Proving the Greenhouse Gas Theory Wrong

In order to convince someone that what they believe is wrong you must show them that it contradicts something else that they believe in more strongly. There is a point where you reach that fundamental belief that cannot be shaken or discredited and any discussion beyond that point will have no effect.

Different religious faiths have tenets that define their faith and these are accepted and beyond challenge. If the Bible says the Earth is flat then pictures of it from space, or arguments dealing with observations will be not be enough to dissuade the believer and they will not accept the evidence.

The same is true in science where there are beliefs accepted on faith that cannot be proven. In physics the fundamental tenet is that mater or energy cannot be created or destroyed. There is no evidence to support this contention but there must be an accepted basis from which other beliefs are developed and if a new theory contradicts the prime tenet it is discarded and alternate theories are proposed.

As science develops new concepts are accepted as true and form the building block for further progress in understanding. These subsequent beliefs are open to challenge but the only way to disprove them is to show that they conflict with an even more basic belief.

Those who have accepted the greenhouse gas theory (GHGT) as true believe in it and will not accept arguments that try to discredit their arguments as valid. People believe what they want to believe finding reason to support their beliefs and finding excuses to discredit contrary evidence.

Joseph Postma may have a compelling argument that the flat Earth model is invalid but that does not change their belief. (Scientists accept the diagram for Einstein’s general relativity even though it is a fraud.

If you are going to depict the four dimensional space time continuum as a two dimensional plane you cannot depict a mass as a three dimensional object somehow causing a fifth dimension distortion in the four dimensional plane.)

If they ever become convinced that their model is wrong they will develop a new model to maintain their faith. The arguments that CO2 is such a miniscule part of the atmosphere that it could not possibly produce the effects they are claiming are to them just an opinion.

The only way to convince them that the theory is nonsense is to show them that it conflicts with a belief that is more true in their eyes.

The fundamental belief of the GHGT is that the surface of the Earth is radiating heat into space and green house gases are preventing or slowing the loss of heat by the Earth causing it to become warmer. This belief comes from temperature readings that show the surface of the Earth is warmer than the atmosphere above it.

Temperature is a reading from an instrument and is not the same as heat or kinetic energy. All objects above absolute zero radiate energy and all objects absorb radiated energy. Nothing radiates temperature. It is the acceptance of temperature as being equal to kinetic energy or heat that causes the problem.

Some believe the definition of temperature as the mean kinetic energy of the molecules being measured but this is clearly a bad definition.

It takes 80 calories to convert 1 gram of 0 C ice into 1 gram of 0 C water. It takes 100 calories to raise the temperature of 1 gram of 0 C water to 1 gram of 100 C water.

It takes 540 calories of energy to convert I gram of 100 C water into 1 gram of 100 C steam.

So of the 720 calories needed to convert 1 gram of 0 C ice into 1 gram of 100 C steam only 14 {154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the energy causes a temperature increase.

The molecules of 0 C water clearly have more kinetic energy than the fixed molecules of 0 C ice.

The molecules of 100 C steam have 540 times the kinetic energy of 100 C water.

Because of changes in state temperature is not an accurate measurement of kinetic energy. All compounds, whether it is water, nitrogen gas, oxygen, CO2, or other substances have heat of crystallization and heat of evaporation where added energy does not produce higher temperatures.

A thermometer has a set area that is to be exposed to the medium being measured. This means that any change of reading is a result of a change in kinetic energy or heat being transmitted to the thermometer. This is not true in a gas.

When energy is added to an unconfined gas the gas expands and there are fewer molecules transferring heat to the thermometer. In a gas instead of one variable, kinetic energy, causing the reading there are two, kinetic energy and the number of molecules transferring the heat.

At sea level for every 1000 molecules in a liquid transferring energy to the thermometer there is one molecule transferring heat in a gas. When a gas is heated, the number of molecules striking the thermometer decreases, causing the measurement to become even more inaccurate.

A thermometer does not give an accurate reading on the kinetic energy of an unconfined gas like the atmosphere. When people talk about an expanding gas cooling it is not because the kinetic energy of the molecules has changed but because there are fewer molecules transferring heat to the thermometer.

In order to get an accurate indication of the kinetic energy of an unconfined gas you must use the ideal gas law, PV=nkt.

The kinetic energy (t) of the gas molecules is equal to PV/nk.

Since the pressure of an unconfined gas doesn’t change the kinetic energy of the gas molecules is proportional to the inverse of the density of the gas (the volume of a constant number of molecules instead of the number of molecules for a set volume.).

In the atmosphere pressure (P) is from gravity and doesn’t change significantly from the top of the atmosphere (d = 64060 km) to the surface of the Earth (d = 64000 km.).

If you accept that the temperature at sea level is 15 C you can use the inverse of density at different altitudes to determine the kinetic energy of the molecules at that altitude.

When this is done you find that at the altitude where airplanes fly (10 km) the kinetic energy of molecules is such that water will be a liquid not ice as predicted by a thermometer.

Temperature increases at a steady rate with altitude until the top of the troposphere where the boiling point of water is reached. After this point the temperature increase accelerates as there is no energy being consumed by changing water to steam.

This shows that the source of heat for the Earth is the sun and there is no energy source floating in the atmosphere at 50 km causing a spike in temperature.

When you add energy to an unconfined gas it expands becoming less dense and rises. The density of the atmosphere decreases with increasing altitude showing the molecules are getting hotter.

Now for the believers in the GHGT you can chose to continue your belief and deny the laws of thermodynamics where energy flows from objects with more energy to objects with less energy or believe that thermodynamics is a more fundamentally believable than Al Gore.

You can accept that somehow water, which is a great absorber and transmitter of heat reflects heat back to the Earth at night (even though its temperature is -50 C) rather then that the water is transmitting heat form the hotter molecules higher in the atmosphere to the surface of the Earth.


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 To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

Comments (24)

  • Avatar

    Herb Rose

    |

    The pressure referred to in the ideal gas law is not atmospheric pressure, which is the weight of the molecules in the atmosphere, but the pressure confining the gas and resisting its expansion, gravity.
    A thermometer does not calculate the mean kinetic energy it just measures the kinetic energy being transferred to it. In a liquid the entire surface is in contact with the medium being measured.while In a gas very little of the surface is being struck by molecules.
    According to your other comment/advertisement the Earth should be hotter than Venus and Jupiter the hottest planet of all.
    I am glad you tell us your a scientist because I would never guess that a scientist could repeal the second law of thermodynamics and believe that heat flows from cooler objects to hotter ones

  • Avatar

    James McGinn

    |

    HR:
    It takes 80 calories to convert 1 gram of 0 C ice into 1 gram of 0 C water. It takes 100 calories to raise the temperature of 1 gram of 0 C water to 1 gram of 100 C water.

    It takes 540 calories of energy to convert I gram of 100 C water into 1 gram of 100 C steam.

    So of the 720 calories needed to convert 1 gram of 0 C ice into 1 gram of 100 C steam only 14 % of the energy causes a temperature increase.

    The molecules of 0 C water clearly have more kinetic energy than the fixed molecules of 0 C ice.

    The molecules of 100 C steam have 540 times the kinetic energy of 100 C water.

    JMcG:
    I love the clarity of your thinking here in how you set this up. (I hope you don’t mind that I borrow this aspect of your presentation.) But your conclusion is wrong. The kinetic energy of the molecules of 99.999 C liquid H2O and that of the molecules of 100.001 C gaseous are the same. The difference is that in the liquid the energy is conserved and in gas it is not being conserved.

    To understand the correct answer you have to understand the nature of hydrogen bonds between water and, most significantly, you have to understand the particular way in which the polarity of H2O is highly variable–something the rest of humanity has not figured out yet.

    Excellent article. You are asking the right question.

    • Avatar

      James McGinn

      |

      Herb:
      The molecules of 100 C steam have 540 times the kinetic energy of 100 C water.

      JMcG:
      Are you going to dodge the issue here Herb? Your explanation involves energy spontaneously appearing on the scene. Tell us how this is possible.

      Energy directly coorelates to velocity. You are asserting that the velocity appears out of nowhere. This is because you are ignorant of the try nature of the H bonds in water.

      The correct answer is that the H bond between water molecules is an elastic bond and this elasticity is apparent when you understand the QM factors that dictate the variability of the polarity. The right answer is that the H molecules that are in the liquid phase and those in the gaseous phase are moving the same velocity. The difference is that the liquid phase the molecules are caugh in a state of continuously moving pendulumic supsension by the high elastic bonds associated with h bondng in water.

      You set up the problem to reveal the dilemma but then, like everybody else, you hesitated. And this caused you to resort to a conclusion that is obvious nonsense.

      Nevertheless it is commendable that you at least had the intellectual courage to set up the problem so that it revealed the dilemma. (No other poster on this ideologically motivated blog is capable of such.) Now you just need to work on the follow through.

      Hydrogen Bonds Neutralize H2O Polarity
      http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16798

      James McGinn

      • Avatar

        Herb Rose

        |

        Hi James’
        Actually James my thoughts on water becoming steam comes from your theory of nano droplets. A pot of water has bonds holding all the molecules together as one large molecule. As heat is added some of these bonds are broken creating smaller bundles of water. The more heat that is added the smaller these droplets become. The evaporation of water is not from the water converting to a vapor but from these nano droplets escaping the larger mass of water taking energy with it.When the temperature reaches the boiling the droplets are converted to individual molecules, steam. The individual molecules in the water droplets do not contain the added kinetic energy that is contained in the larger droplets just as the atoms in a molecule do not receive the kinetic energy the molecule until it is broken apart. When the molecule is finally released as steam it the takes the kinetic energy of the group with it and has 540 times the kinetic energy of the molecules still bound in liquid water.
        Have a good day,
        Herb

        • Avatar

          James McGinn

          |

          Herb:
          Actually James my thoughts on water becoming steam comes from your theory of nano droplets.

          James:
          That’s a start. But you have much farther to go if you want to understand H2O. You won’t really achieve the breakthrough understanding until you realize the conceptual error that chemistry made when they accepted the assertion that the polarity of the H2O molecule is determined by the structural assymetry (lopsidedness) of the H2O molecule. (Below I will, once again, attempt to explain why this is mistaken.) Unless and until you do make the breakthrough (which involves the realization that H2O polarity [in liquid water] is highly variable and why) you will always be on the outside looking in, scratching your head, wondering why you can’t quite get a grasp on the significance of the numerous observed anomalies of H2O.

          Herb:
          A pot of water has bonds holding all the molecules together as one large molecule.

          James:
          If you really understood H2O there is one word in the above sentence that you would have known not to use. I’ll give you a second to read the sentence again and see if you can guess which word it is that I’m referring to. Okay, with no further ado, the word that does not belong in the sentence above is “holding.” Hydrogen bonds do not hold. A better word to describe what they actually do is, yoyo. Yes, hydrogen bonds in water molecules maintain a constant pendulumic movement. They don’t hold, they yoyo.

          Herb:
          As heat is added some of these bonds are broken creating smaller bundles of water. The more heat that is added the smaller these droplets become. The evaporation of water is not from the water converting to a vapor but from these nano droplets escaping the larger mass of water taking energy with it.

          James:
          Right. The evaporate is not gaseous but liquid nano droplets. And the cooling that takes place is a result of the hotter droplets being the ones that break away. It actually has nothing to do with boiling. (However, heating water will, of course, increase the rate of evaporation.) (Also, be aware that even when you “boil” water on a stove in the open air you are not creating gaseous H2O. Bubbles of gaseous H2O in the boiling water will only stay gaseous for an instant before they are again cooled to a liquid water.)

          Herb:
          When the temperature reaches the boiling the droplets are converted to individual molecules, steam. The individual molecules in the water droplets do not contain the added kinetic energy that is contained in the larger droplets just as the atoms in a molecule do not receive the kinetic energy the molecule until it is broken apart. When the molecule is finally released as steam it the takes the kinetic energy of the group with it and has 540 times the kinetic energy of the molecules still bound in liquid water.

          James:
          In open air you can never reach the boiling temperature of all of the molecules in a pot of “boiling” water in that the cooling of evaporation prevents it. So the only gaseous H2O in a boiling pot of water are the bubbles, which don’t persist in the gaseous state much beyond an inch over the surface of the water before they revert back to being liquid droplets.

          But your main assertion here is blatantly mistaken. What you are stating suggests that energy appears on the scene spontaneously. Surely you realize this is not possible.

          In reality, there is very little difference in the energetic state of the gaseous H2O molecule than there was in the instant before it became gaseous. This might seem like a contradiction or an inconsistency but, in actuality, it is not. You made the mistake of assuming that when it was bonded its velocity was zero. You didn’t realize that the hydrogen bond in liquid water is a yoyo bond that facilitates constant movement. So your assertion about it having 540 times more energy is definitely wrong. The only difference between its liquid and gaseous state is that the yoyo string (the hydrogen bond) will be broken in its gaseous state.

          As I mentioned above, chemistry made the conceptual error of assuming that the polarity of the H2O molecule is determined by the structural assymetry (lopsidedness) of the H2O molecule. This is mistaken. In actuality it is the electrical gradient associated with the differences in electronegativy of the atoms associated with the H2O molecule that is the source of the polarity. At this point you might protest that these are one and the same, along the lines that it is the structural assymetry that dictates the electrical gradient. And you would be correct. And so, you might think that I am making a distinction without a difference. But there is a difference. And the difference stems from the fact that us humans have a hard time not looking at a molecule as anything but a discrete entity. In contrast, when we look at it as being an electrical gradient we never lose sight of the fact that an electrical gradient can be opposed and negated. Hydrogen bonds do exactly that in that they bring with them an electrical gradient that neutralizes polarity by way of negating the electrical gradient that underlies the polarity. So, by way of the realization that H2O polarity is the result of an electrical gradient we don’t lose sight of the fact that hydrogen bonds bring with them their own electrical gradient that neutralizes the polarity and engenders situational factors that dictate a highly variable yoyo bond.

          James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
          Are you confused about Hydrogen Bonding in water (Video)
          http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=17078

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Hi James,
            I believe a thermometer gives an accurate indication of kinetic energy in a liquid. In a liquid there is a constant number of molecules transferring energy to the thermometer, unlike a gas, so the only variable is the kinetic energy of the molecules. When you raise the temperature of water to 100 C adding more energy does not result in an increase in temperature/kinetic energy. That energy does not disappear and is not contained in the water molecules (constant temperature) so it must go somewhere. The only place it can be is in the body of water.
            When a molecule receives enough energy it converts to a gas (steam) and escapes the water with that energy. It may quickly cool, transferring the energy back to a water droplet but while it is a gas it contains that energy equal to 540 calories per gram
            The conservation of energy means you must account for energy all the time.
            Have a good day,
            Herb

      • Avatar

        jerry krause

        |

        Hi James,

        NaCl (sodium chloride and commonly called table salt) is classified in chemistry as an ionic compound. An ionic compound which melts a few degrees above 800 degrees Celsius. Yet, liquid water readily dissolves a significant amount of NaCl so that we consider it is soluble in liquid water.

        Would you explain for us how room temperature liquid water dissolves solid NaCl at the same temperature?

        Have a good day, Jerry

  • Avatar

    Joseph Olson

    |

    not too many Clown Cotton worshippers on this planet….sorry

  • Avatar

    Gerald Coller

    |

    “In the atmosphere pressure (P) is from gravity and doesn’t change significantly from the top of the atmosphere (d = 64060 km) to the surface of the Earth (d = 64000 km.).”

    Are you saying the atmospheric pressure at an altitude of 60 km is the same as the pressure at sea level – or that the temperatures are the same?

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi Gerald,
      No. What I am saying is that the pressure referred to in the ideal gas law is not atmospheric pressure. Atmospheric pressure is the weight of the molecules in the atmosphere and decreases with increasing altitude because there are fewer molecules above. It is the same as water pressure and depth. As you dive deeper into the ocean the pressure from the weight of water above you increases. Diver adjust their buoyancy vests to compensate for this increase pressure (the atmospheres equal to 33 feet of fresh water). The water at the surface is not holding the water in place, that is gravity which gives the water its weight.
      The same is true in the atmosphere where gravity provides the pressure to hold the atmosphere on the Earth and resist its expansion. The pressure of gravity is measured from the center of the Earth so there isn’t that much difference between the pressure at the surface of the Earth and the pressure at the top of the atmosphere.
      The kinetic energy of gas molecules increases with altitude. Temperature is a measurement by a thermometer and is not an accurate indicator of kinetic energy. The ideal gas law, PV=nkt, can be solved for kinetic energy (t) to t=PV/nk which can be changed to 1/t=nk/PV which says the density of an unconfined gas n/V times P/k is inversely proportional to its kinetic energy. When a gas is heated it expands and becomes less dense. The higher you go in the atmosphere the lower the density and the hotter the molecules.
      Have a good day,
      Herb

  • Avatar

    Herb Rose

    |

    Hello Doug,
    I see you again changed your monitor from physicist/physics teacher/etc./etc. to Scientist. Calling yourself these things does not make you one. You are an idiot. You keep changing you definitions and you refuse to comprehend what others are saying. How can you maintain that a cooler object can make a warmer object hotter and then say I don’t understand the laws of thermodynamics? You ignore my repeated assertions that atmospheric pressure is not the pressure referred to in the ideal gas law. Do you believe that they are both the same as tire pressure since they all have the last name?
    I did an article on your “Planetary Core and Surface Temperature” where I asked how you could explain permafrost if the core was heating the surface but you ignored the question. You cannot be proven wrong because your ego will not accept the concept that you are not infallible.
    I do not know where you spend 73 years studying but you should demand a refund of any money spent because you failed to learn how to read and only became a bigger fool..
    You are not a scientist because you do not question and you do not think. You emotionally react to any disagreement to your beliefs and instead of discussing ideas you disparage and insult. I repeat in the hopes you will read it that you are an idiot.

  • Avatar

    William Kay

    |

    “Temperature increases at a steady rate with altitude until the top of the troposphere where the boiling point of water is reached”

    Temperature decreases with altitude in the troposphere. Mountains have snowy peaks.

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi William,
      Why do airplanes frequently fly through rain when they at an altitude greater than the mountains? The summit of a mountain is not a gas and there are a lot more molecules sharing the energy.Jjust as you can survive being in the atmosphere when the temperature is 50 F but will die in a half hour in 50 F water. More heat is sucked out of you by the water than by the air.

  • Avatar

    William Kay

    |

    There is still some precipitation at over 7,000 metres otherwise there would be no snow on top of those mountains. The same precipitation falling in the summer if it landed on the ground would be unfrozen water.
    Just to be clear:
    Are you saying that for any given spot on the surface of the Earth that a spot located 9000 metres directly above it would be HOTTER than this surface spot?

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi again William,
      What I am talking about is the kinetic energy of molecules. In a 100 C oven there are few molecules transferring heat but those molecules have a large amount of kinetic energy. In 100 C water there are over a thoussnd times the number of molecules transferring kinetic energy but they have less kinetic energy. Food will cook faster in the boiling water because it contains more heat than the oven and is transferring more heat to the food. Therefore the water is “hotter” even though the molecules have less kinetic energy. Objects radiate and transfer energy.
      So to try and clarify what I am saying in one sense the surface of a solid or liquid is “hotter” than the gas above because it contains more energy but the “heat” of the molecules in the atmosphere is greater than the “heat” of the molecules in the solid or liquid.
      I hope this helps.
      Have a good day,
      Herb

      • Avatar

        William Kay

        |

        This is a yes or no question.

        Is the surface of the Earth hotter than the atmosphere at an altitude of 9000 metres?

        • Avatar

          Herb Rose

          |

          Hi William,
          No.

          • Avatar

            William Kay

            |

            Based upon what empirical evidence.

        • Avatar

          Herb Rose

          |

          Hi again William,
          The evidence I based my conclusion on is more the bad evidence claiming he atmosphere is not heated by the sun.
          There was no evidence supporting the sun as the center of the solar system. All observations show that the Earth is the center of the universe. It was the behavior of a minuscule number (statistically not significant) of stars (planets) that led Copernicus to postulate the sun as the center of the solar system.
          The fact that I can heat the atmosphere in my house from heat transferred from radiators says to me that the sun can heat the atmosphere.
          Heat decreases with distance from its source. If you look at a graph of the temperature of the atmosphere at altitudes it shows that heat is not behaving according to the normal behavior and something is not right with the data.
          When you’d heat to an unconfined gas it expands and becomes less dense (PV=nkt) so hot air rises (hot air balloons). The higher the altitude the less dense the air meaning the hotter the gas.
          There is confusion over atmospheric pressure (weight of the molecules in the atmosphere) and the pressure referred to in the ideal gas law. If it were not for energy (heat) the atmosphere would be liquid held to the surface of the Earth by gravity. By adding energy the liquids are converted to gases creating the atmosphere. The energy allows the atmosphere to expand against the pressure of gravity. The more energy (heat) added the greater the expansion against gravity.
          From these inconsistencies I concluded that a thermometer does not give an accurate indication of the kinetic energy of a gas. The article uses water to show that the temperature of water at various states does not represent the kinetic energy of the water molecules. Since water is a liquid at 5000 meters it shows the temperature of the atmosphere is greater than 0 C.
          To compare the kinetic energy (heat) at altitudes you must use the ideal gas law (V/n times 15 C)=t) which shows that the temperature of the atmosphere at 5000 meters is greater then the temperature at the surface of the Earth.
          Have a good day,
          Herb

          • Avatar

            William Kay

            |

            So you don’t accept thermometers as accurate indicators of temperature. That’s the end of that argument.

            You believe the Earth is the centre of the Universe and that the Sun is not the centre of the solar system. Does this mean you believe the Sun revolves around Earth?

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Hi again William,
            What I believe is that is that a thermometer is not an accurate indicator of kinetic energy IN A GAS. The number of molecules transferring energy to the thermometer in a gas changes as the kinetic energy of the molecules increases.
            I do not believe that the Earth is the center of the solar system. What I was trying to demonstrate was that the data (observations) showed that the Earth was the center of the universe but the observations were wrong just as the temperature readings of the thermometer are wrong.
            Temperature readings from a thermometer says kinetic energy decreases with altitude but the fact that water is a liquid at from the surface of the Earth to the stratosphere even though the temperature reaches – 50 C and there is violent turbulence shows the kinetic energy of the molecules in the troposphere is between 0 C and 100 C.
            Have a good day,
            Herb

  • Avatar

    Herb Rose

    |

    Doug Cotton, you have been banned from PSI, yet you continue to posting your rantings anyhow. You continue to change you name to demonstrate that you are an idiot. You were quiet for a while did you escape from the asylum or did they release you?

    • Avatar

      Lauchlan Grant Duff

      |

      Herb, re your comment about atmospheric water being a liquid from the surface to -50C.
      Using PVT simulator and an Equation of State EOS (PR 78 W Peneloux) one can take atmospheric compositions as input and flash the compositions at the various T&Ps through the stratosphere-or beyond if required. Now, if we take 100% water composition, and flash through the 10 1 km P/T slices, we get liquid water through all these P/Ts from 15C to -64C and 1 bar downwards in P. HOWEVER, when we flash a typical atmospheric composition with say 0.986mol % H20, then we actually get 100% H2O vapour at surface until the first aqueous phase of water appearing at 0.9 bar and 8.55C (equivalent to 1km into troposphere). The aqueous phase progressively increases and the vapour phase progressively decreases up through the troposphere. The idea with using EOSs is to simulate as close to a real gas as possible rather than an ideal gas.

      • Avatar

        Herb Rose

        |

        Hi Lauchlan,
        I have some questions on your comment.
        When you speak of vapor are you talking about steam or the visible water droplets as steam condenses? The energy needed to convert 100C water (540 calories/gram) to steam is so much greater then the energy level of the water that I believe James McGinn is correct in saying that water evaporates as micro droplets (to small to see) rather than steam.
        What is the pressure you are using in your calculations? If you are using atmospheric pressure then your calculations are wrong. Atmospheric pressure is the weight of the molecules in the atmosphere and it is gravity that is converting the massif the molecules into weight. If the energy of the atmosphere was low enough the atmosphere would be a layer of liquid held to the Earth by gravity. In this case the molecules would rest on top of each other and their weight would add pressure just as water does. When energy is added to the atmosphere it becomes a gas where molecules are colliding with each other and the surface of the Earth expanding against the pressure of gravity. They are no longer in continuous contact and the kinetic energy (mv^2) of the molecules is pushing against gravity and no longer adding pressure, just as water vapor does not add pressure/weight to the liquid water under it The greater the energy the more the atmosphere expands and the more infrequent the collisions between molecules. This is an equilibrating of energy in the atmosphere and causes it to expand against the pressure of gravity. You cannot use the weight of the molecules as pressure holding the atmosphere down when it is the energy of the molecules holding the other molecules up. The mass of a gas molecule does not change with altitude and the weight changes very little.
        What are the temperatures you are using? Do you believe the thermometer is right (even though it is calibrated for a liquid) or that the ideal gas law is correct and t is inversely proportional to density?
        The state of water gives an indication of kinetic energy. The attraction between water molecules is from the structure of the molecules and is constant. Whether water is a solid, liquid, or gas depends on the kinetic energy of the molecule. If kinetic energy is less than the attraction force water is a solid,. If they are equal it is a liquid and when the kinetic energy is greater than the attractive force water is a gas. If water is a liquid (droplets in clouds) then the kinetic energy is in the range of 0C to 100C not at -50C. Clouds of water droplets exist from the surface of the Earth into the stratosphere so the temperature/kinetic energy needs to be between 0C and 100C.
        Have a good day,
        Herb

Comments are closed

Share via