The Watery Planet Effect

How Waters multi-layered sub-surface absorbance coupled with its skin surface emissivity & evaporation acts to raise average equilibrium temperatures above standard black body calculations.”

The “Watery Planet Effect” is the true effect which is occurring on planet Earth, which explains why the experienced average temperature differs from the standard black body calculated average temperature of 255K, with an emissivity of 1 and a solar absorptivity of 0.7 (0.3 Albedo). (A / E Ratio of 0.7) rather than some “fictitious” greenhouse effect.

The “Watery Planet” effect is the one whereby the standard method of calculating A / E ratio’s is incorrectly applied, because of the variable depth absorption of solar radiation by water.

The standard blackbody method works for normal surfaces, because all of the radiation is absorbed and simultaneously emitted at the surface, which is what would happen with a rock or other solid material such as brick or concrete.

With water however, the light penetrates deeply into the water, which means not all of it is absorbed at the surface, which therefore means the amount of energy emitted at the surface will be less, because the energy isn’t present at the skin surface to be emitted, it is elsewhere, deep below the surface “trapped” in the seas and oceans.

It is trapped, because any infra-red radiation emitted by molecules beneath the ocean “skin” is immediately absorbed within a mm by adjacent molecules around it.  It doesn’t get to the surface and as such it doesn’t get out to be emitted into space, it will therefore only act to raise the temperature of the ocean and thusly the planet as a whole.

This effect can be seen in this picture below.

Watery Planet Diagram 1 – Optical Energy Depth Solar Absorption Levels

https://photon.libretexts.org/The_Science_of_Solar/Solar_Basics/C._Semiconductors_and_Solar_Interactions/III._Absorption_of_Light_and_Generation/1._Absorption_Coefficient_and_Penetration_Depth

As can be seen from this diagram oceans, seas and lakes are all absorbing more solar radiation than they will be emitting.  This is because the water has a high transmissivity to radiation, just like a gas, incoming radiation can travel as much as 1000 metres deep before it is fully absorbed.  Below this depth, when you look up, it will be dark, this is also known as the “Midnight Zone.”

Surface water and that deep in the oceans and seas isn’t hot enough to emit across the entire range of its absorption spectra, so can only emit in the infra-red spectra.  Solar Infra-red radiation is fully absorbed after the first metre at the 1 micron wavelength and at the 10 micron wavelength it can’t penetrate more than 1mm. Meaning any infra-red being emitted by water 10,000, 1,000, 200, 100, 50, 20, 10 or even 2 metres down, will not make it to the surface to be emitted out into space or the atmosphere.

Energy which is warming the water beneath the surface isn’t being lost to space, as it would be lost to space if it was a solid like a rock.  This means that energy is being absorbed but not being emitted out.  This is similar to how multi-layered absorbers work for textured surfaces for improving the efficiency of high temperature solar absorbers.  These types of solar surfaces can increase their solar absorbance without affecting their thermal emissivity and can create temperatures as high as 600 Cº using just solar energy.

Man made industrial Solar surfaces with this property are generally called multi-layer interference stacks.  We know how to artificially replicate this effect, yet Climate Scientist choose  to ignore this and choose not to teach it to their students.  They act to deceive.

With water, what happens is the thermal emissivity value remains near 1, but only near the surface of the water, which is only where 40 to 60{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the incoming solar energy is absorbed.  As is highlighted by this description given by the US Geological Survey website.  “it is not the ocean’s surface that stores the majority of the solar energy. The visible spectrum contains about one-half of the total energy available from the Sun at the Earth’s surface (Loiv, 1980), and those wavelengths can penetrate well below the ocean’s surface. Lewis et al. (1990) showed that solar radiation in visible frequencies, usually assumed to be absorbed at the sea surface, penetrates to a significant depth below the upper mixed layer of the ocean that interacts directly with the atmosphere. Figure 1 shows the depth of extinction of the solar spectrum in water.”

Watery Planet Diagram 2 – Ocean Absorption of Energy Compared to Land

https://archive.usgs.gov/archive/sites/ks.water.usgs.gov/solar-irradiance-variations-and-regional-precipitations.html#HDR3

As can be seen from Diagram 2, the level of Infrared radiation emitted by the sea is low and a big proportion of the amount of energy that gets absorbed by the oceans is released into the atmosphere by means of evaporation.  The atmosphere has a low emissivity and so when it rains, this latent energy is released into the atmosphere whereby it warms it and retains it, instead of losing it to space by radiation.

So, we need to know what the layers of the Oceans actually are, these being:-

The mixed layer, the thermocline and deep water zones.  Sometimes 5 layers are used to describe the zones, that is more applicable for biology rather than for looking at temperature variances and solar absorption profiles.

Watery Planet Diagram 3 – Sea and Ocean Layers

https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/images/782-ocean-temperature-layers

The temperature profile of these three layers tends to follow a pattern of being relatively stable in the mixed layer, which is generally considered to be 10 metres deep with the majority of diurnal mixing occurring in the first 2.5 metres of depth, varying on a daily basis as it interacts with the atmosphere.  Below the mixed layers is the thermocline which declines in temperature as depth increase, until the deep water zone is reached at 1000metre depth.

Watery Planet Diagram 4 – Typical Temperature Variance with Depth

https://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/temp.html

The diagram above, fits with my reasoning that a portion of the heat is absorbed at the surface and then the remainder of solar energy below that, with near full absorption by 1000metre mark, as it can seen that the temperature rise from incoming solar energy stops at that point.

Energy is clearly being absorbed, but not emitted.  This cannot be ignored, which is what global warmist’s with their “twaddle talking frizzle frazzle fake fad science” do.   All of them ignore this, not one of them even recognises the truth, that this is what is occurring, it is undeniable.  A factor needs to be applied to the calculated emissivity of the Earth.

Everyone assumes that sea water has a high emissivity because it emits in the infra-red spectrum and measurements taken show that its emissivity in the IR spectrum is high around 0.90 to 0.96 area.  As can be seen in this table below.

The Watery Planet Effect – Table 1 Emissivity of Water

This means that it will emit well in the IR spectrum on a molecule per molecule basis in line with its temperature.  However, the surface water isn’t absorbing the radiation, the sub-surface water is absorbing the radiation but the sub-surface isn’t able to radiate this heat away.  This means, using the 0.90 to 0.96 emissivity is far too simplistic an approach to take for the ocean as a whole because heat is being absorbed and stored within the ocean but it is not being emitted, therefore a factor needs to be applied.

If it was a solid surface and emitting the absorbed energy out, the surface temperature would be higher and the IR rate of radiation out would be much higher too.  This along with deep underwater ocean currents and the fact that 70{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of planet is covered in water, means that emissivity of the “planetary system” is less than is being assumed, because energy is being added to the system without it being emitted at the same rate at which it is being absorbed.

There is a discrepancy between absorption rate and emission rate, in favour of higher A / E ratio.  A factor needs to be applied.https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-emissivity-d_432.html

The Oceans have several million layers of molecules which will be absorbing the incoming solar radiation, through and past each other, but they will not all be able to emit IR radiation past the first metre out to the surface, therefore the radiation doesn’t reach the atmosphere or space and is “trapped” in the water.

This in effect, causes the planetary systems emissivity to drop even though the surface emissivity of the water remains at near 1 for the temperature that it is at.  If, it absorbed the energy at the surface, its temperature would be higher and its rate of IR emissions would therefore be higher and therefore the amount of energy lost to space would be higher.

But because it is cooler, the amount of IR emitted out to space is less at the surface, and something else other than outward emissions must be happening with the remaining energy.  It drives under ocean currents, warms sub-sea rock and increases evaporation rates.

As an example, if we assumed that there was no atmosphere, the surface of the Earth at the equator would be in receipt of the full 1367 watts per square meter.  With an absorptivity of 1 and an emissivity of 1 this would result in a surface temperature of 394K, so that an amount emitted of 1367 matches the amount absorbed.

However, if only 50{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the energy is absorbed at the surface the maximum temperature which could be achieved would be that of 683 watts per square meter which would result in a surface temperature of 331K, or 58 Cº which means that the surface will not be emitting out the energy it is absorbing out into space.

Water can convert into water vapour and this is what this energy is most likely to eventually be converted into.  Water vapour has a much lower rate of emissivity than does a watery surface and when it rains it releases its energy into the atmosphere, which has an even lower rate of emissivity.  These factors need to be allowed for, a reduction in Earths Emissivity is to be applied to account for it.  These factors are being ignored by the standard Earth is at 255K calculation.

The ocean will not ever reach the normal black body thermal equilibrium temperature during the daytime.  If it was left for an eternity, it still wouldn’t happen.  The remaining energy which is absorbed by the ocean will act as not only a store of heat during the day, but during the night too, reducing temperature drop which would be experienced by a land mass.

It also transfers its energy into the atmosphere via evaporation via water vapour which has poor emissive qualities, compared to land and sea surfaces.  When the water vapour, converts back to water by raining, the latent energy stored is released which further acts to raise air temperatures.

It will also increase the temperature of the land, which is contacting below the sea level, which over time will have an upward effect on temperatures.

So let’s perform some basic calculations to see what we think is happening.

The solar irradiance at the TOA is 1367 watts per square meter & is made up of 6.5{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} UV, 47.9{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} Visible energy and 45.6{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} IR.   So what affect will the atmosphere have on reducing this at ground level?

For a typical cloudless atmosphere in summer and for zero zenith angle, the 1367 W m2 reaching the outer atmosphere is reduced to ca. 1050 W m-2 direct beam radiation, and ca. 1120 W m-2 global radiation on a horizontal surface at ground level.” https://www.newport.com/t/introduction-to-solar-radiation

So how much of this 1120 watts is IR and is absorbed at the surface and how much penetrates deeper?

 “While IR radiation can represent 40-60{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} (1994; Mobley, 1994) of the total down welling surface ocean irradiance, it is almost completely (>99.9{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}) absorbed in the upper 2 m of the water column. ( Atmospheric and Ocean Science Program, 2007)

This gives me a total of 60{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the energy absorbed at the surface and the remaining 40{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} going below.

Focusing my attention on the surface layer and assuming 6{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} is reflected and then the 60{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of this remaining energy is absorbed I arrive at a figure of 645 watts / m2, using a standard blackbody equation a temperature for daytime condition only of 326.6K or 53.6 Cº.  Clearly this is much too hot even at the equator.  As you can see from this this graph, the observed summer temperatures at the equator which seem to be averaging at 30 Cº.

Watery Planet Diagram 5 – Ocean Surface Temperatures August 2018

https://vortex.plymouth.edu/sfc/sst/temp.html

Therefore a portion of this energy at the surface must be going into heating the atmosphere, via the processes of convection and evaporation.

To get to a temperature of 30 Cº an emission rate of 478 w / m2 is required for an emissivity of 1, meaning the difference of 167 w/m2 is going into heating the atmosphere and evaporation at the equator. If the sea wasn’t there, if it was just land, the temperatures at the equator would be much hotter during the day, but also much colder during the night. What effect does the night have?

Daytime and night-time surface water temperatures can vary by as much as 5 Degrees, which equates to a 50 to 60 w/m2, depending upon the starting temperatures.  (Journal of Oceanography, 2007)

This means that during the day it will be absorbing energy to rise by up-to 5-K and then cooling at night by approximately the same amount, once it has reached thermal equilibrium.  Some days it may be less than this and other days more, depending upon weather and wind conditions at the surface.  The energy is being stored in this surface layer as a result of the specific heat capacity or “Thermal Mass” of the water.  Is energy coming up from below, to compensate for surface cooling? A study “Diurnal Sea Surface Temperature Variation and Its Impact on the Atmosphere and Ocean: A Review” indicates that this isn’t the case as can be shown in this diagram.

Watery Planet Diagram 6 – Daily Surface Temperature Variance

(Journal of Oceanography, 2007)

Here we see that the temperature at 5 to 10 metres depth is remaining unchanged on a daily basis.

The temperature beneath the mixed layer isn’t changing on a daily basis so an energy transfer of stored energy from below isn’t occurring, this energy for daily fluctuations is coming from the stored energy in surface water itself.  The mixed layer of the ocean is at its own equilibrium temperature, without relying on the energy stored below.

The specific heat capacity of 4.2 KJ/kg/Cº and can therefore store over 4 times as much energy as does the air.  During the day, the sun is warming this layer of the ocean directly and then during the night this layer is releasing its stored energy.  This is why the air warms and cools by a much larger amount compared to the sea which seems to change very little day by day.

“The top 2.5 m of the ocean holds as much heat as the entire atmosphere above it. Thus the heat required to change a mixed layer of 25 m by 1 °C would be sufficient to raise the temperature of the atmosphere by 10 °C.”  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_layer

So from an energy perspective the IR heat output of the sea during the day is 478 w/m2 at 30 Cº and during the night it could be 25 Cº which would be an IR output of 447 w/m2.

What does this tell us?  We have an average temperature of 27.5 Cº, with a heat input of only 645 watts/m2, for a part of the daytime.  If we did a black body temperature equation of half 645 of 322 w/m2 (allowing for averaging to simulate night) we get a blackbody temperature of 274 K or 1 Cº and let’s not forget that the sea isn’t receiving full insolation for the entire period of the day.  The “watery planet effect” at the equator is causing the water surface to be 26 Cº higher than calculations show it should be, on Average.

The temperature is lower than it should be during the day and higher than it should be at night.  IR can only emit from the ocean on the first few mm and if the wind picks up only the first few meters as the wind causes waves increasing the exposed area which can emit.  Sunlight is absorbed by water, so any water molecules beneath the surface are absorbing energy but aren’t able to emit out, as would a standard solid surface.

This “multi-layered sub-surface absorbance” is causing the temperature of the water to be higher, on average as energy is absorbed, but not emitted.  This is what this data shows us, this is what is going on over 70{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the surface of the globe.  This is the reason why earth is not at the calculated 255K but is in fact at the 288K average temperatures world-wide.

The Earth does not have an emissivity of 1, because a factor needs to be applied to allow for its “multi-layered absorbing properties”.  An object in space with an albedo of 0.3 would achieve a steady state temperature of 288 K if it had an emissivity of 0.61, which very closely matches the 61{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} absorption rate of the mixed layer of the surface.

Therefore I think the corrective factor to be applied to the emissivity of the Earth simply reflects it mixed layer absorptivity rate.  So instead of using an emissivity of 1, an emissivity of 0.61 should be used.  This then corrects this error in the standard “cold earth fallacy” calculation without any need for “fake GHE”.  More importantly, there is no longer any need for Carbon Taxes and their associated, fakery control mechanisms and regulations.

It has been pointed out before, the equation used to determines Earth equilibrium temperature, is being wrongly determined, by Dr Martin Hertzberg, in his paper “EARTH’S RADIATIVE EQUILIBRIUM IN THE SOLAR IRRADIANCE”

 

Watery Planet Diagram 7 – Cold Earth Fallacy Diagram

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EE20-1_Hertzberg.pdf

Performing a few rough checks on other latitudes of the planet, I find the following.

At latitude 30 degrees the sea surface diagram indicated temperatures of around 20 degrees and at latitude 60 degrees the temperatures were around 10 degrees.

Using the solar insolation equation, with an air mass of 1.15 I arrive at a figure of 972 w/m2 and at 60 degrees with an air mass of 2.0 it would be 710 w/m2.

60{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of 972 is 583 standard black body maximum would be 315K, so some of this heat again is being converted into latent and convective energy, previously the rate was assumed to be 25{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of this amount which leaves 437 w/m2 which would give a temperature of 293K, close to the 20 degree level, but actually a little less.

This makes me think that light is being absorbed in the atmosphere at higher latitudes and isn’t available in the same ratio at the higher latitudes as to get a temperature of 296K the amount converted to latent heat would need to be less or the amount absorbed would need to be higher.

At 60 degrees this would be 710 * 0.6 * 0.75  = 319.5 watts / m2 which at thermal equilibrium equates to 273K, which is 0 Cº, which indicates to me that again, a higher proportion than 60{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} is being absorbed at the surface to make it 10 degrees or there is less latent heat loss due to evaporation, to be able  to arrive at observed temperatures higher than this rough calculation.  I imagine evaporation rates are much lower here and the air much dryer.

To resolve this further if I had the power to do, I would commission research the rate of IR / Light / UV available at the surface at higher latitudes and the effect this has on surface skin layer absorption as well as differences in rates of latent heat of evaporation at higher latitudes and how they differ compared to lower latitudes.  From elementary reasoning, using my rough calculations as a basis, I would presume to find higher proportion of absorption at the surface layer and lower rates of evaporation.

Some research to this effect has already been performed and they did indeed find that this is what is occurring. This study I found to be most illuminating “Evaporation from the Surface of the Globe.”  It found that “Maximum evaporation from the ocean is observed in both hemispheres in the zone of trade winds in the latitudinal zones 10 to 20ºN and 10 to 20ºS.”   I also found this re-assuring as it matched my rough calculations.  “Evaporation of water

takes much heat (1.26 x 1024 joules), or about 25{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of all the energy received at the

Earth’s surface.”  http://www.eolss.net/sample-chapters/c07/e2-02-03-02.pdf

Watery Planet Diagram 8 – Water Planet

This is a brief diagram which shows at the equator the incoming solar irradiance of around 1120 w/m2 at sea level, with a bigger proportion absorbed at the 2.5m skin surface and then the smaller proportion being absorbed underneath that.

Some of this energy absorbed at the surface is being converted into Evaporation and the rate of evaporation is lower the further away from the equator.  There is also more energy lost to the atmosphere, due to thicker Air Mass and so less to be absorbed in the deeper layers.  The energy which goes past the surface, into the deeper layers, isn’t able to be emitted, it is therefore “trapped” and cant get out.

Its effects are felt, by creating a warmer AVERAGE temperature because the surface is cooler than it would be if it was a rock during the day and warmer than it would be if it was a rock at night.  A higher rate of energy conversion into latent energy via evaporation means a lower rate of loss of energy as it is converted in the atmosphere when it rains.

These effects are real, they are happening and they can’t be ignored.  Therefore a factor needs to be applied, showing this effect, a factor which in essence serves to reduce the emissivity from the currently used 1, to something more along the lines of 0.60.  The Earth System has an A / E Ratio of somewhere in the region of 1.17 not 0.70.

Everyone who uses 0.70, is doing the maths wrong, they have no idea.  Why are they ignoring the Oceans?  Why do they pretend that IR emission rates are higher and Evaporation rates lower?  Why?  They want your tax money, that’s why and they don’t want you squealing when they take it.  They want you to give it with a smile on your face.

Conclusion

Waters multi-layered sub-surface absorbance coupled with its skin surface only emissive & evaporation losses acts to raise average equilibrium temperatures above standard black body calculations.  Applying a factor to reduce the assumed emissivity of the Earth, to reduce it 0.60, takes us away from the “Cold Earth Fallacy” fake and incorrect calculation used by “pretend climate scientists.”

Using a 0.60 emissive factor, gives us a calculated temperature of 288K, which accords with experienced conditions on Earth, without utilising any “magical, make believe, fantasy fad fairy tale fakery Greenhouse Effect.”

It is time for the adults of this world to wake up and understand, that they are being lied to, only a daily basis by those whom have a vested interest in keeping them poor, mis-educated, over taxed and disempowered via the fake climate front, of Global Warming and Climate Change.

“The Watery Planet Effect” of multi-layered sub-surface absorbance, is the true effect.  Nothing make believe, magical and mystical about that, that’s just the way it is.


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 (56)

  • Avatar

    Alan Stewart

    |

    Kudos Geriant for a massive amount of effort.
    Now, a tiny game and I think you and others will understand the purpose of the question below.
    To what amount is a body of water heated by tangental amient air? (obvious assumption air warmer than water)
    Cheers

    Reply

  • Avatar

    jerry krause

    |

    Hi Geraint and Alan,

    Alan, you wrote: “obvious assumption air warmer than water”. Geraint you began: “The “Watery Planet Effect” is the true effect which is occurring on planet Earth, which explains why the experienced average temperature differs from the standard black body calculated average temperature of 255K, with an emissivity of 1 and a solar absorptivity of 0.7 (0.3 Albedo). (A / E Ratio of 0.7) rather than some “fictitious” greenhouse effect.”

    Geraint, you do not acknowledge there is an obvious assumption in your statement of what it seems you consider to a factual starting point of your analysis. But I am wrong when I say that this was you starting point. For, first you wrote: “How Waters multi-layered sub-surface absorbance coupled with its skin surface emissivity & evaporation acts to raise average equilibrium temperatures above standard black body calculations.” However, I consider this statement is to merely describe what you will do in this posting as an author with good writing skills would do.

    Then you wrote: “The standard blackbody method works for normal surfaces, because all of the radiation is absorbed and simultaneously emitted at the surface, which is what would happen with a rock or other solid material such as brick or concrete.”

    Hence here, it appears, you assume that the rock or other solid material such as brick or concrete is not warmed by the solar radiation incident upon because all the absorbed energy (radiation) is simultaneously emitted at the surface [skin, one atom layer thick?].

    I really do not know what you are imagining but I suggest you look at the NOAA USCRN project data reviewed in Figure 1 of the posting (https://principia-scientific.com/record-temperature-result-of-cloud-revised-updated/) and report back to PSI readers to explain the observed difference between your statement and that which appears to be actually observed. Which actual observations (temperature measurements) seem to convert Alan’s assumption into what I consider to be an observed fact.

    Have a good day, Jerry

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Geraint Hughes

      |

      Your statement “Hence here, it appears, you assume that the rock or other solid material such as brick or concrete is not warmed by the solar radiation incident upon because all the absorbed energy (radiation) is simultaneously emitted at the surface [skin, one atom layer thick?].” I agree, other objects have “Thermal Mass” however, the fact they have thermal mass doesn’t explain why you would need to do things differently as you do with water, which absorbs radiation across more than just its surface and uses this energy to convert into water vapour, which can also become clouds, both of which have much lower emissivity than surface water or ordinary ground. Utilising an emissivity factor of 1 or even 0.90 is not appropriate for determining Earths planetary temperatures (which you could do for a rock) because it ignores that these other things which are happening with water. Therefore the standard T = 255K answer which is the starting point of GHE theory, is wrong, because it assumes emissivity is 1, it clearly is not.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    jerry krause

    |

    I just realized I should have qualified my statement about Alan’s assumption with ‘during the nighttime’.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Alan Stewart

      |

      Howdy Jer et al,
      Let me rephrase. Air/water temps can be higher/lower regardless of the time of day (yes, air normally cooler at night). Warm air, cold water, vice versa. Irradiance is the obvious mechanism that heats bodies of water. BUT what the Alarmists are saying is that AIR temperature increases water (ocean) temperatures (of course catastrophically).
      HOW???? To understand, search the net and all you will get are BLANK statements from Alarmists devoid of numerical or mechanical data. Refute their statements.
      Cheers

      Reply

  • Avatar

    James McGinn

    |

    A good way to describe the high heat capacity of H2O is that it is thermally elastic. H2O is the source of all of the thermal elasticity on our planet and is also the source of all of the structural elasticity that makes life possible. And it all has to do with the fact that on the molecular level the more comprehensively H2O molecules are bonded to each other the more the polar force that maintains these bonds are neutralized, all the way down to zero. This results in a mechanism of constant pendulemic movement that exists between H2O molecules in liquid water (and, be aware that all of the H2O in the atmosphere is actually liquid vapor nanodroplets, not gaseous H2O [this is important because H2O thermal elasticity only exists in the liquid phase]). This mechanism of constant movement is the proximate mechanism of H2O’s thermal elasticity, what is referred to as its heat capacity.

    Due to a mistake made by Linus Pauling, science is largely confused about the exact nature of both the thermal and structural elasticity of H2O:
    Pauling’s Omission
    https://youtu.be/iIQSubWJeNg

    James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Alan Stewart

    |

    Thanks James,
    Okay, let’s put this into an almost y/n question. Global AIR temps have increased over the last century. All agree on that. Therefore has the increased AIR temperature increased the ocean(s) temperature??
    Mea culpa as my end thrust is Vis a Vis, ‘coral bleaching.” Comprendo amigo?
    Hasta

    Reply

  • Avatar

    jerry krause

    |

    Hi Alan,

    You concluded: HOW???? To understand, search the net and all you will get are BLANK statements from Alarmists devoid of numerical or mechanical data. Refute their statements.

    I believe that the measured temperatures of the NOAA’s USCRN and other US government financed observational project, as briefly reviewed in (https://principia-scientific.com/record-temperature-result-of-cloud-revised-updated/) do refute the reasoning of the Alarmists when the ground surfaces are solids. So why do you not consider this has been done? If actual measured data such as this, what do you propose could refute according to your understanding of the possible methods by which a wrong idea of science might be refuted.

    I believe that averaged temperatures of a day, a week, a month, a year, a decade, a century, etc. are not valid actual measurements; so why do I believe that averaged hourly temperatures, as reviewed in Fig. 1 of the referenced posting, are valid actual measurements, There is an obvious practical problem associated with measuring a rapidly variable dynamic variable such as air temperatures and surface ‘skin’ temperatures that is not involved in measuring soil temperatures, which have been observed to not fluctuate near as rapidly as air and surface temperatures do. This practical problem is too many numbers.

    For while the USCRN project calculates the average of the air and surface temperatures measured during the previous hour, they also report two actual temperatures (the maximum and the minimum) of the previous hour.

    However, I admit the fact that the earth’s ‘water’ surface is much greater than its ‘land’ surface. So what is lacking for a convincing proof is data for the earth’s water surfaces. Now, I as I review what more of Geraint’s posting I see there is need of a diferent separate comment at this point.

    Have a good day, Jerry

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Alan Stewart

    |

    Okay Jer,
    My question is totally separate from Geraint’s. Rephrase below.
    Has ‘coral bleaching’ of late been increased by an increase in global AIR temperature, natural or otherwise? Or, broadly, can increases in (essentially global) AIR temperatures increase global ocean temperatures? Essentially y/n question.

    Tata

    Reply

    • Avatar

      jerry krause

      |

      Hi Alan,

      Why do attempt to change the focus of my comments about the relationship of air temperature to skin (surface) temperature to solar radiation. My wife constantly reminds me it is direct solar radiation which bleaches the colors of fabrics and I believe her because I have evidence of this on a shirt or two or more of this observed fact. And I have read there are two schools of thought about this different issue which I have little knowledge because I admit I have not studied it as I have studied the data which clearly relates to the issue the differences between air temperature and surface temperatures and soil temperatures at the depths of 5, 10, 20, 50, and 100cm.

      Despite your command, my answer is not yes or no but that I do not know. I suspect it is possible you might not be too familiar with the words: I do not know.

      Have a good day, Jerry

      Reply

  • Avatar

    James McGinn

    |

    Alan,
    My answer is no. Due to the abundance of H2O on this planet and its high heat capacity the oceans have much greater impact on the AVERAGE temperature of the atmosphere than vise versa.
    James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Alan Stewart

      |

      Thanks Mac,
      First time I’ve had a simple answer without pages of formulas. I am a Deplorable, with little science but innate mechanical sensibilites. My question is parallel to Phil Jones and Kevin Trenberth and the ‘re-radiation or downwelling’ theory diagram that defies the basic principle of Convection. I’m wandering a bit here but the mass or density of the ocean vs the same in the atmosphere may be considered. Nick Schroeder related the dynamics of movement (flux?) re fluid and electrical systems being driven by a differential in pressure. A thought!!
      ‘One step for mankind,’ Destroy the Alarmists.

      Ciao

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Alan Stewart

    |

    Not intended as a command. Sorry you interpreted it in that manner. I don’t know is a great answer that many do not have the backbone to quote. Kudos. Do you know of anyone in your scientific coterie that may be able to answer is the next logical question in my search.
    Cheers

    Reply

  • Avatar

    jerry krause

    |

    Hi Alan and Geraint,

    Geraint, in Watery Planet Diagram 1, reviewed data involving Optical Energy Depth Solar Absorption Levels. First, I wonder how many readers look at this diagram and assume that the intensity of the light of each color has the same intensity at the base depth of each column as it has at a depth of 1cm. I do not doubt that if a proper instrument were lowered to the base depth of each color, that it will detect some light of that color. But, neither do I doubt, if the instrument were lowered another meter, that no light of that color would be detected by the instrument.

    From this diagram we cannot determine the intensity of each color of the solar radiation, incident upon the surface of the water. To do this we must look at Watery Planet Diagram 2, which compares the energy absorbed by atmosphere with the energy at sea level with the energy absorbed by water (yellow). Upon study, the first thing I see is that a majority of this energy is absorbed in the upper 1 meter of the water. So I ask: Should we not be able to measure the temperature of this water at the depths of 5, 10, 20, 50, and 100cm as is done for the earth’s solid ground? I would be very interested to at least to see if there were a diurnal temperature oscillation similar to that observed in the case of the ground.

    Possibly it has been done and I have not yet found where I might access this data just as was the case less than a year ago when I was totally unaware of NOAA’s USCRN project’s data. One thing I know is that all the energy, labeled in diagram 2 as having been absorbed by the atmosphere, has not been absorbed by the atmosphere. For if there isn’t another glitch, we know a good portion of the infrared is not absorbed beyond a depth of 0.01m (1cm). And I know that no infrared beyond wavelengths of 0.9 micrometers (900nanometers) for comparison with diagram 1) is shown to penetrate the surface skin because it must be so strongly absorbed by this surface skin as the ground surface skin so strongly absorbs all solar radiation and simultaneously emits it. Of course, I do not believe all that I read and see in the diagrams. I much prefer to study actually measured temperatures and base my understanding upon such data.

    Have a good day, Jerry

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Geraint Hughes

      |

      Temperatures at various depths have already been measured by various people. There are many studies which show various results and how they achieved them using various methods. The example I have used is at diagram 4, this gives a good general indication of intensities of absorption and it drops off the deeper down you go until absorption is complete at 1000 metres and energy can only be transferred by conduction and water movement and not input from radiant absorption.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Alan Stewart

    |

    Okay ‘Physicist’ or ‘Me’ as you started out your tirade yesterday. What is your name and your website with ‘thousands’ of acolytes slavish to your every word? What are you, an Alarmist or a Skeptic as the modern politics of AGW are termed?? If you are part of the latter group then kindly use the scientific method and rebut with science not vitriol. When I read your words the name Maxine Waters comes to mind.
    My name is Alan Lee Stewart. Address 264 Grantham Av. #511, St Catharines ON Canada L2M 5B5 289 438 2281 [email protected]
    Put up or kindly shut up. Use some good manners to Geraint and all of us.
    Cheers

    Reply

    • Avatar

      jerry krause

      |

      Hi Alan,

      I believe his initials are DC and I believe you just invited him to tell you are wrong, wrong if disagree with any he states.

      Have a good day, Jerry

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Alan Stewart

        |

        Jer,
        Unprintable with what I can come up with DC. I wrote John O a few hours back and mentioned, I guess, DC. He started last night and I think John shut him down. Jerry, listen very carefully. There is an internecine war going on with Skeptics and John pointed this out to me quite a while ago. Scientific Egos with Skeptics are performing an internal Divide and Conquer and the winner is, wait for it, THE ALARMISTS.
        You and Schroeder, Siddons, Olson, Johnson, Schrueder, Dalker et al are only doing an ‘old boy’s network.’ Get together. Agree and ATTACK THE CLIMATISTAS.
        THEY ARE YOUR ENEMY.
        SIMPLE and Cheers

        Reply

        • Avatar

          jerry krause

          |

          Hi Alan,

          For your information I am out of the loop because John O tells me I do not know how to write. But maybe it also has something to do with what I write. Of course, comments still are free game. And do enjoy comments because it becomes more like Galileo’s dialogues when the topic is good. I am still working on ‘The Watery Planet Effect’ because it seems I may have gotten a bit lost because there is so much in which to get lost. Have copied the posting in hopes I can keep things straight. Again, I have read few efforts to understand this topic which must be important because 70% or so of the earth’s surface is water. But again, I consider one must start with what happens during one 24hr period given a cloudless sky. For it seems that an ocean surfaces are far more uniform than the diverse land surfaces are. But I wonder how many mixed layers are totally devoid of macro particles of life which maybe be capable of scattering radiation as condensation nuclei and larger cloud particles are in the atmosphere.

          Have a good day, Jerry

          Reply

  • Avatar

    jerry krause

    |

    Hi Alan and Geraint,

    First Alan, I had clearly misread what I claimed was your command. Sorry!

    Geraint, I have finally read your entire effort and I finally questioned, as you have, what happens to visible radiation transmitted through the surface skin into the ocean depths (whether the depth is a cm or a meter or ten meters. So, I should thank you for the post which has obviously caused me to ponder and the responses to my comments that you have made

    And I have just reviewed what I have written and I cannot find something I had written but as I composed and edited, did not get submitted. It was relative to the penetration of the visible solar to the ocean depths. It seemed clear that you not considering that there were no macroscopic ‘solid’ particles in the water which might scatter the visible radiation as clouds in the atmosphere scatter the solar radiation. Which reduces the quantity of the solar radiation which reaches the surface. And I had considered these macroscopic could be ‘organic’ particles.

    However, I did not ask myself the question at that time: How did these organic particles get there? Nor, evidently you did not ask yourself this question because you never considered that the water contained anything but water and dissolved minerals (sea water). You have totally ignored the flora produced by the visible radiation via photosynthesis and this flora clearly is stored chemical (I guess you could say latent) energy. Now I have no idea of what portion of the transmitted visible energy is converted to this stored chemical energy. Of course, it might be said that it is ignored when we consider the land based radiation-absorption system but I consider plants to be part of the surface but it is a fact the energy of the solar radiation that they store is not considered in any radiation balance calculation that I have studied.

    But I suspect agricultural scientists have studied how the absorption of the incident solar radiation by plants must limit their production of ‘biomass’ during the growing season.

    Geraint, you have made this property of matter termed ‘andemissivity’ a central variable of your analysis. Based upon experiences I know this property of matter is seldom considered (studied) by the bulk of the scientific community and it is a foreign term to them. And you are certainly correct that its consideration cannot be avoided as we study the earth-atmosphere-sun radiation system.

    I am learning the value of keeping my comments brief to allow other to make comments relative what I have brought to their attentions and what they have seen but not yet shared. Hopefully, this exchange of comments about the topic of your posting will go on and on because the topic is critically important to correcting the wrong idea which we see is obviously hindering humans’ effort to obtain to a better life (jobs, food, warmth, coolness, housing, etc. etc.). Your posting is an excellent format to work from.

    Have a good day, Jerry

    Reply

  • Avatar

    jerry krause

    |

    Hi James, Alan, and Geraint,

    James and I have had extended differences of opinions about our respective knowledge about water. As evidence by his closing statement: “Due to a mistake made by Linus Pauling, science is largely confused about the exact nature of both the thermal and structural elasticity of H2O:”

    I just received a 1990 edition of textbook about Descriptive Physical Oceanography by George L Pickard and William J Emery. In the 3rd chapter, Physical Properties of Sea-Water, pp 13, in Section 3.2, Properties of Pure Water, I read: “The polar nature of the water molecule causes it to form polymer-like chains of up to eight molecules. A certain amount of energy goes into linking these molecules which explains the ocean’s ability to absorb heat energy which then may be transported by currents. This aspect of the ocean plays an important, but poorly understood, role in the interaction between sea and atmosphere and the determination of the global climate.”

    The next paragraph in Section 3.2 continued: “As water is heated, molecular activity increases and thermal expansion occurs. At the same time, added energy is available for the formation of molecular chains whose alignment causes the water to shrink. The combination of these effects results in pure water having a maximum density at 4C rather than at its freezing point. In sea-water, these molecular effects are overshadowed by the presence of salt which affects the density as described in Section 3.52.”

    It seems these authors are not even aware of Linus Pauling and his contribution to physical chemistry by his idea of hydrogen bonding between water molecules and certain other molecules where a hydrogen atom is bonded to an oxygen, nitrogen, or fluorine atom in these certain molecules.
    (This wording might not be accurate enough for some but at the moment it is the best that I can ponder.)

    And a fact is James has yet to describe to me what he considers Pauling’s mistake was. But he has just previously written: “H2O is the source of all of the thermal elasticity on our planet and is also the source of all of the structural elasticity that makes life possible. And it all has to do with the fact that on the molecular level the more comprehensively H2O molecules are bonded to each other the more the polar force that maintains these bonds are neutralized, all the way down to zero.”

    I do not expect a general reader to understand much of what has been just reviewed. But near the beginning of the author’s preface they wrote: “The present text is an attempt to supply information … at a level suitable as an introduction for graduate students, for undergraduates in the sciences and possibly for senior school students who wish to learn something of the aims and achievements in the field of scientific study.”

    So, James I must apologize for considering your ideas were really off the wall for it seems plain that you must have studied chemistry from similar professors and textbooks as Pickard and Emery did.

    James, I have to ask: Was Pauling’s mistake that he reasoned that eight water molecules formed a quite rigid 3-dimensional cage instead of an elastic chain of up to eight water molecules?

    I will stop here in hopes that James will answer this question while Alan and Geraint ponder what I have just reviewed.

    I assure anyone that we are actually considering very elementary, but ‘new’, ideas which need serious consideration. This does not mean that this consideration will lead to a grand, new understanding. For we might find it is a dead-end street.

    Have a good day, Jerry

    Reply

  • Avatar

    James McGinn

    |

    Jerry,
    Go to YouTube and do a search for these two videos:
    Pauling’s Omission: The Original Sin of the Natural Sciences
    Are You Confused About Hydrogen Bonding In Water?

    Reply

    • Avatar

      jerry krause

      |

      Hi James,

      I am not confused about hydrogen bonding in water so I will pass. And and I have stated before that if you cannot state in a sentence or two what the origin sin made by Pauling was, I am not interested.

      And I must admit that I must be wrong about what I have just proposed might have been Pauling omission. But I’ve wrong before many times, so no big deal.

      Have a good day, Jerry

      Reply

      • Avatar

        James McGinn

        |

        The problem with jerry is the details.

        Water is complex.

        You cant understand weather until you first understand vortices and you cabt understabd vortices until you understand water

        You cant understand water until you understand Paulings omission

        So you are trapped

        Reply

        • Avatar

          jerry krause

          |

          Hi James,

          Interesting what you wrote. I have again just been pondering why so many keep stating that weather is complex and hence climate is complex. I have concluded this must be because many of these same people claim to understand that which is so complex and they want the nitwits (I seem to remember you have used this word) to see how intelligent you are to understand this complex topic.

          On the other hand, men like Newton and Einstein seem to it claim must be somewhat simple for them to understand what some of us agree today that they clearly understood. Now both of them warned about the hazard of making things too simple. Einstein stated this most directly. “Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.” But I conclude that Newton said the same thing in other words (and I have to trust that Motte accurately translated Newton’s Latin). “We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.”

          Have a good day, Jerry

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Jim McGinn

            |

            Jerry,

            I suggest you save your speech for how simple it is until after you have presented a hypothesis on storms. and atmospheric flow.

            Put up or shut up.

            James McGinn
            Solving Tornadoes

      • Avatar

        James McGinn

        |

        Jerry
        After you have resolved the numerous anomalies of H2O you can tell us how unconfused you are about H bonding in H2O. Untol then I will considet you a nuisance and a fool.

        Reply

  • Avatar

    jerry krause

    |

    Hi Geraint Hughes and Alan Stewart,

    Geraint, I put your name first this time because you started this conversation with your posting and you responded to my comments. Alan, in the past we have had conversations and I forget about what the specific topics were.

    I write this at 2am because earlier in bed I had what I consider a revelation. It was that I and other chemists seldom have actually studied ‘pure’ water. This because of Pickard and Emery’s introductory oceanography textbook which I had ordered a couple of weeks ago (cost less than $4 at Abe’s Books) and had just after I was beginning to read Geraint’s posting and making comments.

    I consider that we (I am a physical chemist) have not commonly studied pure water because all the atmospheric gases (major and trace) are soluble to some extent or other in liquid water which we consider to be the universal solvent.

    I doubt, but do not know, if either of you have read Galileo’s Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences as translated by Crew and de Salvio. I doubt this because I had not read until after I was about 55 and ending my career as a chemistry instructor. So, I consider it unlikely that you know that this book had three principal characters. If I am correct about this, than it is unlikely you know that the three of us (Geraint, Alan, and I) have begun to naturally write a book as we try to better understand weather and its average which is termed climate. Which is being published as we write.

    So, this comment is to urge both of you to keep on fearlessly making your comments. For our book is far from completed.

    I will begin to compost my next comment about how it is that chemists have not likely studied pure water. But I will wait to submit it until each of you write that you are interested in going forward in writing this book with your brief comments.

    Have a good day, Jerry .

    Reply

    • Avatar

      John O'Sullivan

      |

      Jerry, Well said – pleasing to witness intelligent and insightful commentary among you all.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Alan Stewart

        |

        Hi John,
        You might have fun with my latest ‘intelligent’ (???) post. You might understand that a lot of people have a great deal of enjoyment replying. If you go into the political ones such as Canada Free Press, Washington Times et al you can see upwards of 500 posts. Its like a daily ‘Gunfight at the O.K. Corrall,’ in comparision to PSI and CCD where shots of anger are very rare. Civilized.
        Cheers

        Reply

    • Avatar

      Alan Stewart

      |

      Gents, ‘last men standing’ or how ever you want to term it. See John O’ comment below. This is what this is all about, THINKING. I view this as the possibility of SYNERGY. If you take the Scientific Method and take it in its purest intent the word in caps above is what it should create. It is about people working together for a common cause. It is about critiques not criticisms.
      Right near the top I think post #2 from ‘Me’ pasted below and my answer.

      This article contains absolute garbage. That is NOT how the ocean is warmed. It is not primarily radiation that maintains surface temperatures on Earth (land or ocean) let alone on Venus

      Answer: The only source of earth’s ‘warmth’ comes from electro magnetic radiation from the Sun. That is what ‘maintains’ the temperature of terra and oceania. Surface temps are in a constant state of negative flux from convection. If there is another source of energy that heats the oceans 97% of all scientists would love to know about it.

      Cheers all

      Reply

      • Avatar

        James McGinn

        |

        Alan,

        You appear rather naïve. Convection is not a scientifically sound concept. It has never been measured or tested. It was originally introduced as a conjecture. It has since become “truth” the same way CO2 forcing became “truth”: consensus. The atmospheric sciences are thick with tradition and consensus based BS.

        Much of science is coming out of a kind of dark ages involving the dominance of gravity to explaining anything and everything. Being very small and light, the particles in the atmosphere are much more greatly effected by the electric charges in the atmosphere than they are by differences in weight. Simple concepts like this are way over the heads of the conservatively motivated pretenders here on PSI. These electric charges enter the atmosphere as a consequence of the solar wind and also from our own planet as a result of the thermionic effect (look it up).

        Brain-dead simple observations is all it takes to completely refute convection in the atmosphere. For example, indisputably clouds are heavier than the surrounding air. But do clouds call out of the sky? No, they float. Why do they float? Because the particles and H2O nanodroplets in the clouds are much more effected by the other particles and the electric charges thereof than they are by differences in gravity.

        Convection is believed no because their is any evidence that confirms it but because of a lack of political will to challenge tradition.

        The atmospheric sciences are greatly effected by dumbed down models championed by traditional meteorology to placate the public.

        PSI’s motivations are not altruistically scientific as much as they are fiscal. The reason these conservative pundits of global warming have come out of the wood work is not because they are scientifically high minded and intellectually competent. It’s because global warming involved money coming out of their pockets.

        James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Alan Stewart

          |

          Howdy Mac,
          I will gladly say, and have before, that my knowledge of science is not my intellectual forte (if there is any? LOL), Two answers and the first is that you’re going to get a massive argument from millions of people re your dismissal of the word (theory) of ‘convection.’
          All you are saying may be absolutely correct but you must also understand the nuances of definition understanding. Convection does exist as the word is defined.
          Convection is the circular motion that happens when warmer air or liquid — which has faster moving molecules, making it less dense — rises, while the cooler air or liquid drops down. Convection is a major factor in weather.
          Hadley and Ferrel cells have been measured along with the Coriolis effect and resultant advection. Will you dispute the theory that warm air ascends and cold air descends, as well?? I searched thoroughly for the thermionic effect and could not find a single reference to earth’s atmosphere.
          Your statements re air being affected by electric charges bears credibility to be further examined as follows. My mechanical aptitude questions that that is the driving force of atmospheric movements in toto. I think that all reading would be interested if you would elucidate further on the above.
          Answer two re motivations. En brève mon frère, PSI is not politically chaste but neither are Gore, Mann, Jones, Hansen et al. AGW and CC are 97% (# used purposely) politics. PSI by its legal organizational mandate must keep its publications scientific in nature and not political. Anthony Watts and Marc Morano are making a decent buck but I guarantee John O’Sullivan can’t afford property in the Knightsbridge or Kensington areas from PSI remuneration.
          I speak in sotto voce, let’s keep this to science, please and thank you.
          Cheers

          Reply

          • Avatar

            James McGinn

            |

            Howdy Mac,
            I will gladly say, and have before, that my knowledge of science is not my intellectual forte (if there is any? LOL), Two answers and the first is that you’re going to get a massive argument from millions of people re your dismissal of the word (theory) of ‘convection.’

            JMcG:
            Consensus is for fools. Fools tend to dismiss evidence that contradicts their beliefs. There is a wealth of evidence that should make an intelligent person skeptical of consensus notions like convection, but people are sheep.

            Alan, in the passage that you responded to I pointed out an observation that contradicted convection. You completely ignored it in your response. Can you explain why?

            All you are saying may be absolutely correct but you must also understand the nuances of definition understanding. Convection does exist as the word is defined.

            JMcG:
            Does it. Are the water droplets in clouds not heavier than the clear air that surrounds the clouds? Why do clouds float?

            Take note of how you just sidestepped the contradictory evidence and now you are telling us that you know when the truth is you don’t know. You believe.

            Convection is the circular motion that happens when warmer air or liquid — which has faster moving molecules, making it less dense — rises, while the cooler air or liquid drops down.

            JMcG:
            This is just a poor excuse for anecdotal BS. You can’t fxxking see convection. You just fxxking can’t. Convection is believed because there are millions upon millions of fools who all look up at the sky and pretend they can see it.

            Convection is a major factor in weather.

            JMcG:
            Bullshit. Vortices (Which are abundant in the tropopause, trending toward the jet streams) are the cause of all uplift witnessed in storms. It literally has nothing to do with convection. Vortices introduce low pressure high in the troposphere, channeled from jet stream. This is what causes uplift.

            Hadley and Ferrel cells have been measured along with the Coriolis effect and resultant advection

            JMcG:
            No. You are fibbing. Believers always fib. The truth is that Hadley cells and Ferrel cells ARE JUST Fricking observations!!! Nobody has ever measured any of this shit. Admit that you really don’t know or support your assertion,

            Will you dispute the theory that warm air ascends and cold air descends, as well??

            JMcG:
            Yes, it is a completely retarded claim totally refuted by abundant evidence. The vast majority of the warm air on this planet is withing 150 feet of the surface–exactly the opposite of what your dimwitted theory predicts!!!

            Here’s another observation that refutes the brain-dead convection myth. The vast majority of warm moist air on this planet occurs along the equator, where the storms are gentle. The most violent and long lasting storms happen at the poles, where there is almost zero evaporation and little moisture in the air. Exactly the opposite would be the case if the dimwitted convection model was valid.

            I searched thoroughly for the thermionic effect and could not find a single reference to earth’s atmosphere.

            JMcG:
            Don’t worry about that. Worry about the fact that you believe something that has never been tested or measured.

            Your statements re air being affected by electric charges bears credibility to be further examined as follows.

            My mechanical aptitude questions that that is the driving force of atmospheric movements in toto.

            JMcG:
            I never said it was. Vortices are the driving force of atmosopheric movement. (Advection is a notion that appeal to fools.)

            I think that all reading would be interested if you would elucidate further on the above.

            JMcG:
            The source of the low pressure (and gusty winds) of storms is the jet streams.

            Answer two re motivations. En brève mon frère, PSI is not politically chaste but neither are Gore, Mann, Jones, Hansen et al. AGW and CC are 97% (# used purposely) politics. PSI by its legal organizational mandate must keep its publications scientific in nature and not political. Anthony Watts and Marc Morano are making a decent buck but I guarantee John O’Sullivan can’t afford property in the Knightsbridge or Kensington areas from PSI remuneration.
            I speak in sotto voce, let’s keep this to science, please and thank you.

            You missed my point. I wasn’t talking about PSI or any skeptic making money on AGW. I was talking about the fact that most AGW skeptics are just a dull-witted as are AGW proponents in that they are only skeptical because of the taxation implications associated with AGW. They are not genuinely motivated by the science.

        • Avatar

          Zoe Phin

          |

          Jerry,
          Clouds are mostly water vapor, which has a molecular mass of 18. N2 and O2 have a mass of 28 and 32, respectively. That’s why clouds don’t fall. Glad I could help. -Zoe

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            I meant James, not Jerry.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            James,
            There is no content in your link aside from your baseless assertions. Don’t reference yourself in a debate as proof.

          • Avatar

            James McGinn

            |

            James,
            There is no content in your link aside from your baseless assertions. Don’t reference yourself in a debate as proof.

            Zoe, have you considered the possibility that you are part of a group delusion?

          • Avatar

            James McGinb

            |

            Zoe
            The reason you cant formulate an argumebt is because you are confused. Why dont you be hobest with yourdekf that you really dont get it. Dovyou believe in cold steam?

  • Avatar

    jerry krause

    |

    Hi Alan,

    In one comment you wrote: “It is about critiques not criticisms.” Then shortly after this I read: “This article contains absolute garbage.” Is a critique? I searched for Venus. And you are the only one who wrote it in this posting and its comments, so I am totally confused about what you wrote.

    Asked you and Geraint to participate in a conversation (dialogue) with me because Geraint’s post is not absolute garbage. I am still trying to remember who else as tackled this important topic as Geraint has. I have no idea as what his experiences have been but. But while I question-“These types of solar surfaces can increase their solar absorbance without affecting their thermal emissivity and can create temperatures as high as 600 Cº using just solar energy”–I am very curious about what I consider Geraint knows and I do not. For I am aware that lenses can be coated to improve their performance while I know nothing about how this is done. So I see this could be an opportunity to learn something which I didn’t know.

    But Alan, what you just wrote fits exactly in the book I consider we three or four or any number could write by making comments about the posting and comments which had previously been made.

    And I would really like to learn how many besides myself as actually read Galileo’s book to which has been often referred but as in my case, not read for the long, long time I actually had opportunity to read it.

    We should not ignore the fact that Galileo was a man who put his life on the line to simply share with others his ideas. Just as we should not forget those who died to give us freedom to do what we are doing. This freedom still does not exist everywhere.

    Have a good day, Jerry

    Reply

  • Avatar

    James McGinn

    |

    Jerry:
    I doubt, but do not know, if either of you have read Galileo’s Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences as translated by Crew and de Salvio. I doubt this because I had not read until after I was about 55 and ending my career as a chemistry instructor. So, I consider it unlikely that you know that this book had three principal characters. If I am correct about this, than it is unlikely you know that the three of us (Geraint, Alan, and I) have begun to naturally write a book as we try to better understand weather and its average which is termed climate. Which is being published as we write.

    JMcG:
    I haven’t read it but I have skimmed it aggressively and even paraphrased it in the first chapter of my book which is available on Amazon:
    https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=james+Mcginn

    Reply

  • Avatar

    jerry krause

    |

    Hi James,

    “I haven’t read it … and even paraphrased it in the first chapter of my book.”

    Sounds just like you and you are certainly consistent.

    The reason I quote so much is I do not want to paraphrase and thereby write something that the original author did not intend.

    Have a good day, Jerry

    Reply

  • Avatar

    jerry krause

    |

    Hi James,

    If I present my hypothesis for the formation of hurricanes or their counterparts, typhoons, will you go away? I doubt it. For a critical factor of my hypothesis is individual water molecules and you claim there are no such thing in the atmosphere. So I begin with the impossible according to you.

    I begin with two D’s which receive scant attention. One D is diffusion (a mechanism or phenomenon). The other is doldrums (a location and a condition). For current elementary information I use used introductory meteorology textbooks by Donald Ahrens (DA) and co-authors Steven Ackerman and John Knox (AK).

    Doldrums: Regions of nearly calm winds near the equator. (AK) The region near the equator that is characterized by low pressure and light, shifting winds (DA) But as I read I get a little confused because there are also regions which DA terms the horse latitudes: The belt of latitude at about 30 deg to 35 deg. where winds are predominantly light and weather is hot and dry.(DA) And it is common knowledge that this belt of latitudes is where sailing ships of old threw the horses overboard when the ship became becalmed for long periods of time and the fresh water supply began to run low. But I will go with the doldrums because the horse latitudes are described as being dry. Which implies to me that there must be something which carries the water molecules, which must evaporate from the hot ocean surface away, so that the surface humidity does not build up as it does nearer the equator.

    In a doldrum region of significant extent there is no where for the water molecules to go except up as the water molecules tries to fill the space above. We know that this tendency to fill the space above the surface is resisted by gravity. Except, water molecules are the least massive of the troposphere’s molecules. so the the gravitation ‘pull’ on them is less than that on the nitrogen and oxygen molecules. Also, we know that water molecules, being less massive, have average speeds significantly greater than that of the other molecules. Hence, they are capable of diffusing upward through the other air molecules but not at there average speed because of the collisions which will occur with the other air molecules which are also randomly moving in all directions also. This random, upward net, movement of the water molecules through the other air molecules is the phenomenon of diffusion.

    I will await your decision to accept that the ‘water vapor’ of the atmosphere is actually individual water molecules, it makes no sense for me to continue.

    Have a good day, Jerry

    Reply

  • Avatar

    jerry krause

    |

    August 25, 2018 at 9:31 pm | #
    Jerry,
    Put up or shut up.
    James McGinn
    Hi James,

    I have put up, and you call me a twit because you refuse to accept the hypothesis that evaporates one water molecule at a time and begins to fill the atmosphere with individual water molecules until the atmosphere become saturated at its temperature and more water molecules keep diffusing up because they are being removed from the atmosphere by condensation. My hypothesis absolutely requires that individual molecules of water evaporate into the atmosphere from the ocean surface and the some of the individual molecules continue to exist in the atmosphere in order to have an average speed greater than that of nitrogen or oxygen molecules through which they are diffusing upward.

    Please do not call anyone a twit for it proves you have nothing more intelligent to say.

    Have a good day, Jerry

    Reply

    • Avatar

      James McGinn

      |

      You don’t have a hypothesis you lying POS.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    James McGinn

    |

    You dont have the socratic thing going on in your mind that i have

    You are lucky
    You are simple
    And you are completely clueless about storms

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Jim mcginn

    |

    So Jerry, you are saying we should just believe H2O becomes gaseous below its boiling temperature/pressure?

    Do you not trust the steam tables?

    Why?

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Alan Stewart

      |

      Ah yes, the 21st century scientific method full of pejoratives and ad hominen attacks. Its eerily similar to the U.S. politics of today.
      Kudos Jim for a straight question within science. This column is designed for and exchange of ideas ONLY.
      Cheers

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Alan Stewart

    |

    To James Mcginn: system failed with reply function. With luck you will get below.
    Hi Mac,
    Apples and oranges and circular rebuttals. Let’s get on the same page. You’re talking re your area of expertise, extreme weather events. I talking, actually asking, about AGW theories from the Alarmists which I am SKEPTICAL of. I am skeptical as I cannot, search as I may, find numerical data confirming their supposed CONSENSUAL theories. At least from PSI, CCD, WUWT and others I get extensive scientific rebuttals within the, as termed, scientific method. I do not blithely or ovinely BELIEVE.
    Now, tongue in cheek, questions. Do you consider an equatorial storm, a hurricane, as being gentle? When was the last violent and long lasting north or south polar weather event Vis a Vis, the gentle equatorial storms??
    As an aside I remember a weather event in Missouri about 40 years ago. I was going home to 43N/79W and was caught close to a tornado event. I’m used to thunderstorms but this was the most visibly powerful weather event I ever experienced. Best described, ‘Mother Nature’ is a malignant bitch at times. I’ve also been told that the latitude line just south of Lake Ontario produces a consistent series of major thunderstorms with only two or three other areas worldwide equal to that. I can understand your interest in these types of events.
    Cheers
    P.S. I disagree. I think that PSI, Ball, Johnson, Schreuder, Siddons, Olson, O’Sullivan and the rest care about the science first. They primarily survive on donations and certainly not from the Seven Sisters as Willie Soon has been accused of.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    James McGinn

    |

    Alan,
    You thought you understood convection. You thought that when you see uplift in thunderstorms you were seeing convection. You thought you saw but actually you just believed.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Alan Stewart

      |

      James old bean, old sock, understand,
      Somewhere around the late 50s the word convection was implanted in my mental lexicon. That storm in Missouri: It was awesome and I parked under a highway overpass and watched and the word convection never entered my mind. Around 1990 I sat on the porch of a house on the Niagra river, facing east and watched, fascinated for hours, the thunderstorm pods passing. The power, the power of lighting and the power of thunder awed me and the word convection never entered my mind. All I saw in both instances were LOW hanging cloud masses, (Uplift ???) clinging to the earth. Let me put it this way. ‘Old Blood and Guts,’ Georgie Patton qutoed: ‘All human endeavours pale in comparision to war.’
      I assume that he would understand the power of nature and quote in parallel.

      Now, ladidie answer my questions. Are Hurricanes GENTLE STORMS? As a question, please (a la Tony Heller) supply the information re the violent , long lasting polar storms that you alluded to.

      I respect your obvious intelligence and education but, here we go, you don’t sound much different from somebody else in this thread.

      Educate me! Do not diss me. Do you understand???
      Regards, and I use that salutation with respect, not a light trite mindless salutation.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        jerry krause

        |

        Hi Alan,

        I am having trouble getting another comment to you being successfully submitted. But I found this comment which I cannot remember having read before. Pure Carnegie, but did it work?.

        Have a good day, Jerry

        Reply

  • Avatar

    James McGinn

    |

    AS:
    James old bean, old sock, understand,
    Somewhere around the late 50s the word convection was implanted in my mental lexicon.

    JMcG:
    You and everybody else had this pseudoscientific notion implanted in our minds by unscrupulous pretenders who call themselves meteorologists.

    AS:
    That storm in Missouri: It was awesome and I parked under a highway overpass and watched and the word convection never entered my mind. Around 1990 I sat on the porch of a house on the Niagra river, facing east and watched, fascinated for hours, the thunderstorm pods passing. The power, the power of lighting and the power of thunder awed me and the word convection never entered my mind. All I saw in both instances were LOW hanging cloud masses, (Uplift ???) clinging to the earth. Let me put it this way. ‘Old Blood and Guts,’ Georgie Patton qutoed: ‘All human endeavours pale in comparision to war.’
    I assume that he would understand the power of nature and quote in parallel.

    JMcG:
    Did God come out of the sky and tell you that you were witnessing convection? If not, then how do you know you were witnessing convection?

    AS:
    Now, ladidie answer my questions. Are Hurricanes GENTLE STORMS?

    JMcG:
    There is no convection in a hurricane–or any storm.

    AS:
    As a question, please (a la Tony Heller) supply the information re the violent , long lasting polar storms that you alluded to.
    I respect your obvious intelligence and education but, here we go, you don’t sound much different from somebody else in this thread.
    Educate me! Do not diss me. Do you

    JMcG:
    Okay. I will educate you. You observed a storm. You did not observe convection. Observation is one PART of the scientific method. You yourself attributed the notion of convection to what you were watching. You did not test for convection. Sorry.

    Take note of how emotional you are becoming. Take a step back and look at yourself and ask yourself, “why am I becoming emotional about a notion that has never actually been measured or tested?

    AS:
    Regards, and I use that salutation with respect, not a light trite mindless salutation.

    JMcG:
    Don’t get emotional. Be honest about the fact that the scientific basis for your belief that storms involve convection has no empirical basis.

    Reply

Leave a comment

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