The Big Lie About CO2
Ever hear of the Big Lie Theory? The CO2 greenhouse warming theory is a gigantic scientific hoax with ulterior purposes.
It originated back in the 19th century when understanding of thermodynamics was still primitive and atmospheric CO2 levels were low.
In 1988 as it was about extinct it was picked up and propagated by the globalist Marxists at the U.N. and their politician-run IPCC octopus of kept scientists, academics, journalists, and politicians as part of a vast plot to foist Marxist world government by scaring the world into giving them power to save us from the evil fossil fuel industry and its CO2 emissions. If it weren’t for the golden ticket they were grabbing for, the CO2 greenhouse warming theory would have been discarded into the dustbin of history long ago.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
How does the hoax fool so many people? It’s always the same con game pushed on a scientifically-illiterate public, namely, that a glass tube of CO2 in the lab that’s illuminated by infrared gets hotter.
This ignores the blatant fact that CO2 in the atmosphere isn’t enclosed in glass, and when it warms it begins rising toward space along with the non-CO2 molecules it’s mixed with via convection, taking the heat with it while the surrounding molecules absorb and spread it. In other words, CO2 helps cool the Earth’s surface by removing the heat deposited daily by the Sun.
That’s a long jump from being able to send the heat back to the surface in as useful a form as the Sun originally did, which is impossible because the iron Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy) prohibits a cooler body from heating a warmer body, that is, RAISING ITS TEMPERATURE, and requires entropy to increase.
Heating doesn’t mean just sending radiation to it, but making its temperature rise, a gigantic difference that the CO2 hoaxers don’t want you to understand.
Do the lab tests ever limit the infrared to the range that the Earth’s surface actually generates, or does it include temperatures way higher, such as are only found in volcanoes?
Even more important, do the lab tests limit the infrared to the wavelength range that CO2 absorbs?
This is key to proving the experiment has anything to do with the real Earth’s surface, so why is it glossed over? An object doesn’t absorb all wavelengths, and only those in the infrared region cause heating.
For example, if you suspend an ice cube over a hot skillet, it will radiate “cold radiation” into the skillet but won’t make it get hotter, rather the skillet will send hot radiation at it and melt and vaporize it.
The hotter a body gets, the more the maximum power point of the Planck radiation curve shifts to shorter wavelengths (e.g., a skillet going from black to red hot to white hot), and the higher that maximum power gets, creating a more powerful heating element.
CO2 hoaxer scientists who tell you that atmospheric CO2 radiates x number of watts per square meter to the surface don’t tell you that it’s at a way longer wavelength and can’t raise its temperature, but only join the longer wavelength lower power part of the surface’s Planck radiation curve, which is what a cool surface radiates, meaning, who cares what measly infrared radiation a cool surface radiates after the hot surface has depleted itself, your teeth are starting to chatter?
Actually, CO2’s Planck (blackbody) radiation wavelength is 15 microns, which corresponds to a Planck radiation temperature of -80C (193K), which couldn’t melt an ice cube, although ironicallly it’s about the temperature of frozen CO2 (dry ice) (-78.5C) (-109.3F), and could easily make one.
Check my work with this blackbody calculator.
But didn’t I just say that infrared heated the CO2? Let’s say yes for argument’s sake. But thanks to the entropy of mixing. the 0.04{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} (1 in 2500) of CO2 molecules are thoroughly mixed and hence trapped in the rest of the air filled with 99.96{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} (2499 in 2500) non-CO2 molecules that are rising via convection, and as they rise there’s a thermodynamic phenomenon called lapse rate that automatically causes all gases to transform their heat to work to expand in the decreasing pressure and thus cool with height.
The lapse rate for dry air is 28F per mile. This is a pure thermodynamic process, not radiative. By the time the heated air has gone very high, there’s no heat left to send back down. Try riding in an open cockpit airplane without a heavy jacket and muffler.
Yet the IPCC CO2 hoaxers don’t even mention convection in their global warming calculations, and act like it doesn’t exist. What a ridiculous hoax. Somebody should demand their gigabucks back.
Actually, only 5{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of Earth’s surface infrared radiation is absorbed by atmospheric CO2: How much does CO2 absorb?
The opposite of this happens when cold air rolls down a mountain, warming up along the way, what they call a foehn wind. This is the only true Earth surface warming, but it only happens rarely in certain locales and is weather not climate.
There actually is a real greenhouse warming effect, with ground fog at night, which blocks convection and radiation from the surface and slows cooling. But it never raises the surface temperature, and when the Sun rises the fog dissipates, and it’s rare, so it’s weather not climate.
Plus it has nothing to do with so-called greenhouse gases, unless you call water vapor a greenhouse gas, which is fraught with problems because the net result is cloud formation and precipitation in the frigid air zone, cooling the Earth’s surface way more than the Sun warmed it. Fog
The hoaxer scientists knew all this, so to please their IPCC masters they invented an imaginary physical process of “CO2 back radiation” with Byzantine mathematical equations that scientific novices can’t challenge, claiming that CO2 reemits IR back down to the surface like a dragon in the sky, often compounding the lie by claiming that CO2 emissions are reabsorbed by more CO2 then reemitted again, for a multiplier effect.
That this is a hoax is easily seen from the very lab experiment that showed a tube of CO2 heating up when IR was shined on it. If it could send the IR back via pure radiation, then the tube would never heat up, rather, a nearby tube of water or dirt would heat up while the tube remained cool.
To see how low the hoaxers will go to er, snow non-scientists, they love to show a model wearing a space age thermal blanket, remarking how thin it is and how it keeps them warm by reflecting 90{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of` their body heat back to the skin, claiming it proves the CO2 greenhouse warming lie.
Too bad, the CO2 layer goes miles high, and a lot of it is in the frigid zone caused by the lapse rate, so why don’t they show the model holding the blanket on a long pole while freezing to death? And what happened to the back radiation that can supposedly make up the distance gap?
How dumb do the hoaxers think people are?
A Greenhouse Effect Analogy – American Chemical Society
I’m not just making this up for a straw man argument. Here’s the #1 pro-CO2 AGW Web site, claiming to be run by working climate scientists: Empirical Evidence for CO2 Enhanced Greenhouse Effect – skepticalscience.com
Here’s a direct quote:
“The greenhouse effect works like this: Energy arrives from the sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation. The Earth then emits some of this energy as infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere ‘capture’ some of this heat, then re-emit it in all directions – including back to the Earth’s surface.”
“Through this process, CO2 and other greenhouse gases keep the Earth’s surface 33°Celsius (59.4°F) warmer than it would be without them. We have added 42{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} more CO2, and temperatures have gone up. There should be some evidence that links CO2 to the temperature rise.”
They then display a “Spectrum of greenhouse radiation”, showing a bump at 15 microns for CO2, brrrr give me an igloo.
That claim that CO2 adds 33C to Earth’s surface temperature is yet another sick hoax, based on cunningly miscalculating the ability of the Sun to heat the Earth and claiming that it can’t keep it above 0C by itself, making CO2 warming seem proved without any more ado:
TL Winslow’s answer to How much does the Sun contribute to global warming?
Let’s cut to the chase:
MY SHORTEST DISPROOF OF THE CO2 GREENHOUSE WARMING THEORY
All material objects continuously emit Planck (blackbody) radiation, with a power-wavelength curve dependent on the object’s temperature. The curve peaks then decreases exponentially with wavelength, making the object act like a bunch of radiation generators, each with a different wavelength and power, but always with the wavelength with the maximum power determined by the temperature, and dominating the total radiation.
In essence, this max power wavelength determines what it can and cannot heat, with the Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibiting it from heating (raising the temperature curve of) a hotter object, because its max power wavelength would have to be shorter in order to move it to the left and start emitting on a hotter temperature curve.
You can’t fool Mother Nature, no matter how powerful your political organization is, because no matter how much agitprop it churns out, it can’t change physics.
That’s the end of the story as far as physics is concerned, but the IPCC CO2 hoaxers claim that atmospheric CO2 emits x watts per square meter over the Earth’s surface, pretending it is causing global warming regardless of its wavelength.
Can it?
CO2 absorbs radiation at 15 microns, which has a Planck radiation temperature of -80C = 193K = -112F, which can’t melt an ice cube, whose Planck radiation max wavelength by the way is 10.6 microns.
CO2’s other absorption wavelengths are 2.7 microns and 4.3 microns.
2.7 microns corresponds to a Planck radiation temperature of 797C (1070K) (1466F), and 4.3 microns corresponds to one of 401C (675K) (755F), neither of which the Earth’s surface is capable of reaching outside of volcanoes.
So the x watts per square meter the hoaxers claim for CO2 back radiation is composed of what?
Infinite Zonk! How jaded the CO2 hoaxers must be to believe that they can push a blatant hoax like this on the non-scientist public.
Check my work with this blackbody calculator.
Want a quick laugh? IPCC octopus main org. NASA Goddard, whose Web site is full of climate alarmist agitprop pushing the CO2 greenhouse warming hoax also has a video talking about solar storms, admitting that CO2 along with NO absorb and reemit vast quantities of radiation from the Sun during them in the thermosphere, which starts 50 miles up.
Now get this:
“The thermosphere is typically about 200° C (360° F) hotter in the daytime than at night, and roughly 500° C (900° F) hotter when the Sun is very active than at other times. Temperatures in the upper thermosphere can range from about 500° C (932° F) to 2,000° C (3,632° F) or higher.”
Yes, CO2 works great in that temperature range, but not at the temperatures of Earth’s surface. The video even has a shot of the fireworks in the thermosphere from a ground angle, showing it covered in snow while being rained with -80C radiation from atmospheric CO2. When will NASA Goddard give it all up and admit to the public that they’re tired of pushing a scientific hoax and disband?
Thermosphere – overview (UCAR Center for Science Education)
In contrast, water vapor has all kinds of absorption bands from the visible wavelengths right up to 15 microns, which is why clouds keep nights warmer, but never do clouds warm the surface more than the Sun did during the day, and after blocking sunlight they eventually drop precipitation, more than making up for the Sun’s warming by massive cooling.. Either way, atmospheric CO2 is ruled out by physics from causing global warming, period, end of story.
Electromagnetic absorption by water
Really, it’s the end of story. Some IPCC dupes out there might still want to bring up microwave ovens. They use a wavelength way longer than 15 microns, usually 100,00 microns (10 cm), with a Planck radiation temperature near absolute zero Kelvin. Don’t they pop your popcorn?
Sorry, microwave ovens are yet another disproof of the hoaxers’ CO2 AGW theory, because their cold long wavelength radiation can’t heat even a piece of toast without some technical tricks. First, they pump a large amount of microwave power into the food. But that doesn’t cook it. It only causes the dipole water molecules to align to the field, and even then only those in the outer 1.5 inches. To make it cook they have to alternate the polarity of the field so as to make the water molecules spin, heating the food by good old fashioned friction. It’s called dielectric heating.
So how does -80C atmospheric CO2 generate a high power that also oscillates? It can’t. So if the CO2 hoaxers were leading you to believe that microwave ovens proved the heating power of long wavelength cold radiation, ask for your money back and tell them to quit (masturbation joke here).
I hope by now you know that the CO2 greenhouse warming theory is pure moose hockey, and are mad that the globalist Marxists at the U.N. and their politician-run IPCC octopus of kept govt.-funded scientists, academics, journalists, and politicians keep perpetuating it only because it’s their golden ticket to trillions if they can put it over on the general public.
It’s really a great con for them since they never have to produce any real results of cooling the climate, and don’t have to refund the money, plus there are many signs that the climate is going to cool on its own because of sunspot cycles.
And if they get their way, capitalism will be destroyed and a Marxist utopia built on the ashes. Once they gain power they’ll never let go of it without unthinkable violence as history has shown time and again.
To make themselves seem like victims, they like to portray Big Oil as spreading disinformation keeping their truth. I guess that Al Gore, Greta Thunberg and other spokespersons are secretly on Big Oil’s payroll.
In reality Big Oil is the victim, because all it does it provide a useful product and service to hordes of eager customers to give them comfortable lifestyles, and the IPCC just wants to shut it down to foist global Marxism by spreading the real disinformation, because Marxists believe that the end justifies the means, not Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand that’s the er, powerhouse of capitalism.
Actually, the leftist environmentalist scam pushed by the IPCC is worse than classic Marxism, which wanted workers to seize the means of production, because these dudes want to seize the means of production of information to destroy the means of production so they can burn the capitalist world down and erect a Marxist utopia on the ashes.
All along, atmospheric CO2 is pure good, a clean green odorless gas that’s the basis of all plant and animal life, and more atmospheric CO2 would be good not bad. Meanwhile the IPCC octopus has been engaged in a mighty effort of suppression of the truth, closing academic journals and mainstream media to so-called climate change deniers, while villifying them with superficial ad hominem moose hockey suitable only for shallow thinkers, making the few independent scientific voices out there speaking truth to power hard to find.
Read more at www.historyscoper.com
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.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi T. L,
The reason the GHGT violates the second law of thermodynamics is because the higher you go in the atmosphere the greater the kinetic energy of the molecules.
While nitrogen and oxygen do not absorb iR they do absorb UV which according to Plank’s equation has far more energy than IR. It takes 940 kjoules/mole to split the triple bond of a nitrogen molecules and 490 kjoules/mole to split an oxygen molecule. The upper atmosphere of the Earth is comprised of nitrogen and oxygen atoms not molecules because they have absorbed UV energy and converted it to kinetic energy. This conversion occurs wherever UV interacts with these gas molecules. This creates the ozone layer in the stratosphere. Uv breaks an O2 molecule into 2 O atoms. In the stratosphere the concentration of O2 is high enough to form O3 which then operates to O2 and O. In all theses cases the UV is converted to IR.
The reason the lower atmosphere feels warmer is because there are more molecules transferring energy to an object (like a thermometer) not because the molecules have more kinetic energy. The thermometer does not give an accurate indication of kinetic energy in water and is even more inaccurate in a gas. To get an accurate comparison of kinetic energy at different altitudes you must use the universal gas law. (The P in the universal gas law refers to the pressure that confines the atmosphere and resists its expansion (gravity) not atmospheric pressure.)
The reason for all the nonsense is because people believe the thermometer to be accurate even though they know 0 C water has more kinetic energy than 0 C ice.
Herb
Reply
T L Winslow
| #
0C water has more kinetic energy than 0C ice? Duh, to turn into ice, water has to undergo a phase transformation, which uses up some of its kinetic energy while maintaining the same temperature, the difference being known as latent heat. When the ice melts, the latent heat is released at OC before the water’s temperature can begin to rise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_energy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_transition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_heat
Another kink is that water’s freezing point decreases when you put it under pressure, meaning you can lowers its temperature below 0C without turning it to ice. To do it at standard atmospheric pressure, the water needs a speck of dust or other nucleation center.
https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/12/09/can-water-stay-liquid-below-zero-degrees-celsius/
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi T. L.,
So to get water to turn into ice you must add energy while to get ice to turn into water you must remove energy. Don’t think that is how it works. When the kinetic energy of molecules decreases and becomes lower than the attractive force between the molecules, the molecules form crystals and release the remaining kinetic energy.When you add energy to the molecules of a crystal their energy increases and the bonds between molecules break converting it to a liquid. When bonds form crystals or molecules it is because the resulting structure is at a lower energy state and is more stable.
Herb
Reply
T L Winslow
| #
[[So to get water to turn into ice you must add energy while to get ice to turn into water you must remove energy.]]
No. To make ice you have to cool water, which loses heat to the surroundings along with kinetic energy, slowing the molecules until it can coalesce and turn to ice, which releases latent heat into the water during the phase transformation, keeping the temperature at OC. See any ice cube tray. Freezing is an exothermic reaction.
You can change ice’s freezing point with high pressure. At first it goes down by
.01C, then at 10K atmospheres it rises, becoming warm ice. At 100K atmospheres it rises above 350C.
Warm ice! Oh no! A rose by any other name?
https://www.quora.com/Is-ice-always-at-0-C-Can-it-be-colder-or-warmer-What-about-an-ice-water-mixture
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi T.L
“You can change ice’s freezing point with high pressure. At first it goes down by
.01C, then at 10K atmospheres it rises, becoming warm ice. At 100K atmospheres it rises above 350C.”
Please give a reference.
Have a good day, Jerry
Herb Rose
| #
T.L.
First you say “water has to go through a phase transformation, which uses up some of its kinetic energy while maintaining the same temperature…..”
Now you say “slowing the molecules until it can coalesce and turn into ice, which releases latent heat into the water during the phase transformation.”
Is the formation of ice absorbing kinetic energy (heat) or releasing it?
Herb
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
Did you read Dr. Pollack”s book “the Fourth Phase of Water”? He says that a more appropriate name for E Z waters is a liquid crystal, which I agree with. Since liquid crystals have 2 melting points it makes sense to me that one of the melting points would be at 350 C. This would mean that before water could convert to a gas at 640 C (100 C plus 540 calories) it would transform from the crystal structure to a liquid. This would explain how rain clouds form at the top of the troposphere where the kinetic energy is high and why storm clouds have so much turbulence and electrical activity.
Have a good day,
Herb
geran
| #
Herb still doesn’t understand temperature. Or, how a thermometer works, even though it’s been explained to him numberous times.
He still believes water at 0C should have a higher thermometer indication than ice at 0C, since water has more energy. He still doesn’t understand a thermometer indicates average vibrational energy, not total energy.
Likely one of many learning disabilities….
Reply
T L Winslow
| #
1/
Jerry: The reference was given, a Quora article with good explanations and graphs.
Herb:
When you cool a glass of water, you are taking away its heat (kinetic) energy and lowering its temperature. When it reaches the 0C point, it changes to a new form of matter, a solid, which requires an exothermic phase transformation that releases heat into the water and maintains it at OC until it is complete. After that the ice can decrease in temperature below 0C, for instance if you plunge it into liquid nitrogen.
You’re hung up on ice and water having the same temperature of 0C, but that’s only at 1 atmospher.e If you read my link you’ll see that ice at high pressures can reach all kinds of temperatures. Yes, when ice is at 350C it has more kinetic energy than liquid water at OC, so what? Why would water at OC have a higher thermometer indication than ice at OC? You think there’s something wrong with thermometers? 🙂 They’re both at OC, get it?
Squiddly:
Yes, IR can heat objects after they absorb it at certain wavelengths and increase their kinetic energy. Until then it’s just radiant energy, a small part of a wide spectrum. A lot of the sun’s radiation is light of short wavelength and high Planck radiation temperature that just bounces off the surface so we can see, with the rest absorbed and turning into kinetic energy, always more powerful than IR.
Heat has always been a mushy concept historically. It is now taken to measure kinetic energy, as measured by thermometers. Yes, heat can be moved, by moving the molecules containing it. I’m not talking about quantum effects but bulk effects in the atmosphre. None of the language I use is quirky. It’s common.
Do you want me to instead say that not heat but heat energy can be transferred, always stopping to say it will be via conduction, convection, and radiation, mainly the first two, which involve matter? CO2’s radiation wavelengths correspond to -80C, making any attempt at claiming it can cause global warming a pure hoax because 15 microns is not in the infrared range and can’t melt an ice cube.
The main point of my article is that the -80C cold radiation of CO2 kills the CO2 AGW hoax dead as a doughnut. All the rest of the moose hockey about back radiation is pure nonsense until they patent the ice cube-powered flamethrower.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi T. L.
Have you seen Dr. Pollack’s experiments on the changes of water with temperature? I found them very interesting.
The universal gas law says that an unconfined gas (like the atmosphere) will have its volume increase and density decrease with increased kinetic energy.
The thermometer says that as you increase altitude through the troposphere the temperature decreases the density decrease. As you go through the stratosphere the temperature increases and the density decreases. When you go through the mesosphere the temperature decreases and the density decreases. As you go through the thermosphere the temperature increases and the density decreases.
There is something wrong with the thermometer or the universal gas law is wrong.
Herb
James McGinn
| #
Energy is trapped in ice as potential energy.
The high heat capacity of liquid H2O involves constant interplay between potential and expressed energy/heat occurring between individual h2o molecules in liquid water. This “interplay” engenders constant movement amongst the moleculs of liquid H2O and is itself a consequence of the elasticity of hydrogen bonds between water molecules. Once you understand this you will, eventually, then be able to comprehend how much of this energy is actually trapped as potential energy in ice.
How We Know Water Has Been Systematically Misunderstood By Science
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/How-We-Know-Water-Has-Been-Systematically-Misunderstood-By-Science-e9c1e9
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You wrote: “The reason the GHGT violates the second law of thermodynamics is because the higher you go in the atmosphere the greater the kinetic energy of the molecules.”
How is it that water (liquid) runs downhill and not uphill?
Have a good day and New Year, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
I am not sure what you are asking. Water evaporates and rises in the atmosphere because of the negative charge on the nano droplet. Water flows downhill because of gravity but at the same time some of the water evaporates and “flows” up into the atmosphere. You know how much water the atmosphere contains why doesn’t it descend?
Happy new year and have a good day,
Herb
Reply
William Robinson
| #
Dear Mr O’Sullivan,
I have just read your interesting article. Among others, Foehn wind is mentioned, but the explanation given is inaccurate. Here is the real definition:
The Foehn effect is due to the Environmental Lapse Rate (ELR) being different between dry air and saturated air. The ELR is the rate of temperature change with altitude. In dry air, the temperature decreases from the surface at 2 degrees centigrade per thousand feet, but in most air (air with water content, e.g. cloud), the temperature decreases by only 1.5 degrees per thousand feet. Given this, imagine now a wind blowing perpendicular to and towards a mountain range, in moist air, and imagine that the temperature on the surface is say 9 degrees Celsius. Let us say that the mountain range is 4,000 feet high. By the time the moist air has reached the top, it will be 9 – 4 × 1.5 = 3 (this being the moist ELR of 1.5 degrees over 4,000 feet). At this temperature the air will have saturated, meaning that it will no longer be able to contain its moisture, so it will rain, which will have the effect of leaving the air dry. This now dry air, blowing away from the mountain range, will increase in temperature as it falls down the slopes at the dry ELR (2 degrees per thousand feet), giving a warmer surface temperature of 11 degrees, which is 3 (the temperature at the top of the mountain) + 8 (4 × 2). This warm dry wind is called the Foehn wind.
I hope this is useful.
Yours,
William Robinson
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Thanks, William. Very much appreciate your input. The article is authored by ‘meteorologists’ at the BBC therefore it wouldn’t surprise any skeptic that it may contain errors and inaccuracies. Hopefully, other commentators can add their two cents to this question.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi William,
Louis Elzevir, publisher of Galileo’s well known book, in his preface to the reader of this book, wrote: “intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition”.
You wrote: “Foehn wind is mentioned, but the explanation given is inaccurate. Here is the real definition: “The Foehn effect is due to the Environmental Lapse Rate (ELR) being different between dry air and saturated air.” In this ‘real’ definition you do not define ‘dry air’ or ‘saturated air’. In the next sentence you wrote: “most [my fingers make mistakes all the time and I understand that ‘most’ was intended to be ‘moist’] air (air with water content, e.g. cloud).” Which implies, if not actually defines, that saturated, moist, air is air which contains clouds. Which might be the case but we (readers) still do not know with what the air is saturated.
Later you wrote: “At this temperature the air will have saturated, meaning that it will no longer be able to contain its moisture, so it will rain, which will have the effect of leaving the air dry.”
Now, given the entirely of your comment, I still have no idea with what, specifically, is the saturated air saturated? And T. L. Winslow’s posting does not seem to answer this question either.
Have a good day, Jerry
Have a good day, Jerry
So, I
Reply
T L Winslow
| #
Sorry. I should have limited the Foehn wind example to katabatic winds, like the Santa Ana winds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Ana_winds
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katabatic_wind
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foehn_wind
Reply
Dan Paulson
| #
Jerry you really shouldn’t play the fool. You are far too convincing an actor.
Reply
Jonas
| #
It is a bit surprising that large organisations (like UN, universities, Nasa Goddard…) can advocate a model that is in conflict with basic physical principles. It is like saying that apples are falling upwards (since 97% of somthing thinks they fall upwards).
I have for some time been wondering why the NASA “Earth Radiation Budget” has not been more questioned. I do agree that the concept of back-radiation is unphysical, but if one for a moment accept that concept – the model is still seriously flawed.
A few things:
– the incoming IR from the sun is NOT backradiated. It is absorbed in the atmosphere but not backradiated. The IR coming from the earth surface is absorbed and backradiated. This is some kind of new physics that I have never heard about.
– the backradiation of earth IR seems to only be directed towards the earth. Nothing to space. If absorbing gas emit in all direction, there should be an outflow to space as well as a back-flow to earth
– radiation has a momentum. The 340 W/m2 backradiation should push CO2 and H2O to outer space, unless there is an equal energy flow in the other direction (which is not shown in NASA earth radiation model)
– absorption and emission is occuring in the radiation field. I do not know how this effects the direction of emission, but it looks likely to me that it is a preference for emitting in the same direction as the existing field propagates (principle of least resistance).
My understanding is that there are no experimental evidence of the existence of “backradiation”. In my world – a physical theory without experimental evidens is just that. A theory – not a fact.
Reply
Squidly
| #
I found this article rather difficult to follow and full of inaccuracies. The fundamental premise is correct, but many of the details are simply wrong. The author apparently doesn’t understand what “heat” is and mistakenly claims that only IR can provide heating. IR is not “heat”. Furthermore, “heat” is not a “thing”, it is a result. “Heat” cannot be moved from place to place, only the energy can be transferred, “heat” itself cannot be transferred.
And so much more…
Reply
T L Winslow
| #
Herb:
[[The universal gas law says that an unconfined gas (like the atmosphere) will have its volume increase and density decrease with increased kinetic energy.]]
Who says the atmosphere is unconfined? It’s confined by gravity, else it would have evaporated to space long ago. The temperature profile of the atmosphere up to the tropopause is controlled by convection. After that convection stops and the thin air is stagnant, and is bombarded with UV that raises its temperature bigtime. Thin air doesn’t have much heat capacity so the thermosphere reaches quite high temperatures, where CO2’s 2.7 and 4.3 micron absorption wavelengths actually chime in, but way up 50 mi. or more where they don’t affect Earth’s surface. Even at the surface the low temperatures can’t change the atmosphere’s volume much via PV=nRT.
Here’s a Quora article showing how the ideal gas law doesn’t really apply to the atmosphere’s volume, whatever that might be:
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-volume-of-the-atmosphere-changing-in-time-What-determines-that-change-if-any
There’s nothing wrong with the universal gas law.What’s wrong is the CO2-driven AGW hoax in the troposphere. It’s dead but not buried yet.
My water-to-ice example showing how the temperature stays at OC until the transformation is complete is more easily understood when you raise the temperature of the water instead and turn it to steam. The water stays at 100C until all of has vaporized. That’s why you can heat a paper cup full of water with a candle and until it goes dry it stays at 100C, after which the temperature is free to rise to “fahrenheit 451” and ignite.
Or a pot of coffee left on the warmer too long will evaporate, and the pot’s temperature will take off until it burns.
I’m sick of the charlatans in the IPCC octopus pushing this hoax, especially in the U.S. I’m available to head a new govt. agency that does atmospheric science right. Not really, I’ve got too much on my plate already 🙂
Reply
James McGinn
| #
T L: Who says the atmosphere is unconfined?
James: What they mean is that it is not in a container.
T L: The temperature profile of the atmosphere up to the tropopause is controlled by convection.
James: Actually, convection is more of an opportunistic belief than it is an empirical fact. The physics of what is happening in storms, for example, has nothing at all to do with convection.
T L: What’s wrong is the CO2-driven AGW hoax in the troposphere.
James: Meteorology’s storm theory is not less of a hoax than climatology’s global warming theory. It’s just less obvious.
T L: It’s dead but not buried yet.
James: It’s thriving and its going to continue to thrive because the public believes it. Climatology is rotten to its core, but it’s core is in meteorology.
T L: I’m sick of the charlatans in the IPCC octopus pushing this hoax,
James: Meteorology has been hoaxing us for the last 150 years, but nobody notices this.
The roof leaks at the top.
How We Know Meteorology is Pretending To Understand Storms
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/How-We-Know-Meteorology-is-Pretending-To-Understand-Storms-e93euk
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi T. L.
Yes the atmosphere is confined by gravity but since gravity is measured from the center of the Earth its pressure (P) doesn’t significantly change through the atmosphere and any increase in the kinetic energy of the molecules will produce an increase in volume. (The volume of the thermosphere shrinks on the night side of the Earth.)
You haven’t explained the zig zag graph of the atmosphere’s temperature. If the sun is the source of energy for the atmosphere the kinetic energy of the molecules should decline in a curve (which the density does) instead of a zig zag. What is the source of energy at 51 km that causes the rise in temperature in the stratosphere and why does it decline in the mesosphere when the energy from the sun is greater?
In water (which is used to calibrate thermometers) the thermometer does not register the first 80 calories added to melt ice to 0 C water. If the spread of dye is a function of the movement of water molecules and 0 C ice has the same kinetic energy (movement) as 0 C water then the dispersion of a drop of dye into 0 C ice should be the same as the dispersion into 0 C water. It is not.The dispersion rate of dye in 373 K water should only be 14% greater than the dispersion rate in 273 K water. It is far greater. A thermometer misses 86% (100 out of 620 calories) of the energy needed to convert 0 C ice to 100 C steam. You can call it latent heat, heat of evaporation, or potential energy but it cannot disappear just because your instrument cannot detect it.
According to Dr. Pollack theory on exclusion zone water, water is actually a liquid crystal which would mean it has two melt points. I am of the opinion that one of these melt points is within the domain of the 540 calories between 100 C and the boiling of water. Water evaporates as a crystal and rises in the atmosphere because of the negative charge of the crystal. At the boundary of the troposphere/stratosphere these crystals melt and become liquid water before they can become a gas and fall to the Earth as rain.
The GHGT is nonsense because it violates the second law of thermodynamics. The higher you go in the atmosphere the greater the kinetic energy of the molecules.
Herb
Reply
geran
| #
Herb, you keep believing a thermometer can measure things it cannot measure. You can’t learn, hence your ongoing confusion.
A thermometer can not measure “latent heat, heat of evaporation, or potential energy”, so you just continue to confuse yourself. Learn how a thermometer works. Then you might be able to learn how solar energy affects different levels of the atmosphere.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
According to Dr. Pollack theory on exclusion zone water, water is actually a liquid crystal which would mean it has two melt points.
James:
I think this is a step in the right direction conceptually however it is a step in the wrong direction methodologically. Pollack refuses to get rigorous with respect to the quantum mechanics of H2O as it relates to hydrogen bonds between water. And unless and until he does (as have I) there isn’t much chance he is going to discover the huge error that has been incorporated into the current paradigm, what I refer to has Pauling’s omission.
When what Pauling omitted is provided, what results is a model that is consistent with this notion of “two melt points.” (Also, all of the “anomalies” of H2O are easily resolved.) Or, at least, it is more consistent, except that the “melt points” are more of a continuum that is inversely related to interconnectedness (I won’t even try to explain this here and now. I am currently making a video that will fully explicate Pauling’s omission and the incredibly deleterious effect this omission has had on our understanding of water).
In short, hydrogen bonds between water molecules and the quirkiness thereof is only comprehensible through an indepth understanding of the quantum mechanics of H2O polarity, which has been fundamentally misunderstood by the current paradigm–due to Pauling’s omission.
Pollack is sloppy. He refuses to get rigorous and fully reductive. He glosses over the quantum mechanics. And this is a fatal flaw in his approach because it prevented him from discovering the flaw–Pauling’s omission–that has been incorporated into the current paradigm.
Herb:
Water rises in the atmosphere because of the negative charge . . .
James:
I’m not sure but I think nano droplets of H2O produce a net positive charge–due to hydrogen atoms sticking out along the surface–and this creates an attraction to the other gases in the atmosphere that have a residual negative charge as a result of the constant in flux of electrons from the solar wind. This explains how nanodroplets, that are heavier per volume than gases of the atmosphere, are able to levitate higher in the atmosphere (convection is just a myth, unsupported by experiment/data).
Herb:
Even though I don’t think the notion of the crystal. At the boundary of the troposphere/stratosphere these crystals melt and become liquid water before they can become a gas and fall to the Earth as rain.
James:
The danger in your approach here Herb is that you will make the same mistake Pollack made and not realize the QM factors that dicate that the dual phase that you envision is actually a continuum and not discrete. And understanding the continuum is essential to understanding the origins of the plasma that is the sheath of vortices in the atmosphere. And vortices do the heavy lifting in earth’s atmosphere, not convection.
Correcting Common Misconceptions About Energy in the Atmosphere
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Correcting-Common-Misconceptions-About-Energy-in-the-Atmosphere-e9moua
James Mcginn / Solving tornaoes
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
I have read Dr. Pollack’s book “The Fourth Phase of Water” and find his experimental evidence very supportive of your theories.
One place where they differ is that in his theory the exclusion zone and droplets are not a result of hydrogen bonds but of hexagonal plates that include a hydroxyl ion which gives the droplet a negative charge with the positive hydrogen ions are contained in the interior. Radiated energy increases the number of hydroxyl ions and the strength of the droplet (A 10 C increase in temperature doubles a reaction rate.). This would mean the liquid crystal is a continuum between the two freezing points and why when the crystal melts it produces electrical activity and turbulence in clouds.
There are things in the book that I disagree with (the atmosphere is bound to the surface of the Earth.) but I think the experimental evidence is good. I would recommend the book to you (if you haven’t read it) because it provides causes for so many of the things you describe.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb: I have read Dr. Pollack’s book “The Fourth Phase of Water” and find his experimental evidence very supportive of your theories.
James: I read it too but I don’t find it supportive of my theories.
Herb: One place where they differ is that in his theory the exclusion zone and droplets are not a result of hydrogen bonds but of hexagonal plates that include a hydroxyl ion . . .
James: Without some kind of empirical verification, it’s literally not something I would waste any time discussing. I honestly can’t figure out how anybody is able to take such and extravagant theory seriously. It’s obvious nonsense to me. Pollack’s thinking seems to have more to do with starting a new religion than it does solving long-standing scientific dilemmas.
This is what I’m seeing. And I say this with much regret. I would like to have an ally in this war, but Pollack is not a good candidate from what I’ve been able to determine.
I had a half hour telephone conversation with Pollack about four years ago. I came away from the discussion with the distinct impression that he didn’t want to discuss the details of his thinking from an evidentiary perspective. He is not a theorist hoping to solve theory he is an administrator hoping to obtain funding (not that there’s anything wrong with this).
How anybody could believe that ions could form under such cool conditions is completely incomprehensible to me. Honestly. I’ve asked you to explain why you believe it and you seem to not be able to explain it.
Herb: . . . which gives the droplet a negative charge with the positive hydrogen ions are contained in the interior. Radiated energy increases the number of hydroxyl ions and the strength of the droplet (A 10 C increase in temperature doubles a reaction rate.).
This would mean the liquid crystal is a continuum between the two freezing points
James: Freezing in water is not strictly tied to temperature. The inverse of interconnectedness is more of a factor than temperature in that the magnitude of polarity of molecules is inversely related to interconnectedness. (When ice forms, for example, interconnectedness is reduced as a consequence of freezing itself. This is why ice floats. The freezing process causes surface to form below the surface. The ensuing reduction in connectedness activates polarity, forming the hard bonds found in ice and reducing its density.)
Think about that. Freezing causes more freezing in that freezing causes H2O molecules to twist against each other, breaking many of the bonds that neutralize each other’s polarity. The ensuing increase in polarity causes the existing bonds to be even stronger. The ironic thing about ice is that the molecules therein are less interconnected than they are in liquid water. (Think about this. Think deeply. Don’t just read it and keep on reading.)
In liquid water, the high degree of interconnectedness keeps polarity very low–thus allowing water to have consistent low viscosity through its whole temperature range.) (From this one can begin to understand the origins of superchilled water. In superchilled water situational factors keep connectedness high. Consequently there isn’t enough collective polarity to start the freezing process.)
Surface tension, for example, is an example of water freezing on the surface. The reason this happens is because the 2D geometry of a surface reduces connectedness along the surface. Where connectedness is reduced polarity is amplified, producing stronger bonds and thus surface tension.
Pollack does not have a clear understanding of what is happening on the molecular level, consequently he resorts to desperately grasping at extravagant irrelevancy. This is where he gets his hydroxyl and hydrogen ions. It’s just imagination.
In the human mind shortcomings in truth are instantly alleviated with imagination. This happens to us on a subconscous level, so we are not aware of it.
The convoluted thinking of the current paradigm, for example, is most due to imagination. It all stems from an error made by Linus Pauling over 70 years ago. Since then academia is locked in an endless struggle to pretend like it understands what it doesn’t.
Much of Science Involves Models That Have Been Dumbed-Down to Pander to the Public
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Much-of-Science-Involves-Models-That-Have-Been-Dumbed-Down-to-Pander-to-the-Public-e9c1vd
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
What would you consider to be evidence of the disassociation of water into hydroxyl and hydrogen ions? Pure water with a pH of 7 is very corrosive on metals. If this were due to unpaired electrons you would expect ammonia to do the same but it inhibits corrosion.
Are you familiar with hydrogen embrittlement of the high tensile steel used in aircraft? if the pH of a cleaning solution is too high or low (12 is neutral to iron) hydrogen ions will penetrate the steel crystals and convert to hydrogen atoms causing the structure to shatter.
What is it about water that causes it to dissolve salts (and even glass) but not effect covalent bonds of plastics?
Herb
James McGinn
| #
Previously I stated:
James: Freezing in water is not strictly tied to temperature. The inverse of interconnectedness is more of a factor than temperature in that the magnitude of polarity of molecules is inversely related to interconnectedness. (When ice forms, for example, interconnectedness is reduced as a consequence of freezing itself. This is why ice floats. The freezing process causes surface to form below the surface. The ensuing reduction in connectedness activates polarity, forming the hard bonds found in ice and reducing its density.)
Here is another example of how freezing is not strictly tied to temperature and is more correctly tied to reduction in interconnectedness of hydrogen bonds:
Explaining The Behavior of Non-Newtonian Fluids
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16885#p122212
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
T L Winslow
| #
[[You haven’t explained the zig zag graph of the atmosphere’s temperature. If the sun is the source of energy for the atmosphere the kinetic energy of the molecules should decline in a curve (which the density does) instead of a zig zag. What is the source of energy at 51 km that causes the rise in temperature in the stratosphere and why does it decline in the mesosphere when the energy from the sun is greater?]]
Duh, it’s about the wavelengths of the energy. Visible light from the Sun passes with minimal losses to the surface, heating it up, after which that heat rises back toward space, creating the lapse rate via convection. At the tropopause convection stops but the atmosphere is very thin, allowing UV from the Sun to heat it. Yes, UV intensity drops with depth, but in the troposphere it’s swamped out by convected heat from the surface.
[[Earth’s atmosphere consists of a number of layers that differ in properties such as composition, temperature and pressure. The lowest layer is the troposphere, which extends from the surface to the bottom of the stratosphere. Three quarters of the atmosphere’s mass resides within the troposphere, and is the layer within which the Earth’s terrestrial weather develops. The depth of this layer varies between 17 km at the equator to 7 km at the poles. The stratosphere, extending from the top of the troposphere to the bottom of the mesosphere, contains the ozone layer. The ozone layer ranges in altitude between 15 and 35 km, and is where most of the ultraviolet radiation from the Sun is absorbed. The top of the mesosphere, ranges from 50 to 85 km, and is the layer wherein most meteors burn up. The thermosphere extends from 85 km to the base of the exosphere at 400 km and contains the ionosphere, a region where the atmosphere is ionised by incoming solar radiation. The ionosphere increases in thickness and moves closer to the Earth during daylight and rises at night allowing certain frequencies of radio communication over a greater range. The Kármán line, located within the thermosphere at an altitude of 100 km, is commonly used to define the boundary between Earth’s atmosphere and outer space. The exosphere begins variously from about 690 to 1,000 km above the surface, where it interacts with the planet’s magnetosphere. Each of the layers has a different lapse rate, defining the rate of change in temperature with height.]] – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere
[[ You can call it latent heat, heat of evaporation, or potential energy but it cannot disappear just because your instrument cannot detect it.]]
You have some kind of mental block, sorry. A thermometer is just a glass tube with mercury in it. You insert it in a cup of water that you’re cooling or heating and observe the readings, which gives you a limited amount of information about what’s happening. When the cooling water reaches 0C then the phase change to ice holds it there until it completes freezing all the water, as happens at again 100C with the phase change to steam. For a complete picture you need to measure the energy leaving the water with the freezing example (exothermic), and the energy entering the water with the vaporization example (endothermic). In case 1 you probably placed the glass of water in a freezer which sucks energy from the water. In case 2 you probably placed a flame under the glass. You’re confusing temperature measurement with energy flow measurement. A thermometer reads what it reads and nothing more. It’s a different problem to measure the energy flow, and a thermometer isn’t appropriate.
[[The higher you go in the atmosphere the greater the kinetic energy of the molecules.]]
No way. The temperature decreases with height up to the tropopause because the Sun doesn’t much heat the atmosphere, only the surface, and after convection the heated air rises and falls in temperature creating and maintaining the lapse rate, which is actually a molecular-level phenomenon into which moving air pockets eventually settle.
BTW, there’s a typo in my article. The lapse rate is 18.8F/mile, not 28F/mile.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi T. L.,
The atmosphere is heated by UV light striking O2 and N2 molecules (No matter what their altitude) The ionosphere is a result of the UV splitting the gas molecules. It takes 940 kjoules/mole to split the triple bond of N2 and 490 kjoules/mole to split O2. This energy becomes kinetic energy of the atoms. The ozone layer is a result of an oxygen atom (a result of UV absorption by a O2 molecule) combining with an oxygen molecule and transferring its kinetic energy to the ozone molecule. When the ozone molecule decomposes the energy is split between the O2 molecule and the O atom produced. The stratosphere is where the concentration of O2 molecules is high enough where this intermediate reaction (instead of 2O > O2 + ke) can occur.
O2 and N2 convert UV light into kinetic energy. Explain how these gases and atoms in the mesosphere cannot have more kinetic energy (fewer objects absorbing the energy more UV) than the molecules in the stratosphere or troposphere.
You are absolutely right about the thermometer being inappropriate to use in a gas (like the atmosphere) The entire body of the thermometer is absorbing and radiating energy while the thermometer was designed to have the bulb absorb energy. and the body radiate it. In a gas the thermometer is reading the total kinetic energy it is absorbing so its reading depends not only on the kinetic energy of the molecules striking it but the number (total mass) striking it. As I have been saying the thermometer does not give an accurate indication of the kinetic energy of the molecules in a gas. Yet you and everybody else uses the reading of the thermometer as a measurement of the kinetic energy of the molecules in the atmosphere.
Herb
Reply
T L Winslow
| #
[[You are absolutely right about the thermometer being inappropriate to use in a gas (like the atmosphere) ]]
What are you talking about? I was talking about a vessel of water over a flame with a thermometer stuck in it, and the same apparatus stuck in a refrigerator.
[[The entire body of the thermometer is absorbing and radiating energy while the thermometer was designed to have the bulb absorb energy. and the body radiate it.]]
What? The first part of that sentence is right, the last part moose hockey. Try sending in your patent for the ice cube-powered flamethrower, just stuck the bulb in the ice and the body will shoot flames 🙂
[[In a gas the thermometer is reading the total kinetic energy it is absorbing so its reading depends not only on the kinetic energy of the molecules striking it but the number (total mass) striking it.. As I have been saying the thermometer does not give an accurate indication of the kinetic energy of the molecules in a gas. ]]
A thermometer reads the average kinetic energy, not total. Mass is irrelevant. It can read the temperature of any liquid or gas of any molecular weight quite accurately.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor
Your mind keeps wandering from the basic physics. Sorry, I’m not teaching 5th grade this year so let’s drop this conversation and instead read the above Wiki articles.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James and Herb,
While I plan to compose an essay to submit to John O’ for his consideration I will give you both something to consider.
James, you wrote: “When what Pauling omitted is provided, what results is a model that is consistent with this notion of “two melt points.” And I believe this is somewhat the case.
However, I do not accept your notion of “two melt points.”
In 1966 R. C. Sutcliffe (Weather and Climate) wrote: “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 a matter of fact, there are many observations of clouds in air whose relative humidity is considerably below 100 per cent, evidence of nuclei which are hygroscopic.”
Of course James, I know you must dismiss Sutcliffe’s nonsense because you ‘know’ that there are no water molecules in the air. And Herb, I believe, I remember you have agreed with James about the absence of water molecules in the atmosphere (air) Maybe I have asked this question before, but I cannot remember your possible answers. So I now do ask: How do either of you explain the existence of clouds?
In my case in which I believe atmospheric water molecule, and given what Sutcliffe claimed is observed, I consider there can be two condensation temperatures. One which depends upon a possible hygroscopic property of the condensation nuclei and the other ‘lower’ temperature which depends upon when the air’s relative humidity becomes 100 percent.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
I believe that water in the atmosphere is in the form of a liquid not a gas. How can you explain a water molecule in close contact and continually colliding with many neighboring molecules having 5.4 times the kinetic energy of those neighboring molecules? That is the energy needed to convert that molecule to a gas.
As to the formation of clouds. The concentration of nuclei is greater closer to the surface of the Earth. Why don’t clouds form lower in the atmosphere when the temperature is -10 C or -20 C and there are a greater number of nuclei? How do you know that the nuclei in the rain drops are not acquired on the way down? Why does condensation (loss of enemy) produce such turbulence and electrical activity in clouds? You need to give explanations of why these clouds form at the troposphere/stratosphere boundary and not before and what causes the conditions that accompany their formation. Saying water vapor condenses around nuclei doesn’t cut it.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry: James, you wrote: “When what Pauling omitted is provided, what results is a model that is consistent with this notion of “two melt points.” And I believe this is somewhat the case. However, I do not accept your notion of “two melt points.”
James: Right. There isn’t just two. There is whole continuum of ‘melt points’ having to do with the fact that H2O polarity is the inverse of connectedness. Consequently, freezing in water is not strictly determined by temperature. See my last response to Herb for more details.
Jerry: In 1966 R. C. Sutcliffe (Weather and Climate) wrote: “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 a matter of fact, there are many observations of clouds in air whose relative humidity is considerably below 100 per cent, evidence of nuclei which are hygroscopic.”
Of course James, I know you must dismiss Sutcliffe’s nonsense because you ‘know’ that there are no water molecules in the air.
James: As you know full well, you deceptive twit, I never stated there is no water in the atmosphere. Beyond that, I know how to read an H2O phase diagram. Sutcliffe and yourself, apparently, don’t.
Correcting Common Misconceptions About Energy in the Atmosphere
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Correcting-Common-Misconceptions-About-Energy-in-the-Atmosphere-e9moua
James McGinn / Genius
Reply