• Home
  • Current News
  • Shattering the Greenhouse Effect – Slaying the Sky Dragon excerpt

Shattering the Greenhouse Effect – Slaying the Sky Dragon excerpt

Written by Hans Jelbring

hans 1

hockeyschtick.blogspot.com

A recommended essay by Swedish climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring [1] offers a high school through advanced level debunking of the so-called ‘greenhouse effect.’ Dr. Jelbring finds that basic scientific principles demonstrate that global temperatures are not controlled by human emissions of ‘greenhouse gases’ and the ‘greenhouse effect’ is explainable using only the physics of pressure, gravity, volume, and the adiabatic lapse rate.

Essay from source has been edited to remove references to Swedish law and politics
What has politics, a needed instrument to run a nation, to do with a scientific concept that tells the difference between the surface temperature of earth and the temperature of earth’s atmosphere as seen from space? This temperature difference of 33C has unfortunately and inadequately been named “The Greenhouse Effect” (GE) despite the absence of any relationship between this effect and the warm climate in a real greenhouse. The intention of this paper is to cover the title subject in a few pages in a way that is understandable to a high school student and, hence, to Swedish parliamentary members.
Basic scientific principles demonstrate that the overall GE phenomenon is not a result of human emissions of “greenhouse gases”.

The IPCC is biased from the start by its mandate. It only covers the impact on climate caused by man (anthropogenic or AGW) which is reductionism that does not conform to scientific methods. Furthermore, the IPCC has chosen not to investigate those types of local, regional and national global anthropogenic impacts which actually do exist. The IPCC has emphasized the importance of an unverified, simplistic model that predicts a particular surface temperature of earth as being caused by “greenhouse gases”. These are specifically identified as carbon dioxide and methane. Water vapor, the most abundant greenhouse gas, is wrongly assumed to be “a quantifiable feedback” to carbon dioxide, which is 50 times less abundant than water vapour in the atmosphere. Such a model is far too inexact and speculative to describe the complex climate system. This type of logic does not conform to accepted scientific methodology.

The major IPCC claim is that greenhouse gases are the sole reason why the average surface temperature of earth is 33ºC warmer than the temperature at an average altitude of around 4000 m, where the infrared photons prefer to leave our planet. (Seen from Mars the temperature of earth is -18 ºC). The pertinent question is: do greenhouse gases raise the global temperature 0.1, 10 or 100% of the observed 33ºC? There are many indications that the first alternative is the most probable. Let us mention a few ways the IPCC “greenhouse gas” claim can be debunked.

I. The high school approach.
The average sea level pressure is around 1013 mbar. If you live at a higher altitude the pressure will be less. Your barometer at 100 m above sea level will read about 12 mbar less. Pressure is a direct measurement of how much atmospheric mass there is above your head per square meter. The ideal gas law can be written PV = RT where P is the pressure (Pascal), V is the volume (m3), R is the gas constant (Joule/K) and T is the average temperature (over some days). Let us now calculate the temperature in a 1 m3 volume at any height. Hence T = P/R, T is proportional to P and P is known from observation to decrease with increasing altitude. It follows that the average T has to decrease with altitude. This decrease from the surface to the average infrared emission altitude around 4000 m is 33ºC. It will be about the same even if we increase greenhouse gases by 100%. This is a consequence of the ideal gas law, a natural law which politicians cannot change, but unscrupulous scientists can twist.

II. Observational evidence
On any sunny day the solar irradiation hitting the surface of earth will warm the air just above it which will then start to lift. A black ground surface, such as a parking place or a newly plowed field, will absorb more solar energy and subsequently heat the air more than surfaces of lighter colors. Hawks and vultures know about this phenomenon, allowing them to be able to hover above such surfaces without moving their wings. The temperature decrease with elevation in such a situation is very close to the dry adiabatic temperature lapse rate which can be derived theoretically. It is -9.8ºC/km. Everyday observational evidence and theoretical derivations show that the temperature lapse rate in such situations can be determined without consideration of any influence at all from greenhouse gases, whether they are of anthropogenic origin or not. Hence, GE has to be a function of other processes than “greenhouse gases”. The question remains if CO2 has a measurable influence, at all.

III. Advanced theoretical considerations
he theoretical temperature lapse rate that can be expected to be found in the earth’s atmosphere depends on a number of physical processes that are possible to identify. The GE is basically determined by the first and second laws of thermodynamics. The energy per mass unit of an atmosphere will tend to equalize and become constant from the surface upwards. This will lead to an average vertical cooling rate defined by –g/Cp, (g is gravity and Cp heat capacity of air) which also is named the dry adiabatic temperature lapse rate.

This lapse rate is modulated by condensation processes in the atmospheres (clouds) and other less important physical processes. The influence of greenhouse gases is small.
These additional processes lead to an average observed global temperature lapse rate around -6.5C/km [2]. This temperature decrease can be directly verified by any airplane passenger. A strict proof showing that there is no theoretical reason to assume that greenhouse gases cause the bulk of the 33 ºC GE can be found in the peer reviewed article in ref [3]. There are several other relevant articles in scientific journals.

Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field Author: William C. Gilbert There still seems to be some confusion in the Climate Science Community about the temperature distribution in a gaseous atmosphere under the influence of a gravitational field. My academic degrees are in Chemical Engineering and Chemistry and I have spent over three decades in Research and Development in private industry (DuPont, Monsanto, Celanese and American Cyanamid). I became interested in Climate Science some four years ago because it seemed to be a perfect fit with my Chemical Engineering background (large, complex, multi-variant systems involving significant heat and mass transfer processes) and I thought I may be able to contribute something. I was immediately amazed at the paltry level of scientific competence that I found, especially in the basic areas of heat and mass transfer. Even the relatively simple analysis of atmospheric temperature distributions were misunderstood completely.

To illustrate the level of simplicity involved with this topic, let’s go back to basic physics.
Consider a vertical gas column containing a finite and constant specific energy level (U, J/kg) that is isolated from its surroundings (no input/output of energy or mass) but which is in a gravitational field.
The column will in time reach equilibrium with respect to internal specific energy but the temperature will not be uniform. At static equilibrium (adiabatic equilibrium where no macro motion exists), internal specific energy (U) is composed of both thermal energy (the energy due to molecular motion) and potential energy (the energy due to position). The latter has to exist in a gravitational field. Thus, according to the first and second law of thermodynamics, the specific internal energy (U) for any mass parcel in the air column has to be constant and can be expressed as a sum of the thermal and potential energies. This law (expressed as specific energies) can be written:

U = CpT + gh or upon differentiation dU = CpdT + gdh (1)

where “CpT” is the enthalpy (or thermal energy) per mass unit, “g” is the gravitational acceleration, “h” is the vertical height and “gh” is the potential energy per mass unit.

At static equilibrium dU = 0 and equation (1) becomes;
CpdT + gdh = 0 (2)

Thus, according to the first and second laws of thermodynamics, for any given difference in altitude (height) the increase in specific potential energy (gdh) must be offset by a corresponding decrease in thermal energy (CpdT) and a corresponding decrease in temperature. Thus in a gravitational field an atmosphere in equilibrium must have a non- isothermal decreasing temperature distribution with altitude. This is true in an isolated air column and this basic physical phenomenon exists independent of any input/output of other energy sources such as ground temperature, convection, radiation, convection, etc.

And of course equation (2) can be rewritten as:

dT/dh = -g/CpT = -9.8 K/km

which is a temperature profile often observed in our atmosphere on a daily basis. This static temperature lapse rate (in this model atmosphere) is identical to the dry adiabatic lapse rate theoretically derived in Meteorology for a convective adiabatic air parcel. In both situations it is solely a function of the magnitude of the gravitational field and the heat capacity of the atmospheric gas, and nothing else. And this relationship aptly describes the bulk of the 33ºC so-called “Greenhouse Effect” that is the bread and butter of the Climate Science Community.

It is remarkable that this very simple derivation is totally ignored in the field of Climate Science simply because it refutes the radiation heat transfer model as the dominant cause of the GE.

Hence, that community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what “science” has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed.

References:
[1] www.tech-know-group.com
[2] The US 1976 standard atmosphere: modelweb.gsfc.nasa.gov
[3] Jelbring, Hans R. The Greenhouse Effect as a Function of Atmospheric Mass, Energy and Environment, Vol.14, Nr 2&3, 2003.

Comments (24)

  • Avatar

    Jim McGinn

    |

    Removed by moderator for being off topic

  • Avatar

    Jim McGinn

    |

    Removed by moderator for being off topic

  • Avatar

    Jim McGinn

    |

    Removed by moderator for being off topic

  • Avatar

    Jim McGinn

    |

    Removed by moderator for being off topic

  • Avatar

    Jim McGinn

    |

    Removed by moderator for being off topic

  • Avatar

    Jim McGinn

    |

    Removed by moderator for being off topic

  • Avatar

    Jim McGinn

    |

    Removed by moderator for being off topic

  • Avatar

    Jim McGinn

    |

    Removed by moderator for being off topic

  • Avatar

    Ed Bo

    |

    James:

    This is pointless. You are far too in love with your own theories, and own “genius”, to even to recognize, or even begin to grapple with substantive challenges to your ideas. Saykally had you pegged, both on your idiocy and your [lack of] civility. You don’t even understand the ideas you claim to overturn.

    Since you admit that you have not been able to convince any one else of the genius of your theories, I will give you some advice as to what you must do to start this process:

    You must explain why the careful calorimetric data, accumulated over many decades in laboratories around the world, showing the very high energy requirements to evaporate water (even if you don’t consider it a phase change) are completely wrong. You must explain why their energy measurements, known to 4 significant figures and in close agreement between all labs, are not even close to correct.

    You must explain why all of the evaporative coolers used over the last century around the world, like swamp coolers for houses, that people have believed actually work, do not in fact provide the cooling effect that people believe they have provided.

    You must demonstrate experimentally that as you heat moist air from 99.5C to 100.5C, significant additional energy is required (to cause the phase change you believe occurs at 100C) compared to the energy required to heat the same moist air from 98.5C to 99.5C. In addition, you must explain why all the calorimetric measurements done to date have failed to find this.

    You must demonstrate EXPERIMENTALLY that moist air is indeed denser than than dry air at the same temperature.

    All of these issues have to do with basic physical chemistry and engineering; all more basic than meteorology.

    If you cannot do all of these things, I’m afraid you will remain a legend in your own mind!

    I’m done.

  • Avatar

    Ed Bo

    |

    James:

    You really are too much! You say, “They are confused about water because they are confused about polarity. They see polarity as a function of “polar’ bonds (a “polar” bond is a covalent bond that has an electronegativity difference). It’s not that simple. Many molecules have “polar” bonds but are not polar molecules (they are not dipoles). A polar molecule (a dipole) is structurally asymmetrical in addition to having electronegativity differences in its covalent bonds. ”

    No, you are the one who is (hopelessly) confused! You remind me of an incident a few years ago, when my daughter, about a month into her first high school chemistry course, came to me one night, confused about the distinction her teacher and her textbook were making between polar covalent bonds and polar molecules.

    I reviewed the difference with her, using her high school chemistry textbook, whose explanation closely matched what I had learned at the same point many years earlier. After I had explained the difference to her, I quizzed her using the main components of the atmosphere to make sure she got it: N2, O2, CO2, and H2O.

    She got it very quickly at age 14, which is better than you are doing now! There is NO confusion in mainstream science on these issues — only confusion in your own mind!

    You continue to claim that hydrogen bonds in liquid water make it completely non-polar, which is absolutely, demonstrably untrue! I have repeatedly brought up the provable issue of water being a polar solvent, and you have no response but insults!

    You continue to claim that there is no such thing as latent heat (enthalpy) of vaporization, despite over a century of careful repeatable laboratory work on all sorts of liquids, very precisely measuring this quantity. And evaporative cooling systems have provably worked for over a century as well! I have repeatably brought up these provable facts to you, and you have no response but insults!

    You continue to insist that ice is not a crystalline solid, in spite of the vast body of direct knowledge of the various crystalline forms of ice. (And friends of mine helped advance that knowledge.)

    James — If you want to develop new scientific theories to advance our knowledge of the world (which I think is great in principle), your theories have to explain things at least as well as the existing theories. But you fail on this score, completely totally, and miserably!

    I brought up 3 or 4 very basic issues where your ideas completely fail, and you have no real response. In the Google Groups link you provided, Sergio brought up literally dozens more, and again you have no substantive response.

    You, like Doug Cotton, don’t have the fundamental intelligence to properly understand basic scientific principles. And you don’t have the sense to realize that your failures here are NOT new scientific insights; they are simply errors! Your level of self-delusion is simply staggering!

    • Avatar

      Jim McGinn

      |

      BO: No, you are the one who is (hopelessly) confused!
      JM: Really? Why?
      BO: . . . .between polar covalent bonds and polar molecules.
      JM: Right. As I just explained to you. Now what’s the problem? Do you ever stop whining?
      BO: . . . I had explained the difference to her, I quizzed her using the main components of the atmosphere to make sure she got it: N2, O2, CO2, and H2O.
      JM: That’s a touching story. Do you have a point?
      BO: She got it very quickly at age 14, which is better than you are doing now! There is NO confusion in mainstream science on these issues
      JM: You have no dispute with anything I’m saying. You have a dispute with what you wan to believe.
      BO: only confusion in your own mind!
      JM: Too bad your cognitive dissonance isn’t evidence. Huh? Too bad your emotional reaction to what you’ve always belived but could barely explain doesn’t add up to an argument. Huh? Too bad this is about science and so you opinion does count unless it is supported by evidence or proven theory. Huh?
      BO: You continue to claim that hydrogen bonds in liquid water
      JM: I know what I claimed. Anybody can see what I claimed by reading the thread. Do you have a point?
      BO: make it completely non-polar, which is absolutely, demonstrably untrue!
      JM: Then why are you not demonstrating it? Face it dude, you don’t understand this subject well enough to put together a coherent argument. It just so happens you are talking to somebody that understands this subject–literally–better than anybody else on this planet. Now why don’t you stop whining and see if you can make an intelligent comment. Try real hard.
      BO: I have repeatedly brought up the provable issue of water being a polar solvent, and you have no response but insults!
      JM: If you can’t put together a coherent argument don’t expect me to do it for you. I’m not running a hand holding service here. I n the least you need to stop pretending you understand what you obviously do not understand. You remind me of a lot of global warming groupies. The form of your argument is indistinguishable from their arguments. People that have deep political or religious ideologies are often incapable of suspending disbelief long enough to put together a coherent argument. So they tend to drone on and on like you are doing here.
      BO: You continue to claim that there is no such thing as latent heat (enthalpy) of vaporization,
      JM: Quote me directly and in context, you strawbaiting nitwit.
      BO: despite over a century of careful repeatable laboratory work on all sorts of liquids, very precisely measuring this quantity. And evaporative cooling systems have provably worked for over a century as well! I have repeatably brought up these provable facts to you, and you have no response but insults!
      your theories have to explain things at least as well as the existing theories.
      JM: Yet, you fail to present a substantive dispute with anything I’m saying. Right?
      BO: I brought up 3 or 4 very basic issues where your ideas completely fail,
      JM: You appear confused. Scattered. Incoherent. You are a church lady. You don’t really understand any of this. You just dimwittedly assume that what is familiar must be right because . . . well, just because.

      • Avatar

        Ed Bo

        |

        James:

        You’re just showing that not only don’t you have the capacity to understand a high school textbook explanation, you can’t even follow a basic argument!

        You claimed that mainstream science is “confused about polarity”, not distinguishing between polar bonds and polar molecules. I show you that they properly distinguish between these two at the most basic of levels, an introductory high school texts. And all you can do is ask “Do you have a point?”

        You ask, “Then why are you not demonstrating it [that water is completely non-polar”. Okay, I just dissolved salt in a glass of water. It dissolved very easily, which would not happen in a completely non-polar liquid. Done! Once again, you show that you can’t comprehend basic high school chemistry!

        You demand that I quote you directly on your claim that there is no such thing as latent heat of vaporization. Okay:

        “start from the perspective that meteorologists are dunces. Anything they say should be discarded as superstition. Convection is nonsense. Latent heat is nonsense. Ignore them.”

        “Pseudoscience. There is no such thing as ‘latent heat of evaporation’.”

        I show you ENGINEERING tables of latent heat of evaporation, and you claim it is a problem of meteorologists! Are you still asserting that these engineering references, which have been used for many decades to produce real working systems, are complete fiction?

        Your fundamental claim is that “water vapor” is still a liquid below the boiling point. When I show you multiple sources that consider “vapor” and “gas” to be the same thing, you dismiss this as “semantics”.

        You, who claim to be the world’s leading expert on this, obviously have failed to convince single other scientist on any of these points, because when I have asked you repeatedly to show any agreement, you have come up with zero. It must be lonely…

        • Avatar

          Ed Bo

          |

          Jim, you say: “LOL. I haven’t the slightest idea what “real working system” you are referring to. Honestly.”

          I have referred explicitly in this thread to evaporative coolers, like the “swamp coolers” people use to cool their houses. These depend on the very high latent heat of evaporation of water. They have been used for over a century. The fact that you are completely ignorant of them does not inspire confidence…

          “Bo: I show you ENGINEERING tables of latent heat of evaporation,
          JM: Who cares. That proves nothing about what is happening in the atmosphere.”

          For God’s sake! You believe that different physical laws govern the atmosphere outside the laboratory? And you call yourself a scientist???

          You say, ” this is the same mechanism that causes liquid H2O to have such a high heat capacity–something that traditional theory fails to explain.”

          Hogwash! Conventional science has long explained the anomalously high heat capacity, surface temperature, and boiling point of water (compared to other seemingly similar fluids) as a direct result of the weak hydrogen bonds. You are not onto anything new here!

          I’m reminded of the old putdown of a paper: “There is much that is true and much that is new here. Unfortunately, that which is true is not new, and that which is new is not true.” Fits you to a tee!

  • Avatar

    Ed Bo

    |

    James:

    It must be nice going through life as the only super-genius person in the world who can see the truth, with the entire rest of the world completely confused…

    No such thing as convection? No such thing as latent heat of vaporization? No one knows the crystal structure of ice? Seriously?

    Your idee fixe is that hydrogen bonds in water are strong enough so that water vapor below the boiling point is not gaseous, and that liquid water is not polar.

    I cite counter references (and not from meteorology or climatology) and ask you to provide a single decent reference that agrees with your views. And … nothing!

    Do you seriously believe that the reference tables of latent heat of vaporization (I linked one) that have been compiled over a century of repeatable laboratory experiments, producing values to 4 significant digits, are complete fiction?

    Do you seriously believe that evaporative (“swamp”) house coolers that have been in use for a century are a complete scam, and that nobody but you has noticed?

    Do you seriously believe that X-ray crystallography, which over 60 years ago figured out the molecular structure of DNA, is still unable to figure out the far simpler crystalline structure of ice?

    Do you seriously believe that the whole body of work of laboratory physical chemistry with regards to polar versus non-polar solvents, with liquid water as the prime example of a polar solvent, is completely wrong?

    Do you seriously believe that every university in the world teaches their students completely wrong on the nature of hydrogen bonds and the resultant behavior of water? (And I am talking about basic chemistry and physics here!) Here is a link to a standard treatment at a major university — it agrees very well with my physical chemistry courses at MIT:

    http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Textbook_Maps/General_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Map%3A_Chem1_(Lower)/07%3A_Solids_and_Liquids/7.03%3A_Hydrogen-Bonding_and_Water

    You failed to respond to a single challenge of mine. You could not provide a single, solitary source of independent agreement with any of your arguments, here or on your silly web postings that you link to.

    I had started to believe you were almost as deluded as Doug Cotton. Now I see that you are worse! He actually tries to provide some evidence for his unicorn physics.

  • Avatar

    Jim McGinn

    |

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean/comment-page-8/#comment-115718
    BW: Fine. Now explain to the atmosphere that from now on wind is only allowed to flow strictly horizontal, and thermals, rain showers etc. (CONVECTION) are only allowed to rise strictly vertical.
    JM: You guys never had a chance. Meteorology is a phoney paradigm, not unlike climatology’s global warming, but a lot more subtle. The big clue that you should have noticed is that meteorologists refuse to discuss any of this.
    Here are a few things you all should take away from the year-long circular debate:
    1) Understand the jet streams first.
    2) Understand the correct role of water in the atmosphere
    3) Understand how 1 and 2 are related by way of water’s surface tension
    Also, start from the perspective that meteorologists are dunces. Anything they say should be discarded as superstition. Convection is nonsense. Latent heat is nonsense. Ignore them. They have been trained–just like climatologists–to say whatever is necessary to maintain widespread belief. They are not scientists. They are propagandists.

  • Avatar

    Jim McGinn

    |

    James: Now you’ve gone full delusional:

    Give it up, bozo, you baely understand any of this.

    ‘There is no such thing as “latent heat of evaporation.”

    It’s nonsense. It’s wildly stupid to suggest

    ‘ What are you smoking??? This is such a basic concept! It’s in any textbook or any reference work. There are tables and tables of these values for all sorts of substances, including water.

    It’s meteorological propaganda. It’s untested BS.

    They show the figures for these substances to many significant figures, reflecting the careful laboratory measurments that have been made for this value in laboratories across the world over decades of work.

    Like you have a clue. It’s meaningless.

    Can you show me a single textbook that agrees with your claim that this concept and all of these tables are fiction?

    Face it, dude. You don’t have a scientific argument/point, do you? You just believe, you don’t actually understand any of this. Be honest.

    You say: “You are just clueless. Show us the numbers. Evaporation is a low energy process. It doesn’t produce a phase change. Simple physics.”

    It’s untested pseudoscience. End of story.

    The “enthalpy of evaporation” a.k.a. “latent heat of vaporization” a.k.a “latent heat of evaporation” of water is 2257 kJ/kg. This is compared to the 4.2 kJ/kg to raise the temperature of liquid water by 1 degree C. Which means that evaporation of a kg of liquid water requires more than 5 TIMES the energy to raise that kg of liquid water from 0C to 100C. “Low energy process”, my foot!

    Why do you think it is meteorologists universally refuse to discuss any of this–not even with themselves! You can’t discuss details because nobody can. Explain the magical process by which latent heat produces wind? You can’t. Nobody can. It’s pseudoscience. Meaningless.

    And that doesn’t even address the fact that moist air is heavier than dry air, thus moist air convection is impossible.

    Just checking back at one of my old engineering thermodynamics textbooks, the authors specifically note: “We shall use the terms ‘vapor’ and ‘gas’ interchangeably.’ (Reynolds and Perkins, “Engineering Thermodynamics”, p.85)

    Can you show me a single text book that explains that a “vapor” is “liquid”?

    Semantics. You not nothing.

    Do you seriously not understand the relevance of the established science that water is a strongly polar liquid and therefore a polar solvent, and how that demolishes your claim that liquid water is not really a polar liquid?

    Meaningless.

    Can you show me a single text book that explains that water is not really a polar liquid?

    incoherent.

    I’m astonished and appalled that you don’t understand the importance of the static hydrogen bonds in establishing the crystalline structure of ice, and how they get broken in liquid water, more and more as the temperature increases above freezing.

    You are confused. The lattice structure of ice is a conjecture that has never been verified. It is just believed.

    Can you show me a single text book that explains how this conventional explanation is wrong?

    I could go on and on, but there is no point.

    You don’t understand any of this. That is why you are so scattered. Start small. Tell us how its possible for heavier moist air to convect through lighter air.

    Do a search on my posts at sci.physics so that I don’t have to repeat arguments.

    Make concise points. Stop painting with a broad brush or you will never learn.

  • Avatar

    Ed Bo

    |

    James:

    Now you’ve gone full delusional: ‘There is no such thing as “latent heat of evaporation.” ‘ What are you smoking??? This is such a basic concept! It’s in any textbook or any reference work. There are tables and tables of these values for all sorts of substances, including water. They show the figures for these substances to many significant figures, reflecting the careful laboratory measurments that have been made for this value in laboratories across the world over decades of work.

    Can you show me a single textbook that agrees with your claim that this concept and all of these tables are fiction?

    You say: “You are just clueless. Show us the numbers. Evaporation is a low energy process. It doesn’t produce a phase change. Simple physics.”

    The “enthalpy of evaporation” a.k.a. “latent heat of vaporization” a.k.a “latent heat of evaporation” of water is 2257 kJ/kg. This is compared to the 4.2 kJ/kg to raise the temperature of liquid water by 1 degree C. Which means that evaporation of a kg of liquid water requires more than 5 TIMES the energy to raise that kg of liquid water from 0C to 100C. “Low energy process”, my foot!

    Just checking back at one of my old engineering thermodynamics textbooks, the authors specifically note: “We shall use the terms ‘vapor’ and ‘gas’ interchangeably.’ (Reynolds and Perkins, “Engineering Thermodynamics”, p.85)

    Can you show me a single text book that explains that a “vapor” is “liquid”?

    Do you seriously not understand the relevance of the established science that water is a strongly polar liquid and therefore a polar solvent, and how that demolishes your claim that liquid water is not really a polar liquid?

    Can you show me a single text book that explains that water is not really a polar liquid?

    I’m astonished and appalled that you don’t understand the importance of the static hydrogen bonds in establishing the crystalline structure of ice, and how they get broken in liquid water, more and more as the temperature increases above freezing.

    Can you show me a single text book that explains how this conventional explanation is wrong?

    I could go on and on, but there is no point.

  • Avatar

    Ed Bo

    |

    Nobel-Prize winning physicist Richard Feynman, one of the greatest scientists of the 20th Century, neatly disposes of this argument in a single paragraph in his Lectures on Physics Vol 1 No 40:

    http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_40.html

    “Let us begin with an example: the distribution of the molecules in an atmosphere like our own, but without the winds and other kinds of disturbance. Suppose that we have a column of gas extending to a great height, and at thermal equilibrium—unlike our atmosphere, which as we know gets colder as we go up. We could remark that if the temperature differed at different heights, we could demonstrate lack of equilibrium by connecting a rod to some balls at the bottom (Fig. 40–1), where they would pick up 12kT12kT from the molecules there and would shake, via the rod, the balls at the top and those would shake the molecules at the top. So, ultimately, of course, the temperature becomes the same at all heights in a gravitational field.”

    These lectures have been a primary text for top science students around the world for 50 years now. Surely someone would have pointed out if this were mistaken…

    • Avatar

      Jim McGinn

      |

      Ed Bo: Surely someone would have pointed out if this were mistaken…

      James McGinn: Well, since you brought it up, Feynman had a poor understanding of H2O that is reflected in the link you posted. For example, he erroneously considered evaporation to produce gaseous H2O, seemingly ignoring the fact that gaseous H2O only takes place at temperatures much higher than is available in earth’s atmosphere. Essentially, Feynman had zero understanding of the complexities associated with H2O’s hydrogen bonding peculiarities. He didn’t, for example, have any idea at all that H bonds actually neutralize the H2O molecules polarity:
      https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ

      Newton was equally ignorant on this subject.

      • Avatar

        Ed Bo

        |

        Jim:

        Most kids understand that water vapor is indeed a gas by the time they get about half way through their first high school chemistry class. But you still don’t understand it!

        If water vapor were not a gas, sweating would not cool you through its latent heat of evaporation. Last time I checked, sweating helped to coo!l me

        If water vapor were not a gas below the boiling temperature or the critical temperature (I’m not sure which your claim is), there would be required a substantial additional boost of energy to bring a vapor/gas past that temperature. None has EVER been observed.

        If “H bonds actually neutralize the H2O molecules polarity” then microwave ovens, whose operation depends on the polarity of H2O molecules, would not work. Last time I checked, they do.

        These hydrogen bonds are weak enough that they are broken by the simple fact of melting ice. The idea that they would have any significant effect on H2O in the vapor/gas state is ludicrous!

        By the way, my technical dictionary defines “vapor” as “a gas at a temperature below the critical temperature, so it can be liquified by compression, without lowering the temperature.”

        Note the first two words: “a gas”.

        • Avatar

          Jim McGinn

          |

          Bo:
          Jim, most kids understand that water vapor is indeed a gas by the time they get about half way through their first high school chemistry class. But you still don’t understand it!
          Jim:
          LOL. Well, Bo, I’m a physicist. As such I know the difference between a vapor (suspended liquid microdroplets) and a gas (monomolecular). Schoolchildren, and yourself it appears, don’t understand this distinction. There is no gaseous H2O in earth’s atmosphere.

          Meteorologists hide on this issue the way climatologists hide on CO2 forcing.

          BO:
          If water vapor were not a gas, sweating would not cool you through its latent heat of evaporation.
          Jim: Wrong. Liquid H2O has a high heat capacity and heat conductivity. That is how it cools. The same ability exists in your car engine and it does’t turn to steam. So, you are just ignorant. Sorry.
          Bo:
          Last time I checked, sweating helped to coo!l me. If water vapor were not a gas below the boiling temperature or the critical temperature (I’m not sure which your claim is), there would be required a substantial additional boost of energy to bring a vapor/gas past that temperature. None has EVER been observed.
          Jim:
          That’s because you haven’t the slightest idea what you are talking about. Surely you don’t dispute that the boiling temp of H2O at sea level is 212 F. Do you? Surely you don’t dispute that if you got anywhere near that temperature you would die. Right?
          Bo: If “H bonds actually neutralize the H2O molecules polarity” then microwave ovens, whose operation depends on the polarity of H2O molecules, would not work. Last time I checked, they do.
          Jim: This is an absurd claim.
          Bo:These hydrogen bonds are weak enough that they are broken by the simple fact of melting ice.
          Jim: Wrong. Its not that simple. There are actually more broken bonds in ice than there are in liquid water. In liquid water polarity is almost fully neutralized, that’s why it is so fluid. Ice is hard because some of the bonds have broken thus reactivating some of the polarity, as described in my paper.
          Bo: The idea that they would have any significant effect on H2O in the vapor/gas state is ludicrous!
          Jim: Well, I’ve studies this subject indepth for four year now. You are just clueless–not unlike Feynman in that respect.
          Bo: By the way, my technical dictionary defines “vapor” as “a gas at a temperature below the critical temperature, so it can be liquified by compression, without lowering the temperature.”
          Jim: Many books/websites/teachers are completely confused on water. It is, by far, the most misunderstood substance on our planet.
          Bo:
          Note the first two words: “a gas”.
          Jim:
          Who cares. Semantics don’t define physical reality.

          • Avatar

            Ed Bo

            |

            Dude! Seriously???

            You remind me of the dimmer kids in my high school chemistry class who struggled with the idea that a substance could be in both liquid and gaseous states at the same temperature, and that the boiling temperature is simply the temperature at which the saturation vapor pressure equals the ambient temperature.

            But most of these mediocre 15 years olds eventually got it. But you, who has the gall to call himself a physicist (and to call Feynman clueless!), still cannot understand this basic point.

            It is simply an observed FACT that water evaporating at temperatures way below the boiling point requires the latent heat of evaporation for the conversion from liquid to gaseous states. This value has been measured repeatedly and is known to many significant figures. According to your imaginary physics, where the water is still a liquid, this value would be zero.

            In your conception of physics, water in the air as the temperature passes 100C is converted from liquid to gaseous form, this is where the latent heat value would be required. It is simply an observed, repeatable FACT that no such effect has ever been seen.

            Hilariously, you claim that ” In liquid water polarity is almost fully neutralized, that’s why it is so fluid.” You seem to be completely ignorant of the whole concept of polar versus non-polar solvents, and of liquid water as the prime example of a polar solvent, whose polarity easily dissolves substances such as salt.

            And you are bizarrely completely ignorant of the reason for the hexagonal geometry of ice crystals, which are due to the (unbroken) hydrogen bonds, which at these low temperatures and energies, can hold even though they are quite weak.

            You probably have no clue why pure liquid water has its maximum density at +4C. These are very basic points of physical chemistry, and you are completely oblivious to all of them.

            Can you point me to a SINGLE standard chemistry textbook that agrees with your views on this issue? Or are you going to claim, like Doug Cotton, that you are a solitary super-genius who is the only person on the planet who understands that 200 years of laboratory science has gotten things completely wrong?

          • Avatar

            Jim McGinn

            |

            Dude! Seriously???

            You remind me of the dimmer kids in my high school chemistry class who struggled with the idea that a substance could be in both liquid and gaseous states at the same temperature,

            LOL. Oh really. So, if you can imagine it it must be true. You are ignorant.

            and that the boiling temperature is simply the temperature at which the saturation vapor pressure equals the ambient temperature.

            Absurd. Consult steam tables.

            But most of these mediocre 15 years olds eventually got it.

            LOL. You’re just a dimwit.

            But you, who has the gall to call himself a physicist (and to call Feynman clueless!), still cannot understand this basic point.

            You don’t have an argument, dude. Find a new hobby.

            It is simply an observed FACT that water evaporating at temperatures way below the boiling point requires the latent heat of evaporation

            Pseudoscience. There is no such thing as “latent heat of evaporation.”

            for the conversion from liquid to gaseous states. This value has been measured repeatedly and is known to many significant figures. According to your imaginary physics, where the water is still a liquid, this value would be zero.

            You are just clueless. Show us the numbers. Evaporation is a low energy process. It doesn’t produce a phase change. Simple physics.

            In your conception of physics, water in the air as the temperature passes 100C is converted from liquid to gaseous form, this is where the latent heat value would be required. It is simply an observed, repeatable FACT that no such effect has ever been seen.

            Right, as I stated. There is no gaseous H2O in the atmosphere. Are you confused?

            Hilariously, you claim that ” In liquid water polarity is almost fully neutralized, that’s why it is so fluid.” You seem to be completely ignorant of the whole concept of polar versus non-polar solvents, and of liquid water as the prime example of a polar solvent, whose polarity easily dissolves substances such as salt.

            Relevance?

            And you are bizarrely completely ignorant of the reason for the hexagonal geometry of ice crystals, which are due to the (unbroken) hydrogen bonds, which at these low temperatures and energies, can hold even though they are quite weak.

            You seem confused. Obviously you barely understand this subject.

            You probably have no clue why pure liquid water has its maximum density at +4C

            It’s an unresolved issue. Go ahead, explain it to us.

            . These are very basic points of physical chemistry, and you are completely oblivious to all of them.

            I’m an expert on this subject. What is your point?

            Can you point me to a SINGLE standard chemistry textbook that agrees with your views on this issue?

            Depends. What issue?

            Or are you going to claim, like Doug Cotton, that you are a solitary super-genius who is the only person on the planet who understands that 200 years of laboratory science has gotten things completely wrong?

            Can you dispute anything I’m saying? Can you find anybody who can? If not, what conclusion would you draw from that?

            Science is an open book, is it not?

            Don’t be a whiner. Make an argument.

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    Sheesh Doug

    I thought he agreed with you that you are the only TRUE genius who is capable of explaining it all and yet you attack his posting.

Comments are closed