Engineering Earth’s Thermostat with CO2?

Written by Dr Pierre Latour PE

In a powerful public presentation at the Electric Universe Conference, Albuquerque, a leading Chemical Engineer showed that science proves carbon dioxide cannot operate as a thermostat in earths’ atmosphere.LATOUR

Dr Pierre Latour, Vice Chair of Principia Scientific International , demonstrated to an assembled audience why our climate is an unmeasurable, unobservable and uncontrollable system. CO2 does not affect temperature; temperature affects CO2. There are no greenhouse gases in physics. CO2 is not a pollutant; it is green plant food. Global warming stabilized since 1998.

The Electric Universe Conference, All About Evidence. Albuquerque, March 24, 2014.

Summary. Earth’s temperature is a chemical process system. Review of control system engineering of Earth’s thermostat with anthropogenic CO2 in 1997 proved it will never work because it is an unmeasurable, unobservable and uncontrollable system. CO2 does not affect temperature; temperature affects CO2. There are no greenhouse gases in physics. CO2 is not a pollutant; it is green plant food. Global warming stabilized since 1998.

Purpose. Physics, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, economics, history and ethics are deployed to identify the barriers to designing the thermostat to control Earth’s atmospheric temperature by adjusting its CO2 input.

Method: People have beliefs and knowledge. Knowledge of nature is discovered by the scientific method: theory in the language of nature (mathematics), prediction and verification. Such discoveries are held to be true until falsified. I offer claims supported by credible evidence, settled science and warrant how one can know that they are true. Sound engineering requires no less. No opinion, no speculation, no controversy, no politics, no alarmist adjectives. When an unlicensed engineer resorts to name calling and threats I declare victory and move on.

Thermostat. A thermostat is a temperature controller. Like most control systems, it consists of a measurement, thermometer or thermocouple, comparison with a desirable setpoint setting creating an error, feeding that error back to a control algorithm that determines an adjustment to a manipulated variable, like combustion fuel flow, that corrects the error, holding it near zero. Control systems engineering is part of most engineering disciplines: chemical, mechanical, electrical, aeronautical, biological, civil.

Credentials. I built a thermostat to verify my “Time Optimum Control of Chemical Processes” PhD Thesis theory at Purdue in 1966; the first computer control loop in Shell Oil Co, a FCC regenerator thermostat at Deer Park Texas in 1967 and digital autopilots and spacecraft trajectory controls for NASA’s Apollo Program in 1968. I invented and commercialized hundreds of true boiling cut point thermostats for petroleum product quality in the HPI since 1970. I am a registered PE Chemical Engineer in Texas and Control System Engineer in California. I was Control Magazine Engineer of the Year 1999 and Purdue’s Outstanding Chemical Engineer 2007. I am a contributor to the US Senate Minority Report: 700 Scientists Dissent and Debunk Man-Made Global Warming, March 16, 2009. I personally financed this presentation; I have no financial incentive in the outcome. I seek no government or business funding. I am an AGW skeptic denier. Not my job to get the science right, just falsify what I can. Turns out I can do both.

Science.

  1. CO2 is not a pollutant; it is harmless green plant food. CO2 is the inert result of complete oxidation. There are only two CO2 gas phase reactions, both are endothermic: arc welding and photosynthesis [CO2 + H2O + sunlight = sugars + O2, catalyzed by chlorophyll]. US Navy submarines limit CO2 < 8000 ppmv because it displaces O2.
  2. Halting all combustion of hydrocarbons (oil, gas, coal and wood) by man will not measurably affect atmospheric CO2 content, now 400 ppmv. Simple material balance shows man generates 30 billion tons/year (this is neither a big nor a small number, it is just a number) while plants consume 7 trillion tons/year (this is neither a big nor a small number, it is just a number). Forest fires, rotting flora and volcanoes input most of the CO2 to the atmosphere. Total input or output is >7. The ratio is 0.03/7 = 0.0043. (This is a small ratio.) Cutting the 30 in half to 15 will drop CO2 by 100 ppm after 70 years.
  3. CO2 does not affect temperature; rather temperature affects CO2. Data for the last 400,000 years, reported by Al Gore, “Inconvenient Truth” in 2005, shows they cycle together but CO2 lags temperature by about 800 years. Solubility of CO2 in water, oceans, beer and champagne decreases with temperature so solar warming of the ocean releases dissolved CO2 and cooling reabsorbs it. Solar radiation drives Earth’s temperature; CO2 has nothing to do with it.
  4. Atmospheric radiation absorption and emission is dominated by the presence of all three phases of H2O. Like all molecules, CO2 only absorbs and emits specific spectral wavelengths (14.77 microns) which constitute a tiny fraction of solar radiation energy in Earth’s atmosphere. The first 50 ppm CO2 absorbs about half of this tiny energy, each additional 50 ppm absorbs half of the remaining tiny fraction, so at the current 380 ppm there are almost no absorbable photons left. CO2 could triple to 1000 ppm with no additional discernable absorption – emission. This is the Beer-Lambert Law: the intensity of radiation decreases exponentially as it passes through an absorbing medium.
  5. There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas because the atmosphere has no glass house. German physicists Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D Tscheuschner proved this in their classic paper “Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics”, International Journal of Modern Physics B, v23, n03, January 6, 2009, pp. 275-364. Free download at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
  6. Earth’s temperature increased naturally 0.6C from 1976 to 1998 and has stabilized since, decreasing nearly 0.1C from 2005 to 2009. Forecasts of long term cooling are credible but irrelevant to the claim anthropogenic CO2 does not affect temperature. CO2 content did not accelerate at the onset of the increase in hydrocarbon combustion by man after 1900.
  7. The language of GHGT is inaccurate. Warming does not cause ice to melt. A glacier melts when the average temperature of its surroundings > 0C, whether T is increasing, warming, or decreasing, cooling. Of course the rate of melting is proportional to T > 0. The higher T the faster it melts, even when T is decreasing. The proper way to say it is glaciers melt when surroundings are too warm, the hotter the faster it melts. Those who know the derivative of calculus will understand, Isaac Newton, Principia, 1687.
  8. Earth’s atmospheric temperature is not measurable. Temperature is a point property of the energy content of vibrating and radiating molecules. Physics has no rigorous definition of average temperature of bulk matter, accounting for changes in temperature, state, composition, pressure, heat capacity, velocity and reactions. Air temperature, pressure and composition change with altitude, latitude, clouds, time of day, season, weather fronts and deforestation. Wien’s Law gives an average surface temperature from radiation emitted by black bodies like stars; it does not apply to bodies dominated by non-uniform, variable reflection, like Earth.
  9. UN IPCC climate models incorrectly assume Earth’s radiation to space decreases as its temperature increases. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law states all bodies radiate proportional to T**4. In July 2009, Prof Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorologist, verified Earth obeys this law. Control engineers know all matter reaches an equilibrium temperature due to this change mitigating effect. Otherwise Earth would have exploded or frozen long ago. UN climate models are empirical and hence wrong.
  10. Waxman-Markey HR2454 CO2 Cap & Trade bill requires USA to reduce its CO2 production by 83% from 2010 to 2050. Using discredited empirical UN IPCC models, they predict this will reduce CO2 by 20 ppm and temperature by 0.05C after 40 years. Physics predicts the temperature change approaches zero.
  11. Sea level is changing slowly and naturally in direct proportion to land ice changes, not floating sea ice. Archimedes proved his buoyancy law about 250bc. The majority of Northern Hemisphere glaciers have been receding since the ice age ended 18,000 years ago. They did not accelerate since 1900. All AGW scares, like hurricanes, droughts and dying polar bears, have been competently debunked.
  12. Arctic ice shrinks annually when Earth is too warm, but Siberian and Canadian snowfall increases, increasing Northern Hemisphere solar reflectivity, causing Earth to cool and ice to grow again. A plausible mechanism for these regular 40,000 year ice age cycles has been related to the shallowness of the Barents Sea south of Spitsbergen where the Gulf Stream can break through to the Arctic Ocean. Data indicate another regular ice age began since 2000. CO2 is not involved.

Engineering.

  1. Earth’s temperature system cannot be adequately modeled for control. Modeling and control of multivariable, nonlinear, dynamic systems like fluid catalytic cracking, crude distillation, coking, hydrocracking and gasoline blending was commercialized in the 1980’s and deployed throughout the HPI and chemical industry ever since. Control systems have been built for mechanical and electrical systems like aircraft and spacecraft since 1960.
  2. Earth’s temperature system cannot be adequately measured or controlled. Mathematical criteria devised in the 1960’s that ensure a system is measurable, observable and controllable are not satisfied.
  3. Mankind has no decision process for properly setting global temperature or CO2 targets. Or home thermostats either. The rigorous procedure for optimizing risky tradeoffs for HPI control system setpoints like thermostats was published in HP, December 1996.
  4. Nuclear power is not useful because it produces no CO2 but because it is profitable. Engineers at DuPont, Westinghouse and GE commercialized recovery of uranium for safe breeder reactor fuel with manageable recyclable waste since 1960. Delta Colorado holds commercially recoverable U-238 equivalent to 1000x the energy of Earth’s fossil fuels. Exporting enriched reactor grade U-235 fuel would have preserved oil for transportation fuels and petrochemicals, reversed US trade deficits and accelerated peaceful and inexpensive power generation worldwide. The energy from 1 kg of U-235 equals that from 3 million kg of coal.

Ethics.

  1. Gradual warming is good. Earth’s flora, fauna and mankind have flourished since Earth warmed again 18,000 years ago. Humans have experienced 5,000,000 years/125,000 years per ice age cycle = about 40 such cycles. New Yorkers retire to Florida, Canadians to Phoenix, Chicagoans to Hawaii and Germans to Provence.
  2. Taxing energy production is bad. Energy management is basic to human prosperity and well being. Profitable conversion of heat to work since 1780 has created great comfort and wealth for all who know how. Waxman-Markey HR2454 will never work.
  3. India, China, Africa and Russia will continue to produce CO2 from coal, oil and gas, to their credit. Their people will prosper.
  4. Al Gore, at Oxford on July 8, 2009, promoted research to violate the second law of thermodynamics. He condemned power plant and vehicle combustion for wasting 70% of the fuels energy. In 1824 Sadi Carnot proved the maximum theoretical frictionless reversible efficiency is Wo/Qi = 1 – T2/T1, where Qi is total heat in, Wo is net work out, T1 is temperature of the heat source (flame, steam) and T2 is temperature of the surroundings (air, cooling water). Great engineers have labored to approach maximum economic efficiency ever since.
  5. Corrupting science is bad. Al Gore promotes spending by governments around the globe to finance his multibillion dollar venture capital fund, KPCB, which owns 16 GreenTech firms and Google. Providing government grants for fraudulent science research promoting caps on CO2 production is a conflict of interest. I personally found flawed science in peer reviewed papers in Science and Proceedings of The Royal Society and published my findings in a letter to HP in January 2009.
  6. On April 17, 2009 the US EPA issued instructions for comments on “Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act” as they prepare to declare CO2 a pollutant. They claim current law and court precedent authorize them to do so.

Conclusions.

  1. Knowledgeable environmental engineers support reforestation and efforts to curtail anthropogenic pollutants like SO2, NOx, Bz, CFC’s, particulates and surface ozone. They oppose depriving Earth’s flora of their green plant food, choking and starving them for personal gain. I like harmless CO2. I exhale some at 40,000 ppm every 4 seconds.
  2. CO2 and O2 are the basic molecules of the life cycle between Earth’s flora and fauna. The miracle of life photosynthesis reaction should not be tampered with lightly. Starving and choking plants of their food supply would be a monumental crime against humanity, all fauna and flora, the environment and Earth itself.
  3. Since there are no graduate or licensed chemical process control engineers in the UN IPCC, US Congress, Cabinet or Supreme Court, these incompetent groups continue to waste time and money since 1997 attempting the impossible, designing Earth’s thermostat using anthropogenic CO2. No one has controlled the climate of an entire planet.
  4. Climate experts like MIT meteorology Prof Richard Lindzen, Princeton physicist and former DoE Research Director Prof William Happer, UVa atmospheric physicist Prof S Fred Singer and ClimateDepot.com are reliable.
  5. Forecast: This paper will remain valid beyond 3000AD. If engineers consider this report good news, ok. I welcome any proof of errors and apologize if I have offended anyone. If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn’t be called research. A Einstein   In every enterprise, consider the outcome. Chinese Fortune Cookie

Parting Shot: Earth’s temperature is unmeasurable, but…….

  1. Satellite spectrometers measure Earth’s average radiating intensity day-night, pole-to-pole, summer-winter to be about I = solar constant*albedo/4 = 1366*0.7/4 = 239 w/m2 of its surface. I varies with solar input and flora photosynthesis rate. The latter increases with solar, T and [CO2], reducing T and [CO2]. Cool.
  2. Stefan-Boltzmann Radiation Law gives temperature of any radiating body with emissivity e < 1 as T = 100(I/5.67e)0.25.
  3. Earth’s global emissivity is difficult to measure or determine, but Standard Global Climate Model uses e = 0.612. It increases with content of radiating gases like H2O and CO2. (It goes down with T.)
  4. Since e is in the denominator, if e increases, T decreases. Doubling CO2 from 400 to 800 ppmv increases e by about 0.001 to 0.613.
  5.   T0 = 100(239/5.67*0.612)0.25 = 288.08 (14.93C, a generally accepted value)

    T1 = 100(239/5.67*0.613)0.25 = 287.96 (14.81C)

    T1 – T0 = -0.1156C. Cooling. Decreasing I drops T1 more, increasing e further. UN IPCC says 1.5 < T1 – T0 < 4.5. Wrong.

  6. There you have it all, in five sentences. What is all the fuss about? When I was in kindergarten, Henny Penny & Chicken Little said “The sky is falling!” They neglected to say how fast or when. No astrophysics, just chemical engineering.

  7.  In 1981 James Hansen, NASA, assumed Earth was a black body, e = 1.0, and deduced Earth’s radiating temperature to be Tbb0 = 100(239/5.67*1.0)0.25 = 254.80 (-18.35C). Since it is about +15C, he declared the Greenhouse Gas Effect to be T0 – Tbb0 = 288.08 – 254.80 = 33C. Everybody was horrified, Hansen got famous, Al Gore got rich and the rest is history.

Comments (98)

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]Excellent article Pierre. I do, however, take exception with one common misconception that you demonstrate in the following comment: “Atmospheric radiation absorption and emission is dominated by the presence of all three phases of H2O. “

    The gaseous phase of water (steam) plays no role in our atmosphere. This myth persists for the same reason the CO2 myth persists, because people just refuse to view it critically.

    Along the same lines, one of the problems that currently has atmospheric physicists stumped is that according to calculations of fluid dynamics (not thermodynamics) there should be more friction in the atmosphere than there is and this friction (storms) should be more even distributed and constant at all parts of the globe than it is. Consequently there is “missing” lubrication in the atmosphere, the explanation for which has yet to be supplied by science. It is, IMO, an opportunity waiting for somebody to come along and fill in the missing piece of that puzzle. In June I will be releasing my book which deals with the physics of the vortex. Therein I will hypothesize how vortexes are the structure of our atmospheric circulation, manifested in the jet stream, a structural element in our atmosphere. It will propose previously undiscovered phase of water, which I have labelled the Vortex Phase. And if will attempt to fill in this missing piece of the puzzle and solve tornadoes also.

    I applaud your commitment to empiricism. But I think empiricism should be applied indiscriminately, not selectively.[/quote]No response.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [b]This is where Tim Folkerts exhibits his complete misunderstanding of the Planck function and its integral in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.[/b]

    You didn’t study and understand your physics, now did you, Tim? Go back to school.

    Time wrote [i]”20 W/m^2 of sunlight would be enough to warm the sunny side at the same rate the night side cools.”[/i]

    To warm the Venus surface from 732K to 737K you would need of the order of 14,000 to 16,000W/m^2 of radiation (using a realistic value for absorptivity of 0.85 to 0.95) Tim! A mere 20W/m^2 of radiation would not raise the surface temperature of Venus at all – not in a billion years.

    You continue to make a fool of yourself, Tim, when it comes to physics. But I know you’re a beggar for punishment, so you’ll try to reply, but you will continue to refuse to read my [url=http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf]paper[/url] on radiation, won’t you, because you don’t want to learn, you just want to [b][i]assert[/i][/b] what you think proves your case.

    Well, Tim, empirical evidence proves that the greenhouse gas water vapour cools. Even if you don’t think you’ll get paid $5,000, that’s no excuse for not looking at real world data in the way I have in the study in the Appendix of my book, [i]”Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all”[/i] and finding out for your own satisfaction what the real world is trying to tell you.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    Tim writes …

    [i]”many clear objections that you simply disregard”[/i]

    Elaborate – and I’ll quote chapter and paragraph where they are already answered in the book.

    [i]”I just recognize that it is the predicted steady-state solution wen [sic]there is a heat flow upward thought [sic] an atmosphere”
    [/i]
    Wrong again. There is no heat flow in this state of thermodynamic equilibrium by definition of such equilibrium. If there were a flow, then there would have been unbalanced energy potentials. Such a state is thus not what the Second Law says will evolve. Don’t you know that convection can stop all together in calm conditions in the early pre-dawn hours? You seem to know that it can even reverse its direct and go up the temperature gradient because you refer to [i]”downward convection”[/i] from the less hot atmosphere to the hotter surface. But how does this happen within the laws of physics? Why is it so?

    [i]”Sunlight is only a small additional input during the day”[/i] Yes, but that small addition can only be added by downward convection spread over the four month Venus day. None, absolutely none comes from radiation from the atmosphere. [b]Hence there is no radiative greenhouse effect on Venus.

    It’s all in my [url=http://climate-change-theory.com]book[/url].

    [/b]

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    [quote]I am offering $5,000 to the first person who proves my physics wrong …[/quote]

    That is a pretty meaningless offer unless you can offer a qualified panel to judge any objections to your hypothesis. There have already been many clear objections that you simply disregard.

    [quote]Meanwhile Tim Folkerts continues to disregard the autonomous thermal gradient (which is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium) and the consequences thereof.[/quote]
    I don’t disregard the thermal gradient — I embrace it! I just recognize that it is the predicted steady-state solution wen there is a heat flow upward thought an atmosphere.

    [quote]
    And so he still can’t explain how the required energy gets into the surface of Venus to raise its temperature 5 degrees.[/quote]
    Energy gets down two main ways — downward convection and sunlight. The other half of the equation (which you seem to be skipping over) is how the heat leaves. I leaves two main ways — upward convection and thermal IR. Over night, the surface cools only very slowly (observational fact), indicating that there is only a small upward imbalance in energy flow (observational fact). In other words, the surface is very well insulated.

    If the surface only loses energy slowly at night, then it only needs a small additional energy input to warm it during the day. Sunlight is only a small additional input during the day (due to the heavy perpetual cloud cover), but it is an addition.

    For the sake of argument, if the net loss is 10 W/m^2 at night (causing the slow cooling), then 20 W/m^2 of sunlight would be enough to warm the sunny side at the same rate the night side cools.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    PS You’ll probably find shipping cheaper from [url=http://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/why-it-s-not-carbon-dioxide-after-all?store=allproducts&keyword=why+it%27s+not+carbon+dioxide+after+all]Barnes and Noble[/url].

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    By the way, in the absence of wind, there is no such thing as “bulk motion” of air molecules all moving in the same direction.

    Convection includes both diffusion and advection. In fact diffusion gradually transitions into advection. Theoretically we can observe air movement when diffusion becomes advection. But such “air movement” is only a net movement of molecules away from a source of new energy, such as the heated surface of Earth, or the heated upper troposphere of Venus. Many molecules still move the other way and, in fact, in all 3D directions.

    Newly absorbed energy disrupts a previous state of thermodynamic equilibrium (with its temperature gradient) and the Second Law tells us that the system will move towards restoring thermodynamic equilibrium with greatest entropy.

    If you don’t understand what I am explaining, and if you want to learn about how the extra energy gets into the surface of Venus (and the relevance of this to Earth’s climate) then you probably need to read the book and study the diagrams therein.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [b]Malcolm.[/b] Yes I do agree with Tim that “it’s not that simple.” Nothing is simple in understanding atmospheric physics. That’s why it took over 30 pages in my [url=http://www.amazon.com/dp/1478729228]book[/url] to explain it.

    But, none-the-less, empirical evidence (in my study in the Appendix of the book) shows that water vapour does cool, and this is the exact opposite of what climatologists claim that greenhouse gases do. My book explains cooling: their guesswork postulates warming, which is not observed.
    [b]
    I am offering $5,000[/b] to the first person who proves my physics wrong and who also carries out a study (based on the methodology of my study) which shows contrary results comparable with the assumed warming of at least 10 degrees for every 1% of water vapour.

    Meanwhile [b]Tim Folkerts[/b] continues to disregard the autonomous thermal gradient (which is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium) and the consequences thereof. And so he still can’t explain how the required energy gets into the surface of Venus to raise its temperature 5 degrees.

    [url=http://www.amazon.com/dp/1478729228][img]http://climate-change-theory.com/cover-front-small.jpg[/img][/url]

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Malcolm, it is not that simple. Not NEARLY that simple. If you want to really study the impart of the earth’s atmosphere, you will have to delve deeper.

    Yes, the atmosphere cools the sunny side of the earth … but it also warms the night side (the night side of the earth his MUCH warmer than the night side of the moon).

    So H2O and CO2 [s]cool[/s] redistribute thermal energy on the Earth. (And N2 and O2 ALSO redistribute thermal energy)

    So now we need to ask several questions. * How much cooling of the sunny side is due to bulk motion of gases?
    * How much warming of the night side is due to bulk motion of gases?
    * Is the net effect a warming or cooling?
    * What role does evaporation/condensation play?
    * What role does thermal radiation (from CO2 and H2O) play?

    The short answers:
    * bulk motion raises the average temperature, but not enough to account for the observed temperatures
    * thermal radiation (ie from clouds & GHGs) can account for the additional warming.

    Going beyond this level is MUCH more challenging yet.

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Dr Darko Butina”]#3 – if you are selling your book on back of Pierre’s excellent article you should at least show some basic understanding of physicochemical properties of water. [/quote]Well, you know, I’m not running a hand holding service here. I’ve provided you with big clues (hydrogen bond) as to what you can do get an understanding of why/how this notion that steam can persist in the atmosphere is looney. That you chose to ignore it is your choice. You need to take responsibility for your own education and not expect everybody to spoon feed you on all of this.
    [quote name=”Dr Darko Butina”]
    We KNOW that 70% of Earth’s surface is covered by water in its liquid/solid state,[/quote]Irrelevant.
    [quote name=”Dr Darko Butina”] and we also KNOW that the clouds consist of H2O in liquid and solid state (depending on altitude).[/quote]And we know that steam does not exist in our atmosphere. Right?
    [quote name=”Dr Darko Butina”] So how does H2O molecule gets from its liquid state at altitude=0 to the liquid state at altitude 1000m?[/quote]
    [quote name=”Dr Darko Butina”]You tell us why you choose the believe that the answer to your question MUST be convection. Then I’ll explain to you why it can’t be.[/quote]

    No reponse. Hmmmmmm. I wonder why.

  • Avatar

    Malcolm Shykles

    |

    “Water vapor is supposed to be the most prolific greenhouse gas but real world temperature and rainfall records show that it cools rather than warms. So too would carbon dioxide.”

    Agreed, if the Earth had no atmosphere then the Sunlit side would reach a similar maximum temperature to that on the Moon 123°C. The maximum recorded on Earth is 58°C. Even allowing for albedo the difference of 55°C cannot be made up.

    So H2O and CO2 cool the Earth – more CO2 can only cool the Earth – Not difficult to understand is it?

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Doug  Cotton”]
    [b]
    You cannot prove otherwise with valid physics, now can you? Give it a try, my friend, and I’ll expose your lack of understanding of physics to all the silent readers. Yes, I’m throwing down the gauntlet to you and any reader.[/b][/quote]

    Troll: Now that you have thrown down your fantasy “gauntlet to you and any reader”. I like any that happen across your trolling, can either ignore your, fantasy gauntlet or defecate upon it, there are no other choices! Troll.

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    [quote name=”Doug  Cotton”][i]”Come back and let us know if you can answer these questions.”[/i]

    What? Answer whether pressure is the same as a temperature gradient?

    Other readers will find all the answers they need in my [url=http://www.amazon.com/dp/1478729228]book[/url] and my [url=http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf]paper[/url] cited therein, but they may need a better understanding of physics than that displayed by Jim McGinn aka Solvingtornadoes aka Claudius Denk. It sounds like his physics hasn’t advanced since Roman times.[/quote]
    Address the issue or crawl back into your hole, you troll.

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]
    Welcome to the community of “what da fuck over”![/quote]
    In science there are two types of people. Those that make discoveries and those that fight acceptance of new discoveries using every tactic they can muster. I don’t think me and you are in members of the same community.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [i]”Come back and let us know if you can answer these questions.”[/i]

    What? Answer whether pressure is the same as a temperature gradient?

    Other readers will find all the answers they need in my [url=http://www.amazon.com/dp/1478729228]book[/url] and my [url=http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf]paper[/url] cited therein, but they may need a better understanding of physics than that displayed by Jim McGinn aka Solvingtornadoes aka Claudius Denk. It sounds like his physics hasn’t advanced since Roman times.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    Malcolm – what happens regarding radiation is explained in my PSI paper [i]”[url=http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf]Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics[/url].”[/i]

  • Avatar

    Malcolm Shykles

    |

    “The thermal gradient shows that the observed temperatures of the Earth are determined by natural processes and not by back radiation warming from greenhouse gases.”

    Agreed but also radiation can only flow from hot to cold so the term “back radiation” must surely be nonsensical?

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    Interesting …

    wottsupwiththat.com/…/an-open-letter-challenging-the-epa-on-co2-regul…‎

    Jan 6, 2013 – [b]Jim McGinn (AKA Claudius Denk)[/b]

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [b]Claudius: [/b]

    Pressure is not included in the calculations of the thermal gradient, and is not the cause thereof. Gravity acts on the mass of molecules, not on pressure. Gravity forms a density gradient and a temperature gradient as thermodynamic equilibrium is approached. A pressure gradient is a corollary, not a cause. All this you would know if you understood thermodynamics.
    [b]
    You cannot prove otherwise with valid physics, now can you? Give it a try, my friend, and I’ll expose your lack of understanding of physics to all the silent readers. Yes, I’m throwing down the gauntlet to you and any reader.[/b]

    I have overwhelming empirical evidence supporting what I am saying, all of which is based on correct physics.

    All your questions and demands are answered in my [url=http://climate-change-theory.com]book[/url], review of which follows …

    [i]”Essential reading for an understanding of the basic physical processes which control planetary temperatures. Doug Cotton shows how simple thermodynamic physics implies that the gravitational field of a planet will establish a thermal gradient in its atmosphere. The thermal gradient, a basic property of a planet, can be used to determine the temperatures of its atmosphere, surface and sub-surface regions. The interesting concept of “heat creep” applied to diagrams of the thermal gradient is used to explain the effect of solar radiation on the temperature of a planet. The thermal gradient shows that the observed temperatures of the Earth are determined by natural processes and not by back radiation warming from greenhouse gases. Evidence is presented to show that greenhouse gases cool the Earth and do not warm it.
    John Turner B.Sc.;Dip.Ed.;M.Ed.(Hons);Grad.Dip.Ed.Studies (retired physics educator)”[/i]

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Claudius Denk”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]
    If there are no gaseous H2O monomers in the atmosphere, Why is it so hard to find the H2O
    dimers,through hexamers,that have no increase in density over monomers?[/quote]

    I honestly don’t know. I’m just as perplexed as you seem to be on the lack of firm evidence one way or another on this issue. It would seem there should be something to look up on this issue. But there isn’t. And what can be found (hydrogen bond) isn’t intellectually accessible to everyone.

    Paradigms have their own internal logic that pays little regard to the outside world.
    That’s my theory.[/quote]

    “I honestly don’t know.”
    Jim, this statement sets you apart from those that know!

    Welcome to the community of “what da fuck over”!

    Your buddy D.Kotton will never be welcome as he insists he knows.

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    [quote name=”Doug  Cotton”][b]Claudius[/b] – the gravito-thermal effect is due to gravity producing a temperature gradient in the subsurface regions of the Moon, and throughout the universe in solids, liquids and gases.

    The gradient is determined from the negative quotient of the acceleration due to gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the matter. How else can you explain why the core of the Moon is still far hotter than its surface when it’s had plenty of time to cool off?

    I suggest you read my [url=http://climate-change-theory.com]book[/url] as you’ve come in rather late on this and I don’t have time to explain it all again. I’m off to the Royal Easter Show with my family now.[/quote]

    You’ve just reinvented pressure. You’ve given it a prettier name. And a more contrived descriptions. But it’s just pressure.

    Show us a calculation using gravito thermal effect. Explain how it’s different than pressure.

    Come back and let us know if you can answer these questions.

    Never wear your scientific heart on your sleeve.

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]
    If there are no gaseous H2O monomers in the atmosphere, Why is it so hard to find the H2O
    dimers,through hexamers,that have no increase in density over monomers?[/quote]

    I honestly don’t know. I’m just as perplexed as you seem to be on the lack of firm evidence one way or another on this issue. It would seem there should be something to look up on this issue. But there isn’t. And what can be found (hydrogen bond) isn’t intellectually accessible to everyone.

    Paradigms have their own internal logic that pays little regard to the outside world.

    That’s my theory.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Claudius Denk”][quote name=”Doug  Cotton”]There appears to be some confusion above about the gravito-thermal effect.[/quote]
    Does gravity effect exist on planets that don’t have an atmosphere (ie. Moon)? If not then why call it “gravity” effect? Why not call it pressure? How is “gravity” effect measured? What mathematical units do you use to measure/quantify it? Can you give us an example? Lastly, can you provide us an example of how using your concept “gravity effect” is, somehow, more useful/valid than using pressure. What experiment (and/or thought experiment) might you suggest to demonstrate your position?[/quote]

    Hey Jim,
    If there are no gaseous H2O monomers in the atmosphere, Why is it so hard to find the H2O
    dimers,through hexamers,that have no increase in density over monomers?
    I remain amazed at the excellent scientific skills demonstrated by you and Doug!

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [b]Claudius[/b] – the gravito-thermal effect is due to gravity producing a temperature gradient in the subsurface regions of the Moon, and throughout the universe in solids, liquids and gases.

    The gradient is determined from the negative quotient of the acceleration due to gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the matter. How else can you explain why the core of the Moon is still far hotter than its surface when it’s had plenty of time to cool off?

    I suggest you read my [url=http://climate-change-theory.com]book[/url] as you’ve come in rather late on this and I don’t have time to explain it all again. I’m off to the Royal Easter Show with my family now.

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    [quote name=”Doug  Cotton”]There appears to be some confusion above about the gravito-thermal effect.[/quote]
    Does gravity effect exist on planets that don’t have an atmosphere (ie. Moon)? If not then why call it “gravity” effect? Why not call it pressure? How is “gravity” effect measured? What mathematical units do you use to measure/quantify it? Can you give us an example? Lastly, can you provide us an example of how using your concept “gravity effect” is, somehow, more useful/valid than using pressure. What experiment (and/or thought experiment) might you suggest to demonstrate your position?

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    I just noticed that comment #70 got truncated because I used a “less than” sign. The last paragraph should read …

    Then disregard the ocean thermoclines where the rate of absorption of solar radiation over-rides the slow diffusion process. Better still, look in calm locations of the Arctic Ocean when no solar radiation strikes the surface, and there you will find the expected “less than” 1 degree per kilometre gradient. The temperature gradient for the state of thermodynamic equilibrium is determined by [i]-g/Cp[/i] = -9.8/3.93 = -2.5K/Km caused by gravity, but then reduced in magnitude by the temperature levelling effect of inter-molecular radiation. That reduction in liquid water could be expected to be more than two-thirds when you remember that even water vapour reduces it by about one-third.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    The second line above should read …

    It results from [i]the[/i] process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, not the First, Carl.

    The [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics]second law of thermodynamics[/url] states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems always evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium, a state with maximum entropy.

    So I trust that you agree the Second Law is describing a process.

    Now, the thermal gradient in a force field (be it a vortex tube or a troposphere) is a state and that state is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium. It is also equivalent to hydrostatic equilibrium in a planet’s troposphere, because there is only one state of maximum entropy of course.

    You see evidence of the gravito-thermal gradient in Earth’s troposphere when advection (up or down) stops, as it often does in calm conditions in the early pre-dawn hours. It is a state of thermodynamic equilibrium (with a temperature gradient) which must also be mechanical equilibrium. Hence by definition we expect no transfer of thermal energy or mechanical net movement of molecules, and that is what we observe.

    Now, if and only when you understand how this equilibrium state has a non-zero temperature gradient, then you need to consider what happens when new energy is added at the top.

    It is pointless just saying heat cannot transfer from cold to hot, because that is not what the Second Law is all about. Unless you understand what I have explained about entropy and thermodynamic equilibrium, you will not get off “Square One” with any understanding of the gravito-thermal effect and the “heat creep” (downward diffusion and advection) process.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    There appears to be some confusion above about the gravito-thermal effect.

    It results from process described in statements of the [b]Second[/b] Law of Thermodynamics, not the First, Carl.

    Of course there is no breach of the First Law, but the First Law says nothing about entropy.

    You will not understand why the gravito thermal effect is a reality until you understand entropy. Entropy is a measure of progress towards thermodynamic equilibrium. That progress is what the Second Law states will happen, because entropy does not decrease and because thermodynamic equilibrium is a state of maximum entropy attainable within the constraints of the system.

    Entropy increases as unbalanced energy potentials decrease, but these decrease by re-distribution of energy, not conversion, destruction or creation of such.

    Until you understand what I am talking about you will never understand how the required energy gets into the surface of Venus and raises its temperature by 5 degrees. That is the question you all keep avoiding like the plague.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [i]”If the gravito-thermal effect were real the average temperature of the ocean bottom would be 40 °C instead of 4 °C and the deepest oceans would be boiling hot at ~110 °C.”[/i]

    Your calculations are crap, Carl. Try using real facts like Specific Heat of sea water at 36°F = 3.93kJ/kg.K.

    Then disregard the ocean thermoclines where the rate of absorption of solar radiation over-rides the slow diffusion process. Better still, look in calm locations of the Arctic Ocean when no solar radiation strikes the surface, and there you will find the expected

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [b]Carl:[/b]

    A “mass” of air only sticks together to some extent in a strong wind, which is not what we are talking about. Read about the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory#Assumptions]assumptions[/url] of Kinetic Theory. Is there anything there about a mass of molecules all moving in the same direction at the same time by some highly improbable fluke?

    [b]The confused concepts of climatology conceal crap, Carl.
    [/b]
    How many times do I have to explain to you that high pressure does not maintain a high temperature – the air or nitrogen in your car tyres cools to ambient temperature overnight.

    I am quite aware of climatology’s roundabout way of deriving the thermal gradient as [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate]here[/url]. They introduce pressure (hoping to give the impression it is necessary to do so) but then they find pressure cancels out. I get the same [i]-g/Cp[/i] result in two lines from Kinetic Theory, and of course there’s no pressure involved.

    Your calculations don’t include gravity because you started out with an implicit assumption that gravity would have no effect. That is not the case with the assumptions of Kinetic Theory – read them!

    Nothing of what I have written violates any law of physics.

    [b]Pat Obar:[/b]

    Why should it surprise you that I know physics and understand it better than your average climatologist? I’ve been studying and teaching it since before many of them were born. Is it not appropriate of me to point out errors in, for example, Roy Spencer’s incorrect understanding of the relevant physics? When climatologists write what amounts to a travesty of physics, should I just sit back and say nothing when it is so blatantly obvious that their greenhouse conjecture violates the laws of physics? Is there anything wrong in respecting one’s profession – or do you make a distinction based on the number of hours a “scientist” spends per week – like whether it’s a part-time or full-time profession or whatever? What is more important – correct understanding or the number of hours clocked up?

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”carlallen”]You might want to put a little more effort into getting your story straight about what the gravito-thermal effect actually is. Earlier you asserted that the gravito-thermal effect is something that occurs at a microscopic level where [i]”individual molecules”[/i] either accelerate when they are moving downwards or decelerate when they are moving upwards within a gravitational field.

    [i]”the force of gravity acts upon [b]individual molecules[/b] and affects the air temperature in that region. The temperature may be thought of as relating to the speed at which these air molecules move, and so, if they are “falling” they gather speed and end up being warmer, or if they are rising they cool.”[/i]….Carl[/quote]

    Carl,
    Have you considered that the atmospheric “lapse rate” may only be a thermostatic state, rather than any thermodynamic process? Under stable equilibrium, when disturbed, all tend to the static state. All work requires a energy source. Spontaneous does not require “work”, often it is the direct conversion of energy to entropy! 🙂

  • Avatar

    carlallen

    |

    You might want to put a little more effort into getting your story straight about what the gravito-thermal effect actually is. Earlier you asserted that the gravito-thermal effect is something that occurs at a microscopic level where [i]”individual molecules”[/i] either accelerate when they are moving downwards or decelerate when they are moving upwards within a gravitational field.

    [i]”the force of gravity acts upon [b]individual molecules[/b] and affects the air temperature in that region. The temperature may be thought of as relating to the speed at which these air molecules move, and so, if they are “falling” they gather speed and end up being warmer, or if they are rising they cool.”[/i]

    When I speak of the “adiabatic process” I am talking about the behavior of a mass of air (not individual molecules) that moves either from a low-pressure area to a high-pressure area or vise versa. In the first instance its new higher-pressure surroundings will do work on this mass of air and compress it; this causes the [b]entire air mass[/b] to warm, not just individual molecules. In the second instance the mass of air will do work against its new lower-pressure surroundings and expand; this causes the [b]entire air mass[/b] to cool, not just individual molecules. The independent movement of individual molecules within matter, such as that upon which the “gravito-thermal effect” is presumed to be based, cannot “do work” in a thermodynamic sense.

    “Doing work results in the uniform motion of atoms in the surroundings; heating stimulates their disorderly motion.” Atkins, Peter, [u]The Laws of Thermodynamics[/u], 2010

    The adiabatic process, which is the transfer of energy via “work” rather than heat has been studied exhaustively by multiple scientists for many years and is integral to the first law of thermodynamics. It is one of the easiest thermodynamic phenomenon to reproduce in the lab and is also one of the first phenomenon taught in entry level classes on thermodynamics. What scientists have observed is that work and heat have the same affect on the internal energy of matter and the interchangeability between work and heat is the subject of the first law of thermodynamics, which is quantified by the formula:

    [i]∆U = ∆Q – ∆W
    Where:
    U = internal energy
    Q = heat
    W = work[/i]

    Nowhere within this formula, which quantifies the first law of thermodynamics, does gravitational potential energy come into play, i.e., one does not change the internal energy of matter just by moving it up or down within a gravitational field. Take ocean water for example. When water from the surface circulates down to the bottom of the ocean it loses significant gravitational potential energy yet does not heat up due to a gravito-thermal effect. If the gravito-thermal effect were real the average temperature of the ocean bottom would be 40 °C instead of 4 °C and the deepest oceans would be boiling hot at ~110 °C.

    Carl

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Doug  Cotton”]
    So have a good Easter thinking about it all – the physics I mean, not the arrogance issues. I give credit for my insight to the One who’s Son rose that first Easter morning. Now I’m signing out and we’re off to church here this beautiful Easter morning in Sydney.[/quote]

    “rose”? Us commoners are truly “amazed” at the skill that Climate scientists and others like Doug and Jim have at understanding the hard to understand! Here we have Doug claiming, of course correctly, that the human image of God, changed into a flower on that first Easter morning, thus creating “Easter” from nothing. Are you sure that that change was to a “rose” rather than to a “pansy”?

    Unlike you Doug” quote “I’m not a commoner when writing about physics: I use the official terminology of physics”/quote, I am but a commoner that is “amazed” at the skill of Doug, Jim, and climate clowns at expressing their knowledge!
    Who the hell has the beer and popcorn concession in this Circus?

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Doug  Cotton”]where this imaginary “force” comes from that “draws” whole water droplets out of my swimming pool. [/quote]
    http://goo.gl/KFX1vV%5B/quote%5D

    http://goo.gl/F23bPM

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [b]Pat[/b] can tell us just precisely how much tertiary physics a typical climatologist completes. If he doubts that radiative transfer and thermodynamics are very much in the field of degree level physics, then he can explain.

    But, in the meantime, I have shown the calculations which give results for the temperature difference as observed in the vortex tube, and I have debunked with standard physics all other attempts to explain it.

    I have explained why higher levels of water vapour cause there to be lower supported surface temperatures, and I have produced a study based on real world temperature and precipitation data from three continents confirming the expected cooling. That fact alone debunks the false assumption that water vapour, the most prolific “greenhouse” gas by far, supposedly causes warming by back radiation.

    Then I have produced a hypothesis which explains the temperatures in other planetary tropospheres and surfaces, with calculations agreeing with observations in all cases.

    So have a good Easter thinking about it all – the physics I mean, not the arrogance issues. I give credit for my insight to the One who’s Son rose that first Easter morning. Now I’m signing out and we’re off to church here this beautiful Easter morning in Sydney.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Doug  Cotton”]where this imaginary “force” comes from that “draws” whole water droplets out of my swimming pool. [/quote]
    http://goo.gl/KFX1vV

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    Ein[b]ST[/b]ein, with his [b]S[/b]pecial [b]T[/b]heory of Relative Humidity, can explain just precisely where this imaginary “force” comes from that “draws” whole water droplets out of my swimming pool. Then he can write an article for Wikipedia and save himself wasting $2,000 to $3,000 on his proposed self-published book about how the world could get rid of tornadoes. Who’s publishing it ST, what’s the title and where can we buy it in June? I imagine you should have the cover image by now – we’d all love to see it posted here.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    Well [b]Malcolm and anyone else:[/b]

    Please explain how the necessary thermal energy actually gets into the Venus surface in order to raise its temperature by 5 degrees spread over the course of most of its four-month-long daytime.

    Don’t try to tell me that radiation does the trick, because neither direct solar radiation (20W/m^2) nor radiation from the less-hot atmosphere could supply the extra energy to raise the temperature from 732K to 737K.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]Arrogance is an extremely effective way to deal with group think. It is not until you rub their nose in it a few times that people learn to recognize the smell of their own shit. My arrogance is very deliberate and it is something for which I will never apologize. It’s modeled on that of Isaac Newton.

    So, uh, Pat, why don’t you and your fellow science groupies put your heads together and see if you can put forth some REPRODUCIBLE EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE that H2O can (somehow, magically I suppose) persist in the gaseous phase at ambient temperatures.

    Or would you prefer to continue putting your effort into remaining humble?[/quote]For clarity.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”][quote name=”carlallen”][quote]Many now realise the gravito-thermal effect is a reality and you can’t prove it doesn’t exist in a Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube.[/quote]

    The Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube has been around since 1933 and a half dozen different theories have been advance as to why hot air comes out one end and cold air out the other end…..
    , ergo the notion that the temperature differential that exists between the periphery and center of these tubes is caused by a gravito-thermal effect lacks credulity. Carl[/quote]

    #51 Doug Cotton 2014-04-19 07:27
    “Carl makes the same old mistake of assuming that it is high pressure that causes and maintains high temperature. Forces do not act on “pressure” Carl… The pressure gradient is merely a corollary which can be calculated from the temperature and density gradients which are the direct result of the force acting on mass and thus doing work.”

    #55 Jim McGill,solvingtornadoes 2014-04-19 10:59
    “So, in sharp contrast to what most people assumej/believe, evaporation does NOT involve creation of steam (individual H2O molecules). It involves clusters/droplets (10 to 60 molecules per cluster). That evaporation equates to steam is an urban legend. It’s not science.”

    You see Carl,
    It is only the arrogance of skeptics, deniers, like you, me, and Dr. Latour, that keeps un from understanding the true science of Doug, Jim, and all of the climate modelers!

    We’ve studied hundreds of unsuccessful exposures—’failures to convert’ [FTC]—and asked participants what went wrong with the rapport between scientist and citizen.

    [url]http://climatenuremberg.com/2014/04/08/the-great-alienator/
    [/url]
    The single biggest rapport-breaker?

    Arrogance.

    Time and time again, scientists find the public arrogant.

    Unless and until ordinary people show some humility and deference, the scientists will have little interest in helping them.

    Nowhere is arrogance more of a turn-off than in the climate debate. I wish I had a dollar for every time someone complained, “Just because they’re climate scientists, it doesn’t mean they’re smarter than us.”

    Yes it does. And until the general public gets over its self-importance, the scientists are just going to keep switching off.[/quote]Arrogance is an extremely effective way to deal with group think. It is not until you rub their nose in it a few times that people learn to recognize the smell of their own shit. My arrogance is very deliberate and it is something for which I will never apologize. It’s modeled on that of Isaac Newton.

    So, uh, Pat, why don’t you and your fellow science groupies put your heads together and see if you can put forth some REPRODUCIBLE EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE that H2O can (somehow, magically I suppose) persist in the gaseous phase at ambient temperatures.

    Or would you prefer to continue putting your effort into remaining humble?

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”carlallen”][quote]Many now realise the gravito-thermal effect is a reality and you can’t prove it doesn’t exist in a Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube.[/quote]

    The Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube has been around since 1933 and a half dozen different theories have been advance as to why hot air comes out one end and cold air out the other end…..
    , ergo the notion that the temperature differential that exists between the periphery and center of these tubes is caused by a gravito-thermal effect lacks credulity. Carl[/quote]

    #51 Doug Cotton 2014-04-19 07:27
    “Carl makes the same old mistake of assuming that it is high pressure that causes and maintains high temperature. Forces do not act on “pressure” Carl… The pressure gradient is merely a corollary which can be calculated from the temperature and density gradients which are the direct result of the force acting on mass and thus doing work.”

    #55 Jim McGill,solvingtornadoes 2014-04-19 10:59
    “So, in sharp contrast to what most people assumej/believe, evaporation does NOT involve creation of steam (individual H2O molecules). It involves clusters/droplets (10 to 60 molecules per cluster). That evaporation equates to steam is an urban legend. It’s not science.”

    You see Carl,
    It is only the arrogance of skeptics, deniers, like you, me, and Dr. Latour, that keeps un from understanding the true science of Doug, Jim, and all of the climate modelers!

    We’ve studied hundreds of unsuccessful exposures—’failures to convert’ [FTC]—and asked participants what went wrong with the rapport between scientist and citizen.

    [url]http://climatenuremberg.com/2014/04/08/the-great-alienator/
    [/url]
    The single biggest rapport-breaker?

    Arrogance.

    Time and time again, scientists find the public arrogant.

    Unless and until ordinary people show some humility and deference, the scientists will have little interest in helping them.

    Nowhere is arrogance more of a turn-off than in the climate debate. I wish I had a dollar for every time someone complained, “Just because they’re climate scientists, it doesn’t mean they’re smarter than us.”

    Yes it does. And until the general public gets over its self-importance, the scientists are just going to keep switching off.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Malcolm Shykles”]With a temperature inversion, warm air sits on cold air and there is a clear sky.

    Therefore heat radiates away from the Earth’s Surface with nothing to stop it.

    Very cold stable conditions occur and can last for weeks as in the UK winter of 1963.[/quote]The phenomena that has been labelled “temperature inversion” is *not* a temperature inversion. During calm (“stable”) environmental conditions heavier, moist air pools up and (most importantly) forms smooth boundary layers between the (warmer) moist air below and the (cooler and lighter) dry air above.

    In sharp contrast to the Meteorological group delusion, these “inversion layers” [b]do not[/b](and physically could not) exert any kind of downward force that, supposedly, traps or inhibits the (nonexistent) upward force of convection. (Don’t bother trying to get a Meteorologist to address this issue. Like an AGW alarmists confronted with the fact that CO2 warming is undetectable, they will evade this subject.)

    Understanding the true nature of this misnamed phenomena (inversion layers) is essential to understanding how tornadoes can be mitigated.

  • Avatar

    Malcolm Shykles

    |

    With a temperature inversion, warm air sits on cold air and there is a clear sky.

    Therefore heat radiates away from the Earth’s Surface with nothing to stop it.

    Very cold stable conditions occur and can last for weeks as in the UK winter of 1963.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Doug  Cotton”]all the water molecules freeing themselves from my backyard pool would instantly clump together (because they can’t ever exist in air as individual molecules)[/quote]Correct. This is one of the consequences of the quirkiness of the water’s hydrogen bond: the force associated with pulling one molecule of H2O into the atmosphere is GREATER than the force associated with pulling a cluster (size? — not well known.) of H2O molecules into the atmosphere. So, in sharp contrast to what most people assumej/believe, evaporation does NOT involve creation of steam (individual H2O molecules). It involves clusters/droplets (10 to 60 molecules per cluster). That evaporation equates to steam is an urban legend. It’s not science.

    Doug, use of a search engine is not a scientific method.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [b]So this is pinpointing where climatologists get it wrong about convection.[/b]

    Strictly speaking, convection includes diffusion and any advection, but here I am talking about advection.

    I wrote a lengthy article about convection last year, but John O’Sullivan did not understand the importance of it and did not publish it.

    The density gradient does not require advection. The same process forms the temperature gradient, so it also does not require advection. It all happens at the molecular level and, even though there is heat transfer (sometimes up, sometimes down or in any direction) you may not detect actual bulk air movement.

    Climatologists know that upward convection from Earth’s surface slows down and maybe ceases altogether in calm conditions in the early pre-dawn hours. But why is it so? Purely because the remaining temperature gradient is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium.

    Suppose there is then a temperature of 10C at the surface and 3C at 1Km above the surface when the equilibrium state is achieved and air movement (advection) ceases. What happens if the temperature somehow rises due to warmer winds at 1Km so it becomes 6C up there? We now have a temperature inversion, and guess which way heat now flows? Downwards – but to warmer regions.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    For Carl to try to claim that the temperature gradient would not evolve on Venus or Uranus or in the vortex tube just because of some motion of the gas is just as absurd as saying that no density gradient would evolve in any of these.

    Both density and temperature gradients evolve simultaneously because mechanical equilibrium is a condition of thermodynamic equilibrium, the latter being the state of maximum attainable entropy within the system constraints.

    The thermal gradient does not require convection, but if unbalanced energy potentials do develop with new absorption of energy at the top or bottom of a column, then there will be convection “flowing over the sloping thermal profile” away from the source of new energy that disrupted the state of thermodynamic equilibrium.

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that thermodynamic equilibrium will be approached and so entropy increases as it is approached. Because it can never go the other way, statistically there is a tendency towards the density and temperature gradients, that we of course do observe.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    Here’s a copy of my explanation in the Wikipedia talk …

    [b]It works because of the gravito-thermal effect[/b] Douglas Cotton (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics explains how a state of thermodynamic equilibrium evolves and has maximum entropy within the constraints of an isolated system. In a gravitational field (such as in Earth’s troposphere) thermodynamic equilibrium is also hydrostatic equilibrium because of the fact that each is the state of maximum entropy. When molecules are in free path motion between collisions, kinetic energy (KE) is interchanged with gravitational potential energy (PE). Temperature is based on the mean KE per molecule, as explained in Kinetic Theory. This means that gravity sets up both a density gradient and a temperature gradient. (The pressure is then a corollary, being proportional to the product of density and temperature, and it also has a Pressure-gradient force at hydrostatic equilibrium which is the same state of maximum entropy that is thus also thermodynamic equilibrium.)

    Now, by equating KE gain with PE loss, we deduce that the thermal gradient is the quotient of the acceleration due to the gravitational force and the weighted mean specific heat of the gases, as derived under lapse rate. For the vortex tube, the effective gravitational force is between about 10^6 and 10^7g, so let’s say 5 * 10^6. The approximate distance (internal radius) is about 5mm. The above quotient gives 9.8 * 5 * 10^6 degrees per kilometer, and that reduces to about 250 degrees in 5mm, as is observed according to the article. If a particular tube only generates 10^6g we would expect 50 degree temperature difference. So the hypothesis appears to be well supported by the data in this article. Douglas Cotton (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [b]Carl makes the same old mistake of assuming that it is high pressure that causes and maintains high temperature.[/b]

    Forces do not act on “pressure” Carl.

    You talk about work being done by molecules that move towards the centre of the vortex tube. But you don’t explain what that work is. The work is work gaining potential energy in the force field that simulates gravity.

    Yes I know what the tube does and I explained it [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vortex_tube#how_it_works]here[/url] (half way down) complete with calculations.

    What you don’t understand is that a force field acts on mass. So it acts on molecules, and obviously more molecules are thrust outwards due to the centrifugal force.

    Gravity (or any force field that acts upon molecules due to their mass) sets up (simultaneously) a density gradient and a temperature gradient.

    [b]The pressure gradient is merely a corollary which can be calculated from the temperature and density gradients which are the direct result of the force acting on mass and thus doing work.
    [/b]
    But the force only does work if there are initial unbalanced energy potentials. That is what you would have if you started with a horizontal isothermal and isobaric sealed insulated tube of gas which you then rotated to a vertical position. Obviously there would be some downward net movement of molecules “falling” under gravity. The extra net downward movement stops when the unbalanced energy potentials are cancelled. Then (at maximum entropy) you have isentropic conditions with homogeneous (PE+KE) as you do in the vortex tube which also has a cross-sectional thermal gradient of [i]-g.Cp[/i] where this [i]g[/i] is about a million times the Earth’s g-force. Because you have homogeneous (PE+KE) per molecule, you have a temperature gradient when there is thermodynamic equilibrium.

    [b]The state of maximum entropy is both hydrostatic equilibrium and thermodynamic equilibrium, the latter including mechanical equilibrium.[/b]

    It does not matter that there is general helical motion down the vortex tube. You would see the same effect just by rotating a sealed cylinder fast enough.

    And you are also wrong Carl, because if the gravito-thermal effect were not a reality, then you are completely unable to explain how the required energy gets into the surface of Venus in order to raise its temperature by 5 degrees.

    All this is in my [url=http://climate-change-theory.com]book[/url] now Carl.

  • Avatar

    carlallen

    |

    [quote]Many now realise the gravito-thermal effect is a reality and you can’t prove it doesn’t exist in a Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube.[/quote]

    The Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube has been around since 1933 and a half dozen different theories have been advance as to why hot air comes out one end and cold air out the other end.

    For those who are unaware these vortex tubes have compressed air forced into one end of the tube tangentially. This sets up a vortex within the tube creating a high-pressure region at the periphery of the tube and a low pressure area at the center of the tube. Because of the turbulence within the tube there is always some air moving radially within the tube either from the low-pressure center to the high-pressure periphery or vise versa. Just like in the troposphere when air moves vertically through pressure changes the adiabatic process is triggered and work is either done on the air or by the air. This, in turn, causes the air moving towards the high pressure periphery to warm via the work done on it and the air moving towards the low pressure center to cool as it does work.

    The tube is so designed that the hot peripheral air is extracted at one end and the cool air at the center is extracted at the other end. The vital aspect of the Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube is that the air must be constantly and rapidly moving for it to work. The gravito-thermal effect hypothesis asserts that a temperature gradient will spontaneously evolve within a [b]static[/b] column of air within a gravitational field. The air within a Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube is distinctly [b]not static[/b] (neither are the atmospheres on Venus and Uranus), ergo the notion that the temperature differential that exists between the periphery and center of these tubes is caused by a gravito-thermal effect lacks credulity.

    Carl

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    It’s worth repeating for a third time what the tornado fixer wrote – just for the laugh…

    [i]”It’s physically impossible for steam (individual water molecules) to exist in our atmosphere.”
    [/i]

    So it seems like we need to visit [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enceladus_(moon)]Enceladus[/url] to find water vapour coming from its cryovolcanoes, as there’s none of it in our atmosphere.

    If the hydrogen bonds have such a strong effect as ST seems to think they have, then all the water molecules freeing themselves from my backyard pool would instantly clump together (because they can’t ever exist in air as individual molecules) and clouds would form across my yard instantly watering the grass with rain drops. No, on second thoughts, it would not get that far. It would just rain back into the pool so I’d never need to top it up.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [quote]It’s physically impossible for [s]steam[/s] [water vapour] (individual water molecules) to exist in our atmosphere.[/quote]

    Come back [b]S[/b]olving[b]T[/b]ornadoes a week or so after you’ve edited all the [url=https://www.google.com.au/#q=wikipedia+%22water+vapor%22+atmosphere]Wikipedia articles[/url] about water vapour in the atmosphere and your new [b]S[/b]uper [b]T[/b]heory [s]stinks[/s] sticks.

    Meanwhile all the other readers here will be killing themselves laughing.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    “Why is the boiling point of H2O so anomalous in comparison to the gasses in our atmosphere (N2 O2 Argon”

    What’s your point? Do you seriously think that liquid nitrogen cannot evaporate at temperatures colder than its boiling point, just like water does? If so, you really do have a lot of physics yet to learn?
    [b]
    What subjects did you say you were studying in your undergraduate course? I don’t remember you answering?[/b]

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    As I have suggested before, go and edit Wikipedia, because this must be wrong according to the new [b]S[/b]uper [b]T[/b]heory of everything …

    [i]”On average, a fraction of the molecules in a glass of water have enough heat energy to escape from the liquid. Water molecules from the air enter the water in the glass, but as long as the relative humidity of the air in contact is less than 100% (saturation), the net transfer of water molecules will be to the air.”[/i]

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [i]”It’s physically impossible for steam (individual water molecules) to exist in our atmosphere.”[/i]

    The atmosphere where you live must be as foggy as your brain. You must envy the nice clear nights we have here, when we can see the stars through all the aqueous gas molecules which have not yet condensed into suspended water droplets like in clouds or fog.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Doug  Cotton”](continued)

    The important point is that, while relative humidity is less than 100%, some H2O molecules can and do exist by themselves in amongst other air molecules, and as such they are in gaseous form. Sure, if you had a container holding only H2O in gas form then the temperature of that gas would have to be above the relevant boiling point of water. But air saturated with water vapor (= aqueous gas = steam) at 20°C, has partial pressures of about 23 mbar of aqueous gas, 780 mbar of nitrogen, 210 mbar of oxygen and 9 mbar of argon. In other words, it is a mixture of these molecules all in gaseous form. If the partial pressure of the aqueous gas then increases (beyond the saturation point) some of it will condense from steam (=aqueous vapour = water vapor) to liquid water.

    Aqueous gas molecules are only about 60% the mass of other air molecules. Hence this water vapour (=steam) rises through the oxygen and nitrogen molecules (which may not necessarily rise or fall themselves) and that is how the water vapour gets to cloud level.[/quote]It’s physically impossible for steam (individual water molecules) to exist in our atmosphere.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Doug  Cotton”]Here are the relevant molecular weights supporting what I said about aqueous gas molecules being about 60% the mass of air molecules …

    Air 28.966

    Argon, Ar 39.948

    Carbon Dioxide, CO2 44.01

    Methane, CH4 16.044

    Nitrogen, N2 28.0134

    Oxygen, O2 31.9988

    Ozone 47.998

    Water Vapor – Steam, H2O 18.02

    [url=http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/molecular-weight-gas-vapor-d_1156.html]source[/url]

    Aqueous gas molecules are thus lighter than all the other molecules with significant presence in Earth’s atmosphere except methane.[/quote]
    So, uh, Doug. Why is the boiling point of H2O so anomalous in comparison to the gasses in our atmosphere (N2 O2 Argon)? As a physicist you should know this.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]If evaporate was always visible you would have a relevant point. But it isn’t. So you don’t.

    In science objectivity is not optional.[/quote]No reponse.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    Here are the relevant molecular weights supporting what I said about aqueous gas molecules being about 60% the mass of air molecules …

    Air 28.966

    Argon, Ar 39.948

    Carbon Dioxide, CO2 44.01

    Methane, CH4 16.044

    Nitrogen, N2 28.0134

    Oxygen, O2 31.9988

    Ozone 47.998

    Water Vapor – Steam, H2O 18.02

    [url=http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/molecular-weight-gas-vapor-d_1156.html]source[/url]

    Aqueous gas molecules are thus lighter than all the other molecules with significant presence in Earth’s atmosphere except methane.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    (continued)

    The important point is that, while relative humidity is less than 100%, some H2O molecules can and do exist by themselves in amongst other air molecules, and as such they are in gaseous form. Sure, if you had a container holding only H2O in gas form then the temperature of that gas would have to be above the relevant boiling point of water. But air saturated with water vapor (= aqueous gas = steam) at 20°C, has partial pressures of about 23 mbar of aqueous gas, 780 mbar of nitrogen, 210 mbar of oxygen and 9 mbar of argon. In other words, it is a mixture of these molecules all in gaseous form. If the partial pressure of the aqueous gas then increases (beyond the saturation point) some of it will condense from steam (=aqueous vapour = water vapor) to liquid water.

    Aqueous gas molecules are only about 60% the mass of other air molecules. Hence this water vapour (=steam) rises through the oxygen and nitrogen molecules (which may not necessarily rise or fall themselves) and that is how the water vapour gets to cloud level.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    Substances have three phases – solid, liquid and gas.

    H2O is no different. It has three phases, solid, liquid and gas.

    In its liquid form it can be just in small clusters of molecules usually referred to as suspended water droplets. This is what you see as fog, for example.

    The gas form of H2O is referred to by physicists and engineers as being “water vapour” or “steam” and there is no difference. Steam is what you don’t see, but know is there coming out of the spout of a boiling kettle. Only after that steam condenses (away from the kettle spout) do you see water (back in its liquid form) as suspended water droplets. I really don’t care if some undergraduate like ST wishes to call such suspended water droplets “steam” because you can easily see in “Engineering Toolbox” [url=http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/molecular-weight-gas-vapor-d_1156.html]here[/url] that they refer to water vapour and steam as being the same thing, namely the gas form of water. When water evaporates it becomes the gas form of water = steam.

    Look at the table linked above in Engineering Toolbox and you will see an entry reading …

    “Water Vapor – Steam, H2O 18.02 “

    So go and argue with them, ST, and edit Wikipedia while you’re about it. I’m really not interested in that overworked topic above, and it has nothing to do with climate change. Aqueous gas, water vapor or whatever you want to call it, exists in Earth’s atmosphere and usually makes up between 1% and 4% thereof. It causes lower surface temperatures, as my study of real world data shows.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [i]”The reason most people will never make scientific discoveries is because when they are confronted by contradictions they fail to embrace them and thus never hear the message the contradiction is trying to tell them.”[/i]

    Yep, for once I agree with ST. The huge “contradiction” as to why the Venus surface rises in temperature by 5 degrees when the mere 20W/m^2 of direct solar radiation could never cause it to do so, [i]does[/i] require embracing.

    That I did, and resolved the issue whilst keeping strictly to the laws of physics. Only one other person in the world (to my knowledge) has done so, quite independently, both of us coming to the same conclusion and first writing about it in 2012. You can of course read why [url=http://www.amazon.com/dp/1478729228]here[/url].

    Have a Happy Easter!

    [url=http://savedbythelamb.com][img]http://savedbythelamb.com/small_Cross.jpg[/img]
    [/url]

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [b]PSI gets a mention in Chapter 1:[/b]

    [i]”Plant life will thrive and the world will be able to produce more food if carbon dioxide levels continue to rise. Indeed there have been times in the distant past when such levels have been far higher, and there is some evidence that these levels are a result, not a cause of temperature cycles.

    “Many scientists and academics have started to realise that there are serious errors in the greenhouse conjecture, and organisations such as Principia Scientific International (PSI) and The Heartland Institute have attracted hundreds of members. However, when it comes to the detail as to just exactly what processes are at play in determining planetary atmospheric and surface temperatures, these organisations have not been able to produce a sound physical explanation which gels with observed facts. For example, the author has asked several key members of PSI if they can explain how the necessary energy gets to the surface of Venus, the deep atmosphere of Uranus or even the core of our own Moon in order to retain the temperatures that exist therein. In the author’s opinion, no valid explanation has been forthcoming, and yet these are critical issues very relevant to what is happening on Earth, because the laws and processes in physics apply throughout the universe.”[/i]

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    The Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube is all the empirical evidence I need to prove that the gravito-thermal effect is a reality, and thus the hypothesis in my [url=http://climate-change-theory.com]book[/url] is valid.

    [img]http://www.earth-climate.com/cover-back-large.jpg[/img].

  • Avatar

    Malcolm Shykles

    |

    Global Warming Hoax;
    Invented by Enron, publicised by Al Gore, pushed by political parties so as to fraudulently collect more tax in order to pay for ceaseless wars abroad and to fill the pockets of the politicians and many scientists working for the Met Office, Royal Society etc who should have known better.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”][quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]
    Jim,
    Why stop at 6-10,[/quote]I was being conservative. Actually I prefer 10 to 60. But whose to say.[/quote]
    Jim,
    Your response needs much cooking (time) on both sides. Else you have only a knee jerk claim, never thoughtful consideration!
    The ONION: “The FBI announced today that it has uncovered a plot by members of al-Qaeda to sit back and enjoy themselves while the United States collapses of its own accord. :-x[/quote]I can’t even imagine how frustrating it must be to be so sure you are right and so completely unable to say how or why.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]
    Jim,
    Why stop at 6-10,[/quote]I was being conservative. Actually I prefer 10 to 60. But whose to say.[/quote]
    Jim,
    Your response needs much cooking (time) on both sides. Else you have only a knee jerk claim, never thoughtful consideration!
    The ONION: “The FBI announced today that it has uncovered a plot by members of al-Qaeda to sit back and enjoy themselves while the United States collapses of its own accord. 😡

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]
    Jim,
    Why stop at 6-10,[/quote]I was being conservative. Actually I prefer 10 to 60. But whose to say. [quote name=”Pat Obar”]of which you never have described the volume.[/quote]Volume? Are you sure that’s the word you intend? Volume of what? [quote name=”Pat Obar”] Is it greater or less than that of 6-10 monomers of H2O? How do you know? Why not go to a geometrically correct 21-mer,[/quote]Sure.[quote name=”Pat Obar”] With one O2 molecule less 2 electrons ion, in the center surrounded by 20 H2O molecules one each at each surface of an icosahedron?[/quote]I really don’t know. But it sound/looks like you put some thought into this. Good for you. [quote name=”Pat Obar”] This puppy ay unknown volume, though still invisible “may” be large enough to promote nucleation of aqueous vapour leading to precipitation. This would answer the age old question of “Why, with no smog, does it still rain”?[/quote]Beats me.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]Dr Latour, I liked your article. I do not see science as any to defend against those that use no science.[/quote]LOL. You mean like science deniers?[/quote][quote name=”Pat Obar”] You might want to check the new climate paradigm at climatenuremerg.com. [/quote]

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes” In order to neutralize the high polarity of the individual H2O molecules you would need clumps of at least 6 to 10 molecules. Clumps/droplets smaller than this will simply not exist in our atmosphere. [/quote]
    Jim,
    Why stop at 6-10, of which you never have described the volume. Is it greater or less than that of 6-10 monomers of H2O? How do you know? Why not go to a geometrically correct 21-mer, With one O2 molecule less 2 electrons ion, in the center surrounded by 20 H2O molecules one each at each surface of an icosahedron? This puppy ay unknown volume, though still invisible “may” be large enough to promote nucleation of aqueous vapour leading to precipitation. This would answer the age old question of “Why, with no smog, does it still rain”?

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]
    This along with Doug Kottons “heat creep” which is the official terminology of physics, are correct. It is only the arrogance of the skeptics and deniers that keep them from learning! [/quote]
    The ONION: “The FBI announced today that it has uncovered a plot by members of al-Qaeda to sit back and enjoy themselves while the United States collapses of its own accord. 😡

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Dr Darko Butina”]So how does H2O molecule gets from its liquid state at altitude=0 to the liquid state at altitude 1000m?[/quote]

    http://www.solvingtornadoes.org

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]Dr Latour, I liked your article. I do not see science as any to defend against those that use no science.[/quote]LOL. You mean like science deniers?[quote name=”Pat Obar”] You might want to check the new climate paradigm at climatenuremerg.com.

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Doug  Cotton”]”steam is invisible and cannot be seen; however, in common language it is often used to refer to the visible mist of water droplets formed as this water vapor condenses in the presence of (cooler) air.” [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam]source[/url]

    I’m not a commoner when writing about physics: I use the official terminology of physics.

    It’s Good Friday now here and I’m signing out, so have a Happy Easter everyone.[/quote]If evaporate was always visible you would have a relevant point. But it isn’t. So you don’t.

    In science objectivity is not optional.[/quote]

    Every ones POV is always “objective”. Have you not heard of “object oriented programming”? [/quote]Are you losing your mind?[quote name=”Pat Obar”]

    Doug Kotton: “Steam is invisible and cannot be seen.” also “I’m not a commoner when writing about physics: I use the official terminology of physics.”

    Jim McGinn: “Water is a liquid at temperatures below 212 degrees F”

    Both, are correct of course,[/quote]Of course.[quote name=”Pat Obar”] When gaseous water (aqueous vapour) goes below 212 degrees, forms a new phase, the dimerization of H2O, having a molecular weight of 36.03056 g/mol.[/quote]In order to neutralize the high polarity of the individual H2O molecules you would need clumps of at least 6 to 10 molecules. Clumps/droplets smaller than this will simply not exist in our atmosphere. Before you keep blabbing I suggest you study water’s hydrogen bond with more rigor. [quote name=”Pat Obar”] This is more dense (JM: heavier) than the mean molecular weight of the air. This results in the precipitation of “invisible rain” that powers all atmospheric vorticity, all the way to the ground which is always below 212 degrees F.[/quote]Well, I have to at least give you credit for making an effort, Pat.[quote name=”Pat Obar”]
    This along with Doug Kottons “heat creep” which is the official terminology of physics, are correct. It is only the arrogance of the skeptics and deniers that keep them from learning!
    The ONION: “The FBI announced today that it has uncovered a plot by members of al-Qaeda to sit back and enjoy themselves while the United States collapses of its own accord.”[/quote]
    Reality doesn’t lie. People lie.

    The reason most people will never make scientific discoveries is because when they are confronted by contradictions they fail to embrace them and thus never hear the message the contradiction is trying to tell them.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    Dr Latour, I liked your article. I do not see science as any to defend against those that use no science. You might want to check the new climate paradigm at climatenuremerg.com.

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Doug  Cotton”]”steam is invisible and cannot be seen; however, in common language it is often used to refer to the visible mist of water droplets formed as this water vapor condenses in the presence of (cooler) air.” [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam]source[/url]

    I’m not a commoner when writing about physics: I use the official terminology of physics.

    It’s Good Friday now here and I’m signing out, so have a Happy Easter everyone.[/quote]If evaporate was always visible you would have a relevant point. But it isn’t. So you don’t.

    In science objectivity is not optional.[/quote]

    Every ones POV is always “objective”. Have you not heard of “object oriented programming”?

    Doug Kotton: “Steam is invisible and cannot be seen.” also “I’m not a commoner when writing about physics: I use the official terminology of physics.”

    Jim McGinn: “Water is a liquid at temperatures below 212 degrees F”

    Both, are correct of course, When gaseous water (aqueous vapour) goes below 212 degrees, forms a new phase, the dimerization of H2O, having a molecular weight of 36.03056 g/mol. This is more dense (JM: heavier) than the mean molecular weight of the air. This results in the precipitation of “invisible rain” that powers all atmospheric vorticity, all the way to the ground which is always below 212 degrees F.
    This along with Doug Kottons “heat creep” which is the official terminology of physics, are correct. It is only the arrogance of the skeptics and deniers that keep them from learning!
    The ONION: “The FBI announced today that it has uncovered a plot by members of al-Qaeda to sit back and enjoy themselves while the United States collapses of its own accord.”

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Doug  Cotton”]”steam is invisible and cannot be seen; however, in common language it is often used to refer to the visible mist of water droplets formed as this water vapor condenses in the presence of (cooler) air.” [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam]source[/url]

    I’m not a commoner when writing about physics: I use the official terminology of physics.

    It’s Good Friday now here and I’m signing out, so have a Happy Easter everyone.[/quote]If evaporate was always visible you would have a relevant point. But it isn’t. So you don’t.

    In science objectivity is not optional.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    “steam is invisible and cannot be seen; however, in common language it is often used to refer to the visible mist of water droplets formed as this water vapor condenses in the presence of (cooler) air.” [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam]source[/url]

    I’m not a commoner when writing about physics: I use the official terminology of physics.

    It’s Good Friday now here and I’m signing out, so have a Happy Easter everyone.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Doug  Cotton”]”Evaporation is the process by which water is converted from its liquid form to its vapor form and thus transferred from land and water masses to the atmosphere. Evaporation from the oceans accounts for 80% of the water delivered as precipitation, with the balance occurring on land, inland waters and plant surfaces.”

    [url=http://techalive.mtu.edu/meec/module01/EvaporationandTranspiration.htm]Source[/url].[/quote]What’s funny is that Doug is the only person here that is delusional enough to take a stand on this issue. Predictably, all Doug can do is continue to obscure the distinction between evaporate and steam. Note how effortlessly Pierre Latour has dodged this issue. It’s comical how people that are critical of AGW evasiveness will assume the same tactics when their own pseudo-scientific beliefs are in focus.

    It’s funny how PSI and the slayers can so easily be reduced to the desperation tactics that we see in alarmists.

    Evasiveness and paying lip service to empiricism is a tactic we expect from alarmists, not skeptics.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Doug  Cotton”][b]To silent readers:[/b]

    Ein[b]ST[/b]ein the Second continues to show a complete lack of understanding of evaporation[/quote]If you have evidence that evaporation involves steam then you should whining and present it.[quote name=”Doug  Cotton”]
    among other things, including tornadoes. He writes “Water is a liquid at temperatures below 212 degrees F” being American and probably not having a swimming pool in his back yard with evaporating water molecules well below 100°C. He can’t even understand Wikipedia articles like [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporation]this[/url]:

    “Evaporation is a type of vaporization of a liquid that[/quote]A “type” of vaporization? Address the issue you vague nitwit. Are you saying evaporation involves steam or not?[quote name=”Doug  Cotton”]
    occurs from the surface of a liquid into a gaseous phase that is not saturated with the evaporating substance. The other type of vaporization is boiling, which is characterized by bubbles of saturated vapor forming in the liquid phase. …

    Evaporation that occurs directly from the solid phase below the melting point, as commonly observed with ice at or below freezing or moth crystals (napthalene or paradichlorobenzine), is called sublimation.[/quote]Answer my questions you evasive twit.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [b]Pierre Latour[/b] wrote [i]”I am glad you liked my paper, Mr. Cotton. Thanks for the endorsement.”[/i]

    Yes there are some good points about Al Gore’s pecuniary interests and the fact that [i]”in 1981 James Hansen, NASA, assumed [the surface of] Earth was a black body, e = 1.0″[/i] This sounds a lot like my [url=http://www.climate-change-theory.com/]website[/url] which reads …

    [i]”In 1981 NASA’s Dr James Hansen made a huge mistake: he assumed that the Earth’s surface acts like what physics calls a “blackbody.” But a blackbody has to be surrounded by space, or totally insulated so that it cannot lose “heat” (which should be called thermal energy) by conduction or other means to its surrounds. … But the surface is continually transferring heat to the atmosphere by conduction and other non-radiative processes. Besides, the surface layer of the oceans (say 1cm thin) is nearly transparent.”[/i]

    But, but, but … the reality is that the greenhouse gas [b]water vapour cools [/b]and does not warm the surface at all, as a study shows.

    [img]http://climate-change-theory.com/study-graphic.jpg[/img]

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    “Our atmosphere isn’t hot enough to support the existence/persistence of steam.”

    [b]Nope.[/b] Our atmosphere isn’t [b]able[/b] to support the existence/persistence of [b]more[/b] steam (water vapour) when the relative humidity reaches 100%.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [img]http://earth-climate.com/energybudget.jpg[/img]

    Notice that figure in the bottom right. Nearly half the energy absorbed by the surface then gets out again via evaporation, but the oceans ain’t boiling Ein[b]ST[/b]ein

    That’s enough food for the young troll who thinks jet streams suck.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    “Evaporation is the process by which water is converted from its liquid form to its vapor form and thus transferred from land and water masses to the atmosphere. Evaporation from the oceans accounts for 80% of the water delivered as precipitation, with the balance occurring on land, inland waters and plant surfaces.”

    [url=http://techalive.mtu.edu/meec/module01/EvaporationandTranspiration.htm]Source[/url].

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [b]To silent readers:[/b]

    Ein[b]ST[/b]ein the Second continues to show a complete lack of understanding of evaporation among other things, including tornadoes. He writes “Water is a liquid at temperatures below 212 degrees F” being American and probably not having a swimming pool in his back yard with evaporating water molecules well below 100°C. He can’t even understand Wikipedia articles like [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporation]this[/url]:

    “Evaporation is a type of vaporization of a liquid that occurs from the surface of a liquid into a gaseous phase that is not saturated with the evaporating substance. The other type of vaporization is boiling, which is characterized by bubbles of saturated vapor forming in the liquid phase. …

    Evaporation that occurs directly from the solid phase below the melting point, as commonly observed with ice at or below freezing or moth crystals (napthalene or paradichlorobenzine), is called sublimation.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Doug  Cotton”]So, from the above two articles …

    water vapour = gas phase of water = steam

    “water vapor (= [b]steam[/b]) [b]is continuously generated by evaporation[/b] and removed by condensation”[/quote]

    Well, no, actually. Our atmosphere isn’t hot enough to support the existence/persistence of steam. Evaporation and condensation are associated with liquid water.

    It’s comical how hard people fight to maintain belief despite all evidence.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Doug  Cotton”][url=http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/molecular-weight-gas-vapor-d_1156.html]here[/url] the molecular weight of air is about 60% more than that of water vapour (= steam) and so water vapour molecules rise through air molecules due to pressure considerations. That’s why we have clouds up there.

    Now, of course these molecules of H2O radiate, acting like holes in the blanket that is formed mostly by nitrogen and oxygen. As they radiate (always only ever transferring thermal energy from warmer to cooler regions) they reduce the thermal gradient which gravity alone would have made steeper. That reduction leads to lower supported surface temperatures. That’s what the detailed study of real world data in the Appendix of my [url=http://climate-change-theory.com]book[/url] shows: the greenhouse gas water vapour cools.

    [b]It’s so easy to understand that I don’t know why Pierre has so much trouble following what I keep explaining.[/b][/quote]It’s inapplicable. Water is not a “normal” gas. Never get your science from the internet.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Doug  Cotton”]So, from the above two articles …

    water vapour = gas phase of water = steam

    “water vapor (= [b]steam[/b]) [b]is continuously generated by evaporation[/b] and removed by condensation”[/quote]

    Water is a liquid at temperatures below 212 degrees F.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [url=http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/molecular-weight-gas-vapor-d_1156.html]here[/url] the molecular weight of air is about 60% more than that of water vapour (= steam) and so water vapour molecules rise through air molecules due to pressure considerations. That’s why we have clouds up there.

    Now, of course these molecules of H2O radiate, acting like holes in the blanket that is formed mostly by nitrogen and oxygen. As they radiate (always only ever transferring thermal energy from warmer to cooler regions) they reduce the thermal gradient which gravity alone would have made steeper. That reduction leads to lower supported surface temperatures. That’s what the detailed study of real world data in the Appendix of my [url=http://climate-change-theory.com]book[/url] shows: the greenhouse gas water vapour cools.

    [b]It’s so easy to understand that I don’t know why Pierre has so much trouble following what I keep explaining.[/b]

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    So, from the above two articles …

    water vapour = gas phase of water = steam

    “water vapor (= [b]steam[/b]) [b]is continuously generated by evaporation[/b] and removed by condensation”

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    {continued)

    And Wiki has this to say about steam …

    “Steam is the technical term for the gaseous phase of water, which is formed when water boils. Technically speaking, in terms of the chemistry and physics, steam is invisible and cannot be seen … “

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    Silent readers can judge for themselves just how little this young undergraduate Jim McGinn (ST) knows by reading what is indeed a correct [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor]article[/url] in Wikipedia from which I quote …

    “Water vapor or water vapour or aqueous vapor is the gas phase of water. It is one state of water within the hydrosphere. Water vapor can be produced from the evaporation or boiling of liquid water or from the sublimation of ice. Unlike other forms of water, water vapor is invisible.[4] Under typical atmospheric conditions, water vapor is continuously generated by evaporation and removed by condensation. It is lighter than air and triggers convection currents that can lead to clouds.

    “Water vapor is a relatively common atmospheric constituent, present even in the Solar atmosphere as well as every planet in the Solar System.”

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [b]Darko[/b]. This guy Jim McGinn (who thinks he can rid the world of tornadoes and make water molecules spring from the oceans to the clouds – probably in the tornadoes he wants to get rid of) is a troll who should not be fed. His one-man “organisation” can be found at this .org website …
    http://www.solvingtornadoes.org/

    Let’s see if this comment of mine comes back to us in large type.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [b]It’s not about radiative forcing, Pierre.[/b]

    It’s about …

    Gravity, bringing about …

    thermodynamic equilibrium, with its …

    gravitationally induced thermal gradient

    that then allows “heat creep” to ..

    raise the temperature of Venus and …

    Earth

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    For more detail see [url=http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/enso-sst-ceres-forcing-and-feedback-the-travesty-continues/#comment-110518]this[/url] comment.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    A new study (published in [url=http://www.amazon.com/Why-Its-Carbon-Dioxide-After/dp/1478729228/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1397691970&sr=8-1&keywords=%22Why+it%27s+not+carbon+dioxide+after+all%22]this book[/url]) refutes the claim that water vapor causes greenhouse warming. Water vapor is supposed to be the most prolific greenhouse gas but real world temperature and rainfall records show that it cools rather than warms. So too would carbon dioxide.
    Back in the 19th century it was suggested that the reason we observe cooler temperatures as we go up high mountains is because the force of gravity acts upon individual molecules and affects the air temperature in that region. The temperature may be thought of as relating to the speed at which these air molecules move, and so, if they are “falling” they gather speed and end up being warmer, or if they are rising they cool.
    In recent years an interesting device was invented in which air is forced through this “Ranque Hilsch vortex tube” in a helical motion that creates a very strong artificial gravity field due to centrifugal force. The center of the tube is like the top of that mountain and, indeed, the air in the tube is cooled in the center and warmed at the outside. So this “gravito-thermal” effect, as it is called, is clearly demonstrated to be a reality in the vortex tube, just as it is in a planet’s atmospheric troposphere.
    The laws of physics can be used to explain just how and why this temperature gradient is formed by gravity, and it is found on all planets with atmospheres. But its existence has been overlooked by so-called “climatologists” who have assumed that Earth’s troposphere would have had uniform temperatures throughout if it had not been for so-called “greenhouse gases” like water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane and a few other radiating gases somehow warming the surface with energy sent from the far colder atmosphere.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Dr Darko Butina”]#3 – if you are selling your book on back of Pierre’s excellent article you should at least show some basic understanding of physicochemical properties of water. [/quote]Well, you know, I’m not running a hand holding service here. I’ve provided you with big clues (hydrogen bond) as to what you can do get an understanding of why/how this notion that steam can persist in the atmosphere is looney. That you chose to ignore it is your choice. You need to take responsibility for your own education and not expect everybody to spoon feed you on all of this.
    [quote name=”Dr Darko Butina”]
    We KNOW that 70% of Earth’s surface is covered by water in its liquid/solid state,[/quote]Irrelevant.
    [quote name=”Dr Darko Butina”] and we also KNOW that the clouds consist of H2O in liquid and solid state (depending on altitude).[/quote]And we know that steam does not exist in our atmosphere. Right?
    [quote name=”Dr Darko Butina”] So how does H2O molecule gets from its liquid state at altitude=0 to the liquid state at altitude 1000m?[/quote]
    [quote name=”Dr Darko Butina”]You tell us why you choose the believe that the answer to your question MUST be convection. Then I’ll explain to you why it can’t be.

  • Avatar

    Dr Darko Butina

    |

    #3 – if you are selling your book on back of Pierre’s excellent article you should at least show some basic understanding of physicochemical properties of water. We KNOW that 70% of Earth’s surface is covered by water in its liquid/solid state, and we also KNOW that the clouds consist of H2O in liquid and solid state (depending on altitude). So how does H2O molecule gets from its liquid state at altitude=0 to the liquid state at altitude 1000m?

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote]Written by Dr Pierre Latour PE: “Earth’s temperature increased naturally 0.6C from 1976 to 1998 […] Earth’s atmospheric temperature is not measurable.” [/quote]

    Contradiction.

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    W[quote]ritten by Dr Pierre Latour PE: “There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas because the atmosphere has no glass house.”[/quote]

    This is a straw man argumentation.

    There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas because the so called “greenhouse effect” is physically impossible, not because of absence of a glass house in the atmosphere.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    Excellent article Pierre. I do, however, take exception with one common misconception that you demonstrate in the following comment: “Atmospheric radiation absorption and emission is dominated by the presence of all three phases of H2O. “

    The gaseous phase of water (steam) plays no role in our atmosphere. This myth persists for the same reason the CO2 myth persists, because people just refuse to view it critically.

    Along the same lines, one of the problems that currently has atmospheric physicists stumped is that according to calculations of fluid dynamics (not thermodynamics) there should be more friction in the atmosphere than there is and this friction (storms) should be more even distributed and constant at all parts of the globe than it is. Consequently there is “missing” lubrication in the atmosphere, the explanation for which has yet to be supplied by science. It is, IMO, an opportunity waiting for somebody to come along and fill in the missing piece of that puzzle. In June I will be releasing my book which deals with the physics of the vortex. Therein I will hypothesize how vortexes are the structure of our atmospheric circulation, manifested in the jet stream, a structural element in our atmosphere. It will propose previously undiscovered phase of water, which I have labelled the Vortex Phase. And if will attempt to fill in this missing piece of the puzzle and solve tornadoes also.

    I applaud your commitment to empiricism. But I think empiricism should be applied indiscriminately, not selectively.

  • Avatar

    Pierre Latour

    |

    I am glad you liked my paper, Mr. Cotton. Thanks for the endorsement.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    You can’t prove us wrong, Pierre. Many now realise the gravito-thermal effect is a reality and you can’t prove it doesn’t exist in a Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube. There’s nothing quite like this empirical evidence which thus proves any greenhouse warming effect is pure fiction.

Comments are closed