Why the Moon gets both Colder and Hotter than Earth

Written by Malcolm Roberts, Galileo Movement

After years of failed predictions about man-made global warming, climate scientists are beginning to realize that the greenhouse gas theory is wrong. They are seeing that carbon dioxide (CO2) does not ‘keep our planet warmer than it should be,’ as was once believed. earth moon and sun
 
Instead, a growing number of eminent physicists, space scientists and independent researchers, equipped with greater understanding of higher level thermodynamics and astrophysics, are correcting over 30 years’ of greenhouse gas confusion. In Australia, the Galileo Movement is helping to get that message across with  ‘CSIROh! Climate of Deception? … Or First Step to Freedom?’‘CSIROh! Climate of Deception? … Or First Step to Freedom?’
 
One of the simpler guides to re-education about how gases work in an atmosphere is to examine how a planetary body, our Moon, that has almost no atmospheres reacts to energy it receives from the sun.
 
Temperatures on the moon in sunlight reach up to 123 degrees C. The dark side of the lunar surface is as cold as minus 153 degrees C. Our moon is both hotter and colder than our Earth.
 
This wide variation is because our moon has no atmosphere to cool the surface during sunlight or retain heat when not in sunlight.
 
All atmospheric gases on Earth act as coolants during the hours of sunlight and slow the rate of cooling in absence of sunlight.
 
Another difference is that our moon has no surface water. In Earth’s atmosphere water vapour moderates temperature by reducing highs and raising lows. It stabilises temperature swings. Doesn’t this make water vapour a climate stabiliser? 
 
Water vapour transfers heat around the atmosphere. In phase changes it acts as a coolant. How can water vapour have a positive warming feedback as claimed by government consensus scientists and the UN?
 
If water vapour, during its phase-change to water droplets did warm the atmosphere, then a) rain would be warm and b) rain couldn’t fall because the latent “heat” would re-evaporate the water droplets. How is it possible for ice to fall as hail or snow when even more latent “heat” is released?!
 
****
 
The above is a brief extract and intended to be read in conjunction with, all parts of and appendices to the document entitled CSIROh!
 
 
And for serious academics: http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/vacuum.pdf (just check the conclusion for inspiration)
 
 

Comments (180)

  • Avatar

    PhysicistsGroup

    |

    Temperatures for planets and satellite moons are “anchored” by the fact that radiative balance with the Sun’s insolation must occur and be represented by a temperature usually found in the planet’s troposphere. If there is no atmosphere then it will be at the solid surface, as for the Moon. In the case of Uranus, it is in the methane layer in the stratosphere. That is where we find temperatures around the effective radiating temperature of (58±3)°K. [source]

    The temperature profile builds up to warmer temperatures at lower altitudes and in the troposphere it follows closely the expected |g/Cp| temperature gradient. When we use the known data to calculate that gradient and then apply simple geometry to determine the temperature 350Km further down at the base of the nominal troposphere of Uranus we get about 329K. Estimates here say it is 320K and that makes sense because the gradient is always reduced a little by inter-molecular radiation.

    Now, the point is that there must be a mechanism operating that allows the temperature profile to build up downwards, because otherwise it would be highly improbable that we would find the right temperature at the base of the troposphere. Furthermore, if all temperatures from the core outwards were supposedly due to the core still cooling off, then what would happen to the gradient calculations in the distant future when the base of the troposphere might be only, say 250K?

    The mechanism (based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics) represents a major breakthrough in 21st century climate science, because it also functions on Venus, Earth etc and completely does away with any need to assume back radiation supplies the extra energy, which it simply cannot do anyway. You may read about it [url=http://climate-change-theory.com]here[/url].

    Therein lies the death knell of the radiative greenhouse conjecture.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Doug Cotton “] 

    [b]Pat Obar has absolutely no understanding of the Law of Entropy (aka “Second Law of Thermodynamics”)[/b]I quote from [url=http://www.entropylaw.com/entropy2ndlaw.html]this[/url] source:[/quote]

    There is absolutely no such Law. Clausius only, remarked on what is repeatedly observed, spontaneous, always goes downhill.

    [quote] [i]Joule’s experiment, while designed to show the first law unintentionally demonstrates the second too. As soon as the constraint is removed the potential produces a flow from the falling weight through the moving paddle through the thermometer. This is precisely the one-way action of the second law and the experiment depends upon it entirely.
    [/i][/quote]

    So what? Joule correctly demonstrated that the then current concept of thermodynamics are incorrect. Dr.Joule never claimed that the later, Doug smelly Cotton sock puppet,fantasy, has any validity whatsoever!

    • Avatar

      John Marshall

      |

      Well, there is. Second law can be reduced to:-

      ”Entropy must increase.”

      Can’t get any simpler.

      • Avatar

        solvingtornadoes

        |

        Okay, but is it a law true in all instances or is it a general truth for which we have local and temporal exceptions. It’s the latter. We do have local and temporal exceptions. The fact that entities can, in some instances, conserve energy is an exception.

        The second law is true in general. But not necessarily in particular. Therefore it’s not very useful. Especially not in the absurd manner that Doug is using it.

        Pat seems incapable of enunciating Doug’s shortcomings on this subject, which suggests that Pat barely understands any of this.

        • Avatar

          solvingtornadoes

          |

          It’s always true in general. It’s not always true in any and all instances and timespans. The exceptions are what make reality interesting. Like lifeforms.

          Doug, you are overgeneralizing.

      • Avatar

        Pat Obar

        |

        [quote name=”John Marshall”]Well, there is. Second law can be reduced to:-

        ”Entropy must increase.”

        Can’t get any simpler.[/quote]

        This would mean that you can identify locate, and measure, entropy! Can you do any of that?
        Is the rate of increase always greater than zero? Are you writing of Laws or of post normal nonsense? Please show that electromagnetic flux to space increases entropy. Entropy where?

        • Avatar

          Pat Obar

          |

          [quote name=”Doug   Cotton “]No it can’t be reduced to that, because it says a lot more.[/quote]
          Neither you nor Rod Swenson can even define what “entropy” is, only what it is not! Your examples are but another refutation of the concept of conservation of energy, which is fine!
          Do you have even one clear statement of “it”?
          Where is your entropy located? How do you measure “it”? 😉

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”Doug   Cotton “]Quoting from the above linked website …

            [i]Clausius coined the term “[b]entropy[/b]” to refer to the [b]dissipated potential[/b] and the [b]second law, in its most general form, states that the world acts spontaneously to minimize potentials[/b] (or equivalently maximize entropy), and with this, active end-directedness or time-asymmetry was, for the first time, given a universal physical basis.[/i][/quote]

            Do you have even one clear statement of “it”?
            Where is your entropy located? How do you measure “it”?
            All you ever have is that power yielding [b]work[/b],construction, must have a loss in power that you now call [b]new Cotton entropy[/b] that must increase, as energy is dissipated. Can any one get more circular?

            😉 😡 😕 😥

          • Avatar

            PhysicistsGroup

            |

            Where did you read “entropy must increase as energy is dissipated” young Pat???

            Correct physics tells us that entropy increases as unbalanced energy potentials are dissipated.

            But I guess your understanding of thermodynamics is so pathetic that you simply don’t understand the difference in the above two statements, and that is why you made your incorrect comment, as indeed all your comments are incorrect.

            Let us all know when you get your first degree in physics.

            Please respond by repeating all the above in large type so that it sticks here because ignorant Administrators delete the truth and leave the garbage herein, judging science by their warped idea of the qualifications, experience and knowledge of the authors, or perhaps just their intent to protect the reputations of their heroes like Postma and Latour.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”PhysicistsGroup”]Where did you read “entropy must increase as energy is dissipated” young Pat??? [/quote]

            From the rantings of Douggy baby!
            [quote]
            Correct physics tells us that entropy increases as unbalanced energy potentials are dissipated.
            [/quote]

            Your have a slovenly claim of “unbalanced energy potentials are dissipated.” What is dissipated?

            Energy?, Potential?, The complex conjugate of Entropy? Please demonstrate [b]any comprehension[/b] of your ranting “correct physics”.

          • Avatar

            PhysicistsGroup

            |

            This website explains what Doug was talking about I think you’ll find … he’s mentioned it on Roy Spencer’s thread.

            http://www.entropylaw.com/

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    Does anyone give a damn of your spoutings?

    Please give any evidence of the above !

    • Avatar

      solvingtornadoes

      |

      The worst reason in science as to why you believe or don’t believe in something is whether or not others “give a damn,” about it. Many believe that CO2 causes atmospheric warming. Many people believe in cold steam. Neither of these things is true or not true because other people believe them or not. The fact that I believe both of these notions are nonsense does not make them nonsense. The fact that you believe one of these to be true and the other false does not make the one true and the other false. The fact that all meteorologists believe in cold steam does not make cold steam true any more than the fact that all climatologists believe in CO2 Forcing means that it must be true.

      • Avatar

        solvingtornadoes

        |

        By the way, in addition to the fact there is zero positive evidence of its existence, my belief that cold steam is brain-dead group think and not science is based on an advanced understanding of H2O’s polarity and hydrogen bonding (look it up) properties. PSI is just a bunch of engineers. None of you have the exploratory instinct. If it isn’t all laid out for you then you are out of your elements. Nor is there much in the way of deductive reasoning going on. But these go hand in hand.

        In short, you PSI folks fall into many of the inductive reasoning traps that 97 percenters fall into. You aren’t advancing. You don’t even know where to begin.

        Scientific progress begins until and if one first sees beyond the seductively simple nonsense that “everybody” believes. Unfortunately that means a lot of things that conservatives value are put aside.

        Maybe PSI should change its name to a name that better represents its commitment to conservative values which, by all appearances, seems to be its primary agenda.

        Isaac Newton would not, IMO, want to have his science associated with any kind of political agenda he would want his science to be presented by an unwavering commitment to deductive reasoning and the exclusion of inductive reasoning with extreme prejudice. That, after all, is what science is really about.

    • Avatar

      solvingtornadoes

      |

      Does anyone give a damn of your spoutings?

      No, but everybody should. Because this is a discovery that will rejuvenate and intellectually dead paradigm, meteorology.

      You ideologically motivated bozos can continue to waste your time trying to educate people that don’t want to be educated. I’m doing something useful, I’m revolutionizing a whole paradigm. And that starts by informing them (and anybody) that it is plainly stupid and anti-scientific to form a conclusion based on zero data and to refuse to consider that you might be wrong.

      http://www.solvingtornadoes.com

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Doug Cotton “]When a ball is falling through a vacuum tube gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy (just as happens to molecules in flight between collisions) and total energy remains constant. However, entropy increases and that is what the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us. As a result of that law, a stable density gradient forms in a planet’s troposphere..[/quote]

    What total silliness! The second law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with power, energy, or action. 2LTD has only to do with the spontaneous “transfer” of power, never needed, and never in a direction of higher potential!
    2LTD has nothing to do with your claimed “entropy”.

    Silly Doug, you seem not skilful enough to describe Your version of “entropy” so others can gain anything except SILLY! 😆 🙂 😉

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Doug   Cotton “]Perhaps Pat Obar or Greg House will be able to tell me how the thermal energy absorbed in the 59K methane layer in the stratosphere of Uranus then gets down to the far hotter base of the nominal troposphere so as to maintain 320K temperatures there.[/quote]

    Why do you not go to Uranus to check how a gas giant sets its own temperature?
    Perhaps that would give the rest of us some relief from your silliness.

    • Avatar

      Pat Obar

      |

      Again, and again you defeat yourself, silly!
      You have no hypothesis only nonsense, silly!
      Again, and again you demonstrate no ability to read or think, silly!

      If Earth system entropy is increasing, [b]the power [u]accumulated[/u] in the lowest temperature mass,”atmosphere”, must be greater than the increase in temperature of that same mass. [/b] [u]The precise definition of thermodynamic entropy.[/u] Entropy is the ratio of accumulated power (watt-sec) or (joule-sec),action, by a mass [u]unable to do work [/u] divided by the temperature of that mass. Entropy spontaneously collects at the lowest temperature mass until spontaneously dispatched via EMR in any direction of lower radiance.
      Any other power [u]accumulation[/u] must violate the laws of thermodynamics! 😡

      • Avatar

        Pat Obar

        |

        [quote name=”Doug Cotton “][i]”Entropy is the ratio of accumulated power (watt-sec) or (joule-sec),action, by a mass unable to do work divided by the temperature of that mass.”[/i]

        Nope. Not in a gravitational field. You could have learnt that from my paper. You could even have learnt it from Wiki …[/quote]

        Learnt indeed third grader!! I always try to “learnt” something from “Silly Doug Smelly Cotton Sock Puppet” who has by admission, “There are numerous defamatory remarks pertaining to myself on this and other threads.”, all over the blog sphere! Just why is that, silly?
        I still think “silly” is the preferred adjective, although deceptive and uninformed have their use! 🙂

        Doug Cotton 2015-03-06 05:06

        “To silent readers: I’m still laughing at Pat’s claim that entropy gets “spontaneously dispatched via EMR in any direction of lower radiance.”

        That is all spontaneous thermal EMR ever does, and how it is observed!

        “That’s energy Patty boy. You confuse those “en” words.”

        OK, silly!

      • Avatar

        Pat Obar

        |

        [quote name=”Doug   Cotton “]Seeing that this thread is about the Moon, Pat, the 1300°C temperature in the core of the Moon proves you wrong, because that temperature is not supported by internally generated energy, and nor is the Moon still just cooling off. The core temperature is supported by the Sun’s energy for the reasons explained in the website. [/quote]

        The last time I measured temperature of core of Earth’s moon it was 308 Kelvin.
        This temperature varies widely from moment to moment as this moon is a low thermal mass satellite of the inner planets. Moon sensible heat, and temperature adjusts rapidly to all the wrenching about of angular momentum of the outer planets. 😀

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Doug Cotton “]The Earth’s surface has a higher mean temperature than the surface of the Moon because of the now-proven gravito-thermal effect in Earth’s troposphere and the resulting downward convective heat transfers in which we can prove entropy is increasing.[/quote]

    Again, and again you defeat yourself, silly!
    If Earth system entropy is increasing, the power accumulated in the lowest temperature mass,”atmosphere”, must be greater than the increase in temperature of that same mass. This is exactly what the CAGW folk claim, and is untrue! Any other power accumulation must violate the laws of thermodynamics! 😡

    • Avatar

      solvingtornadoes

      |

      Is there anything in what you write that is original or provocative? It seems to me that you are proclaiming that you have nothing that is new. You are just rehashing concepts that everybody learned in undergraduate physics.

      • Avatar

        solvingtornadoes

        |

        You have nothing that, at best, couldn’t be found in a text book. You are boring and self-possessed. Nobody is interested in your trivial pursuit. Go away.

    • Avatar

      Pat Obar

      |

      Again, and again you defeat yourself, silly!
      You have no hypothesis only nonsense, silly!

      If Earth system entropy is increasing, the power accumulated in the lowest temperature mass,”atmosphere”, must be greater than the increase in temperature of that same mass. This is exactly what the CAGW folk claim, and is untrue! Any other power accumulation must violate the laws of thermodynamics! 😡

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    Doug, my right to consider you to be an evil person or an idiot or both is fully supported by the free speech principles.

    Let us talk about the “evil idiot effect”, it would be much more interesting.

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      I firmly believe that you know what sort of idiocy you theory is but keep posting it excessively for evil reasons. Just to pollute this site out of pure hate for not recognizing you.

    • Avatar

      Pat Obar

      |

      Multiple silly frauds do not cancel

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    Doug Smelly Cotton Sock Puppet must be getting upset over no one paying attention to his silliness 😛 !

  • Avatar

    Mack

    |

    …..”Joe Postma’s conjecture”
    What is Joe Postma’s conjecture? Explain to the “silent readers” what Joe Postma’s cojecture is. Go ahead Doug…
    right here..What is Joe’s conjecture? …briefly …with no links.

    • Avatar

      Mack

      |

      Actually , don’t bother to answer that duggie, I know that would just trigger yet another burst of your boring looney longwinded confusing pseudophysics comments …..besides I’m off for a couple of weeks holiday and am going to have a nice rest from you.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    “If water vapour, during its phase-change to water droplets . . .”

    Water vapor is not steam. There is no steam in our atmosphere. There is a lot of water vapor. But it is a vapor, not a gas.

    Since WV is a liquid (small droplets) there is no phase change associated with condensation of water vapor into larger droplets. The notion that “latent heat” plays a role in atmospheric processes is just as ludicrous as the notion that CO2 forcing plays a role.

    • Avatar

      solvingtornadoes

      |

      Doug, you are just another vague nitwit. You are indistinguishable from all the pretenders here in PSI that won’t address the issue that meteorologists believe in “cold steam.”

      • Avatar

        solvingtornadoes

        |

        It’s comical that you think you are different than all the other bozos on this planet pretending to understand something as complex as our atmosphere by skipping the details.

        • Avatar

          solvingtornadoes

          |

          Doug, why don’t you post the first three paragraphs of whatever book it is you want us to read and I will give you some feedback. My previous attempt to read your stuff left me with the feeling that you really don’t have a point.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Face it Doug, you have nothing original to say, by your own admission. Right?

      • Avatar

        solvingtornadoes

        |

        It’s a litmus test of your critical reasoning skills. You are one of many that failed this test. Cold steam is to meteorology what CO2 is to climatology.

    • Avatar

      Pat Obar

      |

      [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]”If water vapour, during its phase-change to water droplets . . .”

      Water vapor is not steam. There is no steam in our atmosphere. There is a lot of water vapor. But it is a vapor, not a gas.

      Since WV is a liquid (small droplets) there is no phase change associated with condensation of water vapor into larger droplets. The notion that “latent heat” plays a role in atmospheric processes is just as ludicrous as the notion that CO2 forcing plays a role.[/quote]

      Would you like to give any scientific evidence to your silly claims?

      • Avatar

        solvingtornadoes

        |

        If you can’t give any scientific evidence that disputes it then it isn’t silly is it. And if nobody can give any scientific evidence that disputes it then you are silly. Right?

        • Avatar

          Pat Obar

          |

          There is never a reason to dispute silliness, acknowledging the silly is enough!

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            LOL. I always knew that deep down you are a consensus scientist and not a real scientist. Maybe you missed your calling in life, Pat. You could have been a meteorologist!

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            So, Pat, why is it wrong for climatologists to allow consensus to determine truth but it is okay for you and meteorologist?

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Address this issue you evasive twit.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]Address this issue you evasive twit.[/quote]

            I refuse to do your bidding!! I have nothing to do with any meteorologist. My comment was on “your” silly fantasy!

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Pay, when it comes to science you are one hell of a good engineer.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]LOL. I always knew that deep down you are a consensus scientist and not a real scientist. Maybe you missed your calling in life, Pat. You could have been a meteorologist![/quote]

            I consider your attack of me being some sort of scientist as an insult! I would not touch any meteorologist with your ten foot pole!

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            You mean like this silly notion that the earth orbits the sun?

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            That’s basically the same argument all consensus scientist present. Today Biden presented an argument that to dispute AGW is like disputing gravity. Do you think that your belief in cold steam is equivalent to AGW? Explain to us how you differentiate.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]That’s basically the same argument all consensus scientist present. Today Biden presented an argument that to dispute AGW is like disputing gravity. Do you think that your belief in cold steam is equivalent to AGW? Explain to us how you differentiate.[/quote]

            There is never a reason to dispute silliness, acknowledging the silly is enough!

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            You got nothing.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Put up or shut up.

          • Avatar

            BigWaveDave

            |

            Believers in AGCC rely upon consensus mainly because there is no demonstrated physical means for the effect they claim.

            Properties of steam including latent heat, partial pressure and temperature of saturation, specific volume, on the other hand have all been not only demonstrated, but also precisely measured and mapped. Those of us whose work involves steam power or control of indoor climate use this information to precisely and predictably size and test equipment every day. No consensus is needed to affirm the validity that is evident in the results.

            st’s inference that well known properties of H2O are supported merely by consensus seems maniacally silly.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”BigWaveDave”]Believers in AGCC rely upon consensus mainly because there is no demonstrated physical means for the effect they claim.

            Properties of steam including latent heat, partial pressure and temperature of saturation, specific volume, on the other hand have all been not only demonstrated, but also precisely measured and mapped. Those of us whose work involves steam power or control of indoor climate use this information to precisely and predictably size and test equipment every day. No consensus is needed to affirm the validity that is evident in the results.

            st’s inference that well known properties of H2O are supported merely by consensus seems maniacally silly.[/quote]

            Jim McGinn seems unable to understand that water condensate (visible clouds) are prevalent in this atmosphere. this condensate is not a gas and does not need to obey Avogadro’s conjecture! The density of this airborne condensate does also change with pressure in the gravitationally compressed fluid.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            [quote name=”Pat Obar”]
            Jim McGinn seems unable to understand that water condensate (visible clouds) are prevalent in this atmosphere. this condensate is not a gas and does not need to obey Avogadro’s conjecture![/quote]

            My point exactly. I’m the one that explained this to you.

            [quote name=”Pat Obar”]
            The density of this airborne condensate does also change with pressure in the gravitationally compressed fluid.[/quote]

            Other than the one on the top of your head, do you have a point?

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]
            Jim McGinn seems unable to understand that water condensate (visible clouds) are prevalent in this atmosphere. this condensate is not a gas and does not need to obey Avogadro’s conjecture![/quote]

            “My point exactly. I’m the one that explained this to you.”

            Never have you Jim in your ignorance ever admitted that what you spout is a condensate, an aerosol, or an airborne colloidal suspension of liquid or solid H20. You always call it water vapor or humidity which it is not!
            WV, humidity,or steam, all synonymous, refer to the trimer monomolecular gas phase of H20 and exists in Earth’s atmosphere at all temperatures and pressures! 🙂
            WV or humidity is the single trimer molecule in the gas phase of H20 and exists in Earth’s atmosphere at all temperatures and pressures! 🙂

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Pat Obar:
            Jim McGinn seems unable to understand that water condensate (visible clouds) are prevalent in this atmosphere, this condensate is not a gas and does not need to obey Avogadro’s conjecture!

            Jim McGinn:
            My point exactly. I’m the one that explained this to you.

            Obar:
            Never have you Jim in your ignorance ever admitted that what you spout is a condensate, an aerosol, or an airborne colloidal suspension of liquid or solid H20. You always call it water vapor or humidity which it is not!

            Jim McGinn:
            I can’t figure out what your point is. Are you accusing me of being a cloud denier?

            Obar:
            WV, humidity,or steam, all synonymous, refer to the trimer monomolecular gas phase of H20 and exists in Earth’s atmosphere at all temperatures and pressures! 🙂
            WV or humidity is the single trimer molecule in the gas phase of H20 and exists in Earth’s atmosphere at all temperatures and pressures! 🙂

            Jim McGinn:
            You get crazier with every post. What is a “trimer.” Are you referring to groups of three water molecules? Or, the water molecule itself?

            Slow down. Tell us your point then tell us what evidence you use to support your point. Avoid semantics. Avoid making an argument that is based on dogmatism.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            Jim McGinn:
            “You get crazier with every post. What is a “trimer.” Are you referring to groups of three water molecules? Or, the water molecule itself? “

            H2O in any form has three atoms, not a dimer like N2 but a trimer! The gas form is always monomolecular (a single molecule) with 69 zeptojoules of latent heat! 😉

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            [quote name=”Pat Obar”]Jim McGinn:
            “You get crazier with every post. What is a “trimer.” Are you referring to groups of three water molecules? Or, the water molecule itself? “

            H2O in any form has three atoms, not a dimer like N2 but a trimer! The gas form is always monomolecular (a single molecule) with 69 zeptojoules of latent heat! ;-)[/quote]

            You are creating your own nomenclature to no good effect. A water dimer is two molecules of H2O, trimer is three.

            You need to stop stinking up this blog with useless chatter.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]Jim McGinn:
            “You get crazier with every post. What is a “trimer.” Are you referring to groups of three water molecules? Or, the water molecule itself? “

            H2O in any form has three atoms, not a dimer like N2 but a trimer! The gas form is always monomolecular (a single molecule) with 69 zeptojoules of latent heat! ;-)[/quote]

            You are creating your own nomenclature to no good effect. A water dimer is two molecules of H2O, trimer is three. You need to stop stinking up this blog with useless chatter.[/quote]

            A water condensate or aerosol, a colloidal suspension of particles dispersed in air or gas. Can be properly called a weak multimer or weak polymer with the approximate number of molecules so grouped as a number from 2- 7,000,000! One UF6 gas molecule above 55 Celsius with a atomic mass of 352, floats around in this atmosphere much more stable than your water polymer(20), below 55 Celsius as a solid, it still floats better !!

            I promise to stop stinking up this blog with useless chatter, no later than 35 days after your last post on this blog! 😆

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            What are the forces that cause your 352 weight molecule to be suspended in gasses that weigh, on average, 11 times less (29) than your particle?

            Do you really think the right word to use is “float?” Does the term “float” not imply buoyancy? And does buoyancy not imply that the particle would have to be lighter, not heavier, than the other particles?

            Think about what other forces might cause a molecule to be suspended in gases?

            Think real hard.

            Now think what other word/concept you might use that more accurately represents the reality of the force that is causing your particle to be suspended. Avoid using the word float, since that is, obviously, not accurate.

            Let me give you some options: 1) Electro-dynamic forces; 2) kinetic forces.

            Choose one or the other or develop third option.

            Good luck.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            Quoting solvingtornadoes:

            What are the forces that cause your 352 weight molecule to be suspended in gasses that weigh, on average, 11 times less (29) than your particle?

            I have no idea why, I only measure this physical

            Quote:

            Do you really think the right word to use is “float?” Does the term “float” not imply buoyancy? And does buoyancy not imply that the particle would have to be lighter, not heavier, than the other particles?

            In any compressive medium, in a gravitational field, Mass or weight per volume means nothing about buoyancy. Force per unit area, pressure, and its derivative “curl”, define flotation!

            Quote:

            Think about what other forces might cause a molecule to be suspended in gases?

            Jim,
            Why is it that “you” can never think?

            I only measure, This little puppy will lift or will not lift in this atmosphere at this velocity!!. If it lifts, I get more money!

            I never give a shit of your theoretical concerns of why! I am up to my ears in is! How much Geld do you offer, so I may consider “why”?
            I am still counting days until you are gone! 😡

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]What are the forces that cause your 352 weight molecule to be suspended in gasses that weigh, on average, 11 times less (29) than your particle?[/quote]

            I do not know, I only measure what is measurable! Fantasy is not my thing!
            Attractive girlies with cases of beer, with. Ya wanta go somewhere and mess around, would have been very attractive, 50 years ago!!

            [quote] Do you really think the right word to use is “float?” Does the term “float” not imply buoyancy? And does buoyancy not imply that the particle would have to be lighter, not heavier, than the other particles?
            Think about what other forces might cause a molecule to be suspended in gases? Think real hard. Now think what other word/concept you might use that more accurately represents the reality of the force that is causing your particle to be suspended. Avoid using the word float, since that is, obviously, not accurate.
            Let me give you some options: 1) Electro-dynamic forces; 2) kinetic forces.
            Choose one or the other or develop third option. Good luck.[/quote]

            I have no desire to discuss with you, your insane fantasy! I only measure carefully and get paid very well for careful measurements.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            So, pretending to be a buffoon is better than admitting that you made a mistake.

            This is a phenomena I noticed amongst AGW cultists. They would rather feign stupidity than admit that their idiotic theory is wrong.

            I guess it’s the modern-day equivalent of martyrdom.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            Jim McGinn:
            “I can’t figure out what your point is. Are you accusing me of being a cloud denier?”

            Not at all! I accuse you of never being able to express the correct names for the make up of all clouds! Partly WV partly condensate or aerosol! and also having the nature of the two defined parts!

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            “Slow down. Tell us your point then tell us what evidence you use to support your point. Avoid semantics. Avoid making an argument that is based on dogmatism.”

            Why don’t you try to tell me what to do!

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Tell us why you believe something for which you have zero evidence.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            [quote name=”BigWaveDave”]
            Properties of steam
            [/quote]
            Dave, you’ve had over a month to think about this and you still haven’t made any progress. Are you mental or something? Seriously.

            The boiling point of H2O is well known. Our atmosphere has zero steam. Water vapor is liquid. What is the phase change associated with your magical “latent heat?” Liquid to liquid? Are you trying to be funny or are you just slow witted? (Choose one.)
            [quote name=”BigWaveDave”]
            including latent heat, partial pressure and temperature of saturation, specific volume, on the other hand have all been not only demonstrated, but also precisely measured and mapped.
            [/quote]
            LOL. So, let me get this straight, despite all of this empirical data you can’t formulate a argument to make your point. Right? What does this indicate?

            Let’s face it, Dave, you are not a scientist. Like a global warming advocate you can’t distinguish between what you understand and what you believe. So you just keep repeating what you believe. Like a mantra.

            People like you remind me of a movie called Idiocrasy. It involves a brain-dead populace of the future that can’t reason and can only repeat what they believe over and over again.
            [quote name=”BigWaveDave”]
            Those of us whose work involves steam power or control of indoor climate use this information to precisely and predictably size and test equipment every day. No consensus is needed to affirm the validity that is evident in the results.
            [/quote]
            So, if it is so clear to you why not just present a detailed argument to that effect?

            Make my frickin day. (Fat chance that.)

            [quote name=”BigWaveDave”]
            st’s inference that well known properties of H2O are supported merely by consensus seems maniacally silly.[/quote]
            LOL. Just like a global warming advocate, you don’t have an argument based on empirical data you have a whiny complaint based on what “everybody” believes.

            You’re a shubie.

          • Avatar

            BigWaveDave

            |

            What’s a shubie?

            Steam does exist in the atmosphere. It is called humidity, and it is invisible at concentrations that exert a partial pressure less than saturation pressure.

            When humidity condenses, it shrinks in volume, releases latent heat and becomes liquid and visible.

            One way you can see that there is water vapor in the air is if you take a cold plate from the freezer on a moderately humid day, condensation will form on the plate from the invisible steam in the air.

            If you lower the pressure from atmospheric, you lower water’s boiling point from 100 deg C. If you raise the pressure, the boiling point increases,If you lower the pressure from atmospheric, you lower water’s boiling point from 100 deg C. If you raise the pressure, the boiling point increases, until critical pressure is reached, above which, there is no phase change.
            until critical pressure is reached, above which, there is no phase change.

            I pointed out to you where you could find the maximum partial pressure of water vapor (steam) for a given temperature.

            If you lower the pressure from atmospheric, you lower water’s boiling point from 100 deg C. If you raise the pressure, the boiling point increases, until critical pressure is reached, above which, there is no phase change.

            This isn’t new, and it isn’t based on consensus. It is all based on empirical evidence.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            What’s a shubie?

            Google it.

            Steam does exist in the atmosphere.

            Evidence? Keep in mind the internet does not provide us access to your imagination.

            It is called humidity, and it is invisible at concentrations that exert a partial pressure less than saturation pressure.

            LOL. Yeah, so? What is your point?

            Why do you think partial pressure is called “partial” pressure?

            When humidity condenses, it shrinks in volume, releases latent heat and becomes liquid and visible.

            Prove it. Measure your purported latent heat. Compare your results to steam tables.

            One way you can see that there is water vapor in the air is if you take a cold plate from the freezer on a moderately humid day, condensation will form on the plate from the invisible steam in the air.

            Yeah so? What does that demonstrate? What is your point?

            If you lower the pressure from atmospheric, you lower water’s boiling point from 100 deg C.

            How is this relevant?

            If you raise the pressure, the boiling point increases,If you lower the pressure from atmospheric, you lower water’s boiling point from 100 deg C. If you raise the pressure, the boiling point increases, until critical pressure is reached, above which, there is no phase change.

            Any idiot can look this up on wikipedia. Tell us something that isn’t obvious.

            until critical pressure is reached, above which, there is no phase change.

            I pointed out to you where you could find the maximum partial pressure of water vapor (steam) for a given temperature.

            If you lower the pressure from atmospheric, you lower water’s boiling point from 100 deg C. If you raise the pressure, the boiling point increases, until critical pressure is reached, above which, there is no phase change.

            This isn’t new, and it isn’t based on consensus. It is all based on empirical evidence.

            What, exactly? You seem to not have a point.

          • Avatar

            Squid2112

            |

            [quote]Steam does exist in the atmosphere. It is called humidity, …[/quote]

            Humidity is [b]not [/b]”steam”, nor is humidity a “gas”.

          • Avatar

            BigWaveDave

            |

            “Dave, you’ve had over a month to think about this and you still haven’t made any progress. Are you mental or something? Seriously.”

            No, I just know a hell of a lot more about steam and chemistry than it appears you ever will.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            “What does this indicate?”

            This indicates that Jim McGinn is both a troll and a shubie just like Doug Cotton! Something to play with so Jim proves his incompetence! 8)

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            Your major problem, Jim, is that you are intellectually incapable of engaging people in discussions and so people lose interest in what you have to say. People expect details and all you have is generalities.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Address the issue or kindly go F yourself.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]Address the issue or kindly go F yourself.

            # solvingtornadoes 2015-03-07 20:57
            You got nothing.[/quote]

            But I do not claim I have something. Jim claims but can produce nothing, Silly!

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            You hide because you got nothing.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]You hide because you got nothing.[/quote]

            But I do not claim I have something. Jim claims but can produce nothing, Silly!

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            You have no claim or point. So why bother us? Troll somewhere else.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]You have no claim or point. So why bother us? Troll somewhere else.

            # solvingtornadoes 2015-03-04 18:48
            “If water vapour, during its phase-change to water droplets . . .”

            Water vapor is not steam. There is no steam in our atmosphere. There is a lot of water vapor. But it is a vapor, not a gas.

            Since WV is a liquid (small droplets) there is no phase change associated with condensation of water vapor into larger droplets. The notion that “latent heat” plays a role in atmospheric processes is just as ludicrous as the notion that CO2 forcing plays a role.[/quote]

            “But it is a vapor, not a gas. Since WV is a liquid (small droplets)”

            This is silly! You have no evidence that that WV is a liquid!

            “The notion that “latent heat” plays a role in atmospheric processes is just as ludicrous….”

            This is also silly! Clearly the effect of the latent heat released by condensing WV to a liquid measurably reduces the magnitude of lapse rate!! All that you have ever spouted is silly!

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            [quote name=”Pat Obar”]You have no evidence that that WV is a liquid! [/quote]

            You have no evidence WV is a gas yet that doesn’t stop you from believing. All of the evidence is consistent with it being a vapor.
            The evidence of it being a gas exist only in your overactive imagination.
            [quote name=”Pat Obar”]Clearly the effect of the latent heat released by condensing WV to a liquid measurably reduces the magnitude of lapse rate![/quote]

            LOL. Yes, that is the result of heat. Or, more precisely, that is a result of the fact that H2O has a high heat capacity. It’s got nothing to do with latent heat. That is your delusion. I’m not running a hand holding service here. Do your own research on the term “latent heat” and then kindly go F yourself.

            Regards,

            http://www.solvingtornadoes.com

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            Jim McGinn holds the record for never measuring anything in his life. He can only spout.
            I still think “silly” is the preferred adjective, however, deceptive and uninformed always are obvious! 🙂

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            You got nothing.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]You got nothing.[/quote]
            Of course Jim, but I “got” lots more than you, Jim, will ever have!! :-*

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Like what?

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Well, Pat, why don’t you explain to our audience the scientific precedent that allowed you to form a firm conclusion on something that has never been measured, detected, or tested.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]Well, Pat, why don’t you explain to our audience the scientific precedent that allowed you to form a firm conclusion on something that has never been measured, detected, or tested.[/quote]

            Jim, only you do not measure, as that would destroy your religion.
            I have no conclusion, only measurement that lets the rest of us to wonder, with no attachment to your belief and religion.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            [quote name=”Pat Obar”][quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]Well, Pat, why don’t you explain to our audience the scientific precedent that allowed you to form a firm conclusion on something that has never been measured, detected, or tested.[/quote]

            Jim, only you do not measure, as that would destroy your religion.
            I have no conclusion, only measurement that lets the rest of us to wonder, with no attachment to your belief and religion.[/quote]

            You are perfect example of how desperate people get when things they choose to believe are revealed as nonsense. You lie because you know your consensus will protect your lie, just like Michael Mann or Al Gore. It’s comical watching all you slayers pretend to be sophisticated scientists yet resort to the same tactics we see in the worst of the worst from the AGW camp. Pat, you are just a fool pretending to see the kings new clothes.

        • Avatar

          solvingtornadoes

          |

          Your major problem, Doug, is that you are intellectually incapable of engaging people in discussions and so people lose interest in what you have to say. People expect details and all you have is generalities.

          There are hundreds of ways to show light on the shortcomings of the phoney AGW hypothesis. You (may) have found one of these hundreds of ways. So there is nothing unique about what you have to say.

    • Avatar

      BigWaveDave

      |

      st,

      You keep asking the same stupid questions, and spewing the same nonsense about something you can’t understand.

      Latent heat of H2O evaporation is enormous. Your notions about the non existence of steam below 100 deg C can easily be shown incorrect by simply measuring the boiling temperature of water at sea level and again at some higher elevation.

      Your continued assertion that latent heat plays no role in atmospheric processes demonstrates that you are incapable of performing any energy audit or balance.

      • Avatar

        solvingtornadoes

        |

        [quote name=”BigWaveDave”]
        st,
        You keep asking the same stupid questions, and spewing the same nonsense about something you can’t understand.

        Latent heat of H2O evaporation is enormous.
        [/quote]
        Gawd I hate dealing with stupidity. This is why I refuse to discuss global warming any more. Dave, if you are too frickin slow witted to distinguish between evaporate and steam then you need to find a new hobby. Science isn’t for you.
        [quote name=”BigWaveDave”]
        Your notions about the non existence of steam below 100 deg C can easily be shown incorrect by simply measuring the boiling temperature of water at sea level and again at some higher elevation.
        [/quote]
        I hate dealing with believers because believers have no qualms about misquoting people or quoting them out of context in order to pretend they have made a point.

        Quote me directly, you straw-baiting nitwit. Go ahead. Make my frickin day. Show me where I stated that the boiling point is set at 100 degrees Celsius. Go ahead.

        [quote name=”BigWaveDave”]
        Your continued assertion that latent heat plays no role in atmospheric processes demonstrates that you are incapable of performing any energy audit or balance.[/quote]
        LOL. Feel free to point to any evidence that your magical latent heat has ever been measured or detected in the atmosphere.

        What is the mechanism underlying non-Newtonian fluids:
        http://wp.me/p4JijN-46Z
        http://wp.me/p4JijN-48z

        • Avatar

          Squid2112

          |

          So, let me see if I understand this correctly. BigWaveDave is saying that there is “steam” in our atmosphere, but only at the point where the boiling point of water is at or below the temperature of the water that is in the atmosphere. Is that correct?

          So, at sea level, where the boiling point of water is 100C, there is no water vapor? Did BigDaveWave also consider that with elevation, not only does the boiling point of water drop the higher you go (lower pressure), so does the temperature!

          Tornado, I don’t know how your “steam” topic plays into some of these AGW BS talking points crap, but, it is obvious to me, that any water within our atmosphere cannot possibly be “steam”, if the definition of “steam” is water in a “gaseous” state, as the only way water can phase change to a gas is if it is >= 100C at sea level and above sea level according to this chart –> http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/boiling-point-water-d_926.html

          I agree with you on the “steam” issue, and I cannot believe there are those on here that are trying to dispute this. Perhaps it is just a communications issue with regard to terminology? … Water “vapor” is [b]not [/b]a gas, it is a [b]vapor[/b]. Those are distinctly two [b]different [/b]things. I know, I smoke vapor, and despite the fact that it makes a cloud, that doesn’t mean it is a “gas”.

          • Avatar

            BigWaveDave

            |

            Look up partial pressure. Then, pull your foot out of your mouth.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Regrettably the internet does not reference your imagination.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            So, let me see if I understand this correctly. BigWaveDave is saying that there is “steam” in our atmosphere,

            It’s not just BWD, there is a whole consensus of dunces standing with him. We call them meteorologists.

            but only at the point where the boiling point of water is at or below the temperature of the water that is in the atmosphere. Is that correct?

            No, they’re saying its the case regardless of pressure.

            So, at sea level, where the boiling point of water is 100C, there is no water vapor?

            There is no steam.

            Did BigDaveWave also consider that with elevation, not only does the boiling point of water drop the higher you go (lower pressure), so does the temperature!

            Tornado, I don’t know how your “steam” topic plays into some of these AGW BS talking points crap,

            Well, people tend to assume that pseudo-science is limited to climatology. It’s not. Meteorologists are worse than climatologists.

            but, it is obvious to me, that any water within our atmosphere cannot possibly be “steam”, if the definition of “steam” is water in a “gaseous” state, as the only way water can phase change to a gas is if it is >= 100C at sea level and above sea level according to this chart –> http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/boiling-point-water-d_926.html

            I agree with you on the “steam” issue, and I cannot believe there are those on here that are trying to dispute this.

            Its an urban legend that, unfortunately, has become sacred to meteorologists. Their models depend on it. (Where have we seen that before?)

            Perhaps it is just a communications issue with regard to terminology? … Water “vapor” is [b]not [/b]a gas, it is a [b]vapor[/b]. Those are distinctly two [b]different [/b]things. I know, I smoke vapor, and despite the fact that it makes a cloud, that doesn’t mean it is a “gas”.

            I’ve talked to over a hundred people on this issue. I think you are, maybe, the fourth to to get it right. BTW, even engineering toolbox supports this dimwitted notion.

          • Avatar

            Squid2112

            |

            I had a friend in college. An extremely bright chemist. Specializes in both organic and quantum chemistry. He is now a Phd and works for a large chemical company as a lead chemist and chemical engineer. You use his products every day. Anyway, during college he also worked at the VA doing gaschromatographie and proton-annihilation. For a paper he was working on, he studied specifically, phase changes of H2O and found a previously undiscovered condition where H2O molecules change state (this is not a change from solid, liquid, gas, but some other subtle molecular change that I don’t even pretend to understand, something about the vibrational state of the atoms). He was written up in Scientific American for this particular work. He pointed out to me on many occasions that water is perhaps [b]the most[/b] scientifically studied substance on our planet. We know quite a bit about it.

            The moral of the story is, and I am confident beyond doubt that he will also tell you this, [b]water vapor in our atmosphere cannot possibly be a “gas” or “steam”[/b], not in the context of the H2O molecule itself, as for H2O to change state to a gas takes [b]energy[/b] and specifically that which will bring it to a “boil” (eg. above 100C at 1atm), a specific vibrational state of the atoms within the molecule itself. H2O (as with [b]any[/b] molecule) requires a specific energy state to maintain a “gaseous” state (maintain a vibrational state). We see this all around us every day of our lives. My friend knows quite a lot about the properties of molecules such as H2O. Much of his long career has been based around just that, as he has developed many solvents that require a great understanding of the molecular phases of molecules such as H2O, their vibrations, their bonds and their behaviors.

            I will try to reach out to him and see if I can muster an answer from him on this subject. But I can already tell you with utmost confidence that I know what his answer will be, and it will be just as Tornado and myself are describing. This I have [b]no doubt[/b].

          • Avatar

            BigWaveDave

            |

            Ask your friend, Or at least familiarize yourself with some basics like Dalton’s law and dew point.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            “We know quite a bit about it.”
            Are you pregnant, or have mice in your pocket?
            Obviously Squid you know nothing about water, water vapour, or this atmosphere! 😡

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            [quote name=”Pat Obar”]”We know quite a bit about it.”
            Are you pregnant, or have mice in your pocket?
            Obviously Squid you know nothing about water, water vapour, or this atmosphere! :-x[/quote]

            One thing about science pretenders, it doesn’t matter how many times you ask them to explain something that they don’t understand, they never acknowledge that their inability to explain indicates that they actually do not know what they believe they know.

            They just believe. They defend the faith. They dodge the issue. Because belief is all that matters to them.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]”We know quite a bit about it.”
            Are you pregnant, or have mice in your pocket?
            Obviously Squid you know nothing about water, water vapour, or this atmosphere! :-x[/quote]

            [/quote]Who are the WE?[quote]

            One thing about science pretenders, it doesn’t matter how many times you ask them to explain something that they don’t understand, they never acknowledge that their inability to explain indicates that they actually do not know what they believe they know. They just believe. They defend the faith. They dodge the issue. [/quote]
            Jim, you have never expressed any “issue” understandable to others! 😡

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Your inanity betrays your true intentions.

            IOW, you aren’t fooling anybody worth fooling.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            I hope you can track him down. This notion is an extreme group delusion. meteorologists and climatologists absolutely refuse to test or examine the validity of the notion. Without it their model of storms, atmospheric uplift and GCM’s in general are worthless. And they, to a considerable degree, are revealed as being scientifically inept.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”] And they, to a considerable degree, are revealed as being scientifically inept.[/quote]
            You Jim would certainly recognize the concept of inept, as you do it so well! If you ever try to do something competently, you must thereby demonstrate your incompetence
            .l 🙂

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            When all else fails, obscure the issue.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            So, Squid, I hope you haven’t forgotten about this. It would be great to at least have a name of somebody that I can attempt to track down. Please email me. solvingtornadoes@gmail.com

            I’ll tell you a little story to give you a sense of how deeply political this issue is. I first started posting about this topic before I ever heard of this, PSI, website. I contacted John O’sullivan to see if I could get some publicity for this paradigm busting discovery. He seemed perplexed. He dodged the issue by forwarding it to Olsen, Postma and Hans Shreuder. Olsen, Postma and Schreuder dodged the issue by sending me to D’aleio and Bastardi, a couple of brain-dead meteorologists, who then just ignored me.

            This is the kind of brain-dead group think that I have been facing.

            Please help. Please contact me by email and provide the name of the to whom you refer to here. I’m sick of dealing with dimwits and pretenders. Please help.

          • Avatar

            Squid2112

            |

            Tornadoes, I haven’t forgotten at all. Unfortunately I have been extremely busy with work as of late, and I have to fly out to France on Sunday. It has been a very long time since I have spoken with Kevin, but I will try to track him down. Last I recall, I believe he was working for Procter & Gamble. It will take a bit of digging and research, but I can probably find him again. He is probably one of the brightest people I have ever known. We were very good friends through college, but lost touch afterward. I haven’t spoken with him in some 20 years or so, but I will give a try as I am really curious what his take would be on this subject. He knows a hell of a lot about this sort of thing.

            Pat is correct, I don’t know a lot about water and/or water vapor myself, and hence the reason why I would like some information from a source that I know I can trust. Pat however, is a complete jackass and dipshit, so I am certainly not going to take any cues from him.

            It just seems to me to be common sense that water vapor would not be considered a “gas” like “steam” is. There is a phase change that takes place with temperature for steam that is not required by vapor. According to anything I can discern from Patshit, our oceans should be boiling, but they’re not. So, this is another subject I’m going to have to attempt to bone up on.

            My particular area of expertise is computer science, and at this time, specifically modelling energy and energy systems with embedded device products. I work for one of the largest energy equipment manufacturers on the planet (more than a quarter million employees worldwide), and I am currently one of the lead engineers for all Gateways and Energy Server products within our organization (that’s a hell of a lot to chew on). So Pat, yes, I know a thing or two about energy, modelling and other fun things, you f_ckwad! I work daily with many of the brightest engineers and physicists in the world.

            P.S. Tornado, I have sent you an introductory email. Feel free to communicate with me via my return address at any time.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            There us more ice in warm, turbulent water than there is in cold, calm water.

            Very few people will understand what is meant by this statement. And, obviously, if we define ice by temperature then this statement is false. But if we define ice by its structural strength ( http://wp.me/p4JijN-46Z ) then this statement is true. It all comes down to whether or not one understands water’s hydrogen bonding and the polarity neutralization implications of hydrogen bonding. http://wp.me/p4JijN-9l

            As explained here
            http://wp.me/p4JijN-48z
            the strength of the H2O molecule’s polarity, which underlies the strength of a hydrogen bond, is neutralized the more connected it becomes. And vice versa.

            This same mechanism underlies many of the other quirky characteristics of the H2O molecule, including: the high boiling point of water, the fact that it expands when it freezes, the Mbasa effect, super chilled water, cavitation, Gerald Pollack’s EZ water, and my own theoretical thinking regarding a plasma phase of water being instrumental in the emergence of vortices (jet streams) that facilitate atmospheric flow.

            Squid2112:
            “Pat is correct, I don’t know a lot about water and/or water vapor myself, and hence the reason why I would like some information from a source that I know I can trust. Pat however, is a complete jackass and dipshit, so I am certainly not going to take any cues from him.”

            Yes, he’s perfectly clueless on this subject, as are all of the slayers.

            Squid2112:
            “It just seems to me to be common sense that water vapor would not be considered a “gas” like “steam” is. There is a phase change that takes place with temperature for steam that is not required by vapor. According to anything I can discern from Patshit, our oceans should be boiling, but they’re not. So, this is another subject I’m going to have to attempt to bone up on.”

            The water molecule and the evidence of its quirkiness is what separates pretenders from scientists. It separates those that pretend to understand from those that actually understand. It separates those that see dichotomy as a clue to a deeper meaning from those that see dichotomy as something to be ignored and concealed.

            Extremely few people have the requisite intellectual honesty to admit they are confused when they are confused.

            Only if and when you’ve come to understand the molecular basis for the assertion that there is more ice in warm, turbulent water than there is in cold, calm water can you eventually come to understand the reasoning underlying a plasma phase of water being instrumental in the emergence of vortices (jet streams) that facilitate atmospheric flow.

            By being tough minded about not following the sheep who pretend to understand what they do not, you have a chance of being one of the first people on this planet to gain the key insight that will unlock a whole new understanding of atmospheric flow.

            Thank you for your email. I will be responding.

            Regards,

            Jim McGinn
            Solving Tornadoes

          • Avatar

            Squid2112

            |

            Tornado, I was able to find him on LinkedIn and I attempting to connect with him… Stay tuned…

          • Avatar

            BigWaveDave

            |

            You obviously lied when you said on another thread that you had a copy of Keenan and Keyes steam tables, or you never cracked its cover. You also seem to be unfamiliar with Dalton’s law of partial pressures.

            Steam is the gas phase of water. It is invisible. In air it is also called humidity. Humidity in air is invisible.

            If you chill humid air below its dew point temperature the partial pressure of steam as humidity the air can hold i.e. the saturation pressure, will decrease and some of the humidity condenses to liquid water.

            Please, educate yourself.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            You obviously lied when you said on another thread that you had a copy of Keenan and Keyes steam tables, or you never cracked its cover.

            It’s sitting right in front of me at this instant. I’ve read it from cover to cover no less than nine times. I have parts of it tattooed on my right calf.

            What page do you want me to review at this instant?

            You also seem to be unfamiliar with Dalton’s law of partial pressures.

            Dalton is my great great uncle. I spent many christmas’ with him.

            Steam is the gas phase of water. It is invisible. In air it is also called humidity. Humidity in air is invisible.

            Can you explain what page in this book indicates humidity equals steam? Uh . . . er? Uh?

            If you chill humid air below its dew point temperature the partial pressure of steam as humidity the air can hold i.e. the saturation pressure, will decrease and some of the humidity condenses to liquid water.

            Uh, okay. What’s your point?

            Please, educate yourself.

            On what?

          • Avatar

            BigWaveDave

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]
            What page do you want me to review at this instant? [/quote]

            Please look at Table 1 in Keenan & Keyes, first line. What is the saturation pressure at 0 deg C or 32 deg F? What is the enthalpy of saturated vapor at 32 deg F? What is the enthalpy of saturated liquid at 32 deg F? What is the specific volume of saturated vapor at 32 deg F? What is the specific volume of saturated liquid at 32 deg F?

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]
            Dalton is my great great uncle. I spent many christmas’ with him.
            [/quote]

            Did you forget to ask him about partial pressure?

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]Can you explain what page in this book indicates humidity equals steam? Uh . . . er? Uh?[/quote] Pg. 14.

            Water vapor is steam. Low quality steam is a mix of saturated water and saturated vapor, and has properties between those of saturated water and saturated vapor, Quality = Q = mass vapor/mass mix. 0 < Q < 1. property mix = (1 - Q) X property sat water + Q X property sat steam. Saturated vapor Q = 1 is dry steam. Water vapor at a temperature higher than saturation temperature is superheated steam. The water vapor of humidity less than 100 % RH is dry or superheated steam. This can be shown by measuring the amount of heat removed and condensate produced in the process of chilling humid air below its dew point. The dew point is the saturation temperature of the water vapor ‘s partial pressure at the dew point temp.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”BigWaveDave”][quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]
            What page do you want me to review at this instant? [/quote]

            Please look at Table 1 in Keenan & Keyes, first line. What is the saturation pressure at 0 deg C or 32 deg F? What is the enthalpy of saturated vapor at 32 deg F? What is the enthalpy of saturated liquid at 32 deg F? What is the specific volume of saturated vapor at 32 deg F? What is the specific volume of saturated liquid at 32 deg F?

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]
            Dalton is my great great uncle. I spent many christmas’ with him.
            [/quote]

            Did you forget to ask him about partial pressure?

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]Can you explain what page in this book indicates humidity equals steam? Uh . . . er? Uh?[/quote] Pg. 14.

            Water vapor is steam. Low quality steam is a mix of saturated water and saturated vapor, and has properties between those of saturated water and saturated vapor, Quality = Q = mass vapor/mass mix. 0 < Q < 1. property mix = (1 - Q) X property sat water + Q X property sat steam. Saturated vapor Q = 1 is dry steam. Water vapor at a temperature higher than saturation temperature is superheated steam. The water vapor of humidity less than 100 % RH is dry or superheated steam. This can be shown by measuring the amount of heat removed and condensate produced in the process of chilling humid air below its dew point. The dew point is the saturation temperature of the water vapor ‘s partial pressure at the dew point temp.[/quote] Dave,
            Congratulations! Two dead with one arrow! 😆

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Jim McGinn:
            Can you explain what page in this book indicates humidity equals steam? Uh . . . er? Uh?

            BWD:
            Pg. 14.
            Water vapor is steam. Low quality steam is a mix of . . .

            Jim McGinn:
            So, your argument is based on semantics and is not based on anything reproducibly testable. Right?

            Do you not see a problem with this?

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]
            “Water vapor is steam. Low quality steam is a mix of…” . . .

            Jim McGinn:
            So, your argument is based on semantics and is not based on anything reproducibly testable. Right? Do you not see a problem with this?[/quote]

            Jim,
            You have nothing testable, reproducible or not.
            You try to argue semantics, but never use words that have similar meaning to others! 🙂

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Address the issue you evasive twit.

          • Avatar

            BigWaveDave

            |

            It’s all testable and reproducible Jim. Don’t you remember that from the book?

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            If you believe it that’s all that matters.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

          • Avatar

            Squid2112

            |

            Wonderful, wonderful video!

            I have been familiar with this very concept every day of my life for the past 30+ years. This [b]is[/b] computer science. There are a 1000 ways of solving the same problem in CS, there is no “right” way, there are some “wrong” ways, but there are always more than one way to solve the very same problem. Physics is no different.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Here is another one along these lines:

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            [quote name=”BigWaveDave”]Please look at Table 1 in Keenan & Keyes, first line. What is the saturation pressure at 0 deg C or 32 deg F?
            [/quote]Why are you asking this question? We both see the same numbers. Present your argument. Remember, you are making a positive claim here. Do not try to obscure the issue with trivia.[quote name=”BigWaveDave”]What is the enthalpy of saturated vapor at 32 deg F?[/quote]
            Why are you asking this question? We both see the same numbers. Present your argument. Remember, you are making a positive claim here. Do not try to obscure the issue with trivia.[quote name=”BigWaveDave”]What is the enthalpy of saturated liquid at 32 deg F?[/quote]Why are you asking this question? We both see the same numbers. Present your argument. Remember, you are making a positive claim here. Do not try to obscure the issue with trivia.[quote name=”BigWaveDave”]What is the specific volume of saturated vapor at 32 deg F?[/quote]
            Why are you asking this question? We both see the same numbers. Present your argument. Remember, you are making a positive claim here. Do not try to obscure the issue with trivia.[quote name=”BigWaveDave”]What is the specific volume of saturated liquid at 32 deg F?[/quote]Why are you asking this question? We both see the same numbers. Present your argument. Remember, you are making a positive claim here. Do not try to obscure the issue with trivia.[quote name=”BigWaveDave”][quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]Can you explain what page in this book indicates humidity equals steam? Uh . . . er? Uh?[/quote] Pg. 14.Water vapor is steam. [/quote]This is your premise. There is no need to restate it. Address the issue, you evasive twit. Support your claim or make a retraction.[quote name=”BigWaveDave”]Low quality steam is a mix of saturated water and saturated vapor, and has properties between those of saturated water and saturated vapor, Quality = Q = mass vapor/mass mix. 0 < Q < 1. property mix = (1 - Q) X property sat water + Q X property sat steam. Saturated vapor Q = 1 is dry steam. Water vapor at a temperature higher than saturation temperature is superheated steam. [/quote]Address the issue, you evasive twit. Support your claim or make a retraction.[quote name="BigWaveDave"]The water vapor of humidity less than 100 % RH is dry or superheated steam. This can be shown by measuring the amount of heat removed and condensate produced in the process of chilling humid air below its dew point. The dew point is the saturation temperature of the water vapor 's partial pressure at the dew point temp.[/quote]We weren't discussing the dew point, you simpleton. We were discussing the transition between gas and liquid which, according to the steam tables that you yourself brought into this discussion, occurs at a much higher temperature than the dew point. Right?

          • Avatar

            BigWaveDave

            |

            Wrong.

            You obviously have never looked at steam tables, but that probably doesn’t matter, because you don’t have the intelligence to understand them.

            You are a dishonest stubborn clown with an over inflated ego. I’m guessing you are about 12.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”BigWaveDave”]Wrong.

            You obviously have never looked at steam tables, but that probably doesn’t matter, because you don’t have the intelligence to understand them.

            You are a dishonest stubborn clown with an over inflated ego. I’m guessing you are about 12.[/quote]

            Is this anything unusual of Jim McGinn? He, solvingtornadoes or Claudius Dink are all computer bots! Jim relishes any response from anyone! :-*

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Pat, you’ve become irrelevant.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            So, its not for lack of reference literature that you were unable to support your assertion. The polite thing to do at this time is to admit you made a mistake and make a retraction. We all know you won’t though. The fact that it you believe what everybody pretends to understand is all that matters in this messed up discipline.

            Go away loser.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            [quote name=”BigWaveDave”]Wrong.

            You obviously have never looked at steam tables, . . .”[/quote]

            You obviously don’t understand the references that you supplied. Go ahead. What are you waiting for? Tell us what you see? Go ahead, you fraud. Tell us.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            I expose people that pretend to understand what they only believe. I ask questions that I know you won’t be able to answer.

            If it is any consolation, you never had a chance. I knew ahead of time that your only option was to dodge the question. I’ve been using the same tactics to expose global warming pseudo-science since 2006.

            I ask questions that force you to confront the contradiction that you normally just dismiss.

            The logic of science pretenders is hardly obscure. They think, “I find this confusing, therefore it must be true.” Believers never stop believing because they are incapable of distinguishing between their own cognitive dissonance and truth.

            H.L. Mencken said, “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple…and wrong.”

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            “It’s sitting right in front of me at this instant. I’ve read it from cover to cover no less than nine times. I have parts of it tattooed on my right calf.”

            What a deliberate and blatent lie! :-*

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes]

            I’ve talked to over a hundred people on this issue. I think you are, maybe, the fourth to to get it right. BTW, even engineering toolbox supports this dimwitted notion.[/quote]

            I cannot believe how two folk claiming to be educated can be so dense!! I suggest that both stop talking with over 100 people on this issue, instead, go somewhere and buy a clue!!!

            A pan of water at 30 Celsius inside an initial vacuum chamber will boil at that temperature until the pressure inside the chamber reaches 31.6 mmHg. Then the boiling of water must stop as that is the equilibrium pressure between liquid and monomolecular water vapour, the “only” gas above that pan of liquid H2O, still at 30 Celsius.
            Raise the water temperature, and the above vapour pressure must increase!! Raise that temperature to 100 Celsius and the vapour pressure must increase to 760 mmHg, one tor, or 101 kP! Exactly sea level pressure!! This is the lowest temperature that WV itself can displace the other three common gases in the atmosphere. Inside that chamber will be pure WV at atmospheric sea level pressure.
            Reduce the liquid temperature back to 30 Celsius and the pressure inside the chamber will return to 31.6 mmHg with the rest of the WV condensing back to liquid in the pan!
            Now vent the chamber to the atmosphere and watch the chamber return to 760 mmHg while the WV partial pressure remains at 31.6 mmHg in that chamber.
            Have neither of you ever done anything even, learning how to think! :-*

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Once again, Pat, I can’t figure out what your point is here. I mean, seriously, how is any of this relevant?

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]Once again, Pat, I can’t figure out what your point is here. I mean, seriously, how is any of this relevant?[/quote]

            The point is Jim, a complete and detailed destruction of your repeated nonsense claim of no monomolecular H2O gas in the atmosphere with all of its 2400 J/gm latent heat of vaporization.
            Did you get your high school diploma from a Cracker Jack box? You certainly can have no College learning! Your spouting is what has no relevance !! 😛

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            [quote name=”Pat Obar”]The point is Jim, a complete and detailed destruction of your repeated nonsense claim of no monomolecular H2O gas in the atmosphere with all of its 2400 J/gm latent heat of vaporization.
            [/quote]

            Maybe give us an example. Are you, for example, saying that thunderclouds are evidence of the ambient-temperature-steam that you believe in?

            So, cold steam produces hot thunderclouds? Or what.

            Be explicit and specific in your response and reference evidence directly.

            Please.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            [quote name=”Pat Obar”]A pan of water at 30 Celsius inside an initial vacuum chamber will boil at that temperature until the pressure inside the chamber reaches 31.6 mmHg.[/quote]
            Uh huh.[quote name=”Pat Obar”]Then the boiling of water must stop as that is the equilibrium pressure between liquid and monomolecular water vapour, the “only” gas above that pan of liquid H2O, still at 30 Celsius.[/quote]Uh huh.[quote name=”Pat Obar”]Raise the water temperature, and the above vapour pressure must increase!![/quote]
            Yeah, so? How is this relevant?[quote name=”Pat Obar”]Raise that temperature to 100 Celsius and the vapour pressure must increase to 760 mmHg, one tor, or 101 kP! Exactly sea level pressure!![/quote]Yeah, so?[quote name=”Pat Obar”]This is the lowest temperature that WV itself can displace the other three common gases in the atmosphere.[/quote]Right. IOW, at sea level pressure (1 ATM) 100 degrees Celsius is the lowest temperature at which water exists as steam (mono-molecular H2O). This is what I’ve been saying all along. So, you agree with me, right?[quote name=”Pat Obar”]Inside that chamber will be pure WV at atmospheric sea level pressure.[/quote]No, it will contain steam, as you yourself indicated. Right?
            [quote name=”Pat Obar”]Reduce the liquid temperature back to 30 Celsius and the pressure inside the chamber will return to 31.6 mmHg with the rest of the WV condensing back to liquid in the pan![/quote]The steam (not “water vapor”) condenses. Water vapor can only exist if there is some air to provide the residual negative electric charge that is necessary to suspend miniature droplets/clusters of LIQUID H2O. You indicated that the air had been removed. Right?[quote name=”Pat Obar”]Now vent the chamber to the atmosphere and watch the chamber return to 760 mmHg while the WV partial pressure remains at 31.6 mmHg in that chamber.[/quote]LOL. You aren’t venting anything. You are destroying the vacuum. The atmosphere will come rushing in.

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”Doug   Cotton “]People can soon read my comments about PSI on hundreds of social media climate threads.[/quote]

    Right, just punish PSI by not writing any valuable comment of yours here any longer. Let them go broke this way, they deserve it.

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    Doug, let me tell you again a very simple thing. Whatever process you make up to get “additional temperature” (your own expression), there is one problem your theory can not overcome: the “additionally warmed” thing would give away more energy than it consumes, which is physically impossible. You can write papers after papers and put in a complicated way, but nevertheless, if we count energy, you are done.

    To me, you are apparently crazy already, but maybe this simple energy counting will heal you.

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      Doug, you know very well what I mean. Your “additional temperature” is supposed to be above what the only source of heat can induce, namely the Sun. This is what you keep repeating, like ” the Sun provides so little, but the temperature is so high!” stuff. Venus, remember? This is so stupid, Doug. Count energy and get healed.

      • Avatar

        Greg House

        |

        Doug, my poor idiot, temperature is not about amount of energy transferred, it is about rate, to put it in a simple way. Like you can hold things in your hands for billions of years (let’s imagine it), they will still not get warmer than your hands. On the other hand, you can not really be that stupid, can you? I am coming to the conclusion slowly that you are an ugly evil person and your only intention is to pollute climate sites.

    • Avatar

      Mack

      |

      “…because you are not one of only two people in the world who have worked out…..”
      Only two people now Doug!?…and I suppose they are two Aussies?
      They could be these two, Doug?…

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    Doug, I suggest you go to Spencer’s, Watts’ and other warmists sites, they deserve you, and leave this one alone.

    • Avatar

      Mack

      |

      What I read from you Doug Cotton is a load of crap. I read you blathering on and on with loads of physics all sounding convincing but riddled with false “thinking”. A load of unhinged, unreal tripe with not a single correct quantity or measurement to support your crackpot hypothesis. Just a load of speculative,incoherant, incomprehensible garbage, incorporating gravity, “heat creep”, “downward convective heat transfer”, “downward diffusion” in one huge,insane concoction.
      You and the 5 other members of your psuedo-greenhouse sub-cult must be a true pack of ostriches…but don’t go sticking your heads in any burning sand caused by DIRECT SOLAR RADIATION.
      Nah, go ahead, you might get the message..it’s the Sun, stupid.

      • Avatar

        Mack

        |

        Btw Doug, What are your thoughts about Earth energy budget diagrams? Joe Postma has one. What say you about Joe’s Earth Energy budget model? Have you got any model or Earth Energy budget diagram with all your numbers to support this “gravitational-thermal” hypothesis of yours? If not…why not? Don’t just link me off to your sub-cult site..
        Explain to me, very carefully and simply, with your supporting numbers in watts/sq.m., how the 168w/sq.m.average solar radiation that you and NASA say is the incident solar to the surface is then, shall we say, made to become the correct amount required to keep our Earth at it’s current “global” temperature.

        • Avatar

          Mack

          |

          “The more you rattle on….the bigger fool you make of yourself”
          (chuckle) Let those “silent readers” be the judge of that Doug.
          So you’re “happy with”, following to a tee, all the Trenberth Energy cartoons and all their watts/sq.m contained therein. Of course you do…that’s what you’ve spent your whole life teaching. The only thing you have issue with is the naming of the 324w/sq.m. reflected from the atmosphere as “backradiation”. Well does this 324w/sq.m. exist or does it not exist Doug? According to you it does exist because there it is right there in your “balance” of the watts/sq.m.
          168 + 324 = 390 + 102
          So this 324w/sq.m. is now called “gravitational- thermal heat creep” according to you. Can you see that you’re just simply replacing one piece of nonsense with another piece of nonsense.?
          Let’s take a look at Joe Postma’s energy model..
          http://climateofsophistry.com/2012/11/06/on-the-absence-of-a-measurable-greenhouse-effect-part-1-the-failure-of-ipcc-energy-budgets/
          What is the TOA solar flux? Wow , it’s 1370w/sq.m. …quite a bit of difference from the TOA solar incoming of 342w/sq.m of the Trenberth cartoons to which you subscribe Duggie.
          Now cast your eye around the rest of his model. Do you see any reference to watts/sq.m anywhere else? No. Why?..because Postma and the rest of the staff here at PSI understand physics and don’t try to draw Earth Energy budget diagrams with a BALANCING in watts/sq.m of incoming and outgoing radiation at the TOA…unlike Trenberth and smart, smarmy Salby.
          This “energy balance” or “energy imbalance” at the TOA is just so much pie in the sky, unmeasurable nonsense that the AGW crowd like to beat us about the head with, ..mainly caused by Trenberth’s confusing crap cartoons.
          See how your continual “rattling on” with your substituted “gravitational-thermal” hypothesis aggravates the hell out the moderaters and just about everybody else.? Rattle away Duggie boy.

  • Avatar

    PlanetaryPhysicsGroup

    |

    You wrote: [i]”water vapour moderates temperature by reducing highs and raising lows.”[/i]

    No it does not “raise lows” (compared with dry air) as empirical evidence proves in a study that gave these results for mean minimum and maximum temperatures in tropical regions with varying levels of precipitation …

    Dry: Min = 21.9°C Max = 35.7°C
    Medium: Min = 21.2°C Max = 33.0°C
    Wet: Min = 20.1°C Max = 30.8°C

    The over-riding effect of water vapor results from the fact that it reduces the magnitude of the lapse rate by about a third, so the temperature plot rotates downwards at the surface end to ensure radiative balance is maintained with the Sun.

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote]Written by Malcolm Roberts: “All atmospheric gases on Earth act as coolants during the hours of sunlight and slow the rate of cooling in absence of sunlight.”[/quote]

    Humble me thought the air cooled the surface by conduction/convection, thus making the cooling faster than just by radiation. Isn’t it a high school stuff?

    • Avatar

      Squid2112

      |

      Greg, exactly… see my comment to you above.

    • Avatar

      PlanetaryPhysicsGroup

      |

      When you think in terms of the an old 20th century radiative forcing paradigm you will never understand why the rate of surface cooling slows right down late at night even with clear skies. Only the new [url=http://www.principia-scientific.org/the-21st-century-new-paradigm-shift-in-climate-change-science.html]21st century paradigm[/url] explains this and all temperatures and the required energy transfers on all planets including those that have no solar radiation heating a surface.

    • Avatar

      PlanetaryPhysicsGroup

      |

      And, when you think in terms of the old 20th century radiative forcing paradigm, you have no explanation as to why the mean surface temperature of the Moon is lower than that for Earth, even though the Moon’s surface receives about twice as much direct insolation as does Earth’s surface after reflection and absorption by the atmosphere.

      The argument about the rotation period may seem valid, but when quantified scientifically with simulation models it adds only at most 15° to the measured mean which is far colder than Earth’s surface.

      The [url=http://www.space.com/18175-moon-temperature.html]core temperature[/url], however, is over 1300°C and that you also cannot explain with the old paradigm, though we can with the new paradigm.

      • Avatar

        PlanetaryPhysicsGroup

        |

        Note that the linked article says [i]”The moon has an iron-rich core with a radius of about 205 miles (330 km). The temperature in the core is probably about 2,420 to 2,600 F (1,327 to 1,427 C). The core heats an inner layer of molten mantle, but it’s [b]not hot enough to warm the surface[/b] of the moon.”[/i]

        Think about that statement. Is a core at 1300°C really not hot enough to warm a surface with maximum 123°C? Surely it would do so, and surely you who think in terms of the old paradigm would deduce that the Moon should have cooled right down in the last billion years or so whilst it heated the surface, especially on the dark side.

        Only when you understand the [url=http://www.earth-climate.com/Planetary_Core_and_Surface_Temperatures.pdf]new paradigm[/url] will you understand the Moon and all the planets, including Earth.

    • Avatar

      Rosco

      |

      A simple study of the absorption bands for water vapour and CO2 indicate there are many areas – 2 for CO2 – at wavelengths appropriate for the Solar radiation.

      Then there is the well documented effect that Ozone decreases the amount of UV reaching the surface.

      All of these combine to reduce the direct surface heating potential of the solar radiation.

      Even climate “scientists” acknowledge this – K&T show about ~20% of the incoming Solar radiation absorbed by the atmosphere.

      However they mistakenly (deliberate misdirection ?) discount this far more powerful atmospheric heating potential and the reduction of surface heating potential.

      So of course Malcolm is correct even though the atmosphere also ultimately enhances surface cooling as you write.

      Less radiation reaching the surface resulting in a lower surface heating potential is real and acknowledged by almost all – the bullshit that climate “scientists” espouse is the 1/4 power of the Solar radiation as has been dealt with countless times !

      And of course Malcolm is also right that the lower radiating power of gases suppresses radiative losses to space as Professor Woods noted more than a century ago.

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton

    |

    My request…………..
    Please rewrite this sentence:
    “How is it possible for ice to fall as hail or snow when even more latent “heat” is released?!”

    Most people that I know would not understand this sentence.

    “…more latent ‘Heat’ is released?! “

    The sentence needs rewording. IMO>

  • Avatar

    Squid2112

    |

    Water is to our atmospheric temperature what the shock absorbers are to your cars suspension. That is, it is a thermal dampener, nothing more.

    Also, if you were to calculate the moon’s average temperature, as if it had a 24hr rotation towards the sun (instead of 28 days), you would see that the average temperature of the moon was be significantly higher than the Earth, as our atmosphere ultimately acts to [b]cool[/b] the planet, [b]not[/b] make it warmer.

    The moon has a rotation of ~28 days in relation to the sun, yet it reaches its minimum temperature (cools) in ~360hrs. If you were to only allow the moon to cool for 12hrs before it began to heat again, this would raise the average temperature significantly. The moon heats much more quickly than it can cool, because it has no atmosphere to help transport the energy to space.

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      [quote name=”Squid2112″]The moon heats much more quickly than it can cool, because it has no atmosphere to help transport the energy to space.[/quote]

      I do not think it is a good idea.

      • Avatar

        Squid2112

        |

        Greg, I don’t understand why you would have a problem with that statement. Is there anything there that isn’t factual? Or are you opposing the approach?

        • Avatar

          Greg House

          |

          I do not see how the air helps transport the energy to space.

          • Avatar

            Squid2112

            |

            So, you don’t think the thermal energy at TOA is less than the surface? You don’t think energy was spent throughout the atmospheric system?

            .. Think about it for a second Greg ..

            It could not be otherwise. An atmosphere must provide for a faster cooling mechanism, if for no other reason than the transfer of energy throughout the system, spending work (plus many other factors). The atmosphere could only provide for 1 of 3 scenarios. 1) Acts to slow cooling, 2) Has no effect, 3) Acts to increase cooling

            Of these, we know #1 to be false, all the data shows this clearly. #2 is not likely, and again, data suggests otherwise. #3, the most logical and supported by empirical data.

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            You said “to space”, this is the problem.

          • Avatar

            Squid2112

            |

            Gotcha, yeah, probably didn’t articulate that quite right. 😥

    • Avatar

      Dr Alex Hamilton

      |

      And the Moon’s maximum surface temperature would be lower if it only had a 24 hour rotation period, because it would have less time to warm up.

      The exposed rocks at the top of Mt Everest are just north of the tropics and more than half way up the troposphere. At noon on a clear day around 21st June they receive more direct solar radiation than just about any place on Earth, yet how hot do they get? The Sun would have to supply enough energy to compensate for the losses by convection into the atmosphere, and this is what is completely overlooked by PSI authors and those who comment here. The energy losses must be deducted from the solar radiation absorbed, and the limited hours of daylight also need to be considered.

      The Sun’s direct solar radiation is nowhere near sufficient to explain the observed temperatures for Earth’s surface. That should not surprise you, for it has even far less chance of doing so on Venus.

      • Avatar

        Squid2112

        |

        [quote]And the Moon’s maximum surface temperature would be lower if it only had a 24 hour rotation period, because it would have less time to warm up. [/quote]

        No, the moon reaches it’s near maximum temperature very quickly. The moon clearly and overwhelmingly heats much faster than it cools, just go look at the temperature profiles (they can be found somewhere buried on one of the NASA sites)

        • Avatar

          Rosco

          |

          You’re dead right !

          All the greenhouse gas advocates start from the premise that the Solar radiation isn’t at least four times as powerful (in W/sqm terms) than any planetary radiation induced by surface temperatures.

          Well it is despite the bullshit 1/4 reduction used by “climatologists”.

          But the Solar radiation contains high energy components (photons if you like) that are completely missing from any planetary surface temperature induced radiation.

          To add 239.7 W/sqm Solar radiation to 239.7 W/sqm terrestrial radiation as climate “scientists” do is simply absurd !

          Plotting Planck diagrams shows just how absurd that proposal is !

          I have no idea if Planck’s and Stefan-Boltzmann’s laws are appropriate – I simply use them to illustrate how absurd climate “scientists” claims based on those laws are.

          Plot a Planck curve based on the surface temperature of the Sun and scale it down to 239.7 W/sqm and it is still thousands of times more powerful than terrestrial radiation at ~254 K up to ~ 4 micron.

          To equate the heating potential of the two in simplistic Stefan-Boltzmann equation W/sqm terms is simply absurd !

          It is interesting most information on the lunar heating cycle is presented in terms of 24 lunar hours – a practice I consider deceptive.

          The Moon’s surfaces would warm far more quickly than they cool – the Solar radiation is far more powerful than the lunar emission based on surface temperatures.

          The places on Earth where it gets really cold are without Solar radiation for prolonged periods.

          I also love alarmists “frigid space” analogy.

          There may well be areas of space where the analogy “frigid” may be semi appropriate in terms of background radiation but that is certainly not the case at Earth’s or even Mars’ orbits due to the permanent emissions of powerful radiation from the Sun.

      • Avatar

        Squid2112

        |

        [quote]At noon on a clear day around 21st June they receive more direct solar radiation than just about any place on Earth, yet how hot do they get?[/quote]

        Thank you for supporting my point! … Were it NOT for the atmosphere, it would get MUCH hotter! … The atmosphere acts to COOL, not heat!

        You claim that the sun does not provide nearly enough solar radiation to heat the surface of Earth to what it is. My question, Dr., where does the [b]extra[/b] energy come from then? If the energy isn’t coming from the Sun, then where does it come from? .. Careful with your answer, as I will remind you that virtually ALL energy of the Earth originates from the Sun.

        I anxiously await your reply.

        • Avatar

          Squid2112

          |

          It was a simple question that required a simple answer Doug.

          Please provide a simple answer for folks such as myself that don’t possess a closet full of Phd’s .. thanks!

    • Avatar

      Kristian

      |

      [quote name=”Squid2112″]The moon heats much more quickly than it can cool (…)[/quote]

      Nope. It heats and cools at the exact same rate. You need to look at the actual data available and be able to understand what it’s saying:

      http://www.diviner.ucla.edu/gallery/AbFab_Plot.png

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1029/2011JE003987/asset/image_n/jgre3030-fig-0004.png?v=1&t=i9oauf35&s=11aa6d1972c2343487e3a026c276ee282ad684df

      Last one equals figure 4 from this paper:
      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JE003987/full

      • Avatar

        Squid2112

        |

        Kristian, you must be blind. Notice the bottom of the troughs. What do you see there? You don’t see the immediate spike as the temperature begins to rise?

        I [b]have [/b]looked at the actual [b]data[/b], not these low resolution graphs. It is plain to see, my statement stands empirically.

        • Avatar

          Squid2112

          |

          It takes the moon approximately 360 hrs to reach minimum temperature from its max. If its rotation were only 24hrs, the average temperature of the moon would greatly [b]increase[/b]. This is further [b]proof [/b]of my above statement.

          • Avatar

            Squid2112

            |

            Kristian,

            [quote]Do you seriously think that if we cut down the lunar day from 354 to 24 hours, then its surface every single day would heat just as much, but cool much less …!? Which means the Moon would eventually melt?[/quote]

            Do you not understand the “Heat Cannot Pile” ?
            http://climateofsophistry.com/2015/01/21/atmosphere-not-insulation/

            I believe it is clear, I understand these things [b]much[/b] better than you. Thank you very much.

          • Avatar

            Kristian

            |

            Squid, here is your original statement: [i]”The moon heats much more quickly than it can cool, because it has no atmosphere to help transport the energy to space.”[/i]

            This is evidently wrong and I merely pointed this out to you, providing the plots from NASA’s LRO Diviner instrument to show you.

            If you look at these plots (the upper ones) from Vasavada et al. 2012:
            onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1029/2011JE003987/asset/image_n/jgre3030-fig-0004.png?v=1&t=i9oauf35&s=11aa6d1972c2343487e3a026c276ee282ad684df

            you will see how the lunar surface (at the equator) warms almost 290K from sunrise till noon (88.5h), fast at first, gradually slower towards the top. Why do you think that is?

            You will also see that the surface cools about 270K from noon till sunset (88.5h), slow at first, gradually faster towards the bottom. Why do you think that is?

            Finally you will notice how the surface only cools a further 20K during the full 177 hours (14-15 days) of lunar night. Why do you think that is, Squid?

            You don’t seem to understand the data at all.

        • Avatar

          Kristian

          |

          Squid, did you look at the plots I provided at all? It sure doesn’t seem you did. How can you fail to see that the cooling from noon to sunset is just as fast as the heating from sunrise to noon?

          Do you seriously think that if we cut down the lunar day from 354 to 24 hours, then its surface every single day would heat just as much, but cool much less …!? Which means the Moon would eventually melt?

          Do you understand the lunar temperature curve at all? It appears you don’t.

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            [quote name=”Kristian”]Do you seriously think that if we cut down the lunar day from 354 to 24 hours, then its surface every single day would heat just as much, but cool much less …!? Which means the Moon would eventually melt?[/quote]

            You are not a “cold warms hot” guy, are you? Because heating rate being higher than cooling rate does not suggest indefinite increase in temperature.

            By the way, it takes 1l water about 2 minutes to get to 100°C in a kettle, but hours to cool back to the room temperature. Do not know the exact numbers for the Moon, but isn’t solar power there analogous to electric power in a kettle?

          • Avatar

            Kristian

            |

            Greg, instead of asking silly questions, look at the plots of lunar diurnal temperatures. The cooling rate is as fast as the heating rate. Basically, all the heating AND all the cooling takes place during daylight hours (from sunrise to sunset). The temps drop as much from noon till sunset as they previously rose from sunrise till noon, barring the very slight extra cooling during the lunar night.

            Why is the lunar surface hardly cooling any further during that long night? That’s what you need to ask yourself.

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            Another “silly” remark then. What I said about water goes for oven plates and heating devices. Very fast warming and very slow cooling. Cooling in vacuum just by radiation would be even slower, in absence of convection.

            I am getting the impression that you combine in yourself 2 properties: stupidity and at the same time some sort of cleverness. Very interesting. It is clever indeed to refer to plots while stupidly ignoring the obvious. Well done.

          • Avatar

            Kristian

            |

            Er, Greg, the plots show the diurnal temperature variation for the lunar surface … which is what we are talking about.

            Have a look, please. Is the heating from sunrise to noon faster than the cooling from noon to sunset or not? Straightforward question. Is the rise steeper than the drop?

          • Avatar

            Squid2112

            |

            Those plots don’t show the rate at all. They are [b]horribly[/b] low resolution, not adequate to determine rate differences.

            Go look at the actual data! .. I have .. Go plot the charts yourself in Excel or something .. I have .. At a finer resolution you will clearly see, Gregg (and myself) are 100% correct. The moon heats, especially initially, much faster than it can cool.

            And again, you also fail to understand that [b]you cannot pile heat![/b] It doesn’t work that way Kristian.

            With a 24hr rotation, the [b]MAXIMUM [/b]temperature would not increase, probably not at all or certainly very little if any, but the [b]AVERAGE[/b] temperature of the moon would increase [b]dramatically[/b], also falsifying the -18C bogus BS that is claimed the Earth would be without an atmosphere. Quite the opposite. The Earth would be [b]MUCH [/b]warmer without an atmosphere.

          • Avatar

            Kristian

            |

            [quote name=”Squid2112″]With a 24hr rotation, the [b]MAXIMUM [/b]temperature would not increase, probably not at all or certainly very little if any[/quote]

            What are you on? The Moon’s equatorial region now has 88.5 hours to reach a maximum temperature (at noon) of 390K (warming from a minimum of 100K at sunrise). With a 24h day, this same period of net heating (temperature rise) would be reduced to 6 hours. And you talk about the maximum not increasing, [i]”probably not at all or certainly very little if any”[/i].

            The maximum, Squid, would of course be much [i]lower[/i]. Just as the minimum would be much [i]higher[/i]. The diurnal amplitudes would simply be cut down a fair bit. That’s the point. The temperature curves would follow the exact same course, only through a 24h cycle rather than a 354h one, with the swings from top to bottom much reduced.

            But you’re right, the AVERAGE would rise. The smaller the sfc temperature [i]amplitudes[/i] of a radiative body, the higher its mean sfc temperature. However, it wouldn’t rise terribly much. The Moon would still be a MUCH colder place than Earth … on AVERAGE.

            [quote name=”Squid2112″]The Earth would be [b]MUCH [/b]warmer without an atmosphere.[/quote]

            Er, no. Where do you get these nonsensical ideas from!?

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            Kristian,

            “Er, no. Where do you get these nonsensical ideas from!?”
            You are asking of a Joe Postma acolyte! 🙂

            On your site you have a question:
            jerry l krause says: May 18, 2015 at 1:25 pm

            “Hi Kristian,
            First, I have been patiently waiting for you (and Rafael) to respond to my Eureka moment I described to you and readers of your post ‘The enhanced greenhouse’ in my response of March 23, 2015 at 3:48AM.” -will-

Comments are closed