Willis Eschenbach and the Law of Conservation of Energy
After many years of no contact, Willis Eschenbach of the “steel greenhouse” fame responded to a recent comment of mine today on Facebook where I reminded him that his explanation of how the radiative greenhouse effect of climate science works requires a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics (or the Law of Conservation of Energy)
If you may recall, Willis is what we have identified as a gatekeeper who pretends to be a skeptic while in fact defending the basis of climate alarm theory, which is climate science’s version of a greenhouse effect which functions with thermal radiation.
A real greenhouse works by stopping convective cooling because it traps air in place to be heated to the full potential of sunlight, which is upwards of eighty or ninety degrees Celsius (176F to 194F) at the surface of the Earth, whereas air in the open is free to convect and to rise away after it has been warmed by the surface, which thereby keeps the air near the surface cooler.
The radiative ‘greenhouse effect’ of climate science is a false analogy to the convective greenhouse effect, where trapping radiation is claimed to cause warming inside the trap in analogy to how air trapped inside a real greenhouse warms due to prevention of convection.
The typical presentation of climate science’s radiative ‘greenhouse effect’ is with the flat Earth diagrams, such as those below, where one must debunk them based upon the somewhat technical jargon of the definition of heat and “heat flow”, making the point that it is impossible for heat to flow in reverse, or backwards, from cold to hot, given that the atmosphere is cooler than the surface.
The philosophical or logical score is that, in ultimate simplification, these diagrams supposedly showing how the radiative ‘greenhouse effect’ of climate science works are quite literally nothing more than the development of flat Earth theory into false pseudophysics, given that they geometrically depict the Earth as a whole as a flat object, thus reducing climate alarmism to nothing more than the absurdity of flat Earth theory.
With the flat-Earth derivations it is not possible to reduce or expose the error to something so simple and obvious as a violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy, because the areas of the surface and of the atmosphere are the same in such diagrams.
However, Willis recast these derivations into a spherical model, which I in fact did not at first realize just how much more obvious, and simple, they make of the exposure of the underlying error.
It is one thing to debate heat equations and the fact that heat can only act from hot to cold, but it is much more obvious to find that energy in is not equal to energy out, i.e., that one is not equal to two, and that is what Willis did for us.
Willis begins with a sphere producing its own internal energy, such that it produces 235 W/m2 from its surface. He then places a shell about the sphere, and suggests a result as depicted in his second diagram below, explained following.
Willis:
“Now, note what happens when we add a shell around the planet. The shell warms up and it begins to radiate as well … but it radiates the same amount inwards and outwards.
The inwards radiation warms the surface of the planet, until it is radiating at 470 W/m2. At that point the system is back in equilibrium.
The planet is receiving 235 W/m2 from the interior, plus 235 W/m2 from the shell, and it is radiating the total amount, 470 W/m2.
The shell is receiving 470 W/m2 from the planet, and it is radiating the same amount, half inwards back to the planet and half outwards to outer space.
Note also that despite the fact that the planetary surface ends up much warmer (radiating 470 W/m2), energy is conserved.
The same 235 W/m2 of energy is emitted to space as in Figure 1.”
Willis claims that his scheme conserves energy, but we can prove that he is either incompetent, or lying, and in fact he has provided us the simplest and most clear-cut method of debunking the radiative ‘greenhouse effect’ of climate alarm science.
The mechanics of the radiative ‘greenhouse effect’ of the flat Earth diagrams above, if they represent general principles of physics, should of course translate directly into a derivation with spheres, and this is why Willis presents it this way such as to make it more relatable to the sphere of the Earth.
That is, if the radiative ‘greenhouse effect’ of climate science is real, then it has to produce the result which Willis extrapolated the sphere and shell, because the mechanism is exactly the same as with the flat lines.
Thus: What is the statement of the Law of Conservation of Energy? Of course, it is that energy is conserved, that we cannot lose or gain any energy without it being explained. And so with Willis’ sphere which is producing energy, which we’ll call the input energy (Ein), this has to be equal to the energy which comes out or goes out to space (Eout).
Ein = Eout
Note that Willis explains that 235 W/m2 is being produced by the sphere, and then claims that this is conserved by 235 W/m2 going out from the shell. What’s the problem? The problem is that the units of those values are fluxes (W/m2), whereas the Law of Conservation of energy applies to flux (F) times surface area (A)!
E = F*A
The surface area of the shell is larger than that of the sphere, and therefore, the shell is emitting more energy than the sphere provides! From the diagram, we can estimate that the shell area is, say, two-times larger than the sphere area, and since F is the same in Willis’ diagram for both input and output, then
Ein = F * Asphere
and
Eout = 2 * F * Asphere
Willis, therefore, is either unaware, or is falsely claiming and trying to lie to his readers, that the units he is using are Watts per meter square (W/m2), and that these are what the Law of Conservation of Energy conserves! When he does that, it results in:
Ein = 2 * Ein
but Willis hides this result by using the numeric value of 235, hoping that his readers do not realize what W/m2 mean.
To re-explain, conservation of energy applies to energy, and energy is flux times area (A), and therefore
Ein = 235 W/m2 * Asphere
Eout = 235 W/m2 * Ashell
Since Ashell > Asphere, then Eout > Ein, and thus, energy is NOT conserved.
What Willis actually proves to us is that the radiative ‘greenhouse effect’ can only be true if we allow a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics, of Conservation of Energy. This is an excellent and simple result that cuts through and rides right over all of the papers written about heat equations and the definition of heat, etc.
The steel greenhouse proves that climate science’s ‘greenhouse effect’ can only work if we dispense with conservation of energy.
And you know what? Many, many years ago, I contacted Willis about this error, and do you know what his answer was at that time? He said that we can “treat the violation of energy as negligible”, and therefore it is OK!
I tried following up with objection to this claim, but he wouldn’t respond.
In effect, Willis claims that the Law of Conservation of Energy is
Ein = Eout ± δ
where δ is a term which allows for “negligible” difference from perfect equality. In Willis’ mind, the first law can be violated by some non-zero amount, “δ”; the law of conservation of energy is not a perfect equality, but an equality with some fuzzy space on the sides so that we can get around the first law when we need to believe in the radiative ‘greenhouse effect’!
I would like to know: How large can δ be before the law of conservation of energy is violated?
Let’s take the Earth, and its radius of r = 6,378,000 meters, and then the atmosphere adding another 10km (10,000 meters) on top of that.
Then we have
Ein = 235 * 4πr² = 120,128,694,142,793,499.76752183601049 W
Eout = 235 * 4π(r + 10,000)² = 120,505,686,517,861,336.39205464860154 W
which is a difference of 376,992,375,067,836.62453281259104766 W, or about 376 trillion Watts!
So for Willis, we have to believe that the law of conservation of energy can be violated by 376 trillion Watts, and that 376 trillion is “negligible”!
So, how much larger can we go beyond an inequality of 376 trillion Watts, or even as a percentage ratio, before we reach the threshold of violating the law of conservation of energy?
Every scientist, engineer, and mathematician in the world would like to know the answer to this, Willis!
In the end, we really must thank Willis for this most-deft and simple debunk of the radiative ‘greenhouse effect’ of climate science.
See more here climateofsophistry.com
Bold emphasis added
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 fallacy is the belief that the Earth is heating the atmosphere and that temperature is a measurement of kinetic energy. Just looking at he graph of temperature in the atmosphere shows how ridiculous these beliefs are. Energy flows from higher to lower it does not zig zag or pause.
In the troposphere the transfer of energy is done by collisions, not radiation. The thermometer is measuring the momentum of the molecules striking it, which is a product of the mass times the energy squared of the molecules. If either the mass (number of molecules) or the energy of the molecules decline the temperature will read lower. If the mass (number of molecules) declines and the energy of the molecules increase the only way to determine the energy of the molecules is to divide the temperature by the density to get the energy per a constant number of molecules, instead of a constant volume. This shows that the energy of the molecules increase in a straight line in the troposphere where water moderates the temperature and in an exponential curve above the troposphere where there is no water.
The sun is heating the atmosphere by O2 and N2 absorbing UV light and converting it to IR. The contention that because these gases do not absorb visible or IR radiation they are not absorbing radiated energy from the sun is stupid and violates the law that ALL matter absorbs radiated energy and all matter with energy radiate energy.
The only reason the surface of the Earth appears warmer than the atmosphere is because there are more molecules transferring energy, not because this molecules have more energy.
In the troposphere where the transfer of energy is done through collisions it is possible to transfer energy from a “colder” object to a “hotter” object if the “colder” object has more velocity/energy but less mass (like a gas molecule). The law of conservation of momentum applies..
Everything about the GHGT is garbage, not science.
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
The last time I tried to understand the warmist explanation …..it was frequency change….the infrared incoming from the sun is not a mirror image of the infrared being emitted back by the earth….and CO2 acts according to frequency….so the CO2 at night reflects back more energy than it does during the day resulting in some heat gain. That is my understanding of the warmist position in summary.
Reply
VOWG
| #
CO2 is not a problem. Very stupid people are.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Go out onto the ocean during the summer. The atmosphere gets hot, the water stays cool. How can the water be heating the atmosphere?
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
The problem here is Willie E. knows a lot about climate science, and the author does not. However, the author is obviously experienced at character attacks.
By rejecting the greenhouse effect, the author is claiming he is right and at least 99.9% of scientists living on this planet are wrong … and have been wrong since the late 1800s. That possibility is extremely unlikely.
Mr. Rose, a reader claiming Earth heating the atmosphere is a myth, also has little obvious climate science knowledge. Sunlight MAINLY warms the planet’s surface, and the surface warms the atmosphere.
The sun doesn’t heat the air much directly because the radiation is all visible light, which isn’t easily absorbed by gases in the atmosphere.
The sun heats the planet, because about 70% of it absorbs visible light instead of reflecting it.
The air is heated by the planet, because some gases in the atmosphere are easily heated by the infrared radiation emitted by the planet.
It is only stupid people that claim CO2 does nothing … or that CO2 does everything. Those are both extreme, science denying beliefs.
What CO2 does, has been carefully measured in laboratories using infrared gas spectroscopy, with and without water vapor present. No one has presented evidence that CO2 behavior in a lab using indoor atmosphere is different than CO2 behavior in the outdoor atmosphere.
CO2 has been found to be a strong greenhouse gas for the first 50ppm and a weak greenhouse gas above the current 420ppm. As a weak greenhouse gas, the possibility of a CO2 level doubling in the future, causing a climate emergency in 100 to 200 years, is very low. That conclusion is based on the science of CO2.
It seems like some readers here reject science and think they know better than OVER 99.9% of scientists who believe there is a greenhouse effect and CO2 is part of it. That belief is NOT a problem.
The real problem is that 59% of scientists (2022 survey) believe rising CO2 will be dangerous, and that belief in CAGW is merely a prediction, not based on any data. CAGW has never existed before, so there are no CAGW data. That scientists believe in CAGW (predicted since the 1979 Charney Report) with no data means they prefer data free beliefs over science. Science always requires data. A good track record of correct long term climate predictions would be useful too, but we do not have that either.
Reply
Herb Roser
| #
Hi Richard,
Your history is wrong. Svvanti Arrhenius, who proposed the GHGT in the 1870s, withdrew the theory, admitting it was wrong after Knute Angstrom argued that because of the watering the atmosphere CO2 could have no effect. It takes 600 calories/gram to evaporate water. Since water is is 50 times greater than CO2 in the atmosphere that means each gram of CO2 must block 30,000 calories of heat from escaping into space to overcome the cooling by evaporating water. Nonsense.
I gather from your statement that the gases in the atmosphere are not heated by the sun because they don’t absorb visible or IR radiation that you don’t believe the law of thermodynamics that claims all matter absorbs radiated energy. When matter absorbs energy it radiates energy of a longer wavelength. The gases in the atmosphere are not radiating visible light or radio waves so they must be absorbing UV and radiating it as IR. The contention that UV is being absorbed by ozone is truly stupid. Ozone is created when an O2 molecule absorbs enough energy (450,000 joules/mole) to split into 2 oxygen atoms, which combine with an O2 molecule to form ozone. The concentration of O3 molecules in the ozone layer is 10 ppm. If you had a piece of glass with an area of 100,000 cm^2 would painting 1 cm^2 black block over 90% of the visible light from passing through the glass?
Your contention that 99% (a false statistic) of scientist agree with the GHGT just shows that scientist are as stupid as the general population. Scientist gather knowledge or answers, they believe those answers and because of their egos they will not accept the possibility that they could be wrong. Answers are a way to avoid thinking and since today science seems to be a matter of consensus (it is not) science has always progressed because people believe the experts are wrong. science has become a collection of fools who parrot what other experts have said, without thought.
Herb
Reply
Tom Anderson
| #
Richard and Herb:
Richard Greene – “Willie E. knows a lot about climate science”
Willis is a frequent contributor to Anthony Watts’s page, and my impression is that he has a very good trained mind but often gets off on questionable pursuits, such as elaborating imaginary ideas and believing that “negative” energy flows within an EMF can be “netted out.” The “greenhouse” has been soundly rejected by well qualified physicists beginning with R.W. Wood in 1904, and by Gerhard Gerlich & Ralf Tscheuchner in 2009. These last physicists reiterated that glass greenhouses did not replicate the thermal characteristics of the atmosphere. It is a grade school teaching aid run amok. The U.S. DOE called the “greenhouse” a misnomer in 1985. Until the greenhouse conjecture is scrapped,“Climate” will be forever highly unsettled science.
“CO2 has been found to be a strong greenhouse gas for the first 50ppm and a weak greenhouse gas above the current 420ppm”
CO2’s inverse logarithmic temperature curve has been recognized since Guy S. Callendar submitted it in his paper to the Royal Society in 1938. Each tranche of CO2 is 10 times less effective than the previous one. The geometric decline charted from Callendar’s questionably selective observations was later fitted to the inverse curve by a mathematician whose name I don’t have at the moment. The curve has been recognized by everyone, including the IPCC, since then. Nobody has able calculate an acceptable exact temperature in the unsaturated range .
Herb Roser –
Svante Arrhenius. … I did not know he withdrew his conclusion after Angstrom’s iteraton. Arrhenius did publish a popular work on the harvesting benefits of a CO2 warmed world, which then gave it weight.
“99% (a false statistic) of scientist agree …”
You must be referring to the 97% consensus of scientists supporting AGW. After a lengthy search for the origin of this figure, it was traced to a survey of literature on at Cook University in Australia and soundly criticized for careless methodology. Only about 3% of the papers included in the survey agreed that CO2 caused dangerous warming. The survey was first of about 12,000 papers, of which all but about 8,000 were tossed out (to help with the conclusion). The survey readers only the abstracts of papers, and many papers included were on the level of news stories, and included something on landscape maintenance. Not many people consider the 99% or 97% figure very meaningful.
“water is is 50 times greater than CO2 in the atmosphere”
Water vapor exceeds CO2 in the atmosphere by 29:1 on a weighted average, ranging from 97:1 in the tropics to 1:1 at the poles. See Lightfoot and Mamer, “Calculation of Atmospheric Radiative Forcing (Warming Effect) of Carbon Dioxide at Any Concentration,” Sage Journals, research article, Dec. 1, 2014,
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Tom,
I believe Richard said the agreement was 99.9%. I have a neighbor who believes in the nonsense (he also believes the vaccine were good science). When I disagreed with him he assured me that he was right because he had studied it and was a scientist, teaching social science at the local school. You have to bite your tongue when dealing with neighbors.
As to the 29:1 average. Averages of temperature or water in the atmosphere are nonsense. When the GHGT was first proposed the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was a lot less because the oceans had not warmed and released CO2. Regardless to maintain that a gram of CO2 can negate a 18,000 calories of water cooling is folly.
Herb
Reply
Tom Anderson
| #
Hi Herb,
Thanks for the word on 99.9% agreement. A friend of mine has a soil-science degree with firm convictions, and I have to watch my step too. As for CO2 not negating water cooling, I believe that both are cold. CO2’s most active radiative spectral band in the troposphere is at the 15-micron wavelength, with a temperature at about193K (-80°C, -112°F), by Wilhelm Wien’s Displacement Law. It is a weak radiating peak but active because it corresponds to the rising edge of water vapor’s long-wavelength absorption continuum. Took me a while to figure out that the water would be radiating as cold there as the CO2. You often see the relation in graphs to demonstrate the greater radiative role of water vapor.
Cheers, Tom
Richard Greene
| #
Sometimes a scientific consensus is right and sometimes it is wrong.
The consensus that a greenhouse effect exists has existed for over a century, and CO2 is part of it, and has yet to be proven wrong.
The 59% consensus (2022 survey of scientists) that CAGW is coming is a belief with no data, and never proven to be right.
Reply
Max Deloaches
| #
You are in need of a refresh of the history for the anthropogenic greenhouse effect theory and its debunking, as early as 1909 by RW Wood.
http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/
Also if you check the publications section for this web site you will find:
The Model Atmosphere (PDF) by Joseph E. Postma and There Is No Radiative Greenhouse Effect (PDF) by Joseph E. Postma, where the author can back up his claims.
Reply
Tom Anderson
| #
Right. I’d like to believe we all know by now that there is no earthly “greenhouse.”
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
The greenhouse effect has never been refuted, and is currently believed by OVER 99.9% of scientists living on this planet.
In fact, the mid-1970s climate models, based primarily on the greenhouse effect of CO2, made very accurate 70 year global average temperature predictions when using the realistic RCP 4.5 CO2 growth rate scenario.
The predictions wee very accurate from 1975 until 2014 when global warming stopped, per UAH data.
While there are still over two decades left in the full 70 year predictions ((1975 to 2045), those predictions could not have been so accurate so far if there was no greenhouse effect and CO2 did nothing.
The 70 years RCP 4.5 computer model predictions call for about half the warming rate of the 400 year RCP 8.5 same computer model predictions. I am not defending the 400 year predictions which include most of a predicted, very large water vapor positive feedback.
Reply
james McGinn
| #
The greenhouse effect has never been refuted,
Who cares. Lots of nonsense can’t be refuted.
and is currently believed by OVER 99.9% of scientists living on this planet.
They are just confused.
In fact, the mid-1970s climate models, based primarily on the greenhouse effect of CO2, made very accurate 70 year global average temperature predictions when using the realistic RCP 4.5 CO2 growth rate scenario.
This is a moronic claim. It can’t even be quantified.
The predictions wee very accurate from 1975 until 2014 when global warming stopped, per UAH data.
Nonsense.
Reply
Moffin
| #
Richard Green.
‘The sun doesn’t heat the air much directly because the radiation is all visible light, which isn’t easily absorbed by gases in the atmosphere.’
Mofflintonhead.
52% of incoming solar energy is infrared energy, or heat. This figure ignores Carrington Event type phenomena.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=infrared+energy+from+sun&cvid=d7eb2367c2ae4cc58d6fb2c24970bfc1&aqs=edge..69i57j0l8.23148j0j9&FORM=ANAB01&PC=HCTS
Ambiguity creates legal loopholes, identifies error or deception.
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
The atmospheric gases are not warmed by the passage through them of EM radiation. EM warms the earth, and the earth warms the troposphere by convection.
CORRECTION to prior comment:
‘The sun doesn’t heat the air much directly because the radiation isn’t easily absorbed by gases in the atmosphere.’
Air in the atmosphere acts as a fluid. The Sun’s radiation strikes the Earth’s surface, thus warming it. As the surface’s temperature rises due to conduction, heat energy is released into the atmosphere, forming a bubble of air that is warmer than the surrounding air. This bubble of air rises into the atmosphere. As it rises, the bubble cools, with its heat moving into the surrounding atmosphere.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Richard,
So you’ve amended the law of thermodynamics to All matter, except the gases in the atmosphere, absorb radiated energy.
There is ozone (O3) in the atmosphere which is a result of a free oxygen atom combining with an O2 molecule. It takes 450,000 Jules/mole to split the double bond of an oxygen molecule. Where does this energy come from? Are you saying that energy coming from the surface of the Earth skips the O2 molecules in the troposphere and reacts with O2 molecules in the stratosphere? While you’re at it please explain how energy from the surface isn’t enough to cause the temperature in the troposphere to rise but is able to make the temperature in the stratosphere increase.
Herb
Reply
Allan Shelton
| #
Why do air cooled IC engines have big fins on the cylinder?
Increased area sheds more heat.
Reply
Koen Vogel
| #
While you can have a lot of fun playing with thermodynamic equations, the commonly accepted data suggest that GMST lags solar irradiation by 2-5 years (see https://principia-scientific.com/an-energetic-look-at-the-possible-end-of-recent-global-warming/). The delay is caused by the tropopause, which acts as a virtual barrier to what Earth can radiate to space. See the excellent van Wijngaarden en Happer GHG primer on arkiv.org. The Earth’s atmosphere requires 2-5 years to return to equilibrium after peaks and troughs of solar irradiation, and greenhouse gasses act as thermal resistors, temporarily storing heat until it can be convected to the thermopause and radiated to space.
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
There is no temperature equilibrium for our planet.
And changes in solar energy measured at the top of the atmosphere in the satellite age show almost no change — too small to affect the global average temperature.
Reply
Moffin
| #
Richard Green.
“And changes in solar energy measured at the top of the atmosphere in the satellite age show almost no change — too small to affect the global average temperature.”
Mofflingtonhead
At perihelion on or about 2nd-4th January planet earth is more than 4 million kilometers closer to the sun than it is at aphelion, six months later. This causes change of incoming solar energy at the top of atmosphere in excess of 4%. This extra energy at the peak of Southern summer warms the tropical and Southern Ocean, some of which energy the ocean stores and disperses globally.
The extreme of the Milankovitch Eccentricity Cycle is estimated to have an incoming solar energy differential of around 21% between perihelion and aphelion.
Of course the solar wind is also solar energy, I refer you to the Svensmark hypothesis and the effect of cloud cover on global average temperatures.
Oh, and check out why the thermosphere has its name.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere
Mr Green, could you at least attempt to avoid coming on this site and spout lies, deceptions and incompetence’s of others as well as your own. Nothing wrong with being in error if submitted with a little humility. Oh, and warm air not does rise through the atmosphere in bubbles FFS.
Reply
Tom Anderson
| #
Yes, but it does return to equilibrium, its condition over the long term and much better than even mild relentless warming. (I give “greenhouse” anything the cold shoulder.)
Reply
Dan Pangburn
| #
Water vapor is a transparent gas that, molecule for molecule, is at least as effective at absorb/emit of earth-temperature infrared radiation (IR) as carbon dioxide. From Jan 1988 thru Dec 2022 NASA/RSS accurately measured and reported monthly the global average water vapor as Total Precipitable Water (TPW). The anomaly data are reported at [11]. The nominal value is about 29 kg/m^2 so trend from Jan 1988 thru Dec 2022 is 1.36 % per decade. Given that at ground level average global water vapor is about 1% or 10,000 ppmv (parts per million by volume), the increase in water vapor molecules in 3.5 decades is about 0.0136 * 10000 * 3.5 = 476 ppmv. From Mauna Loa data at [12] the CO2 increase in that time period is 420 – 350 = 70 ppmv. With that, water vapor molecules have been increasing 476/70 = 6.8 times faster than CO2 molecules. Thus, regardless of the initial source of warming, water vapor molecules have been increasing about 6.8 times faster than CO2 molecules. The idea that CO2 starts the increase is ludicrous.
Further analysis shows that the determination by molecule count that increased CO2 influence on the climate has been only about 1/7 as much as the increased water vapor influence is still high. Radiation from water vapor molecules can be in any direction but, because of the steep decline with altitude of the population gradient of water vapor molecules, the distance traveled by a photon before it encounters another water vapor molecule is greater towards space than towards earth so the prevailing direction of IR flux is towards space. This is shown on a Top of Atmosphere (TOA) graph of radiation flux vs wavenumber (wavenumber is the number of wavelengths in a centimeter) by the jagged line below about wavenumber 600. Because of the characteristic absorb/emit signature of every gas no other gas can significantly absorb or emit radiation in the wavenumber range occupied by water vapor. The line is jagged because radiation that reaches TOA/space is from water vapor molecules at different temperatures/altitudes.
11. NASA/RSS measurements of Total Precipitable Water anomalies https://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r02_198801_202212.time_series.txt
12. Mauna Loa data for CO2: https://www.co2.earth/monthly-co2
(Rescued from the Spam bin) SUNMOD
Reply
Dan Pangburn
| #
Postma’s assumption of the diameter of the steel shell as 2X planet dia is misleading. Willis’ model has the steel shell not significantly larger than the planet.
Reply
Dan Pangburn
| #
A water vapor molecule absorbs IR radiation at least as well as a CO2 molecule. Average global water vapor has been accurately measured and reported by NASA/RSS for 35 years. Average global CO2 has been reported even longer. Water vapor molecules have been increasing about 6.8 times faster than CO2 molecules. The idea that CO2 starts the increase is ludicrous.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Dan,
It takes 600 calories/gram to evaporate water. Since the concentration of water in the atmosphere is 30X that of CO2, each gram of CO2 must block 18,000 calories to counteract the cooling of 1 gram of water. Water in the atmosphere is not a gas but a liquid micro crystal. As steam (gaseous water) cools it goes from a clear gas, to liquid droplets, to a clear gas, to a liquid, and finally to a solid. That is not how matter behaves on losing energy.
Herb
Reply
Dan Pangburn
| #
Only about 1% of the water in the atmosphere is condensed to liquid and solid, the rest is transparent gas called water vapor. The liquid or solid forms appear as clouds.
Where did you get that bogus information?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Dan,
If you look at a water phase chart for pressure and temperature you will see that at 1 atmospheric pressure the gas phase does not exist under 100 C.
In order to convert 100 C water into 100 C steam you need to add 540 calories/gram. Where does this energy come from and why isn’t it transmitted to other water molecules?
If the temperature measures the mean kinetic energy of an object (it does not) then at 100 C (373 K) to convert to a gas some molecules must be reaching an energy level/temperature of 640 C or 923 K in order to become a gas. This means the molecules at the other end of the bell cure must be at -440 C or -167 K. Since 0 K is where there is no radiated energy, there are no molecules with negative energy.
How does ice at -10C get enough energy to convert to a gas (sublimation)?
A water molecule has the same molecular weight as neon. Why isn’t it always a gas and why is it almost exclusively (99.9%) found in the troposphere while the much heavier O2 (32) and N2 (28) are present all the way up into the thermosphere?
You just think the water in the atmosphere is a gas because you can’t see it. Again, why would this gas again convert to a liquid by cooling?
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You have written “If you look at a water phase chart for pressure and temperature you will see that at 1 atmospheric pressure the gas phase does not exist under 100 C.” many tunes here at PSI.
And I cannot remember ever informing PSI readers what the phase diagram to which you refer actually is. It is a figure of the pressure and temperature of the matter of a defined system of matter (solid, liquid, gas). The figure has lines which DEFINE the pressure and temperature when two of the three phases coexist at EQUILIBRIUM.. However, an ACTUAL NATURAL SYSTEM is seldom at the equilibrium for we commonly observe that the air temperature commonly changes during a 24 hour period. Hence the system is never a constant (et equilibrium). Liquid water can commonly be observed to ‘supercool’ (temperature to less than its equilibrium temperature (0C or 32F) without freezing to a solid. Hence, the temperature and pressure of this non-equilibrium system is not on the line between the liquid phase of water and its gas phase and this natural system of water matter is termed to be unstable but it still exists.
Have a good day
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
Super cooled water is not “commonly observed”. In order to prevent crystals from forming the water must be free of ay seed impurities and with no agitation. These conditions rarely, if ever, occur in nature.
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
“The temperature in the atmosphere is often below that of the freezing point of water, even near the earth’s surface, … Presented with these [this] fact for the first time, even a trained physicist caught off his guard might excused for supposing them to be so commonplace as to raise no significant problem. … The first fallacy is to assume that water naturally freezes at temperatures below the freezing-point, an assumption which is so unfounded as to cause some punctilious physicists to refuse the term ‘freezing-point’ for 0C or 32F.” (WEATHER & CLIMATE, R.C. Sutcliffe, 1966, pp 49-50.)
Have a good day
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
In order to freeze 0 C water you must remove 80 calories/gram to begin the crystallization process.To boil 100C water you must add 540/calories/gram to convert it to steam. The temperature on the thermometer remains constant at 0 C or 100 C as these calories are removed or added.
Super cooled water is water with a temperature below the freezing point where crystallization has not occurred.
The thermometer is not measuring the kinetic energy of the molecules but the momentum of the molecules striking it. Why do you think the density in the atmosphere continually declines whether the temperature increases or decreases? The universal gas law states that adding energy to gas molecules will cause it to expand or the pressure to increase (confined gas). A removal of energy causes the gas to contract.
The contention that the thermometer is measuring the mean kinetic energy of the molecules is ridiculous. If you had uniform fuel (coal) that burned at the same temperature, burning more fuel should not raise the surrounding temperature (kinetic energy remains the same) if the thermometer is measuring the mean kinetic energy. Adding more coal to a fire will cause the temperature, as measured by a thermometer..
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You just agreed “Super cooled water is water with a temperature below the freezing point where crystallization has not occurred.”;hence the liquid water must have already lost energy to cool below water’s freezing-point. Can you explain how it is that this super-cooling is observed? Clearly it must not involve the lost of energy or what the thermometer is measuring or not measuring.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry.
As water cools the motion of the water molecules decrease. In order for crystals to form the orientation of the molecules to each other must be right and if the slowed molecules are not properly oriented they can continue to lose motion (cool) without turning to ice. If there are charged particles in the water or agitation the slowed molecules will align to form crystals and their temperature will not go below 0 C until the water is completely frozen, at which point the temperature will again decrease.. That is why super cooled water freezes solid when disturbed.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
How many water molecules would you estimate to be in a normal super-cooled cloud droplet?
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
There are no super cooled water droplets. If there is contamination (seed particles) or agitation water cannot super cool. I know you cannot comprehend what I’m telling you so look up, how to supercool water.
Herb
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Correction; You have 8 hydrogen atoms rather than than the 6 needed
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
As water cools the motion of the water molecules decrease. In order for crystals to form the orientation of the molecules to each other must be right
James:
Their orientation to each other is critical, but in exactly the opposite manner you are assuming/asserting.
Herb:
and if the slowed molecules are not properly oriented they can continue to lose motion (cool) without turning to ice.
James:
You have it backwards. When H2O molecules achieve a high degree of tetrahedral symmetry–highly ordered arrangement–they more fully neutralize (dissolve) each other’s polarity. This is why/how super chilled water can exist. In other words, when polarity is too low there is not enough leverage to start the process of molecules randomly twisting into each other to cause more BREAKAGE of hydrogen bonds and to, thereby, start a cascade of emergent polarity that turns highly ordered liquid water into randomly ordered ice.
Since H2O molecules are solvents for up to 25% of each other’s polarity, when highly ordered water cools below zero there is not enough polarity to cause them to twist into each other. If they don’t twist into each other there is no mechanism for additional bond breaking. Without additional bond breaking the polarity stays very low. And as long as the polarity stays low the water will remain liquid.
Tetrahedrally ice is highly asymmetric (disordered) and, therefore, highly polar. Liquid water, in contrast, is highly symmetric (ordered) and,, therefore, has almost zero polarity.
Herb, you are following in the footsteps of academia on this phenomena. That is often the wrong thing to do because academia is so often infected with group-think dull wittedness–as we see with Jerry.
Herb:
If there are charged particles in the water or agitation the slowed molecules will align to form crystals
James:
Once again, you are right but for the exact opposite reasons than you are assuming. Charged particles and agitation introduce occlusions of tetrahedral asymmetry. As I stated previously, without these initial occlusions (tetrahedral assymetry) there is not enough polarity to get them to begin twisting into each other to break more bonds which is necessary to release more polarity. You mistakenly assume that ice is more tetrahedrally ordered (symmetric) than liquid water when exactly the opposite is the case.
James McGinn / Genius
and their temperature will not go below 0 C until the water is completely frozen, at which point the temperature will again decrease.. That is why super cooled water freezes solid when disturbed.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
When you speak of the tetrahedron shape I assume you are talking of four water molecule forming four triangles bound together. I assume at each vortices you have an oxygen atom with three hydrogenates associated with it. The problem with this model is that you only have eight hydrogen atoms rather than the twelve necessary to make this a secure structure.
Herb
Reply
james McGinn
| #
No, you have the completely wrong idea. Look into steric theory and/or VESPR theory. it literally has to do with the locations of the electrons (and or pairs thereof) around the oxygen molecules. I demonstrate the tetrahedral aspect using 5 H2O molecules in my videos.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Have you ever experienced a'”hail storm”? I have so I know “hail stones” can have a wide variety of sizes. But I believe that a hail stone must begin as a single super-cooled cloud droplet which first freezes to solid ice.. Can you doubt this?
have a good day
Reply
James McGinn
| #
You make perfect sense here, Jerry.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
I didn’t notice you had written this after you had just written I would never understand anything. Thank you for changing your opinion.
We, you and I, have much that need to be discussed, but I see the need to it in tiny bite sized pieces. But even if I keep my comments relatively brief, I like long lines so I can see the entire comment at once.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
No, the turbulence in a thunderstorm prevents any super cooling. It is liquid water that forms an ice crystal that bounces up and down gaining size from other liquid water.
Let me use an analogy to try again to explain the thermometer. Two people are trying to get you to correct your mistakes. One believes that in order to penetrate your thick skull and get correction to your brain he would use a hammer with a mass x and swing it at a velocity of v giving it kinetic energy of 1/2xv^2. The other, having dealt with you before, doesn’t think that is enough energy to penetrate your skull so he use two hammers with mass x swung with velocity v doubling the kinetic energy,.in hopes of getting information to you. The same thing happens to the measuring liquid in the thermometer. Two molecules will deliver twice the energy causing more expansion of the liquid. The thermometer is NOT measuring the mean kinetic energy of the hammers, which is the same, it is measuring how much energy is being transferred to the liquid.
I’ve written speculating on how lightning forms. If PSI publishes it, it tries to explain how hail forms.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
There is only one person on this planet that can explain it, and that is myself. Unfortunately, Jerry, I don’t think you will ever understand it. You would first have to understand the precise reason the H2O molecule is polar. Then, after you had achieved that (and I don’t think you will ever even come close to achieving this) you would then have to come to understand the precise reason why H2O molecules are solvents of each other’s polarity at 25% increments (and, again, I don’t think you will ever come close to understanding this).
James McGinn / Genius
Solvingrtornadoes.com
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
A most popular meteorology textbook had been written by C. Donald Ahrens, a non-academic like you. And for the first time I have just read about his take on the formation of tornados. METEOROLOGY TODAY 9th Ed. 2009. And hw considered atmospheric tubes which I remember you mentions without any details as he includes. Used Ahrens’ textbooks are available cheaply at Abe’s Books.
I see this comment is already too long. Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James, I was wrong. My 9th Ed. is about $50.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
So, you read something and it left you so uninspired you are unable to provide any relevant details. Why are you telling us about this?
Textbooks are filled with irrelevant nonsense.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
I have asked you “How many water molecules would you estimate to be in a normal super-cooled cloud droplet?” To date you haven’t clearly replied to this fundamental question.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
I have replied. There are No, 0, zilch super cooled droplets in a cloud. In clouds there is turbulence and contaminates that prevent super cooling. Where’s are my hammers?
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi. Herb,
Please carefully read my question.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Roee
| #
How many water molecules are there in something that doesn’t exist? Probably 2,073.498,667..3
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Are you now suggesting that cloud droplets do not exist?
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
Are you trying to be an idiot? There are no SUPER COOLED water droplets in clouds.
Herb
Reply
Dan Pangburn
| #
You can ignore reality but you can’t avoid the consequences of ignoring reality.
Reply