Meteorology is History Not Science
Meteorology is the study of weather and climate but it is not a science just a study of history. By using knowledge of past conditions and the results of these conditions meteorologist predict what the weather will be in the near future.
As more parameters and information becomes available on various conditions the models and predictions have become more accurate but because the cause of the events is not understood they are guesses not science.
For meteorology, just like ancient Greeks, there remain the four elements: earth, wind (gases), water, and fire (temperature) and they do not understand what produces these elements and how they interact. Weather is how the energy from the sun is distributed around the Earth and climate is determined by the energy the Earth receives from the sun.
Temperature is a totally misleading number. Objects do not radiate temperature they radiate energy. All objects absorb radiated energy and all objects above absolute zero radiated energy and it is the transfer of energy between objects (by radiation or convection) that creates the weather.
The space between the Earth and sun contains the energy that heats the Earth but it has no temperature because there are no objects to absorb and radiate that energy. Energy will interact with matter transferring energy to the matter until it reaches equilibrium where the energy being absorbed is equal to the energy being radiated.
This both blocks the energy flow (the moon where the side exposed to the sun is +250 F while the unlit side is -250 F) and removes energy from the flow. The energy flowing around an object will expand beyond the object to fill the void in the energy field just as solar particles and energy flow around the Earth erases the shadow of the Earth.
The matter in the atmosphere decreases with increased altitude so as the few molecules in the upper atmosphere block and absorb the energy coming from the sun the available energy that can be absorbed by molecules lower in the atmosphere decreases.
The temperature does not give an accurate indication of the energy in the atmosphere because it measures the energy of the matter in the atmosphere not the energy in the field and is a function not only the energy of the field but also the amount of matter (mass).
The universal gas law (PV=nrt) recognizes that the kinetic energy (t) of gas molecules is inversely proportional to the density (n/v) of the gas, t = PV/nr.
A thermometer is designed to measure the flow of energy from one media to another. It is calibrated using water but of the 720 calories needed to convert 0 C ice into 100 C steam only 100 calories register on the thermometer.
It does not give an accurate reading of the flow of energy in the atmosphere or weather yet it is used as the main factor in meteorology.
The graph of the different temperatures at different altitudes in the atmosphere shows how inaccurate the thermometer is in measuring energy. Energy decreases with distance from its source. It is the sun that provides the energy to the Earth and the zigzag graph of temperature at different altitudes shows that the measurement of temperature by a thermometer is wrong and the categorizing of the atmosphere by temperature is nonsense.
The sun is the source of heat for the Earth and the energy in the atmosphere decreases with altitude. The idea that since nitrogen and oxygen do not absorb the visible and infrared spectrum of energy they are not getting energy from the sun is idiotic. All objects absorb energy and the energy absorbed by the oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere (x-rays and uv light) has far more energy than the visible spectrum passing through it and striking the surface of the Earth.
It is the absorption of uv light in the stratosphere that creates the ozone layer. It takes 495 kj/mole (13.75 kj/gram) to break the bond of an oxygen molecule to create the ozone.
The ionosphere is produced by the uv and x-ray radiation from the sun being absorbed by the oxygen, nitrogen, and nitrous oxide molecules in the atmosphere. It stretches from the top part of the mesosphere to the exosphere. To split nitrogen molecules into nitrogen atoms it requires 946 kj/mole (33.75 kj/gram).
The x-rays from the sun are absorbed by atoms and dislodge electrons from atoms creating the ions in the ionosphere. 1402 kj/mole (100 kj/gram) is needed to remove an electron from a nitrogen atom and 1314 kj/mole (82 kj/gram to ionize an oxygen atom. In the mesosphere where the recorded temperature is the lowest the energy per gram to create these ions is a hundred times the energy in molten iron (.94 kj/gram).
This energy absorbed in the atmosphere is radiated in all directions, into space and to the Earth’s surface. It is the x-ray and uv spectrums from the sun that is the main source of energy heating the Earth not the visible light striking the Earth.
The visible and infrared light coming from the sun is produced by the surface of the sun while the x-rays and uv light is produced by solar flares. We are entering a grand solar minimum where there are few sun spots.
The heat produced by visible light will not change significantly (.1%) but there will be a major change in the x-rays and uv light heating the atmosphere. Any change in climate (cooling) will be a result of the decrease in the main source of heat for the Earth, x-rays and uv light.
To compare the energy of different altitudes in is necessary to use the universal gas law, PV=nrt (P is the force that confines the atmosphere and resists expansion, gravity, and can be considered constant).
By using the inverse of density (the volume of a constant number of molecules) to compare the energy of different altitudes it shows that the energy of molecules in the atmosphere increases slowly it the troposphere, where weather occurs, and exponentially in the atmosphere above the troposphere.
This brings us to the next thing not understood by meteorologists, water. Water does not exist as a gas (vapor) below its boiling point but as nano droplets of liquid water (James McGinn). It is because liquid water can absorb so much energy (vapor cannot) that it moderates the energy in the troposphere compared to the exponential increase in the higher atmosphere. It is water that is the main reservoir of energy and the main means of transferring that energy (weather).
Water is not a liquid in the atmosphere but a liquid crystal (Dr. Gerald Pollack, The Fourth Phase of Water). It absorbs energy from the Earth’s surface and from the troposphere and transports that energy to the top of the troposphere. There the liquid crystals melt releasing their energy into the stratosphere where it can be radiated into space, and producing rain to repeat the cycle.
The reason cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights is because the water in the clouds is radiating energy to the Earth’s surface, not because -50 C water is somehow magically able to reflect heat back to the surface.
Today’s meteorologist and climatologist are like the oracles of Delphi, except the influence of a trace gas (CO2) instead of ethylene oxide. They believe in its magical powers to add heat to the Earth when in reality CO2 cools the atmosphere, like water, by absorbing energy. This has led them to predict a catastrophic increase in the Earth’s temperature by 2 C that will bring disaster.
Their disaster prediction is right but the disaster will be a result of their predictions as the grand solar minimum causes the Earth’s temperature to drop by 6 – 9 C instead of a 2 C increase and their predictions cause a deterioration of the means necessary to deal with the drop in temperature. Solar panels and electric cars will be useless and the wind farms that consume more energy to make than they produce will be worse than useless.
What is needed is more coal fired generating plants but they produce CO2 which cools the atmosphere (actually man has no influence on the CO2 level in the atmosphere it is determined by the oceans).
The best and “greenest” solution is the one abhorred by proponents of “green” energy, nuclear power. (How can they call themselves “green” when it is CO2 that allows plant to grow through photosynthesis?)
As crops fail and people starve the use of food to convert to energy, providing absolutely no benefits to the environment or the economy (only increased cost), will be seen as one of the greatest idiotic moves in history.
It is ignorant politicians using tax money to promote the nonsense for their own benefit that is corrupting science and leading to the disaster instead of preparing for it. They will not be the ones blamed however it will be the meteorologist and climatologist who sold out science for funding who will be the ones taking the blame.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Bjarte Rundereim
| #
This kind of argumentation leaves a lot of questions.
– Is History in itself not a science?
– Is Economy not a science?
– Does scientific methodology not count?
– Can a Science be other than Math, Phys. or Cemistry?
– What, according to this writer, does consitute a Science?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Bjarte,
Science is based on evidence and reason while history is a subjective opinion of what has happened in the past. If the axis powers had won WorldWar 2 do you believe the history being taught would be the same?
Economics is not science. The Great Depression was a result of economic theory turning a recession into a depression. By tightening money supply and creating regulations that restricted economic activity the ” Economic Science” of the day made things worse. In the recent real estate bust the supply and availability of money was expanded and restrictions removed to encourage economic activity. Where is the runaway inflation that was supposed to result from these actions? Today the worry is deflation.
In science a theory must be falsifiable. How do you prove history of economics are wrong if you can’t identify a cause?
I am of the opinion the greatest defeat for Germany and the Axis that cost them victory was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
Herb
.
Reply
Terry Shipman
| #
As one who has a degree in history I was taught that there are two aspects to the study of history: 1) the facts of history; 2) the interpretation of history. It is an established fact that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. But there are different schools of thought on how this fact of history influenced the course of World War II. I believe number 1 constitutes a science while number 2 does not.
This is why I like Tony Heller’s web site so much. He researches history and presents the facts, from historical documents, about what actually happened in weather past. He demonstrates how NASA and NOAA have falsified the facts of weather history so they can manipulate their interpretations of weather history. One never, but never, changes the facts of history. And that’s because there is a science to history.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi terry,
I like Tony’s Hellers articles too. I recall he did one where by choosing the right starting point you could support what trend you wanted. In history you select what constitutes relevant data and there is a tendency to select data that support your beliefs.
When the Stalin learned that the Japanese were going attack the U.S. he was able to shift his Siberian troops to defend Moscow and prevent the Germans from taking it. The supplies from this new ally allowed for the Russian troops to fight with more than extraordinary courage. Instead of only one in three soldier having a rifle when attacking (the unarmed soldiers would get weapons when an armed soldier was killed) they were given the resources to effectively fight. It was suppliess that allowed for the victory over the Axis Powers. The Americans provided horse power while the Germans relied on horses. The tragedy for Russia was the choice was between Hitler and Stalin so there was no winning.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Terry,
Thank you for this information: “As one who has a degree in history I was taught that there are two aspects to the study of history: 1) the facts of history; 2) the interpretation of history.”
Evidently I have long suffered under the assumption that a historian should only report the facts of history and allow a reader to interpret the historical facts. For the problem seems to be that as soon a historian offers an interpretation of the reported historical facts, this interpretation becomes a historical fact but it is only an opinion, which might influence a reader’s ‘independent’ interpretation of the historical facts.
But maybe I am not aware of what is ‘interpretation’.
I recently read the following: “It is a remarkable circumstance in the history of science, that astronomy should have been cultivated at the same time by three such distinguished men as Tycho, Kepler, and Galileo. While Tycho, in the 54th year of his age, was observing the heavens at Prague, Kepler, only 30 years old, was applying his wild genius to determination of the orbit of Mars, and Galileo, at the age of 36, was about to direct the telescope to the unexplored regions of space. The diversity of gifts which Providence assigned to these three philosophers was no less remarkable. Tycho was destined to lay the foundation of modern astronomy, by a vast series of accurate observations made with the largest and the finest instruments; it was the proud lot of Kepler to deduce the laws of the planetary orbits from the observations of his predecessors; while Galileo enjoyed the more dazzling honour of discovering by the telescope new celestial bodies, and new systems of worlds.” (The Martyrs of Science, David Brewster, 1840)
I can easily discern that “The diversity of gifts which Providence assigned to these three philosophers was no less remarkable.” is an opinion of Brewster, but I consider the remainder of this paragraph to be historical fact with a few descriptive words which I do not consider to be ‘interpretation’.
Can you agree with my ‘interpretation’ or am I confused?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Terry Shipman
| #
Hi Jerry,
Your post reminded me of a supplemental textbook we used in my second semester US history class in my sophomore year in college. It’s called “Interpretations of American History.” It’s been moldering in the cabinet where I have kept my college textbooks for decades. It states a topic then three different essays, by different historians, stating different opinions about the same historical event, are then given. I believe the idea was to make us think about these historical events and to learn to separate the wheat from the chaff.
I was a frustrated physics major because my math aptitude was not up to the task. So I changed my major to another field that I also loved. But I believe my exposure to physics and chemistry taught me to think logically. I think that helps me to separate fact from opinion.
A historian would probably call it making a judgement or coming to a conclusion, hopefully based on the facts. Since we want to learn from history, knowing why something happened can be as important as learning what happened. Of course, that is highly subjective.
I think you are quite correct. Brewster is stating an opinion but he follows that up, and backs it, with historical fact. So I don’t see much difference between you, and your chosen field, and the historian. You research for demonstrable facts then offer analysis. I believe that is how the sum of human knowledge increases.
Terry
Reply
Barry
| #
What a great article written so lay people can understand. I hope I live long enough to see at least the beginning of this cooling period that will effect the narrative of the fear monger as they will not admit what a hoax it all is but rather its taking longer to develop. This will of coarse have the effect of the cult falling apart as members drift away and claim to have never believed that nonsense in the first place. I hope that the IPCC,s feet are held to the fire.
Reply
T L Winslow
| #
Yes, CO2 helps cool the Earth’s surface, but it has no special role. The entire atmosphere does that. It’s CO2’s alleged ability to radiate heat downward from the sky to heat the surface that’s being pushed by the leftist-run U.N. IPCC as their Hail Mary to scare people into becoming their useful idiots to destroy capitalism and pave the way for global Marxism. Who do they think they’re fooling on this site?
For the umpeenth time, if a gas only removes heat from Earth’s surface, it’s cooling it, and whether or not it “heats the atmosphere” is irrelevant unless/until we begin living in cloud citiest. Since the thermodynamic lapse rate insures that the surface is always hotter than the atmosphere, Nature’s ironclad Second Law of Thermodynamics guarantees that it can’t reheat the surface with its own heat by any means, conduction, convection, or radiation. If any so-called greenhouse gas did diddly it would have to start by inverting the lapse rate to make the atmosphere hotter than the surface, a literal second Sun in the sky, after which we would indeed have to start sweating and maybe think of moving underground or underwater 🙂
CO2 doesn’t have to heat the sky, just the surface via downward radiation?
Duh, again for the umpteenth time, CO2’s radiation absorption/emission wavelength of 15 microns has a Planck radiation temperature of -80C, which can’t melt an ice cube.
CO2 molecules themselves are a trace component of the atmosphere, which equalizes its temperature with the rest, and I’ve actually encountered IPCC stooges who argue that gases don’t radiate Planck radiation because they aren’t a solid or liquid. But that’s a diversion, because the Earth’s surface is solid or liquid, and CO2 molecules don’t exist there, only in the atmosphere.
So, IPCC defenders, show me a video of your lab experiment showing a block of dry ice suspended 1 foot away from a block of water ice melting the latter or STFU. If the two blocks are allowed to touch, the water ice, which is at a way higher temperature, will attempt to melt the dry ice, causing CO2 to sublimate until one of them wins. if the CO2 block is large enough, it will freeze the remaining ice to -80C.
The IPCC was founded to frame CO2 emissions on being evil, not with science, but with fake science. It’s getting old, and despite its grip on the PC media the truth will win, after which it should be disbanded, its scientists’ doctorates revoked, and the tuition refunded so they can retrain for new more useful hopefully non-scientific careers, like selling ice cream treats out of trucks with dry ice lockers.
If you’re the last person on this blog who hasn’t read my killer esssay slaying IPCC’s Sky Dragon with a dry ice sword, making what they want you to believe is complicated ultra-simple, do it now and shut any IPCC stooge up with the slogan “Just Say No to -80C and the IPCC”. If I’m dead wrong where is the long string of peer-reviewed IPCC articles addressing the “-80C Hoax” and proving it to be the real fake science?
http://www.historyscoper.com/thebiglieaboutco2.html
https://www.quora.com/Wikipedia-says-Carbon-dioxide-is-the-primary-greenhouse-gas-that-is-contributing-to-recent-climate-change-The-linked-site-states-There-is-no-Valid-mechanism-for-CO2-Creating-Global-warming-What-is-the-main/answer/TL-Winslow
https://www.quora.com/Is-ground-temperature-warmer-than-air/answer/TL-Winslow
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
HI T.L.,
I fully understand that CO2 doesn’t heat the atmosphere. What about uv and x-rays? It is these electromagnetic waves from the sun that creates the ionosphere and the ozone layer by splitting N2 and O2 molecules and ionizing atoms. What happens to this energy being absorbed by these gases? All objects absorb and radiate energy. In the stratosphere the sun is transferring 450 kj/mole to convert O2 molecules into oxygen atoms which then forms ozone. molecules. That energy is converted to kinetic energy, it doesn’t disappear.
The visible spectrum may pass through the atmosphere and reach the surface of the Earth but the higher energy uv light and x-rays are heating the molecules in the atmosphere and since energy is radiated in all directions that energy is not only going into space but it is also being radiated to the Earth’s surface.
Since visible light is emitted by the surface of the sun while uv and x-rays come from solar flares the solar minimum will reveal whether the Earth is being heated primarily by the uv coming from the disappearing solar flares or from the constant visible light coming from the sun’s surface.
Herb
Reply
T L Winslow
| #
[[In the stratosphere the sun is transferring 450 kj/mole to convert O2 molecules into oxygen atoms which then forms ozone. molecules. That energy is converted to kinetic energy, it doesn’t disappear.]]
UV radiation energy doesn’t disappear. It is converted to work to split oxygen molecules, but entropy always increases, making that energy less useful.
[[The visible spectrum may pass through the atmosphere and reach the surface of the Earth but the higher energy uv light and x-rays are heating the molecules in the atmosphere and since energy is radiated in all directions that energy is not only going into space but it is also being radiated to the Earth’s surface.]]
The dinky amount of UV and X-rays that make it to the surface don’t do diddly for the climate, but they do cause genetic damage if you’re in their path.
Why keep changing the subject? I was talking about CO2 and how it can’t cause global warming. Cosmic rays supposedly cause cloud formation and increase surface cooling. Visual wavelength (.4-.8 micron) energy from the Sun comprises at least 99% of the surface heating. UV is at .29-.4 microns. Typical Earth surface IR radiation is at 12.4 microns (-40C) to 8.94 microns (+51C). CO2 only absorbs/emits at 15, 4.3, and 2.7 microns, which have Planck radiation temperatures of -80C (193K) (-112F), +401C (675K) (755F), and +707C (1070K) (1466F).
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/wiens-law
Either way, after the surface is heated, the atmosphere begins its job of venting the heat harmlessly to cold cold space, while the IPCC cage hens attempt to make a tempest in a teapot to keep their jobs by continuing their deliberate confusion of temperatures on the surface with temperatures way up in airplane or spaceship territory, which we can only watch with binoculars or telescopes. I wish I could leave that minor scientific subject to atmospheric physicists, but they’re currently all controlled and hijacked by the IPCC and only get money when their results include some moose hockey tying them to CO2-driven global warming.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/UVB
https://eos.org/science-updates/better-data-for-modeling-the-suns-influence-on-climate
Herb, your mind wanders so much you should change your name to Herbert Roams 🙂
,
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
T.L.,
I will try once again to explain why it is the nitrogen and oxygen (not CO2) that does the primary heating of the Earth’s surface.
The uv coming from the sun is absorbed in the atmosphere by oxygen and nitrogen with very little reaching the surface. The absorption is done by the bonds holding the gas molecules together. The work being done is to add energy to the atoms increasing their kinetic energy (vibration). When the kinetic energy exceeds the strength of the bond holding the atoms together (450 kj/mole for O2) the bond breaks and the atoms contain that kinetic energy. (Entropy is the energy that increases the kinetic energy of the molecule rather than the kinetic energy of the atoms.). When the individual atoms radiate enough energy is that is less than the attraction between the atoms, the molecule will reform with kinetic energy under 450 kj/mole. All of the uv light being absorbed in the atmosphere is being converted to kinetic energy. Since uv light has more energy than the visible light striking the Earth’s surface, the atoms and molecules in the atmosphere have more energy than the Earth’s surface. Since energy is radiated in all directions and flows from greater energy to lower energy (2nd law) the molecules in the atmosphere are adding more energy to the Earth’s surface than the visible light striking the Earth.
Does T.L. stand for Totally Lost?
Herb
Reply
geran
| #
Herb, as usual, you have a couple of things wrong. Seriously wrong.
The energy in solar UV is less that solar visible. The energy of an individual UV photon is greater than an individual visible photon, but the total energy of visible is greater than total UV. I know it’s hard for you to understand.
And in your improvised scenario, you have the atmosphere warming the surface. That doesn’t happen. The atmosphere, except in rare weather events, is ALWAYS much colder than the surface. The heat transfer is from surface to atmosphere to space.
T L Winslow
| #
[[Entropy is the energy that increases the kinetic energy of the molecule rather than the kinetic energy of the atoms.]]
Entropy isn’t energy, it’s usually defined dimensionally as heat energy divided by temperature dS=dQ/T. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
[[The uv coming from the sun is absorbed in the atmosphere by oxygen and nitrogen with very little reaching the surface.]]
The atmosphere, yes, the stratosphere, 9+ mi. high.
“The ozone layer or ozone shield is a region of Earth’s stratosphere that absorbs most of the Sun’s ultraviolet radiation. It contains high concentration of ozone (O3) in relation to other parts of the atmosphere, although still small in relation to other gases in the stratosphere. The ozone layer contains less than 10 parts per million of ozone, while the average ozone concentration in Earth’s atmosphere as a whole is about 0.3 parts per million. The ozone layer is mainly found in the lower portion of the stratosphere, from approximately 15 to 35 kilometers (9.3 to 21.7 mi) above Earth, although its thickness varies seasonally and geographically.”
“The ozone layer absorbs 97 to 99 percent of the Sun’s medium-frequency ultraviolet light (from about 200 nm to 315 nm wavelength), which otherwise would potentially damage exposed life forms near the surface.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer
[[Since energy is radiated in all directions and flows from greater energy to lower energy (2nd law) the molecules in the atmosphere are adding more energy to the Earth’s surface than the visible light striking the Earth.]]
Duh, heat energy flows from higher to lower temperature. Pure energy just flows, e.g.,, a flashlight shined at the Sun. Everybody knows about the Earth’s atmospheric lapse rate, a drop in temperature with height. You’re claiming that no thermometer in a balloon can measure your precious “energy” that reverses the lapse rate and causes the atmosphere to heat the Earth’s surface. This is pseudoscientific moose hockey.
Yes, when it comes to your mixed-up version of thermodynamics, I’m T.L. because I know thermodynamics 🙂
So, sunlight doesn’t travel directly to the Earth’s surface at the speed of light, but must undergo chemical reactions first. So why does these alleged chemical reactions seem to take zero time?
BTW, T.L. stands for Too Lovely 🙂 Just kidding. It’s about my brain. T.L.= Too Large 🙂 Just kidding. I’m called TLW not TL.
Herb Rose
| #
T.L.,
Why doesn’t the oxygen and nitrogen molecules above the stratosphere absorb uv light where the light is more intense? Why does the atmosphere at 200 km consist mostly of oxygen atoms? Since the temperature in space between the sun and Earth is very cold why does energy flow to the warmer Earth or thermosphere? Since the uv band and x-ray band are larger and contain more energy than the visible light band and 97 % of them are absorbed in the atmosphere why doesn’t the atmosphere have more energy than the surface heated by visible light? Since ozone is a result of a single oxygen atom, produced when an oxygen molecule is split by absorbing uv light, combines with an oxygen molecule why do you say it is the ozone absorbing uv instead of O2? Since there are so many more O2 molecules than O3 and oxygen atoms are more likely to reform O2 after losing energy why aren’t they the primary absorber of uv just as they do above the stratosphere? Why don’t you think about what the data means instead of just citing it?
Herb
geran
| #
Herb, you’re still confused.
Look at the solar spectrum at TOA. The energy in the visible range is at least 4 times the UV, and higher, ranges.
Herb Rose
| #
Geran,
No. You believe that the energy spectrum striking the surface of the Earth is the same as the energy spectrum being emitted by the sun. The uv and x-rays being emitted by solar flares are being absorbed by the oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere so less than 3% of them strikes the Earth.
Forget about heat (the combining of matter and energy) and temperature (the energy being transferred by that matter) and look at energy. It is energy that is being transferred that creates heat and temperature.
At around 100 km altitude the composition of the atmosphere changes. There is a rapid drop in the amount of nitrogen and argon and the atmosphere becomes composed of oxygen atoms and helium.
In order for an oxygen molecule to be split into oxygen atoms it must absorb 450 kj/mole of energy. It takes time for a molecule to absorb that amount of energy. In the upper atmosphere because radiating energy a slow process and because of the low density of gases so there are few collisions between molecules, they have the time to absorb this energy from the uv and x-rays. (Uv transfers energy to molecules while x-rays transfer energy to atoms.)
In the ozone layer the primary means of energy transfers switches from radiation to convection (collisions) and energy is transferred to an increasing number of molecule. There is not enough time for a molecule to absorb enough energy to be converted into atoms.
Ozone is an unstable molecule and will decompose (2O3 > 3O2) without any energy being added. The ozone hole in Antarctica is a result of ozone decomposing and no uv light creating more oxygen atoms.Ozone molecules do not absorb uv. Oxygen molecules do and create ozone.
Below the ozone layer collisions between molecules become so frequent that even though some uv is transferring energy to gas molecules they never gain enough energy to split as the energy is divided between more and more molecules. At sea level, where the density is 1.1 kg/m^3 the energy of each gas molecule is being transferred to 1000 water molecules.
Because the energy is being distributed to more molecules the kinetic energy (1/2mv^2) or heat of each molecule decreases. Because there are more molecules transferring energy the temperature increases.
geran
| #
Sorry Herb but that is not what I believe. That’s just more of your confusion. Want some other examples?
”Ozone molecules do not absorb uv.”
That’s wrong. Ozone molecules absorb UV.
”Oxygen molecules do and create ozone.”
Your wording is poor, but oxygen molecules combine with oxygen atoms to form ozone.
And you’re still avoiding the reality that solar UV energy arriving Earth surface is much less that solar visible. Again, look at the TOA spectrum.
Herb Rose
| #
Geran,
You keep ignoring the fact that the reason so little uv reaches the surface of the Earth is because it is being absorbed in the atmosphere by O2 and N2 and being converted into kinetic energy.
If ozone molecules absorb uv why to they decompose when there is no uv?
geran
| #
Herb, now you seem to be squirming out of your own words, along with trying to change my words.
You erroneously stated that Earth received more UV than visible. I corrected you. Then you erroneously stated more nonsense, which I also corrected.
You make a mistake, and I correct it.
More please.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
My favorite meteorologist, R.C. Sutcliffe whom I frequently quote, seems to agree with you that meteorology is not a science as he wrote in the first chapter of his book, Weather and Climate: “Meteorology is not a fundamental physical science, that is to say it is not concerned to develop the basic laws of nature.” Which statement is evidence that Sutcliffe does not know what a fundamental physical science is. For physical scientists do not develop the basic laws of nature; they discover them by simple observation (measurement).
Previously in this first chapter Sutcliffe had written: “ ‘Natural science’, as the term is most naturally understood, has suffered astonishing neglect. That the neglect is extreme is illustrated by the very curious fact, that a student entering the science stream will go through school and university studying physics and mathematics and have no more idea than an arts student of the significance of an earthquake, an ocean current, or a monsoon wind, to take illustrations from three of the environmental sciences. Actually we must go to schools of geology to find students who have been asked to direct their minds to the natural phenomena on earth.” Hence, Meteorology as a science, is a very young science in which Sutcliffe has not yet learned what a scientific law actually is as he refers to this foreign, to him, thing termed a physical scientific law.
But in the 5th Chapter we find him writing: “The answer is that the natural atmosphere, however clean it may appear to be, is always supplied with a sufficient number of minute particles of salts, acids or other substances which serve just as well as liquid water in capturing water molecules from the vapour. These are the ‘nuclei of condensation’, and are effective as soon as the air becomes even slightly supersaturated.”
As chemist I am quite familiar with what a physical law is; so I know that Sutcliffe has just described a physical law of the earth’s atmosphere: that the Earth’s atmosphere has never been observed (measured) to be supersaturated with water molecules.
Hence, while you and Sutcliffe may not be convinced Meteorology is a natural physical science, IT IS A NATURAL PHYSICAL SCIENCE for it has been discovered by Meteorologists that the Earth’s atmosphere has a physical law.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and PSI Readers,
As usual I have what I consider to be a critical blunder and therefore need to correct it. “Actually we must go to schools of geology to find students” should be Actually we must go to schools of geology and geography to find students …. For I have found Physical Geography 3rd Ed. by Arthur N. Strahler to be filled with good fundamental physical science. Not so much about the geology textbooks I have scanned.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
T L Winslow
| #
Meteorology is struggling to become a science, but it too is being hijacked by the U.N. IPCC to push their program of framing CO2 emissions as bad to scare people into dismantling the fossil fuel industry. With them, every day a bunch of new history is created. The history part is also threatened by NASA/NOAA data tampering.
If I had another life I might come back as a meteorologist, but I only have one so I’d rather live it as a blonde and leave my options open. 🙂
Speaking of history, I can teach you everything worth studying, and it’s still free if you got the time and inclination. It helps to learn any science by learning the history first to put it in a proper framework.
http://www.historyscoper.com/climatescope.html
http://www.historyscoper.com/geologistscope.html
http://www.historyscoper.com/geographerscope.html
http://www.historyscoper.com/scienceandtechnologyhistoryscope.html
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You wrote: “There is no experiments that are done that can isolate one factor as having a specific effect so its guessing whether something is a cause or a result.”
Have you really tried to find relationships that meteorologists have measured. Weather station after weather station has measured atmospheric temperature which can be compared with the atmospheric dewpoint temperature, which can be simply directly measured, but are more frequently calculated from the measured relative humidity of the atmosphere and the atmospheric temperature.
If you compare these two temperatures, you will find that the atmosphere temperature is thousands and thousands of times equal to, or greater than the same atmosphere’s dewpoint temperature. But almost never less than than the dewpoint temperature and in those very, very rare cases, one needs to accept there is an error of measurement involved.
For it is an observed scientific law that the earth’s atmosphere’s temperature can never be lower that the atmosphere’s dewpoint temperature. Which scientific law proves the earth’s atmosphere’s temperature can be never be 33C (58F) less than it measured temperature. Hence, the scientific theory known as the greenhouse effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide (and other atmospheric gases with a property similar to that of carbon dioxide) is proven to be absolutely refuted.
The problem is that it seems that you, and many others, have not compared these two fundamental atmospheric temperatures which meteorologists have be routinely been measuring and reporting.
Thank you for providing me the opportunity to point out the fact of this scientific law of the earth’s atmosphere and its critically important consequence.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
I’ve stated many times that temperature is not an accurate measurement of the kinetic energy of molecules in a gas. I believe the universal gas law , you believe the thermometer. Since it is the distribution of energy that causes the weather if you don’t have meaningful data how can you form causality?
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You wrote: ” I believe the universal gas law , you believe the thermometer.”
Do you not know what the thermometer was that gave us the reproducible observations on which the universal gas “law'” is based. It was a gas thermometer which scale was based upon the boiling temperature and melting temperature of water just as was every other type of temperature measuring device. And you seem to ignore that its does not matter what the theory of temperature might be because temperature is a measured fact which does not depend on any theory about what various instruments are consistently measuring.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
Yes the thermometer gives a wrong reading for the atmosphere just as it misses 86% of the energy needed to convert 0 C ice to 100 C steam. It doesn’t even give an accurate measurement of a calorie with the amount of energy needed to raise 1 gram of water 1 C varying depending on the initial temperature of the water.
The universal gas law doesn’t give a temperature it says that the kinetic energy of a constant number of gas molecules is inversely proportional to the density of the gas.
Have a good day,
Herb
geran
| #
Herb, you now seem confused about a thermometer. A thermometer does not measure latent energy. It is calibrated to measure the resultant of molecular kinetic energy. A thermometer was never intended for anything else. You are trying to use the instrument for the wrong purpose.
Herb Rose
| #
Geran,
The accepted definition of temperature is The mean kinetic energy of the molecules in the medium being measured. Do you believe that 0 C ice and 0 C water have the same kinetic energy? (Hint, you can’t skate on cold water.) Do you believe that 100 C water has the same kinetic energy as 100 C steam? Why bother adding 540 calories/gram to 100 C water to convert it to steam if you don’t get anymore energy out of it?
geran
| #
Yes Herb, 0C ice has the same temperature as 0C water. That’s why they both are at 0C. That means the have the same temperature.
(Do you have any clue how ridiculous your belabored arguments are?)
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
I thought we were discussing the measurement of temperature. Which temperature is the central measurement involved in the wrong scientific theory known as the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide etc.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rosr
| #
Hi Jerry,
Right Jerry but if that temperature does not indicate the energy of the molecules it is off no use since objects radiate energy not temperature.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
The reasons I don’t consider meteorology a science are because 1: There is no experiments that are done that can isolate one factor as having a specific effect so its guessing whether something is a cause or a result. Does cool air cause clouds to form or do clouds cool the air? Do clouds block solar energy from reaching the Earth or just redirect it by refraction to be absorbed else where? 2: How are you able to disprove a theory? 3: Can you say with certainty that if x happens y will result? In chemistry you know if you add A to B it will produce C every time. That does not happen with meteorology.
As I said in the article by studying history of results you can make daily good guesses of will happen when similar condition arise but without knowing cause and effect it is still a guess..
Have a good day,
Herb .
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and Terry,
First, Herb, Thank you for writing your article. Next, Terry, Thank you again for writing: “As one who has a degree in history I was taught that there are two aspects to the study of history: 1) the facts of history; 2) the interpretation of history.”
Herb, you are wrong about Meteorology not being a Science. You cannot question the historical fact that meteorologists have always measured and reported meteorological facts. Which is what the experimental ‘branch’ of all sciences do. And meteorologists try to understand the weather systems involving daily solar radiation and its influence upon the atmosphere using the measurements that have been made. This so they might use their understanding to predict future weather (meteorology).
Herb, it is climatology which is only a history and not a science. Climatologists consider the historical measured facts of the meteorologists over a long period of time and offer their interpretations of what ever historical trend which has considerable variations, which the meteorologists are trying to understand that are actually occurring in real time.
Which is not different from historians, considering the facts of history and then offering their interpretations of how these facts might have influenced people’s future lives. For they are trying to explain, based upon previous long term human behaviors, the general long term human behaviors which other historians have reported to have occurred later in time. I do not believe that a ‘historian’ is trying to predict the future; only trying to explain the general historical past.
It does seem that climatologists do try to predict a future climate as they ignore the actual variations of weather (meteorology) from day to day and from year to year just as it seems that historians maybe ignore the impact that this invention or that (unknown variation) which have immediately changed the courses of human history. As a non-historian I see that influence of the individual is far more important that of a group of people over a long period of time.
What do you guys think about this?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Alan
| #
I don’t accept the statement a few paragraphs in stating that bodies will reach equilibrium. I cannot see that an equilibrium situation applies anywhere in the universe, except perhaps in some very local situations and then only for a brief time. We have the established law of conservation of energy and that is the law that applies.
Herb tells us that “All objects absorb energy and the energy absorbed by the oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere (X-rays and UV light) has far more energy than the visible spectrum passing through it and striking the surface of the Earth”. Then “It is the X-ray and UV spectrums from the sun that is the main source of energy heating the Earth not the visible light striking the Earth.” I have never seen this stated before and if true is very significant because climate science ignores the 99% of the atmosphere. It cannot possibly be correct to do this, but I am not sure that I believe this because on a frosty morning it is the sun that thaws out the frost, any frost in the shade is not thawed by the radiation from the atmosphere which is from all directions.
It is also surely wrong to say that radiation from water in the clouds at -50C is warming the earth’s surface. Heat does not travel from cold to hot.
What is missing from this piece is how the atmosphere radiates all the heat. Does N2 and O2 also emit radiation because in climate science it is only CO2 that is claimed to do the cooling, as well as the heating?
I do agree that energy policy is significant but we should be retaining coal fired power stations and building more. It is cheap energy and with all the filters on modern plant it is clean. The CO2 emissions are irrelevant. The climate scientists and followers are destroying our economies and preventing poorer countries like Africa getting out of poverty.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi ASlan,
Objects do not equalize with other objects like people believe. Both objects equalize with the fields surrounding them where they then do not lose energy to the field or gain energy from it resulting in them having the same temperature.
The uv and x-rays emitted by solar flares are absorbed by N2 and O2 molecules and by atoms. This creates the ionosphere in the upper atmosphere and ozone layer in the stratosphere. The uv light is absorbed across the bonds holding the atoms together causing a vibration of the atoms. When this vibration exceeds the energy holding the atoms together they break apart having the kinetic energy from the uv light and then radiate that kinetic in all directions, both into space and to the Earth. It is this reservoir of energy in the atmosphere that keeps the Earth from being like the moon where the sun side is +250 F and the shade side is -250 F.
The water in the clouds is not minus -50 C. That is the temperature registered on a thermometer. The fact that the clouds contain liquid water shows it is greater than the -50 C the thermometer says. The reason given for cloudy nights being warmer than clear nights is that this water is reflecting heat back to the Earth’s surface. Doesn’t happen. Because the atmosphere contains more heat than the surface the water is better able to transfer heat to the surface than a gas.
Visible light does heat the Earth but the energy absorbed by the atmosphere by converting uv and x-rays to kinetic energy provides more heat than the visible light. In the solar minimum the visible light will remain the same but the uv and x-rays that come from solar flares will decrease.. If the temperature of the Earth decreases during low sun spot activity (which it does) it means that the energy in the atmosphere is heating the Earth’s surface..
It takes 540 kj/mole to split O2 into oxygen. This is a lot of energy being converted to kinetic energy. In climate science they say that because O2 and N2 do not absorb infrared radiation (heat) they are not getting energy from the sun. This is nonsense since everybody agrees that the ionosphere and ozone layer are a result of the sun transferring energy to these gases.
Herb
Reply
tom0mason
| #
just a few observations about historical records —
Analyzing history like analyzing anything requires care and due diligence.
The phrase “history is recorded by the victors” is applicable not only to war reports but all of history. When looking at weather and climate data one must check the sources —
Why is the weather station here?
What has been recorded, and what has been left out.
How has the equipment and surrounding changed?
How are past records aligned to newer measurement methods? Are they credible?
Within the limits of past knowledge of science, what can historical document tell us?
What are the bona fides of the author (or authors) of a historic scientific report?
In the end an analysis must at the least —
Identifying Key Details and Contexts,
Identify the audience, and
List the limitations of the source(s).
Above all analysis should corroborate any historical record/document with other sources.
Reply