Science Goes Over-Under, Inside-Out

Written by Joseph A Olson, PE

There is likely no life learning experience as instructive as a Near Death Experience. When the NDE involves an uncommon encounter with the unseen power of a common, everyday occurrence, CLOUDS. gliderSeen from afar, cumulus clouds are benign giant puffs of cotton balls floating across the sky. While you can notice slight changes in shape, you have no real understanding of the real forces at work within.

For several years, I have been joined by the world’s top scientists in an effort to expose Carbon Climate Forcing as the worst science in history. We have employed the full range of scientific arguments, and yet the myth persists, that Carbon Dioxide and it’s accomplice, water vapor, WARM the Earth. There is nothing like first-hand experience to dispel a myth.

Just released in the Journal of Geophysical Research is an article on the “ground breaking report on clouds causing cooling” [1]. After arguing just this point in dozens of articles over the last several years, it is time to share my personal anecdote on the behavior of water vapor INSIDE of a cloud.

 

I started flight training in Feb of 1976 on a lark. Growing up with plastic Revelle and flying balsa Thimbledrone model aircraft, it was easy to dream of being a pilot. By June I had thirteen hours of instruction and seven hours of solo in my log book. The next training was the ‘cross country solo’. I left the Laport, Texas airport early on a Saturday morning en route to Brownsville with a fuel stop in Corpus Christi.

Skies were 25% broken cumulus with 2500 ft ceiling, meeting Visual Flight Rules. The cloud tops were at 7500 ft, where you got better radio navigation signals and the air was also much cooler. The Corpus stop was routine as was the first hour headed south. What I did not notice was that the clouds were becoming less and less broken…and I was in for a permanent life lesson.

Airport radar and radio signals work on line of sight and are therefore a function of altitude….although help from the Harlingen or Brownsville airports at this point would be useless. As I approached the cloud tops at 7500 ft I noticed the surface was in constant turmoil with puffs swirling out and disappearing. The next thing I noticed was that these things were HUGE…and now only 50% broken I could not possible bank and turn my way between these cotton puff giants.

What happened next is rare, dangerous and prohibited for VFR pilots and non IFR aircraft. I banked between the first two clouds only to make a bull’s eye approach at 7300 ft into the next cloud. Perhaps you’ve noticed some ‘turbulence’ in a 120,000 lb passenger plane traveling 400 mph as you flew through a cloud. I was in a 1600 lb aircraft with a maximum speed of 110 mph.

Entering the cloud felt like hitting a wall. Suddenly everything was white, it was raining from every direction and the wind was howling. Most aircraft instruments operate using a static port on the side of the plane or a pitot tube which faces forward. There were massive vertical wind shears that rendered the instruments useless. The altitude, air speed, rate of climb and artificial horizon gauges were all bouncing peg to peg.

“Flying by the seat of your pants” quickly becomes the over-riding instinct. You are now in vertigo and your butt thinks it knows where the Earth is. You are fooled by the changing gravity of the rapid up and down wind shear. You are surrounded by glowing white light and cannot see further than ten feet in any direction. The wings are shaking at beyond maximum design loading and the LAST thing you want is your BUTT flying the plane.

The propeller is used to 110 mph wind from the nose, but is disturbed by the 200 mph up and down winds. Throttle back to avoid over revving, then concentrate on the only two instruments that are still functioning, the magnetic compass and the curved glass tube with a ball in glycerin. Inside a cloud, where everything is rapidly changing, the Earth’s magnetic field and gravity are the only constants. After the longest minute of my life, I popped out of the cloud into blue skies above, altitude 7000 ft and my next white giant straight ahead.

Repeating this process another ten or twelve times brought me to the bottom of the cloud formations. There you could easily see the rain falling to the warm bottom and rapidly evaporating, then rising back to the top. During the perilous decent I had lost my visual flight references (highways) and was now below radio and radar signal altitude.

Since nothing below looked like South Texas, my position must be Northern Mexico. I turned northeast, spotted the Gulf and turned up the Rio Grande on my way to the airport, which I could now contact by radio.

“Brownsville Tower to Cessna 22163, you are cleared to land on runway 35, when you

do your roll out, taxi over to the control tower, we want to have a chat”.

The “chat” included a tour of the control tower, review of the Notice to Airmen on the Harlingen VOR (radio nav) and Brownsville radar equipment being down for service that weekend, along with some friendly advice on my future air adventures. (FAA was kind to novice pilots back then)

Notice to Clima-clownologists

WATER VAPOR IS NOT A GREENHOUSE GAS AND CLOUDS DO NOT WARM THE EARTH. If you still have trouble understanding the simple empirical truth of clouds, then get a telescope, and with the Sun at your back, look at a cloud. You will see the rapid vaporization of the visible water droplets all along the sides and bottom.

This now invisible, heated water vapor rises RAPIDLY to the cloud top, where it cools, condenses and the falls again. The average cumulus cloud weights 800 tons. Any mass between you and a heat source will slow heat transfer and therefore be a cooling agent.

During the day, clouds absorb heat at low altitudes, release heat at high altitudes and COOL the Earth. At night, this same process SLOWS cooling, but does not heat the Earth. Maybe it takes a “New Paper Finds Clouds Act as Negative Feedback” to challenge your false GHG orthodoxy, or maybe you just need to LOOK at a few clouds.

Joseph A Olson, PE

July 6, 2012

[1] http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/new-paper-finds-clouds-act-as-negative.html

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments (51)

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]All of this Aqueous vapour remains as an unpaired molecule,[/quote]
    Wouldn’t it be easier to just make a retraction?

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]
    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]All of this Aqueous vapour remains as an unpaired molecule,[/quote]
    It’s regrettable that you trolls can’t provide us with a link to your imagination so I can verify this absurd claim.[/quote]
    No response.
    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]What happens in clouds is unknown by Physicists,[/quote] That’s right. It’s unknown. But you won’t see a Meteorologists confirming/admitting this.
    [/quote]
    I have never met a Meteorologist, nor do I wish to do that. I do not know, always! I am content with no knowledge. I enjoy screaming “What the Fuck, over”, the story of my whole life!

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]Consider particurly the enthalpy of moist air, and also study the triple point of water!
    [/quote]Present an argument, you deceptive twit, or go away.[/quote] No response.

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]At any temperature above 0.01 Celsius and pressure above 611.7 Pascals, water may exist in the air “in a gas phase” up to the saturation partial pressure at that temperature and pressure.[/quote]That’s dew point, you idiot.
    Did I not just explain this to you?
    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]All of this Aqueous vapour remains as an unpaired molecule,[/quote]It’s regrettable that you trolls can’t provide us with a link to your imagination so I can verify this absurd claim.[/quote]No response.
    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]What happens in clouds is unknown by Physicists,[/quote] That’s right. It’s unknown. But you won’t see a Meteorologists confirming/admitting this.

    Imagine thousands of people with the same commitment to maintaining obscurity that we see in Dug Kotton–the same tactic of pretending to have all the answers yet when challenged sending you on a wild goose chase (not unlike what you are doing here)–and you will understand what I am up against trying to sell my thinking to Meteorologists. So, uh, Pat, why don’t you appeal to Meteorologists to help you answer these questions?

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]It is easy to find papers confirming the equations for density of air INCLUDING HUMIDITY.[/quote]Yet not one of them mention that water is not a normal gas. And that renders these equations worthless. Facts are not optional.

    One can also find many papers that claim CO2 causes warming. And you won’t find one that has actually measured/tested it.

    The precedent of using phoney facts to support convenient truths was set by the field of Meteorology. Climatology is just following Meteorology’s lead.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]
    [url]www.engineeringtoolbox.com/molecular-mass-air-d_679.html‎[/url][/quote]Nothing was measured here, you imbecile. Water is a liquid at ambient temperatures.
    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]
    Look at Related Topics and all Related Documents.[/quote]We’ve already done that, you idiot. You have no evidence. All you have is belief. Pointing to all the people who share you stupid belief doesn’t make it true.
    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]Consider particurly the enthalpy of moist air, and also study the triple point of water!
    [/quote]Present an argument, you deceptive twit, or go away.
    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]At any temperature above 0.01 Celsius and pressure above 611.7 Pascals, water may exist in the air “in a gas phase” up to the saturation partial pressure at that temperature and pressure.[/quote]That’s dew point, idiot.
    Did I not just explain this to you, you retard.
    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]

    All of this Aqueous vapour remains as an unpaired molecule,[/quote]It’s regrettable that you trolls can’t provide uus with a link to your imagination so I can verify this absurd claim.
    [quote name=”Pat Obar”] even supersaturated, until condensation can begin. What happens in clouds is unknown by Physicists,[/quote] LOL. It’s unknown, yet you say you know.
    What a perfect fool!
    [quote name=”Pat Obar”] Engineers do not fly into clouds twice, as they are violent, rip your wings off, convection going up and down, especially in those cute puffy ones. Drop your fantasy please.[/quote]Drop you delusion that you are a scientists. You are just another science groupy.
    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]
    Engineers measure, Physicists, write learned papers, but still cannot find “their” ass with both hands! :lol:[/quote]Believers believe. Scientists measure and test. Pay, you are no scientists. You are just a science groupy.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”][quote]Bouyancy has no effect on accuracy of weighing a volume of air that I’ve seen. [/quote]
    Arguing from ignorance! Basically, if you have not seen it, it can’t be correct. [/quote]No, I just think your confused. It hardly seems your point is relevant.
    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]7
    [quote]So I have no idea what you are talking about?[/quote]
    Now THAT I will believe! [/quote]That’s because your an idiot who can’t formulate your thoughts.
    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]

    [quote]Or maybe you mispoke?[/quote]
    Consider a 1 cm^3 of aluminum. It has a mass of ~ 2.7 g. But is displaces 1 cm^3 of air, which is about 1.3 mg. So the mass that a scale reads will be off by over 1 mg, (or 1 part in 2000). [/quote]Which is irrelevant to anything we’ve been discussing. Read the thread before you jump in.
    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]For people doing high-accuracy measurements, being off by 500 ppm is HUGE![/quote]And this is irrelevant, you idiot.
    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”] If you want to get down 1 ppm, you would have to know the density of air to within 1 part in 500, at which point both the temperature and the humidity make a significant contribution to the density. So the people who calibrate high-accuracy scales (or who use them) must know the density of air to a high degree of accuracy. And guess what, they use those equations that you denigrate![/quote]Let me get this straight. You are saying we should just pretend that steam (singular water molecules, unattached to other water molecules) can/does exist so that we don’t denigrate people that assumed otherwise?
    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]
    Why do you think those equations were created to begin with???[/quote]Who cares. I’m only concerned about accuracy. I’ll leave the hand wringing to people like you and Pat.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]Hi troll,
    Will you ever learn anything? 😕 [/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.

    Maybe science isn’t your thing.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Pat says: [quote]Please write with the same clarity about the nonsence claim that all mass radiates (flux) elsewere proportional to the temperature raised to the fourth power independent of the opposing radiance of all surrounds?[/quote]

    I suspect you know the gist of what I will say
    In any collection of molecules (or atoms or a solid or a liquid) above absolute zero, some of the molecules will be in an excited state (eg electrons jumping to a higher orbital or polyatomic molecules vibrating).

    Any molecule in an excited state has a probability of emitting a photon and falling back to the ground state (or at least to a less excited state).

    The higher the temperature, the more likely the molecule is to be in an excited state, and the more likely it is to emit a photon. [NOTE: this depends on the state of the molecule, not the state of the surroundings].[/quote]

    What a complete desecration of what Boltzmann was trying to explain in his statistical dynamics, which is useful sometimes!

    [quote]The rate at which a collection of particles in an object emits photons is (sigma)(epsilon) A T(object)^4 (as determined by experiment and supported by theory). [/quote]

    Please define a “photon” as you understand it as a thing?
    The rest of us consider a “photon” as a useful theoretical concept that can be used to understand the energy delivery by an electromagnetic field in that particular direction.
    -SNIP nonsense-

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”][quote]Or maybe you mispoke?[/quote]
    Consider a 1 cm^3 of aluminum. It has a mass of ~ 2.7 g. But is displaces 1 cm^3 of air, which is about 1.3 mg. So the mass that a scale reads will be off by over 1 mg, (or 1 part in 2000).

    For people doing high-accuracy measurements, being off by 500 ppm is HUGE! If you want to get down 1 ppm, you would have to know the density of air to within 1 part in 500, at which point both the temperature and the humidity make a significant contribution to the density. So the people who calibrate high-accuracy scales (or who use them) must know the density of air to a high degree of accuracy. And guess what, they use those equations that you denigrate! Why do you think those equations were created to begin with???[/quote]
    Tim,
    I hardly know how to respond! Are you a closet engineer that believes, “if you cannot measure it, it ain’t”?
    The radiative flux between two surfaces with little delta temperature has been measured to the same precision. At zero delta temperature there is “no” detectable flux. Your physics clowns claim vast “flux” to absolute zero, in two opposing directions, with some tiny net “flux”, including “zero net”.
    Can Your physics clowns ever demonstrate the direction of absolute zero, when no such thing can be detected in this environment? With this earth atmosphere, the small delta temperature, within 30 meters, controls the magnitude of thermal electromagnetic radiative flux in each and every direction. That magnitude is small, but always in the direction of lower thermal radiative potential, in each direction! 🙂

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Pat says: [quote]Please write with the same clarity about the nonsence claim that all mass radiates (flux) elsewere proportional to the temperature raised to the fourth power independent of the opposing radiance of all surrounds?[/quote]

    I suspect you know the gist of what I will say …

    In any collection of molecules (or atoms or a solid or a liquid) above absolute zero, some of the molecules will be in an excited state (eg electrons jumping to a higher orbital or polyatomic molecules vibrating).

    Any molecule in an excited state has a probability of emitting a photon and falling back to the ground state (or at least to a less excited state).

    The higher the temperature, the more likely the molecule is to be in an excited state, and the more likely it is to emit a photon. [NOTE: this depends on the state of the molecule, not the state of the surroundings].

    The rate at which a collection of particles in an object emits photons is (sigma)(epsilon) A T(object)^4 (as determined by experiment and supported by theory).

    If there happen to be other particles around emitting their own photons, the object can absorb some of those photons. If the surroundings are a uniform temperature, then it turns out the object will absorb photons at a rate of (sigma)(epsilon) A T(surroundings)^4.

    The net rate of photons leaving will be
    (sigma)(epsilon) [T(object)^4 – T(surroundings)^4) ]

    ****************************

    Yes, the earth does send photons to the sun. Yes, these photons will impact the temperature of the sun. But of course, the power is so trivially small that it has no noticeable impact.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    [quote]Bouyancy has no effect on accuracy of weighing a volume of air that I’ve seen. [/quote]
    Arguing from ignorance! Basically, if you have not seen it, it can’t be correct.

    [quote]So I have no idea what you are talking about?[/quote]
    Now THAT I will believe!

    [quote]Or maybe you mispoke?[/quote]
    Consider a 1 cm^3 of aluminum. It has a mass of ~ 2.7 g. But is displaces 1 cm^3 of air, which is about 1.3 mg. So the mass that a scale reads will be off by over 1 mg, (or 1 part in 2000).

    For people doing high-accuracy measurements, being off by 500 ppm is HUGE! If you want to get down 1 ppm, you would have to know the density of air to within 1 part in 500, at which point both the temperature and the humidity make a significant contribution to the density. So the people who calibrate high-accuracy scales (or who use them) must know the density of air to a high degree of accuracy. And guess what, they use those equations that you denigrate! Why do you think those equations were created to begin with???

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    7[quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Pat Obar”][quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]
    the
    humidity lowers the density of air.

    The simple fact is that this is so well known, that people take it for granted. Metrologists know it. Meteorologists Pilots know it. Chemists know it. Physicists know it.[/quote]

    Hi, Tim Folkerts,
    You are indeed correct in all of this![/quote]Guess again. :lol:[/quote]

    Hi troll,
    Will you ever learn anything? 😕
    Google molecular mass of air (or better)
    [url]www.engineeringtoolbox.com/molecular-mass-air-d_679.html‎[/url]
    Look at Related Topics and all Related Documents. Consider particurly the enthalpy of moist air, and also study the triple point of water!
    At any temperature above 0.01 Celsius and pressure above 611.7 Pascals, water may exist in the air “in a gas phase” up to the saturation partial pressure at that temperature and pressure. All of this Aqueous vapour remains as an unpaired molecule, even supersaturated, until condensation can begin. What happens in clouds is unknown by Physicists, Engineers do not fly into clouds twice, as they are violent, rip your wings off, convection going up and down, especially in those cute puffy ones. Drop your fantasy please.
    Engineers measure, Physicists, write learned papers, but still cannot find “their” ass with both hands! 😆

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”][quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]

    humidity lowers the density of air.

    The simple fact is that this is so well known, that people take it for granted. Metrologists know it. Meteorologists Pilots know it. Chemists know it. Physicists know it.[/quote]

    Hi, Tim Folkerts,
    You are indeed correct in all of this![/quote]Guess again. 😆

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]

    humidity lowers the density of air.

    The simple fact is that this is so well known, that people take it for granted. Metrologists know it. Meteorologists Pilots know it. Chemists know it. Physicists know it.[/quote]

    Hi, Tim Folkerts,
    You are indeed correct in all of this! Please write with the same clarity about the nonsence claim that all mass radiates (flux) elsewere proportional to the temperature raised to the fourth power independent of the opposing radiance of all surrounds? Is there any evidence, that the 250-300 Kelvin earth radiates any energy whatsoever in the direction to and into the Suns 78 micro

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]It is easy to find papers confirming the equations for density of air INCLUDING HUMIDITY.[/quote]And you won’t find one that has actually tested it. What a shame.
    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”] Higher humidity = lower density of air = less buoyant force = heavier mass readings. [/quote]Bouyancy is easy enough to understand. You are just going to get confused again.
    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Yes, practical mass measurements around the world confirm at humidity lowers the density of air.[/quote]Like you have a clue.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]The simple fact is that this is so well known, that people take it for granted. Meteorologists know it. Meteorologists Pilots know it. Chemists know it. Physicists know it.[/quote]LOL. And in your mind this is a good thing? When everybody tells you something is known and can’t tell you how it is known the one thing you know for sure is that it is not known it is believed. And if it is widely believed then it will never be tested. And if it is untested it can’t be known.

    Water is not a normal gas at atmospheric temperatures, in fact it’s not a gas at all, its a liquid.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Accurate measurements of mass are affected by buoyant forces from the air.[/quote]
    Bouyancy has no effect on accuracy of weighing a volume of air that I’ve seen. So I have no idea what you are talking about? Or maybe you mispoke?

    The density of air affects those forces, so it is important to know the density of the air accurately.

    It is easy to find papers discussing this phenomenon. It is easy to find papers confirming the equations for density of air INCLUDING HUMIDITY. Higher humidity = lower density of air = less buoyant force = heavier mass readings. Yes, practical mass measurements around the world confirm at humidity lowers the density of air.

    The simple fact is that this is so well known, that people take it for granted. Metrologists know it. Meteorologists Pilots know it. Chemists know it. Physicists know it.[/quote]

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Accurate measurements of mass . . .
    [/quote]
    What specific measurements? Data? Imaginary? Theoretical? Where are you coming from?

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    ST,

    Accurate measurements of mass are affected by buoyant forces from the air. The density of air affects those forces, so it is important to know the density of the air accurately.

    It is easy to find papers discussing this phenomenon. It is easy to find papers confirming the equations for density of air INCLUDING HUMIDITY. Higher humidity = lower density of air = less buoyant force = heavier mass readings. Yes, practical mass measurements around the world confirm at humidity lowers the density of air.

    The simple fact is that this is so well known, that people take it for granted. Metrologists know it. Meteorologists Pilots know it. Chemists know it. Physicists know it.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]Pat Obar: Air with high “aqueous vapour” is less dense than dry air.
    Solvingtornadoes: “Tell us how you know this. Or make a retraction. Your imagination is not evidence.”
    Pat Obar: I do not “know” this, . . .[/quote]That’s right. Nobody does. And anybody that says they do is lieing or confused.
    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]Clouds with drizzle drops, is more dense than air with high “aqueous vapour” (which) is still less dense than dry air.[/quote]
    “LOL. How is this remotely possible? It’s comical… -snip BS-
    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]Please Google “molecular mass of air”. Look at the density of dry air and that of high relative humidity air. This may not be “true”[/quote]You got that right! It isn’t true. These calculations were done assuming water is a “normal” gas at ambient temperatures. The reality is that not only is water not a “normal” gas at ambient temperatures but it is not a gas at all, it’s a liquid.[quote name=”Pat Obar”] but truly is the measured numbers[/quote]As you indicated above, it truly is NOT measured. It is calculated and part of that calculation involves faulty logic.[quote name=”Pat Obar”] that aeronautical engineers use to calculate the reduction in takeoff weight needed at high altitudes, high relative humidity or both. Read that, believe that, or you “will” go “through” rather than “over” the fence at the end of the runway. What does Jim McGinn have to say of what is, rather than his fantasy![/quote]Consider the possibility that the plane might be safer still if it engineers has a literal understanding rather than one that is, in part, based on superstition.
    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]ST: If Pat was a Meteorologists I would not have even gotten this far.[/quote]I are not a Meteorologist, I are a retired electrical engineer[/quote]Well, then you should understand the concept of reverse engineering, which I am applying to the atmosphere. And, therein, you should understand the importance of getting the details right. Because if you don’t you’ll be forever lost.
    [quote name=”Pat Obar”](“Sparky” by degree), electro-optical engineer (by experiance). I have worked with the best, and unlearned all that I was brainwashed into in some University! I have found that skilled folk with personal integrity, must always disagree with your POV, as they “must” have a different POV.[/quote]Well, that’s a good point. Opposition helps with maintaining focus. And for that I do appreciate your feedback.
    [quote name=”Pat Obar”] To understand, means that you “must’ measure all orthogonal POVs, I cannot!!! I now older, am comfortable with “Beats the shit out of me”![/quote]
    Not me. Not ever.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]Air with high “aqueous vapour” is less dense than dry air.[/quote]
    “Tell us how you know this. Or make a retraction. Your imagination is not evidence.”

    I do not “know” this, some times I rely on others that have attemted “measurement” rather than “theory”. The best measurment of atmospheric air density, is the reduction in landing gear compression at a fixed differential air velocity at some “prantadil” number *(or somthing) of wich I no idea!

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]Clouds with drizzle drops, is more dense than air with high “aqueous vapour” (which) is still less dense than dry air.[/quote]
    “LOL. How is this remotely possible? It’s comical… -snip BS-
    Please Google “molecular mass of air”. Look at the density of dry air and that of high relative humidity air. This may not be “true” but truly is the measured numbers that aeronautical engineers use to calculate the reduction in takeoff weight needed at high altitudes, high relative humidity or both. Read that, believe that, or you “will” go “through” rather than “over” the fence at the end of the runway. What does Jim McGinn have to say of what is, rather than his fantasy!

    If Pat was a Meteorologists I would not have even gotten this far.[/quote]

    I are not a Meteorologist, I are a retired electrical engineer (“Sparky” by degree), electro-optical engineer (by experiance). I have worked with the best, and unlearned all that I was brainwashed into in some University! I have found that skilled folk with personal integrity, must always disagree with your POV, as they “must” have a different POV. To understand, means that you “must’ measure all orthogonal POVs, I cannot!!! I now older, am comfortable with “Beats the shit out of me”!

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]If Pat was a Meteorologists I would not have even gotten this far.[/quote]

    Oh well. At least you looked. Nobody who didn’t see what you saw can blame you for not jumping. 😉

    I jumped a long time ago. My feet are not tied to these group delusions.

    Making scientific discoveries is not easy. But it’s a lot easier when one’s competitors have tied themselves to the wall.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]Air with high “aqueous vapour” is less dense than dry air.[/quote]Tell us how you know this. Or make a retraction. Your imagination is not evidence.
    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]Clouds with drizzle drops, is more dense than air with high “aqueous vapour” is still less dense than dry air.[/quote]LOL. How is this remotely possible? It’s comical how you are skeptical of AGW but when it comes to Meteorology’s psueudo-science not only are you not skeptical but you pretend to see evidence when it is plainly observable that no such evidence exists.

    It’s comical how many AGW skeptics stop being skeptics and start turning into groupies, playing word games, (pretending they can’t define simple concepts), and pretending they don’t see requests for experimental verification of their assertions.
    Address the issue, you evasive twit, or make a retraction!
    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]It is the more dense dry air that keeps the cloud aloft.[/quote]Here we go again. When pseudo-scientists are exposed they tend to repeat their beliefs over and over again. It’s there way of pretending they didn’t hear the questions and pretending to have answered the question to preserve their sacred beliefs. Anybody that ever tried to talk sense into an AGW believer will recognize these tactics.

    Note that this conversation took place over a year ago. That means it took Pat a whole year to get up the gumption to broach the subject in the conversation we had recently.

    If Pat was a Meteorologists I would not have even gotten this far.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”visiting physicist”]You could start with a better understanding of the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics]Second Law of Thermodynamics[/url] which [i]”states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems [b]spontaneously evolve[/b]toward thermodynamic equilibrium—the state of maximum entropy.”
    [/i]
    Do you have some difficulty with understanding that the word “evolve” refers to a process?[/quote]Yes. I have a big problem with that. It doesn’t refer to a process. It refers to a state. It states the word “state” explicitly. It’s right there in black and white. It’s as plain as the nose on your face. Moreover, it’s not a specific state, it is a general state that any and all processes evolve towards. It is not a process in any way whatsoever.

    If you lack the ability to be honest about the simple things you have zero chance of ever getting past the hugest obstacle in science, the tendency to fool oneself. And the larger and more complex your explanation/theory becomes the more and more problematic it becomes down the line. Intellectual honesty is the most difficult thing about any kind of scientific endeavor. You are a babe in the woods in this regard.

  • Avatar

    visiting physicist

    |

    When you can explain (as I can) how the energy from the Sun which is absorbed in the upper atmosphere of Venus then gets into its far hotter surface and raises the temperature of that surface by about 5 degrees (slowly) over the course of the 4-month-long day then and only then will you elevate my opinion of your knowledge of thermodynamic physics.

    You could start with a better understanding of the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics]Second Law of Thermodynamics[/url] which [i]”states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems [b]spontaneously evolve[/b]toward thermodynamic equilibrium—the state of maximum entropy.”
    [/i]
    Do you have some difficulty with understanding that the word “evolve” refers to a process?

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”visiting physicist”]I’m not interested in the weight per volume.[/quote]It’s self delusional to suggest that objective reality is determined by your subjective perspective.[quote name=”visiting physicist”] The only way to understand what happens is to use Kinetic theory (as was used successfully by Einstein and many others)[/quote]It’s absurd how ignorant you sound telling us that you have found, “the only way to understand.”[quote name=”visiting physicist”]and the conclusions are that carbon dioxide and water vapour lead to cooler surface temperatures not warmer. Maybe someone will find that of interest.

    And, by the way, the Second Law does describe a process whereby thermodynamic equilibrium evolves towards a state of thermodynamic equilibrium which has the greatest entropy available to the system. [/quote]It is not a process. It is a law, a principle. You need to understand the difference and stop embarassing yourself.[quote name=”visiting physicist”]As a result of such an application of valid physics I have also (in my book and my papers and articles) exposed “Carbon Climate Forcing as the worst science in history” as referred to in the second paragraph of the article.[/quote]I have no reason to dispute that you’ve done just that.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    (Continued from previous comment.)

    Your inability (and/or meteorologists’ inability) to imagine an alternative explanation IS NOT evidence of anything but your imability to maintain a rational perspective.[quote name=”visiting physicist”]mostly in the moist tropics, but when that moist air reaches the “ceiling” of the tropopause it starts to move out of the tropics and some will subsequently return in a partly downwards direction as the available space in the troposphere diminishes towards the poles. In practice the cycles are more complicated,[/quote]Right. It’s more complicated. There are three Hadley cells in each hemisphere and in the space between them, at at the upper boundary with the stratosphere, we find the “jet stream” and the, further toward the poles, the “polar vortex” (not to be mistaken witht he, poorly named, meteorological phenomena that has made it in the news this winter).[quote name=”visiting physicist”]but the principle is as explained above.[/quote]You demonstrate the absurdity of extrapolating from principles to arrive at over-generalized conclusions that fail to provide any kind of practical increase in our understanding. Specifically, you are making two huge errors. 1) You are using general principles (ie. second law) as processes. 2) You are employing your inability to imagine an alternative as evidence.

    Do you agree that if moist air is in fact heavier than dry air that, therefore, convection of moist air through dry air is impossible? Answer the question you evasive twit.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    (Continued from previous comment.)

    [quote name=”visiting physicist”]That difference in gradient is the reason why water vapour (and carbon dioxide) lead to there being cooler surface temperatures, as I have verified empirically in a study soon to be published.[/quote]This isn’t at issue here.[quote name=”visiting physicist”]If the water molecules and any other air molecules are absorbing energy by conduction from a Sun-warmed surface then the temperature gradient will be temporarily steeper[/quote]Undoubtedly. But this isn’t at issue here.[quote name=”visiting physicist”]and so upward convection of the water vapour and the other air molecules will prevail. If that were not the case, then evaporating ocean water would never get back up to the clouds.[/quote]This is the first statement you made that is pertinent to the topic being discussed here. You’ve, basically, expressed the same brain-dead logic that underlies meteorology’s assumption as to how H2O gets up high into the atmosphere (up to the top of the troposphere). It’s an assumption based not on any positive evidence (convection is not plainly observable) nor on any empirical data (it has never been tested). As I stated upthread: The notion that warm moist air rises DUE TO CONVECTION is a conjecture. More importantly it is a conjecture that HAS NEVER BEEN TESTED EXPERIMENTALLY. IOW, moist air going up is plainly observable. Moist air going up due to convection is NOT plainly observable.[quote name=”visiting physicist”]In general there is upward convection[/quote]That air goes up is plainly observable. That it goes up due to convection is not. Telling us that you can’t imagine any other way for H2O to get up high in the atmosphere is not a scientific argument.

    (Continued in next comment.)

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    (Procedural note: This comment was too long so I split it up into two comments.)

    [quote name=”visiting physicist”][b]solvingtornadoes is not correct[/b] in some of what is written in comments #2 and #3 for the following reasons …
    Clusters of water vapour and suspended water droplets act independently of the other air molecules.[/quote]Like many substances, air is hygroscopic, meaning that it tends to attract water. If you want to get down to the molecular basis for why air and so many other substances are attracted to water it gets down to the fact that the H2O molecule has two hydrogen atoms that present a slight (residual) negative charge. Being so incredibly small, in comparison to other molecules, these hydrogen molecules have the ability to get between the spaces of other molecules and, thereby, take advantage of any (residual) positive charge in many other substances, including air. (Along these lines, another concept to look into is hydrostatic suspension.)[quote name=”visiting physicist”] If you try to visualise a certain volume of dry or moist air rising or falling you are misunderstanding what happens. For example, if the initial state comprised one cubic metre of air in which there were 4% water molecules and another cubic metre immediately below it with only 1% water molecules, you will not get one of those cubic metres or air (with all its molecules) swapping positions with the other cubic metre. The water molecules do not drag all the other nitrogen and oxygen molecules along with them in some sort of team effort.[/quote]It’s comical when people present arguments based on what they can visualize and/or the limits thereof. More to the point, you obviously haven’t the slightest clue what you are talking about. Look up the concepts I mentioned above, hygroscopy and hydrostatic suspension, and then come back and tell us what does and does not “drag” what.[quote name=”visiting physicist”] There is no difference between the nitrogen molecules in one cubic metre and those in the other.[/quote]Irrelevant.[quote name=”visiting physicist”]Now, whether water molecule clusters will move up, down or in any other direction depends on numerous factors including the existing temperature gradient (badly named a lapse rate) and the relative temperatures of the water molecules. The hotter molecules can transfer thermal energy to the cooler ones by inter-molecular radiation, and this is why the wet gradient is less steep than the dry one.[/quote]All of which is obvious and fundamental to the topic being discussed here. But it isn’t what is being discussed here.

    (Continued in next comment.)

  • Avatar

    visiting physicist

    |

    [b]solvingtornadoes is not correct[/b] in some of what is written in comments #2 and #3 for the following reasons …

    Clusters of water vapour and suspended water droplets act independently of the other air molecules. If you try to visualise a certain volume of dry or moist air rising or falling you are misunderstanding what happens. For example, if the initial state comprised one cubic metre of air in which there were 4% water molecules and another cubic metre immediately below it with only 1% water molecules, you will not get one of those cubic metres or air (with all its molecules) swapping positions with the other cubic metre. The water molecules do not drag all the other nitrogen and oxygen molecules along with them in some sort of team effort. There is no difference between the nitrogen molecules in one cubic metre and those in the other.

    Now, whether water molecule clusters will move up, down or in any other direction depends on numerous factors including the existing temperature gradient (badly named a lapse rate) and the relative temperatures of the water molecules. The hotter molecules can transfer thermal energy to the cooler ones by inter-molecular radiation, and this is why the wet gradient is less steep than the dry one. That difference in gradient is the reason why water vapour (and carbon dioxide) lead to there being cooler surface temperatures, as I have verified empirically in a study soon to be published.

    If the water molecules and any other air molecules are absorbing energy by conduction from a Sun-warmed surface then the temperature gradient will be temporarily steeper and so upward convection of the water vapour and the other air molecules will prevail. If that were not the case, then evaporating ocean water would never get back up to the clouds.

    In general there is upward convection mostly in the moist tropics, but when that moist air reaches the “ceiling” of the tropopause it starts to move out of the tropics and some will subsequently return in a partly downwards direction as the available space in the troposphere diminishes towards the poles. In practice the cycles are more complicated, but the principle is as explained above.

  • Avatar

    visiting physicist

    |

    I’m not interested in the weight per volume. The only way to understand what happens is to use Kinetic theory (as was used successfully by Einstein and many others) and the conclusions are that carbon dioxide and water vapour lead to cooler surface temperatures not warmer. Maybe someone will find that of interest.

    And, by the way, the Second Law does describe a process whereby thermodynamic equilibrium evolves towards a state of thermodynamic equilibrium which has the greatest entropy available to the system.

    As a result of such an application of valid physics I have also (in my book and my papers and articles) exposed “Carbon Climate Forcing as the worst science in history” as referred to in the second paragraph of the article.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”visiting physicist”]The only difference between moist and dry air is the percentage of water molecules – usually between 1% and 4%.[/quote]That’s a rather inane claim. Are you saying that you know for fact that there is no difference in weight per volume (under normal atmospheric conditions)? Obviously you don’t know this for fact. Obviously you haven’t a clue. So when you go around making all-encompassing statements (not to mention dodging simple questions) you present yourself as a fool.[quote name=”visiting physicist”]These will have no effect on the remaining nitrogen and oxygen molecules which are free to collide and pass on their kinetic energy, as they will until thermodynamic equilibrium with maximum accessible entropy is achieved, as the Second Law of Thermodynamics says will happen.[/quote]Your comments are absurdly tangential to the subject under discussion here. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is not a force or a process or a methodology. It’s a criteria that all theories need to comply with but it is not itself a substitute for a theory.[quote name=”visiting physicist”]In calm conditions any new energy being absorbed (and thus disturbing the thermodynamic equilibrium) will cause an energy transfer away from the source in all accessible directions.[/quote]Did you just discover the second law of thermodynamics yesterday or something? Why do you think anybody would be interested in such mundane assertions?

  • Avatar

    visiting physicist

    |

    I answered the question above where I said convection (either up or down) is never impossible in a gas. The only difference between moist and dry air is the percentage of water molecules – usually between 1% and 4%. These will have no effect on the remaining nitrogen and oxygen molecules which are free to collide and pass on their kinetic energy, as they will until thermodynamic equilibrium with maximum accessible entropy is achieved, as the Second Law of Thermodynamics says will happen.

    In calm conditions any new energy being absorbed (and thus disturbing the thermodynamic equilibrium) will cause an energy transfer away from the source in all accessible directions. Whether or not actual air movement can be detected, there is still convection because, in physics, the term “convection” includes diffusion and advection.

    I quote from [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection]here[/url]: “Convection is the concerted, collective movement of groups or aggregates of molecules within fluids (e.g., liquids, gases) and rheids, either through advection or through diffusion or as a combination of both of them.”

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”visiting physicist”][b]To all:[/b]See Comment #80 [url=http://www.principia-scientific.org/by-definition-aren-t-all-gases-greenhouse-gases.html]here[/url].
    [b]To ST: [/b] Convection (which can be up or down) is never impossible in a gas. [/quote]Are you suggesting this isn’t obvious?[quote name=”visiting physicist”]Molecular movement can occur in any accessible direction away from a source of new energy which disturbs a prior state of thermodynamic equilibrium.[/quote]Let me ask you this, do you agree that if moist air is in fact heavier than dry air that, therefore, convection of moist air through dry air is impossible? (A simple question deserves a simple answer.)

    Answer the question or kindly go away.

  • Avatar

    visiting physicist

    |

    [b]To all:[/b]

    See Comment #80 [url=http://www.principia-scientific.org/by-definition-aren-t-all-gases-greenhouse-gases.html]here[/url].

    [b]To ST: [/b] Convection (which can be up or down) is never impossible in a gas. Molecular movement can occur in any accessible direction away from a source of new energy which disturbs a prior state of thermodynamic equilibrium.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”visiting physicist”]Regarding the issue discussed above as to whether moist air rises or falls,[/quote]How about a direct quote? I don’t see where this was ever at issue. Nobody is disputing that moist air rises AFAICT.[quote name=”visiting physicist”]the first thing to note is that increasing the level of water vapour reduces the thermodynamic equilibrium temperature gradient[/quote]
    ” . . . thermodynamic equilibrium temperature gradient . . .” That’s a mouthful. Do you have a reference for this? I’m trying to conceptualize exactly what you mean by this and I’m having a hard time. Might it, in actuality, be a nonsequitor? Is it your own idiosyncracy? I hope you don’t think I’m trying to be provocative here. I’m really not understanding what you mean by this.[quote name=”visiting physicist”]which is due to gravity, but which is reduced in magnitude by inter-molecular radiation. So we may observe, for example, a temperature gradient of 6.5C/Km in moist air.

    Now, the apparent heat flow direction may not necessarily be accompanied by observable air motion. If air motion is not discernible we can call it diffusion, whereas if the rate increases to the point where movement is detectable, then you may call it convection, but [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advection]advection[/url] is the preferred term.

    That said, the direction of heat transfer will be in all accessible directions away from the source of additional (new) energy which is disturbing the equilibrium. Thus, if there is a temperature inversion (meaning the temperature at the top is above what it would normally be at thermodynamic equilibrium) then some of the thermal energy will move downwards to restore the equilibrium state – that is, to restore the normal (badly named) lapse rate or temperature gradient. If there is sufficient new energy then air movement downwards may be detectible. Of course, near the surface on a sunny day in the tropics the moist air there is more likely to rise because there is a new supply of energy coming out of the surface.[/quote]If I was you I would reread the thread again, carefully. I’m having a hard time figuring out the relevance of what you are saying here. But that may be due to my own limitations.

    Let me ask you this, do you agree that if moist air is in fact heavier than dry air that, therefore, convection is impossible? (As simple question deserves a simple answer.)

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]Thank you, “the fact that H2O is not a normal” gas at ambient temperatures” Is consistent. however Convection has nothing to do with temperature, only with fluid mass transport for whatever reason.
    [/quote]Uh, er . . . what?[quote name=”Pat Obar”]Thank you! Water the only molecule discovered that “can” exist at ambient temperatures and pressure” at all three phases.[/quote]Vague.[quote name=”Pat Obar”]Each phase with a different “latent heat capacity”.[/quote]Relevance? How about an example?
    [quote name=”Pat Obar”] The sensible heat for the liquid is approx 4 Joules/(gram x Celsius degree). The sensible heat for gas or solid is approx 1/2 that.[/quote] Relevance? Reference?[quote name=”Pat Obar”]The latent heat of evaporation over all ambient temperatures is a whopping 2400 Joules/gram, with no change in temperature.[/quote]Relevance? Reference? (Might you be equating steam with moist air? That would be erroneous.)[quote name=”Pat Obar”] This H2O molecule dominates all of the weather on this planet.[/quote]Save us from the superlatives. Admit it Pat, you have nothing to add to the discussion.[quote name=”Pat Obar”] All of CO2 is but a maybe mosquito bite![/quote]Relevance?
    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]Claudius Denk never defines his words.[/quote]Such as?
    [quote name=”Pat Obar”] It is much like what the Climate Clowns always do. Yack, yack, yack![/quote]

    It doesn’t take much effort, much talent, much skill or much training to be skeptical about something new. Everybody is skeptical of something new. Philosophers of science don’t write books about being skeptical about something new. The real difficulty in science comes with being skeptical about what is known, what is understood, what is most familiar. This is where talent, intelligence, hard work and training come into play. Just about anybody can become an expert in a scientific discipline if they put in the time and effort. But that is nothing to pat yourself on the back about. The heavy lifting in science comes with finding what is wrong with a notion when all you instincts are telling you everything is right about it.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”David Russell”]I suggest that solvingtornadoes should look up “partial pressure” and “humidity”, and then realize what was wrong with stating: “Warm moist air is NOT lighter than dry air. It is heavier. (This follows from the fact that steam doesn’t exist at ambient temperatures. [See “Note” above for more details] Another way of saying this is in reference to the fact that H2O is not a “normal” gas at ambient temperatures.).” Therefore convection is physically impossible. And, since convection is impossible some other mechanism MUST be causing moist air to rise.”[/quote]

    Thank you, “the fact that H2O is not a normal” gas at ambient temperatures” Is consistent. however Convection has nothing to do with temperature, only with fluid mass transport for whatever reason.
    Thank you! Water the only molecule discovered that “can” exist at ambient temperatures and pressure” at all three phases. Each phase with a different “latent heat capacity”. The sensible heat for the liquid is approx 4 Joules/(gram x Celsius degree). The sensible heat for gas or solid is approx 1/2 that. The latent heat of evaporation over all ambient temperatures is a whopping 2400 Joules/gram, with no change in temperature. This H2O molecule dominates all of the weather on this planet. All of CO2 is but a maybe mosquito bite!
    Claudius Denk never defines his words. It is much like what the Climate Clowns always do. Yack, yack, yack!

  • Avatar

    visiting physicist

    |

    Regarding the issue discussed above as to whether moist air rises or falls, the first thing to note is that increasing the level of water vapour reduces the thermodynamic equilibrium temperature gradient which is due to gravity, but which is reduced in magnitude by inter-molecular radiation. So we may observe, for example, a temperature gradient of 6.5C/Km in moist air.

    Now, the apparent heat flow direction may not necessarily be accompanied by observable air motion. If air motion is not discernible we can call it diffusion, whereas if the rate increases to the point where movement is detectable, then you may call it convection, but [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advection]advection[/url] is the preferred term.

    That said, the direction of heat transfer will be in all accessible directions away from the source of additional (new) energy which is disturbing the equilibrium. Thus, if there is a temperature inversion (meaning the temperature at the top is above what it would normally be at thermodynamic equilibrium) then some of the thermal energy will move downwards to restore the equilibrium state – that is, to restore the normal (badly named) lapse rate or temperature gradient. If there is sufficient new energy then air movement downwards may be detectible. Of course, near the surface on a sunny day in the tropics the moist air there is more likely to rise because there is a new supply of energy coming out of the surface.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”David Russell”]I suggest that solvingtornadoes should look up “partial pressure” and “humidity”, and then realize what was wrong with stating: “Warm moist air is NOT lighter than dry air. It is heavier.[/quote]

    H2O has no partial pressure at ambient temperature, which proves/demonstrates my point. If it did then the first practical steam engine couldn’t possibly have worked:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_steam_engine#Watt_double-acting_and_rotative_engines
    Atmospheric condensing engines
    It was Thomas Newcomen with his “atmospheric-engine” of 1712 who can be said to have brought together most of the essential elements established by Papin in order to develop the first practical steam engine for which there could be a commercial demand. This took the shape of a reciprocating beam engine installed at surface level driving a succession of pumps at one end of the beam. The engine, attached by chains from other end of the beam, worked on the atmospheric, or vacuum principle.[20]
    Newcomen’s design used some elements of earlier concepts. Like the Savery design, Newcomen’s engine used steam, cooled with water, to create a vacuum. Unlike Savery’s pump, however, Newcomen used the vacuum to pull on a piston instead of pulling on water directly. The upper end of the cylinder was open to the atmospheric pressure, and when the vacuum formed, the atmospheric pressure above the piston pushed it down into the cylinder. The piston was lubricated by a trickle of water from the same cistern that supplied the cooling water. Further, to improve the cooling effect, he sprayed water directly into the cylinder.”

    Wikipedia, under Humidity, mistakenly equates water vapor to humidity. (Read upthread where I explained that the term water vapor is ambiguous.) The phrase “water vapor” has two different meanings, and this confuses people.

  • Avatar

    David Russell

    |

    I suggest that solvingtornadoes should look up “partial pressure” and “humidity”, and then realize what was wrong with stating: “Warm moist air is NOT lighter than dry air. It is heavier. (This follows from the fact that steam doesn’t exist at ambient temperatures. [See “Note” above for more details] Another way of saying this is in reference to the fact that H2O is not a “normal” gas at ambient temperatures.).” Therefore convection is physically impossible. And, since convection is impossible some other mechanism MUST be causing moist air to rise.”

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    (Continued from previous comment.)

    Also, shouldn’t you have asked meteorologists this same question before you accepted their model? Why do you hold me to a higher standard?[quote name=”Pat Obar”]Where is your definition of “convection”?[/quote]It’s not my theory. (Why don’t you look up the definition.) It’s not my responsibility to define it. Nor is it, necessarily, my responsibility to test it empirically. (I know meteorologists are busy people. But the convection model of storm theory is been around for 200 years now.) Nevertheless, assuming some meteorologist wishes to venture outside their post-normal comfort zone, I do have some procedural suggestions:
    [url]http://www.solvingtornadoes.org/humid-air-heavier[/url][quote name=”Pat Obar”]I gave one reference to a usgs link that has their measurements of various air including “clouds”. you obviously refused to read the link but again spout your nonsense.[/quote]I read the (dumb) website. Regrettably, the rules of reality prevent you from providing us a link to your imagination so that I might see what you saw.

    Think of me as being like the little boy in Hans Christian Andersen’s story. I lack the powers of perception that you and the other townspeople possess. If you want me to confirm the existence of the emperor’s new clothes you are going to have to let me touch it, wear it myself, and even allow me to tear into it a bit. I asked you to cut and paste something from that website that you think makes your point. The fact that you ignored that request tells me all I need to know.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    (Continued from previous comment.)

    Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying this proves anything. What I am saying, however, is that these (high entropy) observations are inconsistent with the (low entropy) convection model of storm theory and, therefore, should be seen as a clue or a red flag that, POSSIBLY, there is something not quite right about the convection model of storm theory. Along these lines, allow me to, again, quote Dr. Jim Petch from a previous contribution he made to this website: “This is a continuous process that has no beginning, but in a given instance it doesn’t start with observation as such but with a problem P1, which may or may not result from observation. The problem is one with an idea or theory, which fails to match reality.” I’m saying that these observations fail, “to match reality.” Or, to use Dr. Jim’s designation, these are P1, P2, P3, P4, and P5.[quote name=”Pat Obar”]Then you spout nonsense about “moist air is always heavier than dry air”.[/quote]In 2006 I started, “spouting nonsense,” about CO2 Forcing being undefined, unmeasured and untested. At that time I was the only person on the planet that would make such a bold claim. Back then even the most fervent AGW skeptic would, mistakenly, concede this point with statements like, “well, sure, we agree that CO2 does cause some warming.” I continued harping on the notion. I continued “spouting nonsense.” Eventually the blogs picked up on it. Then the major science websites, Then the media. Now the “nonsense” I “spouted” is part of the common dialogue.

    BTW, you failed to mention that I offered an explanation of the conceptual errors that, IMO, brought them to wrong conclusion that moist air is lighter than dry air when, in actuality, is is heavier. I suggest you reread these words and if you have a dispute then dispute them directly, honestly. Along those lines, you failed to mention that I challenged you to contradict my assertion with, “. . . anything that remotely resembles empirical data?” And not only did you fail to respond to that challenge but you completely ignored it and instead are, predictably, repeating the mantra about how nice the emperor’s new clothes look.[quote name=”Pat Obar”]Where are “your” measurements of the change of the density of air with varying amounts of aqueous vapour?[/quote]I never claimed to have measurements. (Take note of the fact that, unlike yourself, I provided a direct and honest response to your question. You, on the otherhand, resorted to the evasiveness that we see in AGW groupies.)

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    (Procedural note: This comment was too long so I split it up into two comments.)

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]I agree with what Mr. Olson wrote, because of my own measurements and observations as a pilot.
    [/quote]So, let me get this straight. You are saying that your experience as a pilot has validated the convection model of storm theory. Right?

    In another article on this website Dr. Jim Petch criticizes a previous statement by Vincent that is very pertinent here, “. . . Vincent slips on the induction banana skin. There is, if we accept Popper’s ideas, no criterion of validation, only a criterion of falsification. The point is that ideas should be tested critically, not validated, and those ideas retained which have withstood severe testing.”
    IMO, you are making the same conceptual error that Vincent made. You are “slipping on the inductionist banana skin.” Toward the end of that same article, Dr. Jim sums up his thinking with some rhetorical questions in regard to climate change theory which I will, hereby, recast (my insertions in bold) in regard to the convection model of storm theory: ” . . . the question for us is not ‘can THE CONVECTION MODEL OF STORM theory be validated?’ (that asks for inductive reasoning). But should be ‘how do we design tests that will show THE CONVECTION MODEL OF STORM theory to be wrong if it is?’ A quite different matter methodologically and in terms of the practicality of experimental design.”

    Surely you are not telling us that flying around in the clouds amounts to, “a criterion of falsification.” Are you? Surely you are not saying that it, in and of itself, amounts to a “severe test” of the convection model of storm theory. Are you? [quote name=”Pat Obar”]You Claudius, challenged what he wrote with, “But you are missing an even bigger realization.”
    [/quote]Right. And then I went on to delineate five observations (see post #3 on this thread) that Joe Olson made that were, IMO, inconsistent with, to quote myself, “a relatively benign (low entropy) process,” like convection.

    (Continued in next comment.)

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]
    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]Could you please explain “There is nothing about convection (even if we were to dismiss the fact that convection of heavier moist air through lighter dry air is impossible)”[/quote]Moist air is always heavier than dry air.[quote name=”Pat Obar”]Air with high “aqueous vapour” is less dense than dry air.[/quote]This is a common misconception. [/quote]

    In both cases you are mistaken.
    I agree with what Mr. Olson wrote, because of my own measurements and observations as a pilot. You Cladius, challenged what he wrote with, “But you are missing an even bigger realization.” Then you spout nonsense about “moist air is always heavier than dry air”. Where are “your” measurements of the change of the density of air with varying amounts of aqueous vapour? Where is your definition of “convection”? I gave one reference to a usgs link that has their measurements of various air including “clouds”. you obviously refused to read the link but again spout your nonsense. A cloud that releases precipitation that falls free from that cloud “may” have a density equal to the surrounding air, else the cloud itself would go to a lower altitude, and they will do just that.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    (Continued from previous comment.)

    And H2O is very much not a “normal” gas at ambient temperatures. The hydrogen bond of water causes singular molecules of water to stick to each other at temperatures below the boiling point of water (212 degrees F, 100 degrees C). Moist air, therefore, never contains singular molecules of H2O. It always contains clumps of H2O molecules. Often these clumps are so small that they are invisible to the naked eye. It is this invisibility that deceives us. We tend to assume that if we can’t see moisture in the atmosphere that is because it consists of singular molecules of H2O (steam) mixed in with the other constituents of the atmosphere (mostly N2 and O2.) But that simply isn’t the case. The hydrogen bond dictates that moist air always consists of clumps of H2O molecules, regardless of whether you can see the moisture, as is the case with fog and clouds, or if it is invisible, as is probably the case with the air you’re breathing at this instant.
    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]Clouds with drizzle drops, is more dense than air with high “aqueous vapour” is still less dense than dry air.[/quote]Is this your opinion? Can you trace back your opinion to anything that remotely resembles empirical data? I hope you don’t think this is an unfair question. Because it isn’t.[quote name=”Pat Obar”]It is the more dense dry air that keeps the cloud aloft. It has everything to do with natural convection. That convection in turn is much out classed by the forced convection of “winds aloft”.[/quote]Are you saying I should take your word on this? If Michael Mann made a statement like this would you take his word on it?[quote name=”Pat Obar”]see [url]http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleatmosphere.html[/url][/quote]
    Are you saying we should trust NOAA (or USGS) implicitly? (Surely, you know better than that.) Moreover, I don’t know what it is you think you see here. Why don’t you cut and paste something from the website that you think makes your point.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    (Procedural note: This comment was too long so I split it up into two comments.)
    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]Could you please explain “There is nothing about convection (even if we were to dismiss the fact that convection of heavier moist air through lighter dry air is impossible)”[/quote]Moist air is always heavier than dry air.[quote name=”Pat Obar”]Air with high “aqueous vapour” is less dense than dry air.[/quote]This is a common misconception. This is something that was assumed by meteorologists in the early 19th century (before the discovery of the hydrogen bond in the early 20th century) and was never tested or even conceptually challenged, until now. Think of it as the CO2 Forcing of Meteorology. It is one of those things that everybody believes because everybody believes it.
    I’ve discussed this with a number of meteorologists. Not one of them suggested that the concept should be tested/measured. What conclusion would you draw from this? What does it tell us about the field of meteorology? (Do you think they are on-board with Popper’s thinking?)
    The scientific basis for the convection model of storm theory can be narrowed down to two things: 1) to many meteorologists it seems to explaining uplift that is witnessed in storms and, especially, thunderstorms, and 2) to many meteorologists it seems to explaining why this uplifting air is moisture laden, producing visible clouds and rain as the moisture laden air cools with altitude. And that’s it. The notion has never been tested empirically. It’s acceptance as a scientific concept is completely based on congruence: it seems to match what is observed. And congruence is the fool’s gold of science.
    There are other popularistic notions underlying the belief in the validity of why the convection model of storm theory. And some of these have been accepted by some Meteorologists. But these popularisitic notions don’t survive scrutiny. Maybe the most prominent of these popularisitc notions is the argument that has it’s basis in basic chemistry and gas laws, specifically Avogadro’s law but the argument is flawed because it fails to account for the fact that Avogadro’s law is only applicable to “normal” gasses. And H2O is very much not a “normal” gas at ambient temperatures.
    (Continued in next comment.)

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”](Continued from previous comment.)

    Now let’s examine this statement:

    The notion that warm moist air rises is an observation. The notion that warm moist air rises DUE TO CONVECTION is a conjecture. More importantly it is a conjecture that HAS NEVER BEEN TESTED EXPERIMENTALLY. IOW, moist air going up is plainly observable. Moist air going up due to convection is NOT plainly observable.

    Warm moist air is NOT lighter than dry air. It is heavier. (This follows from the fact that steam doesn’t exist at ambient temperatures. [See “Note” above for more details] Another way of saying this is in reference to the fact that H2O is not a “normal” gas at ambient temperatures.). Therefore convection is physically impossible. And, since convection is impossible some other mechanism MUST be causing moist air to rise.

    Other observations in your story are also contradictory to the notion of convection. SpecificallY, convection is a relatively benign (low entropy) process that could not possibly explain the following observations you made in your story:
    1) “. . . forces at work within.”
    2) “. . . behavior of water vapor INSIDE of a cloud.”
    3) “As I approached the cloud tops at 7500 ft I noticed the surface was in constant turmoil with puffs swirling out and disappearing.”
    4) “Entering the cloud felt like hitting a wall.”
    5) “There were massive vertical wind shears”

    So, Joe, I hope you don’t misinterpret what I’m saying here. I agree that your observations are inconsistent with AGW notions about H2O being a, “greenhouse,” gas. But you are missing an even bigger realization. These observation are ALSO inconsistent with the convection model that underlies meteorology’s storm theory.

    More to the point, the observations that you made (1 Through 5, listed above) are consistent with structure in the atmosphere, something that meteorology has yet to reconcile. There is nothing about convection (even if we were to dismiss the fact that convection of heavier moist air through lighter dry air is impossible) that can possibly explain the concentration of energy that you witnessed in you aeronautical adventure/mishap. What you actually saw is consistent with a thermodynamic process occurring in the atmosphere. Entropy is being maximized. Work is being done. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with convection.[/quote]

    Could you please explain “There is nothing about convection (even if we were to dismiss the fact that convection of heavier moist air through lighter dry air is impossible)”

    Please define the “heavier moist air”‘ of which you write? Air with high “aqueous vapour” is less dense than dry air. Clouds with drizzle drops, is more dense than air with high “aqueous vapour” is still less dense than dry air. It is the more dense dry air that keeps the cloud aloft. It has everything to do with natural convection. That convection in turn is much out classed by the forced convection of “winds aloft”.
    see [url]http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleatmosphere.html[/url]

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    (Continued from previous comment.)

    Now let’s examine this statement:

    The notion that warm moist air rises is an observation. The notion that warm moist air rises DUE TO CONVECTION is a conjecture. More importantly it is a conjecture that HAS NEVER BEEN TESTED EXPERIMENTALLY. IOW, moist air going up is plainly observable. Moist air going up due to convection is NOT plainly observable.

    Warm moist air is NOT lighter than dry air. It is heavier. (This follows from the fact that steam doesn’t exist at ambient temperatures. [See “Note” above for more details] Another way of saying this is in reference to the fact that H2O is not a “normal” gas at ambient temperatures.). Therefore convection is physically impossible. And, since convection is impossible some other mechanism MUST be causing moist air to rise.

    Other observations in your story are also contradictory to the notion of convection. SpecificallY, convection is a relatively benign (low entropy) process that could not possibly explain the following observations you made in your story:
    1) “. . . forces at work within.”
    2) “. . . behavior of water vapor INSIDE of a cloud.”
    3) “As I approached the cloud tops at 7500 ft I noticed the surface was in constant turmoil with puffs swirling out and disappearing.”
    4) “Entering the cloud felt like hitting a wall.”
    5) “There were massive vertical wind shears”

    So, Joe, I hope you don’t misinterpret what I’m saying here. I agree that your observations are inconsistent with AGW notions about H2O being a, “greenhouse,” gas. But you are missing an even bigger realization. These observation are ALSO inconsistent with the convection model that underlies meteorology’s storm theory.

    More to the point, the observations that you made (1 Through 5, listed above) are consistent with structure in the atmosphere, something that meteorology has yet to reconcile. There is nothing about convection (even if we were to dismiss the fact that convection of heavier moist air through lighter dry air is impossible) that can possibly explain the concentration of energy that you witnessed in you aeronautical adventure/mishap. What you actually saw is consistent with a thermodynamic process occurring in the atmosphere. Entropy is being maximized. Work is being done. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with convection.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    (Procedural note: This comment was too long so I split it up into two comments.)

    Hi Joe,

    I agree with your greater conclusion that these observations are indicative of H2O being part of a mechanism that transports thermal energy higher in the atmosphere. And, therefore, your observations are in contradiction to the alarmist’s myth that H2O in the atmosphere provides a net warming effect. But I think you are overlooking another realization that can be arrived at from your observations: your observations are also in contradiction to the meteorological myth of convection.

    First allow me to parse some of your terminology:
    Toward the end of your composition you mention the phrase, “. . . heated water vapor rises RAPIDLY to the cloud top, . . .”. Even though you didn’t state it explicity, I am assuming that you are referring to convection. (If I’m wrong just ignore all that follows.)

    Also, there is a phrase that is ambiguous in this statement. The phrase “heated water vapor” can have two very different meanings. One meaning we can think of as the contents of the boiler of a steam engine over 212F (100C). It consists of 100% H2O molecules, and they are all independent molecules, (steam). The other meaning is that found in the atmosphere at ambient temperatures. It consists of air (mostly N2 and O2) and clumps (not independent molecules) of H2O molecules. (Note: Steam doesn’t exist at ambient temperatures. [The notion that water molecules can stay independent at ambient temperature is itself a myth. Due to the hydrogen bond, water molecules always clump together at ambient temperatures.]) There is a very simple solution for avoiding the ambiguity and that is to use the phrase, “warm moist air” instead of the phrase “heated water vapor.”

    Taking all of this into account, I would rewrite your statment as follows: ” . . . warm moist air rises, as a result of convection, RAPIDLY to the cloud top, . . . “.

    (Continued in next comment.)

  • Avatar

    visiting physicist

    |

    What you have depicted within clouds is indeed a good example of how inter-molecular radiation reduces the temperature gradient in the troposphere. As you say, clouds absorb thermal energy at low altitudes and radiate it to higher altitudes where it is released. In this process there is a levelling effect working against the gravitationally induced temperature gradient which would otherwise be about -9.8C/Km. As we know the moist temperature gradient is only about two-thirds as steep. Thus the temperature plot rotates to a less steep position when a region becomes more moist. So that plot intersects the surface at a lower temperature and the temperature at which it does have at the surface interface helps to prevent the surface cooling further at night – and allows the Sun to warm the surface more the next day.

    But the IPCC does have a Glossary on their website where we read … “Greenhouse gases are those gaseous constituents of the atmosphere, both natural and anthropogenic, which absorb and emit radiation at specific wavelengths within the spectrum of thermal infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface, by the atmosphere itself, and by clouds. This property causes the greenhouse effect. Water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), methane (CH4), and ozone (O3) are the primary greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere.”

    So it is not correct to say that water vapour is not a greenhouse gas, because they also explain that their GHG’s radiate and absorb IR.

    My point is that all such gases, including carbon dioxide cannot warm the surface – they can only cause the surface temperature to be lower.

Comments are closed