On How the Earth Keeps Cool

Written by Anthony Bright-Paul

A young lady on Facebook sent me the usual accepted version concerning Climate and Global Warming. I have forgotten her name for the moment – it will return doubtless in a short time. Oh yes, it is Harfiyah.

To whom I would make this reply. Most, if not all scientists do agree on the facts, but alas they cannot always agree on the conclusions.

I would like to ask you a series of questions and see if we can agree together. Firstly, what is the Globe? Now we cannot live without air, and this globe of ours has an atmosphere some 65 miles high to the edge of Outer Space, sometimes called the Karman line. Just how do we have this atmosphere? How is it retained? After all if it is simply air, why does it not simply blow away? And indeed, why also do the seas likewise not slip off the edge of the earth and drain away to Outer Space, leaving the Earth simply as a desolate rock?

Well, I will not attempt to answer that question, but I understand that Mars lost its atmosphere, so there is no reason why the same thing could not happen to the Earth.

That is just a question for you and friends on Facebook to ponder. But now I have a more direct question. When you run a tap of water, particularly a mixer tap, how do you tell whether the water is cold, warm or hot? After all the water coming out of the tap looks much the same, if not identical. But you can tell the difference simply by putting your hand under the water and you will immediately feel whether it is cold, tepid or hot. How do you do that? Well, of course, it is by touch, it is by Conduction. Everyone is able by touch to know the difference in the heat of the water, although they may not know the exact temperature. So Harfiyah, do you agree with that so far?

You know also that you can bring water to the boil in a kettle. So you have to exert some type of force to bring the water to 100 degrees C, boiling point. Do you agree to this? For this is a simple example of the 1st law of Thermodynamics, that heat can only be produced by ‘work done’. On the other hand when you have made your drink of tea or coffee, at first it is too hot to drink, but within minutes it will cool just by itself. Do you agree that this is a simple fact that everything by itself will cool? Do you agree with that? For that is the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. There is no steady state, is there? Everything upon this blessed Planet is either being made hotter or by itself is cooling off. Do you agree that this is a fact of experience? If so, that’s great – we can agree.

Not so very long ago all the scientists in the world and all the priests and the wise men all believed that the Earth was static in the middle of the universe and that the Sun went round  the Earth, – the module enunciated by Ptolemy. Very reasonable too! To all intents and purposes we are standing on a stable platform, the Sun is rising in the East and setting in the West. Along comes Copernicus and Galileo, and not to be forgotten Giordano Bruno, and they declare that the Earth is travelling round the Sun in an ellipse, which takes a year, and at the some time we are revolving on our own axis every single day, wobbling and tilting at the same time. Nowadays all scientists agree that this is the truth. Do you accept that this is true? After all we know very well when we are travelling at 60mph in a car, yet when we are travelling round the Sun at 66,000 mph we hardly feel a thing. Most people nowadays however accept that Copernicus was right. Do you?

So now you see why I asked you about air. Is it not amazing if we are truly travelling at 66,000 mph, just how do we retain all this air? Why does not the whole atmosphere that is some 65 miles high, why does it not all blow away to Outer space?

We have agreed, I hope, that you could feel the difference between hot and cold water. Can you feel the difference between hot and cold air?

Now here is a funny thing. Scientists all agree that the air is 99% Oxygen and Nitrogen and just 1% Greenhouse Gases, – Water Vapour, Carbon Dioxide and Methane and a few others. So the vast amount of our air is Oxygen and Nitrogen and scientists of all kinds and persuasions agree that it is transparent. And it is obvious. As I look out of my window I can see the willow across the road, because the air is transparent. Even if I stand on a cliff top I can see a ship on the horizon that is over 9 miles away, because Oxygen and Nitrogen, the main constituents of air are transparent. Do you agree to this?

Furthermore, and this is the interesting part, Oxygen and Nitrogen are not only transparent visually, they are also transparent to radiation, in particular to infrared. So the question is this – how does the air warm up? Or doesn’t it? I will return to this question later.

Now the Greenhouse Gases are opaque – why, only this morning the weather forecast on the BBC said there was thick mist but it would soon burn off. You can see mist, you can see fog and you can see clouds, but you don’t see through them. Why? Because they are opaque! Do you agree?

Further more these gasses are also all opaque to infrared radiation from the Sun. What does that mean? Well as all the Warmist scientists declare these molecules warm up. Do the Skeptics disagree? No, not at all! And they radiate every which way. Do scientists agree on that? Sure they do.

So these molecules absorb radiation and emit radiation. And what happens when a molecule emits radiation? The answer is simple and agreed by all Physicists – the molecule cools down. It cannot be otherwise, can it? As something absorbs radiation it heats up – as it emits radiation it cools down. Agreed?

Let us return to the two principle gases that make up 99% of the air we breathe. They do not warm up with infrared. Since they are transparent the radiation passes through until it hits mass. What is mass? Mass can be anything substantial. If we sit out in the sun we may get sunburnt. We may feel very warm. That is because we have mass. When radiation encounters mass heat is produced. Trees, bricks, lakes, oceans and rocks all have mass and absorb infrared and become warm in varying degrees. Now here’s the thing. As the surfaces warm up so does the air, by touching, by Conduction.

So the air is not warmed by infrared – except for the Greenhouse Gases – but only warms up by Conduction.  That is why the air warms from the bottom up – the adiabatic process or lapse rate.

So how does the air cool down? Well, we all know that hot air rises and as it rises it cools. But why and how does it cool? Very simply the molecules fly farther apart and the air gets ‘thinner’. At ground level the molecules are dense. Higher up, say on the summit of Mt Blanc the air is thinner. There is more nothing between the molecules and so there is an absence of warmth. Actually there is no such thing as ‘cold’ only absence of heat. This process is called Convection. It is clear with a little thought, that Convection cannot go farther than this world. The Thermosphere may have some very hot molecules, even to 2,000 degrees C, but as it is mostly empty it feels completely cold. It is a paradox.

So now we are left with a very interesting question. Is the world getting hotter and hotter? Think about it. As the Earth spins round as on a spit, one side is being warmed by radiation and the side in the shadow is cooling down. We know that this happens, by out own thermometers, wherever we are. But how does the Earth cool down?

Well the Earth cannot cool down by Conduction, since one cannot conduct heat to nothing. It cannot cool down by Convection, since we have run out of molecules by the time we reach the edge of space.

There is only one possible way that the Earth could cool down and that is by radiation. It is possible to radiate into space, and all scientists will agree to that.

So all the scientists are agreed so far in principle. The question now is ‘How does the Earth cool down?’ Well in spite of the Global Warmers the earth does cool down, otherwise we would already be getting hotter and hotter and hotter then Hades.

The heat has to escape somehow and it can only escape by Radiation. Just as Newton is famous for his insights into gravity, and Einstein is famous for his insights into relativity amongst other things, I believe that Hans Schreuder will be acclaimed in due course for answering this question.

Oxygen and Nitrogen do not absorb infrared, so they also do not emit or radiate. The only molecules that radiate and cool down are the famous Greenhouse Gases, in particular Water Vapour and Carbon Dioxide. It is only the Greenhouse Gases that are capable of radiating to Outer Space. It is only the Greenhouse Gases that are keeping the world cool. Hans Schreuder is perhaps alone in declaring that Greenhouse Gases cool the Planet. (See http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com )

Hans Schreduer in no way contradicts climate science – however he reaches a different conclusion. I believe that he is right. Do you, Harfiyah?

Comments (98)

  • Avatar

    Jim McGinn

    |

    The only thing you have even attempted as evidence for your theories is a couple of entries in steam tables.

    Jim: Steam tables are the only reliable evidence we have. Everything else is anecdote, tradition, and group think, much of which is based on blatant superstition.

    You claim that “Steam tables clearly indicate that there is no place in earth’s atmosphere where the temperature is hot enough or the pressure is low enough to allow gaseous H2O (genuine steam) to persist.” References? Even a simple supporting argument for how you deduce this from the tables?

    Jim: I’m not running a hand-holding service here. You will have to figure this out on your own.

    You state that ” there is a tremendous amount of ambiguity with respect to terminology on this subject. You are either a sloppy thinker or you are just lazy. When they say vapor do you know they mean H2O(l) and not H2O(g)?” Every source I have ever seen defines “vapor” unequivocally and unambiguously as a gas. The only ambiguity is in your confusion.

    Jim: Steam tables.

    I asked: “Why has no one ever noticed [the phase change for water vapor in air from liquid to gas … at 100C]? You responded: “Why do you assume this?” So show me one reference that “notices” this phenomenon!

    Jim: Are you retarded? If you heat water in an open container (at sea level) the temperature will increase up to 100C, then it will stop increasing. It will stay at 100 degrees until all of the H2O has boiled off.

    You say: “No such measurments [that the density of air DECREASES with increasing water vapor content] have ever been performed. It’s just your imagination — again.” So are you seriously claiming that the Bureau Internationale des Poids et Measures (International Bureau of Weights and Measures) would make this up?

    Jim: Yes. Of course I’m saying this. They did not measure. (It’s just about impossible to measure anyway.) They calculated. The world is chock full of nitwits. And that includes your Bureau Internationale des Poids et Measures (International Bureau of Weights and Measures). These nitwits, and many other groups of nitwits just like them, did not actually measure or detect gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures. Instead these nitwits made the same dimwitted error that you are making to assume that clear moist air “must contain gaseous H2O” when in actuality that is perfectly impossible. So, yes, your Bureau Internationale des Poids et Measures did not measure or detect gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures. They assumed it. And they “hid” the assumptions in their calculations.

    I’ll give you the link again: http://www.bipm.org/utils/en/pdf/Density_of_moist_air.pdf

    Jim: This proves my point. Nothing in your link indicates that they measured or detected gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures. If you think otherwise, where are the reproducible experimental procedures? Where is the data? How is it you didn’t notice that these procedures and this data is absent? Can you explain that?

    This is the top metrology lab in the world, and it would be a scandal if they were found to be fabricating results. They report very clearly that they found a precise coefficient for this decrease through direct measurements.

    Jim: Who cares. Show the fucking reproducible procedures. Show the fucking data. You are the only one saying this has been measured. I don’t see them claiming such. Prove me wrong.

    What motivation would they have to fabricate this? Are they in on a personal vendetta against Jim McGinn?

    Jim: You are the only one claiming they have measured it. I don’t see them making that claim. Go ahead and prove me wrong.

    You still have not provided a single piece of actual evidence to disprove the paradigm that has been phenomenally successful at predictions in science and engineering for over a century now.

    Jim: Absurd. This is the kind of dumbass thing an engineer would say.

    And in common with other internet cranks, you absolutely refuse to make any actual predictions that could possibly be falsified. Why the cowardice???

    Jim: Not true. Although it would be difficult, it is potentially provable that moist air is always heavier than dry air (all other factors being the same). Here are the procedures. But it would take an extremely sensitive scale.
    https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/2XZmr9zDCig/mpUXaNxzAAAJ

    James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
    Isaac Newton was a human being
    https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16306

    • Avatar

      Ed Bo

      |

      Jim:

      Once again, nothing! You’re back to chanting “steam tables!” and you are unable to articulate why they support your view. (While they show boiling points at various pressures, they provide absolutely no support for your view that water vapor below the boiling point is liquid, not gas.)

      You say: “Steam tables are the only reliable evidence we have.” Yet you repeatedly say that many of the values in these tables are “lunacy”. Which is it? Make up your mind!

      I asked why no one has ever noticed the phase change for water vapor in air from liquid to gas at 100C. You replied “If you heat water in an open container (at sea level) the temperature will increase up to 100C, then it will stop increasing. It will stay at 100 degrees until all of the H2O has boiled off.”

      Do you seriously not understand the difference between these two cases? No wonder you’re so confused!

      I was clearly asking about water that was already present in air, not pure water as a liquid body. You claim that this vapor is a liquid below 100C (@ 1atm) and a gas above 100C. So if you are correct, we should see for this case the same thing you say happens for a pot of water — at 100C, the added energy will cause a phase change without increasing temperature.

      If your case is so obvious, this should be easily detectable. So I ask again: Why has no one ever noticed this?

      I am highly amused that you keep citing discussion threads where your opponents make absolute fools of you. At least in this latest thread, you actually proposed an experiment — an impractical one, but an idea at least.

      But lipperf cited a real experiment performed by Japan’s national metrology laboratory that showed with precision measurements that the (mass) density of air decreased with increasing water vapor content with a trend entirely consistent with mono-molecular water vapor (and completely inconsistent with your poly-molecular water vapor theory). It can be found explained in great detail here:

      http://www.imeko.org/publications/wc-2000/IMEKO-WC-2000-TC3-P093.pdf

      There’s also another one here from Korea’s national metrology lab:

      http://www.imeko.org/publications/tc3-2002/IMEKO-TC3-2002-038.pdf

      So we have the best metrology labs in France, Korea, and Japan, all capable of incredible precision in their measurements, all performing actual measurements (that M-E-A-S-U-R-E-M-E-N-T-S) that show that the mass density (in kg/m^3) of air decreases with increasing water vapor content. These measurements can only be explained by mono-molecular water vapor.

      Game, set, match!

      • Avatar

        Jim McGinn

        |

        Bo:
        Once again, nothing! You’re back to chanting “steam tables!” and you are unable to articulate why they support your view. (While they show boiling points at various pressures, they provide absolutely no support for your view that water vapor below the boiling point is liquid, not gas.)

        Jim:
        It’s not possible for me to dispute something that exists only in your imagination. It’s not necessary either.

        If you have evidence that H2O is gaseous at ambient temperatures in the atmosphere go ahead and present it. The fact is you have been unable to find any such evidence. The fact is that they best you can do is point to other people who have made the same error of assuming that clear moist air must contain gaseous H2O because it is clear and because gaseous H2O is clear. This is a dumb assumption. The fact that moist air is often clear doesn’t prove it is monomolecular. It just proves that the nanodroplets have a diameter smaller than the length of a photon.

        Ultimately, Bo, you don’t have a scientific argument. You have an emotional argument based on anecdote, supersition and consensus.

        Meteorology is a silly paradigm. They don’t have any understanding of the origins of the energy of storms so they make up this fiction about there being a phase change and about there being this huge release of “latent heat” in the atmosphere. It’s blatant lunacy. It’s as bad or worse than the notion that CO2 causes a “greenhouse effect.”

        Bo:
        lipperf cited a real experiment performed by Japan’s national metrology laboratory that showed with precision measurements that the (mass) density of air decreased with increasing water vapor content

        Jim:
        Lipperf got caught in a lie (just like you) and he discontinued the discussion. He claimed the lab had measured. It turns out he was wrong. They just calculated and hid their assumptions in the calculations.

        Bo:
        http://www.imeko.org/publications/wc-2000/IMEKO-WC-2000-TC3-P093.pdf

        Jim:
        Prove it was measured and not calculated. (Put up or shut up, Bo.)

        Bo:
        There’s also another one here from Korea’s national metrology lab:
        http://www.imeko.org/publications/tc3-2002/IMEKO-TC3-2002-038.pdf
        So we have the best metrology labs in France, Korea, and Japan,

        Jim:
        Prove it was measured and not calculated. (Put up or shut up, Bo.)

        James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

        • Avatar

          Jim McGinn

          |

          Bo:
          Japan’s national metrology laboratory that showed with precision measurements that the (mass) density of air decreased with increasing water vapor content with a trend entirely consistent with mono-molecular water vapor (and completely inconsistent with your poly-molecular water vapor theory). It can be found explained in great detail here:

          Jim:
          So, Bo, if you have details that substantiate this claim one can only wonder why you don’t just directly quote these alleged details. Go ahead? What are you waiting for?

          Knowing he was defeated, it was at this point that lipperF bailed out of the discussion. Maybe it is time for you to do the same, Bo.

          James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

          • Avatar

            Ed Bo

            |

            Jim:

            In your desperation, you are reduced to claiming that these national metrology labs, working in non-politicized fields and ones in which their work can easily be checked by other labs, are completely fabricating results, reporting measurements that they never made.

            I’m guessing you have your tinfoil hat on 24/7 now!

            The links I provided you describe the experimental procedures in GREAT detail, along with the results of the measurements (I repeat: MEASUREMENTS) and their analysis. I simply refer you to Section 3: Experimental Details. Did you miss that section? These reports show how a scientific report should be written.

            You, on the other hand, have yet to provide a SINGLE piece of evidence for your proposition that water vapor is a liquid below the boiling point. Not one! Why not???

          • Avatar

            Jim McGinn

            |

            Bo:
            Japan’s national metrology laboratory that showed with precision measurements that the (mass) density of air decreased with increasing water vapor content with a trend entirely consistent with mono-molecular water vapor (and completely inconsistent with your poly-molecular water vapor theory). It can be found explained in great detail here:

            Jim:
            So, Bo, if you have details that substantiate this claim one can only wonder why you don’t just directly quote these alleged details. Go ahead? What are you waiting for?

            Bo:
            I simply refer you to Section 3: Experimental Details.

            Jim:
            Okay, I’m looking at Section 3. Where is it? Is there some reason you are not providing a direct quote? Don’t be shy. Provide a direct quote. Go ahead. What are you waiting for?

            Or, possibly, my creative reading skills are not as well developed as are yours. And as are those of people that believe in bigfoot. And as are those of people that believe in flying saucers. And as are those of people that believe in ghosts. And as are those of people that believe is global warming.

            So, you see Bo. This brings to the forefront an inadequacy of my own that has plagued my career as a scientist. I just have a hard time seeming things that are not there.

            James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

          • Avatar

            Ed Bo

            |

            OK, I’ll humor you, since you obviously have pathetic reading comprehension. One key passage:

            “Balance operation and weighing data collection were performed using software supplied with the
            mass comparator. In this experiment, one comparison between reference weight (R) and test weight
            (T) consisted of 11 successive weighings: R0, T0, R1, T1, R2, T2, R3, T3, R4, (R+s), R5. The first two
            weighing data, R0 and T0, were removed from the calculation of average weighing value to improve
            Figure 1. a) Photograph of the AT1007 mass
            comparator
            XVI IMEKO World Congress
            Measurement – Supports Science – Improves Technology – Protects Environment … and Provides Employment – Now and in the Future
            Vienna, AUSTRIA, 2000, September 25-28
            the result, and the last three weighings, R4, (R+s), and R5, were used to obtain the sensitivity of the
            balance. Braking time, stabilization time, and integration time were selected to be 10 sec, 40 sec, and
            10 sec, respectively. It took about 29 minutes to carry out one comparison on this condition. Weighing
            results were recorded in a data file to the digits of 0.000 01 mg. Six comparisons, combinations of two
            weights selected among four weights, formed one weighing series. From five to seven weighing series
            were carried out in a day in this experiment.”

            Actual measurements!

            OK, your turn now. This is your last chance to salvage your pathetic imitation of a theory, for which you have provided absolutely no evidence (because there is none). Show me something — anything!

          • Avatar

            Jim McGinn

            |

            Bo: Japan’s national metrology laboratory that showed with precision measurements that the (mass) density of air decreased with increasing water vapor content with a trend entirely consistent with mono-molecular water vapor (and completely inconsistent with your poly-molecular water vapor theory). It can be found explained in Section 3: Experimental Details.

            Jim: Okay, I’m looking at Section 3. Where is it?

            Bo: OK, I’ll humor you, . . .

            Jim: Good. I like being humored.

            Bo: . . . the last three weighings, R4, (R+s), and R5, were used to obtain the sensitivity of the balance. Braking time, stabilization time, and integration time were selected to be 10 sec, 40 sec, and 10 sec, respectively. It took about 29 minutes to carry out one comparison on this condition. Weighing results were recorded in a data file to the digits of 0.000 01 mg. Six comparisons, combinations of two weights selected among four weights, formed one weighing series. From five to seven weighing series were carried out in a day in this experiment.”

            Jim: Uh . . . er. Uh. Uh. Uh? Er . . . uh? But . . . uh? Er . . . uh.

            Bo: Actual measurements!

            Jim: Well, . . uh. Uh? Er? Uh. Well . . . uh, er. Er! Er. Er. Uh.

            Bo: OK, your turn now. This is your last chance to salvage your pathetic imitation of a theory, for which you have provided absolutely no evidence (because there is none). Show me something — anything!

            Jim: Well, uh, I actually don’t think I could improve upon what you just presented. I did learn something, though. I guess I don’t really like being humored as much as I thought.

            Thank you for your participation.

            James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
            Reflection on Daniel Eltons Dissertation on Water
            https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16601

  • Avatar

    Jim McGinn

    |

    You don’t even understand what the entries in the steam tables mean.

    Reference?

    For each temperature row in the table, there is a corresponding “saturation vapor pressure” for that temperature.

    As I mentioned previously there is a tremendous amount of ambiguity with respect to terminology on this subject. You are either a sloppy thinker or you are just lazy. When they say vapor do you know they mean H2O(l) and not H2O(g)? And then there is saturation? Are they referring to a mixture of H2O(l) and air, H2O(g) and air? Or might they be referring to pure H2O?

    It’s not my job to untangle your thinking. It’s your job to remove the ambiguity.

    Put another way, the temperature is the “boiling point” for that pressure, the temperature at which the saturation vapor pressure equals ambient pressure. (A clue should be the titles for these tables, which are listed as for “Saturated Steam and Saturated Water”.)

    What table? I can’t figure out what it is you think you see.

    But it absolutely does not follow that at temperatures below the boiling point for that pressure, there can be no gaseous water — you have made a COMPLETELY unwarranted leap there with NO supporting evidence whatsoever.

    Your evidence is what? Your imagination?

    And I will remind you again that these very same steam tables that you offer up as your attempt at evidence also contain values for LHoV that you consider “lunacy”. So which is it, Jim? Are these tables authoritative or not???

    Reference?

    You have no explanation for how scientists and engineers have, for over a century now, designed real-word evaporative and condensing systems (always working below the boiling point) using these table values for LHoV that you claim are completely fictional, and NO ONE has ever noticed or complained about the discrepancy.

    What discrepancy? You’re the one that says they shouldn’t work. Not me. I’m not a mind reader.

    If you are correct, the phase change for water vapor in air from liquid to gas should occur at 100C (@ 1 atm).

    Right.

    Why has no one ever noticed it?

    Why do you assume this?

    And you don’t even understand the concept of thermodynamic state variables well enough to realize that this is an implication of your theories.

    Nonsense.

    I show you concrete laboratory evidence that the density of air DECREASES with increasing water vapor content, extremely carefully measured.

    No such measurements have ever been performed. It’s just your imagination–again.

    Your response indicates that you don’t even understand the difference between the intensive property of density and the extensive properties of mass and weight.

    Nonsense.

    Have you no shame?

    YOU GOT NOTHING!!!

    • Avatar

      Ed Bo

      |

      Jim:

      Yep. Still nothing. You got nothing.

      The only thing you have even attempted as evidence for your theories is a couple of entries in steam tables. You claim that “Steam tables clearly indicate that there is no place in earth’s atmosphere where the temperature is hot enough or the pressure is low enough to allow gaseous H2O (genuine steam) to persist.”

      References? Even a simple supporting argument for how you deduce this from the tables?

      You state that ” there is a tremendous amount of ambiguity with respect to terminology on this subject. You are either a sloppy thinker or you are just lazy. When they say vapor do you know they mean H2O(l) and not H2O(g)?”

      Every source I have ever seen defines “vapor” unequivocally and unambiguously as a gas. The only ambiguity is in your confusion.

      I asked: “Why has no one ever noticed [the phase change for water vapor in air from liquid to gas … at 100C]?

      You responded: “Why do you assume this?”

      So show me one reference that “notices” this phenomenon!

      You say: “No such measurments [that the density of air DECREASES with increasing water vapor content] have ever been performed. It’s just your imagination — again.”

      So are you seriously claiming that the Bureau Internationale des Poids et Measures (International Bureau of Weights and Measures) would make this up?

      I’ll give you the link again: http://www.bipm.org/utils/en/pdf/Density_of_moist_air.pdf

      This is the top metrology lab in the world, and it would be a scandal if they were found to be fabricating results. They report very clearly that they found a precise coefficient for this decrease through direct measurements.

      What motivation would they have to fabricate this? Are they in on a personal vendetta against Jim McGinn?

      You still have not provided a single piece of actual evidence to disprove the paradigm that has been phenomenally successful at predictions in science and engineering for over a century now.

      And in common with other internet cranks, you absolutely refuse to make any actual predictions that could possibly be falsified. Why the cowardice???

      • Avatar

        Jim McGinn

        |

        The only thing you have even attempted as evidence for your theories is a couple of entries in steam tables.

        Jim: Steam tables are the only reliable evidence we have. Everything else is anecdote, tradition, and group think, much of which is based on blatant superstition.

        You claim that “Steam tables clearly indicate that there is no place in earth’s atmosphere where the temperature is hot enough or the pressure is low enough to allow gaseous H2O (genuine steam) to persist.” References? Even a simple supporting argument for how you deduce this from the tables?

        Jim: I’m not running a hand-holding service here. You will have to figure this out on your own.

        You state that ” there is a tremendous amount of ambiguity with respect to terminology on this subject. You are either a sloppy thinker or you are just lazy. When they say vapor do you know they mean H2O(l) and not H2O(g)?” Every source I have ever seen defines “vapor” unequivocally and unambiguously as a gas. The only ambiguity is in your confusion.

        Jim: Steam tables.

        I asked: “Why has no one ever noticed [the phase change for water vapor in air from liquid to gas … at 100C]? You responded: “Why do you assume this?” So show me one reference that “notices” this phenomenon!

        Jim: Are you dense? If you heat water in an open container (at sea level) the temperature will increase up to 100C, then it will stop increasing. It will stay at 100 degrees until all of the H2O has boiled off (evaporated).

        You say: “No such measurments [that the density of air DECREASES with increasing water vapor content] have ever been performed. It’s just your imagination — again.” So are you seriously claiming that the Bureau Internationale des Poids et Measures (International Bureau of Weights and Measures) would make this up?

        Jim: Yes. Of course I’m saying this. They did not measure. (It’s just about impossible to measure anyway.) They calculated. The world is chock full of nitwits who are to lazy to notice the distinction. And that includes your Bureau Internationale des Poids et Measures (International Bureau of Weights and Measures). These nitwits, and many other groups of nitwits just like them, did not actually measure or detect gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures. Instead these nitwits made the same dimwitted error that you are making to assume that clear moist air “must contain gaseous H2O” when in actuality that is perfectly impossible. So, yes, your Bureau Internationale des Poids et Measures did not measure or detect gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures. They assumed it. And they “hid” the assumptions in their calculations.

        I’ll give you the link again: http://www.bipm.org/utils/en/pdf/Density_of_moist_air.pdf

        Jim: This proves my point. Nothing in your link indicates that they measured or detected gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures. If you think otherwise, where are the reproducible experimental procedures? Where is the data? How is it you didn’t notice that these procedures and this data is absent? Can you explain that?

        This is the top metrology lab in the world, and it would be a scandal if they were found to be fabricating results. They report very clearly that they found a precise coefficient for this decrease through direct measurements.

        Jim: Who cares. Show the frikin reproducible procedures. Show the frikin data. You are the only one saying this has been measured. I don’t see them claiming such. Prove me wrong.

        What motivation would they have to fabricate this? Are they in on a personal vendetta against Jim McGinn?

        Jim: You are the only one claiming they have measured it. I don’t see them making that claim. Go ahead and prove me wrong.

        You still have not provided a single piece of actual evidence to disprove the paradigm that has been phenomenally successful at predictions in science and engineering for over a century now.

        Jim: Absurd. This is the kind of thing an engineer would say.

        And in common with other internet cranks, you absolutely refuse to make any actual predictions that could possibly be falsified. Why the cowardice???

        Jim: Not true. Although it would be difficult, it is potentially provable that moist air is always heavier than dry air (all other factors being the same). Here are the procedures. But it would take an extremely sensitive scale.
        https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/2XZmr9zDCig/mpUXaNxzAAAJ

        James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
        Isaac Newton was a human being
        https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16306

  • Avatar

    Jim McGinn

    |

    Bo: I’ve asked you specifically what it is in those steam tables . . .

    Jim: Don’t be coy, Ed. We’ve discussed this ad infinitum. Steam tables clearly indicate that there is no place in earth’s atmosphere where the temperature is hot enough or the pressure is low enough to allow gaseous H2O (genuine steam) to persist. You are part of a very large, very pervasive, and very persuasive group delusion.
    This particular group delusion does not directly costs the politically motivated opponents to AGW any money. So they look the other way. This is how group delusions persist. Take note of how incredibly silent the politically motivated nitwits here on PSI have been through all of this.

    BTW, Bo. The steam tables are not evidence of a group delusion. The best evidence I have of a group delusion is right here in this thread. Multiple times you declared to have evidence of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures and every time your assertion fell through when you were asked to substantiate your assertion. And you reacted as all believers do when their beliefs are exposed as nonsense, you doubled-down on your conviction and became belligerent.

    James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
    A Revolutionary New Model of Water Structure
    https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16587#p117128

    • Avatar

      Ed Bo

      |

      Jim:

      Yep. Just as I thought. You got nothing — absolutely nothing!!

      You don’t even understand what the entries in the steam tables mean. For each temperature row in the table, there is a corresponding “saturation vapor pressure” for that temperature. Put another way, the temperature is the “boiling point” for that pressure, the temperature at which the saturation vapor pressure equals ambient pressure. (A clue should be the titles for these tables, which are listed as for “Saturated Steam and Saturated Water”.)

      But it absolutely does not follow that at temperatures below the boiling point for that pressure, there can be no gaseous water — you have made a COMPLETELY unwarranted leap there with NO supporting evidence whatsoever.

      And I will remind you again that these very same steam tables that you offer up as your attempt at evidence also contain values for LHoV that you consider “lunacy”. So which is it, Jim? Are these tables authoritative or not???

      You have no explanation for how scientists and engineers have, for over a century now, designed real-word evaporative and condensing systems (always working below the boiling point) using these table values for LHoV that you claim are completely fictional, and NO ONE has ever noticed or complained about the discrepancy.

      If you are correct, the phase change for water vapor in air from liquid to gas should occur at 100C (@ 1 atm). Why has no one ever noticed it? And you don’t even understand the concept of thermodynamic state variables well enough to realize that this is an implication of your theories.

      I show you concrete laboratory evidence that the density of air DECREASES with increasing water vapor content, extremely carefully measured. Your response indicates that you don’t even understand the difference between the intensive property of density and the extensive properties of mass and weight.

      Have you no shame?

      YOU GOT NOTHING!!!

      • Avatar

        BigWaveDave

        |

        Jim McGinn has been aggressively refusing to understand water’s vapor pressure, phase changes and latent heat for more than two years.

        I suspect his posts are some sinister attempt to muddy the water by projecting the solid arguments that AGW/CC dogma lacks physical basis; back upon classical thermodynamics.

        • Avatar

          Jim McGinn

          |

          Gee Dave. Do you think it not obvious that if you could dispute/refute my argument you would have no need to be so desperate as to question my motives.

          • Avatar

            Jim McGinn

            |

            Dave:
            Jim McGinn has been aggressively refusing to understand water’s vapor pressure, phase changes and latent heat . . .

            Jim: “Look, my lad, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I’m looking at one right now.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQhVLHu8HRk

            James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

  • Avatar

    Jim McGinn

    |

    Bo: As always, you provide absolutely no evidence for your assertions.
    Jim: The evidence is in the public domain: steam tables
    Bo: Now you also provide absolutely no evidence for your slanderous accusation that I lied.
    Jim: You provided that evidence yourself. But don’t worry about it. Everybody (except me) lies on this issue. And it is kind of not your fault. The discipline has been severely maligned by pretend scientists pandering to the lowest common denominator of tax-paying science consumer for a long, long time now, much longer than global warming propaganda. So there is no shortage of misinformation in meteorology. Especially in storm theory.

    Humans have a deep-seated emotional need to believe they understand their world and there is a lot of money to be made fulfilling that need. And since most science consumers don’t have the time or the education to put much effort into it, the most money can be made giving these poorly educated science consumers excuses for why they don’t
    actually have to literally understand it. And so–for reasons of fiscal necessity–many sciences have dumbed down their models to go with the flow of what people want to believe. This has resulted in a number of consequences. For example, certain assumptions that are associated with the models have to be concealed, ignored, or effectively dismissed. And it is for this reason that there are certain concepts in every discipline that are, literally, taboo. Very few people have the intellectual courage to go against the flow on this one. Everybody pretends to understand. People want to believe.

    The Moist Air Convection Myth
    https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16462

    James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

    • Avatar

      Ed Bo

      |

      Jim:

      As I’ve told you repeatedly, simply chanting “steam tables” over and over again does not constitute evidence.

      I’ve asked you specifically what it is in those steam tables that you believe supports your theories, and you have refused. I don’t think you have anything at all!

  • Avatar

    Jim McGinn

    |

    Jim:

    I can’t let your vile post go unanswered. I refer you to definitive experimental measurements by what is probably the best laboratory in the world for these things, and you respond with vicious slanders.

    There is no steam (gaseous H2O) in ambient air. You have fallen for a group delusion, and you have resorted to the desperate tactic of lying in order to pretend to understand what you do not understand.

    I did not force you to lie. You did that on your own accord.

    Why Meteorology (Storm Theory) is a Cargo Cult Science
    https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16613

    • Avatar

      Ed Bo

      |

      As always, you provide absolutely no evidence for your assertions.

      Now you also provide absolutely no evidence for your slanderous accusation that I lied.

      What is it with you? Par for the course, I guess.

  • Avatar

    Jim McGinn

    |

    Bo: This is ridiculous. I have long ago shown you how this esteemed lab MEASURED the density of moist and dry air with great precision, and you say it never happened.

    Jim: The lab never did the measurement you claimed, you lying SOB. As a scientists you have no integrity. You made claims and then when it was apparent that you couldn’t substantiate your claims you resorted to the same tactics we see in global warming advocates and luke warmers. First, you obscured the issue by repeatedly referring to the ambiguous notion of density when the real notion was weight of moist vs dry air. And then you referred to consensus, refusing to address you failure to substantiate your claims. Lastly your refer to anecdote. You employed all the tactics associated with fraud and group delusion.

    Humans want to believe H2O is simple and obvious. In reality it is complex and counterintuitive. Storms are not caused by convection. This is a fairly tale.

    People tend to assume that climatologists are the most dishonest scientists as a group. It’s not true. Meteorologists are far more dishonest than climatologists:
    https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329

    James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

    • Avatar

      Ed Bo

      |

      Jim:

      I can’t let your vile post go unanswered. I refer you to definitive experimental measurements by what is probably the best laboratory in the world for these things, and you respond with vicious slanders.

      You claim that my reference to moist air density was “ambiguous”. Hogwash! The only possible meaning of this term to anyone remotely competent in the field is mass density.

      Then you claim “the real notion was weight of moist vs dry air.” LOL! You don’t understand the difference between an intensive property such as density (which does not depend on the amount) and an extensive property such as mass or weight. Since you don’t understand the concept of thermodynamic state variables either, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

      To anyone competent in the field, it is the intensive property of density that should be discussed here, not an extensive property such as weight. Mediocre high school students understand this. Why don’t you???

      I cited specific experimental evidence that the mass density of air decreases with increasing water vapor content, with the knowledge of the coefficient of this effect known to 3 or 4 decimal places. Where is your counter-evidence of increasing mass density?

      Now perhaps I moved too fast for you, so I will break it down for you as I would for a young student. If you take two objects of different mass densities but identical volumes, the denser object will have greater mass. If these two objects are in the same gravitational field, the denser object will also have greater weight. So even if it is the (extensive) weight force that is measured (or the extensive mass balance), we can directly calculate the (intensive) mass density, which is the material property we are interested in. Why do you have trouble with this trivial concept?

      The fact that you are trying to make a big deal of this semantic issue shows both your desperation and your lack of knowledge.

      The only attempt at producing evidence that you have made is the repeated incantation of “steam tables”. That is not evidence. What information in these tables (that you do not consider “lunacy”) do you claim backs up your arguments? You need to be specific.

  • Avatar

    Jim McGinn

    |

    I am amazed that you would present that Google groups thread as evidence for your theory. You were completely schooled (as the kids would say) by the real scientists (Koenig and Putnik) on the thread, listing all of the observed phenomena that your theory cannot explain.

    Nonsense. Their arguments were anecdotal and irrelevant. It was a perfect example of a group delusion. It was like arguing with people that have a strong religious belief.

    I don’t think you even have enough scientific knowledge to understand the issues they brought up, let alone formulate a coherent counter-argument. And again, you did not present any evidence whatsoever for your theory.

    The passage showed that my theory stands on its own. My opponents have nothing but group delusion and invalid arguments to counter my position. The same is true for yourself. All you have is insinuation. You have no substantive argument.

  • Avatar

    Jim McGinn

    |

    Bo: The whole point of your “micro-droplet” theory of water vapor is that the (mass) density of air increases with humidity because of the high weight of these aerosols.
    Jim: Correct. Yes. Moist air is ALWAYS heavier than dry air. Always!
    Bo: But the best metrology lab in the world measures that the (mass) density of air decreases with increasing humidity,
    Jim; Sorry Bo. You are letting your imagination get the best of you, again. No Metrology lab, anywhere, ever has measured the relative weight of moist air to dry air. IT HAS NEVER BEEN MEASURED.

    • Avatar

      Ed Bo

      |

      This is ridiculous. I have long ago shown you how this esteemed lab MEASURED the density of moist and dry air with great precision, and you say it never happened.

      And I repeat what I have said before — you have never produced a single piece of evidence to support your theory. I think it is completely evident why that is.

      You are truly desperate and delusional. There is no point in going further.

      • Avatar

        Jim McGinn

        |

        Bo: This is ridiculous. I have long ago shown you how this esteemed lab MEASURED the density of moist and dry air with great precision, and you say it never happened.

        Jim: It never happened. Your imagination isn’t evidence.

        Bo: And I repeat what I have said before — you have never produced a single piece of evidence to support your theory. I think it is completely evident why that is.

        Steam tables.

        All you have is anecdote, insinuation, imagination, group delusion, and a bad attitude.

        IOW, YOU GOT NOTHING!!!

      • Avatar

        Jim McGinn

        |

        Bo: This is ridiculous. I have long ago shown you how this esteemed lab MEASURED the density of moist and dry air with great precision, and you say it never happened.

        Jim: The issue was the weight, not density, as we discussed. At least get the issue straight in your mind before you respond you simpleton.

  • Avatar

    Jim McGinn

    |

    Bo: Gases are gases, monomolecular above or below the boiling temperature of the liquid. That’s the point. This has been understood since the kinetic theory of gases was developed in the 19th Century. You’re only two centuries behind.

    Jim: Bo, here’s the thing. I consider myself an expert on the kinetic theory of gases. I also consider myself an expert on H2O and its various phases. You are making a claim here that has nothing to do with reality.

    Since I know that you will try to obscure the issue, let me make it perfectly clear. The kinetic theory of gases DID NOT establish H2O can/does exist in moist air as a monomolecular gas. So, once again, you have been caught in a lie.

    Address the issue directly you evasive jackass!

    James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

    • Avatar

      Ed Bo

      |

      Jim:

      This is so tiresome. You absolutely refuse to provide any actual evidence for your viewpoint.

      You say: “I consider myself an expert on the kinetic theory of gases [and] on H2O and its various phases.”

      ROFLMAO! You are what my kids call “a legend in his own mind”. You don’t even understand the fundamental tenets of thermodynamics such as state variables. It’s like saying you consider yourself an expert in non-linear partial differential equations when you struggle with addition and subtraction.

      When are you going to provide any evidence of phase change of water vapor in air at 100C? When will you provide analytic background and experimental evidence for this phase change? Do you even understand that this is a necessary consequence of your theory?

      People have been designing practical systems employing the evaporation and condensation of water for over a century now. These designs have all utilized the standardly given value of 2200 kJ/kg for LHoV in their energy budgets. You say this value is fictional and “lunacy”. Do you seriously think that no one else has noticed this for a century?

      When will you provide a “correct” guideline for these people using your viewpoint, one that explains how they were fooled by the existing analysis but they never noticed it?

      You have repeatedly refused to address any of these points. All you have is invective. Not a good strategy to convince anyone. Go continue to live in your irrelevant fantasy world!

      • Avatar

        Jim McGinn

        |

        Bo: H2O vapor is monomolecular above or below the boiling temperature of the liquid. This has been understood since the kinetic theory of gases was developed in the 19th Century.

        Jim: Bo, The kinetic theory of gases DID NOT establish H2O can/does exist in moist air at ambient temperatures as a monomolecular gas.

        Would you like to make a retraction?

        James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

        • Avatar

          Ed Bo

          |

          Water vapor in air, even below 100C, behaves as the kinetic theory of gases predicts a gas would behave. It does not behave as an aerosol would. There is no good evidence to the contrary.

          Would you like to make a retraction?

          Do you or do you not understand how state variables work in thermodynamics???

          • Avatar

            Jim McGinn

            |

            Bo: Water vapor in air, even below 100C, behaves as the kinetic theory of gases predicts a gas would behave. It does not behave as an aerosol would. There is no good evidence to the contrary.

            Jim: Aha! So you concede that this was NOT an understanding that was established in conjunction with the kinetic theory of gases. Right? Furthermore you are conceding that your belief that H2O is (often if not always) monomolecular in clear moist aid is not based on any kind of empirical evidence but is based only on your impression of how an aerosol should act/behave in the atmosphere. Right? (Answer the question you evasive twit.)

            James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

          • Avatar

            Ed Bo

            |

            Jim:

            You’re right on schedule in Kubler-Ross’ 7 stages of mourning, moving on from shock and denial to anger. It must be crushing to realize that you have wasted several years of the only life you will ever had on a fundamental misconception! But don’t worry, you should eventually get to acceptance.

            You really need to work on your reading comprehension as well (although I don’t think we’d be here if you had decent comprehension to start with. My point was simply that as the kinetic theory of gases was being developed enough to make accurate predictions about the behaviors of gases, these predictions worked will when applied to “vapors” (gases below critical temperature, even below boiling temperature). This is absolutely true — you’re the one who needs to issue a retraction.

            One of these predictions was that gases with a lower molecular weight should have a lower density at equivalent temperature. A few months ago in a separate thread, I linked you to work by the world’s best metrology lab that showed with actual measurements that the greater the water vapor in air, the lower the density (for the same temperature). The very careful work was done to get greater certainty in the 4th digit of the coefficient for density decrease with humidity increase. Your theory has the sign wrong for this coefficient!!!

            In another example of your poor reading comprehension, you could not understand that they were doing actual measurements!

            OK, now it’s time for you to answer some of my questions, and issue some retractions. I don’t think I should hold my breath…

          • Avatar

            Jim McGinn

            |

            Bo: My point was simply that as the kinetic theory of gases was being developed enough to make accurate predictions about the behaviors of gases . . .

            Jim: What you thought was an understanding really isn’t an understanding, its a group delusion. You were lying.

            Fact: There is zero reproducible evidence of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures.

            Fact: it is impossible for H2O to become a gas at temperatures below it’s boiling temperature.

            Bo:
            One of these predictions was that gases with a lower molecular weight should have a lower density

            If you use language poorly you will just confuse yourself. “Density” is a ratio of one thing to another. If you don’t state what these things are then your question is indecipherable.”

            Bo: A few months ago in a separate thread, I linked you to work by the world’s best metrology lab that showed with actual measurements that the greater the water vapor in air, the lower the density (for the same temperature).

            There you go again. You don’ t use language concisely. Density is a ratio. State it explicitly. It can mean different things depending on what is in the enumerator and the denominator.

            The very careful work was done to get greater certainty in the 4th digit of the coefficient for density decrease with humidity increase. Your theory has the sign wrong for this coefficient!!!

            How so?

            Nobody can help you if you can’t express yourself concisely.

          • Avatar

            Ed Bo

            |

            Jim:

            Now you’re just being willfully obtuse — or shockingly ignorant. There is ONLY ONE reasonable interpretation of my use of density in this context: that of mass density, mass per unit volume (as in kg/m^3). You know (or should know if you have any competence at all) that this is true — you’re just desperately trying to confuse matters because you have no real case.

            The whole point of your “micro-droplet” theory of water vapor is that the (mass) density of air increases with humidity because of the high weight of these aerosols. But the best metrology lab in the world measures that the (mass) density of air decreases with increasing humidity, with the only uncertainty being in the 4th decimal digit of the coefficient expressing how much this (mass) density decreases with increasing humidity.

            The best measurements in the world say that you have things exactly backwards. You are entirely discredited.

            And remember, all through this back and forth, you have not put forward a single piece of evidence in support of your theory. Pathetic!

          • Avatar

            Jim McGinn

            |

            Jim:

            Bo; Jim: Now you’re just being willfully obtuse

            Jim: You have no experience with this issue. Density can mean about 4 different things.

            Bo:
            mass per unit volume (as in kg/m^3).

            Jim: This is simply weight. Moist air is heavier than dry air–all other factors being the same. Here is why:
            https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16306

            Nobody in Metrology has ever determined that moist air is lighter than dry air. That is a urban myth.

            You are, at best, confused.

            James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

            You know (or should know if you have any competence at all) that this is true — you’re just desperately trying to confuse matters because you have no real case.

            The whole point of your “micro-droplet” theory of water vapor is that the (mass) density of air increases with humidity because of the high weight of these aerosols. But the best metrology lab in the world measures that the (mass) density of air decreases with increasing humidity, with the only uncertainty being in the 4th decimal digit of the coefficient expressing how much this (mass) density decreases with increasing humidity.

            The best measurements in the world say that you have things exactly backwards. You are entirely discredited.

            And remember, all through this back and forth, you have not put forward a single piece of evidence in support of your theory. Pathetic!

          • Avatar

            Jim McGinn

            |

            Let me save you some trouble, Bo. You won’t find any empirical support for the urban legend that moist air is lighter than dry air. All you will find is people who made the same mistake you are making to assume that moist aid contains monomolecular H2O and who then -used math to arrive at the wrong conclusion:
            Read this thread before you respond:
            https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16471

          • Avatar

            Ed Bo

            |

            I am amazed that you would present that Google groups thread as evidence for your theory. You were completely schooled (as the kids would say) by the real scientists (Koenig and Putnik) on the thread, listing all of the observed phenomena that your theory cannot explain.

            I don’t think you even have enough scientific knowledge to understand the issues they brought up, let alone formulate a coherent counter-argument. And again, you did not present any evidence whatsoever for your theory.

  • Avatar

    Jim McGinn

    |

    Bo: I argue (along with 99.99% of scientists and engineers)

    Jim: Most scientists and engineer are intellectually dullwitted and sheepish. So this means nothing.

    Bo: that water vapor below the boiling temperature (<100C at 1 atm) is a gas, monomolecular just as N2 and O2 are.

    Jim: It's incredibly deceptive of you to not mention the very low boiling temperature of N2 and O2.

    Bo: Any physical chemistry text will tell you that a vapor is simply "a gas at a temperature below the critical temperature, so that it can be liquified by compression, without lowering the temperature", as one technical dictionary puts it.

    Jim: This is an absurd definition. Many definitions were put forth by scientists and engineer that are intellectually dullwitted and sheepish.

    Bo: Jim argues (alone, as far as I can see) that water vapor below the boiling temperature is still liquid in the form of "micro-droplets" and does not become gas until it reaches boiling temperature.

    Jim: Correct. And you failed to offer any reproducible evidence that contradicts this.

    Bo: I maintain that water evaporating to water vapor below boiling temperature still undergoes a phase change from liquid to gas, with a very large "latent heat of vaporization" or "enthalpy of evaporation" — as large an energy requirement at the boiling temperature, and that this LHoV is the source of "evaporative cooling". Under common earth conditions, this LHoV is over 2200 kJ/kg, over 500 times the energy required to raise the temperature of a kg of water by 1C (4.18 kJ/kg/K).

    Jim: This is lunacy that has never actually been measured. Like a con artist, Bo claims that this was measure a long time ago, apparently before the invention of writing.

    Bo: Jim maintains that there is no phase change occuring in evaporation (and therefore in condensation either), and that the commonly cited values for LHoV are "fiction" and "lunacy", even those in the steam tables he keeps citing. (He never says what it is in the steam tables that backs up his case — he just keeps chanting "steam tables" over and over again.)

    Jim: Right. It's a group delusion. Everybody believes it because everybody believes it. There is no reproducible experimental data backing up this group delusion–just like CO2 Forcing.

    Bo: He does acknowledge that there is evaporative cooling, but I can't get him to provide ANY kind of number for how big that effect is.

    Jim: Because, as I've explained about three times now you strawbaiting nitwit, heat is one of several factors associated with evaporation/condensation.

    Bo: I point out that evaporation and condensation are commonly used processes (below the boiling point) in real-world engineered systems, and that these systems are all designed expecting the very large LHoV values.

    Jim: There is no way to substantiate a phantom number. There is no way to dispute it either. These numbers are arbitrary–meaningless.

    Bo: Nowhere is there any complaint that designs based on these expectations don't work as expected, in over a century of use.

    Jim: That proves nothing.

    • Avatar

      Ed Bo

      |

      Jim:

      You understand neither the process nor the results of the scientific method.

      You say: “It’s incredibly deceptive of you not to mention the very low boiling temperature of N2 and O2.” Not at all! Gases are gases, monomolecular above or below the boiling temperature of the liquid. That’s the point. This has been understood since the kinetic theory of gases was developed in the 19th Century. You’re only two centuries behind.

      You say: “This [LHoV] is lunacy that has never actually been measured.” So where did all of the columns of data for LHoV in the steam tables YOU keep citing (I repeat: YOU KEEP CITING) come from? Hint: They come from the same place the numbers for boiling temperature and specific heat come from: careful calorimetric measurements. I have explained the process to you.

      You say: “heat is one of several factors associated with evaporation/condensation”.

      So you still can’t wrap your head around the very basic concept of state variables in thermodynamics, no matter how many times it is explained to you. (I thought you were starting to realize this when you admitted that you were sloppy on this subject earlier. But no…)

      Enthalpy is one of those properties. A kilogram of liquid water at 25C has a certain amount of enthalpy. A kilogram of water vapor at 25C (and 1 atm) has a possibly different but definite enthalpy as well. It does not matter how or how fast the change occurs. So I ask you again: What is the difference between these two enthalpies? You reject the values in the steam tables out of hand. What do you propose to replace them with? Zero?

      And you completely fail to understand the significance of engineered systems like air conditioners that evaporate or condense water. These effectively carry out millions of experiments each day on the issue. When an air conditioner condenses water out of humid air that it is also trying to cool, the “condensating warming” (the opposite of evaporative cooling) makes the air warmer, and the air conditioner now must expend more (easily measurable) electrical energy to transfer that heat to the exterior.

      All of these systems are designed using the standard values for LHoV, and all of these systems work as expected from these numbers. So millions of experiments each day are proving you wrong!

      There’s an old saying in boxing that if you want to defeat the champion, you need to knock him out. The idea of water vapor as gas with LHoV difference from liquid water is the century-long champion. Not only have you not knocked it out, you haven’t laid a glove on it.

      I keep pointing out that you have not presented a single, solitary piece of actual evidence for your viewpoint. You can’t just keep saying “steam tables”, especially when you argue that half of the contents of these tables is “lunacy”. You’ve got to do better than that!

      • Avatar

        Jim McGinn

        |

        Bo: You understand neither the process nor the results of the scientific method.

        Uh, I’m a scientists. You are an engineer and otherwise a wannabe.

        Bo: You say: “It’s incredibly deceptive of you not to mention the very low boiling temperature of N2 and O2.” Not at all! Gases are gases, monomolecular above or below the boiling temperature of the liquid.

        Plainly absurd. Where is your evidence? Your imagination?

        Bo: That’s the point. This has been understood since the kinetic theory of gases was developed in the 19th Century. You’re only two centuries behind.

        You keep bringing up categories, generalities. Your understanding is vague, Wishy washy, idealistic and not scientifically valid.

        Bo: You say: “This [LHoV] is lunacy that has never actually been measured.”

        Bo: So where did all of the columns of data for LHoV in the steam tables YOU keep citing (I repeat: YOU KEEP CITING) come from?

        That’s what I’ve been asking you. And you have no answer. (Nobody has an answer.)

        Bo: Hint: They come from the same place the numbers for boiling temperature and specific heat come from: careful calorimetric measurements. I have explained the process to you.

        You’ve explained no such procedures, you lying SOB.

        Bo: You say: “heat is one of several factors associated with evaporation/condensation”.

        Right.

        Bo: So you still can’t wrap your head around the very basic concept of state variables in thermodynamics, no matter how many times it is explained to you. (I thought you were starting to realize this when you admitted that you were sloppy on this subject earlier. But no…)

        LOL. You misunderstood. I never conceded to your lunacy.

        Bo: Enthalpy is one of those properties. A kilogram of liquid water at 25C has a certain amount of enthalpy. A kilogram of water vapor at 25C (and 1 atm) has a possibly different but definite enthalpy as well. It does not matter how or how fast the change occurs. So I ask you again: What is the difference between these two enthalpies? You reject the values in the steam tables out of hand. What do you propose to replace them with? Zero?

        There are no set values, you simpleton.

        Bo: And you completely fail to understand the significance of engineered systems like air conditioners that evaporate or condense water. These effectively carry out millions of experiments each day on the issue. When an air conditioner condenses water out of humid air that it is also trying to cool, the “condensating warming” (the opposite of evaporative cooling) makes the air warmer, and the air conditioner now must expend more (easily measurable) electrical energy to transfer that heat to the exterior.

        Show us your proof.

        Bo: All of these systems are designed using the standard values for LHoV, and all of these systems work as expected from these numbers. So millions of experiments each day are proving you wrong!

        I didn’t ask you how old it is. I asked how its measured. You have no answer. Admit it.

        Bo: There’s an old saying in boxing that if you want to defeat the champion, you need to knock him out. The idea of water vapor as gas with LHoV difference from liquid water is the century-long champion. Not only have you not knocked it out, you haven’t laid a glove on it.

        It’s impossible to kill a ghost.

        Bo: I keep pointing out that you have not presented a single, solitary piece of actual evidence for your viewpoint. You can’t just keep saying “steam tables”, especially when you argue that half of the contents of these tables is “lunacy”. You’ve got to do better than that!

        It’s not my job to explain your imagination. You get your confidence from the silence of the PSI lambs. Be aware, these politically oriented nitwits don’t have a spine. They are just along for the ride.

        • Avatar

          Ed Bo

          |

          “I’m a scientists [sic].” But wait, I thought you said that 99.99% of them were “intellectually dullwitted and sheepish.” Why do you brag about being part of that group.

          Why do you assume I’m an engineer? I bring up engineering cases because the underlying principles must be well understood for robust practical systems to be designed and built. Every engineered system is a valid experiment in the underlying science. And the results of these “experiments” all agree with me, not you.

          Part of the entertainment value for me in this is just plumbing the (boundless) depths of your ignorance. You say: “There are no set values [for enthalpy], you simpleton.”

          So now you dispute the very foundations of thermodynamics. If there are no set values, there are no state variables, and the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, which depends on state values for energy quantities, is completely invalid.

          Bravo!

          And still, you have not presented a single freaking piece of evidence to back up your viewpoint. I’m more and more convinced that you don’t have any whatsoever!

          • Avatar

            Jim McGinn

            |

            Bo: I bring up engineering cases because the underlying principles must be well understood for robust practical systems to be designed and built.

            Jim: Simply false and self-deceptive. The Ptolemaic system of celestial motion could accurately predict eclipses. But that doesn’t substantiate the earth as the center of the universe, as Galileo’s opponents falsely claimed.

            Bo: Every engineered system is a valid experiment in the underlying science.

            Jim: That’s laughable. An evaporative cooler is not a controlled experiment.

            Bo: So now you dispute the very foundations of thermodynamics.

            Jim: Quote me directly and in context, you strawbaiting nitwit.

            Simple Refutation of the Convection Model of Storm Theory
            https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16661#p118727

            James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

          • Avatar

            Ed Bo

            |

            Jim:

            I DID quote you directly (that’s what those little “” things are for), and in context (that’s what the [] insert was for). But I obviously moved too fast for you, so I will break it down as I would for a young child.

            I had brought up the fundamental concept of enthalpy of a state variable, dependent only on the present conditions. This is always explained in the first or second chapter of any thermodynamics text, and ALL subsequent analysis depends on this. I asked you what you thought these state variables were for liquid and vaporized water.

            You replied: “There are not set values, you simpleton.”

            With that reply, you are indeed disputing the very fundamentals of thermodynamics. As with all your other claims, you provide absolutely no evidence for your position. I don’t think you even have the capacity to understand the implications of your arguments.

  • Avatar

    Jim McGinn

    |

    So you admit you have absolutely no evidence for your assertion that the phase change in water vapor occurs at 100C (1 atm), not when the water evaporates.

    Quote me directly and in context you strawbaiting nitwit.

    Meanwhile, tens of millions of air conditioners are built and sold every year around the world. Air conditioners condense water vapor out of the air to lower the humidity, in addition to lowering the temperature.

    Yeah, so?

    Any analysis of the energy requirements will cite the LHoV as a key component of the energy budget for AD, citing the universally accepted (well, except for you) value for the LHoV, the same one that’s in the steam tables YOU cite.

    Consensus isn’t science.

    And all parts of these systems work below the boiling point of water.

    Yeah, so?

    I have been looking for a single analysis that says that the LHoV value commonly cited just doesn’t work in their systems. I can’t find any!

    Yeah, so?

    So all of these millions of systems are designed and built using the values of LHoV that are “just lunacy”. And they work!

    Your assertion contains a false premise.

    Good values for LHoV were determined by calorimetry over a century ago. It’s not even considered interesting anymore. Every steam table I can find has these numbers in them, and no one (but you) criticizes them.

    Show us the goddamn procedures you evasive SOB.

  • Avatar

    Jerry L Krause

    |

    Hi Ed, Jim, Jeff, John O’Sullivan, and any readers following Ed and Jim’s debate,

    I have submitted an essay for possible PSI publication which John, its editor, has declined to publish. The proposed title of this essay was: What Were Galileo’s Two New Sciences? The theme of this essay was that the publishers of Galileo’s classic book had written a preface to the reader. In this preface they had called attention to what they stated were common sayings at that early time: For, according to the common saying, sight can teach more and with greater certainty in a single day than can precept even though repeated a thousand times; or, as another says, intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition. (As translated by Crew and de Salvio) In my essay I consider the possibility that these to sayings are Galileo’s two new sciences. In the context of what I knew about Galileo’s science I could easily understand the first, but not the second.

    Ed and Jim’s debate (argument) illustrates the importance of the second saying. Their debate involves what we could define as boiling which generates steam and they have never defined the word—boil. I recently discovered the Australian dictionary—Macquarie. It defines the verb boil as: 1. To change from liquid to gaseous state, producing bubbles of gas that rise to the surface of the liquid, agitating it as they rise. When I check my Webster dictionary, it defines the verb boil as: 1. To generate, through the action of heat, bubbles of vapor which rise and agitate the mass.

    There is a similarity and a difference between these two definitions. Both consider the formation of bubbles agitate the liquid (mass). However, the Macquarie definition does not describe how the bubbles are generated while the Webster’s does: through the action of heat. Which is the accurate definition of the word—boil?

    Both dictionaries define: boiling point. Macquarie: 1. The temperature at which the vapour pressure of a liquid is equal to that of the atmosphere. Webster: 1. The temperature at which a liquid boils. For water at sea level, barometer 30in., it is 212F. (100C). When I was a chemistry student and a chemistry instructor a vital laboratory instrument was a barometer. For chemists know that the boiling point of a liquid depends upon the atmospheric pressure. Hence, by placing warm water in a closed contained and reducing the pressure of the atmosphere over the liquid water with a water aspirator the warm water will be observed to boil according the Macquarie definition of boil even though the warm water is not being heated.

    Based on this simple review of certain dictionary definitions, I must conclude that the definitions of the Macquarie Dictionary, for the words just considered, are accurate and those of the Webster Dictionary are not. But if one reads Ed and Jim’s arguments, one will not find that either tries to define boil or boiling point in any way. Hence, an endless argument results because neither cannot know what they are actually writing if the critical words they use are never defined.

    Have a good day, Jerry

    • Avatar

      Jim McGinn

      |

      Jerry, the steam tables make it very clear what temperatures and pressures are involved with the various phases of H2O. Dictionaries and semantics are for amateurs.

    • Avatar

      Ed Bo

      |

      Jerry:

      Thanks for your input. However, I’m afraid you miss the point of Jim’s and my disagreement. It’s not fundamentally about the boiling point — it’s about what happens below the boiling point, specifically, evaporation and condensation.

      I argue (along with 99.99% of scientists and engineers) that water vapor below the boiling temperature (<100C at 1 atm) is a gas, monomolecular just as N2 and O2 are. Any physical chemistry text will tell you that a vapor is simply "a gas at a temperature below the critical temperature, so that it can be liquified by compression, without lowering the temperature", as one technical dictionary puts it. Note that critical temperature is always above boiling temperature.

      Jim argues (alone, as far as I can see) that water vapor below the boiling temperature is still liquid in the form of "micro-droplets" and does not become gas until it reaches boiling temperature.

      I maintain that water evaporating to water vapor below boiling temperature still undergoes a phase change from liquid to gas, with a very large "latent heat of vaporization" or "enthalpy of evaporation" — as large an energy requirement at the boiling temperature, and that this LHoV is the source of "evaporative cooling". Under common earth conditions, this LHoV is over 2200 kJ/kg, over 500 times the energy required to raise the temperature of a kg of water by 1C (4.18 kJ/kg/K).

      Jim maintains that there is no phase change occuring in evaporation (and therefore in condensation either), and that the commonly cited values for LHoV are "fiction" and "lunacy", even those in the steam tables he keeps citing. (He never says what it is in the steam tables that backs up his case — he just keeps chanting "steam tables" over and over again.)

      He does acknowledge that there is evaporative cooling, but I can't get him to provide ANY kind of number for how big that effect is.

      I point out that evaporation and condensation are commonly used processes (below the boiling point) in real-world engineered systems, and that these systems are all designed expecting the very large LHoV values. Nowhere is there any complaint that designs based on these expectations don't work as expected, in over a century of use. (Note that this is not like evaluating predictions that increased CO2 in the atmosphere will cause X degrees of warming in a century — these predictions can be [and are] checked quickly against actual results.)

      As I have explained to Jim, these values were determined very long ago in repeatable laboratory calorimetric measurements, they are not in the least controversial (except to him), and not even considered interesting any more.

      Since Jim thinks that the phase change in water vapor occurs at 100C, I have asked him for any evidence of a latent heat requirement to heat moist air from 99C to 101C. I cited tables that show nothing unusual happening in that temperature range, just the usual ~1.8 kJ/kg/K specific heat for gaseous water. He has provided nothing of the kind.

      Fundamentally, Jim believes that no gaseous water can exist below the boiling point. But he misunderstands what the boiling point is, which is just the temperature at which the saturation vapor pressure of the liquid equals the atmospheric pressure. The correct interpretation is that no liquid water can exist above the boiling point. Any decent high school chemistry course will teach you this.

      • Avatar

        Jerry L Krause

        |

        Hi Ed,

        I hesitate to make a reply to either your or Jim’s comments for I consider that if one practices Galileo’s Two New Sciences, there is no place for argument or debate. But I’ve made mistakes before.

        You wrote: “Thanks for your input. However, I’m afraid you miss the point of Jim’s and my disagreement. It’s not fundamentally about the boiling point — it’s about what happens below the boiling point, specifically, evaporation and condensation.” To which I reply: I’m afraid you missed my point. Which is that water has not fixed boiling point. It seems that both you and Jim consider that there is a fixed boiling point below which water cannot boil even if you continually pump away the water vapor being formed with a quality vacuum pump. Of course, as you continuously remove the water vapor being produced by the boiling action, the liquid water boiling will continuously and slowly cool because of water’s latent heat of vaporization.

        Have a good day, Jerry

        • Avatar

          Ed Bo

          |

          Jerry:

          For a fixed atmospheric pressure, water (and any other liquid) has a fixed boiling point. I believe Jim would agree with me here. This is very basic physical chemistry. Below that temperature, the liquid can still evaporate. You seem to be talking about evaporation, which can and does occur far below the boiling point.

          The lower the atmospheric pressure, the lower the boiling point, because the boiling point is simply that temperature at which the saturation vapor pressure (which increases with temperature) equals atmospheric temperature.

          When you talk about the vacuum pump, are you talking about lowering the overall atmospheric pressure, or just evacuating the water vapor to keep the humidity low? Lower humidity facilitates faster evaporation, but it does not change the latent heat of vaporization (which Jim claims is “fictional” and “lunacy”) for a given quantity of water evaporating.

  • Avatar

    Jim McGinn

    |

    Bo: When I ask you for evidence of the phenomenon that would prove your point — the phase change of water vapor in air at 100C — you dodge the question completely, claiming it would never happen in the earth’s system. But it would happen in many engineered systems, so it should be easy to find evidence of it IF IT WERE REAL.

    Jim: It would never happen in earth’s system. It’s far too cool. So, contrary to what you gullible engineers want to believe, there is no gaseous H2O in the earth’s atmosphere.

    You say it would happen in engineered system. Well, it could be made to happen in engineered systems but it wouldn’t be as straight forward as you suggest. Firstly, it would have to be enclosed to isolate it from the atmosphere. And if it is enclosed the pressure goes up, as the pressure goes up so goes the boiling temperature of H2O. (This is why steam engines operate at such high temperatures/pressures.) So, you’d have to keep the heat above 100C as you bleed off pressure to get it back down to 1ATM. And so, if you went through the trouble you could create 100 degree steam.

    LHoV is just lunacy. There is not data to back up your extravagant claim. It ‘doesn’t exist. That is why you can’t find it.

    • Avatar

      Ed Bo

      |

      Jim:

      So you admit you have absolutely no evidence for your assertion that the phase change in water vapor occurs at 100C (1 atm), not when the water evaporates. So you’re still stuck just chanting “steam tables!”

      Meanwhile, tens of millions of air conditioners are built and sold every year around the world. Air conditioners condense water vapor out of the air to lower the humidity, in addition to lowering the temperature.

      Any analysis of the energy requirements will cite the LHoV as a key component of the energy budget for AD, citing the universally accepted (well, except for you) value for the LHoV, the same one that’s in the steam tables YOU cite.

      And all parts of these systems work below the boiling point of water.

      I have been looking for a single analysis that says that the LHoV value commonly cited just doesn’t work in their systems. I can’t find any!

      So all of these millions of systems are designed and built using the values of LHoV that are “just lunacy”. And they work!

      Good values for LHoV were determined by calorimetry over a century ago. It’s not even considered interesting anymore. Every steam table I can find has these numbers in them, and no one (but you) criticizes them.

  • Avatar

    Jim McGinn

    |

    Bo, I’ve hears that Uber is going to hire ducks as drivers. I don’t think it will happen anytime soon, but if I was to bet on whether they actually hired ducks as drivers and you providing the procedures and data underlying LHoV, well, I’d have to go with the ducks.

  • Avatar

    Jim McGinn

    |

    Bo: You just get ever more desperate and delusional, and you present absolutely no evidence to back up your arguments.

    Jim: I’m not the one making a positive claim here. Maybe someday you will find the mysterious experimental procedures and resulting data of your LHoV. Keep looking. Since you know it exists its got to be somewhere. Right? Don’t lose the faith.

    • Avatar

      Ed Bo

      |

      Jim:

      You are the one making the extraordinary positive claim that the thermodynamic values used successfully by scientists and engineers for a century or more to design real-world systems are completely wrong, yet no one has complained.

      There is an old saying the “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.” You have not only failed to provide extraordinary proof, you have failed to provide any evidence whatsoever. You have only invective.

      I have asked you repeatedly what you consider the “true” value for evaporative cooling to be, given that you reject the LHoV from the steam tables you cite as completely fictional. You keep evading the question. Strike One!

      When I introduce the most relevant thermodynamic term — enthalpy — from the steam tables YOU cite to the discussion, you call it a diversion. Strike Two!

      When I ask you for evidence of the phenomenon that would prove your point — the phase change of water vapor in air at 100C — you dodge the question completely, claiming it would never happen in the earth’s system. But it would happen in many engineered systems, so it should be easy to find evidence of it IF IT WERE REAL. But you obviously don’t even understand the ramifications of your own arguments. Strike Three!!!

  • Avatar

    Jim McGinn

    |

    And here I thought i was debating someone who actually understood some of the basics. Silly me!

    Jim: Basics? Yes, you have basics. And from your basics you have derived specifics, using pixie dust as your methodology.

    All through this exchange, you have provided ZERO evidence to back up your assertion that water vapor is a liquid below 100C. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

    Jim: Simply not true, you lying POS. I provided steam tables. You failed to dispute them, right?

    And you can’t even understand the ramifications of that assertion, such as the need for there to be a phase change in humid air between 99C and 101C requiring large amounts of energy, for which you have provided no evidence whatsoever, or even really come to grips with at all.

    Jim: ludicrous. The atmosphere never gets anywhere near 100C. There is no gaseous H2O in the atmosphere. That is a childish thing to believe.

    The closest you have come to providing evidence is to evoke the mantra “steam tables”. Well, I go to the steam tables as YOU suggest, and lo and behold, they all have this column labeled “latent heat of vaporization”, or “enthalpy of evaporation”, the difference between liquid and gaseous enthalpy.

    Since you believe this quantity is a complete fiction, why do you cite these references that you believe are completely deluded?

    Jim: I’m not disputing that you may have a steam table that indicates such (have you a direct link?) but even if you do that doesn’t mean that the quantities have been empirically determined. My guess is some bozo just decided to combine the two notions. But since you haven’t provided a link I can only guess. Whatever the case, there is no such thing as latent heat of vaporization. It’s a meaningless term, similar to the concept of CO2 Forcing. It’s just science-based nonsense.

    I challenged you to cite a definite quantity for evaporative cooling, and once again you prevaricate, saying “it is potentially quantifiable, but it will vary greatly depending on many factors, as I indicated.”

    The last time you “indicated” this, I pointed out that your statement did not recognize the concept of thermodynamic state variables such as enthalpy, and you admitted that you had been “sloppy”. But now you are at it again! Given a starting state and an ending state, there is a definite enthalpy difference, regardless of the rate or path of the change. This is something you should have learned in the first weeks of an introductory thermodynamics course, but you still don’t seem to grasp it.

    Jim: Just like a global warming advocate, you are just representing your “depths of understanding” as an excuse for not addressing the issue. The fact is, you con artist, if latent heat of evaporation was empirically determined you would have no problem showing the reproducible procedures and resulting data underlying it. You can’t. You can’t because it doesn’t exist. Diverting the discussion to talk about Enthalpy and how you have some deep understanding that is beyond the rest of us just makes you seem desperate.

    So once again, I ask you to quantify the evaporative cooling you say does exist, even though you say there is no phase change. People designing evaporative cooling systems need to be able to quantify this with reasonable precision.

    Jim: You know this how?

    What if one of these people came to you (since you are such a super-genius) and asked you how to quantify this? What you you tell them???

    Jim: I would tell them that they are a figment of Ed Bo’s imagination.

    Now, given the quantities in the steam tables that YOU recommended, I would say that this quantity is over 2267 kJ/kg (the LHoV at 1atm and 100C), increasing by about 4.18 (the specific heat of liquid water in kJ/kg/K) minus 1.84 (the specific heat of gaseous water in kJ/kg/K) kJ/kg for each degree C below 100. This comes out to about 2440 kJ/kg at 25C.

    I note again that this quantity is over 500 TIMES the amount of energy (that you claim is HUUUUGE) required to increase the temperature of the liquid water by 1C. I have not backed off that claim, because it is completely correct.

    Jim: Your quantity is science fiction. It’s just something you want to believe. That’s it.

    Quantities like those I have cited are in all of the sources, fundamentally unchanged for many decades, and used successfully by designers of real systems. You claim these numbers are completely fictitious. If they were, there would be a huge outcry from people who had tried to design systems and failed miserably. Where is a single incidence of this outcry???

    Jim: It is your delusion that designers of evaporative cooling systems depend on your imaginative notion of latent heat of evaporation is all yours.

    I am still waiting for you to provide an actual single piece of evidence for your assertion. I am not holding my breath!

    Jim: It’s not possible for me to dispute something that exists only in your imagination. It’s not necessary either.

    Jim: You got nothing!

    • Avatar

      Ed Bo

      |

      Jim:

      You just get ever more desperate and delusional, and you present absolutely no evidence to back up your arguments.

      Chanting “steam tables” does not provide evidence. You have never even attempted to state what is in those precious steam tables that backs up your case. I go to these tables to try to find anything in them that would help you, and I see nothing!

      But in every table I have found, both on line and in old dead-tree tables from many years ago, every one of them has a column for enthalpy of evaporation (aka latent heat of vaporization). EVERY SINGLE ONE. I will try to attach a scan of one of them, from the 1975 CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, THE reference guide in the pre-internet days.

      By the way, when you say: “Diverting the discussion to talk about Enthalpy and how you have some deep understanding that is beyond the rest of us just makes you seem desperate”, you simply show that you have no understanding of the issues whatsoever, not even a shallow understanding. Enthalpy is THE key property in this issue, and the fact that this goes over your head means that can’t start to discuss this intelligently.

      But it gets worse. I said: “People designing evaporative cooling systems need to quantify [the energy requirements] with reasonable precision.” And you replied: “You know this how?”

      ROFLMAO!!! You obviously have never designed a real system in your life. It would be obvious even to a mediocre high school student that this would be a key design parameter for such a cooling system. And yes, Jim, as hard as it is for you to believe, people do design these systems, and in doing so they like to calculate the energy requirements.

      I gave my answer to this, citing the math. (And earlier, I had described in detail the calorimetric procedures by which these numbers were derived.) You disagreed with these numbers. Fine. I asked you what numbers you would use instead. You completely dodged the question. I think it’s because you have absolutely no clue how to answer the question. Prove me wrong!

      I’m more sure than ever that my original opinion of you was correct. You’re just someone without the intellectual capacity to understand basic high school science.

  • Avatar

    Jim McGinn

    |

    Bo: For weeks now, you have been maintaining that the latent heat of vaporization (aka enthaply of evaporation) is a complete fiction — that it doesn’t exist, and that any source that shows this, even measured out to 4 or 5 significant digits, is a delusion.

    Jim: You made extravagant claims and failed to substantiate them. The measurements exist only in your imagination.

    Put up or shut up.

    Bo: Now you claim that it’s “common knowledge” that there is evaporative cooling. You don’t even realize that you have completely contradicted yourself.

    Jim: Really? How so? Keep in mind, the internet does not provide us access to your imagination.

    Bo: Since you finally acknowledge that evaporative cooling exists,

    Jim: Its reflective of the depth of your delusion to suggest I ever indicated otherwise.

    Bo: you must also acknowledge that there is a definite quantity of this cooling.

    Jim: In each instance it is potentially quantifiable, but it will vary greatly depending on many factors, as I indicated. All you have is delusion. What happened to your 500X magnitude claim? You got nothing. Just like a global warming advocate.

    Bo: This quantity is simply the LHoV,

    Jim: Bullshit. That is your delusion which you have repeatedly failed to substantiate.

    Bo: which you had just claimed was zero,

    Jim: Leave me out of your delusions.

    Bo: which would mean there is no such thing as evaporative cooling.

    Jim: That is your assertion. Don’t put words in my mouth.

    Bo: Make up your mind!

    Jim: Surreal.

    • Avatar

      Ed Bo

      |

      Jim:

      And here I thought i was debating someone who actually understood some of the basics. Silly me!

      All through this exchange, you have provided ZERO evidence to back up your assertion that water vapor is a liquid below 100C. Zip. Zilch. Nada. And you can’t even understand the ramifications of that assertion, such as the need for there to be a phase change in humid air between 99C and 101C requiring large amounts of energy, for which you have provided no evidence whatsoever, or even really come to grips with at all.

      The closest you have come to providing evidence is to evoke the mantra “steam tables”. Well, I go to the steam tables as YOU suggest, and lo and behold, they all have this column labeled “latent heat of vaporization”, or “enthalpy of evaporation”, the difference between liquid and gaseous enthalpy.

      Since you believe this quantity is a complete fiction, why do you cite these references that you believe are completely deluded?

      I challenged you to cite a definite quantity for evaporative cooling, and once again you prevaricate, saying “it is potentially quantifiable, but it will vary greatly depending on many factors, as I indicated.”

      The last time you “indicated” this, I pointed out that your statement did not recognize the concept of thermodynamic state variables such as enthalpy, and you admitted that you had been “sloppy”. But now you are at it again! Given a starting state and an ending state, there is a definite enthalpy difference, regardless of the rate or path of the change. This is something you should have learned in the first weeks of an introductory thermodynamics course, but you still don’t seem to grasp it.

      So once again, I ask you to quantify the evaporative cooling you say does exist, even though you say there is no phase change. People designing evaporative cooling systems need to be able to quantify this with reasonable precision. What if one of these people came to you (since you are such a super-genius) and asked you how to quantify this? What you you tell them???

      Now, given the quantities in the steam tables that YOU recommended, I would say that this quantity is over 2267 kJ/kg (the LHoV at 1atm and 100C), increasing by about 4.18 (the specific heat of liquid water in kJ/kg/K) minus 1.84 (the specific heat of gaseous water in kJ/kg/K) kJ/kg for each degree C below 100. This comes out to about 2440 kJ/kg at 25C.

      I note again that this quantity is over 500 TIMES the amount of energy (that you claim is HUUUUGE) required to increase the temperature of the liquid water by 1C. I have not backed off that claim, because it is completely correct.

      Quantities like those I have cited are in all of the sources, fundamentally unchanged for many decades, and used successfully by designers of real systems. You claim these numbers are completely fictitious. If they were, there would be a huge outcry from people who had tried to design systems and failed miserably. Where is a single incidence of this outcry???

      I am still waiting for you to provide an actual single piece of evidence for your assertion. I am not holding my breath!

  • Avatar

    Jim McGinn

    |

    Jim: I was sloppy. Allow me first to clear things up.

    Bo: My numbers for specific heat (in kJ/kg/K) and latent heat of vaporization (in kJ/kg) have NOTHING to do with rate.

    Jim: I agree. Neither have anything to do with a rate. Your numbers for specific heat are accurate and empirical. And I agree that specific heat and heat capacity are one and the same. But your claims about “latent heat of evaporation” are nonsense.

    The term “latent heat of evaporation” was created by meteorologists to create drama in the same sense that climatologists created the notion of CO2 Forcing. Just like CO2 forcing, the notion of “latent heat of evaporation” has no empirical basis. It is pseudo-science, it is fiction, it is lunacy. There is no data to substantiate it because it wasn’t created based on data it was created based on what will create drama in the minds of a gullible public.

    Bo: . . . he does not explain how all the evaporative cooling system that count on this huge “latent heat” (500 times greater than what it takes to raise liquid water 1 degree) work if it does not exist.

    Jim: Evaporative cooling works by taking advantage of the huge heat capacity of liquid H2O. It raises the temperature of the water in the circulation. Evaporation cools this water simply because microdroplets that have higher kinetic energy on the surface are more likely to have the escape velocity to go out into the air.

    There is no “500 times greater” drama in any of this. No data exists to substantiate such a claim. It is purely a group delusion, just like CO2 Forcing.

    The phrase “latent heat of evaporation” is a meaningless phrase. It is propaganda, not science. Meteorologists (remember, all climatologists are first trained to be meteorologists) created this notion because they had no way to explain the energy that is plainly evident in storms (energy that cannot be explained by convection).

    And so, Bo, since you believe it I can only assume that you accept the responsibility to substantiating the claim that there is reproducible experimental evidence underlying this notion. Well, where is it? Where are the experimental procedures? Where is the data? Go ahead. Show us.

    Before you do, however, let me assure you that you have as much chance of showing these procedures and data as you do for showing the same for CO2 Forcing.

    Put up or shut up.

    James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
    The Real Reason Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift
    https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16652

    • Avatar

      Ed Bo

      |

      Jim:

      You are just showing you know as little about the history of science as you do about the science itself. The concept (and quantification) of the latent heat (enthalpy) of vaporization is very old and belongs originally to physical chemistry.

      The 200-plus-year-old science of calorimetry has been used to determine the magnitude of the LHoV, in the same way as it has been used to determine the magnitude of the specific heat of substances and the enthalpies of chemical reactions. No mystery here. You should spend a little time familiarizing yourself with the subject. You might actually learn something.

      You admit the specific heat values from calorimetry are empirically measured, but you claim that the LHoV values measured the same way are completely fictitious. But for many decades, scientists and engineers have used these values, about 2260 kJ/kg depending on temperature in designs of real equipment.

      You claim that “Evaporative cooling works by taking advantage of the huge heat capacity of liquid H2O. It raises the temperature of the water in the circulation.” Let’s look at that claim. Let’s say that the system increases the temperature of water from 20C to 80C. At the “huge” specific heat value of 4.184 kJ/kg/K, that is 251 kJ/kg.

      But designers using the long-published values for LHoV of 2260 kJ/kg (even without any temperature increase) are expecting heat transfer 9 times bigger. These values for LHoV of water have been in the tables for over 100 years now. There is absolutely no way they would remain there if the results were off by about an order of magnitude, because real designs would have failed absolutely. The only changes have been in the 3rd or 4th decimal places.

      Here’s a question for you: Your body has a core temperature of about 37C. You have a minimum rest metabolic rate of about 100 W. You must reject this amount of energy to ambient to keep from overheating. You are in an ambient temperature of 40C (air and surroundings), hotter than your body temperature. So you are actually taking in some energy from ambient by conduction, convection and radiation.

      How do you transfer energy to ambient to maintain your body temperature? I say it is by evaporation (sweating), using the LHoV of water. In this case, the water is already at 37C, so it can’t be the specific heat of the water?

      So, if not LHoV, how do you reject energy to ambient (at over 100 J/sec) to keep from getting heat stroke?

      • Avatar

        Jim McGinn

        |

        Bo: The 200-plus-year-old science of calorimetry . . .

        Jim: Show us experimental procedures and the purported data, you evasive twit. You can’t because it doesn’t exist. So, like a global warming advocate, you shift the argument to talk about the history. I’m not interested in your imaginative retelling of the history of science. Explain the reproducible experimental procedures by which anybody can reproduce your dramatic claims or admit that you have no idea.

        Bo: You admit the specific heat values from calorimetry are empirically measured, but you claim that the LHoV values measured the same way are completely fictitious.

        Right. Moreover, the phrase, “latent heat of evaporation,” is meaningless.

        • Avatar

          Ed Bo

          |

          Jim:

          So you are completely unfamiliar with calorimetry. I thought so! (If you are such a super-expert in these matters, you should be completely familiar with it. But there are lots of great explanations for students on the web that you can use to learn.)

          The concept is very simple, although the proper implementation is not trivial.

          Step 1: Isolate the system to be studied as well as possible from the rest of the world. Allow to come to equilibrium and measure the temperature.

          Step 2: Cause the change (chemical reaction, evaporation, etc.) to occur in this isolated system.

          Step 3: Measure the resulting temperature after the change.

          Step 4: Calculate the enthalpy of the change required to create this temperature change.

          In the case of evaporation in this isolated system, it will end up at a lower temperature than it began. It is straightforward then to calculate the required LHoV to lead to this temperature drop (and yes, it does happen).

          Alternately, you could speed up the process by adding some energy to the system, such as through electrical resistance heating. You then just have to add this (precisely measured) added energy into your equations.

          You keep repeating the mantra “steam tables”, without going further. But all of the steam tables I see have dedicated columns (with non-zero numbers) for LHoV — usually listed as “enthalpy of evaporation” or similar. These values were empirically determined using the calorimetry

          And I see you still have not answered my question as to how you can reject enough heat to survive in ambient temperatures above your body temperature. Why not?

          • Avatar

            Jim McGinn

            |

            I think I made my point. The belief that clear moist air at ambient temperatures (below the boiling temperature of H2O) contains genuine gaseous H2O is just a group delusion. As with all group delusions, those that believe it have no scruples when it comes to pretending to see evidence that confirms it.

          • Avatar

            Ed Bo

            |

            How on earth have you “made your point”? In all of your ranting here, you have not provided a shred of actual evidence in support of your supposed “point”.

            Why don’t you (or can’t you) answer my very simple question as to how a human rejects enough heat to maintain body temperature when ambient temperature is higher than body temperature? I have asked several times, and (crickets)! For a super-genius like you who has made an astonishing scientific discovery, this should be a trivial question!

          • Avatar

            Jim McGinn

            |

            How on earth have you “made your point”? In all of your ranting here, you have not provided a shred of actual evidence in support of your supposed “point”.
            Jim:
            You’ve made outlandish claims for something the existence of which you’ve failed to substantiate. H2O’s heat capacity is well understood. Where in the world you get this latent heat notion is anybody’s guess. And that is not to mention your 500X lunacy.

            Why don’t you (or can’t you) answer my very simple question as to how a human rejects enough heat to maintain body temperature when ambient temperature is higher than body temperature? I have asked several times, and (crickets)! For a super-genius like you who has made an astonishing scientific discovery, this should be a trivial question!

            Jim:
            Isn’t it common knowledge that this is achieved through evaporative cooling?

          • Avatar

            Ed Bo

            |

            Jim:

            For weeks now, you have been maintaining that the latent heat of vaporization (aka enthaply of evaporation) is a complete fiction — that it doesn’t exist, and that any source that shows this, even measured out to 4 or 5 significant digits, is a delusion.

            Now you claim that it’s “common knowledge” that there is evaporative cooling. You don’t even realize that you have completely contradicted yourself.

            Since you finally acknowledge that evaporative cooling exists, you must also acknowledge that there is a definite quantity of this cooling. This quantity is simply the LHoV, which you had just claimed was zero, which would mean there is no such thing as evaporative cooling.

            Make up your mind!

  • Avatar

    Jim McGinn

    |

    Bo:
    You are so naive I can only suspect you must be an engineer.

    The rate of evaporation is effected my many factors (surface area, relative humidity, etc.) that are not reflected in your numbers. If you leave a pot of water outside on a dry day it will evaporate. No big deal. You are making specific claims about enthalpy which I suspect are misinterpretations of steam table. It’s anybody’s guess where you got those numbers and what were the specific conditions that gave you such drama. You say it’s empirical. I say we would need more information on the controlled conditions to come to any kind of conclusion.

    I have been citing specific empirically derived numbers from engineering tables, carefully explaining them. You don’t even understand what these values ARE.

    Your numbers are meaningless abstracted from explicit control factors. You see numbers and you lose your mind. Don’t be naive. There is a lot of pseudoscience in H2O and even more in meteorology–as much as in climatology.

    I cite values for the specific heat of water vapor, in kJ/kg/K, that is, the amount of energy required to increase the temperature of 1 kilogram water VAPOR by 1 Kelvin. You say, “This is just evaporation.” NO!!! This is increasing the temperature without any phase change.

    Yeah, so?

    Then you say of this: “It is heat. (Kinetic energy.) It is NOT latent.” You are too confused to understand the argument — I am citing specific heat here, not latent heat of vaporization. YOU claim there is a phase change at 100C — I am showing that there is none with real data.

    The term “latent heat of vaporization” is meaningless. It is pseudoscience. We know H2O has a high heat capacity. The drama you think you see is in your mind.

    You keep saying water has “no latent heat”. But the engineering tables have empirically derived values for the “latent heat of vaporization” of water of about 2260 kg/kJ, declining slightly with temperature.

    Yes, this is H2O’s heat capacity. The fact that some loon put the label “latent heat of vaporization” on it is meaningless. Don’t be naive.

    (And there are specific values in these tables for temperatures well below 100C, for instance for the conversion from liquid to gas at 25C — which you claim cannot happen.)

    It can happen under lower pressures, as clearly delineated in steam tables. And, as is also clearly indicated therein, H2O does not turn to gas in earth’s atmosphere. It is always vapor (liquid). The boiling temperature of H2O at 1 ATM is common knowledge. There is no gaseous H2O in earth’s atmosphere, it is all vapor (liquid). Remember that. It is important.

    • Avatar

      Ed Bo

      |

      Jim:

      Every time I think you have exhausted all possible errors, you reach down for new lows in the breadth and depth of your confusions.

      You say: “The rate of evaporation is effected my many factors (surface area, relative humidity, etc.) that are not reflected in your numbers.”

      My numbers for specific heat (in kJ/kg/K) and latent heat of vaporization (in kJ/kg) have NOTHING to do with rate. Where is the time value in these units? The fact that you believe these values are rate dependent shows you have absolutely no understanding of the state variables that are the most fundamental concepts in thermodynamics. And you expect other people to believe you have an unusually deep understanding of these issues when you get the basics completely wrong!

      I cite universally available numbers for latent heat of vaporization of water of 2260 kJ/kg, and you reply: “Yes, this is H2O’s heat capacity.”

      NO! H2O’s heat capacity is ~4.184 kJ/kg/K, another universally available empirically derived value. Let’s use my laptop’s CPU chip cooling system as an example.

      If the CPU heated 1 gram of water by 20K without evaporating it, that would transfer 20*4.184 = 83.7 Joules from the chip. You claim that there is no extra heat transfer from evaporating it as well

      If the CPU evaporated 1 gram of water without increasing its temperature, it would transfer 2,260 Joules from the chip. This is what the designers of these phase-change cooling systems count on, and find. You don’t think they can tell the difference between ~100 J/g and over 2,000 J/g? This is real-world stuff, Jim, and you have no idea how it works!

      Nowhere do your steam tables say what you claim they do!

    • Avatar

      Jeff Greenwell

      |

      The term “latent heat of vaporization” is meaningless. It is pseudoscience.

      …then…

      the engineering tables have empirically derived values for the “latent heat of vaporization”

      …say what ?????

      • Avatar

        Ed Bo

        |

        Hi Jeff,

        Jim doesn’t even know how to put the words of others in quotes so it is clear who is claiming what.

        I point out that “the engineering tables have empirically derived values for the ‘latent heat of vaporization”.

        Jim claims that “the term ‘latent heat of vaporization’ is meaningless. It is pseudoscience.”

        Of course, he does not explain how all the evaporative cooling system that count on this huge “latent heat” (500 times greater than what it takes to raise liquid water 1 degree) work if it does not exist.

        • Avatar

          Jeff Greenwell

          |

          Hi Ed,

          I sympathize with your frustration. I too have had my round-abouts with Jim. He can talk you to death in circles. In my primary field of work, we call this an infinite-loop causing a deadlock thread. Personally, I gave up and just killed the thread … 😉

          Cheers! … and good luck!

          • Avatar

            Jim McGinn

            |

            You got nothing!

          • Avatar

            Jim McGinn

            |

            Hi Ed,

            I sympathize with your frustration. I too have had my round-abouts with Jim. He can talk you to death in circles. In my primary field of work, we call this an infinite-loop causing a deadlock thread. Personally, I gave up and just killed the thread …

            Jeff,
            Since it is obvious Ed is unable to substantiate his claim why don’t you help him? Go ahead. Tell us the mysterious procedures by which this phantom notion–latent heat of evaporation–is (supposedly) measured.

            It’s funny how you engineers whine about global warming whackos but ultimately you are no different.

            The rules of science are not optional. Find a new hobby.

        • Avatar

          Jim McGinn

          |

          Bo: ” . . . he does not explain how all the evaporative cooling system that count on this huge “latent heat” (500 times greater than what it takes to raise liquid water 1 degree) . . . ”

          Jim: It’s not my job to explain your imagination. You made the claim. You support it. If you don’t like that then I suggest you stick with engineering and avoid science:
          What You Never Suspected About Water in the Atmosphere
          https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16615

          James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

          • Avatar

            Jim McGinn

            |

            Ed, if it will make you feel any better I will allow you to make a retraction.

  • Avatar

    Jim McGinn

    |

    As I thought, you provide zero evidence for your assertions,

    Steam tables.

    and you continue to show that you have no understanding of the underlying concepts.

    All you have is semantics. You are all bluster. No facts.

    Take the example of the evaporative cooling of my laptop’s CPU chip. You claim this is just from the water’s high specific heat (4.184 kJ/kg/K). NO! Evaporating the water has a latent heat of vaporization (or enthalpy of vaporization) of 2260 kJ/kg — the equivalent of heating liquid water by 500K!

    Semantics. H2O absorbs heat. It also evaporates, removing heat as it does.

    You just display your complete scientific ignorance when you say: “Gasoline has latent heat. H2O has zero latent heat. It just has a huge heat capacity.” The only way this makes any sense is if you are talking about the chemical energy of gasoline release when it is oxidized, which is completely off topic.

    H2O does not turn to gas at ambient temps. That is a stupid thing to believe.

    We are talking about vaporization here, not chemical reactions. (BTW, octane has a latent heat of vaporization of 298 kJ/kg, less than 15% of water’s!) You don’t have the most basic grasp of the concepts involved.

    Right. Evaporation. Not boiling.

    I continue to ask you for evidence of phase change in water vapor at 100C. Finally you at least acknowledge the question, stating: “I trust that the steam tables were determined empirically.”

    But there is absolutely nothing in these steam tables that supports your view.

    It indicates the boiling temp, dumbass.

    The specific heat (Cp) of water vapor is nearly constant over temperature,

    This is just evaporation. H2O does not have latent heat. It stores heat (kinetic energy).

    increasing from 1.859 kJ/kg/K at 275K (2C), to 1.880 at 350 K (77C), to 1.890 at 375K (102C), to 1.901 at 400K (127C). There is NO bump whatsover for phase change at 100C. It does NOT exist!

    It is heat. (Kinetic energy.) It is NOT latent.

    By the way, the specific heat for water vapor, below and above 100C is about half of the specific heat for liquid water. So your assertions that water vapor is liquid below 100C, and that there is a “huge” difference between the capacities of liquid and gaseous states is false.

    For you to think that you have made a great scientific discovery here is downright delusional.

    I understand water better than anybody. You just throw words around.

    • Avatar

      Ed Bo

      |

      Jim:

      You’re in a deep enough hole already. Stop digging!

      I have been citing specific empirically derived numbers from engineering tables, carefully explaining them. You don’t even understand what these values ARE.

      I cite values for the specific heat of water vapor, in kJ/kg/K, that is, the amount of energy required to increase the temperature of 1 kilogram water VAPOR by 1 Kelvin. You say, “This is just evaporation.” NO!!! This is increasing the temperature without any phase change.

      Then you say of this: “It is heat. (Kinetic energy.) It is NOT latent.” You are too confused to understand the argument — I am citing specific heat here, not latent heat of vaporization. YOU claim there is a phase change at 100C — I am showing that there is none with real data.

      You keep saying water has “no latent heat”. But the engineering tables have empirically derived values for the “latent heat of vaporization” of water of about 2260 kg/kJ, declining slightly with temperature. (And there are specific values in these tables for temperatures well below 100C, for instance for the conversion from liquid to gas at 25C — which you claim cannot happen.)

      You are so deep in your delusions that I fear you are beyond help. I won’t disturb your fantasies any longer.

  • Avatar

    Jim McGinn

    |

    Bo:
    It’s all in introductory textbooks, including those that have nothing to do with climate. I suggest you read some!

    Jim:
    That’s your argument? Its in textbooks? There is no shortage of nonsense in text books. Global warming is in text books. The strange belief that water turns gaseous at temperatures well below the boiling point of H2O is in all of the meteorology textbooks. The associated belief that convection powers storms is in all the text books.

    • Avatar

      Ed Bo

      |

      Poor Jim, never understood what most kids learn in their first high school chemistry class, that a vapor is simply a term for a gas below its critical temperature. The boiling point is simply that temperature at which the vapor pressure equals the ambient temperature.

      We know the latent heat of vaporization (which you say doesn’t exist) to 3 or 4 significant figures, and use it in all sorts of real-world applications.

      I have asked you before for evidence of a change between 99C and 101C (at 1 bar), where you claim vaporization would occur. You have never provided such. Why not?

        • Avatar

          Ed Bo

          |

          So you have no evidence of a phase change of water in air between 99C and 101C. I thought not!

          All I see is someone not bright enough to understand basic physical chemistry.

          • Avatar

            Jim McGinn

            |

            I don’t understand your point. Firstly, vapor is not gaseous. Vapor is liquid H2O suspended in the air. Do you agree?
            The gaseous phase of H2O depends on BOTH temperature and pressure, as delineated in steam tables. Do you agree?
            According to the steam tables the temperature of earth’s atmosphere is too cool and the pressure is too high to allow for gaseous H2O to persist. Do you agree?
            Since it is impossible for moist air at ambient temperatures to contain gaseous H2O (see above) it must contain liquid vapor.
            If you disagree please be specific and explicit as to just what you disagree with. Don’t base your disagreement with what you once saw in a textbook or what children are told.

            Address my thought directly and honestly or please don’t respond.

            Missing Link;
            https://medium.com/@jimmcginn9/the-missing-link-of-meteorology-s-theory-of-storms-dc2f13c16054

            James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

            Gaseous H2O cannot exist in earth’s atmosphere because it

          • Avatar

            Ed Bo

            |

            Jim:

            You state: “vapor is not gaseous. [Water] Vapor is liquid H2O suspended in the air. Do you agree?”

            No!!! And neither does anyone who knows anything about chemistry! Vapor is a term for “a gas at a temperataure below the critical temperature, so that it can be liquified by compression, without lowering the temperature.” (McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Science and Engineering) This is basic, basic physical chemistry and thermodynamics.

            I remember when this concept was introduced in my high school chemistry class, some of the 15 year olds in the class struggled with it for a while, but eventually got it. You have never figured it out! And so your entire edifice collapses.

            You continue: “The gaseous phase of H2O depends on BOTH temperature and pressure, as delineated in steam tables. Do you agree?”

            What do you mean by “depends on”? There is gaseous H2O in the air over a huge range of temperatures and pressures, including temperatures below freezing. You can watch snow disappear by sublimation (direct solid to gaseous phase change) without the temperature ever getting above freezing.

            Next you say: “According to the steam tables the temperature of earth’s atmosphere is too cool and the pressure is too high to allow for gaseous H2O to persist. Do you agree?”

            No, not at all! You seem to be incapable of wrapping your head around the idea that there are many conditions at which multiple phases of water can exist at once. At a given pressure, there is a temperature above which no liquid (or solid) water can persist, but this does NOT mean that no gaseous water can exist below this temperature — I think your fundamental confusion lies here.

            As I type this on my laptop, the CPU chip is evaporating (not boiling) water, thus cooling itself by the latent heat of vaporization of the water. You say this does not exist. Many power plants, including nuclear power plants, exploit this phenomenon the same way. If you really believe what you claim to believe, you should be working full time to get those plants shut down, not debating me on line. Why aren’t you???

            You believe the phase change between liquid and gas for water at 1 atm always occurs at 100C. I have asked you repeatedly for any evidence that this phase change, with its huge latent heat requirement, occurs for water vapor at this temperature. You have NEVER responded. It’s time to put up or…

          • Avatar

            Jim McGinn

            |

            Jim: Thank you for responding being specific and explicit, as I requested.

            Jim (previously): Vapor is not gaseous. Water vapor is liquid H2O suspended in the air. Do you agree?

            Bo: No!!! And neither does anyone who knows anything about chemistry!

            Jim: As I thought, your position isn’t based on evidence it is base on what “everybody” believes. When you base a conclusion on what “everybody” believes you assume a huge risk: what if “everybody” is wrong?

            Bo: Vapor is a term for “a gas at a temperataure below the critical temperature, so that it can be liquified by compression, without lowering the temperature.” (McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Science and Engineering) This is basic, basic physical chemistry and thermodynamics.

            Jim: Your text book is wrong. Gas is monomolecular. Vapor is comprised of 2 or more molecules that are attached (in H2O they are attached by hydrogen bonds) and that are, therefore, liquid. (Surely, when you see mist you realize that that is liquid, right? If not then your delusion runs very deep. [Don’t assume that clear moist air is gaseous because it is clear. Nanodroplets are just as invisible as steam.)

            Bo: I remember when this concept was introduced in my high school chemistry class, some of the 15 year olds in the class struggled with it for a while, but eventually got it. You have never figured it out! And so your entire edifice collapses.

            Jim: In college they taught me that CO2 traps heat. Guess what, they were wrong. Your high school was wrong about H2O in the atmosphere. There is no gaseous H2O in the atmosphere. (Your edifice is a mirage–a group delusion.) It is all liquid vapor that is suspended by static electric charges. (Convection too is nonsense. Much of meteorology is as bad or worse that climatology.)

            Let this be a lesson to you. Remember, much of science is dumbed down to appeal to the lowest common denominator of science consumers. Teachers don’t want students asking questions in class, so they pick textbooks that gloss over any potential issues.

            Bo: You continue: “The gaseous phase of H2O depends on BOTH temperature and pressure, as delineated in steam tables. Do you agree?” What do you mean by “depends on”?

            Jim: “depends on” is the same as the phrase “is determined by.”

            Bo: There is gaseous H2O in the air over a huge range of temperatures and pressures,

            Jim: Wrong. There is no gaseous H2O in earth’s atmosphere. It is all liquid vapor.

            Bo: the CPU chip is evaporating (not boiling) water, thus cooling itself by the latent heat of vaporization of the water.

            Jim: Evaporation acheives cooling because of the huge heat capacity of LIQUID H2O. (BTW, gaseous H2O [steam] does not have a huge heat capacity. This fact is instrumental in steam engines.) (Gasoline has latent heat. H2O has zero latent heat. It just has a huge heat capacity.)

            Bo: You believe the phase change between liquid and gas for water at 1 atm always occurs at 100C.

            Jim: Yes.

            Bo: I have asked you repeatedly for any evidence that this phase change, with its huge latent heat requirement, occurs for water vapor at this temperature. You have NEVER responded. It’s time to put up or…

            Jim: I trust that the steam tables were determined empirically. So, there is your answer.

            Don’t be gullible. Don’t believe something just because “everybody” believes it.

            James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

            Water is tricky stuff. If you want to know more read this:
            https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16582
            There is a realization in this that someday will be recognized as one of the greatest discoveries in the history of mankind.

          • Avatar

            Ed Bo

            |

            Jim:

            As I thought, you provide zero evidence for your assertions, and you continue to show that you have no understanding of the underlying concepts.

            Take the example of the evaporative cooling of my laptop’s CPU chip. You claim this is just from the water’s high specific heat (4.184 kJ/kg/K). NO! Evaporating the water has a latent heat of vaporization (or enthalpy of vaporization) of 2260 kJ/kg — the equivalent of heating liquid water by 500K!

            You just display your complete scientific ignorance when you say: “Gasoline has latent heat. H2O has zero latent heat. It just has a huge heat capacity.” The only way this makes any sense is if you are talking about the chemical energy of gasoline release when it is oxidized, which is completely off topic.

            We are talking about vaporization here, not chemical reactions. (BTW, octane has a latent heat of vaporization of 298 kJ/kg, less than 15% of water’s!) You don’t have the most basic grasp of the concepts involved.

            I continue to ask you for evidence of phase change in water vapor at 100C. Finally you at least acknowledge the question, stating: “I trust that the steam tables were determined empirically.”

            But there is absolutely nothing in these steam tables that supports your view. The specific heat (Cp) of water vapor is nearly constant over temperature, increasing from 1.859 kJ/kg/K at 275K (2C), to 1.880 at 350 K (77C), to 1.890 at 375K (102C), to 1.901 at 400K (127C). There is NO bump whatsover for phase change at 100C. It does NOT exist!

            By the way, the specific heat for water vapor, below and above 100C is about half of the specific heat for liquid water. So your assertions that water vapor is liquid below 100C, and that there is a “huge” difference between the capacities of liquid and gaseous states is false.

            For you to think that you have made a great scientific discovery here is downright delusional.

  • Avatar

    Jim McGinn

    |

    Bo:
    It’s all in introductory textbooks, including those that have nothing to do with climate. I suggest you read some!

    Jim:
    That’s your argument? Its in textbooks? There is no shortage of nonsense in text books. Global warming is in text books. The strange belief that water turns gaseous at temperatures well below the boiling point of H2O is in all of the meteorology textbooks. The associated belief that convection powers storms is in all the text books.

  • Avatar

    Jim McGinn

    |

    Bo:
    Greenhouse gases very largely let solar radiation pass through, but strongly inhibit the outward transmission of the earth’s thermal energy.

    Jim:
    Your assertion is that the solar radiation upon hitting the ground is converted to wavelength in which it is more susceptible to being reabsorbed by CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere. I don’t doubt this. But that doesn’t mean that N2 and O2 are not constantly absorbing and re-emitting. And it doesn’t mean that N2 and O2 are not constantly absorbing kinetic energy and re-emitting it into space, to effectuate cooling. All gasses have a thermal effect on the atmosphere–all of them.

    (They do this by inhibiting radiation,

    N2 and O2 DO NOT

    unlike a grass greenhouse which primarily inhibits convection. This is why many people, including some here, call it the “radiative greenhouse effect”.)

    CO2 and H2O do this. N2 and O2 do not. Period.

    N2 and O2 do not have any significiant radiative absorptive/emissive bands, especially not in the wavelengths of earth’s thermal radiation. Since the only way earth can exchange energy with space is through radiation, they can neither absorb radiation from the surface, nor emit radiation to space.

  • Avatar

    Ed Bo

    |

    Anthony, you say: ” It is only the Greenhouse Gases that are capable of radiating to Outer Space. It is only the Greenhouse Gases that are keeping the world cool.”

    But the surface is capable of radiating directly to outer space, and it does so in the “atmospheric window” (~10 – 14 um). With only N2 and O2, the atmosphere would be completely transparent to the surface radiation, and the surface would radiate directly to outer space at all wavelengths — and because of this it would be cooler than it is when some of its radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere.

    • Avatar

      Hans Schreuder

      |

      Ed Bo, you write “… and because of this it would be cooler than it is when some of its radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere.”; may I suggest that you read these four papers:
      http://www.biocab.org/Mean_Free_Path_Length_Photons.html
      http://www.biocab.org/Wood_Experiment_Repeated.html
      http://www.biocab.org/Observation_Backradiation.pdf
      http://www.biocab.org/Total_Emissivity_CO2.html
      and then write your own article about the interactions between the sun, planet earth and its atmosphere, so we can all marvel at your obviously thorough understanding of all the issues, failing which I suggest you refrain from your one-liners proclaiming to know better than the author of whatever article you happen to comment on.

      • Avatar

        Ed Bo

        |

        Hans, do you really agree with Anthony’s assertion that the only things that can radiate energy to outer space are the greenhouse gases, meaning that the earth’s surface cannot?

        Seriously?

        These are the types of simple problems that engineering students get in the early weeks of an introductory thermodynamics or heat transfer course, and there is no controversy as to their basic solution. They are not interesting enough now for a published article.

        The biologist Nasif Nahle has profound confusion with regard to the basics of thermo and heat transfer, and throwing inappropriate equations at the issue does not help. Ther fact that he says other biologists have reviewed him is not inspiring any confidence.

        • Avatar

          Hans Schreuder

          |

          Ed Bo, let me repeat my request to you: write an article so we can all stand in awe of your seemingly superior knowledge on all matters relating to the movement of energy. Failing to write such an article will mean that are just another internet troll, so please refrain from your one-liners and write an article.

          • Avatar

            Ed Bo

            |

            It’s all in introductory textbooks, including those that have nothing to do with climate. I suggest you read some!

  • Avatar

    Ed Bo

    |

    Jim, you say: “If a greenhouse gas is defined as a gas that has a thermal effect on the atmosphere then Oxygen and Nitrogen (by shear numbers alone) are the primary greenhouse gasses.”

    But greenhouse gases are NOT defined that way. They are defined as gases that are highly transparent to solar (visible and SWIR) radiation, but substantially opaque to LWIR. H2O and CO2 qualify, but N2 and O2 do not, as they are highly transparent to all of these bands of radiation.

    • Avatar

      Jim McGinn

      |

      LOL. Who established this definition? Al Gore? Mikey Mann? Definitions are arbitrary. The fact remains, N2 and O2 have the most significant effect on the atmosphere. Whether or not it fits with some idiots definition is meaningless. Ultimately “greenhouse effect” is a political term intended to deceive the public into believing that CO2 has a much more dramatic effect on the atmosphere than it possibly can have. You play right into their hands by defending this silly definition.

      • Avatar

        Ed Bo

        |

        Jim: The whole point of the greenhouse metaphor (and it is just a metaphor, and like all metaphors, imperfect) is that these gases very largely let solar radiation pass through, but strongly inhibit the outward transmission of the earth’s thermal energy.

        (They do this by inhibiting radiation, unlike a grass greenhouse which primarily inhibits convection. This is why many people, including some here, call it the “radiative greenhouse effect”.)

        CO2 and H2O do this. N2 and O2 do not. Period.

        N2 and O2 do not have any significiant radiative absorptive/emissive bands, especially not in the wavelengths of earth’s thermal radiation. Since the only way earth can exchange energy with space is through radiation, they can neither absorb radiation from the surface, nor emit radiation to space.

  • Avatar

    Jim McGinn

    |

    Oxygen and Nitrogen do radiate. They do cool the planet. It just doesn’t involve infrared. Humans have a bias to erroneously only consider infrared to be heating/cooling. This bias is a consequence of the fact that our bodies are largely comprised of H2O and carbon, which are sensitive to infrared.

    Envirowhackos play off this bias to get us to believe that H2O and Carbon play the primary role in heating and cooling on this planet. This is fase. Anthony, your presentation reinforces this misconception.

    If a greenhouse gas is defined as a gas that has a thermal effect on the atmosphere then Oxygen and Nitrogen (by shear numbers alone) are the primary greenhouse gasses.

Comments are closed