Arctic Explorers or Buccaneers?

Written by Dr Klaus L.E. Kaiser

A couple of Arctic explorers, actually adventurers, have gone missing and are presumed to have drowned. Just a few weeks ago, Marc Cornelissen and his companion kept armchair explorers enthralled with tweets and soundtracks like “Skiing in shorts: Tropical day in the Arctic.”arctic adventurer

Are people like Cornelissen real explorers or just out to garner attention for stunt-like actions and publicity for their Arctic adventures?

What’s the Arctic?

The Arctic is a vast expanse, covering land in Siberia, Greenland and Canada’s Arctic Archipelago as well as a large tract of ocean. In fact, most of the Arctic (defined here as the area north of the 67th parallel of latitude) is not land but sea.

Some people think that any area with saltwater in northern hemisphere is part of the Arctic. For example, the National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSDIC) daily measurements of “Arctic sea-ice” include sea-ice in areas well south of the polar circle (67 N), in fact even south of mid-latitude (45 N). No wonder people get confused as to what constitutes “the Arctic.” That kind of misleading definition of “Arctic” is also the cause of some people looking for adventure and publicity by “exploring” the Arctic.

For a few weeks each summer, you may get daytime temperatures above freezing. Also, the 24-hour sunshine may give you a false sense of security and warmth but it does not last long and often ends in tragedy. Numerous private yachts and adventurers had to be rescued in recent years from becoming stranded in Arctic sea-ice when trying to traverse the North-West-Passage or “skiing to the North Pole.”

Of course, all these adventurers (they are not “explorers”) are relying on Canada to rescue them from the inclement conditions and unforeseen problems. Even with the best available technologies that is not always possible—when fog or blinding “whiteout” snowstorms obscure anything beyond a few feet away nobody can come to these souls’ rescue.

At the heart of the problem is the definition of “Arctic sea-ice.”

What’s Arctic Sea-Ice?

Unfortunately, many adventurers are lulled into the belief of a “melting Arctic” by entirely misleading definitions of Arctic sea-ice by institutes like the NSDIC in Boulder, Colorado. Unlike other agencies that are recording temperature or ice data in the true Arctic region, the NSIDC considers as Arctic sea-ice all ocean ice at latitudes south of the North Pole. For example, if there were sea-ice just an inch north of the equator, they surely would call it Arctic as well.

Because of earth’s axis tilt of 23 arc degrees relative to the ecliptic (the plane of its path around the sun), we have winter and summer seasons in all regions away from the equator. That angle also defines the polar circles as the latitude (90-23) = 67 arc degrees to the south (in the southern hemisphere) and north (in the northern hemisphere) of the equator. By most definitions, the areas south of the southern polar circle are considered to be in the Antarctic and those areas north of 67 N in the Arctic.

Using such a definition, the annual maximum extent of “Arctic sea-ice” would be much smaller than that compiled by NSDIC and other agencies using the same or similar definitions. However, also the annual seasonal variations, especially the decline of the sea-ice extent in the hemispheric summer would be much smaller than currently reported.

In fact, measuring any polar sea-ice only at latitudes above the polar circles would quickly expose the “melting Arctic” claim as a falsehood. Except for small annual variations, both Arctic sea-ice extent and thickness have not changed in any significant way over several decades. That can also be corroborated from 67 years of daily data records of air temperatures at latitudes above 80 N by the Danish Meteorological Institute and other field observations. In particular, I’d like to mention here the observations by Cpt. James Calvert, Commander of the USS Skate, recorded in 1958. Low and behold, there were stretches of open water close to the North Pole then—long before “climate change” became a hot topic and at a time when the carbon dioxide (CO2) level in the atmosphere was significantly lower than today (Wattsupwiththat.com ).

calvert(pictured: Cmdr. James Calvert, USN; source: LIFE magazine)

Commander James Calvert wrote about that expedition in the LIFE magazine (issue of May 4, 1959):  “In August [1958] the Arctic was as its bland best with continual daylight and air temperatures above freezing. Cruising under the 10-foot thick icepack we repeatedly had found open water where we could surface.”

The Arctic is no Place for Publicity Seekers

In the brief Arctic summer, when the air is warm and the sea-ice is melting, adventurers and publicity seekers come to visit the far north to proclaim “climate change” and expound on the Arctic melting myth. However, if they get stuck in pack ice or run into other obstacles they surely expect to be rescued promptly by Canada’s naval and air forces.

Perhaps a requirement to deposit a sizable “rescue-bond” would deter such wanton activities by wannabe stuntmen, buccaneers and publicity seekers.

Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser — Bio and Archives

Comments (53)

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    Response #2

    I am proposing nothing new! Known matter has a minimum of 19 distinct, or indistinct, phases or states, The “colloid” the matter phase between liquid/solid phase and gas phase, involving “latent heat”. All has been known and measured for 400 years.

    PO:
    In the atmosphere this condensate is called an aerosol with a higher density than the gas, ..

    Jim:
    Well, yes, if it contains liquid droplets/clusters rather than individual molecules of H2O (which is what meteorologists erroneously assume) then it would have to have a higher density than if it was 100% gas–according to gas laws (ie. Avogadro’s Law). And, consequently, it would have to have a higher WEIGHT PER VOLUME than does dry air.

    That is exactly said above of a H2O condensate.
    in this atmosphere any H2O condensate must be compensated by saturated WV in that same air mass, with less WEIGHT PER VOLUME than does dry air.

    “Jim:So, it can only have negative buoyancy. And, therefore, convection of moist air at ambient temps is impossible”

    Again what is your.meaning of moist? Is that some more dense offset by the required less dense?

    Jim, you express a complete misunderstanding of buoyancy. It is never weight per unit volume, but instead opposing force per unit area!

    -snip- much BS–

    Jim, I agree that the academic Professors of Meteorology have not a clue as to this physical atmosphere and the whole world would be much better if all such were encouraged to voluntarily leap into the volcano! Now what?

    Perhaps more later! 🙂

    • Avatar

      solvingtornadoes

      |

      [quote name=”Pat Obar”]
      PO:
      I am proposing nothing new! Known matter has a minimum of 19 distinct, or indistinct, phases or states, The “colloid” the matter phase between liquid/solid phase and gas phase, involving “latent heat”. All has been known and measured for 400 years.

      Jim:
      Do as you please, then.

      PO:
      in this atmosphere any H2O condensate must be compensated by saturated WV in that same air mass, with less WEIGHT PER VOLUME than does dry air.

      Jim:
      I can’t tell if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing. What is your point?

      PO:
      “Jim:So, it can only have negative buoyancy. And, therefore, convection of moist air at ambient temps is impossible”
      Again what is your.meaning of moist? Is that some more dense offset by the required less dense?

      Jim:
      It’s a generic term for air plus water.

      PO:
      Jim, you express a complete misunderstanding of buoyancy.

      Jim:
      How so?

      PO:
      It is never weight per unit volume,

      Jim:
      That’s all it is. As in a hot air balloon. Don’t over think it.

      PO:
      but instead opposing force per unit area!

      Jim:
      Same difference.

      PO:
      Jim, I agree that the academic Professors of Meteorology have not a clue as to this physical atmosphere and the whole world would be much better if all such were encouraged to voluntarily leap into the volcano! Now what?

      Jim:
      Maybe go to a university library and do some research.

      I hope that helps.

      • Avatar

        Pat Obar

        |

        Quoting solvingtornadoesquote:

        Maybe go to a university library and do some research. I hope that helps.

        The same university that shit you on a post and left you in the sun to hatch? No way!!! 😆

      • Avatar

        Pat Obar

        |

        Jim:
        Maybe go to a university library and do some research. I hope that helps.
        The same University that shit you on a post and leave you in the sun to hatch? No way!

      • Avatar

        Pat Obar

        |

        Jim:
        Maybe go to a university library and do some research. I hope that helps.
        The same University that craps you on a post and leave you in the sun to hatch? No way!

      • Avatar

        solvingtornadoes

        |

        [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]
        PO:
        I am proposing nothing new! Known matter has a minimum of 19 distinct, or indistinct, phases or states, The “colloid” the matter phase between liquid/solid phase and gas phase, involving “latent heat”. All has been known and measured for 400 years.
        [/quote]

        At equal pressure and temperature moist air is heavier than dry air–always. Consequently, it has negative buoyancy–always. So, the fact that moist air is often observed at higher altitude than drier air HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH CONVECTION.

        Convection has (almost) nothing to do with atmospheric flow on this planet. I came to this realization about 3 or 4 years ago. I never looked back. Once it was clear to me that meteorology’s notions about convection are nonsense I knew that there was something big waiting to be discovered–and I discovered it.

        Roger’s goons are never going to do anything but confuse you. They think in broad, general, inductive terms and are, therefore, incapable of the hard-core deductive reasoning that is necessary to make progress.

        Here is a clue that might help you. Water is not just along for the ride. Water is essential, instrumental. Water is essential for the leverage that the atmosphere employs to move energy at very high speeds (as fast as the speed of sound) to locations on this planet to produce storms.

        If you are not tough minded enough to banish convection from your thinking then you will always be prone to falling back into intellectually seductive comfort of the brain-dead consensus and you will never make the discovery.

    • Avatar

      solvingtornadoes

      |

      PO:
      Jim, I agree that the academic Professors of Meteorology have not a clue as to this physical atmosphere . . .

      Jim McGinn:
      Observation is an important PART of the scientific method, but it is not the whole thing. Meteorologists have built a whole paradigm, complete with their own somewhat idiosyncratic terminology, based on this one PART of the scientific method. Consequently much of their terminology doesn’t parse with paradigms like physics and chemistry that are based on genuine empirical methods. No chemist or physicist would base an assumption or a conclusion on lack of evidence to the contrary or on something being unseen. But in meteorology that is perfectly normal.

      They’ve been able to avoid scrutiny from other disciplines using methods similar to those of climatologists–politics. (In fact, climatology learned their political methods by following meteorology’s lead.)

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    Response #1
    Response to Pat Obar

    (PO: Water vapor or (technical) steam especially superheated steam is the monomolecular gas phase of H20, nothing else!)

    “Jim:In common parlance the word vapor is used interchangeably to indicate steam or evaporate. Thus there is a lot of ambiguity in the word.”

    What BS the term water vapor never indicates any reference to humidity or airborn water condensate. What the term water vapor clearly indicates is the internal latent heat, “required and inherent” in the change of structure, in the phase change from liquid phase of matter into its gas phase. This has been extensively studied and measured over the last 500 years, to 12 decimal places. Do you have any conflicting measurements or only fantasy BS.

    “If you want to convince the rest of the world that vapor equates to steam I will gladly follow along. Until then, however, I’m going to continue to consider it an evaporate/condensate.”

    I have no wish to convince anyone of anything,
    I have no knowledge. It is only you that conflates evaporate/condensate. Please state the exact difference which must always be structure/energy i.e. “latent heat”

    • Avatar

      solvingtornadoes

      |

      [quote name=”Pat Obar”]What BS the term water vapor never indicates any reference to humidity or airborn water condensate.[/quote]
      You came here to argue about how a word is defined? You should feel free to make your own denotation. Everybody else does.
      [quote name=”Pat Obar”]What the term water vapor clearly indicates is the internal latent heat, “required and inherent” in the change of structure, in the phase change from liquid phase of matter into its gas phase.[/quote]
      I don’t know what you are talking about.
      [quote name=”Pat Obar”]This has been extensively studied and measured over the last 500 years, to 12 decimal places. Do you have any conflicting measurements or only fantasy BS.[/quote]
      Can you show us where the weight of moist air vs. dry air has ever been measured? I would find that interesting.

      • Avatar

        Pat Obar

        |

        Quoting Pat Obar:

        (“This has been extensively studied and measured over the last 500 years, to 12 decimal places. Do you have any conflicting measurements or only fantasy BS.”)

        “Can you show us where the weight of moist air vs. dry air has ever been measured? I would find that interesting.”

        You fail to even indicate what you may possibly mean by “weight” or “moist” Whatever you may mean, all has been carefully measured! Where ever are your conflicting measurements? You have only illusion,fantasy, and insanity!

        • Avatar

          solvingtornadoes

          |

          Get a dictionary.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]Get a dictionary.[/quote]
            A dictionary can only express what others may mean! Since you refuse to agree on the meaning of any word! A dictionary provides no clue to any of your intended meaning! Yet another Doug Cotton! 🙂

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            [quote name=”Pat Obar”][quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]Get a dictionary.[/quote]
            A dictionary can only express what others may mean! Since you refuse to agree on the meaning of any word! A dictionary provides no clue to any of your intended meaning! Yet another Doug Cotton! :-)[/quote]

            Speaking of Doug Cotton, keep in mind that you and me aren’t the only ones using this blog. Let’s not stink it up with useless or repetitive chatter. If you have an argument–hopefully one that has a substantive point–then present it. Otherwise, why bother?

        • Avatar

          solvingtornadoes

          |

          [quote name=”Pat Obar”]Quoting Pat Obar:

          “This has been extensively studied and measured over the last 500 years, to 12 decimal places.[/quote]

          So, uh, why do you think they are hiding this data from the rest of humanity? I mean, what might their motive be? And,why do did they choose to reveal their special secret to you. I mean, no offense, but , what make you so special?

          [

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Put up or shut up.

  • Avatar

    Hans Schreuder

    |

    Good article Klaus, thanks! As Rosco wrote already, stupidity knows no limits and we’re surrounded by idiots who love to “believe” that humans are influencing the global climate at the hands of our miniscule production of carbon dioxide. Many continue to “believe” that sending radiation back to its emitter will make that emitter warmer still and many of those are professors of science. We battle on!

    • Avatar

      solvingtornadoes

      |

      [quote name=”Hans Schreuder”] . . . stupidity knows no limits and we’re surrounded by idiots who love to “believe” [/quote]
      This is the pot calling the kettle black. You yourself, Hans, believe things that are blatant nonsense, as I have informed you. When confronted with the fact that there is no evidence to support your belief in “cold steam”, a concept central to meteorology’s current paradigm, what did you do? Like all the dumb believers that you criticize you ignored the issue and just continued pretending you understood something you do not understand. So, yourself and all of the rest of your “slayers” are really in no position to be criticizing.
      [/quote]
      [quote name=”Hans Schreuder”]
      Many continue to “believe” that sending radiation back to its emitter will make that emitter warmer still and many of those are professors of science. We battle on![/quote]
      Do you really think this is less crazy than the notion that gaseous H2O can exist at temperatures below its boiling point?

      You slayers are a bunch of whiners who have found one issue that you got right and you expect the world to stop turning. As you yourself demonstrate, that is not how it works.

      • Avatar

        Hans Schreuder

        |

        James McGinn (aka Claudius Denk), posting here as solvingtornadoes, thanks for your input. Please explain to me how my washing dries. When I hang it up, even without any sun shining on it, the liquid water that makes it feel wet does eventually vacate the clothes and I am left with material that feels dry to me. Please explain the process and keep it short. If you can convince me of my incorrect interpretation of what I regard as empirical evidence, I will admit my error.

        • Avatar

          solvingtornadoes

          |

          [quote name=”Hans Schreuder”]James McGinn (aka Claudius Denk), posting here as solvingtornadoes, thanks for your input. Please explain to me how my washing dries. When I hang it up, even without any sun shining on it, the liquid water that makes it feel wet does eventually vacate the clothes and I am left with material that feels dry to me. Please explain the process and keep it short. If you can convince me of my incorrect interpretation of what I regard as empirical evidence, I will admit my error.[/quote]

          Well, sure, it’s empirical evidence. But–as I expect you must realize on some level–it is not empirical evidence of a phase change from liquid to gas. For it to be empirical evidence of a phase change from liquid to gas you would have to be able to detect/verify that the molecules of H2O are being pulled off as individual molecules and not clumps.

          Evaporation involves miniature clumps/droplets of H2O. It does not involve steam or gaseous H2O. (Given what we know about the high caloric requirements necessary to produce steam its fairly comical that so many believe that evaporation produces steam.) The force that pulls these miniature droplets/clusters up into the atmosphere is static electricity (the origins of which are the solar winds). As long as the clumps/droplets are small enough that their diameter is less than the length of a photon they are invisible to us.

          I don’t expect you to admit your error, Hans, nobody ever does. But, to be clear, your error was to conclude that since you couldn’t see the moisture coming off the shirt that, therefore, it must be steam. And that just isn’t the case.

          What You Never Suspected About Water in the Atmosphere:
          http://wp.me/p4JijN-4y

          • Avatar

            Mack

            |

            “Evaporation…does not involve steam or gaseous H20”
            How does that fit in with the observation that on a frosty morning, when the sun comes out and shines on frosty roofs of the houses…that they appear to be steaming? And what, exactly, are clouds? Looks pretty much like “cold steam” to me.

            to me.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Jim McGinn of Solving Tornadoes:
            “Evaporation…does not involve steam or gaseous H20”

            Mack:
            How does that fit in with the observation that on a frosty morning, when the sun comes out and shines on frosty roofs of the houses…that they appear to be steaming?

            Jim McGinn of Solving Tornadoes:
            Steam (mono-molecular H2O) is invisible. So if you can see it it isn’t steam. It’s evaporate (vapor), which consists of small droplets/clusters of H2O.

            I’m amazed at how many times I am asked this question when the answer is so obvious.

            Mack:
            And what, exactly, are clouds? Looks pretty much like “cold steam” to me.

            Jim McGinn of Solving Tornadoes:
            Clouds are vapor (droplets/clusters of H2O), not gas. Not steam. And they are relatively large droplets/clusters of H2O. If they were a gas (steam) or small droplets/clusters of H2O you would not be able to see them.

            There is no steam in Earth’s atmosphere, it is far too cool.

          • Avatar

            Mack

            |

            Thanks for that explanation of “steam” ST. Invisible (mono-molecular H2O)
            OK, what’s the difference between steam and water vapour? Well, nothing, both are invisible mono-molecular H2O..the only difference being temperature, as far as I can see. So at what temp does the nomenclature, for this one and the same stuff, change from “steam” to “water vapour” ?

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            [quote name=”Mack”]Thanks for that explanation of “steam” ST. [/quote]
            You are welcome.
            [quote name=”Mack”]Invisible (mono-molecular H2O) OK, what’s the difference between steam and water vapour? Well, nothing, both are invisible mono-molecular H2O..the only difference being temperature, as far as I can see. [/quote]
            In steam there are no hydrogen bonds between water molecules.

            [quote name=”Mack”]So at what temp does the nomenclature, for this one and the same stuff, change from “steam” to “water vapour” ?[/quote]
            It’s dependent on both pressure and temperature.
            http://www.steamtablesonline.com/

            There is no place in our atmosphere where the temperature and the pressure will produce steam.

            When I first started dicussing this with people on the internet I had no idea that people would get so emotional about this subject. I can kind of understand how meteorologists might be slightly upset, since this realization reveals their models (convection, latent heat) as nonsense. But I never suspected that meteorologists would collusively attempt to suppress this information and discredit me, as has been the case. I thought people would be as excited about knowing the truth as I was. I especially suspected that people that were skeptical about climatology/global-warming would be especially excited about this revelationl. Not the case. Every step of the way I’ve gotten push back, derisiveness, and blatatly denial. It’s been a real education about the depth of self-delusion that most people maintain. Even people that profess their commitment to rationality and empiricism are reduced to the same argumentive tactics that we see from the worst of the AGW alarmists.

          • Avatar

            Hans Schreuder

            |

            “(Given what we know about the high caloric requirements necessary to produce steam its fairly comical that so many believe that evaporation produces steam.)”
            Please then explain why a water cooler works. Does producing your magical smaller-than-a-photon water droplets draw energy from the surrounding air, thus cooling it? You’re surely having a laugh and I will waste no futher time on this.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            I don’t understand your question or what it has to do with what you quoted. Let me ask you a question. Can you explain why all of the laboratory evidence indicates that H2O only becomes a gas at temperatures and pressures that are above its boiling point and the only evidence that contradicts this is based on anecdote, like watching shirts dry in the wind?

            The difference between a real scientist and a pretender is that a real scientist would never dismiss a contradiction or conundrum because these are often the doorways to scientific breakthroughs.

            Go back to beating the dead horse of back-radiation.

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      [quote name=”Hans Schreuder”]Many continue to “believe” that sending radiation back to its emitter will make that emitter warmer still and many of those are professors of science. We battle on![/quote]

      Battling could be much more efficient, if we could focus exactly on that point which is the “greenhouse effect” which is the very foundation of the climate scare. Unfortunately, some people who are capable of communicating that successfully, I mean their rhetoric skills in the first place, are busy with producing ridiculous bupkis theories. This is a sad picture.

      • Avatar

        solvingtornadoes

        |

        Let me take a shot at explaining the error that I think slayers are making in their/your approach to thermodynamics

        There are three things:
        1) energy, a thing;
        2) heat, heated, or heating, a process in which energy changes its location; and
        3) relative temperature (up, down), the result of the process of heat, heating, and being heated.

        You guys have, IMO, erroneously assumed that the laws of thermodynamics refer to #2, a process. In actuality the LoTs refer to #3, the result of the process (the relative temperature, up down). And this involves the net gain or loss of energy in both the warmer and cooler objects. (Which, by the way, is not directly measured or measurable but is inferred from the temperature.)

        • Avatar

          Greg House

          |

          I do not belong to the guys you are referring to since I never argue with the laws of thermodynamics. Surprised you did not notice that. People simply do not understand such an argumentation. Does not mean though that what you are saying about “net” is correct. Which I am not going to discuss with you because it is irrelevant to the problem of climate scare. No trolling with me, please.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            http://climateofsophistry.com/2015/05/26/the-sophistry-of-backradiation/#comments

            solvingtornadoes says:
            2015/05/27 at 9:51 AM
            Greg House:
            “So I take it as there is no physical evidence for cold radiating towards hot, . . .”

            ST:
            Is there any evidence that it doesn’t?

            Greg House:
            or suggestion how humble me COULD prove it experimentally if I wish. But as for now we have zero evidence.

            ST:
            If you attempt to disprove it you will fail.

            Greg House:
            I allow me to humbly suggest this “both ways” mantra to be dropped

            ST:
            Based on what? You just confirmed you have no experimental evidence that contradicts it. Right?

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            First of all, your “quotations” are despicable and secondly, what part of “I am not going to discuss with you” do you not understand? Look for someone else to talk to you about that nonsense.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Although it is extremely common, it still seems strange to me how people that are so diametrically opposed to their opponents consensus-based conclusions are so unapologetically accepting of their own.

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            OK, I did not want to hurt your feelings, but since you insist…

            The reason why I talked to Joe about that nonsense but refuse to do so with you is this. Joe has earned some credibility over time, which you have not (yet?), so his nonsense causes some damage, because some people do not see it critically and actually spread it around, which is bad for battling climate scare. As for you saying the same thing, it is pretty harmless. The funny thing is that I cared more about his reputation then probably he himself, not because I liked him, but because he had some potential. Now I have no hope that he ever stops writing nonsense thus making himself vulnerable and no authority one could refer to. If you remember Doug Cotton, he rejected the “greenhouse effect” too, but it was no use because of his ridiculous theories. Joe is going the same path now.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Greg:
            OK, I did not want to hurt your feelings, but since you insist…

            The reason why I talked to Joe about that nonsense but refuse to do so with you is this. Joe has earned some credibility over time, which you have not (yet?),

            Jim McGinn of Solving Tornadoes:
            LOL. So, let me get this straight, you think *I* have a credibility problem?

            so his nonsense causes some damage, because some people do not see it critically and actually spread it around, which is bad for battling climate scare.

            Jim McGinn of Solving Tornadoes:
            I’m kind of a scientific purist. No, that’s not accurate. I’m an empiricist. And I have a lot of experience in science theory. And, most importantly of all, I have a really good grasp on the semantics that often leave people tied up in their own words. And that’s what has happened with Postma. But his twist, I now realize, is much deeper. His twist is closer to the heart of his conceptualization of reality. There is an intellectual blindspot there and one that he is attempting to conceal from the rest of us.

            Worst of all he’s taking himself too seriously.

            Oh, well. He’s young. Plenty of time for lessons to be learned.

            Greg:
            As for you saying the same thing, it is pretty harmless.

            Jim McGinn of Solving Tornadoes:
            Well, that’s good. I believe that doing no harm comes first.

            Greg:
            The funny thing is that I cared more about his reputation then probably he himself, not because I liked him, but because he had some potential. Now I have no hope that he ever stops writing nonsense thus making himself vulnerable and no authority one could refer to. If you remember Doug Cotton, he rejected the “greenhouse effect” too, but it was no use because of his ridiculous theories. Joe is going the same path now.[/quote]

            Jim McGinn of Solving Tornadoes:
            Well, IDK. Comparing Joe Postma to Doug Cotton would be like comparing Greg Laden to Ed Conrad. I would say, equating Joe Postma to Greg laden would be more accurate.

            Whatever the case, what it comes down to is this, he’s either going to eat some crow or become irrelevant, AFAIC.

            Beyond that, as I see it, he just made a simple mistake. He should, maybe, do some reading. Maybe spend a few days in the library. Make a retraction. And move on. It’s just science.

            But that’s just me.

      • Avatar

        Greg House

        |

        About that again, I’ve just got 2 comments of mine deleted by a guy who understands that there is no “greenhouse effect”, which is great, but unfortunately feels it necessary to play scientist and produces bupkis more or less constantly. Here we go: http://i.imgur.com/F3MT66s.jpg and http://i.imgur.com/OekYdLv.jpg.

        The problem is that the rational idea about the IPCC “greenhouse effect” being physically impossible gets lost in the ocean of equally unscientific nonsense presented on skeptical blogs.

        • Avatar

          solvingtornadoes

          |

          Although it is extremely common, it still seems strange to me how people that are so diametrically opposed to their opponents consensus-based conclusions are so unapologetically accepting of their own.

          Joe is trapped. He’s now in damage control mode. He’s deleting your posts, my posts, and the posts from a guy named Tom of Oregon City who had some extremely insightful and pertinent things to say on the subject.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]Although it is extremely common, it still seems strange to me how people that are so diametrically opposed to their opponents consensus-based conclusions are so unapologetically accepting of their own. [/quote]

            No one is a better example of that than you jim!! BTW what is the boiling point temperature of water at a pressure equivalent to that of 7 km altitude

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            [quote name=”Pat Obar”][quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]Although it is extremely common, it still seems strange to me how people that are so diametrically opposed to their opponents consensus-based conclusions are so unapologetically accepting of their own. [/quote]

            No one is a better example of that than you jim!!

            Jim:
            Uh, really? Uh . . . er?

            Pat:
            BTW what is the boiling point temperature of water at a pressure equivalent to that of 7 km altitude[/quote]

            Jim:
            Uh, IDK. Why don’t you google it?

            Good luck with that 🙂

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            For someone screaming 100C for steam I can understand! the BP for an atmospheric pressure of 31 mmHg is 30 degrees Celsius keep that pressure and temperature and “all” the water must convert to a monomolecular gas!

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            [quote name=”Pat Obar”]For someone screaming 100C for steam I can understand![/quote]
            Quote me directly, you strawbaiting nitwit.

            I’ve been very careful to avoid opening the door to that strawman tactic by using the phrase, “the boiling point and temperature of H2O.”

            [quote name=”Pat Obar”]
            the BP for an atmospheric pressure of 31 mmHg is 30 degrees Celsius keep that pressure and temperature and “all” the water must convert to a monomolecular gas![/quote]
            Now complete your argument. Are you saying it is over 30 degrees Celsius at that altitude/pressure? Yes? No? If so that is pretty interesting? If not then one can only wonder what your point is. Well?

            If your point doesn’t have anything to do with what is happening in earths atmosphere then why did you bring it up? If you are saying it does then you should make an argument to that effect.

            I hope that helps.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            This direct quote is close enough:
            solvingtornadoes 2015-06-05 11:40

            “Do you really think this is less crazy than the notion that gaseous H2O can exist at temperatures below its boiling point?”

            This question is based on the insane belief that boiling point is fixed at some temperature in this atmosphere.
            Water boiling point (temperature) is always a monotonic function of the pressure of gases other than H2O in this atmosphere. Always surface water must “boil” into a monomer H2O gas at any temperature until its own partial vapor pressure is in equilibrium with the evaporate potential pressure of that liquid or solid at that temperature. There is both water aerosol collide (partial liquid or solid) along with monomer H2O gas all the way to 1000 km altitude.
            What the hell have you ever measured? All you have is Claudius Denk fantasy!

            Have a miserable day! 😆

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            PO:
            This direct quote is close enough:
            solvingtornadoes 2015-06-05 11:40
            “Do you really think this is less crazy than the notion that gaseous H2O can exist at temperatures below its boiling point?”
            This question is based on the insane belief that boiling point is fixed at some temperature in this atmosphere.

            ST:
            LOL. Let me get this straight. You are not disputing my words. You are disputing the beliefs that you imagine my words are based on. Is that your argument?

            Since your argument comes from your imagination I will let your imagination handle the response.

            PO:
            Water boiling point (temperature) is always a monotonic function of the pressure of gases other than H2O in this atmosphere.

            ST:
            You seem confused. (Drunk again?)

            The steam tables are readily available on the internet. Why not just look it up.

            PO:
            Always surface water must “boil” into a monomer H2O gas at any temperature until its own partial vapor pressure is in equilibrium with the evaporate potential pressure of that liquid or solid at that temperature.

            ST:
            Are you talking about in a closed container? In a vacuum? What is your point?

            PO:
            There is both water aerosol collide (partial liquid or solid) along with monomer H2O gas all the way to 1000 km altitude.

            ST:
            If this is what you believe you should make a detailed argument to that effect. In my estimation there are no places in our atmosphere that have moisture and where either the pressure is low enough or the temperature is high enough to produce steam.

            You have the right to believe whatever you want but keep in mind if you are going to make extravagant claims you must be willing to bear the burden of proof.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]PO:
            This direct quote is close enough:
            solvingtornadoes 2015-06-05 11:40
            “Do you really think this is less crazy than the notion that gaseous H2O can exist at temperatures below its boiling point?”
            This question is based on the insane belief that boiling point is fixed at some temperature in this atmosphere.

            ST:
            LOL. Let me get this straight. You are not disputing my words. You are disputing the beliefs that you imagine my words are based on. Is that your argument? [/quote]

            I dispute only your insane words, never any possible meaning of such insane words!

            [quote] Since your argument comes from your imagination I will let your imagination handle the response.
            PO:
            Water boiling point (temperature) is always a monotonic function of the pressure of gases other than H2O in this atmosphere.
            ST:You seem confused. (Drunk again?)[/quote]
            “I” and even stumbling you are so easy to defeat!

            [quote]
            The steam tables are readily available on the internet. Why not just look it up.[/quote]

            I have I constructed such, you are the idiot that never considers such knowledge!

            PO:
            Always surface water must “boil” into a monomer H2O gas at any temperature until its own partial vapor pressure is in equilibrium with the evaporate potential pressure of that liquid or solid at that temperature.

            [quote]ST:
            Are you talking about in a closed container? In a vacuum? What is your point? [/quote]

            PO:
            “There is both water aerosol collide (partial liquid or solid) along with monomer H2O gas all the way to 1000 km altitude.”

            Please describe any observation in conflict or measurement of what I have measured!

            [quote]ST:
            If this is what you believe you should make a detailed argument to that effect. In my estimation there are no places in our atmosphere that have moisture and where either the pressure is low enough or the temperature is high enough to produce steam.[/quote]

            All places in this atmosphere have “humidity”
            a buoyant water condensate along with true monomolecular gas H2O.

            [quote] You have the right to believe whatever you want but keep in mind if you are going to make extravagant claims you must be willing to bear the burden of proof.[/quote]

            I make no such claims as you must do,in your insanity. I only refer to “my” measurements, correct or not! What have you ever measured?

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Jim McGinn:
            The steam tables are readily available on the internet. Why not just look it up.[/quote]

            PO:
            I have I constructed such, you are the idiot that never considers such knowledge![/quote]

            Jim McGinn:
            I’m confused. It would seem you are accusing me of being unable to dispute an argument you have not presented. And you are saying *I’m* insane?

            PO:
            I only refer to “my” measurements, correct or not!

            Jim McGinn:
            I can’t figure out what you are talking about, sorry.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]Jim McGinn:
            The steam tables are readily available on the internet. Why not just look it up.[/quote]

            PO:
            I have I constructed such, you are the idiot that never considers such knowledge![/quote]

            Jim McGinn:
            I’m confused. It would seem you are accusing me of being unable to dispute an argument you have not presented. And you are saying *I’m* insane?

            PO:
            I only refer to “my” measurements, correct or not!

            Jim McGinn:
            I can’t figure out what you are talking about, sorry.[/quote]

            Both are examples of insanity on your part Jim.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            http://climateofsophistry.com/2015/06/08/ontological-mathematics-boundary-conditions-physics-empiricism/#comment-23735

            Pat, examine this discussion between myself and Durango Dan and see if you can make an intelligent contribution:

            ST:
            I think you guys need to be less obsessed with the deception and exposing the deception (of climate alarmism) and more obsessed about getting the facts right about the atmosphere and how it actually functions. Postma’s long diatribes about mathematics don’t mean anything unless they are applied to the atmosphere to some useful end. And, Dan, your meanderings about the atmosphere and convection are extremely sketchy and amateurish. In some instances, as I will expand upon below, your thinking leads us to blatantly false conclusions.

            Dan:
            . . . the atmosphere which is a gaseous fluid responds by expanding at the immediate surface / atmosphere interface.

            ST:
            Well, of course it does. Anything that heats up will expand. But here is the thing you aren’t getting. The warmer air becomes the greater becomes its capacity to absorb and suspend microdroplets of liquid H2O (see chart). (Keep in mind, there is no steam in Earth’s atmosphere, it is much too cool.) Then consider the fact that 70% of the earth’s surface is water. Add up all of these factors and you arrive at the realization that vast majority of warmer air on this planet is heavier, not lighter, than cooler air. The only places where this is not true is in desert environments (including the polar regions) where there is little moisture.

            So, remember, warmer air is almost always heavier because it, almost always, is holding a higher capacity of liquid water micro droplets.

            Dan:
            This bit of atmosphere now being less dense than the air above it, rises

            ST:
            As I stated, this happens only in the driest of dry desert environments. Most of warmer air is heavier than drier air because it contains so many more microdroplets of moisture.

            Dan:
            . . . and allows cooler denser air to contact the surface initiating a very efficient heat transfer process commonly known as convection.

            ST:
            This is wrong. Since warm, moist air is heavier than dry air convection is almost non-existent on this planet, except in driest of deserts.

            Dan:
            This convection feeds back on itself carrying the air and heat higher and higher above the surface.

            ST:
            This is nonsense. There is no convection and no convection feedback. (Convection feedback employs perpetual motion machine logic.)

            ST:
            The fact that you are wrong about the mechanism does not mean you are wrong about the effect. There is a tremendous amount of mixing that takes place on our planet. This mixing is, most directly, the result of the jet streams, the winds that are generated by jet streams, and the storms that too are generated by the jet streams.

            See more on this here:
            http://wp.me/p4JijN-45v
            http://wp.me/p4JijN-aE

        • Avatar

          solvingtornadoes

          |

          The slayers have make a common error in regard to ambiguous terminology:
          http://wp.me/p4JijN-49r

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]The slayers have make a common error in regard to ambiguous terminology:[/quote]

            “have make”?
            Jim you are the one that refuses to distinguish liquid water, airborne water condensate, WV gaseous H2O (a monomer) and steam! Your use of the word “steam” changes with every post, depending on whether you are trying to express something or just trying to piss someone off! You are very bad at either! 😆

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            [quote name=”Pat Obar”][quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]The slayers have make a common error in regard to ambiguous terminology:[/quote]

            “have make”?
            Jim you are the one that refuses to distinguish liquid water, airborne water condensate, WV gaseous H2O (a monomer) and steam! Your use of the word “steam” changes with every post,[/quote]

            There is a tremendous amount of ambiguity and conceptual confusion that, it seems, is built into the terminology. People use a lot of the terminology interchangeably, like vapor, steam, moist air, Gaseous phase. Everybody brings their own meaning to the conversation and many also bring strong opinions, many of which were formed based on anecdote. On top of that many come into the conversation with the strong opinion that water’s properties are simple and obvious, and they are not.

            [quote name=”Pat Obar”]
            depending on whether you are trying to express something or just trying to piss someone off! You are very bad at either! :lol:[/quote]

            I am going to try to become better at one of them.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Pat Obar”][quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]The slayers have make a common error in regard to ambiguous terminology:[/quote]

            “have make”?
            Jim you are the one that refuses to distinguish liquid water, airborne water condensate, WV gaseous H2O (a monomer) and steam! Your use of the word “steam” changes with every post,[/quote]

            There is a tremendous amount of ambiguity and conceptual confusion that, it seems, is built into the terminology. People use a lot of the terminology interchangeably, like vapor, steam, moist air, Gaseous phase. Everybody brings their own meaning to the conversation and many also bring strong opinions, many of which were formed based on anecdote. On top of that many come into the conversation with the strong opinion that water’s properties are simple and obvious, and they are not.

            I am going to try to become better at one of them.[/quote]

            Thank you! And for your criticism:

            Water vapor or (technical) steam especially superheated steam is the monomolecular gas phase of H20, nothing else! Such gas contains absolutely no humidity. Such “gas” has low molecular density but specific heat,twice that of gas N2 or O2!

            Water condensate is the colloid between liquid or solid H2O and the gas phase.
            In the atmosphere this condensate is called an aerosol with a higher density than the gas, but no one knows by how much, or why it remains suspended under the complex fluid dynamics of this compressible fluid called atmosphere, that is within a strong gravitational field.

            Please be extremely suspicious of anyone that claims they know, especially of yourself! 😕 Anything visible is never steam, only the condensate! The meteorologists can only lie, as they also have not a clue 🙂

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    Look what a real insane person has to say about this story.

    Apparently you and I and every other climate change sceptic has murdered these two buffoons !!

    http://schatziesearthproject.com/2015/05/04/murdered-by-climate-change-deniers/comment-page-1/

    ” Ergo, climate change deniers and their ilk have viciously killed these young men. They are entirely responsible for their deaths”.

    This person, and unfortunately millions of stupid people around the world who subscribe to the ludicrous unproven theory to the extent it becomes a religious fervour, [b]are certifiably insane ![/b]

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton

    |

    I sent this to the Canadian Minister of the Environment, Leona Aglukkaq, who is from the north.

Comments are closed