Refuting The Greenhouse Gas Theory
Image: Nursing Assignment Writers
By greenhouse theory glass, H2O, CO2 and other greenhouse gases are claimed to absorb infrared (IR) radiation. They are non-transparent to the infrared. Conversely, Nitrogen, Oxygen and Germanium are assumed to be transparent to IR. We know this by the instrument that measures IR, the thermoelectric thermopile.
I tested, by a simple experiment, the said substances for the said claims by exposing the substances to real ‘hot’ infrared heat radiation. The heat that burns without contact. All, but for water, failed the test: it is the complete opposite than is claimed. I conclude it is the instrument, the thermopile, that has lead us to a systematic error. Greenhouse theory is based on this instrument and as a result, is incomplete.
Background
Going into it, early last Saturday morning the 24th of April, I felt like the scientists of old, not really knowing what the outcome would be, but having a pretty good idea. I also knew that if the results are positive, I am wrong and I have to leave this. They were, apart from water, all negative.
Incidentally, as I write this, the sun streaming through a glass window warming my feet.
Until recently I was going to test the non-greenhouse gases pure oxygen and nitrogen for infrared heat absorption from the sun by the Raman spectrometer, the modern complementary instrument to the thermoelectric instruments that define the greenhouse gases.
Upon inquiry into my proposed experiment, I was advised by a Professor in the field of Raman spectroscopy, Lund University, that while the question has ‘interesting’ the instrument would not be accurate under the necessary conditions for the experiment — ‘there would be too much noise’. This came as a great disappointment; but, it never stopped me thinking.
Then it came to me: the real solution to my questions was literately steering me in the face all along. Test the specific substances for real! — high temperature — infrared (heat) transparency. Do the substances behave as they are claimed to?
To set you up for this imagine the following: you need, desperately, to shield yourself from hot sun or a glowing hot fire and all you have to do this with is either a clear glass sheet or a sheet of metal germanium. You are told, by ‘the science’, the glass blocks heat radiation and the germanium metal, by the science, does not. Which one do you pick up? Do you trust ‘the science’?
Introduction
Glass (silica), water (H2O) and the so-called greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), and methane (CH4) are all, while transparent to visible light, are claimed to be non-transparent and thus absorbent to infrared radiation. Greenhouse Gases Absorb Infrared Radiation
Nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2) — the non-greenhouse gases — and solid metalloid germanium (Ge) are assumed to be totally transparent to infrared: they (supposedly) do not absorb infrared heat at all and at any temperature. It is for this reason — it is claimed — germanium is used as lenses in thermal cameras. (click to see Youtube demonstration)
The technology that defines our understanding of these claims and the so-called special greenhouse gases is the thermopile. It is the same (early 19th century) technology that runs the (pictured) yellow IR thermometer (and is directly related to the operation of thermal cameras and IR spectroscopy).
The thermopile is a transducer: it transduces IR (heat) radiation into electricity via the Seebeck effect. (It always interests me how MS Word spell-check always picks up ‘Seebeck’.) The electricity transduced correlates with the heat radiated; but not perfectly, the correction factor I have deduced is what is termed the emissivity of the substance measured. More on that some other time, but it is important on its own to my findings as it too is very strange.
Demonstrating IR transparency with an IR camera. A, two sealed tubes (sealed with thin plastic and not glass), one contains air, the other CO2. B a ‘hot’ hand can be seen through the air, and C, the one with CO2, the hand is ‘blocked’. Youtube clip.
In 1859 John Tyndall used the thermopile to deduce what he thought to be, and what we still think are the greenhouse gases. He measured an electrical current, by a galvanometer, from CO2 and the other ‘greenhouse gasses’, and measured no electricity from oxygen and nitrogen, and so he concluded oxygen and nitrogen do not absorb infrared, they are non-greenhouse gases.
To contain his gases, Tyndall (intentionally) used salt crystal and not glass (just as chemists do to this day with closely related IR spectroscopy) as glass is assumed to absorb IR, no IR measurement can be made through it.
From this 1859 finding greenhouse theory was formed and claims the transfer of energy between the (1%) greenhouse gases and the (99%) non-greenhouse gases after absorption from the sun or earth is done so only by collisions (conduction).
Ian Stewart Greenhouse theory demonstration Youtube clip.
From this, there are two outstanding problems with this —greenhouse — theory that have frustrated me and motivated me.
1) the theory contradicts foundational physics where all matter with a temperature (above absolute zero Kelvin) radiates infrared heat. If nitrogen, oxygen and germanium do not absorb IR, this is a contradiction to radiation theory.
2) the air is a very poor thermal conductor of heat, one of the poorest (0.024 WmK). Conduction in liquid and gas If the heat energy is not transferred to the non-greenhouse gases by radiation and not by conduction (collisions), how is the heat is transferred atmosphere at all? How do you explain the weather processes which all depend on this knowledge?
Hypothesis
I say the oxygen and the nitrogen and the germanium do absorb and radiate and that there has been a systematic error by the reliance on one instrument type that measures them, the thermoelectric transducers and the like.
These transducers have led us wrong.
So, I tested the said substances for real IR transparency to test my hypothesis.
What you see in the photograph is my apparatus for my experiment. You see a stove with different things on it that I will now describe.
Note what you don’t see in the photograph, the gases of the atmosphere. 99% of the dry atmosphere is composed of nitrogen and oxygen.
Clockwise from the red-hot stove element:
The element is on full power and this is my (real) infrared radiation heat source. Infrared radiation is the heat you sense from the glow from such things.
Next is the IR thermometer. This is a very important instrument to greenhouse theory as described above.
The temperature of the radiating element was measured by the IR thermometer to be ca. 400C. The temperature of the ‘air’ (mostly non-greenhouse gas N2 and O2) above the element does not register a temperature by the IR thermometer.
Next is the baking soda and vinegar to make CO2 gas. I made the CO2 gas and poured it into a plastic bag, and sealed it. It is easy to pour as it is much heavier than air. I tested for CO2 by the flame extinguishing test before sealing.
Jumping ahead; can you see what looks like a coin on the aluminium sheet, that is the germanium. Germanium is very expensive, hence the amount I have (around 50 US dollars for that amount, it’s a start).
Germanium is a semi-conductor; it does not conduct electricity at room temperature; however, when heated, it does. I tested for this with the multimeter and confirmed it is germanium. What is also important about germanium is when the germanium is placed in front of the IR thermometer, and the IR thermometer is pointed at the radiating element, a reading of ca. 200 C was measured: about 50% of the real temperature, which matches what germanium should do. It appears to be transparent. More improved germanium is around 100% ‘transparent’, and is used in IR cameras.
You also see a glass bowl and some water in a jug.
My crude infrared radiation heat detector was my body, my hands, and my face, particularly my lips. We can feel infrared radiation: we sense it is heat. 400C, as is 200C, is dangerously hot with even short-time exposure, and easily sensed.
Method
My method was to pass the different materials over the IR radiating element and discern by sensing whether the substances are transparent or not to IR as they are claimed to be.
This was done in the order of glass, the water in the glass bowl, aluminium foil, the germanium, the plastic bag, and then the CO2 in the plastic bag.
The reason I used an aluminium sheet was because the germanium ‘coin’ was so small and aluminium almost perfectly shields or reflects infrared radiation (which is the only actual true thing in this setup; aluminium does what it is claimed to, and the numbers match).
I demonstrated to myself I could measure the temperature of the hot element with the IR thermometer when the Ge was placed in front of the IR thermometer detector (implying the metal is transparent to IR as claimed); it measured. The same applied to the plastic bag. By the glass and the bagged CO2 on the other hand no change in the temperature is recorded when the glass and CO2 is placed between the IR thermometer and the element (corresponding to the claimed IR absorption).
Results
Glass: I could feel the heat from the element through the glass.
Water: in the bowl totally blocked the radiant heat — even a small amount blocked.
Aluminium foil: blocked.
Germanium: blocked. In detail, I used the aluminium foil sheet with the hole and tested it if I could feel the heat radiate through the hole onto my lips and face. I could feel the heat. I then placed the germanium sample on and over the hole and repeated.
Initially, I felt heat coming through as if the Ge was not there and thought to myself: I’m wrong! I tried it again and then realised that the germanium had quickly heated and was itself radiating onto me (which it should not do if it were transparent). I could not touch the sample as it was so hot (it must have a low heat capacity (it does)) So, I repeated the whole process, this time passing the hole over the element in a fast movement knowing the IR radiates at the speed of light; first with no Ge, and then with Ge.
I could instantaneously feel the heat through the hole, and then with the Ge over the hole again and I could not feel any heat. It blocked the heat.
CO2 in the plastic bag: I could instantaneously feel the heat radiation through the CO2 and plastic.
Discussions and Conclusions
The key outcome is that germanium (claimed to be transparent to IR radiation) is actually opaque to the radiant IR heat, and that glass and CO2 (claimed to be non-transparent to IR radiation from the sun etc) were actually IR transparent.
Water is remarkable for its true IR radiation opaqueness.
The germanium is similar to the nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere: they all actually absorb IR, and are opaque to IR radiation contrary to belief. To measure the temperature of the nitrogen and oxygen from IR radiation (and indeed the temperature of water, methane and CO2) a laser-based Raman spectrometer can be used.
The glass, apart for H2O, in the experiment is the same as the so-called greenhouse gases; they all transduce IR radiation to electricity by the thermopile and are thus claimed to be heat absorb IR heat radiation, but they actually by this experiment let the IR heat through. The CO2 was no defence to the heat radiation.
It is the thermopile instrument the has led us to believe CO2 is special. Tyndall, in 1859, really and only discovered the thermoelectric gases: the gases that transduce electricity from IR radiation.
I cannot see that anyone has conducted a similar experiment. Not only does this refute greenhouse theory at its foundations but also has implications for our understanding of heat radiation physics as a whole. Our belief in infrared absorption or transparency for different substances is totally based on instrument type and not on practical testing by modern instruments.
I have concluded there has been a systematic error in our measurement of infrared (IR) radiation and the greenhouse gases.
Read more of my work at:
The Greenhouse Gases and Infrared Radiation Misconceived by Thermoelectric Transducers
Quantum Mechanics and Raman Spectroscopy Refute Greenhouse Theory
See more here: fractalnomics.com
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.
Herb Rose
| #
The primary transfer of energy in the troposphere is done through convection not radiation. What wavelengths a material will absorb is determined by the bonds that form it, but all materials will absorb energy from collisions (conservation of momentum). The fact that O2 and N2 do not absorb visible light or IR (they do absorb uv and shorter wavelengths) does not stop you from heating the air in your house during the winter.
All thermometers are inaccurate when measuring the energy of a gas because they absorb it from the momentum of the molecules striking them (not radiation) and the momentum is a function both of the energy of the molecules and their mass (number of molecules). As energy is added to the gas molecules the gas expands and the number (mass) of molecules transferring energy decreases so you have two variables (energy and mass) that have opposite behavior with one decreasing as the other increases.
The fact that thermometers are calibrated using water further contributes to their inaccuracy in measuring energy since water absorbs 86% of the energy needed to convert 0C ice to 100C steam without it registering on the instrument.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
The primary transfer of energy in the troposphere is done through convection not radiation.
James:
I agree that radiation plays an extremely minor role in any energy transfer. But convection (bouyancy) is almost nonexistent in earth’s atmosphere. The vast majority of equillibrium producing activity is simply the result of the focused gusty winds, such as those associated with storms and jet streams. And these are caused by vortice activity that itself is surface tension properties of atmospheric H2O that, literally, spin up on wind shear boundaries that span between locations of differential pressure/temperature.
Herb:
The fact that O2 and N2 do not absorb visible light or IR (they do absorb uv and shorter wavelengths) does not stop you from heating the air in your house during the winter.
James”
excellent point. It is a blatantly stupid to believe that only CO2 and H2O can be heated or heat other things. Humans are stupid. And global warming frauds take full advantage of this kind of stupidity.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
David Stone CEng
| #
I refute your supposed “mathematical” paper because the Stephan-Boltzman law is A: false, and B; does not apply because the atmosphere / Earth system is NOT at thermal equilibrium, which is a requirement for your mathematics. The whole point of the “Greenhouse effect” is that the conditions are not at thermal equilibrium, all heat transfer questions are therefore not responses to simple equations as you have presented. Few physicists seem to know of thermodynamics, and just restate theories which do not stand up to Experiment. I suggest you watch this video and all the others by Robtialle because there is a huge hole in Physics and Astronomy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQnTPRDT03U
Reply
MattH
| #
Some radiative gas increases in the atmosphere are blamed for climate change because infrared energy from the sun varies approximately only 0.1 percent with changing and evolving sun cycles.
What this antiquated model ignores is the correlation between sun cycles and Hadley Cell expansion or deflation as well as jet stream dynamics as a result of ultra violet energy from the sun variations.
Cloud cover variations that correlate with sun cycles. Cyclone formation correlating with corona mass ejections. El Nino -La Nina phase intensities correlating with sun activity and cycles.
Volcanic activity (atmospheric particle intensity ) variations correlating with solar cycles.
Earth’s ground and atmospheric electric circuitry strength variations which correlate with solar wind and galactic cosmic energy in Earth’s atmosphere and ground variations. Electric polarity and intensity attraction and repulsion is barely acknowledged by meteorology. The atmosphere rushing . at times violently, hither and thither is not because the atmosphere is rushing to catch a bus or only thermodynamics.
I came across the below reference from Cap Allon’s electoverse.com
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/7122/chilly-temperatures-during-the-maunder-minimum
Some fool once said the science is settled.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt,
The atmosphere rushing around IS due to thermodynamics, or the flow of energy. The source of that energy comes in multiple forms and from multiple sources and when people fail to acknowledge this they come up with idiocy like the GHGT.
Herb
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Herb. Like I wrote, ” Electric polarity and intensity attraction and repulsion is barely acknowledged by meteorology”. Lightning is but one manifestation. Heat generated through electrical resistance (non lightning ) through clouds is another hypothesis and the resulting heat is incalculable because it varies with sun activity, galactic cosmic rays, and cloud variations.
My understanding is there is more upper atmospheric lightning occurrence with increased galactic cosmic energy in the atmosphere. Separate from storms.
Cheers Herb
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt,
Cosmic rays are charged particles and the primary source is the sun. When these ions enter Earth’s magnetic field the positive and negative ions are deflected in opposite directions according to the right hand rule, but it is the positive and negative electric fields repelling force radiated by the Earth that causes them to collect in the positive and negative Van Allen belts. When the charge difference between the belts becomes large enough or they grow enough in size, there is lightning between them that converts the positive ions into atoms. The Earth’s water is a result of the oxygen positive ion being converted into an oxygen atom that then combines with hydrogen atoms. The Earth started out as molten rock and the water arrived, after it cooled, as ions emitted by the sun.
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Herb. Not gonna argue on that. But when the sleepy old sun lets in those naughty old galactic cosmic rays, those energy particles are 90% protons, positively charged, and they are minimally effected by the Van Ellen belt which leads to the “Svensmark” effect as well as effecting Earth and Atmospheric electrical circuitry.
Solar wind is effected by the Van Ellen belt but changes in earth electric charge changes in real time with changes in solar wind speed and intensity. These changes in electric charge have been recorded and measured.
There is more going on than meets the eye. I wonder what gamma rays and xrays get up to with our weather and environment. Something really naughty probably.
Cheers Matt
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
The atmosphere rushing around IS due to thermodynamics,
James:
No. You are just wrong on this. It is the plumbing of the atmosphere that enables the streaming that explains the mixing. This is a consequence of surface tension properties of water that spin up on wind shear boudances.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
Yes James, it is the equalization of energy that causes all motion. This motion may be in the form of vortices, structural changes of water, and wind shear but it is all due to the flow of energy.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
You are failing to comprehend a very important distinction about the way the atmosphere actually achieves equilibrium. Without streaming it would achieve equilibrium much more gradually, slower. Gases don’t stream. And the streaming that does happen is largely invisible to us. So there is a genuine mystery in all of this that can only be resolved by way of finding the origin of the plumbing of the atmosphere.
MattH
| #
Of course, some of the theories in NASA’s reference will be in error but the ultraviolet energy correlation with jet stream behavior is important. I intuitively believe ozone would be a byproduct of ultraviolet variation not a cause of jet stream variation.
Some of the correlations I have mentioned will not be causation or will only be a part of the cumulative effect with other energies and dynamics. The satellite age is accelerating scientific knowledge.
You would think you could pick a bunch of flowers and give the flowers to a tropical storm and it would settle down. It does not work that way. There are indeed differences between predicting sultry weather and predicting sultry womans.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt,
The ultraviolet light coming from the sun deceases with distance.It is absorbed by oxygen and nitrogen molecules and converted into kinetic energy. This is why the second top layer of the atmosphere consists of oxygen atoms, not molecules, and the next layer is nitrogen-oxygen molecules. When the density of the atmosphere increases (stratosphere) the oxygen atoms resulting from the absorption uv energy combine with oxygen molecules to form ozone. These molecules are unstable and when they lose energy (by sharing energy with the other increasing number of molecules) they convert back into oxygen molecules. This happens, primarily, at a greater altitude than the jet streams. It is the uv light that is heating the atmosphere (not the surface of the Earth) and the jet streams are a result of the atmospheric energy flowing from the equator to the polar regions
Herb
Reply
Roger Higgs
| #
Variations in total solar irradiance (TSI) are indeed minuscule, which is one of IPCC’s four pillars of ‘man-made’ global warming … all of which have collapsed …
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341622566_IPCC_three_pillars_of_man-made_global_warming_collapsed
Rather than TSI, it’s the synchronous changes in the Sun’s magnetic output (SMO) that control decadal to centennial climate change, via the Svensmark effect (Sun-cosmic rays-cloudiness link; ignored by the IPCC Sun-deniers, of course). SMO’s surge from 1700 (nadir of Little Ice Age) to 1991 was its strongest in >10,000 years, rising 130% in the 20th century alone. CO2 is irrelevant to climate change. Here’s my presentation to the Geological Society of London last week …
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350726458_Global_warming_and_cooling_for_last_2000_years_mimic_Sun's_magnetic_activity_not_CO2_scientific_literature_synthesis
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Roger.
Thank you for the dignified manner in which you corrected my gross error in misnaming Total Solar Irradiance.
Also, congratulations on the work you do to contribute to unravelling the anthropogenic climate hoax.
Best wishes. Matt
Reply
james McGinn
| #
Matt:
What this antiquated model ignores is the correlation between sun cycles and Hadley Cell expansion or deflation as well as jet stream dynamics as a result of ultra violet energy from the sun variations.
James:
One of the most retarded notions in all of science is the plainly silly notion that Hadley cell circulation and jet stream flow are caused by convection. This silly belief is embedded in our current models. In reality vortice activity causes Hadley cell circulation and is the sourve of the momentum of the jet streams
The Plumbing of the Atmosphere
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/The-Plumbing-of-the-Atmosphere-ef3f7n
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Guys and hopefully other PSI Readers,
In 1974 Richard Feynman delivered a commencement address at Caltech titled: ‘Cargo Cult Science’. Much of its transcript was published in Feynman’s book “Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!) (1985)
One paragraph of this transcript was: Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can—if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong—to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When
You have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things if fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory, but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.”
In other words, a SCIENTIFIC THEORY must predict a fact (observation, measurement) not yet known. (my interpretation of Feynman’s last statement)
The theory known as the Greenhouse Effect of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (GHE) has the prediction that the air’s temperature would be 33C (58F) lower if not for the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (air). Therefore it qualifies as a valid SCIENTIFIC THEORY which can be disproven by a fact not yet known, or recognized.
In October of 2016 I reported a NEW SCIENTIFIC LAW which had not yet been recognized as such. And I attempted to explain how this LAW absolutely PROVED that the GHE of any atmospheric gases was absolutely wrong. (https://principia-scientific.com/?s=A+New+Scientific).
And if you go the data of atmospheric soundings (http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html) and the data of more than 2000 RAWS (remote automated weather stations (https://raws.dri.edu) you will measurements are measurements which confirm the SCIENTIFIC LAW the air’s temperature had never be measured to be less than the air’s dew point temperature measured at the same place and time. Which absolutely refutes the prediction that an air temperature could ever be lower than that measured.
So, explain to the PSI Readers why they are reading this article and your comments without any review of that which I just shared!!!
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
We continue to discuss the issue because the NEW SCIENTIFIC LAW, as proclaimed by you, is utter bullshit. The lowest temperature ever measured at ground level is -93C. What is the dew point at -93C? Your law is based on the fallacies that a thermometer accurately measures the kinetic energy of a gas and that water vapor exists in the atmosphere below the boiling point of water.
have a good day,
Herb
P.S. You need to re-phrase “the air temperature had never be measured to be less than the air’s dew point temperature measured at the same place and time. Which absolutely refutes the prediction that an air temperature could ever be lower than that measured.” so it makes some sort of sense.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You ask: “What is the dew point at -93C?” Do not know if you are trying to trick me, so must edit dew point to frost point because we know water at this low temperature must be ice. So the frost point temperature of ice at -93C is -93C. If you are asking what is the vapor pressure of ice at -93C, it is a little less than 0.00007mmHg or a lilt more than 0.000033mmHg.
How do you explain the common formation of dew or frost on an automobile’s windshield during during fall and winter seasons at some locations???
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
Dew forms because the temperature falls below the dew point. The formation of dew reduces the humidity causing a reduction of the dew point, so it is a continually adjusting condition. This is where I have trouble with your observation.The formation of dew means the temperature was below the dew point, which you say never happens, and at the same time the dew point changes as water is removed from the atmosphere.
At below -30C water is not liquid and precipitates out of the atmosphere as ice crystals (diamond dust) without condensing on a surface or in the atmosphere. This is why it is known as clear sky precipitation It is not frost forming on a surface but the freezing of the water in the atmosphere.
have good day,
Herb
Reply
Alan
| #
Here is how the Iain Stewart experiment was created:
http://www.creative-science.org.uk/hollywood15.html
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Alan,
I didn’t get far in the experiment.He showed CO2 absorbing heat. Doesn’t that make it a cooling agent as opposed to something reflecting heat, which is what is supposed to happen in the GHGT? The same is true of water. Water absorbs heat at the Earth’s surface by evaporation.It then transports that energy high into the atmosphere where it is released by condensation. This would mean both CO2 and water are transporting energy away from the Earth as they rise in the atmosphere when gaining energy, not keeping it at the surface. I think the interpretation of the data is backwards.
Herb
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
This is silly stuff….the atmosphere is 0.04% CO2 – not 100%. The candle was visible with the CO2 in the room which was probably higher than 0.04%. Maybe he should try some methane but be careful with the candle…and some water vapor too. He is experimenting in a room….the atmosphere is not like the air a room. All of the information he is offering has been known for many years…..perhaps he is aiming at an audience that doesn’t know that? There are published charts of CO2 and temp going back millions of years….do not ask me the accuracy of the data but the charts show no correlation between CO2 and temp. The ocean out gases CO2 as it warms but there is a delay…a lag…..some period of years before the ocean warming follows atmospheric warming and cooling.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and hopefully PSI Readers,
I reply again to Herb because he wrote something which suggests I might be getting closer to success. For before he wrote: “Hi Jerry,
Dew forms because the temperature falls below the dew point. The formation of dew reduces the humidity causing a reduction of the dew point, so it is a continually adjusting condition. This is where I have trouble with your observation.The formation of dew means the temperature was below the dew point, which you say never happens, and at the same time the dew point changes as water is removed from the atmosphere. (June 5, 2021 at 2:14 am | #). He had written: “P.S. You need to re-phrase “the air temperature had never be[en] (my error) measured to be less than the air’s dew point temperature measured at the same place and time. Which absolutely refutes the prediction that an air temperature could ever be lower than that measured.” so it makes some sort of sense.” (June 4, 2021 at 4:04 pm | #)
I only have edit–Dew forms because the temperature falls BELOW the dew point.–so it reads–Dew forms because the temperature falls TO the dew point–and we (he and I) totally agree. And he followed this edited statement with “The formation of dew reduces the humidity causing a reduction of the dew point, so it is a continually adjusting condition.” With which I totally agree except I would like to specifically define humidity with the substitution of the words: water molecules’ concentration.
Herb, can you accept my editing of your two very fundamental statements with which I readily agree???
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb, MattH, Blair MacDonald (the author of the article) and hopefully other PSI Readers,
I discovered this morning I had drooped the ball on this excellent article and your comments. For I had not actually read the article!!! SHAME ON ME!!!
Hopefully this will restart this conversation.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply