin to break absorbing energy and creating smaller bundles of water molecules.
JMcG: They do this at all temperatures. Not 100 C. The larger the droplet the lower the collective polarity in that H bonds neutralize polarity, as I’ve describe previously. (This concept is too difficult for most people to grasp. I point people to my videos but people are lazy, they don’t want to do the work required to comprehend this.)
HR: After absorbing enough energy and breaking enough bonds these nano droplets break from the main body of water removing heat as evaporation.
JMcG: When H2O molecules in a body of water are hotter there is more distance between them. Naturally this makes them collectively lighter, and they will convect to the surface of the water where they are more likely to evaporate. Since the hotter molecules of H2O in a body of water are lighter and more likely to evaporate the body of water cools.
HR: When water droplets condense into larger droplets they form more hydrogen bonds releasing this heat.
JMcG: I think you are wrong here. But I would need more detail to say. Condense from what? From gaseous H2O. There is none to condense from.
HR: The heat of evaporation for water (the energy needed to convert 1 gram of 100 C water to 1 gram of 100 C vapor) is 540 calories.
JMcG: It would be very difficult to determine this.
HR: This means that in order for a single molecule to break away from the water it must absorb 540 times the energy of its neighboring water molecules without equalizing any of the energy with them
JMcG: I don’t think this is accurate. But I don’t know. I do know that it would be really hard to determine any of this since container would have to be kept warm and it would have to have a highly variable capacity in order to maintain 1 ATM.
HR: Cannot happen according to the laws of thermodynamics. Water in the troposphere exist as water droplets not as a gas.
The measurement of atmospheric temperature does not give an accurate reading of the energy in the atmosphere.
JMcG: Yes. Water’s huge capacity to capture and conserve energy in the form of constant movement that itself is a consequence of the variable polarity of Hydrogen bonding does make it very deceptive in terms of actually quantification of energy.
The message I want to get out is that H2O is not simple and well understood. It is complex (collectively) and systematically misunderstood by the current regime of the collective natural sciences. And this misunderstanding has been amplified by the collective effors of meteorology and climatology pursuing their own agendas in which the false simplicity and false well-understoodedness of water are part and parcel.
Jim McGinn
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
When I speak of water condensing and releasing heat I was referring to droplets joining together forming larger droplets. When the bonds re-form they release heat.
How I would determine the heat of evaporation would be by taking two containers of water (one 1000 grams the other 1 gram) with the same temperature and expose them to the same heat source. When the 1 gram sample evaporated you could use the temperature of the 1000 gram water to determine the heat needed to convert the 1 gram of water to steam.
I don’t believe in quantum physics but that the laws of physics are constant regardless of size. Size is just a comparison of objects. Is the Earth large or small? It all depends on what it is being compared to. Quantum physics was developed because reality didn’t conform to theory so instead of discarding the accepted theory a new one was created that was unverifiable that could be used as a magic spell to explain anything that didn’t fit theory or conform to reason.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Squidly,
I have reviewed the historical fact that it is general knowledge that the earth’s troposphere contains ‘clumps’ of water drops know as condensation nuclei and cloud droplets. Do you, your friend, Herb, and James really expect others to believe these clumps of water molecules have no vapor pressure? Are the tables of the vapor pressures of water and many other liquids relative to the these liquid’s temperatures bogus?
When it is proposed that these clumps of water molecules have no vapor pressure due to individual, independent, water molecules, you have moved from science to science fiction. This because water molecules have the possibility of a.’hydrogen bonding’ attraction between individual molecules in addition to weaker dipole-dipole and/or Van der Waal’s attractions.
After all, you (we) must have some explanation (understanding) why there are liquid and solid matter instead of only gaseous matter.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
Vapor pressure refers to molecules given off by a liquid into a gas phase. With water you seem to believe that these molecules must be individual water molecules. The molecular weight of a water molecule is 18 while the molecular weight of ethanol is 48. Since the alcohol has a greater vapor pressure than water wouldn’t it make sense that water’s vapor pressure is the result of a release of bundles of water molecules (nano droplets) rather than individual water molecules?
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Methanol (MW34) has a boiling point, with a vapor pressure of 1atm, of 68.5C; Ethanol (MW50) 78.3C; n-Propanol (MW66) 97C; n-butanol (MW82) 118C, n-propanol (MW98) 138C; etc
So, using your reasoning about the water molecule and ethanol, do you also consider that methanol, which has a greater vapor pressure at 68.5C than ethanol at the same temperature (68.5C), mean that methanol must ‘evaporate’ as clusters of molecules instead as individual molecules? How do you explain the consistent increase of boiling temperatures with increasing molecular weights of these alcohols?
I and other chemists reason that as the size (related to mass) of these alcohol molecules increase; so do the magnitude of the attractions between these individual molecules increase, while in the liquid state. For while the –OH portion of these alcohols may ‘hydrogen bond’ with the –OH portion of another molecule, we reason that non-polar Van de Waal’s attraction between the carbon-hydrogen portion of the molecule also contribute to the ‘total’ attraction between these different alcohols so that the Van der Waal’s attraction begin to dominate over the continued influence of the single –OH portion of these alcohol molecules.
But what really grabs the chemist’s attention is that methane’s (MW 16) boiling point is –162C while water’s (MW 18) boiling point is 100C.
Of course, since it seems you (Herb) believe there is no thermometer capable of measuring the temperature of the air (atmosphere) at the higher altitudes, I do not expect you to follow the reasoning of chemists, based upon the boiling points measured with a thermometer.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
What I was trying to say is that water with a low molecular weight has a high vapor pressure/boiling point because of the strong attraction of the hydrogen bonds. You don’t think that water can evaporate as cluster of molecules with these bond intact even though the molecular weight of these clusters is less than the molecular weight of many compounds that evaporate at lower temperatures (heptane, xylene, and many others)?
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
“What I was trying to say is that water with a low molecular weight has a high vapor pressure/boiling point.”
No! It is water’s LOW vapor pressure which results in water’s high boiling point. This low vapor pressure of water is due to the stronger attractions between water molecules in the liquid state because of the molecules capability to form what we (chemists) term hydrogen bonds between individual water molecules.
Addition information for you and others to consider is that R. C. Sutcliffe, a meteorologists, provides a commonly observed ‘fact’ about cloud droplets of water. Which I do quote because it is a somewhat long review of this commonly observed ‘fact’. This fact is that liquid cloud droplets arefrequently observed to be super-cooled well below the freezing temperature (0C) of liquid water.
Have a good day, Jerry
jerry krause
| #
Hi Squidly,
After making several ‘typo’ mistakes in my previous comment, I looked outside and discovered it was foggy this morning. And after seeing this I looked at my simple wireless outside weather station and saw that the measured relative humidity was only 90{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}.
If you would read this previous (12/13/2017) essay (https://principia-scientific.com/condensation-nuclei-and-carbon-dioxide/) you will find that I have quoted R. C. Sutcliffe, a meteorologist, from his 1962 book—Weather & Climate. And I do so again more briefly.
“As a matter of fact, there are many observations of clouds in air whose relative humidity is considerably below 100{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}, evidence of nuclei which are hygroscopic.” Here, I have just seen that Sutcliffe did not seem to see (point to) the fact that condensation nuclei are not the only natural part of the earth’s atmosphere which are hydroscopic, but that natural cloud droplets are also hydroscopic.
In the 12/13/2017 essay I ignored the photochemical reactions which produce sulfuric acid molecules from sulfur containing molecules emitted during natural geological volcanic events, or during the burning of coal with sulfur impurities. Or the photochemical reacts convert the nitrogen oxide molecules, produced by the electrical discharge of ‘lighting’ (during natural thunder storms) from nitrogen and oxygen molecules or the nitrogen oxides produced during the combustion of some hydrocarbons in the internal combustion engines of automobiles, to nitric acid molecules.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply