Scientific Proof the Greenhouse Gas Theory is wrong
A new paper has been published recently in the journal “Environment Pollution and Climate Change,” was written by Ned Nikolov, a Ph.D. in physical science, and Karl Zeller, retired Ph.D. research meteorologist. The paper argues that the basic science behind Global Warming is incorrect.
“This was not a pre-conceived conclusion, but a result from an objective analysis of vetted NASA observations,” Nikolov told WND. The real mechanisms that control the temperature of the planet, they say, are the sun’s energy and the air pressure of the atmosphere.
The same applies to other celestial bodies. To understand the phenomena, the authors used three planets – Venus, Earth and Mars – as well as three natural satellites: the Moon of Earth, Titan of Saturn and Triton of Neptune.
They chose the celestial bodies based on three criteria: having a solid surface, representation of a broad range of environments, and the existence of reliable data on temperature, atmospheric composition and air pressure.
“Our analysis revealed a poor relationship between global mean annual temperature] and the amount of greenhouse gases in planetary atmospheres across a broad range of environments in the Solar System,” the paper explains.
“This is a surprising result from the standpoint of the current Greenhouse theory, which assumes that an atmosphere warms the surface of a planet (or moon) via trapping of radiant heat by certain gases controlling the atmospheric infrared optical depth,” the study continues.
In essence, what is commonly known as the atmospheric “greenhouse” effect is in fact a form of compression heating caused by total air pressure, the authors told WND in a series of e-mails and phone interviews, comparing the mechanics of it to the compression in a diesel engine that ignites the fuel.”
In essence, what is commonly known as the atmospheric “greenhouse” effect is in fact a form of compression heating caused by total air pressure, the authors told WND in a series of e-mails and phone interviews, comparing the mechanics of it to the compression in a diesel engine that ignites the fuel.” And that effect is completely independent of the so-called “greenhouse gases” and the chemical composition of the atmosphere, they added.
“Hence, there are no greenhouse gases in reality – as in, gases that can cause warming,” Nikolov said when asked to explain the paper in layman’s terms. “Humans cannot in principle affect the global climate through industrial emissions of CO2, methane and other similar gases or via changes in land use,” he added. “All observed climatic changes have natural causes that are completely outside of human control.”
For the first time, Nikolov said, there is now empirical evidence from NASA data that the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere is not caused by the trapping of heat, but by the force of atmospheric pressure. The pressure is the weight of the atmosphere, he added. And the combination of gravity and the mass of the atmosphere explains why the Earth, for example, is warmer than the moon.
“The moon receives about the same amount of heat from the sun as Earth, yet it is 90 degrees [Celsius] colder than the Earth, because it has no atmosphere,” Nikolov explained.
This is not the first paper to reject the greenhouse-gas theory entirely.This is not the first paper to reject the greenhouse-gas theory entirely. In 2009, for example, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf Tscheuschner published a paper titled “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics” in the International Journal of Modern Physics. They wrote that the “atmospheric greenhouse effect” that “is still supported in global climatology” basically “describes a fictitious mechanism.” The second law of thermodynamics, they said, shows that “can never exist.” However, their paper did not propose a mechanism to explain the higher temperature of Earth relative to the moon.
The new paper by Nikolov and Zeller does propose such a mechanism – atmospheric pressure. If correct, the implications of the discovery would be enormous, multiple scientists told WND. For one, it means the climate projections used to forecast warming doom and justify a wide range of policies are completely wrong. That is because they were produced by computer models built around a “physically deeply flawed concept, the radiative greenhouse theory,” said Nikolov, who works as a federal scientist but did the new study completely on his own time.
“One major implication of our recently published study is that there is indeed a fundamental problem with the physics of current radiative greenhouse concept,” he told WND, highlighting the origin of the “inaccurate” theory in two 19th century papers. “The foundation of the greenhouse theory was born of an assumption, it was never shown experimentally, and our results show this is completely wrong,” Nikolov said. “Our study blows the greenhouse theory completely out of the water. There is nothing left.”
“Hence, the public debate on climate needs now to shift focus to the fact that the basic science concept underlying current climate projections by the UN [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] IPCC and other international bodies is physically flawed,” Nikolov added, saying the new findings require a “fundamental overhaul of climate science” and that Earth may be heading for a cooling period.
Read more at libertycampaign.org
Trackback from your site.
Al Shelton
| #
When I first read that GHGs act like a blanket, and trap heat, I became a sceptic.
A blanket is a solid and CO2 is a gas. All gasses expand and rise when heated.
[ the water cycle; thermals; hot air balloons].
Of course the NWO Socialist/Marxists blundered when the chose the GHG Theory to scare the masses. The internet was not big back then, so they thought that there would be no problem.
However, the internet; blogging; social media; etc., changed all of that.
Who wants the world to be like Venezuela? Not real people. Only power hungry Globalists.
Reply
Alan Stewart
| #
Coincidence. Just studied the CONSENSUAL theory of Adiabatic heating/cooling. Perfect parallel as decreased air pressure creates cooling and increased air pressure creates warming.
Reply
Mats Geijer
| #
Very interesting!
I am really not a climatologist at all but have followed to subject for around ten years. What really surprised me first was that there are no empirical data supporting the GHG theory at all; no well-made experiments.
This theory actually maybe answers the question “but if there is no GHG effect on the temperature of our planet – what is it then than makes it differ from the black body temperature?”
I am sure that one counter-strike from the warmists will be to state that not all planets are analyzed – they will call this cherry-picking. I am sure there are good reasons for this (as hinted above).
Interesting!
Mats
Reply
Alan Stewart
| #
Mats,
Empirical. All from the Alarmists is theory, educated (??) guesses. The only empirical facts are a rise of ~1C over the last 150 years, almost all from U.K. and U.S. temp records. All Catastrophic Climate Changes future events are pure speculation. N.O.A.A. is among that group but they can’t even predict a single hurricane event. Cat 4 Florence that turned into less than a 1 for example.
Cheers
Reply
Hans Schreuder
| #
Mats, please read this peer-reviewed and published paper which I co-authored:
http://tech-know-group.com/papers/Role_of_GHE-EaE.pdf
There are many more papers n that site; they explain everything.
Reply
Mats Geijer
| #
Many thanks, wilco!
By the way, I am Swedish so please excuse my verbal mistakes!
Mahalo//Mats
Reply
Hans Schreuder
| #
Mats, a more extensive paper treating your questions is from Joe Postma: https://climateofsophistry.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/there-is-no-radiative-greenhouse-effect-presentation.pdf
PS: your English is a lot better than my Swedish, so no worries!
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Hans,
You can’t walk on both sides of the street at the same time.
You can’t disparage and expose the pseudoscience of the more novel AGW hypothesis and turn a blind eye to the more traditional pseudoscience from meteorology.
It just makes you look dumb and biased.
You ideologically motivated pretender are wasting your time because you immediately lose half of your audience in that you wear your bias on your sleeve.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Claudius Denk
| #
Hans,
One of the coauthors on your paper is Hertzberg, a meteorologists. Meteorology is who/what set the stage for climatology’s pseudoscientific AGW hypothesis.
Yourself and Siddons have compromised your authority by inclusion of a pseudoscientist.
All meteorologists a phoneys who practice conversational methods instead of empirical method.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
Squidly
| #
Hey McGinn, don’t you have a tornado to solve? … pffft…
Reply
James McGinn
| #
If we give meteorologists a free ride why do we not extend the same courtesy to climatologists?
jerry krause
| #
Hi Alan and Mats,
How is it so many seem to ignore the common clouds of the atmosphere?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Norman
| #
The theory described in this article has zero explanation of the IR energy emitted at the TOA. Venus should be an extremely bright IR object if pressure was a responsible factor. Also it has no ability to explain how pressure can maintain a higher temperature of a surface. The Diesel engine example is not valid. The temperature in the cylinder increases initially from the compression but does not stay such. I think this is a bad theory with no actual support. It pops up now and then. Scientists explain why it is not valid. Then it pops up again.
You need to explain where is the IR from the surface. Some have stated Venus high temperature is due to geothermal energy sources. That could explain the hot surface, it would not explain the lack of strong IR emission at the top of the Venus atmosphere. If GHG did not absorb the upwelling IR, it would all be visible at the top of a planetary atmosphere.
Reply
lifeisthermal
| #
Of course heat is absorbed by GHG:s. But you seem completely unaware that when a low temperature fluid absorbs heat from a high temperature solid, it’s a cooling process, not warming. Just go outside a cold winter day and feel how heat absorption in the atmosphere cools your body. Or stick your hand in a bucket of cold water. Powerful heat absorbers like water and co2 are powerful coolers.
But thank you for showing exactly why the GH-theory is wrong. The people promoting it don’t even know the difference between cooling and warming. It’s crazy. My kids understand cooling and warming, but you don’t.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
LIT:
Of course heat is absorbed by GHG:s. But you seem completely unaware that when a low temperature fluid absorbs heat from a high temperature solid, it’s a cooling process, not warming. Just go outside a cold winter day and feel how heat absorption in the atmosphere cools your body. Or stick your hand in a bucket of cold water. Powerful heat absorbers like water and co2 are powerful coolers.
But thank you for showing exactly why the GH-theory is wrong. The people promoting it don’t even know the difference between cooling and warming. It’s crazy. My kids understand cooling and warming, but you don’t.
JMcG:
You are confused. Moist air is a good heat absorber. That is because the liquid water in moist air has a high heat capacity.
Gases are not good heat absorbers. That is because gases–all gases, including CO2–have a low heat capacity.
Allow me to repeat: CO2 has a low heat capacity. O2 has a low heat capacity. N2 has a low heat capacity. All of these when put under a heat lamp their temperature goes up rapidly. This is because they lack the ability to absorb heat.
Moist air when put under a heat lamp will go up in temperature gradually. That is because it is absorbing heat.
N2 O2 and CO2 and Argon will heat rapidly and cool rapidly. This is because they all have a low heat capacity.
H2O will warm gradually and cool gradually. This is because LIQUID H2O has a huge heat capacity.
Liquid H2O–suspended in the atmosphere as micro and nano droplets–provides the thermo regulation on our planet.
So, the only greenhouse gas in the atmosphere isn’t even a gas. It’s liquid H2O!!!!!!!
Now it is becoming clear to me. All of you loons–both the alarmist loons and the skeptic loons–have been interpreting the significance of these heat lamp demonstrations exactly wrong. You all have come to exactly the opposite conclusion to what the evidence indicates.
If you all believe that CO2 is a GHG because its temperature goes up rapidly when put under a heat lamp then we are forced to conclude that N2 and O2 are also GHGs.
The world is full of loons who believe all kinds of amazing things based on absolutely nothing:
Why You Should Not Listen To Loons:
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=360#p125470
James Mcginn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Norman,
Try this idea. R. C. Sutcliffe, a meteorologist, states a cloud emits IR radiation as if it nearly a perfect black body according to its temperature. I believe this is has been observed many times.
Richard Feynman taught his students the reason we see white clouds when we cannot see the atmospheric water vapor from which the clouds form is a ‘kind’ of light (radiation) scattering which he did not name. But I conclude this scattering has long been observed and is termed colloidal scattering or the Tyndall effect. If you read his explanation (The Feynman Lectures on Physics, pp32-8,9) of this scattering, you might conclude, as I do, that the water droplets (average diameter of 20µm) scatter the IR emitted by the earth’s surface many, many, times more intensely than they scatter the visible solar radiation.
And I conclude that the base of Venusian sulfuric acid cloud deck, at about 50km altitude, scatters nearly all the IR radiation being emitted upward, by its very hot surface, back toward the surface. Thus trapping the radiation below the cloud deck in the same way we consider the theoretical black body does since it has only a tiny hole through which the radiation in the cavity can escape to the outside world. And the top of the cloud deck emits IR radiation toward space according to its temperature (about 260K).
Would like to read your comments about this idea. Which seems somewhat original because I have yet to read anyone who seems to seriously consider what Feynman taught his students.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
I thought clouds appear white because when the sun’s light rays are transmitted through the water droplets they refract, just as they do in bodies of water. Water vapor, in the form of steam, is transparent and does not refract light but as soon as the vapor cools into water droplets it is white. This refraction makes clouds white until they become so thick they can’t transmit the light and then appear black. If they were scattering the IR emitted by the Earth’s surface wouldn’t they become whiter as the clouds got thicker and were better able to reflect the light from the Earth? Why do the contrails of airplanes appear so white when there is very little water to reflect IR?
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
Alan Stewart
| #
Herb, Jerry,
You’re forgetting the beauty of clouds. Sunrises and sunsets. Deep charcoal, streaks of cerulean blue, crimson, lilac, deep regal purples, brilliant orange, tints of yellow. 3/4 moon and Mars a 4 finger span to the west. Striated clouds above and below, soft grays.
Science is fascinating but nothing in comparison to the etheral, breathtaking beauty of the above.
Cheers
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Alan,
Been watching the colors before, during, and a little after. For the crest of the Cascade Mountains are about 60 miles to the east. This morning the north-south contrails were intercepting the red until the direct solar radiation rose upon them and they turned white. Evidently there is still wild free smoke in the atmosphere so the red is not due to the scattering by the atmospheric molecules but by the much larger smoke particles which are smaller than the wavelength of red light but maybe of a size which scatters the shorter wavelength visible colors like blue, green, maybe yellow as per Feynman’s explanation of colloidal scattering. Do you agree, Alan? For these colors are not the dark blue seen when we look up at midday.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Alan,
Hopefully you can work through my lack of editing. But immediately after submitting I realized I should have drawn attention to the color of twilight in that it is not the dark blue we expect from the scattering by molecules. At 45 degrees N, twilight, given a generally clear sky, a half-hour or so is only passing through a very diffuse atmosphere. R. C. Sutcliffe explanations that the troposphere has never been observed to be super-saturated with water vapor so meteorologists have been forced to conclude that the atmosphere contains many particles of very small condensed matter on which the water vapor can dense one the atmosphere becomes saturated with water vapor. These small particles are termed condensation nuclei and are much, much larger than the molecules of the air. Hence, I have concluded these condensation nuclei are colloidal scattering the solar radiation to produce the some times colored twilight which we see when we look at the eastern (morning) or western (evening) skies.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Alan Stewart
| #
This is kind of interesting and is well past the question of ‘white clouds.’ Our climate is mostly driven within the Troposphere. As my memory serves me ?? we see that atmosphere in the 15 degress above our visual horizon. See below and run with it.
Small particles of dust and pollution in the air can contribute to (and sometimes even enhance) these colors, but the primary cause of a blue sky and orange/red sunsets or sunrises is scattering by the gas molecules that make up our atmosphere.
During sunrise and sunset, the rays have to travel a larger part of the atmosphere because they are very close to the horizon. Therefore, light other than red is mostly scattered away. Most of the red light, which is the least scattered, enters our eyes. Hence, the sun and the sky appear red
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
You see the same brilliant colors at sunrise and sunset when you are on the ocean where there is no smoke so I would believe the colors are from scattering from the atmosphere. Don’t astronauts see the colors from space when they look down at the sunrise and sunsets?
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Alan and Herb,,
As I look out my window to the northeast there is a patch, a little above the horizon which is more than 60 miles away, of whose color I would describe as pale yellow. When I look to the east there is a patch of sky I would describe as pale yellow-green. And the colors are somewhat rapidly changing. In five minutes or so the yellow to the northeast is acquiring a warmer reddish tint.
As to the angle, I am at about 500ft altitude and the peak of Mount Hood, at least 50 miles away, is a little more than 10000ft. So, the angle of my line of sight can be calculated if you wish. However, this morning the patches of sky are a little above Hood’s peak
From what you and Herb wrote, I doubt if either of you have observed the sun rising through a bank of wood smoke from a wild fire maybe more than 200 miles to the east. I have photos of such a sunrise which unfortunately I cannot share with you. But I can describe the photo at which I am looking. But I have to, at the beginning, describe how this photo was manipulated.by the computer which printed the photo.
For the sun rose as a fire-engine red disk which in the original image was an overexposed pink and the smoke bank was gray and I forget what color the sky above the smoke bank was. But I did something to enhance the red and something to reduce the light. The result was that the color of the smoke bank between myself and the mountain horizon is violet, the smoke bank above the horizon is dark (navy) blue, and the sky just above the smoke bank is intense orange-red and tapers to paler colors as the enhanced colors to which you refer as being the result of small particles (which the smoke particles are). The sun is still a pink color but does not have the washed out appearance.
The horizontal distance of the sky, horizon, smoke bank is clearly more than 50 miles and all the intensities of the horizon colors are ‘perfectly’ uniform. Before the sun rose from behind the horizon there was no hint of where it was going to be first seen.
I conclude these photos (there are more than one) confirm (strongly support) what Feynman taught his students about colloidal scattering by small atmospheric particles far larger than the nitrogen and oxygen molecules of the atmosphere.
Relative to sunrises and sunsets over oceans I do not have much experience. I have just written about condensation nuclei and I expect the size of these nuclei is related to the ‘concentration’ (density) of water molecules in the atmosphere. This is another topic (nuclei) about which I have not read much beyond what Sutcliffe wrote.
Meteorology is a quite young, hence immature, science as jet streams were not commonly known until WWII.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi again Jerry’
This morning I looked at the clouds as the sun was rising. The front of the clouds facing the sun and the top of the clouds exposed to the sunlight were white while the bottom and back of the clouds exposed to the IR radiation coming from the Earth were gray. I would suggest that this clear evidences that the white color of clouds comes from the sunlight not from the Earth.
I agree that particles in the air can cause the color of the sun to change. In a fire where there is heavy smoke or a dust storm the sun can appear red but this doesn’t mean that this is the only cause.
As you know I don’t believe in a photon and think that light is an electromagnetic wave traveling in electric and magnetic fields.Since these fields are stronger closer to the surface of the Earth they act as a prism separating the wave lengths contained in white light and making the sun appear larger than when the sun is higher in the sky.
During winter in the arctic when the sun barely rises above the horizon what is its appearance? There would be no dust and little smoke to affect its appearance so it would be interesting to find what it looks like but I do not want to travel to the arctic in winter to find out.
Have a good day’
Herb
Reply
Alan Stewart
| #
There is a paint color called super or Arctic white. You add a few drops of blue which is how snow in the clear arctic air picks up the blue sky. There’s a link below which seems to adequately explain the phenomonons of sky/cloud color.
Now, what you might want to think about is this in relation to atmosphere temperatures. Specifically, does the dust that is now and always has been, in the atmophere have any correlation to the lapse rate.
https://www.optics4kids.org/what-is-optics/scattering/why-is-the-sky-blue-why-are-sunsets-red
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Alan,
Thanks for the link but what I was interested in was what the sunrise and sunset looks like. I found images of sunrise in Antarctica and looks like sunrise elsewhere with a large red sun on the horizon and red sky above.
Have a good day, Herb
jerry krause
| #
Hi Alan and Herb,
Relative to Alan’s question about the condensed matter (liquid or solid) of the atmosphere possible influence upon the adiabatic lapse rate, I have never read that it it has been considered.
Your question causes me to reflect upon the science which I was taught and learned. We started with a consideration of what was termed first principles. Which we knew were approximations as there were obviously lesser factors which might perturb an actual observation.
Consider what Galileo wrote (as translated by Crew and de Salvio): “Simp: Your discussion is really admirable; yet i do not find it easy to believe that a bird-shot falls as swiftly as a cannon ball. Salv: Why not say a grain of sand as rapidly as a grindstone? But, Simplicio, I trust you will not follow the example of many others who divert the discussion from its main intent and fasten upon some statement of mine which lacks a hair’s-breadth of the truth and, under this hair, hide the fault of another which is as big as a ship’s cable.. Aristotle says that “an iron ball of one hundred pounds falling from a height of one hundred cubits reaches the ground before a one-pound ball has fallen a single cubit.” I say that they arrive at the same time. You find, on making the experiment, that the larger outstrips the smaller by two finger-breaths, that is, when the larger has reached the ground, the other is short of it by two finger-breaths; now you would not hide behind these two fingers the ninety-nine cubits of Aristotle, nor would you mention my small error and at the same time pass over in silence his very large one.”
Herb recent wrote: “As you know I don’t believe in a photon and think that light is an electromagnetic wave traveling in electric and magnetic fields.Since these fields are stronger closer to the surface of the Earth they act as a prism separating the wave lengths contained in white light and making the sun appear larger than when the sun is higher in the sky.” I have read, but not done the experiment, if one actually measures the diameter of the sun’s disk near the horizon and its diameter near midday, you will find the two measured diameters to be the same. Hence, I accept the validity of the measurements and conclude that what one sees without attempting an actual measurement is an ‘optical illusion. Of course, one does not need to accept what one reads, but than one must attempt one’s own measurement as these other’s have done it. (“Measure what is measurable and make measurable what is not so.” Galileo)
It is not enough, to say I do not believe what I read. Beginning with the photo-electric effect experiment which forced Einstein to conclude there are photons because your wave understanding of radiation could not explain what had been observed.
Herb, you have to remember that Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger, etc. were first classical physicists who could not explain certain experimental results with the theories of classical physics.
You should remember that Galileo had to lie to save his life so he could live another day to write the book which I quoted. And you should be aware that Galileo in this book made a ‘terrible’ mistake as he refused to accept the validity of Tycho Brahe’s astronomical observations and/or Johannes Keplier’s analysis that the planet’s orbits were elliptical instead of circular. For Galileo believed that argument had a role in science whereas the fundamental basis of science is only observation.
Einstein simply summarized this productive activity termed science: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
A question I have pondered, without any conclusion, is: When water molecules condense to form cloud droplets, does the atmospheric pressure at the earth’s surface increase?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hello again Jerry,
As an answer. to your question I would say no. The atmospheric pressure at the Earth’s surface does not increase because the water molecules are already a part of the atmosphere and atmospheric pressure is the weight of the molecules in the atmosphere. The volume of the atmosphere and the amount of molecules in it is determined by heat. The hotter it is the more water and other compounds convert to gases and become part of the atmosphere and the greater the volume and weight of the atmosphere, hence Venus’s thick atmosphere.
I maintain that Einstein was wrong about the photon because the photoelectric effect is not a valid objection to the wave theory of light.The objection is a result of the speed at which a current is produced when light strikes the surface and a implicit assertion in this objection is that a current must be produced by adding a quantum of energy to an atom dislodging an electron. This assertion is wrong since most currents are produced. by a changing electric or magnetic field not by adding energy to an atom. In the case of the photoelectric effect a changing electromagnetic wave (light) of the right wave length distorts a bond in a crystal changing the balance of attractive and repealing forces in the bond causing an electron to flow. It is the same process as the piezo electric effect where a mechanical distortion of a crystal causes electrons to flow.
As to Einstein’s claim that one experiment can prove him wrong he was again wrong because there are experiments that show waves traveling faster than the speed of light and observations of stars moving faster than the speed of light. The decay of radioactive elements showed that special relativity was wrong but instead of accepting that the great prophet was wrong new subatomic particles, neutrinos and tunneling photons, were created to maintain the faith.
All scientists will be found to be wrong because they all begin with inadequate data and mistaken beliefs. That is science, where new information necessitates a reexamination of theory and the creation of new theory to include new phenomena. There needs to be a founding truth that is the basis of our beliefs that we accept not knowing if it is true or not. For me that tenet is the conservation of matter and energy and that beliefs must conform to reason.
As to the size of the sun at sunrise and sunset I know that the sun’s size does not change but it appears to b larger than when it is over head just as a rising and setting full moon appears to be larger. The super moons observed recently are not the size of the moon changing but in our observation and the question to be answered is why they appear larger when they are not.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Thank you for replying.
“As an answer.to your question I would say no. The atmospheric pressure at the Earth’s surface does not increase because the water molecules are already a part of the atmosphere and atmospheric pressure is the weight of the molecules in the atmosphere.” I hadn’t considered this and I like the simple reasoning. One possibly I had focused upon was if the more dense cloud droplets were being supported by the atmospheric molecules rapid, random, motions and were slowly settling in the buoyant parcel of atmosphere which considered to be lifted by the colder (lower temperature which surrounds it. Which rising parcel was expanding because the ‘pressure’ of the surrounding atmosphere decreases as the parcel is lifted. Too much going on for me reach any conclusion and I know that the temperature of the rising parcel is observed to cool, even if the cooling is slowed by the condensation of the water vapor. So I cannot follow “The hotter ( it is the more water
But then you jumped to: “The volume of the atmosphere and the amount of molecules in it is determined by heat.” Because you followed this with: “The hotter it is the more water … ” I have to conclude that by heat you meant temperature.
The publisher of Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences (Galileo) wrote a preface to the reader and in it they reviewed that a common saying of that time was “intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition.” (Translated by Crew and de Salvio) This suggests we should not interchange the words heat and temperature because these two words are not synonyms.
“I maintain that Einstein was wrong about the photon because the photoelectric effect is not a valid objection to the wave theory of light. The objection is a result of the speed at which a current is produced when light strikes the surface and a implicit assertion in this objection is that a current must be produced by adding a quantum of energy to an atom dislodging an electron.” What I understand the photoelectric effect to be is Einstein’s assertion a current is produced by adding a quantum of energy to an atom which dislodges an electron. That “This assertion is wrong” because most currents are produced by a changing electric or magnetic field has nothing to do with the phenomenon the Einstein proposed to explain an actually observed current. But you continued: “In the case of the photoelectric effect a changing electromagnetic wave (light) of the right wave length distorts a bond in a crystal changing the balance of attractive and repealing forces in the bond causing an electron to flow.” It seems here you propose a reasoning that Einstein could have used to explain why all electromagnetic waves (light) did not cause electrons to flow. This light had to be of the right wave length (minimum energy) according to the observed experimental result.
Herb, you wrote: “All scientists will be found to be wrong because they all begin with inadequate data and mistaken beliefs.” All scientists (and I claim to be one) are human and I believe you too are a human. What exempts you from this inadequate data? What exempts you from mistaken beliefs
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
I am quite certain that I am wrong as I have been in the past (momentum equals gravity),but that doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t propose ideas that might better lead towards the right answer. If you feel some belief, like gravity, is wrong you need to offer an alternate idea that corrects those parts of the concept you believe to be wrong. This is the difference between making positive criticism and complaining. I think physics has become far too complicated with the continuous creation of subatomic particles to explain things and the correct path lies in simplifying things. If I can explain observations using two forces (energy and electric) that is preferable to four forces. It has been my experience that the simpler things are the longer they will function without problems and I believe that is the correct direction for physics to go. Instead of creating quarks to explain matter why not have protons and electrons as the building blocks with neutrons being a subatomic molecule like the alpha particle? Simplify don’t complicate. You probably already knew I was a simpleton.
Have a good day,
Herb
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Again thank you for your reply. I believe you are very sincere about your ideas which you recognize challenge an accepted idea of Newton and Einstein. Their idea is that light (radiation), which is a form of energy, has what I describe as a dual nature. There are well known observations which are best (simply) explained by assuming light is a continuous wave. But Newton, when he considered the common experiment of passing solar radiation through a glass prism with the result that this light was separated into different colors, it seems he could not reason (conclude) that this could be explained by assuming light was wave-like. So he assumed that light might be quantized particles of energy (photons). And if you read some of this history you will find that Newton was using this, and certain other observations, to refute Christiaan Huygens theory that light was wavelike. So I accept that Newton was wrong about his assumption that his observations refuted the wave theory of light. Newton’s idea was only an alternative idea as you consider your possible ideas to be.
But relative to the historic record, we must recognize that at Newton’s time it had not been established by experimental results that matter was atomistic (quantized) or if matter was endlessly divisible (wavelike?) as Aristotle had concluded about two millennia earlier. And during the 20th Century we know that Schrodinger assumed that an electron (a known particle of matter with an electrical charge) behaved as a wave as he applied the mathematics of the wave-equation to the problem of the hydrogen atom. And, as a chemist, I accept the solution of this mathematical calculation could explain the results of chemistry experiments for which chemists had no fundamental explanation. So I consider the universe is simply composed of energy (light) and matter. Both of which, in specific cases, can be assumed to behave as a wave or as a particle.
I believe you are very sincere about your ideas because you wrote: ” I am quite certain that I am wrong as I have been in the past (momentum equals gravity), but that doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t propose ideas that might better lead towards the right answer.” I agree with this general statement because it is what a scientist should do if there are accepted observations which refute previously accepted ideas or accepted observation which cannot be explained by any currently accepted idea.
However, we should learn from our mistakes and not make the same mistake again. You just wrote: “If I can explain observations using two forces (energy and electric) that is preferable to four forces.” Energy isn’t a force any more than momentum was. And I can have no idea what the four forces to which you refer are.
But when you wrote: “I think physics has become far too complicated with the continuous creation of subatomic particles to explain things and the correct path lies in simplifying things.”, your opinion was that of a Nobel-prize winning chemist. Which doesn’t make his opinion any more valid than yours. But I respect the opinions of scientists with recognized achievements which I accept are far, far greater than any of my own. But, I do not blindly accept the opinions (assumptions, etc) of these people or declare I must be right because Linus Pauling agrees with me. A fact is I heard Pauling, in physics lecture hall, state that he had studied certain physicists’ nuclear theories and had concluded that they were creating words which had meaning only to a select few so any others outside this community could never understand (evaluate) the knowledge they claimed to have discovered. So, Pauling concluded they had not discovered any fundamental ideas about the nuclear forces which hold the positively charged protons (which are known to strongly repel each other) together in the tiny, tiny space of the nuclei of atoms beyond the simplest hydrogen atom which has only a single proton as its nucleus.
I consider you are sincere because you admitted you were wrong. Which I observe many are unwilling to do. I make mistakes all the time and it does not bother me to admit this once the mistakes become obvious to me. But only once new information (or my memory) forces me to admit my mistake(s).
Have a good day, Jerry
Alan Stewart
| #
Herb,
Google, Bing, Edge – sunrise/sunset pics and you will get thousands. Antarcica or Arctic pics rare like your comment that you don’t want to travel there. I’d love to just to get the equally great display – Aurora Borealis.
Start: 7:30 P.M. EST 43 W/ 79 W 5th floor facing south.
South: Mostly blue sky with E/W stirated minimal cumulus gray clouds
West: Large accumulation of cumulus moving S/N PINK. Cannot see sun.
Middle: 7:45 P.M. 7/10th cloud cover, Gray
End: 8:05 P.M. Clear gray sky and almost full moon clearly observable.
Now, I would just love an Alarmist to explain how this simple rapidity of CHANGE in a tiny bit of atmosphere can be extoplated to global climate a century in the future. MORONS.
Reply
Herb Roee
| #
The problem with the theory contained in this article is that it confuses atmospheric pressure with the pressure in the universal gas law, PV=nkt and temperature with heat.
Atmospheric pressure is the weight of the molecules in the atmosphere while the pressure referred to in the universal gas law is the pressure that confines a gas and resists its expansion. The molecules at the top of the atmosphere are not compressing the molecules lower in the atmosphere since they rarely interact. (A cubic meter of water, where the molecules are in contact with other molecules, weighs a million grams while a cubic meter of atmosphere at sea level weighs 1.1 grams.) The pressure holding holding the atmosphere to the Earth is gravity which gives the molecules their weight. The difference between the pressure at the top of the atmosphere (distance 4031 miles) and at sea level (distance 4000 miles) is only one and a half percent so the pressure can be treated as constant throughout the atmosphere. Any variation in density of the atmosphere is due to the kinetic energy (heat) of the molecules.
Temperature is the way we measure kinetic energy and it is a function of the kinetic energy striking the instrument and the number of molecules transferring energy to the instrument (T=nEk) and is not an accurate indicator of kinetic energy in a gas. If you take the absolute temperature at various altitudes, divided by the density (gm/m^3) you can compare the kinetic energy a gram of molecules transfers to instrument at the different altitudes. This shows that while the temperature decrease with altitude (not at a steady rate) the kinetic energy of the molecules increase in an exponential curve. The higher the molecules are in the atmosphere the hotter the gas molecules are.
The moon and Mercury have no atmosphere because the force of the solar winds is stronger than the pressure holding the atmosphere to the object.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi PhysicTeacher,
I have three identical chambers with a temperature probe (it doesn’t have to be a mercury thermometer) installed. In the first chamber I put one molecule with a velocity of V. How often it strikes the probe is a function of V while the energy it transfers to the probe is a function of V^2. The probe registers a temperature.
In the second chamber I put an identical molecule with a velocity of 2V. It will strike the probe twice as often as the molecule in the first chamber and transfer 4 times the energy to the probe increasing the kinetic energy heating the probe by a factor of 8.
In the third chamber I put 8 identical molecules with a velocity V. These molecules will strike the probe 8 times as often as the molecule in the first chamber and transfer 8 times the kinetic energy to the probe.
You maintain that the temperature in the first chamber and the temperature in the third chamber will be the same since the mean velocity of the molecules are the same while I maintain the temperature in the third chamber will be equal to the temperature in the second chamber because the kinetic energy striking the probe are identical and the probe does not know how many molecules are transferring that energy.
Have good day
Herb
Reply
Karl Zeller
| #
You guys are getting close: in any gas P*V (note PV are units of energy, KE being a form of energy) the molecules in any gas have a T, hence our atmosphere (as a whole) emits IR proportional to T^4. The more Sun energy Earth gets the higher the surface T and the greater the V assuming the total air mass doesn’t change. It would be worth your while to thoroughly read the NZ papers in detail several times to fully grasp their completeness. Rather than nit picking based on some specific concept you understand, try to see where what you know fits into and supports this discovery that there is an atmospheric cosmic continuum. 🙂
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Karl,
I agree with the article that the atmosphere and distance from the sun are determining the climate. My comment wasn’t meant to be taken as a dispute but as an effort to clarify the mechanism as to why it is true. People believe that because the surface of the Earth has a higher temperature than the atmosphere that it is hotter but this is confusing because temperature and heat are not the same. An object radiates heat not temperature and all objects above absolute zero will both radiate and absorb energy or heat. The people who claim CO2 is blocking the Earth from radiating heat into space are correct but not because the heat is being reflected but because the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, as well as all other gas molecules, contain more heat than the molecules at the surface the Earth.The atmospheric molecules are transferring more energy to the Earth than they are absorbing from the Earth. To show that the atmosphere is the mechanism for the transfer of energy to and from the Earth it is necessary to know the universal gas law and that the pressure being referenced is not the atmospheric pressure but gravity.
My concern with the article was that by using the terms temperature and atmospheric pressure it was contributing to the confusion on how the mechanism of the atmosphere transferring of heat to the various moons and planets was occurring.
It seems I have a problem in communicating my ideas which results from my knowing what I want to say and believing that is what I am saying. My efforts to clarify seem futile.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply