Non-Anthropogenic Causes of the “Hottest Year On Record”
And not just because the self-appointed experts of ‘Climate Change’ can’t agree on just how much 2023 was hotter than average: 1.35 °C (NOAA), 1.48°C (EU’s Copernicus Climate Change Service) or 1.54 °C (Berkely Earth).
This record yearly increase poses a problem for anthropogenic climate change enthusiasts: how to explain a 0.17C global temperature increase that wasn’t predicted by IPCC climate models, and
cannot be explained by a CO2 radiative forcing that only marginally increased over 2023 by an unspectacular 0.036 W/m2 (compared to a 2009-2019 average 0.032 W/m2 per year.
It appears the “very hot” areas occurred along linear trends that were unevenly distributed around the Earth.
Most geologists will recognize that some of these heat anomalies overly oceanic geothermal anomalies, namely the Earth’s mid-ocean spreading ridges.
Unfortunately the IPCC did not model “Geothermal Forcing” in their climate models, though the figure above and numerous articles (1,2,3) as well as my PROM article argue that it should be included in the future.
For those worried that this excessive heating signals the end of times there’s good news: help is on the way. Actually help is already here in the form of a polar vortex.
Both 2016 and 2023 were exceptionally warm years. This “excess” mid-latitude heat energy creates a temperature gradient that causes weather systems to transport heat (second law of
thermodynamics) northward, where it disrupts the polar jet stream and the polar vortex before being ejected to space.
And transports cold southwards. In a nutshell: warm air/excess heat flows northwards over the Atlantic, while cold air flows southwards over North America and Eurasia, causing severely cold land weather conditions in 2016 and 2023, while getting rid of excess ocean heat.
Though the jury (and the data) are still out I would expect that future news from Huntsville will show – similar to 2016 – that much of the excess heat has been jettisoned to space and that monthly Lower Troposphere temperatures will start decreasing from January 2024 onwards.
Please note: PSI does not necessarily endorse the views of each and every article we publish, in this case that CO2 has any effect on temperature at all. Our intention is to encourage open, honest, scientific debate.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Koen Vogel,
I haven’t read one word of your article’s text but I certainly am looking forward to seeing what you wrote. For the title “Non-Anthropogenic Causes Of The “Hottest Year On Record”” is most intriguing. And I consider the article should cause many comments. So I will read it and wait to see what other comments might be.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
If you scan Koen’s PROM article you will find the LABOR that actual SCIENTIFIC scholarship requires. And Koen has made PSI a scientific journal for ALL scientists studying the topic of Koen’s article a must read and study. For Koen is correct when he wrote that there is nothing that competes with his Prom paper.. It is not written for PSI readers; it is written for those scholars who claim to do what he has done.
Have a good day
Reply
VOWG
| #
Don’t care. The planet could be warmer and wetter. CO2 abundance.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Kevin Doyle,
I am trying to begin a conversation about what Koen has written and I have found that any comment addressed to him probably will not be read by him. But I have found we both commented relative to another posting by him so I address this comment to you in hopes you may reply.
The topic concerns a fundamental of physical science which might not be familiar to even some current physical scientists. It is that a “scientific theory” must predict something which is NOT YET KNOWN and not only be an attempt to explain that which is known.
Hence, Savant Arrhenius analyzed a large batch of atmospheric temperature data, which he used, as a proxy for the earth’s surface temperatures available, from many world wide weather stations of the late 19th century, and did some radiation balance calculations and found there was no balance. The average atmospheric temperature was about 30+C too great,. So he explained this was due to the atmospheric carbon dioxide gas absorbing solar radiation and heating the atmosphere. And he made the prediction that the atmospheric temperature would be about 30+ COOLER if there was no carbon dioxide gas in the atmosphere.
This prediction established the magnitude of the greenhouse effect (GHE) of atmospheric gases which absorb solar radiation. Hence, I fault Koen for not allerting PSI readers to the FACT of this prediction as he, and many others ignore this prediction and its importance.
Have a good day
Reply
Koen Vogel
| #
Hell Jerry, of course I read the comments. I even answer them without using capital letters. Though sometimes I get busy with other ‘stuff’. I believe the greenhouse effect exists and that it increases Earth’s surface temperatures though 30 C seems high: Happer and van Wijngaarden put it at a more modest 10 – 15 C. All I’m saying is that changes in geothermal heat flux are the same order or magnitude as RFCO2 changes. Probably larger. So IPCC should model them. But they don’t because two guys in the 1960’s wrote a book that said geothermal heat flux is constant. And you can’t argue with them or ole Professor Crustypants who knew everything from how many angels dance on the head of a pin to why you’ll never get better than a failing grade for thinking heretic thoughts. So don’t trust me, trust your own lying eyes: try to explain 2023’s “warmest regions on Earth” using RFCO2. Betcha can’t.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Koen,
Great, even if I was wrong, I now know we can have a conversation about weather factors. Even if it might not seem this comment is’scientific’. A few days ago I met a man who has lived less than a block from my house I Just moved into about 3 months ago. And his thing is a self-help thing termed the “butterfly effect’. Little things have consequences.
The second sentence that Sutcliffe wrote in the text of his book (Weather and Climate) was: “It is then not unreasonable to suppose, indeed it could hardly be otherwise, that the problems presented by weather, by wind and rain and warmth , were amongst the earliest to force themselves on consciousness and that in a historical sense meteorology lay at the foundation of physical science. I totally agree with this, but Sutcliffe walked away from this earliest time. It seems, to me, he didn’t ask himself ‘were Eskimos born yesterday?’ to consider an extreme example of survival relative to weather. Can we believe that the arctic environment was so different when they settled it? Do we forget (ignore) little things like a butterfly effect?
Sutcliffe wrote in 1966 and our weather data base has grown greatly since 1985 or a little before. Jet streams were not commonly known facts until WWII.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Koen,
I edit what Sutcliffe wrote, still first page. “The .. interest of the scientist in the natural world of phenomena … did not begin to lose [interest] until … the tremendous success of experimental laboratory . .. .” Page 2. “… ‘natural science’, as the term os most naturally understood, has suffered astonishing neglect. That the neglect is extreme is illustrated by the very curious fact that a student entering the science stream will go through school and university studying physics and mathematics and have no more idea than an arts student of the significance of an earthquake, an ocean current, or a monsoon wind … .”
Do not overlook the absence of CHEMISTRY. Had to use caps to make a BIG point.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Koen and PSI Readers, this is not intended to be a private conversation
On page 3 of his introductory chapter, Sutcliffe makes a huge mistake as Fhe wrote: “Meteorology is not a fundamental physical science, that is to say it is concerned to develop the basic laws of nature, …” For In Ch 5, The Microphysics of Clouds, he writes: “These results … have a very important bearing on natural meteorology. not because supersaturation occurs in the atmosphere but because it does not occur, …” And he does not realize that he has just stated a natural law of the earth’s atmosphere.
He then asks a question, which any scientist should ask relative to any observed physical law: “Why is it that in the atmosphere condensation to clouds invariably happens as soon as normal saturation is reached?” And he immediately answers: “the natural atmosphere, however clean it may be, is always supplied with a sufficient number of minute particles of salts, acids or other substances which serve just as well as liquid water in capturing water molecules from the vapor. These are the ‘nuclei of condensation’, …”.
Have a good day
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry,
At one time people believed that when water evaporates it exists as a gas that is mixed in with the other gas particles of the atmosphere. The concept of “condensation nuclei” was intended to describe the the transition from clear moist air to cloudy moist air. But that was because people believed that clear moist air contained gaseous H2O, which we now realize is impossible. You may not agree that clear moist air contains invisibly small liquid nanodroplets rather than gaseous H2O. And I’m not saying you are not within your rights to believe whatever you choose. But if you want your audience to understand what you are saying it would behoove you to make your assumptions in this respect explicit. As it is now I don’t think anybody is going to understand your point here.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James and PSI Readers,
R.C. Sutcliffe, in is book (Weather and Climate), plainly describes the observations that have been made and that James and you can make if anyone, like James, considers the need to question these observations.
When one pours liquid water on a desk top and comes back a couple hours later, one often observes the liquid water is no longer where it was a couple of hours before. So the question which must be asked is: Where did the liquid water go?
James has answered this question with his assumption that tiny collections of water molecules, similar to condensation nuclei, jump from the surface of liquid water into the atmosphere instead of assuming that single water molecules should more easily jump up off the surface of the liquid water. And James assumptions are the reason he claims that gaseous water molecules do not exist in our atmosphere.
You, a reader, must decide who is right. The multitude of scientists who believe the atmosphere does contain single water molecules which cause what you and I term the atmosphere’s humidity as measured by an instrument. How does James explain this ‘thing’ commonly termed humidity? I certainly do not know. But maybe James will explain this to us.
Have a good day
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
Where did the liquid water go? James has answered this question with his assumption that tiny collections of water molecules jump from the surface of liquid water into the atmosphere
JMcG:
Kinda. But they don’t jump.
Jerry:
instead of assuming that single water molecules should more easily jump up off the surface of the liquid water.
Jerry:
Right. I consider this to be an ignorant assumption. (I assume it is impossible for water to boil below its boiling temperature, as clearly demarcated in an H2O phase diagram.) And you believe we can ignore the phase diagram. Right?
Jerry:
And James assumptions are the reason he claims that gaseous water molecules do not exist in our atmosphere.
JMcG:
Right. And you think the phase diagram is lying to us? Right?
Jerry:
You, a reader, must decide who is right.
JMcG:
Nope. As you have demonstrated vividly, humans are delusional. Only the empirical evidence should determine scientific truth/validity.
You got nothing!!!
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
Actually, you are the one who got nothing who failed to answer an easy question Jerry asked you.
Stick to answering questions/requests for answers asked is the better way don’t you think?
Reply
James McGinn
| #
What????
Oh, wait. I do see where I misattributed one of my comments to Jerry. Do you see what I mean? If you were paying attention you surely would have noted my error.
Let me guess, until you saw the phrase “Jesus Christ” you could care less about the contents of these messages. Right?
I asked Jerry the following: “And you believe we can ignore the phase diagram. Right?” You need to ask Jerry why he won’t provide an honest response to this question. Go ahead, Tommy, ask him. Also, feel free to answer the question yourself. Or, are you afraid to engage with a genuine scientist?
Jerry wouldn’t answer my question. Can you?
Or does your God justify your deceptiveness as he does Jerry’s?
James McGinn / Genius
(Your arrogance is boring which dilutes your credibility, Jerry has been very civil with you the entire time which seems to anger you unnecessarily)
SUNMOD-Administrator
James Bernard McGinn
| #
I politely asked you a question Tommy. Why are you refusing to answer?
James McGinn / Genius
sunsettommy
| #
I am not interested in the questions; I am moderating YOU because of your dishonest injection of religion that no one else brings up that you use as an attack method and your continual arrogance that turns people off which you need to dial back if you want people to continue replying to you.
I am done with these anymore of your deliberate evasions with me will create a new moderation reaction.
James Bernard McGinn
| #
It sucks when people play games instead of just participating in an HONEST conversation.
Doesn’t it?
James McGinn / Genius
Howdy
| #
“Only the empirical evidence should determine scientific truth/validity.”
When I made that claim in comment (Mpemba experiment):
https://principia-scientific.com/hunga-tonga-driven-temperature-spike/#comment-89303
You claimed that it was consensus and group delusion”.
That “Real science involves facts”. Empirical is then by reason, ‘best guess’ and not fact.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Howdy:
When I made that claim in comment (Mpemba experiment): You claimed that it was consensus and group delusion”.
That “Real science involves facts”.
JMcG:
You made a strange claim that an observation was empirical. (If only science was this simple.)
Experiments do have observations. Similarily, cars have tires. Calling an observation empirical is like saying you an drive a tire on the freeway.
Mpemba effect is very difficult to solve. You don’t even understand surface tension or why H2O has a high heat capacity or why it’s boiling point changes so dramatically with changes in pressure while it’s melting point is very stable. You don’t understand the simple stuff. You need to crawl before you can walk and walk before you can run. And Mpemba is like running a marathon.
James McGinn / Genius
Howdy
| #
My claim was planet-wide minds, not one, thus by definition, empirical.
I’ve shown your own words from the past in conflict with your current definition, yet you deny it.. I need say nothing more about that.
“You don’t even understand surface tension or why H2O has a high heat capacity or why it’s boiling point changes so dramatically with changes in pressure while it’s melting point is very stable. You don’t understand the simple stuff.”
Can you not for once, answer a criticism honestly, and understand that your tiresome disparaging works against you? Such behaviour is not in the least bit a scientific mind at work.
James McGinn
| #
Everybody wants t be right. But science isn’t about being right as much as about not believing what is convenient.
James McGinn / Genius
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
Please define (describe) for PSI readers what the water phase diagram is
Have a good day
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
Please define (describe) for PSI readers what the water phase diagram is
JMcG:
Why don’t you ask your lord savior Jesus Christ to define (describe) it for you? At the same time you ask for forgiveness (Deleted)
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
(Jerry asked you a question nicely your response is to be nasty, you either answer the question nicely or don’t reply at all)
SUNMOD-Administrator.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
It is the nasty attitude of you god fearing, science pretenders and your self righteous belief that you are saving science from global warming fanatics when in reality you are deeply confused on many issues and have resorted to pretense and lying or a regular basis that is the issue I see.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
LOL, you still can’t answer a simple question now you start screaming about religion which Jerry and I didn’t mention that it was all YOU who did that.
You should slow down…………
James Bernard McGinn
| #
(DELETED your dishonest post which is now 100% off topic)
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
James is the one who introduced the topic of a water phase diagram and he has not taken the opportunity to define (describe) what the water phase diagram is. So I will. It is graph of the equilibrium water vapor (gas) phase in contract with liquid and solid water phase. The vertical axis of the graph labeled pressure and the horizontal axis is labeled temperature. So James knows he needs to admit that liquid water and solid water have water vapor (gas) pressures.
Have a good day
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
It is graph of the equilibrium water vapor (gas) phase in contract with liquid and solid water phase.
JMcG:
It’s interesting that the more religious somebody is the more they can justify blatant dishonesty.
Prove you are not a liar, Jerry. Provide a link to divine “vapor (gas)” H2O diagram.
F you, you lying POS!
James McGinn / Not a liar
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
You are now given a warning for your unprovoked name calling.
SUNMOD-Administrator
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Sunsettommy. I have often contemplated the concept of commenters not being allowed more than three comments in the comments section at any one time.
This would avoid thread bombing and cause people to consider their comments value.
Currently we have people talking without really putting their brain into gear, so to speak.
A couple of standardized moderation guides at the top of the comments section would do the trick. No personal abuse and no more than three comments at any one time.
While waiting for their third comment to slip off the list a commenter could work on their next comment so it could be worth reading.
Chears.
MattH
| #
Of course, a limit of no more than 2 comments at any one time would put a premium value on comments and the value, credibility, and the spice of life would improve accordingly. (exponentially)
Chairs. (cheers)
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Sunsettommy,
Curious. If I were to call Jerry a half wit would that be considered an insult or an exaggeration of his mental capacity?
MattH
| #
Some people need a lot of brain food to become halfwits.
Howdy
| #
Hi Matt,
I believe your proposal would be counter-productive and stifle the atmosphere.
The decent folk should not have to pay for a fringe that are unable to carry themselves in a reasonable manner.
Why don’t these people start a message board of their own – it’s easy and free, one can be thrown up in 10 minutes. They can argue and curse in as many forums as they can create. ’till the cows come home.
Make themselves all admins, then they can argue about who has seniority in the event of a lull in favourite subjects.
sunsettommy
| #
The only person I objected to thread bombing was LOLkook… which were also very long comments thus dominating the thread and making it difficult for general discussion and for people to answer them which becomes a chore this why I object to them.
Name calling is always a fluid situation which is why I go case by case, when they are hostile (Personal, threatening nature) and unprovoked I am all over it by deleting out the offending part if it is just a small burst of irritation that is not nasty and personal, I do nothing keep in mind I have unapproved about 3-5 posts in 1 1/2 years thus negligible censoring which is always because they were gross violations.
As an administrator/moderator of the last 17 years in blogs and forums I know that I can never please everyone with my decisions.
Koen Vogel
| #
I was a bit puzzled by the editorial disclaimer at the end. Upon re-reading I had an “Oh yeah” moment. I cite RFCO2 values as calculated via the IPCC equation in support of my claim that the climate models that use this value could not have predicted a huge temperature increase. After the recent video posted by John on how thermal heat absorbed by CO2 is passed on to other molecules – a process termed “thermalisation” by the author – I now better appreciate that the use of the term “Radiative Forcing” is probably inappropriate. My understanding of Earth’s greenhouse effect is that greenhouse gasses such as H2O and CO2 capture thermal radiation at certain wavelengths, thereby delaying their radiation to space. It is this delay that causes temperature increases, not any radiative forcing, at least as I understand it. My apologies for any misunderstanding, my mind was on the rather good spatial correlation between geothermal heat anomalies and maximum temperatures.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Have you ever noticed that the AGW fraudsters refuse to quantify “radiative forcing?”
Here is why:
Tom Shula: A Novel Perspective on the Greenhouse Effect | Tom Nelson Pod #98
https://youtu.be/NS55lXf4LZk?si=dDXSYegz3imxjcbK
Reply
Jery Krause
| #
Hi Koen,
As impressive your PROM Paper is I must admit that I cannot under much and what it seems I might understand seems to be questionable. I revert to Einstein’s quote: If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” And a quote of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: “It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence; it biases the judgment.”
In this article I finally saw what you had done. Figures 2-4 use modern satellite data for the whole not the old NOAA reasoning which focuses only on the northern hemisphere and basically ignores the long known fact that the Earth does not standstill.
I plan to introduce some new observed facts which I believe cannot be ignored and still explain (understand ) what we are tying to understand (explain). Beginning with the wild idea that the jet stream is powered by gravity.
Have a good day
Reply
Jery Krause
| #
Hi Koen,
As impressive your PROM Paper is I must admit that I cannot under much and what it seems I might understand seems to be questionable. I revert to Einstein’s quote: If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” And a quote of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: “It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence; it biases the judgment.”
In this article I finally saw what you had done. Figures 2-4 use modern satellite data for the whole not the old NOAA reasoning which focuses only on the northern hemisphere and basically ignores the long known fact that the Earth does not standstill.
I plan to introduce some new observed facts which I believe cannot be ignored and still explain (understand ) what we are tying to understand (explain). Beginning with the wild ideas that the atmospheric jet stream is powered by gravity and inertia.
Have a good day
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
The vertical axis of the graph labeled pressure and the horizontal axis is labeled temperature.
JMcG:
Yes. Undoubtedly this completely confuses you.
Jerry:
So James knows he needs to admit that liquid water and solid water have water vapor (gas) pressures.
JMcG:
Uh, er . . . uh. There is no such thing as a “water vapor (gas).” Nor is there any need for us to create any such thing.
The confusion and intellectual dishonesty of your generation of God fearing, pretend scientists (who previously dominated all of academia) have paved the path for other pretend sciences like global warming, covid, and Caitlyn Jenner’s therapists. You are now reaping what you have sown.
The H2O phase diagram does not lie. People lie.
You lie.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
James McGinn
| #
You made a strange claim that an observation was empirical. (If only science was this simple.)
Experiments do have observations. Similarily, cars have tires. Calling an observation empirical is like saying you an drive a tire on the freeway.
Mpemba effect is very difficult to solve. You don’t even understand surface tension or why H2O has a high heat capacity or why it’s boiling point changes so dramatically with changes in pressure while it’s melting point is very stable. You don’t understand the simple stuff. You need to crawl before you can walk and walk before you can run. And Mpemba is like running a marathon.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Ice is slippery because pressure causes it to become liquid water. It can become so cold that the additional pressure does not convert it into a liquid and ice skating is no longer possible. That is the temperature where water is a true solid.
The range of temperatures in phase changes, that water displays, is a result of its structure. The heat of crystallization (80 cal/gram) and the heat of evaporation (540 cal/gram) are indications of changes in its internal structure. Energy does not disappear but when it becomes internal energy it is not radiated and cannot be detected. The amount of energy needed to raise the temperature (radiated energy) 1 C changes depending on the starting temperature, so the internal energy of water continually changes as temperature changes, indicating that new internal structures are being formed. At 100 C the radiated temperature becomes constant as more energy (540 calories/gram) is added, so this energy is now undoing the internal structures that had been created (melting). When these structures are destroyed the water becomes a gas, which when it cools, becomes a liquid. (The water escaping a tea kettle first appears as an invisible gas, then liquid droplets, and then disappears as internal structures form structures creating micro droplets.) If the water in the atmosphere were a gas, it would have a molecular weight of 18 and would join neon (20) in the upper layer of the atmosphere. Instead it is almost exclusively (99%) confined to the troposphere. When the structures of evaporated water being created by the addition of energy reach the top of the troposphere, the kinetic energy of the molecules is equivalent to 100 C and the structures melt converting the water to a liquid (rain) and releasing energy into space.
The Mpemba effect is a result of boiling water releasing the internal energy of melting structures. When cooling this boiled water the internal energy does not need to be removed allowing the water to freeze faster than water with these internal structures. The reason the Mpemba effect appears to be inconsistent is because in the variation of internal energy released by boiling.
Water evaporates (bad term since it does not become a gas) until temperature reaches -30 because IR radiation is being absorbed creating liquid crystals. Th IR splits water molecules into hydronium and hydroxyl ions. The hydroxyl ions form a crystal shell with a negative charge and this negative charge increases as it absorbs more energy, causing the liquid crystals to rise in the atmosphere.
The negative charge in thunder clouds cause the surface of the Earth under them to have a positive charges as it repels the electrons on the surface. When the liquid crystals melt and the charges are neutralized, releasing energy into space, the electrons on the surface return causing lightning.
Reply
Jerry Krauseje
| #
Hi Herb and PSI Readers,
Herb, you are amazing. I can agree with much of which you just wrote but you are not an experimentalist who has carefully done the experiment which results in the Mpembo effect you describe. Which it seems no one else beside myself questions.
I question it because I am an experimentiist and know if equal masses of water at 100C and room temperature water at say 25C are placed in a freezer. The 100C water will have a lesser mass than the 25C water when both are frozen solid. For molecules from the surface of the 100C water will immediately begin to evaporate faster than those of the 25C water and these gaseous water molecule will condense on the the walls of the freezer. So when both containers of the frozen waters are weighed, it will be found that the mass of the 100C water is appreciably less than that of the 25C water. So the reason that the 100C water appears to freeze faster is that less water is being frozen. If you question this, carefully do the total experiment I have described.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Jerry,
Put lids on the containers so there is no loss of mass.
Reply
James Bernard McGinn
| #
Herb:
Water is tricky because it has been so thoroughly misrepresented by modern science. Until you untangle the mess you will keep tripping over half-baked assumptions, which is all you are doing here, in my expert opinion.
Here is a hint. When water freezes at 0C it really isn’t freezing in the classic sense that we think of molecules freezing. It’s actually a three dimensional form of surface tension. At and below 0C certain collective orientations of ice will form a solid–due to surface tension. Certain other collective orientations will stay a liquid. The latter is generally referred to as “superchilled water.”
The easiest way to understand Mpemba is to first understand superchilled water. This is not easy. You have a long way to go. But after you have figured this out (which will take years) you might then be in position to apply the following: rates of energy transmission in a solid are much greater than they are in a liquid.
None of you understand surface tension. So how do you expect to understand three dimensional surface tension? You can’t.
Realistically, however, none of you have much of any chance figuring this out on your own. It is a very, very, hard problem. And you trust the wrong people.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
Energy equalizes when added or removed. You cannot super cool water if there is contamination with ions that initialize crystallization or agitation.
When energy is removed from pure water there is less movement of the molecules and the electric forces maintain the orientation and position between the molecules. This orientation remains as the kinetic energy drops below the freezing point. With any disturbance of the equilibrium the water will immediately crystalize into solid ice. It is activation energy, same as during an exothermic chemical reaction where the reagents must be heated to start the reaction then cooled to prevent an uncontrolled release of the generated heat.
Herb
Reply
James Bernard McGinn
| #
Herb:
You cannot super cool water if there is contamination with ions that initialize crystallization or agitation.
JMcG:
Nonsense. The demonstrations of superchilled water are done with the purest waters. You don’t know what you are talking about.
Herb:
When energy is removed from pure water there is less movement of the molecules
JMcG:
Obviously.
Herb:
and the electric forces maintain the orientation and position between the molecules.
JMcG:
No, are ignorant. What is really happening is much more complicated and it involve a comprehensive understanding of what causes surface tension.
Herb:
This orientation remains as the kinetic energy drops below the freezing point. With any disturbance of the equilibrium the water will immediately crystalize into solid ice. It is activation energy, same as during an exothermic chemical reaction where the reagents must be heated to start the reaction then cooled to prevent an uncontrolled release of the generated heat.
JMcG:
You are only going to further confuse yourself. Slow down. You first need to understand what is surface tension.
Here is a link to a video. Study it intently. It is the only chance you have to defeat your confusion. (And it may already be too late for you, Herb. Sorry. But maybe this will help others.)
https://youtu.be/-cLI_nlEbJ4?si=Dw-gX8k12kllgFuz
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Herb Rose: “You cannot super cool water if there is contamination with ions that initialize crystallization or agitation.”
JMcG: “Nonsense. The demonstrations of super chilled water are done with the purest waters. You don’t know what you are talking about.”
No James. You seem to have a problem understanding what I’m saying. I believe this is because start with the belief that you are the only one who knows what is right and everybody else is wrong. Ego.
Herb
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
Herb Rose: “You cannot super cool water if there is contamination with ions that initialize crystallization or agitation.”
JMcG: “Nonsense. The demonstrations of super chilled water are done with the purest waters. You don’t know what you are talking about.”
Herb:
No James. You seem to have a problem understanding what I’m saying.
JMcG:
Allow me to clarify. You are right that I did not understand what you are saying, You may well be right that salt water will not or even cannot be superchilled. I don’t know. However, if you are asserting (or if you maintain) that water can only crystalize into ice if it contains contaminates that initiate the crystallization (freezing) process I know you are wrong on this point. This is what I reacted to. Sorry for the misinterpretation.
Also, when you mentioned ions I didn’t fully realize you were talking about Sodium ions and Chloride ions (or is it anons?) I assumed you were referring to hydroxyls and such, which I do believe is dubious nonsense that you got from Martin Chaplin’s website on water anomalies. (Don’t get me wrong. There is a lot of elucidating information available on Chaplin’s website. Unfortunately, like many others, he completely failed to realize Pauling’s omission, which has all but rendered the study of H2O and it’s anomalies feckless.)
Here is a rhetorical question you might find ineteresting. Suppose Pauling didn’t blunder and correctly realized the variability of H2O polarity along with the fact that H bonds are the inverse mechanism thereof (as I have described). Would we know about it at all?
I think we would not know about it because it would not have even gotten published. In other words, it is only because Pauling blundered into a dumbed down model that mollified academics who maintained a bias along the lines of being mostly concerned with not confusing their students that his thinking became accepted. (I think this is something that Jerry, a high school chemistry teacher, might come to appreciate.)
James McGinn
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
I was not talking about sodium chlorine ions but any charged particle that disturbs the surface tension. A dust particle or ammonia will prevent super cooling as well as agitation where there is motion of the water molecules that change the electric bonds (hydrogen bonds) that create the surface tension.
I work with surfactants where modifying the nature of liquid water is used to get the desired results. You have surfactants where very small concentrations will reduce the surface tension drastically (20 dynes/cm^2) but have no effect on interfacial surfaces allowing paints and floor finishes to have a smooth surface with no bubbles and yet will not affect the bonding to surfaces. There are surfactants that produce foam where air is enclosed by a detergent water surface and detergents that prevent foam from forming. The reason they can put down pavement when it is wet is because there is a cationic additive added to the tar that allows it to stick to wet surfaces. I know of what detergents to use when you want to create internal surfaces (micelles) to form emulsions and which ones will form unstable emulsions so oil separates from the water. Modifying the nature of water to get the desired results is what I’ve done for decades.
I know that you don’t need particles for the formation of water droplets. If you boil water in a clean room you will get droplets. That is Jerry’s assertion (along with the Na+ and Cl- ions) but to form crystals (ice) anything that disrupts the bonds between water molecules (which are electrical attractions) will cause crystal formation preventing super cooling.
FYI Jerry was a chemistry teacher at a community college who exclusively taught Chemistry 101 to college students.
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
You just wrote: “None of you understand surface tension. So how do you expect to understand three dimensional surface tension? You can’t.”
I can because I see a near spherical liquid water droplet sitting on a waxy surface. And I have read that a sphere has the minimum surface area per given volume of any other 3-d object. Hence a water droplet naturally tries to form a sphere to minimize the number of molecules, which attract each other, on its surface and we term this natural action “surface tension”.
As Einstein, who could see, saw that science is simple snd stated: “It’s not that I’m so smart; it’s just that I stay with problems longer.”
Have a good day
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
I see a near spherical liquid water droplet sitting on a waxy surface. And I have read that a sphere has the minimum surface area per given volume of any other 3-d object. Hence a water droplet naturally tries to form a sphere to minimize the number of molecules, which attract each other, on its surface and we term this natural action “surface tension”.
JMcG:
So far you have a series of related observations. This is good, but you are not there yet. You haven’t explained why, and you haven’t reduced it to a principle from which we can make testable predictions. Keep going. Get rigorous. Be relentlessly reductive.
Allow me to help you frame it. The molecules on the surface have different properties than those below the surface. Right? (Since I know you refuse to answer direct questions I will answer the question for you.)
Jerry; (James McGinn speaking on behalf of Jerry):
Why yes, Jim. The molecules on the surface must have different properties since they are attracting each other while those below the surface are not.
JMcG:
Very good, Jerry. I see you are starting to understand what it means to be reductive and rigorous (and honest).
Jerry; (James McGinn speaking on behalf of Jerry):
But, Jim, I think there is a problem. Is it not the case that the molecules on the surface and the molecules below the surface are exactly the same in terms of their composition and structure? This being the case, how is it possible for the H2O molecules on the surface of liquid water to have different properties than the H2O molecules below the surface if in both cases the molecules are one oxygen and two hydrogen in the exact same V-shaped arrangement?
JMcG:
It is quite the dilemma, isn’t it?
Jerry; (James McGinn speaking on behalf of Jerry):
Yes, Jim, and it appears to be completely unresolvable. God only knows why the molecules on the surface have different properties than those below the surface. Us mere mortals have done all we can. It is time to surrender. We must label surface tension as anomalous. Same for other similar observations. And we must hide all of this from school children and college students because it will only leave them confused.
JMcG:
But, are we sure we have not made an error or . . . .
Jerry; (James McGinn speaking on behalf of Jerry):
No, Jim. That is impossible. We are far too smart for . . .
JMcG:
. . . . or an omission?
Jerry; (James McGinn speaking on behalf of Jerry):
Omission? Like what?
Jerry; (James McGinn speaking on behalf of Jerry):
Well, lets reconsider our assumptions. We indicated that the molecules on the surface and the molecules below the surface are exactly the same in terms of their composition and structure? Is there anything else? What might we have failed to consider?
Jerry; (James McGinn speaking on behalf of Jerry):
Well, the molecules on the surface have a slightly different environment but that couldn’t . . .
JMcG:
Wait. Slow down. Let’s be careful to be as explicit as possible to delineate what is different about the environment below the surface compared to the environment along the surface.
Jerry; (James McGinn speaking on behalf of Jerry):
Well, okay. Einstein says . . .
JMcG:
No, leave Einstein out of this. Focus on the problem. What is different about the environment below the surface compared to the environment along the surface.
Jerry; (James McGinn speaking on behalf of Jerry):
The only thing I can think is that the H2O molecules below the surface are more completely surrounded by other H2O molecules while those along the surface are slightly less surrounded.
JMcG:
Xlnt. Now let’s recast this thinking with respect to the fact that H2O molecules have long been known to form hydrogen bonds.
Jerry; (James McGinn speaking on behalf of Jerry):
Yes, Up to four hydrogen bonds, to be exact. One each with up to four neighboring H2O molecules. I know this because you yourself, Jim McGinn, have presented me with this fact multiple times now. I can hardly ever forget it. But, Mr. McGinn, this is where your thinking goes off the rails. The H2O molecules below the surface have four hydrogen bonds with their neighboring H2O molecules while those along the surface can only form three. So it seems the dilemma is only deepening. If there are more bonds below the surface shouldn’t we expect there to be less looseness of bonds below the surface and more looseness of bonds along the surface? We are seeing exactly the opposite. We are seeing stronger bonds along the surface, not weaker and weaker bonds below the surface not stronger. Isn’t it time you abandoned this little clown show?
JMcG:
Before you get snotty, allow me to interject a rhetorical question. Have you ever heard the expression that H2O is the universal solvent?
Jerry; (James McGinn speaking on behalf of Jerry):
Yeah, so?
JMcG:
Well, have you ever considered the possibility that this solvent capability might also be applicable to the hydrogen bonds that form between H2O molecules?
Jerry; (James McGinn speaking on behalf of Jerry):
What? No.
JMcG:
Let’s address the question you asked above. You asked: “If there are more bonds below the surface shouldn’t we expect there to be less looseness of bonds below the surface and more looseness of bonds along the surface?” My answer to this question is, no. The reason my answer is no is because I have a more sophisticated understanding of hydrogen bonding than does yourself. You see, unbeknownst to yourself, hydrogen bonds perform two functions. Firstly, as you probably already know, each hydrogen bond forms a connection between H2O molecules the magnitude of which is determined by the magnitude of the polarity of the two molecules that participate in the bond. Secondly, as you surely don’t know, each hydrogen bond neutralizes (or dissolves) 25% of the polarity in both of the molecules that participate in the bond. Now we just need to do some simple math. Below the surface the number of bonds per molecule is 4: 100% minus (4 x 25%) equals 0% polarity. So, below the surface the polarity is almost completely neutralized or dissolved.
Along the surface the number of bonds per molecule is 3: 100% minus (3 x 25%) equals 25% polarity. So, along the surface the polarity is 25%.
So, that’s our answer. The reason the H2O molecules along the surface are attracted to each other (collectively forming hard bonds) while those below the surface are not (collectively forming very loose bonds) is because those along the surface still have 25% of their polarity while those below the surface have zero (or very close to zero) polarity.
Jerry; (James McGinn speaking on behalf of Jerry):
But Jim, Linus Pauling, a Nobel prize winner, never stated anything about hydrogen bonds neutralizing polarity.
JMcG:
Yes, I know. However, Linus Pauling assumed that water’s polarity is a consequence of the position of the H2O molecule’s atoms (one oxygen and two hydrogen) to each other. This is mistaken. Actually water’s polarity is a consequence of electrical gradients that are generated by the position of the H2O molecule’s atoms (one oxygen and two hydrogen) to each other. And when H2O molecules form hydrogen bonds their respective electrical gradients cancel each other out. In so doing they literally neutralize each other’s polarity at increments of 25% per bond. Pauling never noticed this.
Most significantly, we now have the basis for a principle with which we can make testable predictions: Each H2O molecule is polar, which causes it to readily form hydrogen bonds with other H2O molecules. At one and the same time each H2O molecule is a solvent of 25% of the polarity of the molecules with which it forms these hydrogen bonds, one each with up to four of its neighbors.
James McGinn
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James and PSI Readers,,
A few lines into your many statements you wrote: “You haven’t explained why,” I follow the lead of Newton who wrote, as translated into English by Motte: “But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause pf these properties of gravity from phenomena and I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy.”
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James and PSI Readers,
I am taking James’ commets one by one as an attempt to make my comment easier to possibly understand.
James: “The molecules on the surface have different properties than those below the surface. Right?'” Yes; but they are all part of the same droplet and why the droplet has a spherical shape to minimize the number of molecules on the droplets surface. In this case this is my explanation of the droplets spherical shape
Have a good day
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
James: “The molecules on the surface have different properties than those below the surface. Right?’” Yes; but they are all part of the same droplet
JMcG:
Please explain in as much detail as possible the relevance of this nonsensical comment.
Jerry:
and why the droplet has a spherical shape to minimize the number of molecules on the droplets surface. In this case this is my explanation of the droplets spherical shape
JMcG;
So, are you saying a droplet is a conscious entity that is deliberately changing the properties of its components? If not then what is the point of your statement: evasion, deception, religious conviction?
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James and Herb,
No James, a droplet is a natural entity which naturally changes to whatever it naturally changes.
Herb, the larger droplets, which are visible, have formed on condensation nuclei which have variable composition and variable concentrations of salts or acids, or etc.
Hence, I would not expect all droplets to become identical.
Have a good day
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
If you boil distilled water in a clean room droplets will form. If this was caused by nuclei then after time all the nuclei would be contained in droplets and no more droplets would form. This is not the case. Nuclei facilitate the formation of droplets but are not a necessity.
Herb
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
No James, a droplet is a natural entity which naturally changes to whatever it naturally changes.
JMcG:
If I was the moderator of this forum I would ban you for your evasivenss and blatant dishonesty. It’s insulting to me and to anybody that reads this forum. It’s disgusting.
So, now you are saying that the reason the molecules on the surface have different properties than those below the surface is because “droplet’s are natural entities.” This is an inane, evasive response.
Dishonesty like yours has no place in a scientific discussion.
James McGinn / Genius
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
Droplets come in different sizes. If it is the surface tension that provides the force for determining the size of the droplet wouldn’t they all be uniform with a size where that exterior force between molecules was at a maximum?
What would be the result if the forces between the water molecules in the interior of the droplet had the greatest strength and the surface had less force between the molecules?
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Relative to your comment of 2/4/2024 10.55pm, you do not state what you assume to be the observable consequence of boiling water of any kind in a closed room would be.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
A clean room is not a closed room. It has a positive pressure maintained by the addition of filtered air being added to the room. This keeps unfiltered air from leaking into the room carrying contaminants.
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Koen,
Many comments ago I wrote: “I am trying to begin a conversation … ” Because you haven’t commented for a while, I do not know what your opinion is of this conversation which is occurring. My opinion is no conversation could be better. I state this because I read that Galileo wrote: “I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn’t learn something from him.”
James’ comments are written as conversations: “Herb:
You cannot super cool water if there is contamination with ions that initialize crystallization or agitation.” I agree that water contaminated with ions, ocean water, cannot be supercooled. However, I know of no ions that imitate crystallization or agitation [whatever that is].
McG: “Nonsense. The demonstrations of superchilled water are done with the purest waters.” I agree
But does James explain why or how it is that ions prevent the supercooling of ocean water? No! James knows, that the water molecule is a polar molecule which can be an attraction to another water molecule. And James knows that a water molecule will be attracted to a positive sodium ion. And James is about the only person who writes articles. or comments here at PSI which acknowledges there is another attraction between water molecules which is termed “hydrogen bonding”. It is this hydrogen boiling attraction between water molecule that causes the ice structure which makes ice less dense than liquid water. Chemists have long known (understood) how ice (solid water) is less dense that liquid water but one needs to take introductory chemistry to be exposed to this understanding.. Which is not based upon classical physics but upon more unreal quantum mechanics (QM). But QM is far simpler than “life science”.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
I see this good conversation has stalled; so I will try to restart it by reviewing some of my personal events. I just coincidently met a man who introduced me to what is termed The Butterfly Effect. Which is that little insignificant events in one’s life can be quite significant.
Now a fact is I met this man because I am no longer living in the same house as my wife even though I claim to Love her. About an hour ago I discovered I had forgotten a great biography I had discovered in a Sidney Au. library only because of one of our too frequent spats. Its title is The Martyrs of Science written by David Brewster and published in 1840. About an event in Galileo’s life Brewster quoted directly, more than a page, of what Galileo had, himself, written. I edit this to give you reason.to get a copy of this book which is still available at a modest cost. “This person delivered, on this subject [Copernicus ideas] .. to a crowded audience. Believing that several were attracted more by the novelty of the subject … I was unwilling to be present. … Whenever I met any of the followers of Copernicus, I began to question if they had always been of the same opinion. I found that there was not one of them … who had. … “
I stop here to point out that this agreement between these previous doubters is an example of CONSENSUS SCIENCE! if you are really interested in science as Galileo was, I again urge you to get this book to discover whom the other two martyrs of science were according to Brewster
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
I hope that things work out well for you and your wife.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Thank you for your comment (concern). Our circumstance I observe is not al all unique and some couples coexist as we are instead of one or the other partners solving the situation by getting a divorce. One needs to read about this problem in Richard Feynman’s book “Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!” (O Americeano, Outra Vez!) This Feynman story has several signifiant issues being described.
Have a good day
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Well Jerry, you’ve followed the rules. You’ve provided for your family faithfully and been a good citizen so you’ve earned the right to become the person you are becoming. But I think you should try to look at it through your wife’s eyes. (DELETED)
(Deleted the unprovoked personal attack and involving his wife in the attack, the next ugly attack will put you in Moderation, you have been warned)
SUNMOD-Administrator
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Sorry,
I didn’t intend it as a personal attack. I intended it as a friendly kick in the xxx. Something we all need from time to time.
Reply
Len Winokur
| #
Hi James,
Thanks for explaining the sentiment behind the supercilious tone of many of your responses. I was almost going to ask you whether, when you met or will meet any partner that you’ve have had, have, or might have in the future, and they told or tell you they’ve met their ‘Mr Right’, you remembered or will remember to tell them that your first name is ‘Always’.
Herb Rose
| #
One of my favorite jokes was in a magazine. A man is pictures sitting in a easy chair reading a newspapers saying to his wife “Of course I love you. I’m your husband, that’s my job.”
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Guys and other Readers,
I was remembered the “Coriolis force effect” which I do not remember reading about here at PSI. “An apparent force observed pm Amy free moving object in a rotating system. On the earth, this deflective force results from the earth’s rotation and causes moving particles (including the wind) to deflect to the right in the Northern Hemisphere and to the left in the Southern Hemisphere.” (Meteology Today,2007, C. Donald Ahrens)
Explain why this critical factor seems to have been ignored here.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James McGiinn,
Do you, in your reasoning about storms ignore the “Coriolis force effect” as I doubt I would have forgotten about it if you had written about it here? For I consider it is a factor which cannot be ignored.
Have a good day
Reply
James McGinn
| #
I stick with what I stated previously.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
I admit I confused the question I was asking. The direct question was: “Do you, in your reasoning about storms ignore the “Coriolis force effect”? So now I would appreciate a direct yes or no answer.
Have a good day
Reply
James McGinn
| #
No.
When water goes down the toilet it too is effected by this effect. The effect is very slight. It is so slight it is not detectable in still water/air. It is only in conditions that force the flow into a funnel/narrow channel that it is magnified so that it is noticeable.
It’s really just a tendency. In the northern hemisphere 9 out of 10 vortices spin counterclockwise. 1 out of 10 spin clockwise. Opposite for the southern hemisphere.
The only time it becomes an issue is when dealing with unscrupulous individuals (mostly in meteorology) who are confused about vortices/tornadoes and/or are stubbornly ignorant about the surface tension properties of water that provide for the structural capabilities of vortices.
Reply