What NASA, ESA admit but media fail to report about our current heat wave
The current heat wave is being relentlessly blamed on increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but there is a much more plausible explanation, one that is virtually endorsed by two of the world’s leading scientific organizations
It turns out that levels of water vapor in the atmosphere have dramatically increased over the last year and a half, and water vapor is well recognized as a greenhouse gas, whose heightened presence leads to higher temperatures, a mechanism that dwarfs any effect CO2 may (allegedly Ed) have.
So why has atmospheric water vapor increased so dramatically? Because of a historic, gigantic volcanic eruption last year that I — probably along with you — had never heard of. The mass media ignored it because it took place 490 feet underwater in the South Pacific.
Don’t take it from me; take it from NASA (and please do follow the link to see time-lapse satellite imagery of the underwater eruption and subsequent plume of gases and water injected into the atmosphere):
When the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai volcano erupted on Jan. 15, it sent a tsunami racing around the world and set off a sonic boom that circled the globe twice.
The underwater eruption in the South Pacific Ocean also blasted an enormous plume of water vapor into Earth’s stratosphere — enough to fill more than 58,000 Olympic-size swimming pools.
The sheer amount of water vapor could be enough to temporarily affect Earth’s global average temperature.
“We’ve never seen anything like it,” said Luis Millán, an atmospheric scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California.
He led a new study examining the amount of water vapor that the Tonga volcano injected into the stratosphere, the layer of the atmosphere between about 8 and 33 miles (12 and 53 kilometers) above Earth’s surface.
In the study, published in Geophysical Research Letters, Millán and his colleagues estimate that the Tonga eruption sent around 146 teragrams (1 teragram equals a trillion grams) of water vapor into Earth’s stratosphere — equal to 10 percent of the water already present in that atmospheric layer.
That’s nearly four times the amount of water vapor that scientists estimate the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines lofted into the stratosphere. [emphasis added]
NASA published the above in August 2022. Half a year later, a newer study increased the estimate of the water vapor addition to the atmosphere by 30 percent.
From the European Space Agency:
In a recent paper published in Nature, a team of scientists showed the unprecedented increase in the global stratospheric water mass by 13 percent (relative to climatological levels) and a five-fold increase of stratospheric aerosol load — the highest in the last three decades.
Using a combination of satellite data, including data from ESA’s Aeolus satellite, and ground-based observations, the team found that due to the extreme altitude, the volcanic plume circumnavigated the Earth in just one week and dispersed nearly pole-to-pole in three months. [emphasis added]
Another scientific paper explains the “net warming of the climate system” on a delayed basis.
NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory further explains:
Volcanic eruptions rarely inject much water into the stratosphere. In the 18 years that NASA has been taking measurements, only two other eruptions — the 2008 Kasatochi event in Alaska and the 2015 Calbuco eruption in Chile — sent appreciable amounts of water vapor to such high altitudes.
But those were mere blips compared to the Tonga event, and the water vapor from both previous eruptions dissipated quickly. The excess water vapor injected by the Tonga volcano, on the other hand, could remain in the stratosphere for several years.
This extra water vapor could influence atmospheric chemistry, boosting certain chemical reactions that could temporarily worsen depletion of the ozone layer. It could also influence surface temperatures.
Massive volcanic eruptions like Krakatoa and Mount Pinatubo typically cool Earth’s surface by ejecting gases, dust, and ash that reflect sunlight back into space.
In contrast, the Tonga volcano didn’t inject large amounts of aerosols into the stratosphere, and the huge amounts of water vapor from the eruption may have a small, temporary warming effect, since water vapor traps heat.
The effect would dissipate when the extra water vapor cycles out of the stratosphere [Emphases added]
So there you have it: we are in for extra atmospheric heat “for several years” until the extra water vapor injected by this largest-ever-recorded underwater volcano eruption dissipates.
See more here americanthinker.com
Header image: CNRS News
Editor’s note: despite these statements from NASA & the ESA, the media will ignore it and climate alarmists will continue to blame CO2 for all warm weather.
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.
Howdy
| #
Heat wave, what heat wave? The UK has yet to see summer, or even a decent representation of spring! The seasons have obviously slipped out of alignment at a minimum.
To be fair, there was a two week period in June 2023 that was summer-like, but rain since then on. Much like the latter 2022 which had a similar pattern, that lead up to the two weeks sun this year. That’s some heatwave right there. Global warming, give me a break.
The only CO2 excess is the one the climate ponces continually gas about.
The daily mail claim July 2023 was the hottest July ever. These people need help. Not long ago, an article claimed a period of baking heat was coming, and right next to it, another claiming deluges on the way.
Reply
Roo63
| #
Damned right, howdy, Autumn started weeks ago and another effect being that we, and others, have lost our small fruit and veg crops, as a results. The plants don’t seem to know what day it is.
Carbon dioxide is plant food and the more the better and, being a Heavy element, just how high do they think carbon dioxide gets, in the atmosphere?
With co2 fire extinguishers, the gas hovers in the air like a brick doesn’t, it hits the ground almost immediately. Simple things alone (not me) prove they spout pure bs.
It’s all about scamming us for Everything we own, before their poisons finish us off.
Good on ya, pal 🙂
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
An underwater volcano erupts releasing a large amount of geothermal energy. This increase in energy causes more water to enter the atmosphere and yet ‘americanthinker’ seems to believe that it is the water that is causing an increase of energy in the atmosphere. water is not a “greenhouse gas” but a cooling mechanism that absorbs heat and transports through the troposphere to be released into space. The increase in energy from the eruption will result in more water in the atmosphere and more rain, not more heating.
The normal heating by the sun has far more energy than the temporary release of geothermal energy and yet summer heat does not cause water to go into the stratosphere. Why not? The absorption of heat by water is normally a conversion of the water into liquid crystal nano droplets while the high temperature of the volcanic explosion is able to convert the water to a gas with a molecular weight (18) less than
N2 (28) or O2 (32) so it can reach the stratosphere, while the liquid crystals cannot.
Reply
Huapakechi
| #
Your naivety is incredible. The volcano was 300+ feed underwater, thus turning it into a huge water canon that injected huge quantities of water DIRECTLY into the stratosphere. In case you haven’t kept up with atmospheric science, water vapor is the most prevalent and effective greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Huapakeci,
When you say directly into the stratosphere are you saying it was able to skip the troposphere? Since water is 1000 times denser than air a similar volcano erupting on the surface would propels gases to an altitude of 300, 000 ft or through the thermosphere. Doesn’t happen. Because there are 1000 times the molecules absorbing the energy the energy is spread thin and each molecule has less energy than an atmospheric eruption.
I see you have kept up with atmospheric propaganda. There is no “atmospheric science” it is a study of history. They do not even know what evidence the thermometer or barometer is telling them.
When you sweat do you get hotter from the “water Vapor”? Water absorbs 600 calories/gram of heat on the surface then carries that heat to the top of the troposphere, where it is released into space. It is actively removing heat from the surface, not keeping it on the surface. To believe that water is a good insulator is truly stupid.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Huapakech,
I often compose my comments as document and then copy it nd paste it as a comment here. And I compose quite slowly. So I had not read your comment when I began to compose mine and when I came back to PSI I did not check if another comment had been made as I compose mine.
You wrote “The volcano was 300+ feed underwater, thus turning it into a huge water canon.” which was exactly what I was imagining to propose later in another comment. However, you continued “In case you haven’t kept up with atmospheric science, water vapor is the most prevalent and effective greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.” Which has nothing directly to do with the water canon you proposed. Was the projectile of this water canon LIQUID WATER or GASEOUS WATER?
Have a good day
(Corrected your own name spelling) SUNMOD
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi SUNMOD,
Thank you for documenting my simple, common problem.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Huapakechi,
I often compose my comments as a document because of what just happened. I forgot to submit my next direct comment to you and lost what I had composed. So I now compose my short comment as a document and then copy and paste it
Because I had done this with my previous comment I had not seen your brief, but very significant, comment. I had been considering the possibility “The volcano was 300+ feed underwater, thus turning it into a huge water canon that injected huge quantities of water DIRECTLY into the stratosphere.” However you followed this with “In case you haven’t kept up with atmospheric science, water vapor is the most prevalent and effective greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.”
I write this to ask is the projectile of the huge water canon LIQUID WATER or GASEOUS WATER? I also write to propose that a shotgun is a good model for your proposed water canon. Or, maybe liquid carbon dioxide of a PELLET GUN needs to be considered as a substitute for the powder of the shotgun shell.
Have a good day
Reply
Sterny
| #
I’m not a scientific organization or climatologist or anything like that, but I’d like to offer my own plausible theory for the current heatwave. IT’S FRIGGIN’ SUMMER.
Reply
STJOHNOFGRAFTON
| #
According to NASA : “The underwater eruption in the South Pacific Ocean also blasted an enormous plume of water vapor into Earth’s stratosphere — enough to fill more than 58,000 Olympic-size swimming pools.” This swimming pool analogy is specious because swimming pools are filled with water in its liquid, not gaseous, state. Given that liquid water will expand by a factor of 1600 times when transformed by heat into steam, this leads to the fact that the quantity of liquid water filling those olympic swimming pools dramatically comes down to just over 36 pools. Not such a sensational figure for NASA dramatists.
Reply
Koen Vogel
| #
I think the swimming pool analogy was meant for the non-scientific crowd. I – as a scientist – have no idea how many swimming pools it takes to cause climate change. More to the point is the comment “10 percent of the water already present in that atmospheric layer.”. An increase of 10% of anything in the atmosphere could plausibly cause a change, and is therefore fair game for further investigation.
Reply
Squidly
| #
That’s hilarious. Even 58,000 Olympic swimming pools of water isn’t even a drop in the ocean when you consider that there are more than 600 billion trillion gallons of surface water on this planet. By the way, it takes more than 4.18×10^23 Joules to raise ocean temperatures by just 1 degree Celsius. That is an enormous amount if energy. That little uruption didn’t do squat!
Reply
Koen Vogel
| #
You make a very good point. While it is only one factor in the many (increasing ocean temperature, increasing solar irradiation in the current cycle, etc.) that may have caused the recent “record” high recorded temperature, it is certainly one that will play an important role in the next few years. Herb’s comments are technically correct, but miss the point of the role water vapour plays as a GHG. Water vapour does absorb thermal energy, and so delays its radiation to space, which occurs at the thermopause. High-altitude water vapour – mainly in the tropics – can cause significant delays, and potentially (yet temporarily) changes the tropopause height. It forms part of Earth’s atmospheric coping mechanism to get rid of its excess (viz the steady-state) thermal energy. I recommend the van Wijngaarden and Happer GHG primer (https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.00808) to all who are interested in getting a good foundational understanding of the role of water vapour in Earth’s climate change.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Koen,
Water is almost exclusively found in the troposphere (99.9%) while the upper atmosphere is composed of oxygen and nitrogen compounds. In the troposphere the transfer of energy is done be convection, not the slower radiation. It is at the tropopause that water releases energy to be radiated into space.
A diagram of the phases of water (solid, liquid, gas) at different temperatures and pressures shows that water at sea level does not exist as a gas below its boiling point. Therefore water vapor (gas) does not exist in the troposphere. In order to convert100 C water to 100 C steam (vapor) 540 calories/gram must be added to the water. When boiling water in a tea kettle, the water first escapes as a clear gas. On cooling water droplets appear as a cloud. On further cooling these droplets disappear only to reappear (dew) as more energy is lost before becoming a solid. If the water is cooling how does it gain the 540 calories/gram to temporarily convert the liquid water droplets to a gas?
Herb
Reply
Squidly
| #
First off, that “record high ocean temperature” was a bold faced lie! .. that wasn’t a temperature taken of an ocean, it was taken in a lagoon, and wasn’t anywhere near recod temperature for that lagoon either. Secondly, it takes more than 4.18×10^23 Joules to increase ocean temperatures by just 1 degree Celsius. No such things have occurred.
Reply
James
| #
That water is a major factor in climate control should be obvious: 3/4 of the earth’s surface is water; pristine glaciers have high albedo, but dry land no, water can turn into a gas or a solid, both with high latent heat. None of which applies to CO2. And the major change on Earth over the last 10-15k years has been the disappearance of ice, with seas increasing in level by at least 100meters.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
Ice in water does not change the water level. A glass full of ice and water will not overflow as the ice melts. In order to increase the sea level by 100 meters the land would have to be covered by a layer of ice 300 meters thick. The changes in sea level are due to changes in the land, not the water.
Herb
Reply
Lance
| #
Isn’t ice a crystalline structure though and therefore has a higher volume than liquid water?
I understand that isostatic rebound of the plates after the younger dryas melting is a big thing, but surely melting ice plays a role in post-ice age sea levels?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Lance,
Yes, ice is less dense than water so the glaciers covering the surface would need more than 300 meters thick.
The idea of dry land is not correct. When the Russians drilled the deepest hole into the crust they were surprised that the crust was saturated with water all the way down.
Herb
Reply
Howdy
| #
When water freezes, it damages or destroys the containing force due to expansion.
Squidly
| #
As it pertains to ice in water, look up the Archimedes Principal .. You’re welcome
FYI, as the ice melts in you favorite beverage, the level in your glass drops!
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Squidly,
“as the ice melts in you favorite beverage, the level in your glass drops!” Are you sure?
This is a simple experiment which any of us can do. But I am going to put a cover on my glass to slow any evaporation of water molecules while the ice cube melts.
Have a good day
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Squidly and others,
While trying to cool my water in a glass I discoovered this is not a simple experiment because in trying cool the water down to 0C I discovered I could not because dew was forming on the outside of the glass. And even though my ice cubes had frozen in gas bubbles, the cubes were not floating appreciably above the water surface.
So based upon what I can see I gave up.
Have a good day
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi commentators,
I am sure that Squidly actually observed that which he stated. For when and where the atmosphere is warm and humid, a common practice is to first fill a glass with ice cubes and pour the beverage over them. Now as the initially totally noticeably submerged cubes melt, the level of the beverage will noticeably decrease.
Have a good day
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi commentators,
I am sure that Squidly actually observed that which he stated. For when and where the atmosphere is warm and humid, a common practice is to first fill a glass with ice cubes and pour the beverage over them. Now as the initially totally noticeably submerged cubes melt, the level of the beverage will noticeably decrease.
Have a good day
Herb Rose
| #
Archimedes was charged with finding out if an intricately carved gold crown was made rom pure gold or had been alloyed with lead without destroying the crown. The crown weighted the same as the gold given to make it so dissolution was that since gold and lead have different densities when the crown was submerged a diluted gold would displace a different amount of water (more) than a pure gold one.
Since ice floats it is not submerged in water, with the difference in density being above the water. When it melts the volume in the glass remains constant.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
“when the crown was submerged a diluted gold would displace a different amount of water (more) than a pure gold one.” There was only one crown. When it was submerged in water the volume of water it displaced could be measured and the measured mass of the crown could by this volume to calculate the crowns’s density.
Because pure gold nuggets are naturally found, the density of gold could be determined the same way, if gold’s density was unknown. What I am not sure about is, if at this earlier time, the concept of density (mass divided volume) had been established by anyone.
Have a good day
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
The comparison is between the crown and an equal weight of pure gold. If the crown displaces more water it contains a less dense metal.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
I. finally understand that what you stated is true. However the test you suggest requires that Archimedes have a mass of gold each to the mass of the crown given to him by the King. Of which there is no mention.
And I comment you for your persistent efforts which it seems others do not have relative to actual scientific problems (questions).
Have a good day
Howdy
| #
It seems you are correct, Herb. The floating section is what causes the ‘anomaly’ in thinking, as you of course allready pointed out in the iceberg example. By forcing the ice to submerge, the glass will over-flow.
Howdy
| #
A site that delves in on this stuff:
https://smithplanet.com/stuff/iceandwater.htm
“However, note that this may not apply to everything. If you had solid alcohol floating in water, when it melts, the level would drop, because water and alcohol mix at the molecular level; i.e. water filling spaces among alcohol molecules.”
https://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae389.cfm
https://sciencefirst.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/24-3120-30-120-611-2110-bucket-and-cylinder.pdf
Jerry Krause
| #
PSI was founded to give everyone an opportunity to present their scientific ideas and to allow these ideas to be peer-reviewed by PSI readers.
This article refers to a very, very violent volcanic eruption which occurred Jan. 15, 2022. (https://principia-scientific.com/volcanic-eruption-released-enough-water-vapor-to-heat-earth/) (https://principia-scientific.com/substantial-southern-hemisphere-cooling-being-observed/)
I draw attention to these two articles published about a year ago, to which the author of this article does not refer.
So one purpose of this comment to draw attention to these previous article because I believe it is critically important to start at the beginning.
One these two prior article has an image which is similar the two images of the present article. Which I believe are actual images of this eruption. And all three articles focus on the ‘water vapor’ being ejected into the stratosphere.
This is obviously WRONG. For if only water vapor were being ejected upward, there would be no observed cloud. Another problem the comments of this article discloses is that a year later only Herb refers to the immediate consequences of this most violent eruption which we see has occurred shortly after the eruption (an explosion) had begun.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Commentators,
I address this comment to you because you have made efforts to comment about the images that NASA scientists and engineers have analyzed. Can we agree that there are many more images observed at various times after the eruption that thees scientists and engineers had to work with?
But from the beginning you commenters have not begun to analyze (speculate).what was occurring during the first 15 minutes after the violent eruption began. Which the NASA people had to have done to make the speculations about which are reported.
Two of the images are observed almost vertically downward from space. The third is observed almost horizontally from either from space or from near the earth’s surface. And in this horizontal ‘shot’ I see an ‘anvil’ forming like that which is seen at the top of a ‘thunderstorm’.cloud whose top has penetrated an atmospheric Jet Stream near the top of the troposphere. But in the case of this eruption we see that the upward vertical motion of ‘something’ did not stop at the top of the troposphere or even at the top of the stratosphere.
To help you a commentators analyze what has been seen, I suggest you consider a shotgun versus a rifle. I believe you might agree that a shotgun is a better model for this eruption than a rifle
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Commentators,
I now have read “Don’t take it from me; take it from NASA (and please do follow the link to see time-lapse satellite imagery of the underwater eruption and subsequent plume of gases and water injected into the atmosphere):” and have watched the video loop taken from The GOES-17 satellite. And I have read the study, published in Geophysical Research Letters. And after reading it through till its end, I report that I did not read anything about SWIMMING POOLS.
I quote what I consider significant and later will explain why (how) I consider it a natural consequence of liquid water being first shot the the canon to the highest altitudes where the warm liquid water rapidly evaporated in the near atmospheric vacuums above the tropopause.
“We estimate the mass of H2O injected into the stratosphere to be 146 ± 5 Tg” … “Ten hours after the eruption on 15 January, MLS measured enhanced values of H2O at altitudes up to 0.46 hPa (∼53 km), well above the stratopause (Figure 1c).” … “on 15 January, MLS only measured the outer edge of the plume in the upper stratosphere, where strong winds advected the lofted H2O to locations sampled by MLS. Near 80 hPa on this day, MLS also measured some enhanced H2O injected by a previous, less violent, HT-HH eruption on 14 January.” …“To study the development of the H2O plume, Figure 4 shows maps for selected days after the eruption and meridional and zonal mean anomalies based on all data points as well as only those that pass the QS criteria. On 15 January, the plume reached 0.46 hPa (∼53 km), with most of the MLS retrievals failing QS. On 16 January, two separate plumes are visible, one in the upper stratosphere (between 1 and 8 hPa) and the other in the lower stratosphere (between 10 and 80 hPa), where most of the H2O volume was injected. On this day, the effects on the plume of strong wind shear between 1 and 8 hPa are already apparent.”
I stop here to better digest the details of what I have quoted.
Have a good day
Reply
Squidly
| #
There is no “heat wave” and there is no such thing as a “greenhouse gas”
Reply
herb rose
| #
Why did the water go high into the stratosphere/ since the eruption was 300 m under water the force of the explosion would be muffled just as the force of underground nuclear bombs are muffled. Most of explosive force would be dispersed by the surrounding water, so that force could not propel the water into the stratosphere. What caused the water to make it into the stratosphere was a steam explosion as the heat created super heated steam. The molecular weight of the water is 18 which is far less than the molecular weights of the N2 (28), O2 (32), and Argon (40) that make up 99.9% of the atmosphere in the troposphere. It was a simple displacement of lighter molecules (water) by heavier molecules that caused the water to go into the stratosphere (composed of oxygen and nitrogen) just as H2 and helium will rise to the to of thermosphere. Water that goes through the normal water cycle of evaporation and condensation remains in the troposphere (99.9%). This shows that the molecular weight of normal evaporated water is greater than argon (40) which is also exclusive to the troposphere.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
“Why did the water go high into the stratosphere/ since the eruption was 300 m under water the force of the explosion would be muffled just as the force of underground nuclear bombs are muffled.”
Very good observations and question.. I have been pondering this Have read your entire comment which I sometimes do not immediately do (a mistake). So I can say there are more ‘physical facts’ that need to be considered beyond what you wrote. Consider what the NASA people considered aa they launched their first satellite into orbit. Other commentators, this is good problem which Herb has identified. Can any of you help Herb and I analyze it?
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Howdy and Herb,
When Louis Elzevir, the publisher of Galileo’s handwritten Italian script (Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences) it seems he immediately understood what Galileo had written. Especially the following as translated to English by Crew and de Salvio.
“UNIFORM MOTION. In dealing with steady or uniform motion, we need a single definition which I give as follows: By steady or uniform motion, I mean one in which the distances traveled by the moving particle during and nay equal intervals of time, are themselves equal. CAUTION. We must add to the old definition (which defined steady motion simply as one in which equal distances are traversed in equal times) the word “any,” meaning by this, all equal intervals of time; for it may happen that the moving body will traverse equal distances during some equal intervals of time and yet the distances traversed during some small portion of these time-intervals may not be equal, even though the time-intervals be equal.”
For when I finally read the 1914 English translation I discovered that Elzevir had written a preface to the reader. And in this translation quoted a wise saying: “Intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition.”
Howdy, you wrote (8/13): “It seems you are correct, Herb. The floating section is what causes the ‘anomaly’ in thinking, as you of course all ready pointed out in the iceberg example. By forcing the ice to submerge, the glass will over-flow.” I had forgotten, or ignored, that Herb had written (8/10): “Ice in water does not change the water level. A glass full of ice and water will not overflow as the ice melts. “ The changes in sea level are due to changes in the land, not the water.”
The statement—“A glass full of ice and water will not overflow as the ice melts.”—does not accurately define of what the glass is full—water or ice or both.
“In order to increase the sea level by 100 meters the land would have to be covered by a layer of ice 300 meters thick.” Here I have to ask: Is this layer of ice a glacier? A lot of detail needs to be defined for one to follow Herb’s reasoning.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
When people talk about changing sea levels they brains shut off and they become idiots. If your going to remove water to lower the sea level you must put that water on land and prevent it from returning to the oceans. This means having it in the form of ice on land. Since the area of the water is three times that of the land every foot decline in sea level must result in a layer of ice covering all the lad three feet thick. In order for people to migrate across the Bering Straight on dry land sea level must drop by 295 feet so the layer of ice covering on the land must be 885 feet thick. That takes a lot of cold over the entire surface of the land (including the tropics). Instead lets try a more rational scenario. It got cold, the Bering Sea froze and people walked across the ice to North America.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Very good! And I believe I understand. Very good you define two extreme conditions by which Asians could have walked to North America.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
A far more likely explanation is that the Earth warmed and stone age people were able to sail across the water and settle in North America just as stone age Polynesians were able to settle the South Pacific islands. This theory is too mundane so it is unacceptable.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Can we be friends?? We seem to have a common interest in trying to understand the weather of the Earth. In a good book I read about the value of a friend: “Two are better than one . Because they have a good reward for their labor. For if they fall, one will lift up his companion. But woe to him who is alone when he falls. For he has no one to help him up.” (New King James)
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
We have opposite views on the weather and science. You believe the “experts” will provide the science while I believe they are an impediment to science.
Some “expert” decided that North America was settled during the last ice age and were able to walk across the Bering Straight. He never considered how much water needed to be removed from the oceans in order to have the straights be dry. The result of this “experts” pronouncement was that when people dug to learn about the past they stopped digging when they found Clovis Spear heads. It turns out if you keep digging additional human artifacts can be found.
When Leaky uncovered “Lucy” in Africa he proclaimed that Africa was the origin of hominids and caused all further searches to be done in Africa. This “expert” proclamation was pure speculation since little investigation had been done anywhere else. What causes people to migrate is neighbors and Africa never had a density of population or a shortage of resources that would cause migration. A more logical origin for hominids would be in Asia int the India, Pakistan, China area. Again “Experts” direct research and evidence to support their beliefs.
You believe that a thermometer measures the kinetic energy of molecules in the atmosphere because that “expert” weatherman Einstein said so, even though there is no part of a thermometer that can calculate a mean or average of the energy being transferred to it. Your belief in authority driven science is the antithesis of my beliefs.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
“Your belief in authority driven science is the antithesis of my beliefs.” My beliefs are bases on observations (measurements) that I, myself, have made. And a critical instrument used to measure temperature had been calibrated against temperatures (melting points of various pure elements or compounds. .Have you ever used the instrument commonly termed a THERMOMETER? Given your concluding statement, what are your beliefs based upon???
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
We gone over this many times. Energy is transferred to the measuring liquid in a thermometer by molecules colliding with the instrument. If the number of molecules transferring energy to the instrument varies (as it does in a gas) the amount of energy being transferred to the instrument will vary. Two molecules with the same kinetic energy striking the instrument will transfer twice the energy as one molecule with the same kinetic energy and the fluid will gain more heat and expand more. According to your belief it will not expand more and produce a higher reading because the mean or average kinetic energy is identical in both instances.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
(https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu). Vol. 1)
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You have written about the momentum of light and I have generally dismissed it. However, I just discovered that Feynman in one of his lectures taught about the and had come back here searching for what you had written about THE MOMENTUM OF LIGHT 34–9 pp34-10 & 34-11. This so I might compare what you had written with what he taught.
You concluded this comment to me. “Your belief in authority driven science is the antithesis of my beliefs.” So I want you to compare what he taught with what you understand. After I submit this comment I will submit a link where you can read what he taught.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Jerry,
I have never said that light has momentum and maintained t is a massless wave. You are the one who believes in photons.
Your inability to read what others write and complete lack of comprehension makes dealing with you impossible. Your comments usually have nothing to do with the article or what is being discussed and are often incomprehensible. The only thing you have taught the readers at PSI is to ignore you. Don’t bother me anymore.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Did you read what Feynman taught his students? If you did, tell me and others just what it was that he got wrong. He taught this before 1963 when I entered graduate school. and I haven’t read anyone writing that light has momentum; not even you now that you deny that you did.
Herb, as long as you keep writing your unique ideas, I will keep questioning them.
What I believe I have learned from others much more intelligent (talented) than myself.
have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
When you begin to reason about one or two gas molecules you are forgetting about Avogadro’s Number (about 6 times ten to the 23rd) power). A common mistake of those who haven’t pondered how tiny a gaseous atom or molecule actually is.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Jerry,
Your being anal. Twice as many molecules will transfer twice as much energy whether its 2 molecules or 2^x molecules.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Except, if a sample of gas has twice the molecule density, you cannot be considering the temperature of the atmosphere at the same elevation. For the density (pressure) of the earth’s atmosphere is known to vary with its distance from the earth’s center of mass as well as its temperature.
“You’re being anal.” Why do you get personal?
Have a good day.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Jerry,
The discussion was about the thermometer not the atmosphere. Why do you try to introduce red herrings when shown to be wrong? The South Pole is where the North Pole of a magnet points to and like the North Pole it moves. It is not the rotational axis.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Actually th eEarth’s North Pole is in Antarctica and its South Pole is in the Arctic.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
“The discussion was about the thermometer not the atmosphere.”
If so why did you write: “Energy is transferred to the measuring liquid in a thermometer by molecules colliding with the instrument.” With which I agree.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Some (i) know that Galileo wrote a fictional dialogue titled “Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences”. But, until I read, some years ago, a 1840 biography, titled “The Martyrs of Science” by David Brewster, I did not know there was previous dialogue with the same fictional characters—Salviati, Sagredo, and Simplicio.
I read the title of this previous book (1632) was “The System of the World of Galileo Galilei, &c,”. About which Brewster wrote: “In four dialogues concerning the two principal systems of the world—the Ptolemaic and the Copernican—he discusses, indeterminately and firmly, the arguments proposed on both sides.”
Herb, we are real characters, having a dialogue about differences of opinions. We are presenting, for other possible readers of our dialogue, arguments on two sides (there may be more if more would become involved) concerning controversial scientific ideas of our time. But Herb, if you argue with which I disagree, I will continue to present an opposing argument based upon my experiences. Which was the fundamental basis of Galileo’s argument; his experimental results (observations).
Have a good day
Reply