Video/Book: Confessions Of A Climate Change Denier
If you want to be entertained as well as educated on what ‘Slayer’ science is all about when it comes to debunking the greenhouse gas theory, then check out the work of Stephen Wells. A Brit now living in Australia, Wells has emerged into the spotlight with a marvelous new book and lively video debate with a top lukewarmer professor.
Firstly, our very own Joseph E Postma – Canadian space scientist and leading ‘Slayer’ – has this to say about the book from Wells:
“Stephen’s book is an hilarious deconstruction of the global warming farce. Rendering the entire apparatus down past it’s foundations, leaving not even debris in its collapse. The greatest scientific fraud in history is finished, in a way that any lay-person can enjoy and understand” ~ Joseph E Postma-Physicist MSc.
‘Hilarious’ is an apt description when you have Wells writing about the ‘catastrophic’ subject of man-made global warming with this kind of levity:
“Why do Climate Change Denier’s exist? Why are Brian Cox’s luscious lips a threat to nature? And
what does Elvis’s sphincter have to do with it all? All these questions and more are answered in this tell all book from deep inside the underbelly of Climate Change Denial.
Tired of waiting behind the back of fast food restaurants for Big Oil money that never arrives, Stephen Wells has decided to sell out (after already selling out) and let the general public see all there is to see about the seedy underworld of Climate Change Deniers. Or he is just saying this to try and to suck you in so he can sell you this book and con you into becoming a Climate Change Denier yourself? Only you can determine the truth. You will just need to buy the book to do so. Funny how that works!” — Excerpt from ‘Confessions of a Climate Change Denier – on Amazon.
Secondly, I heartily recommend readers watch the Facebook video debate between Stephen and Professor Denis Rancourt. Rancourt, a lukewarmer and in no way, shape or from a supporter of Principia Scientific International’s position that the greenhouse gas theory is pure junk science, gives his best shot at ‘educating’ Slayer Stephen in this real-time video debate.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=dcsHwFObKqE&fbclid=IwAR3xdTmIOTYUfm64DzB-22p6m8PsMxUGslB_khmHKLEEOGE8VeCv736RCLw
I watched the full 40 – minute debate glued to my screen as both men went at it full force, each insisting they were correct and their opponent wrong on how carbon dioxide impacts the science of man-made global warming.
Here is my own summary of how it went:
Rancourt is determined to use sophistry to browbeat Stephen Wells into surrendering to a BS apologist position of accepting a radiative GHE. Rancourt loves ‘mind experiments'” Jeez!! Can’t we be objective realists and accept applied science which tells us CO2 has been proven to NEVER heat anything? In essence, Rancourt uses analogy and word play while Wells reverts to empiricism and objectivity. Kudos Stephen Wells!
Rancourt argues scientists use ‘averages’ for all the complexities of the climate system (even for not known/unknowable factors). This fudge factor of averaging everything – quantified and not quantified – is the very source of the anomalous 33 degrees ‘missing heat’ cited by GHE believers as proof of their argument. At no time in the discussion does Rancourt cite verifiable empirical proofs to validate his claims.
Wells correctly argues there NO empirical data to validate the GHE back radiation myth. Curiously, Rancourt sweepingly claims there ARE scientific papers that have proven back radiation is real and has a heating effect. However, he fails to cite any such paper. My colleagues and I would relish examining any such paper that can empirically validate back radiation that adds additional heat to any surface, in a real world experiment.
Kudos to Professor Rancourt for having the stones to engage in a real time video debate in gentlemanly fashion with a rising new ‘Slayer’ star – Stephen Wells. Principia Scientific International is proud to have posted 5 of Rancourt’s fine essays. We have more we agree on that disagree about. Thanks to both Denis and Stephen for this entertaining debate!
Watch the video on Youtube and buy Stephen’s refreshingly engaging new book on Amazon.
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.
James McGinn
| #
Kudos to Stephen Wells! Well done!
Rancourt is not authentic. He did his best to maintain the convoluted thinking of AGW alarmism. And his tactic was to wear down the audience with rhetorical nonsense. As with climate scientists, his only goal here is to maintain the confusion so that the audience continues to not be skeptical of the incredibly dishonest AGW premise.
Rancourt is not authentic. He did his best to maintain the convoluted thinking of AGW alarmism. And his tactic was to wear down the audience with rhetorical nonsense. As with climate scientists, his only goal here is to maintain the confusion so that the audience continues to not be skeptical of the incredibly dishonest AGW premise.
Normally climatologists and meteorologist don’t debate/discuss theory at all.
Fifth Episode: Why Meteorologists Will Not Discuss or Debate Their Convection Model of Storm Theory
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Fifth-Episode-Why-Meteorologists-Will-Not-Discuss-or-Debate-Their-Convection-Model-of-Storm-Theory-e9a20l
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Fifth-Episode-Why-Meteorologists-Will-Not-Discuss-or-Debate-Their-Convection-Model-of-Storm-Theory-e9a20l
Reply
Henry
| #
Rancourt is not in the AGW camp. He merely supports the notion of the Greenhouse Effect.
Reply
geran
| #
And that puts him in the AGW camp.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Henry:
Rancourt is not in the AGW camp. He merely supports the notion of the Greenhouse Effect.
James:
Aha. I suspect you are correct on this. otherwise it doesn’t make sense that he would even agree to debate. This explains why he was so casual in revealing his convoluted thinking.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Nobody-Knows-Nothing-e9ok3o
Reply
Mark Underwood
| #
I don’t know either Rancourt or Wells, perhaps because I’m new to Principia Scientific. I didn’t read the text of the Youtube video before plunging in, and assumed for most of the video that Rancourt believed in human caused global warming. So it was surprising to learn that although he believes CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but also believes that man isn’t causing warming. Not sure how he reconciles those two things. So he isn’t an alarmist, quite the opposite. And I doubt he isn’t authentic.
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
I confess….I am a denier….I deny that the “hockey puck” graph is correct…..I deny that the 97% of scientists agreement is true….I deny that there is any evidence that man made CO2 is causing any global warming. Should I join Deniers Anonymous?
Reply
Les Yuen
| #
I believe, climate change is always happening. I just don’t believe that humans are the biggest reason and that we can control, climate change. Well done debate. Too bad there are not more of these.
Reply
B bartzen
| #
My biggest take away from this is that ghg cools rather than warms the planet . One only has to look at the moon to see what happens with no atmosphere . Sunny side is very hot dark side is very cold . If you were to wrap the entire planet in cloud cover made up of water vapour as it is the planet as a whole would cool drastically. So to say that somehow co2 warms the atmosphere is illogical as both co2 and h2o are greenhouse gases . Yet the argument goes that one warms the atmosphere the other cools it . Logic dictates that it can’t be both ways
Reply
Alan
| #
I agree about a comparison with the moon. Our atmosphere effectively keeps us both cooler and warmer. The warmists claim it keeps us warmer because they average temperatures and so reduce the comparison to nonsense, as they do with everything else. Joseph Postma describes this well when he correctly says the warmists turn the earth’s radiation output into the sun’s input and so they reduce the sun’s energy and have to create the missing energy by the concept of back radiation.
Reply
josh
| #
It doesn’t keep us warmer it expediates cooling, if we had no atmosphere we would melt in the day and still be hotter at night http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Greenhouse_Effect_on_the_Moon.pdf
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Postma is very smart, but incorrect about a few things.
He simply does not understand the difference between 12 and 24 hrs.
I refute his ideas here:
https://principia-scientific.com/the-circular-reasoning-greenhouse-gas-theory-argument/#comments
Reply
Alan
| #
But your analysis assumes that the is a global average temperature. The is no such physical quantity. It basically takes the daily maximum and minimum and averages them, then it averages that over a period and then averages the various measurement points, In the end it is a meaningless number; just a statistic to decide where to go on holiday. It is not science. Plus you are only considering radiation. Your argument it that of a climate alarmist.
Reply
steve
| #
This paper has been offered up as empirical evidence of back radiation and warming by greenhouse gasses. I can’t state specifically what I find wrong with this paper, but I believe the instrumentation is not saying what the authors of the paper believe it is saying. It wouldn’t be the first time scientists were fooled by their instrumentation. I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on this paper.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240
Reply
Dan Paulson
| #
Steve you have hit the nail directly on the head. There is no instrument available to actually read the levels of so-called “back radiation.” They simply do not exist.
However, that does not mean that there is not a market for exactly such a device.
So what you have are devices which measure the actual radiative output from the surface of the earth, and then extrapolate based on the SB constant. These calculations then show an output of outgoing and incoming radiation, in keeping with the current global warming noise.
Much like NASA/GISS temperature data, you have rendered results, which are completely the result of programming and not measurement.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
To get backradiation you need an exotic setup, which just refutes itself:
https://phzoe.wordpress.com/2019/11/11/why-up-is-not-down/
Reply
Joseph Olson
| #
“Observations on Backradiation during Daytime and Nighttime” by Dr Nasif Nahle, 2011
Reply
Ben
| #
WOW – Learned nothing. Too hard to get past the personalities. Will have to re watch this when my brain is in a better location. Guy on left – very insecure and struggles to defend his position. Guy on right – very confident, but may be a bit too much so. I realize there are many personality types and some struggle with being front and center, but to be that inconsiderate and not allowing your opponent time to speak their position says a lot. I think I see a possible skeptic in the making (maybe). Will watch again to try to get past the personalities to the nitty-gritty of the discussion.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi John,
You wrote: “Wells correctly argues there NO empirical data to validate the GHE back radiation myth.”
If you ignore the influence of cloud scattering and common temperature inversions, there a many evidenced of the influence of downwelling infrared upon the air temperature.
I cannot copy and paste in this comment so I give you to the link (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/surf_check.php?site=fpk&date=2010-01-03&p5=dpir&p6=upir&p16=at).
In this figure you will see how a sudden increase (40 watts/m^2) in the magnitude of the measured downwelling infrared radiation at 8pm on January 3, 2020 coincided with a sudden increase (5+C) of air temperature and a sudden significant increase (10+watts/m^2) of the upwelling infrared radiation being emitted by the surface.
This data clearly demonstrates that downwelling infrared radiation does clearly warm the surface and the atmosphere above above the surface. So the downwelling infrared radiation from the atmosphere is no myth for the downingwelling infrared radiation due the influence of cloud and an atmospheric temperature inversion is added to the 220 watts/m^2 minimum value which must being emitted by whatever else (beside cloud) is a portion of the atmosphere.
My point is that the basis (foundation) of Science is measurements (in this case) and not upon words and/or rational reasoning (arguments).
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
geran
| #
Sorry Jerry, but cherry-picking one graph that you can’t explain does not “prove” your false beliefs.
If you understood anything about these graphs, you would realize that clouds are causing the downwelling to be so close to upwelling. Low clouds can have nearly the same temperature as the surface.
Better luck next time.
My point is that your cherry-picking just indicates you don’t understand the science.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Geran,
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Albert Einstein
Sounds as if Einstein accepted the results of a single experiment.
But as I read back my comment, I see that “If you ignore the influence of cloud scattering and common temperature inversions, there a many evidenced of the influence of downwelling infrared upon the air temperature.” is not what I intended. While clouds of sufficient density at a any altitude can scatter the upwelling infrared radiation being emitted upward by the surface because of the surface’s temperature, The fact that the measured magnitude of the downwelling IR radiation is greater at times than that of the upwelling IR can only be explained by the fact the temperature of cloud bottom is greater than the temperature of the surface (which surface has been warmed by the downwelling IR from the warmer cloud bottom.
Geran, you should remember that some readers of PSI might be able to read with some comprehension of what both you and I write. And that is why I corrected my error.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
geran
| #
Thanks for correcting your error, Jerry.
Low clouds can be close to surface temperatures, but clear sky can’t. That’s why the AGW/GHE/CO2 nonsense is such blatant pseudoscience.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Geran,
You comments have caused me to further study the SURFRAD data to which I drew to John’s and your attention. And I realized that I had not considered all the information of the SURFRAD data that is available to us, which I know about.
So take a look. (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/met_check.php?site=fpk&date=2010-01-03&ta_units=0&ws_units=1)
And here you can see the evidence that the data is being continually recorded and reported each minute. No averaging. And you can see that when the air temperature suddenly increased, that the direction of the wind suddenly changed and I had not factored that into my ‘understanding’.
SURFRAD is a NOAA project. NOAA has another project–USCRN–which they claim measures and records the highest quality meteorological data possible. And to verify this claim they placed two of these site near each other and near the SURFRAD site at Fort Peck. (https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/hourly02/2010/CRNH0203-2010-MT_Wolf_Point_34_NE.txt)
At this site they average the measurements (air temperature (AT), downwelling solar radiation (DSR), surface temperature (ST)) for the previous hour and also report the maximum and minimum value for the previous hour. When you look at the data it is a mass of numbers without any legend. But given the following information I believe you can figure out which column of numbers is what.
At the beginning there are columns of Greenwich date and time, local date and standard time, longitude, latitude,
Relative to the data; the three columns of DSR are ave, max , min which should be obvious because the sun only shines a few hours.
To the left and right of these three columns of DSR are columns of zeros.
To the left of the left zeros are ave AT, max AT, min AT. and to the right of the right zeros are ave ST, max ST, min ST.
And it takes time, a lot of time, to begin to digest this quality data.
But obviously my opinion you cannot known anything about weather and climate unless you study actual data. And I must add atmospheric soundings are launched maybe 20 plus miles to the west. And this part of Montana is a generally level plain which slopes slightly downward toward the east. Study a map.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
geran
| #
Glad I could help, Jerry.
Have a great day.
Zoe Phin
| #
Jerry,
Downwelling IR is just Upwelling-from-Instrument IR, not to be confused with Upwelling-to-instrument IR.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Zoe,
You seem to like thought experiments. At (https://principia-scientific.com/ipcc-expert-behind-eight-discredited-ocean-acidification-papers/#comments) Michael Clarke has proposed an experiment but I consider he had overlooked an obvious ‘thing’ and have asked him what this thing is. Because he hasn’t yet responded, I wonder if you would be interested in helping him.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Carl
| #
The sharp increase in air temperature on your graph occurred at about 9PM on a cold January evening (-9C). Why? Most likely because a warm wind blew in from somewhere and yes during that short two hour period when the down-welling IR radiation was higher than the up-welling IR radiation some heat would have been transferred from the warmer air to the cooler ground via IR radiation. Some heat would have also been transferred from the warmer air to the cooler ground via conduction since the air is in direct contact with the ground. That is what the second Law of thermodynamics is all about. Heat flows from warm matter to cooler matter and that was the underlying theme of Stephen Wells comments.
Here is the problem. The blip on your graph is an anomaly. Downwelling IR radiation is almost always lower than upwelling IR radiation yet the “greenhouse effect” asserts that it is always warming the surface 100% of the time, 24/7, not just during those short anomalous periods when the downwelling IR radiation exceeds upwelling IR radiation. It, in fact, is said to heat the ground an extra 33C on average! Stephen Wells was asserting that the usually lower intensity of IR radiation from the atmosphere has “zero” ability to heat the ground which most of the time is emitting a higher intensity of IR radiation. Here is the scientific formula:
Net Radiation Loss Rate
If an hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings the net radiation heat loss rate can be expressed as
q = ε σ (Th4 – Tc4) Ah
where:
Th = hot body absolute temperature (K)
Tc = cold surroundings absolute temperature (K)
Ah = area of the hot object (m2)
The typical come back to this physical reality is to change the “greenhouse effect” to say that “greenhouse gases” simply inhibit the ability of the ground to cool, which ignores the fact that the atmosphere is in direct contact with the ground and the law of physics that determines the rate of heat flow between two bodies of matter in thermal contact is Newton’s Law of Cooling and the relevant controlling parameter in Newton’s Law of Cooling is “temperature” not IR radiation.
That is, the rate at which the ground cools by transferring heat to the atmosphere is determined by the temperature differential between the air and the ground, not just the IR radiation differential. Why? because 100% of the air has a temperature, while only a small percentage of the air emits IR radiation. There is also the added complication of the release of latent heat at into the air at night during dew formation in extremely humid climates.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Carl,
From your name and your comment I expect that we have had conversations before. Please confirm this for I have been making wrong assumptions lately so I do not want to make another. If you are Carl A. I sure would like to discuss your comment further.
Scroll up to the links I gave to Geran for I have not yet come to a good understanding relative to this new information.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Carl,
In heat loss/transfer by convection isn’t the heat loss also dependent the number (mass) of molecules transferring energy? Air has few molecules so heat transfer by conduction is slow, while water with the more numerous molecules transfers heat quickly. Since the transfer of energy by convection is a transfer of kinetic energy many molecules transferring energy to few molecules will raise the kinetic energy of those molecules faster and transfer more kinetic energy than fewer molecules transferring kinetic energy to many molecules. Food cooks faster in boiling water than in an oven. The 20 C surface of the Earth will heat the 10 C atmosphere faster than the 20 C atmosphere will raise the heat/kinetic energy of the 10 C surface of the Earth.
In radiation the transfer rate and energy transferred depends the energy difference between the two objects and the distance between them.
When energy is being added to an object from a radiative source (like the sun) the energy of the object will be determined by the number of molecules (mass) the energy is being distributed to. When a uv light wave strikes a molecule in the air all its energy will be converted into kinetic energy of the gas molecule, while if the uv light strikes the Earth that energy will be transferred to many molecules. If the surface of the Earth and the air above it have the same temperature from radiated energy source (the many molecules in the Earth are transferring the same energy to the thermometer as the few molecules in the air) doesn’t that mean that the molecules in the air have more kinetic energy than the molecules on the Earth and can still transfer energy to those molecules even though the temperature, as recorded by the thermometer, is the same?
Herb
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
In these arguments the energy. from the sun striking the Earth is restricted to the visible and infra red spectrums.
Ultraviolet light from the sun is absorbed by the oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere (as well as striking the surface) and converted to heat. It is the energy of ultraviolet light that creates the ionosphere and the ozone layer yet these frequencies of high energy light and the heat they produce are completely ignored.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You wrote: “It is the energy of ultraviolet light that creates the ionosphere and the ozone layer yet these frequencies of high energy light and the heat they produce are completely ignored.”
I have not studied the ionosphere so I cannot comment about its ‘temperature’ but I and most all atmospheric scientists know the temperatures of the stratosphere are significantly greater than the temperature of the tropopause at the base of the stratosphere and they understand this greater temperature is due to the UV photochemical reactions of the ozone system. Clearly the absorption of the UV radiation by this system is not totally ignored.
And you expect me and other readers to seriously consider such nonsense that you too often write???
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
In the upper atmosphere oxygen and nitrogen exist as atoms not molecules. It takes 940 kjoules/mole to split nitrogen gas into nitrogen atoms. It takes 490 kjoules/mole to split oxygen molecules into oxygen atoms. This energy doesn’t disappear.
You believe that water vapor at the top of the troposphere, where it is -50 C, condenses into clouds. The problem is that if you look up the saturation of water in air at -50 C you won’t find it because there is no water vapor in air at that temperature. You have non existent water vapor forming clouds.
You believe in evidence but only the evidence that supports your beliefs.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
I just forgot to address the nitrogen and oxygen atom-molecule issue. You are correct but you do not tell the readers or me where specifically the upper atmosphere is.
Long ago, the publisher, of Galileo’s famous book, in his preface wrote (as translated by Crew and de Salvio, 1914): “intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition”. ‘Upper’ is not accurate definition.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
The ionosphere ranges from an altitude of 60 km to 1000 km and includes part of the mesosphere, thermosphere, and exosphere. It is why radio aves reflect off the atmosphere back to the Earth’s surface.
If you doubt Dr. Pollack’s finding you can either repeat the experiments to see if there is any experimental error or propose a new theory to explain them. Do not ignore them.
I was interested in the saturation point of water at -50 C. How many grams of water er kilogram of air. Then using the density of the air determine the concentration of water that can be in a cloud.
Have a good day,
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and PSI Readers,
First, Herb I never questioned the existence of atoms, instead of molecules; and the issue of ions instead of atoms was not even being mentioned by you or me.
I came here, at this time, to explain what I try to do with my comments. Which prepared explanation follows.
“The only source of knowledge is experience.” (A. Einstein)
I quote this because I didn’t write it. I have studied the topics for 60 years, about which Herb is questioning my ‘knowledge’. I write my comments to alert readers when I consider Herb, or others, have written things which I consider are generally known to be incorrect. Which I suspect is the reason that Herb criticizes that which I have written.
And as much as possible I like to quote the ‘knowledge’ of others because then Herb is not only disagreeing with only my knowledge. I write this preface because I am now going to review a personal experience which I suspect that Herb and many PSI readers have not had.
For about 8 years I walked to the college, where I taught, at about 7am when it was not uncommon for the temperature to be -20C and the atmosphere to appear cloudless. Some of these mornings I could see (light from street lights) very, very scattered ice crystals (not snowflakes) falling from this cloudless, cold, atmosphere. And I understood this was because there were very few water molecules in this cold atmosphere. Just as there were very few ice crystals falling through the atmosphere However, as I just wrote, these ice crystals had a vapor pressure and the atmosphere must have been saturated with these scant water molecules or else the slowly falling ice crystals would have evaporated (sublimed). Should have reviewed that there was snow covering the ground. Which snow was the likely source of these atmospheric water molecules as the molecules sublimed and diffused upward (as they tried to fill all space as gases are known to do). And I have not knowledge of how far upward these diffusing molecules had saturated the atmosphere with water molecules. But I know that during these nights the temperature was decreasing during the entire night so that water molecules which had saturated the atmosphere at warmer temperature would begin to condense to form the ice crystals. Again, I do not know at what altitude this condensation was occurring; all I knew was the ice crystals I saw.
Now, Herb and James McGinn have often written that they do not believe there are any water molecules in the atmosphere. Which is another thing about which I alert you, a reader, about.
So, I will await Herb’s comment to correct my understanding of this topic.
Have a good day, Jerry
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
From your experience you saw where when the temperature dropped to -20 C the water in the air exceeded the saturation point and condensed out of the air as very disperse ice crystals.This removal of water from the air would continue as the temperature dropped and the saturation point dropped. From your observation how do you explain water rising through the atmosphere as the temperature drops to -50 C then condensing into the dense clouds of liquid water we see in the sky?
Have a good day,
Herb
James McGinn
| #
Herb, Jerry,
As is well known, the force that brings and holds H2O molecules in each other’s vicinity is the polarity of H2O molecules. However–as is not well known but is, I contend, true–25% of this force–in both of two H2O molecules that participate in a hydrogen bond–is neutralized by the formation of hydrogen bonds themselves. (And since each H2O molecule can potentially form four hydrogen bonds with other H2O molecules its polarity is potentially neutralizable all the way down to zero polarity.) (Note: this also explains how/why the most dense and most highly bonded phase of water–liquid water–has such “anomalously” low viscosity for a polar molecule.
Consequently, the larger is an H2O nanodroplet (in the atmosphere) and the rounder it is the more its respective molecules will share hydrogen bonds and since hydrogen bonds reduce (neutralize) H2O polarity the more likely that the bonds within it (especially those below the surface of the droplet) will maintain highly neutralized (weak) and therefore loose bonds–as we see in liquid water–regardless of temperature/pressure. (More details on this below.)
Also, the smaller is an H2O nanodroplet (in the atmosphere) and the more linear it is (less rounder) the LESS its respective molecules will share hydrogen bonds and since hydrogen bonds reduce (neutralize) H2O polarity the more likely that the bonds within it will maintain highly polarized (strong) and therefore solid bonds–as we see in ice–regardless of temperature/pressure.
Until you understand the mechanism whereby H2O polarity is neutralized by connectedness (which itself is influenced by both size and roundness of nanodroplets) you will always flounder when it comes to reconciling the disparate evidence associated with the H2O nanodroplets in the atmosphere.
Wind shear conditions further complicate this scenario because wind shear causes spinning of nanodroplets and this causes them to elongate into linear polymers and to even break into smaller droplets, both of which (linearity and smallness) reduces connectedness and, thereby, increases polarity. Wind shear conditions occur most prominently at the top of the troposphere, the tropopause, especially in the vicinity of the jet streams. Wind shear conditions also occur lower in the troposphere where they are generally associated with storms and severe weather.
When you do understand what is mentioned above it sets the stage for understanding how smaller droplets of H2O (nanodroplets) can have some very unpredictable phase behaviors independent of (or, more precisely, relatively independent of) temperature/pressure.
Let’s consider a round nanodroplet that consists of 50 H2O molecules. The outer surface will consist of, let’s say, 20 molecules that maintain relatively fewer hydrogen bonds, let’s say on average the molecules on the outer surface have 2.5 bonds per molecule. Since connectedness is reduced on the surface and since the strength of hydrogen bonds is the inverse of connectedness, the average polarity on the surface is going to be relatively high–maybe as high as 35%. The remaining 30 H2O molecules below the surface are going to maintain high levels of connectedness and, therefore, are going to have much lower polarity on average–well below 10%. The bonds below the surface, therefore, will be loose bonds. And loose bonds have the ability to capture and conserve energy/movement. Taking this all into consideration, what we might end up with is a nanodroplet of about 50 H2O molecules acts like a container, trapping warmer, conserved, H2O within. Accordingly, this might explain how nanodroplets are able to stay liquid despite very low measured temperatures (-50) at the top of the troposphere and still be liquid.
Listen to this podcast for more details:
Ignorance About Water Begets Ignorance About Storms
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Ignorance-About-Water-Begets-Ignorance-About-Storms-ea4fmi
James McGinn / Genius
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
I believe that the disassociation of water molecules into hydroxyl and hydrogen ions as well as hydrogen bonds play a major role in the formation of nano droplets and believe Dr.Pollack’s experiment that an increase in energy produces more disassociation of water molecules.
One of the reason I believe this is because it is an electric repelling between the droplets and the Earth that causes the droplets to rise in the atmosphere. This force counteracts gravity. The electric force between the droplets and the Earth’s surface decreases as the distance between them increases. That increase in distance does not significantly affect gravity since it is measured from the center of the Earth. In order for the droplets to continue to rise the negative charge must increase with altitude. This would occur if increasing energy caused increasing hydroxyl ions but would not occur with hydrogen bonds.
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Water molecules do not condense to liquid water at -50C. Thought that had been established.
The dense clouds at -50C to which you refer are cumulonimbus clouds–“Heavy and dense cloud, with a considerable vertical extent, in the form of a mountain or huge towers. At least part of its upper portion is usually smooth, or fibrous or striated, and nearly always flattened; this part often spreads out in the shape of an anvil or vast plume. Under the base of this cloud which is often very dark, there are frequently low ragged clouds either merged with it or not, and precipitation sometimes in the form of virga.” (R. C. Sutcliffe, Weather & Climate, 1966). So I suggest you read about the life-cycle of a thunder storm.
But the formation of cumulonimbus clouds seems to be a uncommon event. For Sutcllffe also wrote: “Clouds which do not give rain, which never even threaten to give rain but which dissolve again into vapour before the precipitation stage is ever reached, have a profound effect on our climate.”
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
In my 40th Ed. of the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics it is true that lowest temperature, at which the pressure of aqueous vapor over liquid water, listed is -29.8C. However, just above this table is a table of the pressure of aqueous vapor over ‘ice’ whose lowest temperature is -98C.
Herb, it really hurts your credibility when you write things that absolutely are not true. And in this case we are not considering any theory, we are considering carefully measured facts within the experimental limits of their measurement.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
THOMASWADAMS
| #
The Earth, in it’s great orbit around the sun, for almost the last thousand years, has been approaching that location, when and where the Earth has always endured an “Ice Age”. The Earth is now very close to that “Ice Age”, it could be apon us any day from now, and the Sun is in control of Earth tempreture. All of this is well published on the internet; go look for it.
Reply
THOMASWADAMS
| #
Copy paste this to your search engine:
Cosmic Cycles, not Carbon Dioxide, Control Climate.
by: Viv Forbes, 5th February 2016.
Please feel free to publish, forward, post or quote from this.
Reply
Matt
| #
Hi THOMAS and cool PSI readers.
The easily digested above referenced essay by Viv Forbes is the first time I recall the influence of the moon being referenced to climatic influence.
The 18.6 year Major Lunar Standstill cycles I have never seen acknowledged.
Perigee coinciding with Southern or Northern extremes has influence on partial exchange of cold polar waters for warmer waters.
Whilst the moon reverses many coastal currents it can also subtly alter oceanic current dispersal.
The Supermoon on November 14, 2016, was the closest a Full Moon has been to Earth since January 26, 1948. The next time a Full Moon is even closer to Earth will be on November 25, 2034.
Just another of the relatively minor swings and roundabouts influencing our weather.
Regards Matt
Reply
Jack Pollack
| #
I thought Rancourt did a good job of representing his position, and was respectful towards Wells. Overall it was a lot better than the usual dismissive or ad-hominem attacks kinds of treatment that “skeptics” receive. Actually while Wells may have valid concerns, he didn’t represent the skeptics all that well. The biggest problem with current climate science, and astrophysics, is that advances in plasma science and the value of electromagnetic phenomena for understanding climate, many of which have become more clear in the last ten years, are still not reflected in the current accepted climate science theories and models. That almost “paradigm level” upgrade of astrophysics and climate science needs to occur before any really meaningful debates can happen. Check out the longer videos on the YT channel “Suspicious 0bservers” (with a zero) to get a lot of helpful suggestions on papers and scientists (like Anthony Peratt) that you need to be aware of to catch up with the new advances in the nascent plasma astrophysics and climate science.
Reply
tom0mason
| #
While I agree that ‘Rancourt did a good job of representing his position, and was respectful towards Wells’, Rancourt did seem to be in the usual mode of ‘back radiation’ believers, in that he thinks that endlessly explaining the theory will somehow make it true. Wells I feel reacted quite well considering the continual interruptions from Rancourt and his endless explaining. Though I feel Wells fell a little short in thoroughly explaining the scientific evidence of his position.
Rancourt’s explanation does not answer the historical evidence that the Earth’s temperature changes tends to tracks solar activity, and that atmospheric CO2 levels lag behind the Earth’s temperature changes. Thus atmospheric CO2 levels appear to be an effect of temperature changes and not a cause of it.
Maybe it would have been better if each of them set out their beliefs as statements to start with then moved on to debating how the climate actually appears to work, and then shortcomings of each others position. Citations to science observation and research papers would have helped with both sides with making their arguments more credible.
Your reference to YT channel “Suspicious 0bservers” is at —
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTiL1q9YbrVam5nP2xzFTWQ
and it is very interesting.
I have over many years asked many a people, what are the TOTAL effects the sun has on the earth in general, as well as the climate, and on the atmosphere (and I do not just mean TSI). Maybe with the likes of Anthony Peratt and others these questions (and many more) will get a proper scientific inquiry, and maybe some answers, and not the usual casual dismissal based on ignorance.
Reply
Barry
| #
Ghg only cool. The back radiation experiment for simple lay people. Take a room with a black table in it and light a candle in the centre of the table place a mirror on the far side of the candle . You now have created back radiation, take this a step further and complete a ring of mirrors around the candle, place a mirror on top of the ring. Now you have saturated the environment with mirrors. After one hour the candle uses up all its energy and goes out. The temp inside the mirrors is definitely higher than the exterior temporarily. However it will soon dissipate and you will have added one/hour candle power to the room you have not increased the heat output of the candle.
This is the same affect as clouds blocking out the sun on a hot day. They may trap heat in the short term but if they persist for any length of time it will cool off , just a simple observation. As water vapou is the largest of the ghg it only cools the atmosphere never does it add energy.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James McGinn (1/21/2020 7:26pm),
First I come here because I goofed again as I never wanted to a get to three or four words lines. And it is probably a mistake to write what I know about intermolecular (between molecules) bonding. A mistake because you claim to be a genius and I certainly am not.
Ignoring the presence of any possible impurities (like ions), water molecules can bond to each other by van der Waals forces, dipole-dipole electrical attractions, and hydrogen bonding (a magical quantum mechanical interaction which require a quite precise alignment of the molecules to each other. Hydrogen bonding also depends upon the fact that a hydrogen nucleus is a single proton (so other hydrogen nuclei will be ignored).
And because electrons, protons, atoms, water molecules are very tiny we must imagine the unimaginable.
The weakest intermolecular attraction is the van der Wall force. It is not unlike a dipole-dipole electrical attraction except the electrical dipole is not permanent.
The noble gas elements are atoms because they seldom combine (associate) with any other atoms So chemists have learned about van der Waals forces by determining the boiling point of liquid noble gases.
Helium (He), the smallest noble gas atom composed of two electrons and a positive nucleus having two protons. And helium has the lowest point at one atm pressure of about 4K. The fact there is an observed boiling point proves there is some attraction between atom.
The quantum mechanical model of the atom is that the electrons (with a very very tiny tiny mass relative to that of a proton or neutron are randomly and rapidly ‘flying around a spherical space in which the nucleus (2 protons and 2 neutrons) is assumed to be stationary. But often, but only momentarily, the two electron are not perfectly position on opposite sides of the nucleus and there is a momentary dipole moment, at the momentum of time, when one atom is colliding with the other, there is momentary weak attractive interaction between atoms which holds them together because at this low (4K) temperature the atoms are moving very slowly so any collision is not violent.
Then as we study the next lightest noble gas atoms, they are bigger and their more electrons in a bigger volume of space with much protons in the nucleus, we find its boiling point is greater.
Now in the case of the water molecule composed of an oxygen atom with two hydrogen atoms unsymmetrically (so the oxygen atom is not direct between the two hydrogen atoms) arranged about the oxygen atom. So we describe the water molecule to be a bent (about 105 degrees angle) molecule. So there is a permanent ‘partial’ separation of positive charge (protons) and a ‘partial’ separation of negative charge (electrons). And the resulting dipole-dipole interaction between water molecules is often, until the temperature of the water closely approaches the melting point of water, stronger than the hydrogen bond between water molecules which follows.
In dipole-dipole interaction between water molecules I did not describe that the quantum mechanical model of oxygen atom had 2 electrons in spherical space centered on the nucleus with 8 protons and the 6 other electrons distributed in four volumes of space which point toward the 4 corners of a tetrahedron when the nucleus is centered in the tetrahedron. These four volumes of space extend further from the nucleus than does the spherical volume of space.
Now each of these volumes of space about the nucleus can, according to theory, hold two electron. So we know the oxygen atom had 8 electron and two are in the spherical space and now we put 4 of the remaining 6 electrons in two of the remaining 4 volumes and 1 electron in 1 of the remaining two volume. Then we place (react) each hydrogen atom (with1 electron each) with the oxygen atom by ‘overlaping the hydrogen atoms spherical volume of space with its single electron of each of the oxygen’s volume of space with its single electron.
Thus making a larger connected volume of space with two electrons each which is termed a intra-molecular covalent (shared pair of electron) bond. A principle of quantum mechanics which stabilizes this system of tiny electrons is that larger the volume of space that an electron can occupy, the greater its stability. Which does not make sense to some people because if seems there are no direct electrical attractions involved. That is except those of the atom in which the protons are confining the electrons flying about in ‘certain different’ volumes of space for no good reason except the mathematics assumes the electron (a particle) is behaving an ‘energy’ wave. (the latter is solely my understanding which proves nothing)
But there is a second principle involved in overlapping these two volumes of space to achieve greats stability. It is the that geometric alignment of overlapped spaces need to be very precise.
Hence, when a spherical particle of 60 atoms of carbon was discovered to natural form just diamond and graphite were known to be pure forms of carbon molecules, chemists were surprised for they had assumed that the curvature of the spherical molecule would not allow this precise alignment to occur. But it did.
We will come back to our knowledge of pure carbon a bit later.
The intra-molecular bond is much stronger than the hydrogen bond which is formed when the spherical volume of a bonded hydrogen atom overlaps a volume of ‘directional’ space of an oxygen atom in which there a ‘unbonded’ pair of electrons. So the problem of precise alignment becomes an even more critical issue when we consider the freezing of liquid water.
))
Water has an unique property which no one can deny. Ice (solid water) floats on liquid water. Which forces the conclusion that ice has cage like structure in which there are empty spaces in which a water molecule could fit; but no water molecule is found in the open space.
Ice has the same structure as diamond where each atom of carbon is replaced by the oxygen of a water molecule and there are hydrogen atoms between the oxygen atoms creating the empty space in which a water molecule would fit, but this space remains empty. To my knowledge, this is my original idea (explanation of how it is that ice floats) And I will go one step further. The hydrogen atom between two oxygen atoms is hydrogen bonded to one oxygen atom and intra-molecularly bonded to the other oxygen atom. The nucleus of the hydrogen atom is a tiny proton.
What is to prevent that proton shifting its position and switch the bonding around? I can reason that this action could further stabilize the ice structure according the principle of quantum mechanics that allowing the proton to move and occupy a greater volume to stabilize the system.
But this isn’t really a new idea because chemists have long accepted that a collision between two water molecules could result in an OH- ion and a H3O+. Hence a proton (H+) can be naturally exchanged between two oxygen atoms.
Now we must consider what R.C. Sutcliffe, a meteorologist, (Weather and Climate, 1966) wrote: “The fallacy is to assume that water naturally freezes at temperature below the freezing-point.”
The problem why water droplets do not naturally freeze as expected is that hydrogen bonds need to be precisely alligned. And as the molecules begin to hydrogen bond to form the cage to surround the essential empty space, collisions with other water molecules will easily breakoff an ‘end’ water molecule. So the water must supercooled to a much lower temperature, where the motion of the other molecules will be slower and any collisions less violent, for a fact is collisions are needed for molecules to be added to a partially completed cage for any cage to be completed.
We can only imagine what we cannot see. And Einstein stated: “It’s not that I’m so smart; it’s just that I stay with problems longer.”
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
tom0mason
| #
Water does indeed have many ‘strange’ properties (if compared to other ‘ordinary’ gases, liquids, and solids ) …
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_sitemap.html
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Tom:
Water has an unique property which no one can deny. Ice (solid water) floats on liquid water. Which forces the conclusion that ice has cage like structure in which there are empty spaces in which a water molecule could fit; but no water molecule is found in the open space.
James:
You don’t know the half of it. There are large factions of science that prefer to dismiss the anomalies of H2O.
Deniers of H2O anomalies are a much greater obstacle to progress than are CO2 believers:
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/How-We-Know-Water-Has-Been-Systematically-Misunderstood-By-Science-e9c1e9
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
You and Herb are very interesting. Herb has just written three short sentences which contradict on another and now you credit TomO with writing what I had written. Cannot you keep your facts straight?
Yes, I make mistakes too frequently but I also admit to them. I made great effort to write my long comment to you, yet you cannot even credit me with what I wrote.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Oops, my bad. I started to respond to you then changed my mind.
This is a dubious claim: “Which forces the conclusion that ice has cage like structure.”
James McGinn
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
If “Which forces the conclusion that ice has cage like structure.” (as further described in my comment) is a dubious claim, what is your explanation for the observation that ice (a solid) floats on liquid water?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry: I don’t see how you can claim that any conclusion is forced if you don’t have a viable model of hydrogen bonding in water. You seem sure. Why?
Reply
J Cuttance
| #
My understanding is that a detector can’t detect any infrared unless it is cooler than the source. That’s why they have to be cooled to, for example, -40 deg Celsius to do their job. If the IR downwelling can’t even be detected by the warm ground, how can the ground become warmed from it?
Reply
JDHuffman
| #
A fairly inexpensive handheld IR thermometer can read temperatures down to -54 ºC (-66 ºF) without cooling. The device is designed around capturing photons via doping of a semiconductor calibrated for room temperature.
Reply
J Cuttance
| #
Hmmm if that’s the case I stand corrected.
It makes me wonder how the semiconductor distinguishes between the infrared photons and its own thermal noise.
Perhaps it notices a directional absence of heat.
Reply
JDHuffman
| #
The IR thermometer is pointed at a source. It is only receiving photons from that source. My cheap one ($60) is accurate well within about 1 ºF.
I would encourage anyone interested in following the AGW nonsense to get one and learn to use it. Facts and logic always win out over pseudoscience.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi JD,
I really appreciate your comments as J Cuttance tried not to believe that the temperature of a surface could be measured.
Now I will go back a little to review your previous comments because I must admit that I had not formed a good opinion of your comments and I need to see what I must have been missing.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
JDHuffman
| #
Jerry, I never got the impression J Cuttance denied surface temperatures could be measured. He was wondering how DWIR could be measured. He suspected that DWIR could not warm the surface, and that is correct. DWIR can be measured, but it can NOT raise the temperature of the surface.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi JD,
I goofed again and submitted the comment I intended to submit here. So, it will be submitted here also.
At (https://principia-scientific.com/despite-188-aussie-arsonist-arrests-attenborough-blames-climate-change/#comments) you concluded a comment “The science is settled on that!” This is what you had written with which I disagreed. In the mean time you wrote: “DWIR can be measured, but it can NOT raise the temperature of the surface.” For discussion sake I will agree with this statement; but it leaves a reader and possibly you, with the idea that DWIR can do nothing.
So here goes for the third time because of my goofs.
For it seems GHE of carbon dioxide etc has not been refuted with observations which refute this idea (theory). I thought I had but as I review (https://principia-scientific.com/new-scientific-law-greenhouse-effect/) I now see that I did not specifically point out what prediction of the GHE this new scientific law refuted.
The only testable prediction of the GHE theory, of which I am aware, was and still is that the earth surface temperature (air temperature proxy) would be about 30 degrees Celsius lower if there were no carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This is the prediction which the new scientific law refutes.
Do you agree with this?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi JD,
This comment is just to alert you to keep checking here for a future comment which I have not yet composed. For this morning using the IR thermometer, sounding data being launched from the airport about 3 miles away, and the weather service data being report on the hour being measured at the airport I have much to report about this data of which it seems no one who has not used the IR thermometer to monitor the temperature of the atmosphere (like you and now me) could ever know about.
I have no idea what you and others might consider about my measurements and my reasoning, but I want you to at least consider what I know I have just learned.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi JD,
Yesterday, in the morning I had observed two atmospheric temperatures, one when I pointed the IR thermometer (IRT) nearly straight up (SU) and the other when I pointed it a little above a distant horizon (DH). The temperature SU was significantly less than that at DH. And both were signficantly less than the ambient air temperature (AT).
But in the afternoon I could not observe these relationships between the SU, DU and AT All three temperatures were similar with the SU being a little greater than the DH.
I use Celsius temperatures here because that is the temperature reported for the atmosphere soundings (AS). The following data are for 1-27-2020.
At 6:30am: -15 SU, -4 DH, 6 AT Sky condition: Clear at 6am
At 7:20am: -5 SU, -2 DH, 6 AT Sky condition: Few clouds at 12000ft
Sounding data 4:00an launch time (http://weather.uwyo.edu/cgi-bin/sounding?region=naconf&TYPE=GIF%3ASTUVE10&YEAR=2020&MONTH=01&FROM=2712&TO=2712&STNM=72694&ICE=1 ) Which must be viewed and this is where things get interesting.
For clearly at 4:00am there should be no clouds at 12000ft (about 4000m) since the dew point temperature (DPT) is significantly lower than the AT at that elevation. However, there is a very significant ‘spike’ in the DPT at that elevation. And I know from experience that when the DPT is significantly lower than the AT there is commonly (but not always) such a spike in the DPT at this approximate elevation. And if one looks at the AT one can also see a slight ‘step’ in the AT’s gradient after this altitude. So it is hard to dismiss there is something going on at this elevation even though the atmosphere was reported to be clear (https://forecast.weather.gov/data/obhistory/KSLE.html ) from 3am to 6am.
A point of this comment is that one cannot begin to understand the hows and whys of the AT until one begins to consider this detailed data. And until one knows the detailed data one cannot begin to make ‘generalizations’ about these detailed hourly measurements.
One thing I know I must (should) do tomorrow morning is to make my measurements with the IRT a couple times before 4am and maybe a couple of times before 6:30am. Which is not exactly convenient. But this what a ‘real’ scientist must do if one wants to be a scientist. It is so much easier to reason, argue, and debate about ‘I thinks’.
But given this limited data I will generalize what I conclude from it.
First, there is now the reproducible evidence that the SU temperature can be significantly less than the DH temperature well before sunrise. And there is evidence that the SU temperture can significantly change within a hour period while the DH temperature changed only slightly and the AT temperature did not change at all. The differences between the SU and DH temperatures I consider is due to the difference in path-lengths between the elevation of 12000ft and the surface of the SU and DH measurements. Radiation of the DH measurement passes through much more warmer (lower) atmosphere than that of the SU radiation. For I must accept that the IRT is ‘seeing’ the ‘sum’ of all the radiation being emitted toward the IRT. For unless there is cloud, the atmosphere above has no surface to ‘block’ the transmission of the radiation.
Now I expect, but do not know, that my last conclusion will trouble some readers. But I consider that the IRT is not measuring temperature by measuring the total IR flux and then calculating the temperature via the S-B radiation law. Instead, I consider the IRT is measuring the fluxes of two specific IR wavelengths and using the Wien Displacement Law (Welhelm Wien, 1864) to calculate a temperature. Which name ‘Wien’ I could not find listed in the indexes of The Feynman Lectures On Physics or of the University Physics 6th Ed. (Sears, Zemansky, Young). Which maybe explains something about why there is confusion about the emission of and the measurement of IR radiation.
So I will stop here and wait to see if anyone reads this who has a comment to make.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
JDHuffman
| #
Jerry, the readings from the horizon should always be higher than clear sky overhead because the air near the surface is warmer than the atmosphere overhead.
The IR thermometer essentially measures the mean photon energy. So the more “cold” photons, the lower the temperature reading. More “hot” photons, the higher the reading.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi JD,
I agree with you but what if there is no clear sky overhead? What if there is cloud overhead which strongly scatters the ‘warmer’ photons from the surface, whose temperature is greater than the measured air temperature 1.5m above the surface? This at the same time there are no cloud toward the horizon to scatter these warmer ‘photons’ toward the IRT? I really do consider one should describe photons as being warmer or colder.
For according to the Wien Displacement Law it is the ratio of the photons of one wavelength relative to the photons of a different wavelength from which the ‘temperature’ of the radiation is determined (calculated by the chip which has been programmed to do this calculation. And I suspect that these two wavelengths, whose photons are being measured, are from the atmosphere’s IR window.
You can write: “Yes Jerry, I agree that you are goofy and incompetent.”; but that is your problem and not mine. My problem is that I am old and my fingers seem to be that they are sometimes not well coordinated with the ideas of my mind. Then when I scan to proof read my eyes are sometimes not well coordinated with the ideas of my mind. I try but often fail.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
JDHuffman
| #
Yes Jerry, I agree that you are goofy and incompetent.
Hope that helps.
Reply
J Cuttance
| #
“He suspected that DWIR could not warm the surface, and that is correct. DWIR can be measured, but it can NOT raise the temperature of the surface.”
Rancourt argues that because the electromagnetic radiation has been received, an energy transfer has occurred and a temperature increase is resultant. Wells, and yourself, argue that no temperature increase is possible. I’m doing a presentation to my astronomical society on the Zeller/Nikolov findings, and I’d like this one cleared up.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi J,
Whether you consider what I write is up to you. I write as an attempt to clarify certain issues based upon my understanding of them.
DWIR has two components. Radiation, which source is the earth surface’s emission according to its temperature and Radiation from the matter of the atmosphere because of its temperature.
The idea that this downwelling radiation cannot raise the temperature of the surface is based on a theory that the temperature decreases with increasing altitude above the surface. Which is generally the case but not always. And this not always is more common that many know because they probably have never studied the data of many atmospheric soundings.
And this lack of study and the more important fact is that atmospheric soundings are not yet being made over the vast majority of the earth’s surfaces. These surfaces over which not many soundings are being made are the oceans, and the continents of Africa, Antarctica, and Australia. And we should remember that the sounding projects were only begun after WWII because that was when we first learned that the atmosphere had such a important thing as ‘jet streams’.
But if one studies the atmospheric soundings made at higher latitudes during the winter season, it becomes very evident that over the North American, Europe, and Asia continents that temperature inversions in the lower atmosphere are quite common 24hrs a day. And given cloudless sky can form during the nighttime even during all seasons. Hence, it because possible that there is an atmosphere whose temperature is greater than the surface beneath it.
However, when the atmosphere’s temperature is greater than that of the surface is uncommon because of the great difference between the density of the atmosphere and that of the surface. For the transfer of energy by radiation is very fast and the temperature of the atmosphere decreases very rapidly as it slowly warms the surface. So, the temperatures of both quickly become the same as the temperature of the lower atmosphere becomes that of the surface if there is an overcast which scatters the UWIR of the surface back to the surface so that the surface is not significantly cooling during the nighttime.
J, I hope this helps you.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi J,
I just remembered an important fact. The atmospheric soundings are all made at the same time every 12 hours so I am fortunate to live (45 degrees latitude) where the morning soundings are made at 4am local time. Which in the summer is near sunrise after a short nighttime. And there are many locations where the soundings are made nearer to midnight so a significant temperature inversion has only half of the night to form. So this is another reason that formation of a temperature inversion is so commonly overlooked.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi J,
Another important fact is that the USA government has funded four other natural meteorological weather stations in remote areas, as technologies allowed, which continuously measure the all important solar radiation incident upon the ground and report the hourly mean of this radiation (and other radiations and common meteorological factors) 24hrs per day for at a minimum of a decade at many locations.
So I would encourage to take a look at this data by going to the following links.
https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/hourly02/
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/metplot.html
https://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/scan/
https://raws.dri.edu/
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
JDHuffman
| #
J. Cuttance, DWIR is merely the low energy infrared emitted by the atmosphere that comes back to the surface. But the problem is “back to the surface” does not imply an increase in temperature. Photons striking a surface can be reflected, without any energy transfer. That’s why you see yellow flowers, the yellow frequencies are being reflected. The molecular structure of the flower determines whether or not a photon will be absorbed. The temperature of an object also affects absorption.
The DWIR from a clear sky is typically very, very low energy. I frequently find temperatures directly overhead to be below the design range of my IR thermometer. The thermometer can read as low as -54 ºC (-66 ºF). Below that temperature, the display just has dashes, indicating it is too cold for the instrument. Such DWIR cannot raise the temperature of a much warmer Earth. You’ve likely seen the analogy that you can’t bake a turkey with ice cubes, even though ice emits about 300 Watts/m^2. The ice photons have too little energy.
I don’t know if that answered all your questions or not, so I’ll check back.
Reply
J Cuttance
| #
So clearly the “energy transfer” from this freezing sky to the ground cannot cause warming. It’s a lie, in other words.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi J,
Does the light coming from a star thousand of light years away increase the temperature of the Earth when it strikes it?
I would add that the sky is not “freezing” since it absorbs uv energy from the sun.
Herb
JDHuffman
| #
Herb, if the visible light from a star is reflected, then no energy is transferred.
And the temperature at the tropopause is about -60º F, well below freezing. I often read temperatures that low from a clear sky. For example: -64.9º F, just a few minutes ago.
Herb Rose
| #
HiJ.D,
I have maintained for a long time that thermometers do not give an accurate indication of the kinetic energy of molecules in a gas What exactly is your thermometer reading when you point it at the sky? Is it the temperature of the molecules immediately in front of it or distant molecules? Since heat decreases with distance how does it distinguish between a hot distant air molecule and a cooler closer molecule? Is there a distance from an object where it should be held to give an accurate reading?
A mercury thermometer is designed to have its bulb immersed in the liquid to be measured and the body in the atmosphere to measure the flow of heat but how does it work when both the bulb and body are in the same medium?
Herb
JDHuffman
| #
Herb, an IR thermometer is averaging the energies of photons entering it lens. Since the photon energies correspond to the molecular energies, the IR thermometer gives a very accurate result.
Heat does not decrease with distance. You may be referring to flux, which obeys the inverse-square law. A photon has the same energy as when it was emitted. So if you measure the side of a barn up close, it will have the same temperature if you back away to say, 100 meters.
I encourage anyone interested to purchase one capable of reading to at least as low -65º F, so that sky temperatures can be monitored. They only cost about $60.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi JD,
You recently wrote to Herb: “And the temperature at the tropopause is about -60º F, well below freezing. I often read temperatures that low from a clear sky. For example: -64.9º F, just a few minutes ago.”
When I first read this I questioned it because I had read others reading that their IR thermometers gave no reading when pointed upward. But you also stated that your IR thermometer was a recent model had a scale went down that low. Therefore, I had to accept what you reported because the manufacture had made the scale.
But you also wrote: “I often read temperatures that low from a clear sky.” and did not write: I always read temperatures that low from a clear sky. But what other lower temperatures do you read from a clear sky is not my first question.
My question is what temperatures do you read when point you IR thermometer at an overcast cloud or broken clouds?
I have long known that R.C. Sutcliffe (Weather & Climate, 1966) wrote: “Long-wave radiation from the earth, the invisible heat rays, is by contrast totally absorbed by quite a thin layer of clouds and, by the same token, the clouds themselves emit heat continuously according to their temperatures, almost as though they were black bodies.”
Now because of what you wrote, I ask: have you read the temperature of the bottom of an overcast? of a broken cloud sky? even a scattered cloud sky? If so I need to buy the $60 dollar IR thermometer that you have.
Reply
JDHuffman
| #
Yes Jerry, you should buy one. It’s easy to use. It will prove to anyone with an open mind that it’s impossible for CO2 to “heat the planet”.
With a clear sky overhead, I typically read below -50º F, the lowest the device can go is about -66º. Even in summer, when the ground temperature is over 90º, clear sky is -50º, or colder.
Low clouds (stratus) can be close to ground temperatures. The higher the cloud, the colder it gets. High haze, cirrus type, are typically -40 to -50º.
This is the model I use:
http://www.southwiretools.com/tools/file.get.do?file_id=215
Science doesn’t need billion dollar budgets. It just needs people that can think for themselves and seek truth.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi JD,
Have purchased a inexpensive AMES IR thermometer and when I looked at the specifications from the manufacturer I found that its stated performance between -58F and 32F was +/- 7F And above 32F it was +/- 4F Which for my intended purposes is okay. When I tested it it seems it accuracy is better than this. But the really significant specification was that operating humidity range was 10-75% RH. And the past couple of weeks the atmospheric RH here has been 99%. Which seems to have had no effect on its outdoor performance.
I understand that a manufacturer puts specifications well outside any known limits on performance so they cannot be sued for false advertisement. But there must be some experimental evidence that the RH can influence the performance.
Now, I pretend to know how this could be even if I cannot remember having referred to it directly.
For about condensation nuclei R.C. Sutcliffe (Weather & Climate, 1966) wrote: “These are the ‘nuclei of condensation’, and are effective as soon as the air becomes even slightly supersaturated. As a matter of fact, there are many observations of clouds in air whose relative humidity is considerably below 100 per cent, evidence of nuclei which are hygroscopic.”
Thus, when you point the device at a surface some distance away, you might be measuring the temperature of the atmospheric nuclei instead of the temperature of the surface.
Now, because of Sutcliffe’s comment I have considered the condensation nuclei (condensed matter) of the atmosphere could be the source of the DWIR from the atmosphere and not from GHG molecules.
But the fact you observed temperature well below the temperature of the atmosphere in which you (and now I) are standing, is convincing evidence that not even the condensation nuclei in the saturated atmosphere prevent the measurement of DWIR from far higher in the atmosphere where the temperature is far colder than the surface atmosphere with a RH of 99%.
Very interesting data which must be understood (explained).
Have a good day, Jerry
JDHuffman
| #
Jerry, yours sounds very similar to mine. They likely were both made at the same factory, somewhere in Asia!
I did a lot of testing when I first got mine. I wanted to see how well the calibration held, if I used it outside the range of room temperature. I put it in the freezer, intending to only leave it for a few minutes. But, I got distracted and ended up forgetting it was in the freezer. Five hours later, I remembered….
When I tried to use it, the display was frosted over. Even after wiping off the display, I could hardly read it. I thought I had ruined my IR thermometer. After a few minutes, the display came back. I realized the battery was not strong enough when it was well below freezing!
As the battery started to warm, I noticed the thermometer was reading lower than normal, about 10º F lower. But, within minutes it had returned to normal.
Moral of the strory: If you perform such a test, take the battery out first.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi JD,
You wrote: “Science doesn’t need billion dollar budgets. It just needs people that can think for themselves and seek truth.”
Truer words than these cannot be written.
But they were written after you had described your efforts to find the truth. Seek is the key word. Think for me is a code word that I don’t know. Which is why you (and others in the past) seeked.
I had finally ‘thought’ I can go online and read for myself about IR thermometers so I am now familiar with what you have endorsed for me. I trust you.
Given your experiences with known (seen) lower level clouds have you considered that you are measuring the temperature of a very thin (diffuse) cirrus, very difficult to visually detect, at the tropopause?
For I have questioned if you are actually measuring the temperature of the atmosphere because there is a lot of warmer atmosphere between the tropopause and the ground.
And there is an atmospheric scientist in NZ who recognizes the difficulty of detecting such diffuse clouds which might have influence upon weather and climate because these clouds are not small and (I believe) can have long lifetimes up there at the tropopause.
For (I believe) the only place they can be ‘flushed’ back down to the earth’s surface is over the poles during their winters.
We (you and I and any others) need to try to learn from each other as the Royal Society did in Newton’s time. For Galileo had to do his thing mainly by himself.
Thanks for the information.
Have good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi JD,
Now that I have looked at your IR thermometer, I have questions.
What emissivity do you use in measuring the atmospheric temperatures? I assume 1 in your case but don’t know. I do know there are even more inexpensive ones which have only 0.95 which is close to one and I am frugal. And I believe most natural surfaces have a measured emissivity near 1.
But I want to confirm what I assume is what emissivity you have used.
Have a good day, Jerry
JDHuffman
| #
Jerry, be careful about being too frugal. This same company makes a cheaper model, but it is not capable of reading down to -65º F.
Typical emissivity of the sky and clouds ranges from about 0.95 to 0.99. I just leave the emissivity set at 0.97. I’m interested in repeatability and consistency, so I don’t want to be messing with different settings. I can live with a 1-2% error, as long as the error is consistent so that comparisons mean something.
I follow the difference between “directly overhead” and “shaded ground”. In clear sky conditions, that difference is about 100º in winter and about 140º in summer. At no time is clear sky able to “heat the ground”.
J Cuttance
| #
JD, cheers mate. I’m slowly getting it. There a shortage of common scientific sense around and I appreciate your time.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi J.
All objects above 0 K absorb radiated energy and all objects radiate energy. Objects will absorb energy even if they contain more energy than the absorbed energy. In that case the added energy does not raise the energy/temperature of the object because the amount of radiated energy increases.
The surface of the Earth is in equilibrium with the energy from the sun. When a volcano erupts it increases the energy at the Earth’s surface but this energy rises to the top of the atmosphere and is radiated into space. The increase in temperature is a temporary localized event.
When a blacksmith makes a knife he uses two types of steel. A hard steel to retain a sharp edge and a flexible steel to allow the knife to bend without breaking. He puts these two steels together into a kiln and heats them. He must heat them to the right temperature to allow them to weld together but not to melt and form one type of steel. He determines the temperature by the color of the radiation being emitted by the steel. If the temperature is too low the different metals will not weld, if too high the characteristics of the different steels will be lost. When the steel is at the right temperature he removes it, puts it on an anvil, then strikes it with a hammer to weld the two steels together. Is he adding kinetic energy to the steel with the hammer? Yes. Is he raising the temperature of the steel? No. He must continue to put the steel into the kiln to make up for the energy it is losing by radiation. The energy added by the hammer is different from the heat energy from the kiln but that added energy will be lost as radiation by the steel.
You can add energy to an object with more energy but that energy will not increase the energy of the object just the amount of energy it radiates.
The whole GHGT is wrong because it fails to consider the ultraviolet light being absorbed by the oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere and being converted to heat. The amount of energy in this band dwarfs the energy in the narrow band of visible light penetrating the atmosphere and striking the Earth. The molecules in the atmosphere are hotter (more kinetic energy) than the molecules at the Earth’s surface. Energy flows from the atmosphere to the surface.
Herb
Reply
JDHuffman
| #
Herb, if you go to a restaurant to have dinner, but you encounter a foul odor upon entering, your table is filthy, and cockroaches are feeding off the crumbs, so you immediately leave, did you have dinner at the restaurant?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi J.D,
No J.D. you go to a different restaurant. If you go to a restaurant and it is full do you exit the restaurant and look for another one? That seems a more appropriate analogy since you enter the restaurant not knowing the conditions just as energy enters an object not know its energy level.
Herb.
JDHuffman
| #
Herb, that is a simple analogy of photons arriving at a surface that is not compatible. They don’t hang around.
Electromagnetic energy, as represented by photons, requires a compatible surface to be absorbed, or it does not “stay for dinner”. A more technical description is “Electromagnetic energy is reflected if there is an impedance mismatch”.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi J.D,
I assume that we agree that the radiated energy arriving must have the appropriate wave length to interact with the object. What is blocking the radiation that is moving towards another object from striking it? It is not the electric or magnetic field of the object or the electromagnetic radiation being emitted by the object so what is it? Radiation can pass through other radiation without being effected. If you stand next to a bright light you can see light coming towards you even though it is weaker. Does the light not also strike the brighter light? I would like to know what exactly is preventing the light from striking the object and being reflected or re-emitted.
Herb
JDHuffman
| #
Herb, your first sentence indicated you were starting to understand. But in the rest of your comment, you appeared to want to argue with your first sentence!
Herb Rose
| #
Hi J.D,
I was under the impression that the discussion was about an object no longer absorbing energy from a wave, that normally would transmit energy to it, when the object reached equilibrium or had more energy than the incoming wave. I didn’t think that anyone thought that every object absorbed every electromagnetic wavelength. What energy is absorbed depends on the structure of the object, just like what what radio station you hear depends on the length of the antenna. My contention has been that the energy (normally absorbed) striking the object has no way of knowing the energy state of the object and only finds out when it enters the restaurant door and someone else or it must leave.
Herb
JDHuffman
| #
Well Herb, you inserted yourself here by trying to describe how a blacksmith makes a knife. So, I’m not really sure you know what the discussion is about.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi JD,
For the DWIR due to radiation scattering by an overcast sky, can limit the surface and the surface atmosphere from even cooling to the atmosphere’s dew point temperature during the nighttime.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
JDHuffman
| #
See?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
What you are saying is that water is good insulation preventing heat loss. It isn’t.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Wells vs Rancourt on Greenhouse Thermodynamics
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Wells-vs-Rancourt-on-Greenhouse-Thermodynamics-eabrts
James McGinn
Reply