Towards a rational climate change model – part 3
A remarkable feature of the ‘climate emergency’ movement is the manner in which it conflates many separate things into just one or two.
I mentioned in part 1 that the word ‘climate’ used to refer to an array of factors within a region, including typical seasonal variations, wind, precipitation and vegetation.
The exquisite beauty of Planet Earth and the night sky has entranced us for generation after generation and inspired questions together with the search for answers.
From a human and cultural perspective the modern trend is very sad, to gloss over richness and variety and reduce it to bland averages and sameness. If all the earth’s rich variety is reduced to just one or two factors, it’s no wonder that those who are caught up in the ‘global warming’ agenda feel that there is nothing left to talk about. The degree of conflation to be found is breathtaking. It looks like this:
- Planet Earth faces a problem: atmospheric warming. The problem is so big that it overwhelms everything else (although occasionally plastic gets a look in).
- There is only one cause: “human activity”.
- There is only one route by which human activity is causing such warming: the release of carbon dioxide by burning fossil fuels.
Here is a typical statement from a member of the public who has accepted this position:-
“I personally believe very strongly in what I regard as the overwhelmingly convincing scientific evidence that is available for human induced atmospheric warming, so while I will always try to respond to any questions or information you may have, I too am somewhat reluctant to enter into what might be described as a debate, because I genuinely do not think there is a debate to be had. Those days, in my view, have long since passed.”
In today’s divided world, I cannot bring myself to describe ordinary members of the public who believe in the climate emergency scenario as opponents or enemies. We ought to be friends; we ought to be able to debate and discuss the temperature and the state of the planet and to talk about other things as well. Despite being a realistic and practical sort of person, I’m also an incurable optimist and believe, or hope, or want to see, that friendships between people in opposing camps can be created and retained. Sometimes what we articulate can become reality.
Those of us who perceive some flaws in the arguments presented above – let’s call ourselves “climate realists”- face an uphill battle to bring reasoned and scientific debate into what has become a belief system.
I would like to propose that there is a clear way to do this, however, which is to point to a contradiction between the climate models being used and the problem that such people are worried about. While it might appear to be a rather minor semantic point, it actually opens up huge possibilities and I suggest represents the thin edge of a very large and powerful wedge. As follows:
“Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget” (Kiehl & Trenberth 1997) which is shown above, and all such similar models display, or attempt to display, energy exchanges at the surface of the planet, and what they are attempting to model is annual average surface temperature. However, what our friends on the other side of the argument fear is “atmospheric warming”. All those diagrams, therefore, that depict surface exchanges can be placed in the dustbin. They are modelling the wrong thing. Our friends fear atmospheric warming, so let’s model that instead: the earth together with its atmosphere.
As regards those standard energy models, given the fundamental errors within them with non-scientific terms (such as budget and balance) and non-factual happenings (such as back radiation or radiative forcing which generate heat energy out of nothing) better than the bin, they should be put through the shredder.
A new view and a new model
My proposal is, that rather than model the earth’s surface exchanges, we should model the planet’s surface together with its atmosphere as a single entity. We can create a fresh debate with a change in view, and look again at Planet Earth, properly identified as an open thermodynamic system within the solar system.
Once we start to put numbers on all the sources of energy coming in and the routes by which energy leaves, I suspect that the contribution from ‘human activity’ will be so puny that the ‘climate emergency’ position will become difficult to justify.
In part 4 I track down yet another fundamental flaw within the standard climate change models, while in part 5 I will attempt to put the various energy flows into a logical order, and will invite the readers here to add in the approximate numbers. As proper scientific and rational people, let’s get all the figures together to check up on that prediction.
Also, does anyone have the artistic skill to create eye-catching illustrations that display phenomena such as solar wind, for example, looked at from unusual perspectives? I am hoping for something that is more than a diagram and that begins to give a sense of the vastness of the solar system. If so, would you kindly contact me via John O’Sullivan (email: [email protected])
© Rosie Langridge 21 February 2020. Additional information from David McCobb. Additional clarity from Paul Charles Gregory at thinking-for-clarity.de
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY
Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
geran
| #
“In today’s divided world, I cannot bring myself to describe ordinary members of the public who believe in the climate emergency scenario as opponents or enemies. We ought to be friends; we ought to be able to debate and discuss the temperature and the state of the planet and to talk about other things as well.”
Rosie, you are a child. You do not understand what is going on. You believe evil can be reasoned with. You believe if someone is robbing you, it is your fault. You have a perverted view of reality.
This is your THIRD attempt to provide a new model, yet you are still grasping. You have nothing to offer except rambling, meaningless, “feel-good” musings.
Grow up, learn some science, and get a life.
Reply
Rosie Langridge
| #
Hi Geran
I suggest that you begin at the beginning and re-read what I have said from start to finish carefully, and try reading with the assumption that I am not dumb. If you do so, your assumption will be a better fit to the words in front of your eyes and then you will better understand the words. The people like us, ordinary citizens, are being set at one another’s throats. It is ordinary people who have been brainwashed by the climate alarmists who need to be our friends. These people need to be debrainwashed pdq, and we won’t achieve that by calling them stupid and all the other things that both sides are screaming at one another.
Reply
geran
| #
Rosie, I suggest you reread my comment. You are NOT adding any value to the discussion. You are part of the problem, not part of the solution. The science IS settled. CO2 can NOT raise the temperature of Earth. Folks like you just want to keep the nonsense going.
Get a clue.
Reply
Rosie Langridge
| #
Geran. It does not take long to read what you say. But were you to take the trouble to read what I say you would see that I state clearly that CO2 is not raising the temperature of the earth, and that Newtonian science is settled. I say it again and again.
Reply
geran
| #
That’s wrong!
What you say “again and again” is that you’ve decided to come up with a new model, “Towards A Rational Climate Change Model”. Where were you all the years the IPCC has had their bogus model out?
You betray you own words “Once we start to put numbers on all the sources of energy coming in and the routes by which energy leaves, I suspect that the contribution from ‘human activity’ will be so puny that the ‘climate emergency’ position will become difficult to justify.”
First you only “suspect”, then you “state clearly that CO2 is not raising the temperature of the earth…”
You’re a mess.
Rosie Langridge
| #
Hi everyone
I could do with some extra help in this enterprise. If anyone is an artist or has report-writing skills, produces neat graphs, or generally is interested, please get in touch via John O’Sullivan.
Thanks, Rosie
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Rosie:
Coming up in part 4, I will attempt to put the various energy flows into a logical order, and I would like to invite the readers here to add in the approximate numbers. As proper scientific and rational people, let’s get all the figures together to check up on that prediction.
James:
Well, Rosie, when you are painting wth a broad brush it is easy to deceive yourself into thinking you are making progress. You have not even begun to deal with the complexities that ensue when you try to reconcile all of the different models from all of the different factions/disciplines. You will find that there exists layer upon layer of superstition. false rationality, and group-based delusion.
You have to always remember that you are dealing with humans and humans form deep emotional attachments to narratives such that they will stubbornly abide by the assumptions of their particular narrative even if these assumptions are plainly nonsensical, which is often the case.
The reality is that major factions of science have long ago given up trying to make sense of the atmosphere and have reconciled themselves to simple models that appeal to what people want to believe
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Rosie Langridge
| #
As i said to Geran, I am not deceiving myself. I am just not the sort of person to give in.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Rosie: As i said to Geran, I am not deceiving myself. I am just not the sort of person to give in.
JMcG: Never assume you are not deceiving yourself and you may have a small chance of not deceiving yourself. The deepest delusions in all of science involve H2O. And there is not just one, there are many.
Why Meteorology (Storm Theory) is a Cargo Cult Science
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16613
James McGinn / Genius
Solving Tornadoes: Woke Meteorology
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn
Reply
Tom O
| #
Curious James. What are you afraid of? Afraid someone might have a better idea than none at all? You and Geran make a good pair. One calls her dumb, the other says she’s immature. I think you both ought to sit in the corner with your dunce hats on and let her have at it. And remember James, let me quote you here – never assume you are not deceiving yourself. I think you are. Especially the way you sign your name.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Tom it is human to decieve oneself. It is also very human to believe what everybody believes. Its just that neither of these is scientific. My advice was intended as such–from one scientist to another.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Barry
| #
Rosie to Gerans point I don’t think you are necessarily dumb but obviously naive. As was put to you the science is settled and always has been,the IPCC knew it was wrong when they first came up with it. This isn’t about science it’s about world governance by the UN or Marxism if you want. They don’t want to discuss science that’s why they won’t debate it. This is a political situation that needs a political fix..
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Rosie and PSI Readers,
I have, Part 1, referred you to the data of two USA government funded projects which measure the two fundamental meteorological factors of the air (atmospheric) temperature and the atmospheric dewpoint temperature. A comparison of these two temperatures ‘force’ the conclusion that the measured atmospheric temperature has not been found (outside of possible experimental error) to be lower than the measured atmospheric dewpoint temperature.
This comparison refutes the only prediction, that the temperatures of the atmosphere would be about 33C less than the presently measured atmospheric temperatures, of the theory known as the greenhouse effect of the atmospheric carbon dioxide and other gases (including water molecules) with similar absorption-emission properties.
For it is well known that it is the latent heat of the condensation of water molecules which greatly slows the cooling of the atmosphere once the condensation process begins.
So given the lack of any comment relative to my comment of Part 1, I also ask: Are you aware that observations (measurements) such as these, which refute a prediction of a scientific theory, absolutely refute the proposed scientific theory?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
For it is well known that it is the latent heat of the condensation of water molecules which greatly slows the cooling of the atmosphere once the condensation process begins.
James:
Not only is “latent heat of condensaton of water” not well known it is complete fiction. No such process actually exists.
James McGinn / Genius
Much of Science Involves Models That Have Been Dumbed-Down to Pander to the Public
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Much-of-Science-Involves-Models-That-Have-Been-Dumbed-Down-to-Pander-to-the-Public-e9c1vd
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
Forgot to ask you: How would you explain the measurements that the air temperature is never less than the dew point temperature?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
I can’t make sense of your claim. You seem to be saying that clouds should/are warm (warmer) when they first appear. And you are saying this is the case. You are also saying that there is observational evidence that supports this. I don’t think you have any basis for making this claim. At best you are painting with a broad brush, glossing over relevant details (like differences in pressure/temperature at different altitudes). Beyond that I can’t make much sense of it.
You are jumping to conclusions based on sketchy evidence and glossing over details, as best as I can determine.
James McGinn / Genius
I’m Neither Arrogant Nor Wrong
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Im-Neither-Arrogant-Nor-Wrong-e9iqlk
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
Never said a thing in my comments about air temperature and dew point temperature. Their influence only can become apartment when the air temperature is significantly greater than the air’s dew point temperature being measured near the same location at the same time. I have often referred to this link (https://raws.dri.edu/) where you can find this two fundamental meteorological factors measured and reported for each previous hour at more than a 1000 RAWS weather stations.
So thank you for giving me reason to keep repeating what I have previously written. For it seems you are not the only one who does not recognize the significance of this data its power to absolutely refute the prediction of the scientific theory known as the greenhouse effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide etc.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
Did it again. My first statement should have been: ‘Never said a thing in my comments about “clouds” when I wrote about the comparison of measured air temperatures with measured dew point temperatures.’
Sorry to have confused you, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry, if latent heat of condensation was/is a valid notion then newly formed cloud should be relatively warm. They are not. In fact they are relatively cold. I can explain this resulting cooling as a consequence of the larger droplets of H2O having a greater heat capacity than the smaller nanodroplets from which they form.
Your model predicts the opposite of what is actually observed.
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn
James McGinn / Genius
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
You wrote: “They are not. In fact they are relatively cold.” And you know this how? The cloud as it forms will be at the dew point of the atmosphere in which is forming. Because the formation of droplets of water is what have learned is dew.
Next you wrote: “a consequence of the larger droplets of H2O having a greater heat capacity than the smaller nanodroplets from which they form.” This would depend upon any difference in the composition of the water droplets and the nanodroplets (condensation nuclei on which the water molecules condense.
Then you wrote: “Your model predicts the opposite of what is actually observed.” Tell me what you consider my model to be and what is actually observed. As I seldom read that you describe what is actually observed. And by whom?
Have a good day, Jerry
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
You wrote: “They are not. In fact they are relatively cold.” And you know this how?
James:
From direct experience. Admit it Jerry. You too have experienced clouds being colder, not warmer. Right? Be honest.
Jerry:
The cloud as it forms will be at the dew point of the atmosphere in which is forming.
James:
Right. And meteorology would have us believe that this produces “latent heat.” The notion has never been demonstrated in the laboratory and never been detected in the atmosphere. It is blatant pseudoscience.
You believe it, Jerry, only because you are gullible and are happy to pretend to understand what actually doesn’t make any sense at all.
As is explained more explicitly in my podcast, there are three blatantly pseudo scientific notions that form the mythology of meteorology’s theory of storms, the convection model of storm theory:
1) Moist air convection. This notion is dependent on the impossibility of water turning genuinely gaseous at temperatures far below its boiling temperature/pressure to thereby become lighter than dry air.
2) Dry Layer Capping: The belief in the impossible ability of dry air above to act as a lid, stopping upwelling of “lighter” moist air.
3) Latent heat of condensation: The belief in the impossibilty of moist air to produce heat upon condensing from smaller droplets (or even impossible gaseous H2O) into larger droplets.
Jerry, explain why you are so willing to pretend to believe/understand what actually doesn’t make sense.
Meteorology Has Failed to Understand Storms
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Meteorology-has-failed-to-understand-storms-e91i9b
James McGinn / Genius
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James and PSI Readers,
I refer you to Chapter 9, ‘Changes of State and Thermodynamics’ of ‘Chemistry’ (1976) by Sienko and Plane. And specifically to Fig. 9.1 (Heating Curve), Fig. 9.2 (Cooling Curve), and Fig. 9.5 (Phase diagram of H2O (water). Of course, I know you, James, do not believe that liquid water evaporates as water molecules (or that water molecules of the atmosphere condense) and that solid water (ice) sublimes as water molecules (or that water molecules of the atmosphere condense).
However, I would like that readers of PSI consider the possibility that you are wrong.
The experiments which produce the heating and cooling curves are simple to reproduce and those portions of Fig 9.1 and 9.2, where there is no change of temperature with constant heating or cooling need an explanation. So what are your explanations if they do not involve any latent heats of changes of state? I am sorry I cannot share these images with the readers but similar ones are easily available if you ‘Google’ them.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
The explanation is that the thermometer is not accurate. If the value of a calorie (the energy needed to raise I gram of water 1 C) changes depending on the initial temperature reading of the water how can you believe in its accuracy? When I said you should use the dispersion rate of dye (a function of the kinetic energy of the water molecules) to determine the kinetic energy at different temperatures you did nothing because you are a believer in the established dogma.
Your problem is that you believe in science but you are not a scientist. You only accept evidence that supports your established beliefs. When you ask me to for evidence to support my statements you ignore the evidence. When I tell you of Dr. Pollack’s experiments you read them then neither accept them or offer alternate theories to explain them. By ignoring them you can maintain your faith.
You firmly believe in Einstein’s theories but they are all based on an ASSUMPTION of a constant speed of light in a vacuum. When an experiment is done where the speed of light is slowed in a vacuum instead of accepting the results as a falsification of the assumption and all of Einstein’s theories it is twisted into support for the theory of photons. If doing an experiment that shows the speed of light is not constant in a vacuum is not good enough for falsification what is?
You are a believer. A scientist is a doubter.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
A scientist does the experiment and checks to see it is reproducible. And whatever temperature I have measured with a thermometer I believe. What instrument have you ever used that you have believed its measurement and what were you measuring with it? Just curious.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
I used a scale and depth micrometer to do the experiment with magnets that led me to conclude that the force between magnets is not equal to the product of the individual magnets over the distance squared.
I use a temperature compensated pH meter all the time and know that in order to get an accurate reading it must be calibrated accurately. You are using a thermometer to determine kinetic energy (objects radiate energy not temperature) and yet when your thermometer is calibrated it misses 86% of the energy.
Here is an experiment you can try. (I don’t know the results) heat 100 grams of water to !00 C and 100 grams of propylene glycol to 100 C. Combine the two liquids. What is the temperature? We both know that when you add alcohol with a lower boiling point than water to water it raises the boiling point of water to over 100 C. I am curious if you add two equal amounts of liquids at the same temperature the temperature should remain the same. Does it?
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Good experiment. Why don’t you do it and report back? I am curious too but not curious enough to do your proposed experiment for you.
For I do not know if there is a ‘latent heat’ associated with one liquid mixing with another. For I know I could mix concentrated sulfuric acid with water at the same temperatures and the temperature of the resulting mixture would be greatly higher and perhaps even some of the water molecules would vigorously vaporize. For in chemistry we have been taught to never add sulfuric acid to water but to add water to sulfuric acid. This because sulfuric acid is more dense than water (liquid).
Have a good day, Jerry
geran
| #
Herb, you’re really have a hard time with a simple thermometer. A thermometer does NOT measure “latent heat”. You keep believing it does. You need to “unlearn” that false belief.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You described what you did but there were no numbers to quantify what was measured.
You had written: “I used a scale and depth micrometer to do the experiment with magnets that led me to conclude that the force between magnets is not equal to the product of the individual magnets over the distance squared.”
In your previous description of your experiment the use of a ‘depth micrometer’ was mentioned and now there is no mention of a ‘depth micrometer.’
But I must compliment you on the design of your experiment. Except then you wrote: “The results were as expected but the lifting power of the two magnets wasn’t that different from the recorded strength of one magnet.” I have no idea what you expected or what you actually measured for you never reported the weights you measured with the scale as you lowered the two magnets nearer to the surface of the steel plate as I have to assume you measured the distance between the magnets and the steel plate. So you have not yet given me anything to satisfy my curious expectations.
For you never described the situation when you measured the change of weight of the steel plate using only one magnet. So, your description seems to lack detail as well as no numbers.
Have a good day, Jerry
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
I made a frame out of aluminum angle rods that looked like an H with a bar across the top. In the middle cross beam I cut a slot where I could hang a 1/8 in all thread brass rod by a brass nut. In the top cross bar I drilled a hole directly over the slot so I could measure the distance the rod moved down as the nut was raised. Under the slot between the two legs I placed the scale with the steel block then lowered the rod to just above the block to get my zero length distance. I screwed a magnet flush the bottom of the rode (ground a brass nut and glued it in the center hole of the magnet) and screwed the hanging nut down to raise the rod off the steel block. I reset the scale to zero. As the rod was lowered towards the steel block I measured the distance change to the top of the rod and recorded how many grams registered on the scale at various intervals. After lowering it as far as I could I plotted the weights vs distance one a graph then repeated the procedure with the other magnet. When I had a graph of both magnets I attached one of them to an aluminum block (so it would remain on the scale), reset my zero distance then measured the force between the magnets as the distance decreased. These all produced the expected curve but the force between the two permanent magnets was not much different than the measured strength of a single magnet. This made me believe there was something wrong with the results and it could only be in the measured strength of the magnets or the distance. It turned out it was both.
Have a good day,
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You just wrote: “These all produced the expected curve but the force between the two permanent magnets was not much different than the measured strength of a single magnet. This made me believe there was something wrong with the results ”
And you continued: “and it could only be in the measured strength of the magnets or the distance. It turned out it was both.”
Herb, you have just clearly stated that you did not (and do not) believe the results of your own experiment.
What is the possibility that you would believe the results of any experiment I could do or point to that was done by anyone else.
You clearly believe what you think and no observations (measurements) are going to change this.
Have a good day, Jerry
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
The data I believe but the data does not support the contention that the force of a magnet decreases as approximate cube of distance and the force between two magnets is equal to the product of the individual magnets divided by the distance from the center of one magnet to the center of the other magnet squared. Since the experimental results do not agree with theory you need to determine where the error in theory lies. The distance between magnets is not from the center of one magnet to the center of the other magnet but from the surface of a magnet to the magnetic field of the other magnet. This is shown by the results of the composite magnet. As the steel washer descends from the top magnet towards the bottom magnet there is no change in the reading of the strength of the composite magnet until it reaches the mid point. There the reading of strength on the scale begins increasing. This means that as the washer descends the strength of the induced magnetism decreases with distance and the strength of the permanent magnet decrease with distance not the approximate cube of distance.The increase in strength is not a result of the product of the magnets but their sum. It is not the force between magnets that is being measured but the strength of a third magnet (with its North Pole coinciding with the North Pole of one magnet and its South Pole coinciding with the South Pole of the other magnet) as the magnetic flux lines of the magnets combine. The correct formula is not F=M1M2/d^2 but M3= (m1 + m2)/d where d is the distance from the surface of one magnet to the point where the magnetic fields of the two magnets are equal.
I believe the results of the experiment (they are the same as other results) I do not accept the current interpretation of the results.
As I said before you only accept results that support your beliefs.
You haven’t replied to why adding 100 C glycol to 100 C water results in the water boiling.
Have a good day,
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Describe your experiment with the magnets in detail and the data that you measured in detail. For it sound interesting and i might try to do it to see if I can reproduce your results (data).
Have a good day, Jerry
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
I wrote an article in PSI describing the experiment. Basically what I did was to measure the strength of two of those round compositions magnets by lowering them towards a steel block on a scale and reading the lifting power of the magnet in grams at various distances. I then attached one magnet to an aluminum block and put it on the scale, then measured the lifting power as the magnets got closer. The results were as expected but the lifting power of the two magnets wasn’t that different from the recorded strength of one magnet. This led me to conclude that when I was measuring the individual magnets I was actually measuring two magnets, the permanent magnet and the induced magnet in the steel block. As the permanent magnet got closer to the steel the strength of the induced magnet increased.
All permanent magnets are a combination of magnetic iron molecules so I decided to make a large composite magnet. On a brass rod a permanent magnet was thread up a distance. A steel washer was then threaded up flush to the magnet. The second magnet was then affixed to the bottom of the rod leaving a gap between it and the top magnet combination. This combination was then suspended above a scale with the aluminum block with an attached permanent magnet (to avoid induced magnetism). The scale registers the lifting power of the suspended combination magnet in grams. What will occur as the steel washer is lowered on the rod towards the lower permanent magnet?
I did the experiment of adding 100 C glycol (I used (dipropylmonomethlglycol ether) to the 100 C water. The water boiled violently. Why?
Have a good day,
Herb
james McGinn
| #
Jerry:
Chapter 9, ‘Changes of State and Thermodynamics’ of ‘Chemistry’ (1976) by Sienko and Plane. And specifically to Fig. 9.1 (Heating Curve), Fig. 9.2 (Cooling Curve), and Fig. 9.5 (Phase diagram of H2O (water)
James:
Jerry, tell us in your own words why you think these curves indicate that water defies it’s known boiling temperature/pressure, as indicated in H2O phase diagram. Try to convince us that what you think you see you actually do see.
Ignorance About Water Begets Ignorance About Storms
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Ignorance-About-Water-Begets-Ignorance-About-Storms-ea4fmi
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
It is not my job to convince you of anything. If you are a scientist, you do the experiment whose result is graphically displayed and you explain what you have measured.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
It is not my job to convince you of anything.
I’m trying to understand your point.
Also, I can’t find your graphs.
Why not just tell us?
If you are a scientist, you do the experiment whose result is graphically displayed and you explain what you have measured.
Reply
Alan
| #
You are completely wrong in saying that the surface and the atmosphere has to be modelled together. It must include the oceans. K&T do model the earth and the atmosphere. Look at the thermal capacity of air and water and you will see where most of the thermal energy is held and what moves it around the earth.
Reply
james mcginn
| #
Jerry:
Of course, I know you, James, do not believe that liquid water evaporates as water molecules
James:
Right. Not as a gas. When air molecukes moving hundreds of miles an hour collide with the surface of liquid water, bits of surface tension get chipped off.. Thats evaporation. The chip is, essentially, a nanodroplet–10 to 25 H2O molecules in size.. It is categorically liquid water, but it is hard like ice. This is because of the high surface tension of H2O. Consequently these smaller nanodroplets have a low heat capacity. However, when they condense by combining into larger droplets their high heat capacity reemerges. This causes cooling..
Jerry:
However, I would like that readers of PSI consider the possibility that you are wrong.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Hot off the presses:
https://phzoe.wordpress.com/2020/02/25/deducing-geothermal/
Reply
geran
| #
Deducing reality —
ice >> 300 W/m^2
geo >> 0.087 W/m^2
BIG difference, for realists only.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
If the ice has a uniform temperature, then it’s internal conductive heat flux is 0 W/m^2.
https://phzoe.wordpress.com/2020/02/20/two-theories-one-ideological-other-verified/
Reply
geran
| #
Yes Zoe, if ΔT is zero, then Q is zero. Very good.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
So the ice cube must be colder than geo. LMAO
Reply
geran
| #
Either that or you have no clue….
Zoe Phin
| #
Geran,
You just confirmed an object with CHF=0 can still emit 315.
Geothermal CHF of 0.087 doesn’t tell you anything about external radiation.
geran
| #
Now, it’s been determined — You have no clue.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Rosie,
In Part 1 you wrote: “What are the sources of energy?
There are two massive sources of energy and several relatively minor ones. We all know about the sun. It’s big and it’s hot and it’s almost on our doorstep (or at least, just down the road). But nobody doing these climate models seems to have remembered that Planet Earth is not cold and dead but, in itself, is raging hot.
The latest estimates are that, deep inside, the earth is a full 6,000C; that’s as hot as the surface of the sun! At this point, the fact that the earth is a sphere is important. Planet Earth is an enormous lump of extremely hot rock. Relative to the size of the planet, man’s deepest mines merely scratch the surface, and yet the rocks are a scorching 60C. Wow.”
Hopefully, you will read this comment and get back on track. For you have allowed the ‘idiots’ focus your attention away from your initial focus which is not rambling. It is clearly stated and documented “Relative to the size of the planet, man’s deepest mines merely scratch the surface, and yet the rocks are a scorching 60C.”
You have directed our attention to the primary sources of the earth’s energy which keep it from becoming a ball of cold matter. And that is where any study of weather and climate (particularly climate) must begin. But you did make a mistake when you wrote that molten core was due to stored energy; no the molten core is kept at its extreme temperature by nuclear fission reactions which produce energy because E=mc^2 and mass is continually being converted to energy by the nuclear fission reactions.
And it a waste of our energy to go forward in any study of weather and climate until we accept the fact of what you wrote. I state ‘fact’ because I consider the ‘continuous heating’ by solar radiation and by nuclear fission to be unquestionable observed facts. Just as it is an observed fact that most nights the surface temperature of the earth cools by emitting this energy being continuously created by nuclear fusion (sun) and nuclear fission (earth) toward space. Of course, the fact is the earth surface is also continuously emitting more energy toward space during the daytime because its surface temperature is usually greater during the daytime than during the nighttime.
As I have stated: hopefully you will read this comment and get back on track. And hopefully those who have criticized what you have written will read this and finally get on track.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
geran
| #
Hi Jerry,
Since you appear interested in getting back on track, you might be interested to know that geothermal is not a “massive source of energy”, averaged over Earth’s surface. In fact, it is so insignificant it cannot melt ice and snow by itself.
Have a great day.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Geran,
You just ignored the fact that Rosie stated there were two great surfaces of energy. And you are right, in the absence of solar radiation the Arctic Ocean does nearly freeze over. But the combination of solar plus geothermal begins to melt some of the ice during the northern summer. But the next step is to begin to focus on the transfer of energy from the tropics to the polar regions via atmospheric circulations and ocean circulations, etc. and other detailed lesser
factors which are involved that Rosie is trying to identify as she rambles.
Just as you want to ignore the geothermal energy because it ‘smallness’ one never knows what influence of such ‘insignificant’ factor might be when averaged (a mistake) over the entire surface of the earth. Like it is a great mistake to remove the consideration of the known diurnal atmospheric (and surface temperature which commonly not directly measured except by the USCRN NOAA project and even this direct measurement seem to have been generally ignored)) temperature oscillation which disappears as soon as one averages the temperature of a 24hr period.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
geran
| #
Well, that’s totally WRONG, jerry. Rosie never stated “there were two great surfaces of energy”, so how could I ignore something that wasn’t there?
In your desperate attempt to support more pseudoscience, you’re tripping over your own comments. I guess you have no interest in getting “back on track”, after all.
The comedy continues.
Have a great day.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Geran,
I admit to the problem of short-circuits between my mind and my fingers and my failure to catch these errors when I proofread. Why didn’t you quote what Rosie did write so a reader could see what she had written? And while it does not undo these common errors of mind, but I do notice that others make these types of mistakes and I can usually, because of context, substitute the word that was intended. So I consider these mistakes are only because I am an imperfect human and not a perfect human as you are.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
geran
| #
Well thanks for the compliment Jerry, but I’m not a “perfect human”. I just try to uphold some standards of decency. For example, I don’t try to support issues I know to be invalid. Consequently, I avoid making false accusations about others.
When people have no technical background, it is easy to get on the wrong track. Earth’s core is extremely hot. Not only does all of published science agree, but we have observable evidence from volcanoes, hot water vents, etc. But what people don’t understand is that energy dissipates over distance and area. People with no experience can’t understand such things.
The average geothermal at Earth’s surface is a mere 0.087 W/m^2. That’s the fact. We get to see evidence each winter in northern latitudes when the ground freezes, to over a meter deep. There’s insufficient energy to keep the ground from freezing, once the solar energy lessens. To deny such reality requires the usual twisting, distorting, insulting, etc. We’ve seen it all before.
Have a great day.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Geran,
Thank you for the opportunity to ask this question: What is the maximum thickness of the sheet of ice which freezes over the Arctic Ocean during its long night at the North Pole? And I go online to answer it: “The North Pole sits in the middle of the Arctic Ocean, on water that is almost always covered with ice. The ice is about 2-3 meters (6-10 feet) thick. The depth of the ocean at the North Pole is more than 4,000 meters (13,123 feet). National Geographic Society (www.nationalgeographic.org)
Geran, you are right again about the depth of frozen ground during the winter at even 45N latitude in the mid-west of USA. For the footing for a foundation at the much lower latitude needs to be at least 6ft beneath the surface so that the liquid water in the soil will not freeze and lift the foundation.
So why doesn’t the water freeze much deeper during the very much longer (nearly 6 month) winter at the North Pole?
The answer I claim to understand is: Ice being less dense than liquid water on which it floats is a good insulator. So its upper surface can be -40C or lower when its bottom surface temperature is the freezing temperature of the ocean’s salt water is about -2.3C. Hence, only “a mere 0.087 W/m^2” needs to be conducted to the surface and emitted from the ice’s very cold surface to prevent the ice from melting to a lesser depth.
Given this discussion, another question is: Why does the ground freeze to a comparable depth of the ice at the North Pole? The simple answer is: The thermal conductivity of the ‘mineral’ soil is significantly greater than that of ice.
Thank you again for giving me a context to present this data to you and the PSI readers.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
geran
| #
No need to thank me, Jerry. You did the research.
Good to see you back on track.
Have a great day.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Geran,
I call your attention to the recent posting (https://principia-scientific.com/arctic-research-crews-supply-ship-hindered-by-dense-ice/) of a very significant research effort which reports: “Just recently Russian supply ice breaker “Captain Dranitsyn” was headed over to carry out a scheduled “crew exchange” but ended up consuming too much fuel trying to break through the “up to 160 centimeters thick” sea ice,”
Research like this should clarify at least what has happened during the past long Arctic night. But we need to remember the ‘weather’ of one winter can be quite different from the one before or after.
Have a good day, Jerry
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Friends and Foes can now follow along …
https://phzoe.wordpress.com/2020/02/26/instructions-for-windows-users/
Reply