The Radiation of Energy by the Earth

When people talk of the Earth what they are usually referring to is the very thin layer that we are familiar with. The Earth is not the just the upper layer of the crust and the troposphere but is the entire system consisting of the entire atmosphere and the entire solid Earth.

When they speak of the Earth radiating heat they are thinking of heat loss from the surface of the planet. This is wrong because the surface of the Earth is the coolest part of it.

As you dig deeper into the Earth the molecules get hotter until you reach the core which has the highest temperature. As you rise up through the atmosphere the molecules in the atmosphere get hotter. The temperature may decline but this is because temperature is how we measure heat and is a function of the kinetic energy of molecules and the number of molecules transferring that energy to the temperature probe.

It is very simple. If you heat a gas it expands and becomes less dense. If you cool a gas it contracts and becomes denser. The less dense gases higher in the atmosphere must be hotter than the denser gases lower in the atmosphere. It does not matter if these molecules are oxygen, nitrogen, water, carbon dioxide or any other gas they will absorb energy from the sun light and hold that energy until they can lose it.

A satellite orbiting above the atmosphere will have the surface facing the sun heated to a temperature of 250 degrees while the same object resting on the surface of the Earth will be heated to 50 degrees. The atmosphere at sea level contains approximately the same number of molecules as a layer of fresh water 33 feet deep.

This layer of molecules contains the energy, radiated by the sun, accounting for this 200 degree difference which constitutes most of the heat being transferred from the sun to the Earth. The atmosphere is absorbing heat on the day side of the Earth and by rotating it transfers that heat to the night side of the Earth where it can then be radiated into space.

The atmosphere, being hotter than the surface of the earth, is also radiating heat to the surface of the Earth. This is evident when there is a cloudy night and the temperature on the surface remains warmer than on a clear night. The water in the clouds are not reflecting heat back to the Earth’s surface. Water is a very good conductor of heat not a reflector and the clouds are transferring heat from the hotter molecules in the upper atmosphere to the surface of the Earth.

‘Greenhouse gases’ in the atmosphere cannot be reflecting heat from the surface of the Earth back to the Earth because they are hotter than the molecules on the surface of the Earth which are already transferring heat to them.

The surface of the Earth is receiving heat from both the atmosphere and the interior of the Earth in the form of volcanic eruptions and geothermic hot spots like Yellowstone. This combined heat is being radiated by the Earth on the night side of the planet. It is important to understand the difference between radiating heat and losing heat (see diagram below)

Every object above absolute zero radiates heat. Every object absorbs radiated heat. According to the conservation of energy principle in order for an object to lose heat it must transfer heat to an object with less heat or radiate more heat than it is absorbing. A molecule at 10 degrees Kelvin is radiating heat but it is not losing heat because it is absorbing more radiated heat than it is radiating. The Earth radiates heat towards the sun but does not lose heat to the sun.

Picture heat as water and the sun and the Earth are both sources of water. The sun is pumping out a large amount of water in all directions at a high pressure. The Earth is pumping a much smaller amount of water at a lower pressure in all directions. The pressure of the water decreases with distance from the source so little of the water from the sun will strike the surface of the Earth but will be blocked by the water coming from the Earth where the two pressures equalize in the atmosphere.

The rotating atmosphere carries both the water emitted by the Earth and the water coming from the sun to the night side of the planet where there is no water coming from the sun to block the flow. The water can then be radiated away from the Earth into space where it will equalize with the water flow from the sun that passes around the Earth.

It doesn’t matter if the heat the Earth is radiating comes from the sun or from the interior of the Earth. The flow of heat from the two sources, like the water, will equalize in the atmosphere and then the atmosphere will transfer the combined energy of the sun and Earth around the Earth to be radiated on the shade side where the heat being radiated by the molecules is greater than the heat they are absorbing.

This transferring of heat by an atmosphere can be seen on Venus where one side of the planet continuously faces the sun but the thick atmosphere distributes the heat around the planet making for a uniform temperature on the planet.

‘Greenhouse gas’ molecules behave like all other gas molecules absorbing radiated energy and then emitting radiated energy. This may appear to be reflecting energy because a molecule will radiated energy of the same wavelength that it absorbs but it is an entirely different process. When you see a color on a painted  surface it is a result of the surface reflecting that wavelength of light and absorbing the other colors.

When you see a colored piece of glass, the glass is the same color on all sides tinting any transmitted image. This is because the glass is not reflecting that wavelength but is absorbing it and other wavelengths and then emitting the absorbed energy in the wavelength producing the color. In order for an object to reflect something it must have a rigid structure that returns to its original form after being distorted. Gases do not have rigid structures and do not reflect light. They can absorb energy and emit light of different wavelengths, like neon lights, but they do not reflect.


PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Telephone: Calls from within the UK: 020 7419 5027. International dialling: (44) 20 7419 5027. 

Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

Trackback from your site.

Comments (36)

  • Avatar

    BobbyCee47

    |

    Herb, I could not read past your second paragraph…..” When they speak of the Earth radiating heat they are thinking of heat loss from the surface of the planet. This is wrong because the surface of the Earth is the coolest part of it.”
    Why, because my understanding is the Earth’s surface is warmer than the atmosphere and does not radiate heat, it radiates energy. Thereby through the Laws of Thermodynamics it is impossible for a blackbody to further warm itself by its own radiation. A cold object cannot warm a warmer object.
    You are confusing three different concepts in Thermal Physics, Energy, Heat and Temperature. As I understand it, Short Wave IR radiation from the Sun is absorbed by the Earth’s surface, the Plank’s Blackbody Radiation Law is activated. This law allows us to calculate the total amount of energy in a blackbody spectrum, and what the temperature the object actually needs to be at in order to emit that amount of energy. Then the Stefan-Boltzmann law comes into play, and it states that an object which radiates like a blackbody has a surface brightness which is proportional to the object’s temperature (“T” in degrees Kelvin) to the fourth power. Then another Law is activated called Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation. It states: “At radiative thermal equilibrium, the emissivity of a body equals its absorptivity.” In other words, the Earth will give off just as much power in radiation as it absorbs, when it’s in radiative thermal equilibrium with the Sun. These are the Laws of Physics that are the foundation into understanding a very complex process that has been has been subject to much controversy and abuse through ignorance.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    This rambling pseudoscience is hilarious! A nice mix of some basic facts with erroneous interpretations of those facts.

    It would be a perfect presentation for April 1st.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    James G Kennedy Jr

    |

    As usual, a decision by a human caused global warming alarmist (HCGW) to “not read past your second paragraph”, merely proves the closed mindedness and utterly selfish hubris of that crowd. To disagree and check oneself out because the totally accurate “because the surface of the Earth is the coolest part of it.” only proves that they believe alternate facts are true. Pity the poor innocents being brainwashed by such an overtly political crowd.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      BobbyCee47

      |

      Mr Kennedy it is obvious you need to brush up on your reading comprehension as my response clearly indicates that I believe the Sun the major influence on the Earth’s climate. To take it further I believe Humans have no control and that Galactic Cosmic Ray flux moderated by the Sun and Planetary Mechanics play an important role in determining the Climate of this Planet.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton

    |

    It seems to me that PSI is posting this article, and others, so that readers can analyze the post instead of John being required to pass judgement on the validity of the article.
    The post stimulates discussion, and prevents claims of “settled science” . IMO

    Reply

  • Avatar

    John O'Sullivan

    |

    Al, Yes, indeed. Not everything we post on PSI we agree with – it is for the purpose of highlighting important points of debate, which we encourage.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gary Ashe

      |

      It is weapons grade shite John, you should be ashamed,……
      Its embarrassing now linking to this place there’s so much woo woo.

      This Herb Rose and his pound shop physic’s are an embarrassment.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Herb Rose

        |

        Hi Gary,
        For over 400 years Newton’s theory of gravity was accepted by proper physics and is still used today even though it is a simple thing to show it is wrong. If you equate a planets momentum to the force of gravity between it and the sun (MpVp=GMpMs/d^2) and do some simple algebra to solve for the mass of the sun (Ms=Vpd^2/G) then solve the equation for the different planets you get the remarkable results that as the force of gravity decreases with greater distance but the mass of the sun increases. I am sure as a proper physicist you can invent some exotic math or a subatomic particle to resolve this contradiction but your hubris and belief in superior intellect is a farce and an embarrassment.

        Reply

  • Avatar

    lifeisthermal

    |

    “The atmosphere, being hotter than the surface of the earth”

    This practically never happens. The atmosphere is average 33°C colder than the surface. Which means that no heat is transferred from the atmosphere to the surface.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      jerry krause

      |

      Hi Whowever,

      I continue to be amazed at people who make ‘scientific’ statements without any reference to observed (measured in this case) facts. I have been advertising the availability of quality data being measured by NOAA’s USCRN project at more than 100 USA sites. One of these advertisements can be found at (https://principia-scientific.com/record-temperature-result-of-cloud-revised-updated/). For the common diurnal temperature oscillation, which should be obvious to everyone, needs a quantitative documentation of what is occurring during it.

      If one looks at Fig. 1 of the referred to posting, one will see that commonly the surface temperature becomes greater than the air temperature as conventionally measured during the daytime and that the surface temperature becomes slightly less than the air temperature during the nighttime. So the obvious fact is when one compares the air temperature with the surface temperature one must refer to which portion of the 24hr day one is referring.

      Herb makes the statement: “This is wrong because the surface of the Earth is the coolest part of it.” The USCRN project also commonly measures the soil temperatures at depths of 5, 10, 20, 50, and 100cm. Now I am sure that anyone living at the higher latitudes is aware there is a seasonal oscillation of soil temperatures as well as a diurnal oscillation. So, during a portion of the earth the soil at depths slowly cools and warms both diurnally and seasonally. So when one compares soil temperature, etc one must state both the diurnal time and the season time and also the depth of the soil at which one is making a comparative statement. Herb, in his statement does neither.

      The foundation of science is observation. So, please when discussing scientific topics call attention to actual observations which support your statements of what it seems you consider to be actual fact.

      Have a good day, Jerry

      Reply

    • Avatar

      James McGinn

      |

      Lifeisthermal: “The atmosphere is average 33°C colder than the surface. Which means that no heat is transferred from the atmosphere to the surface.”

      JMcG: Wrong, heat (energy) travels both directions. The notion you have misinterpreted has to do with measured temperature of the relevant source of radiation going up or down. A cooler object cannot cause the measured temperature of a hotter object to increase. But that doesn’t mean that both objects aren’t warming each other constantly in that all object above absolute zero radiate constantly.

      Ignore the ideologues who want to bash us over the head with this dimwitted notion that cooler object cannot warm hotter object. All object that are at a temperature above zero radiate constantly. So all objects are warming all other objects at all times.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        James errs again: “Ignore the ideologues who want to bash us over the head with this dimwitted notion that cooler object cannot warm hotter object.”

        No James, don’t ignore 2LoT. Otherwise you will be trying to heat your home this winter with ice cubes.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          James McGinn

          |

          You nitwits can’t deal with subtlety.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Glad to see you have backed away from your own words.

          • Avatar

            James McGinn

            |

            Glad to see you have backed away from your own words.

            You simpletons can’t distinguish between heat and net heat.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Do you have undercover cops following you?

          • Avatar

            James McGinn

            |

            LoTDs deal with net heat, you moron.

  • Avatar

    James McGinn

    |

    Herb: “As you rise up through the atmosphere the molecules in the atmosphere get hotter. The temperature may decline but this is because temperature is how we measure heat and is a function of the kinetic energy of molecules and the number of molecules transferring that energy to the temperature probe.”

    JMcG: I understand your point. You are saying that if we factor out density as a factor (for determining temperature) we will find that the molecules that are higher have greater kinetic energy (ie. they have greater velocity). that those that are lower. I’m not convinced that it is this simple. If we consider the speed of sound as a proxy for the velocity of the molecules in gas then we have to account for the fact that the speed of sound is 100 mph slower at 60,000 feet than it is at the surface. So, with height the molecules of the atmosphere are not hotter, they are cooler, according to your definition.

    Herb: It is very simple. If you heat a gas it expands and becomes less dense. If you cool a gas it contracts and becomes denser. The less dense gases higher in the atmosphere must be hotter than the denser gases lower in the atmosphere. It does not matter if these molecules are oxygen, nitrogen, water, carbon dioxide or any other gas they will absorb energy from the sun light and hold that energy until they can lose it.

    JMcG: It is certainly nowhere near as simple as you imagine. H2O confounds the simplicity that you claim to perceive. Warmer air is a greater magnet for micro and nano droplets of liquid water making it heavier, not lighter. These droplets of liquid H2O are suspended in air as a result of the abundant static electricity that flows in constantly from the solar wind and which also flows upward from the surface as a result of the thermionic effect.

    All in all, warmer air is often heavier than cooler air as a consequence of it possessing greater water content. Additionally, warmer, moister air also has more of a plasmodic effect

    The atmosphere is not simple and it is not well understood by conventional science, factions of which refuse to discuss the shoddy details that make up their oversimplified models.

    Why Meteorology (Storm Theory) is a Cargo Cult Science
    https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16613

    James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Herb Rose

    |

    The higher a molecule is in the atmosphere the longer it is exposed to the energy of the sun and the greater the intensity of that energy (unfiltered). How can an identical;e molecule lower in the atmosphere exposed to a weaker energy stream for a shorter time contain more energy (hotter) than the identicle molecule higher in the atmosphere?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    James McGinn

    |

    HR:
    The higher a molecule is in the atmosphere the longer it is exposed to the energy of the sun and the greater the intensity of that energy (unfiltered).

    JMcG:
    This is not true always. At nighttime the top of the atmosphere is exposed to the extreme chill of space.

    Also, the sun isn’t the only factor involved here–as is well documented. There is also the earth and the other molecules (most notably liquid H2O) in the atmosphere. And there are more of both lower in the atmosphere.

    HR:
    How can an identical molecule lower in the atmosphere exposed to a weaker energy stream for a shorter time contain more energy (hotter) than the identical molecule higher in the atmosphere?

    JMcG:
    How is it not obvious that the atmosphere is much more complex than the simple description you provide here?

    The most important and omnipresent source of warming in the atmosphere is liquid H2O. And there is none of it at higher altitudes.

    Liquid H2O, which is abundant in the troposphere, comprehensively absorbs huge quantities of energy and gradually releases it. This is the reason we experience ambient temperatures on the surface of this planet.

    There is another post on this site entitled, The Watery Planet Effect. You need to read it carefully.

    James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi James,
      Yes it is true that the higher a molecule is in the longer it is exposed to the sun. The reason it is light before sunrise and after sunset is because sunlight is being absorbed by the atmosphere and re-radiated. The atmosphere is transparent and only hidden from sunlight when it is the Earth’ shadow.
      Water is not a source of heat. When it goes from a liquid to a gas it absorbs heat (Why sweating cools) and when it is a gas it behaves like any other gas. The fact that water is a liquid in the troposphere when the temperature is much lower than the freezing point of water indicates that the temperature of the atmosphere is not an accurate indication of the kinetic energy of the atmosphere. How can a plane fly through a rain storm when the temperature outside the planes is -30 degrees? Water moderates temperature by changing states. According to the molecular weight of water it should be a gas but the attractive forces between the molecules makes it a liquid between 32 and 212 degrees F. The changing of states consumes energy.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        James McGinn

        |

        Hi James,
        Yes it is true that the higher a molecule is in the longer it is exposed to the sun.

        JMcG: Yes, and the more likely it will be exposed to the deep chill of space.

        The reason it is light before sunrise and after sunset is because sunlight is being absorbed by the atmosphere and re-radiated.

        JMcG: Yes, and the reason we can see it is because this radiation penetrates all the way to the ground.

        The atmosphere is transparent and only hidden from sunlight when it is the Earth’ shadow.

        JMcG: True. But even when the sun is shining it is exposed to the deep chill of space. And the molecules at the top of the atmosphere generally have a low heat capacity, in contrast to the liquid H2O in the lower part of the atmosphere that does have a high heat capacity.

        Water is not a source of heat.

        JMcG: All matter that is above absolute zero is a source of heat–as per laws of thermodynamics.

        When it goes from a liquid to a gas it absorbs heat (Why sweating cools)

        JMcG: No, this is not why sweating cools. There is no phase transition at the low temperature of sweating. (Take a look at an H2O phase diagram if you don’t believe me.)

        and when it is a gas it behaves like any other gas.

        JMcG: H2O is never a gas in the atmosphere and it (nano droplets of liquid H2O) behaves differently from any gas in that it absorbs energy rapidly and proficiently and emits it gradually. Gases cannot and do not do either.

        JMcG: All of the water in earth’s atmosphere is liquid vapor. So, there is no transition between gas and liquid H2O in earth’s atmosphere (see link below). Nevertheless, H2O does constantly absorb and emit energy/heat in the atmosphere in a manner that is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics. And liquid H2O has a high heat capacity.

        The fact that water is a liquid in the troposphere when the temperature is much lower than the freezing point of water indicates that the temperature of the atmosphere is not an accurate indication of the kinetic energy of the atmosphere.

        JMcG: Superchilled water is more easily achieved in nanodroplets that occur in the atmosphere. (I know why but it is beyond the scope of this discussion.) Also, the freezing temperature of H2O is lower under the lower pressures of the at altitude.

        How can a plane fly through a rain storm when the temperature outside the planes is -30 degrees? Water moderates temperature by changing states.

        JMcG: Water’s high heat capacity and high heat conductivity is what moderates temperature. The former is only associated with liquid H2O.

        According to the molecular weight of water it should be a gas

        JMcG: True

        but the attractive forces between the molecules makes it a liquid between 32 and 212 degrees F.

        JMcG: Yes, but these numbers change radically depending on pressure.

        The changing of states consumes energy.

        JMcG: The only change of state is with freezing, and it releases energy.

        Cold Steam:
        http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16851

        James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

        Reply

        • Avatar

          jerry krause

          |

          Hi James and Herb,

          I have only read James’ transcript of your conversation.

          Herb you evidently wrote: “The reason it is light before sunrise and after sunset [twilight?] is because sunlight is being absorbed by the atmosphere and re-radiated.” And James agreed with this: “Yes, and the reason we can see it is because this radiation penetrates all the way to the ground.”

          In doing this you both ignored a fundamental phenomenon of the interaction of radiation with tiny matter particles (atoms?) which has long been termed light scattering.

          The problem you create for yourselves is: light is thought (generally accepted) to be packets of energy termed photons. And visible light is thought to be large packets of energy from the hot sun relative to the small packets of energy that the ‘cold’ atoms of matter, which absorb this large packet of energy, can only re-radiate (emit?) as a small packet of energy.

          Do you both see my point? This is why some classical physicists of the past had to turn to what is now called quantum mechanics. You cannot explain what is observed by the classical reasoning you (both) used.

          Have a good day, Jerry

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Hi Jerry,
            You are correct I do not believe in photons. I do not believe that the photoelectric effect is a valid objection to the wave theory of light and so there is no reason to maintain the particle property of light. Molecules absorb both long and short wavelengths depending on bond lengths and emit energy on the entire molecule size. This is why you use the longer infrared light waves to see deeper into space. The shorter wavelengths have been absorbed by the few molecules that exist in space.
            We disagree on the nature of light which leads to different beliefs in subsequent theory. I’d say time will tell what is right but I din’t believe in time either.
            Have a good day.
            Herb

          • Avatar

            jerry krause

            |

            Hi Herb,

            I cannot be right because it never crossed my mind that you did not believe in photons. It is only fair to the rest of us that you state this upfront. Because, how can we begin to understand what you write when there is this great fundamental difference between most readers’ and your unstanding. Which only you knew to exist.

            Maybe you have because I was only responding to what James had written in his transcript of his and your comments. Now, Iwonder if James knew this..But thanks for telling me and anyone who reads that.

            Have a good day, Jerry

        • Avatar

          Herb Rose

          |

          Hi James
          Your comparison of the speed of sound with heat is invalid. The speed of sound travels in the atmosphere while heats radiated in the electric and magnetic fields> The density of the atmosphere decreases rapidly with altitude the strength of the fields hardly vary.
          Your contention that water vapor is a liquid is just changing definition. Molecules in themselves are not solid, liquid, or gases. These terms are used to describes masses of molecule and are defined by the characteristics of the masses. A solid has molecules bound together, doesn’t compress much, and primarily transmits heat through convection and conduction. A liquid has molecules closely associated but not bound together and free to move. It is not very compressible and transmit heat primarily by convection and conduction. In a gas the molecules are not associated with each other, it is very compressible, and primarily transmits heat through radiation. Calling water vapor nano droplets doesn’t change their characteristics of compressibility, free movement, and their primary transfer of heat by radiation. Saying water vapor absorbs energy easily and loses it slowly implies that there is some regulating mechanism that regulates the flow heat.
          Your characterization of the chill space is misleading. As a vacuum space is a very good insulator. A problem for spacecraft is that they must be well insulated to protect from the 500 degree difference between the sun side and shade side of the craft but they must have a way to get rid of the internal heat generated. They do this through heat pumps transferring heat to radiators located in the shade of solar panels. This is not an efficient of effective way to lose heat and the radiators must be large to be effective. Benefit of this inefficiency is that they can use ammonia as a heat transfer medium even though -250 it would be a solid. It never loses enough heat to freeze. Ammonia is very similar to water in molecular weight and is polar. Are ammonia vapors a liquid or are organic gases liquids?

          Her

          Reply

  • Avatar

    James McGinn

    |

    Jerry,

    Pauling’s Omission–what I also refer to as Incidental Symmetry–is the most fundamentally confounding error in all of the natural sciences.

    Linus Pauling, and all the sheep that faithfully follow in his footsteps, are making the error of assuming that the polarity of the H2O molecule is determined by the geometric relationship of the H atoms to the O atom on the H2O molecule. This is an oversimplification.

    The world is full of millions upon millions of science consumers who are emotionally attached to simplicity. (More specifically, the masses are emotionally attached to the story-like narratives that are associated with dumbed-down models presented by naïve but unscrupulous scientific pretenders.)

    Naively unscrupulous scientific pretenders–like yourself, Jerry–find their excuse for pandering to the publics’ emotional attachment to simplicity from within their own misinterpretation of the principle of parsimony (Occam’s Razor [look it up]). Accordingly, these misguided individuals presume a false equivalence between parsimony and simplicity. This misinterpretation provides them (yourself) the false confidence that they can safely gloss over details and observations that either don’t dovetail with or even blatantly contradict observations.

    The observation that a polar molecule has such incredibly low viscosity (an observation that dovetails with the indirect observation that the molecules in liquid H2O do not actually stay in contact with each other) as is observed in liquid H2O is an observation that blatantly contradicts the brain-dead and popular assumption that the polar force that keeps H2O molecules together in liquid water is constant, static.

    In accordance with Coulomb’s law, any electrostatic force (and polarity is just that, an electrostatic force) increases as distance between the respective positive and negative charges decreases. Accordingly, the observations that H2O has low viscosity (in conjunction with the co-observation [as mentioned above] that the molecules in liquid H2O do not actually stay in contact with each other) are observations that blatantly contradict the brain-dead and popular assumption that H2O polarity is constant, static.

    A molecule, any molecule, is a polar molecule when the electron clouds on its respective atoms are pulled off-center from their respective nuclei.

    The only thing that pulls electron clouds off-center from their respective nuclei is an electrical gradient.

    The geometric relationship of the H atoms to the O atom on the H2O molecule does create such an electrical gradient.

    It is this electrical gradient that results in H2O molecules being polar and this polarity is what caused the electrostatic force that brings H2O molecules into close proximity to each other (as in liquid water) forming hydrogen bonds.

    However, hydrogen bonds bring with them their own electrical gradients that direct oppose and cancel out the electrical gradient that underlies polarity.

    Thus, hydrogen bonds between water molecules cancel or neutralize the electrical gradients on (both of) the H2O molecules that participate in a hydrogen bond. Accordingly, H bonds neutralize the polarity of H2O molecules.

    Pauling’s ignorance of incidental symmetry (Pauling’s failure to account for the fact that H bonds bring with them their own electrical gradients that neutralize the electrical asymmetry that underlies the polarity of the molecules that participate in H bonds) saddled the natural sciences with the false belief that H2O polarity is constant (static) when in actuality it is variable with H bonds being the mechanism thereof–a fact that finds its fullest expression in the observed “anomalies” of H2O.

    James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
    Can hurricanes be stopped or steered?
    http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=210#p122351

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi again James’
      I am replying to your comments on my comments not the above comments.
      The speed of any wave is determined by the strength of the medium in which it travels so there is a big difference between the speed of sound traveling through the medium of air (atmospheric pressure) and radiation (electric and magnetic fields.They are not a single electromagnetic field. The strength of an electric field cannot be determined by the strength of the magnetic field.)
      How an object transfers heat is a function of its area (Cube 8r^2, sphere 4.pi.r^2) while the amount of heat it contains is a function of its volume (Cube r^3, sphere 4/3pi.r^3) so the smaller an object is the more effective its area is in transferring heat. How big are your nano droplets of water?
      It is true that the lower molecules in that atmosphere receive heat from both the molecules above and below them but they also transmit heat to both layers of molecules. Their heat will equalize with the larger heat source which is the heat coming from the sun not the reflected heat from the sun.
      The troposphere is not cooler at the top even though the temperature is lower. Temperature is a function of the kinetic energy transferring heat to a thermometer and the number of molecules transferring that heat. If you take the data on the temperature (Kelvin). and density at different levels of the atmosphere and divide the temperature by the grams/meter^3 you will get a comparison of the kinetic energy at various altitudes (degrees/gram/m^3). This show that the kinetic energy increases in an exponential curve with altitude0 In the troposphere the increase is not as dramatic as iii higher altitudes but it still increases.
      People have disagreed with the idea that temperature is a function of density and I don’t know if you believe density doesn’t matter, so I will describe a thought experiment to support the contention that density does matter. There are three identical containers with temperature probe installed. In the first container I insert one molecule with a velocity of V. The molecule ricochets around in the chamber occasional striking the probe and transferring kinetic energy to it. How often it strike the probe is a function of its speed, V, while the energy it transfers is a function of V^2 . The probe registers temperature. In the second container I insert single molecule with a velocity of 2V. The molecule will strike the probe twice as often and the kinetic energy will be 4 times as great for an increase of 8 fold. The probe records a temperature. In the third container I put 8 molecules with a velocity of V. The probe will be struck 8 times as often as the probe in the first container and 8 times the kinetic energy will transfer to the probe. The temperature in the third container will be the same as the temperature in the second container while the kinetic energy of the molecules in the third container will be the same as the molecule in the first container.
      I hope I have made the reasons for my beliefs clear and not become tedious.
      Have a good day,
      Herb

      Reply

  • Avatar

    James McGinn

    |

    People have disagreed with the idea that temperature is a function of density

    Most people are stupid and only pretend to understand most of this stuff.

    and I don’t know if you believe density doesn’t matter,

    I completely agree.

    so I will describe a thought experiment to support the contention that density does matter.

    I am in complete agreement with your thought experiment. In fact, I have posted the same no less than 3 times here on this forum. You/we are right. Temperature does not measure the energy state of the molecules. It measured the amount of energy from a collective of molecules that is flowing into a thermometer.

    Unfortunately, we live in a world full of nitwits who are too busy trying to expose the stupidity of their political opponents to ever actually understand much of this stuff.

    Regards,

    James McGinn
    Simple Refutation of the Convection Model of Storm Theory
    http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16661

    There are three identical containers with temperature probe installed. In the first container I insert one molecule with a velocity of V. The molecule ricochets around in the chamber occasional striking the probe and transferring kinetic energy to it. How often it strike the probe is a function of its speed, V, while the energy it transfers is a function of V^2 . The probe registers temperature. In the second container I insert single molecule with a velocity of 2V. The molecule will strike the probe twice as often and the kinetic energy will be 4 times as great for an increase of 8 fold. The probe records a temperature. In the third container I put 8 molecules with a velocity of V. The probe will be struck 8 times as often as the probe in the first container and 8 times the kinetic energy will transfer to the probe. The temperature in the third container will be the same as the temperature in the second container while the kinetic energy of the molecules in the third container will be the same as the molecule in the first container.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    jerry krause

    |

    Hi James,

    Just had thought and a question for you. What is your understanding of the latent heat of condensation?

    Have a good day, Jerry

    Reply

  • Avatar

    James McGinn

    |

    Its a propaganda term used by meteorologists. What is your understanding?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    jerry krause

    |

    Hi James,

    Here is a simple experiment. Place your hand just over (near) a kettle of boiling water and tell me how long your hold your hand there.

    Have a good day, Jerry

    Reply

  • Avatar

    James McGinn

    |

    Jerry,

    Here is something you can do to improve the average intelligence of the human population. Take a plastic bag. Put it over your head. And count to one thousand.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    jerry krause

    |

    Hi James,

    At least everyone who reads knows you are not welling to do a simple experiment. Therefore, you cannot be a practicing scientist. Now, that I know your ‘true’ colors, I will not bother you again.

    Have a good day, Jerry

    Reply

  • Avatar

    James McGinn

    |

    Jerry:
    At least everyone who reads knows you are not welling to do a simple experiment. Therefore, you cannot be a practicing scientist. Now, that I know your ‘true’ colors, I will not bother you again.

    Jim:
    Jerry, thank you for helping me demonstrate the low bar of meteorology. You are their target audience.

    When it comes to the mechanics of storms and atmospheric flow meteorology is pseuodoscience. They don’t do real experiments. They make claims based on anecdote and raw analogy–like the absurd notion that storms are analogous to a pot boiling on a stove.

    In short (much like climatology) meteorology’s storm theory is just a conversation about a purportedly scientific subject. It isn’t really science that a real scientist would recognize.

    Meteorologists are the biggest phonies in all of science.

    The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
    James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

    https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329

    Reply

Leave a comment

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Share via