Water vapor is an ‘anti-greenhouse gas’
This article relates to water vapor “feedback” due to CO2’s alleged “radiative forcing.” From ‘A Simple Method to Measure the Dew Point Temperature’ by R. L. Snyder, Biometeorology Specialist.
Gaseous water molecules consist of one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms. When in a liquid state, the water molecules form strong hydrogen bonds between the molecules. In order to evaporate water, heat must be supplied to break the hydrogen bonds and allow individual molecules to break off as a gas. This is what happens when water is boiled.
The heat supplied by your stove breaks hydrogen bonds and the liquid water is rapidly evaporated. Therefore, heat must be supplied to break hydrogen bonds and evaporate water. If air is the source of the heat (called sensible heat), then the air temperature will drop and the energy is stored as chemical energy in the water molecules (called latent heat).
When water vapor condenses into liquid water, the hydrogen bonds form again and release latent heat, which increases the sensible heat and causes the air temperature to rise.
This exchange between latent and sensible heat is one of the most important factors controlling our climate and environment. Much of the heat transfer on a global scale results from water evaporating at the surface near the equator and condensing into clouds and moving poleward to redistribute the energy. The main point is that sensible heat is removed from the air and the temperature drops when evaporation is occurring and latent heat is converted to sensible heat and the temperature rises when condensation occurs.
http://biomet.ucdavis.edu/frostprotection/Measure%20Dewpoint/fp003.html
All the authoritative bullshitting and muddle-headed equivocation in the world cannot change the fact that when water vapor is generated it COOLS the air. So much for its “positive feedback.” And so much for long-accepted greenhouse theorems that have no basis in reality.
Alan
For your records, here’s a synopsis of the thread that inspired my outburst. It’s a record of the bullshitting and equivocation I’m referring to.
Synopsis: Andrew Dessler had posted his views about the greenhouse effect
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2009/1/4/1251/50095
and respondents on Marc’s list commented about one angle in particular, Dessler’s claim that water vapor provides a strong positive feedback to CO2 forcing, thus exacerbating global warming.
Ben Herman wrote: Andy should look at Roy Spencer’s latest paper if he is searching for the negative feedback that he doubts exists. It can be accessed from the icecap.us site.
David Deming wrote: This, indeed is the question. What will be the water vapor feedback? Will it be negative or positive, and if so, how much? Dessler claims that his conclusion of a significant positive feedback is “derived from fundamental physics combined with observations.” Of course, predicting a negative feedback can also be derived from “fundamental physics.”
The critical point is that Dessler lacks the necessary observation(s). He needs to put increased CO2 in the atmosphere of an earth-like planet and observe what will happen in a complex climate system after a hundred years. Lacking this test, everything else is speculation.
I don’t know much about atmospheric physics, but it seems to me that until the impossible experiment is done, all we have is speculation. That is one reason I’m a skeptic. Another reason is that I have seen how ideology is driving the science. I believe many of the true believers are quite sincerely self deluded. They see everything that reinforces their existing beliefs, and are oblivious to anything that might create cognitive dissonance.
How did we ever get this far?
Alan Siddons wrote: What will be the water vapor feedback? Negative. Water vapor has quite a high specific heat, meaning that it demands more thermal energy than many other substances to raise its temperature. As a result, introducing water vapor into an otherwise dry heating scenario will result in cooling. Simply put, it sucks the heat in. Unfortunately, water’s reputation for storing heat has gotten confused with an ability to induce higher temperatures. But heat and temperature are not synonymous. Water’s so-called “latent heat” is absorbed energy that isn’t expressed as temperature. That extra margin is tucked away, always held in reserve.
Fred Singer: Caution: This argument is not correct.
Brian Valentine: Depends. Water droplets can be stabilised by dust over the water vapour pressure that is increased by the (positive) curvature of the drop over the vapour pressure of water in bulk; at a fixed temperature and total atmospheric pressure. As the external pressure drops, there must be some pressure that the droplets must evaporate; any phase change is accompanied by the absorption of the latent heat of vaporisation. That heat has to come from someplace (i.e., the surroundings …)
Christopher Monckton: Actually there is both (reliable) theoretical and (less reliable) empirical evidence for a net-positive feedback from water vapor. The theoretical reason is in the Clausius-Clapeyron relation, by which as the space occupied by the atmosphere warms its carrying capacity for water vapor increases near-exponentially (subject only to a trivial dependence upon temperature in the denominator). The empirical evidence is in observations that purport to show that the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere has indeed increased by a proportion consistent with the Clausius-Clapeyron value mandated by the observed warming of the past 30 years. However, because water vapor is not a well-mixed GHG like CO2, measuring its concentration is far from easy, and I suspect that the results had been tuned to fit the equation: there has been a lot of that about in the climate field. A further complication, as Roy Spencer has rightly pointed out, is that, particularly in the tropical cloud-belt, warmer weather increases thunderhead formation and consequently planetary albedo, causing cooling not only by evaporation (which Wentz et al., 2007, point out has been underestimated prodigiously by the IPCC) but also by a measurable increase in planetary albedo where it matters most – in the tropics. So, although I think it is settled science that the water vapor feedback simpliciter is strongly net-positive, numerous other mechanisms, including increased evaporative cooling and tropical albedo, exercise a homoeostatic effect – one of many such effects that have succeeded in keeping Earth’s temperature within 3% above or below the billion-year mean, notwithstanding the major phase transitions that caused the ice ages and the interglacials (the last four of which were all considerably warmer than the present).
Brian Valentine: Nil. I think Lord Christopher and Alan are both correct, but their interpretations are dependent on the conditions present.
Nevertheless I have never seen evidence that any such effect could be discerned amidst what must the background of white noise; there would simply have to be some things observed in the geological strata during a warming period that followed some cooling, which are not observed. Just isn’t there.
Alan Siddons: Just to pin a few things down, specific heat is the amount of heat required to increase the temperature of a substance’s mass by one degree. Sources vary somewhat, but here’s one:
Specific Heat of Dry Air at Constant Pressure: 1004 J K-1 kg-1
Specific Heat of Water Vapor at Constant Pressure: 1952 J K-1 kg-1
That’s nearly twice the heat required. Other sources put the figure higher.
Imagine a substance whose specific heat is infinite. No matter how much thermal energy you pushed into this stuff, its temperature would never rise. Water is almost like that, the difference being that its specific heat is merely high. A high specific heat equals resistance to a temperature increase. The energy input goes into hiding.
In the earth’s particular circumstances, this makes water a grand moderator, providing a negative response to the anomaly in question. If a watery milieu receives more heat, liquid water will suck it in and also evaporate more, thus lending the air a higher specific heat, i.e., cooling it. If that environment then grows colder, precipitation occurs, releasing the heat that kept the water vapor aloft. CO2 doesn’t behave at all like this.
To repeat: water’s high specific heat means that it resists an increase in temperature. The “latent heat” that water tucks away and makes unavailable doesn’t register on thermometers; they only measure “sensible heat.” I think that this confusion about latent heat has kept climatology chasing its own tail. Water’s ability to “trap” an influx of heat is not at all the same as raising the temperature, in fact it’s just the opposite.
Richard Lindzen: For what it’s worth, the Clausius-Clapeyron relation is only relevant for a saturated atmosphere — which our atmosphere is not. The spatial heterogeneity of rh is indeed crucial since the impact of changes in humidity are vastly different for dry and moist regions. Getting the right area for each is impossible without getting clouds right — which the models don’t. Finally, the water vapor feedback is the most important and robust feedback in models. I am by no means sure that this is the case in nature. I discussed most of this years ago in the attached paper. Although there are details in that paper that I might reconsider, by and large it still holds up.
[Editor’s note: This article by Alan Siddons was first posted ten years ago at climaterealists.com, but only now are scientists beginning to understand the significance]
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Al Shelton
| #
I remember reading Alan’s article about 10 years ago. I agreed with it then and still do.
The water cycle explains what is occurring on the earth, and is empirically true IMO.
I suspect that far too many “experts” cannot discard the GHG Theory because of ego problems.
Reply
Pierre D. Bernier
| #
Hi,
Easy to disregard if you understand, like Joe Postma proved, that the average Sun’s flux on earth’s exposed hemisphere is 1370 / 2. Plenty of energy to go around and have water do what it does best… keep us comfortable. But, they have other interest then understanding !
Reply
James McGinn
| #
As: I remember reading Alan’s article about 10 years ago. I agreed with it then and still do. The water cycle explains what is occurring on the earth, and is empirically true IMO.
JMcG: Empiricism involves reproducible experimental evidence. Why don’t you ask Alan to show you the reproducible experimental evidence that H2O magically defies its known boiiling temperature/pressure to become gaseous in the ambient temperatures of atmosphere. Along these lines, why don’t you ask him to to show you the reproducible experimental evidence that H2O has a phase change in the atmosphere that, magically, releases “latent heat.”
It’s funny how you traditional clodhoppers want the world to take notice of superstition-based lunacy of the AGW clodhoppers but you don’t want to take responsibility for the fact that the empirical pretentiousness of your own traditional paradigm has paved that path for the wider acceptance of this novel lunacy.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Superstition and half-baked theory dominate the atmospheric sciences. That was true in the past and it continues to be true now. Currently meteorological theories on atmospheric flow and storms are dominated by the following three superstitious and half-baked notions: 1) Convection causes all non-orographic upward motion (included in this is the strange belief that H2O in the atmosphere magically becomes gaseous at temperatures/pressures that have never been detected in a laboratory); 2) Dry layer capping: this is a strange superstition that imagines dry layers have structural properties that oppose convective uplift to thereby explain inversion layers; 3) Latent heat: this is the pretentious notion that random phase changes of H2O (which have never been detected) in the upper atmosphere produce gusty winds.
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
Reply
Pierre D. Bernier
| #
Is that experimental enough ?
https://chem.libretexts.org/@api/deki/files/8720/530px-Phase-diag2.svg.png?revision=1
Reply
Pierre D. Bernier
| #
Did not come out right. I’ll try again
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Phase_diagram_of_water.svg/700px-Phase_diagram_of_water.svg.png
Reply
Pierre D. Bernier
| #
Are there clouds in the sky ? Yes !
What are those clouds made of ? Micro water droplets !
Does water levitate to high altitudes ? No !
Does water evaporate in warm air at low altitudes ? Yes !
Is that hot air lighter then the cold air higher up ? Yes and it will rise !
What does the gas law say about air rising ? It will cool !
What happens when cooler air has it’s relative humidity rise above 100% ? Water vapour condenses !
What happens when water vapour condenses ? It releases it’s energy of vaporisation heating up it’s environment !
QED
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Pierre,
Rain clouds form at the troposphere – stratosphere boundary so evidently water does levitate in the atmosphere.
The universal gas law says that when you add energy to gas molecules the volume increases. When the volume increases the molecules will strike the thermometer less often transferring less kinetic energy to it and causing a lower temperature reading. The energy added to the gas molecules does not disappear.
When you add air to a scuba tank you must submerge it in water to cool the tank.so you can fill it. The kinetic energy of the gas molecules are not gaining more kinetic energy from the compression but there are more of them transferring heat to the tank.This is the same principle used in air condoning. You expand the cool freon into the heat exchange pipes where it absorbs heat from the pipes. The heated freon goes to a compressor where it is then condensed. The liquid freon is then circulated through a radiator where it is cooled removing heat so it can repeat the process. If you did not remove heat from the freon your air conditioner would not work because the kinetic energy of the freon molecules would not change..
Herb
Reply
Pierre D. Bernier
| #
What the hell is this ? A circus !!!
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You had already written: “Rain clouds form at the troposphere – stratosphere boundary so evidently water does levitate in the atmosphere.”
Oh! No! I just agreed with you.
Have a good day, Jerry
James McGinn
| #
Hi Pierre,
Excellent response. You did something that pretenders refuse to do. You thought outside the box to formulate an alternate hypothesis (levitation). Good job!
Pierre:
Are there clouds in the sky? Yes!
What are those clouds made of? Micro water droplets!
Does water levitate to high altitudes? No!
James:
Are there clouds in the sky? Yes.
What are those clouds made of? Micro water droplets! Yes.
Are these droplets more massive than the surrounding N2 and O2 molecules that comprise the bulk of the atmosphere? Yes.
Does water levitate to high altitudes? No.
Does water levitate to lower altitudes (up to about 3000 ft; 1000 meters; higher at equatorial latitudes)? Yes?
Do we have a hypothesis for what might cause water micro and/or nano droplets (and/or parcels of air that is more saturated with micro and/or nano droplets) to levitate up to lower altitudes? Yes. Static electricity in the atmosphere.
Is there evidence of static electricity in the atmosphere? Yes.
Is there evidence that static electricity can effect water? Yes.
Are there hypotheses that might explain the origin of static electricity in the atmosphere? Yes. There are two hypotheses:
1) Terrestrial: Earth’s magma generates an electric field that is detectable on the surface. This is referred to as the Thermionic Hypothesis.
2) Extraterrestrial: The solar wind. Evidence for this is associated with lightning, sprites and the aurora.
Pierre:
Does water evaporate in warm air at low altitudes? Yes!
Is that hot air lighter than the cold air higher up? Yes and it will rise!
What does the gas law say about air rising? It will cool!
What happens when cooler air has it’s relative humidity rise above 100%? Water vapour condenses!
What happens when water vapour condenses? It releases it’s energy of vaporisation, heating up it’s environment!
James:
Does water evaporate in warm air at low altitudes? Yes!
Does evaporation produce gaseous H2O that mixes into air? No! As a matter of fact, no part of earth’s atmosphere where water occurs is the temperature/pressure conducive to the existence of gaseous H2O. (Consult an H2O phase diagram for details.)
Does evaporation produce micro and nano droplets that mix into air? Yes.
Is this more saturated air warmer than the drier air above? Yes.
Is this more saturated, warmer air denser and/or more massive than the drier, cooler air above? Yes!
Is it in any way possible for this denser and/or more massive, warmer, more saturated air to be more buoyant than the less dense, less massive cooler, less saturated air above? No.
Does this mean it cannot/will not rise? No.
Are there other factors that might cause this denser and/or more massive, warmer, more saturated air to rise preferentially above any drier, cooler air above? Yes! More saturated air is more effected by electrostatic forces that exist in abundance in earth’s atmosphere, the origins of which are thermionics and solar winds (see below for links to corroborating evidence and arguments). So, to be clear, denser and/or more massive, more saturated, warmer air can rise in the atmosphere due to electricity in the atmosphere.
What does the gas law say about air rising? It will cool.
What happens when cooler air has it’s relative humidity rise above 100%? Micro and nano water droplets will combine into larger droplets.
What happens when water vapour condenses? Since there is no gaseous H2O in any part of the atmosphere, “condensation” will only involve smaller droplets combining into larger droplets. So, no phase change takes place. Moroever, since both evaporation and condensation are low energy processes, no thermal drama will take place as a result of condensation. However, this does not mean that the process does not/cannot be a significant mechanism to transport heat from lower altitudes to higher altitudes. Since H2O has a high heat capacity and is constantly absorbing and re-emitting infra red energy throughout the Planc spectrum it provides a huge amount of thermal negative feedback (heating cold; cooling hot) especially in the lower parts of the troposphere. So, in short, although there is no such thing as “latent heat” H2O is a significant mechanism for absorbing and redristributing simple heat. (I should also mention, that this model fails to confirm the speculative notions that “latent heat” somehow [magically, I suppose] explains the origin of the updrafts of hurricanes and the gusty winds associated with smaller storms. (Along these lines, no claims is being made here to having explained the origins of the more focused flow [seemingly, a reversal of entropy] that are evident in the atmosphere and that are especially apparent in storms.)
Pierre:
QED
James:
QED? LOL. Pierre, you can’t gloss over anomalies, declare QED, and expect me not to laugh at you. To a pseuodoscientist an anomaly is something to be dismissed and ignored. This is because a pseudoscientist is not interested in dirty truth but only in shiny clean certainty. To a real scientist an anomaly is the crack in the seam that, if one endeavors, will reveal a dirty new set of truths that are in need of his or her janitorial services.
Are there other materials you can research to corroborate this bold new hypothesis of water’s role in atmospheric flow and storms? Yes. Here are some search strings you can google:
Thunderbolts Forum Millions of Tons of Water Suspended Kilometres Above
Thunderbolts Forum Concerning the drying of wet shoes.
And this is a direct link to a related topic:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=195#p122310
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
Pierre D. Bernier
| #
The best place to solve tornadoes is to go fly in the wind !
James McGinn
| #
Pierre:
The best place to solve tornadoes is to go fly in the wind!
James:
Wind blows, tornadoes suck.
James McGinn / Genius
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=165#p122186
Excerpt:
Someday my theory will be accepted. This may not happen for a long, long time, possibly long after we are gone. At that time I anticipate getting the following argument directed at my discovery:
“McGinn’s discovery of vortice plasma was not that big of a deal. He didn’t do any experiments or make any original observations. In other words, he didn’t discover any of the pieces of the puzzle. All he did was correctly interpret the pieces of the puzzle–something that would have happened anyway–and then he put the puzzle together. No big deal.”
My response to this is, yes, I agree. For example, the realization that convection was unworkable . . .
jerry krause
| #
Hi Pierre ,
You wrote: “Does water levitate to high altitudes ? No !”
Liquid and solid water do not levitate upward but a portion of the water molecules do according to a well know principle of gases. Gas molecules are always trying to fill space. The mechanism by which water molecules move upward is the mechanism (or phenomenon) of diffusion. And because of thunderstorms much water (gas, liquid, solid) is ‘levitated’ (lifted by the principle of bouyancy) quickly from the surface to the top of the troposphere. And not all of this water (solid and gas) is precipitated that atmosphere near the top of the troposphere. The temperature at the top of the troposphere is too low for there to be liquid water.
Before one makes statements one should inventory everything that is known (has been observed) Yes, I know I have just refuted my previous statement that ‘Liquid and solid water do not levitate upward.’ Which is because I did inventory what I know has been observed.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
AS:
I remember reading Alan’s article about 10 years ago. I agreed with it then and still do.
The water cycle explains what is occurring on the earth, and is empirically true IMO.
I suspect that far too many “experts” cannot discard the GHG Theory because of ego problems.
JMcG:
I read it ten years ago also. I thought it was moronic then and I still think its moronic. Alan Siddons doesn’t understand the atmosphere. He is just parroting back what every meteorology undergraduate is told to believe.
Even a moron should be able to realize that if something that has never been detected empirically very well may not be true. Is this a difficult concept to grasp?
I pointed out ten years ago that there was zero evidence that H2O is gaseous in the atmosphere. I pointed out ten years ago that the H2O phase table plainly shows that it is impossible. Do you morons not know how to read a phase table?
Seriously, Alan, Al, Pierre. Explain to us where on the H2O phase table it indicates gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures. Go ahead. show us.
Morons follow morons. Here is a link to a book written by the lead moron:
Espy; Philosophy of Storms
https://archive.org/details/philosophystorm00espygoog/page/n10
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi James and Others,
James, in this comment (September 6, 2019 at 1:49 pm) you just walked into the gooey stuff. For ten years it seems you did not try to simply measure the air’s dewpoint temperature (DP) as described by R. L. Snyder. (http://biomet.ucdavis.edu/frostprotection/Measure%20Dewpoint/fp003.html)
I have recalibrated the thermometer I used before when I got a DP which did not begin to agree with the DP being measured at the local airport about 3 miles away. This morning I again performed the experiment and got the same DP being measured and reported for this airport.
I am going to describe the details of this morning’s experiment so you, or anyone else, can do the simple experiment described by Snyder. For it is a little difficult to see the dew forming on the aluminum beverage can that I used. One needs to shine a light (flashlight) on the side of the can to see the minute droplets of the dew which begin to form when the surface temperature reaches the DP. I added too many ice cubes so that the surface temperature cooled too rapidly beyond the DP. Which was good because one can observe when the dew stops forming as the water in the can slowly warms. For I found I could wipe away the dew which had formed with my finger and watch as the dew redeposited on the can’s surface. So, when the dew did not redeposit I knew the DP because the temperature of the water in the can was very, very, slowly warming.
You just quoted Alan Siddon: “I suspect that far too many “experts” cannot discard the GHG Theory because of ego problems.” And immediately you wrote: “I read it ten years ago also. I thought it was moronic then and I still think its moronic.” And you continued: “Even a moron should be able to realize that if something that has never been detected empirically very well may not be true. Is this a difficult concept to grasp?”
You and anyone can do this simple experiment and see the formation of dew on the cold can. And you can see that as the water in the can warms the dew stops forming on the can. This is empirical evidence which you, or anyone, must explain.
And the simplest explanation is that there are water (a gas) molecules in the air. I would like to read your alternative explanation of this empirical evidence which you, or anyone, can see..
James, you cannot deny there is no empirical evidence to explain. You must explain what all can see if they do the experiment described by R. L. Snyder. James, do you have an ego problem?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
james McGinn
| #
Jerry:
And the simplest explanation is that there are water (a gas) molecules in the air.
James:
Jerry, only a freekin moron would allow the conclusion of their experiment to be determined by what is simple to explain. Since I am not a moron I do not care about simple explanations. I care about correct explanations.
I hope you can understand that I when I call you (or anybody) a moron I am not doing so in anger. I am doing so with considerable sympathy. I do so because calling you a moron is the nicest word I can use to help you become aware of the depth of your delusion.
But Jerry, you really are a moron. I have explained to you time and time again that I do not buy in to the moronic assumption of your moronic paradigm that the clarity of clear moist air indicates that the moisture therein is in the gaseous phase. I have explained this to you over and over and freekin over again, you freekin delusional moron.
The dewpoint does not involve a transition between gaseous H2O and Liquid H2O, you freekin moron. That you stubbornly choose to believe it does is your delusion. DO NOT INCLUDE ME IN YOUR DELUSION, YOU FREEKIN MORON.
So, your experiment, you freekin moron, did not demonstrate anything but the depth of your delusion.
Read this before you respond:
Isaac Newton was a human being
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16306
Squidly
| #
I have always been curious about the phrase “positive feedback” .. I have wondered where the extra energy comes from in order to create this “positive” effect. A “positive” feedback implies additional energy into the system, and indeed requires such in order to be a “positive” feedback mechanism. There is no other known system that does not require such. So, again, my question, where does the extra energy come from ?
Reply
James McGinn
| #
AS: Gaseous water molecules consist of one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms. When in a liquid state, the water molecules form strong hydrogen bonds between the molecules.
JMcG: This is exactly wrong. It is plainly observable that the bonds in liquid water are very weak. Thus the reason liquid water is so fluid (low viscosity). (More precisely the strength of hydrogen bonds in water are inversely variable with connectedness. But this is too complicated to explain here. See below.) Alan, you are making the classic mistake of applying the logic of standard bonding to that of hydrogen bonding, which is fundamentally different. This is a part of reality that conventional theory (quackademia) has not figured out yet.
AS: In order to evaporate water, heat must be supplied to break the hydrogen bonds and allow individual molecules to break off as a gas. This is what happens when water is boiled.
JMcG: Jesus Christ, pull your head out and take a gander at the H2O phase diagram. You will see that it is plainly impossible for H2O to turn gaseous at such low temperatures. (Evaporation does not produce gaseous H2O. If it did we would all be driving cars using engines based on the ‘power’ of evaporation.)
AS: The heat supplied by your stove breaks hydrogen bonds and the liquid water is rapidly evaporated. Therefore, heat must be supplied to break hydrogen bonds and evaporate water. If air is the source of the heat (called sensible heat), then the air temperature will drop and the energy is stored as chemical energy in the water molecules (called latent heat).
JMcG: Alan, you have the right general idea but your understanding of the mechanics is nonsense. You are just repeating the traditional superstition about water in the atmosphere. In essense, you are attempting to oppose the novel quackery of global warming with traditional quackery. Gaseous H2O (which does not exist as a gas at the low temperatures of earth’s atmosphere) has a low heat capacity. Specifically (and obviously) gaseous H2O HAS NO F##KING MECHANISM TO STORE ENERGY!!! But this is irrelevant since there is zero gaseous H2O in the atmosphere.
AS: When water vapor condenses into liquid water, the hydrogen bonds form again and release latent heat, which increases the sensible heat and causes the air temperature to rise. This exchange between latent and sensible heat is one of the most important factors controlling our climate and environment.
JMcG: Liquid H2O (having a very wide thermal spectrum in the temperature range of liquid H2O [only]) constantly and comprehensively releases/absorbs heat following the simple rules of thermodynamics–hotter to cooler. But “latent heat” is a fairy tale to explain what doesn’t need explaining (provided one comprehends the basis of H2O’s thermal elasticiy [see below]). The blatant misinformation you are providing here opens the door to global warming hysteria, which doesn’t seem unreasonable in comparison to the fairy tale of latent heat.
AS: Much of the heat transfer on a global scale results from water evaporating at the surface near the equator and condensing into clouds and moving poleward to redistribute the energy. The main point is that sensible heat is removed from the air and the temperature drops when evaporation is occurring and latent heat is converted to sensible heat and the temperature rises when condensation occurs.
JMcG: This is mostly true. But your understanding of the mechanism thereof is blatant pseudoscience.
AS: http://biomet.ucdavis.edu/frostprotection/Measure%20Dewpoint/fp003.html
AS: All the authoritative bullshitting and muddle-headed equivocation in the world cannot change the fact that when water vapor is generated it COOLS the air. So much for its “positive feedback.” And so much for long-accepted greenhouse theorems that have no basis in reality.
JMcG: Well, I mostly agree, but you aren’t one to talk if you can’t read a simple phase diagram. As with anything, the preliminary step to understanding the mechanics of H2O’s thermal properties involves being honest about the fact that you currently don’t understand it. In short, you first have to realize that “latent heat” is just pretensious BS.
AS: For your records, here’s a synopsis of the thread that inspired my outburst.
JMcG: You ae right to react to this nonsense. Water is the source of all of the negative thermal feedback in earth’s atmosphere. And it provides zero positive feedback. The elasticity of the hydrogen bonds, which are poorly understood by quackademia (as you demonstrated vividly) is the basis of the thermal elasticity that underlies this negative feedback.
[Editor’s note: This article by Alan Siddons was first posted ten years ago at climaterealists.com, but only now are scientists beginning to understand the significance]
JMcG: Alan and the Editor should be embarassed by this. But, I suppose, the “latent heat” superstition is so pervasive that it provides you all the morale support you need to continue pretending you understand what you plainly do not understand. The “latent heat” notion is just stupidity that has been elevate by repitition to appear scientific, just like CO2 caused AGW.
Understanding the the thermal elasticity of H2O involves three realizations. Firstly one must comprehend that the force that brings H2O molecules together (polarity) is a result of the asymmetry (lopsidedness) of the H2O molecule’s electromagnetic signature. Secondly you need to comprehend that hydrogen bonds between water molecules reverse this electromagnetic asymmetry achieving electromagnetic symmetry (balance) thereby neutralizing (some fraction [see below] of) the magnitude of this force. Lastly one must comprehend how this neutralization is relative (according to proximity) and fractional, a maximum of 25% per bond, and each H2O molecule can form a hydrogen bond with up to four other H2O molecules in its vicinity, potentially neutralizing up to 100% (4 x 25%) of each other’s polarity.
Are You Confused About Hydrogen Bonding In Water?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfNuWJDJvRw
I highly recommend that you read the comments on this video.
James McGinn / Solving tornadoes
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
Allan Sidon, the author of this posting, began: “This article relates to water vapor “feedback” due to CO2’s alleged “radiative forcing.” From ‘A Simple Method to Measure the Dew Point Temperature’ by R. L. Snyder, Biometeorology Specialist.”
The second statement strongly implies that some of the words which follow are those of R.L. Snyder. However, when I went to (http://biomet.ucdavis.edu/frostprotection/Measure%20Dewpoint/fp003.html) I find something completely different from what Allan Sidon wrote.
But first there needs to be an introduction to what Snyder wrote: In 1966 R.C. Sutcliffe, a meteorologist in Weather and Climate asked the question: “Why is it that in the atmosphere condensation to clouds invariably happens as soon as normal saturation is reached?” His immediate answer was: “The answer is that the natural atmosphere, however clean it may appear to be, is always supplied with a sufficient number of minute particles of salts, acids or other substance which serve just as well as liquid water in capturing water molecules from the vapour.” As a result of this condensation, when the atmosphere becomes saturated with water vapor, we have the factor termed ‘the dewpoint temperature’. And Snyder’s article was about a simple measurement of this factor.
However, this is also a portion of what Snyder wrote: “During nighttime, there is a net loss of long wave radiation from the surface to the sky. This causes the surface to cool and sensible heat, which is measured with a thermometer, is convected downward from the air to the surface to partially replace the heat loss. However, the surface cools faster than the air above and this usually leads to an inversion (i.e., the temperature increases with height). Also, heat is conducted upward through the soil to partially replace the heat lost to radiation. The net radiation is relatively constant during the night, but the volume of air supplying heat to the surface increases during the night and so the net rate of heat loss of air near the surface decreases with time during the night. Similarly the net rate of heat loss of the soil layer near the surface decreases with time because heat is being transferred from deeper in the soil. As a result, the air temperature drops fast immediately after sunset, but the rate of temperature drop slows near dawn.”
This is an excellent description of what is observed when the atmosphere appears cloudless and its simple explanation. You should go to Snyder’s article and read it in its entirety.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Alan Siddons
| #
That’s an odd allegation, Jery Kras, since anyone can go to the link and see that I quoted the excerpt word for word, ending at the link. I used it to make a single point, as it states: “The main point is that sensible heat is removed from the air and the temperature drops when evaporation is occurring…” That latent heat is released when the rising vapor condenses to form a sun-blocking cloud, which adds thermal energy to the cloud but does nothing to increase the surface’s temperature.
In short, one could say that water vapor only becomes a heating agent when it ceases to be a vapor. Thanks for impugning my integrity, though.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Alan, your article, Jerry’s response, and your response to Jerry is all conversational, anecdotal, and speculative. This is consistent with meteorology being a conversational, anecdotal, and speculative paradigm. The same can be said for much of climatology that follows in the methodological footsteps of meteorology. So little of what you are stating here is quantifyable or remotely testable. So, the criteria for truth is aesthetic and not empirical. This leaves the door wide open to anybody that wants to use the same conversational, anecdotal, and speculative approach in regard to CO2 and global warming/climate change.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
It’s Not What You Know That Will Hurt You . . .
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16318
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Alan,
I stand corrected. But have you ever heard of quotation marks to separate what you are quoting and what are your statements. I suspect, but do not know, that R. L. Snyder would be offended if anyone considered he wrote–“All the authoritative bullshitting and muddle-headed equivocation in the world cannot change the fact that when water vapor is generated it COOLS the air.”–for two reasons. The vulgar language you wrote and the fact that evaporation does not directly cool the air. It cools the liquid water from which water molecules evaporates. You cannot have evaporation without first having liquid water. If you have solid water, ice, the conversion process from ice to water molecules is termed sublimation.
Water can evaporate even when it is already colder than the air in contact with it if the dewpoint temperature of the air is below the temperature of the colder water.
Which is point Snyder’s article. He cools water in a shiny metal can with ice cubes until water vapor begins to condense on the outside of the can. The temperature of the water in the can is then the dew point temperature of the air in contact with the outside of the can. This only works when the dew point temperature of the air is above the melting temperature of the ice cubes being added to cool the water.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Pierre D. Bernier
| #
Last time I checked, when I drop water on the floor and let it be, it will evaporate. I wonder where the heat needed to do so comes from ? The floor ? The surrounding air ? Mars ? Hum ?
Reply
John Nicol
| #
Comments here omit (as is often the case) the fact that clouds also reflect infra red radiation back to earth which involves the whole of the Planck spectrum – nothing to do with carbon dioxide. This why cloudy nights are usually considerable warmer than clear nights. Being under a cloud in the daytime of course is cooler even though again the cloud is reflecting infra red back to earth because the radiation from the earth is much less than the radiation coming from the sun, since a lot of the sun’s radiation is absorbed by the ground sand by the air in contact with it. On a clear day we receive an intensity from the sun which is only reduced by aerosol scattering and is more than 1,300 Wm^-2, However, after absorption by the surface soil and the air, the temperature of the ground is seldom more than about 65 C or 338 K which radiates energy at an intensity of sigma T^4 = 656 Wm*-2 being roughly half that received from the sun above. If all of that is reflected from the cloud we are under in place of being under the sun, then we are in a much reduced radiation field.
The process of evaporation involves “selected” molecules no matter what the temperature or circumstance. The molecules in a liquid are still subject to a statistical distribution of energies – a Gaussian – from which some molecules are at quite low energies and cannot escape from the surface even when the water is “boiling” which is why when you boil the kettle, the whole thing does not suddenly explode. However, even at temperatures far less than boiling some molecules in the energetic part of the distribution curve, will escape – evaporation. This occurs even for frozen water in a “no frost” refrigerator, unless I cover my ice cubes with a plastic bag or something, (which I often forget to do!!), the ice cubes in the freezer compartment simply “sublimate” to my great annoyance and embarrassment when I have invited a fiend in for a Scotch!!!. Again, this occurs because even in ice, the Gaussian distribution of energies provides some molecules with enough energy to escape from what is the “surface tension”.
The stupidest claims about “feedbacks” are emphasised when people (climate “scientists” aka geographers) maintained that if the concentration of carbon dioxide continued we would reach a “scary” Tipping Point, when there would be runaway heating. They even tried quite falsely to claim that Venus was just such a case.
However, they happily claimed that above the illogical 254.9 K of their falsely formed “model” Earth – without an atmosphere or soil – provided as the Effective Emission temperature for comparison with Earth’s known MEAN temperature of 288 K – the temperature increase of earth was because of about 12 K (C) provided by 250 ppmv of CO2 which lead to a feedback of – so conveniently – 21 C (I think these are the figures but not sure) to provide the magical 33 C difference.
My question is: “What is it in the atmosphere which so conveniently stops the “feedback” from water vapour at 21 C? Surely if 12 C from CO2 can cause 21 C of water vapour feedback, then 21 C from water vapour must continue to further evaporate water from the oceans, producing even higher temperatures and in all likely hood – if all the other nonsense were correct – the Tipping Point!!!
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi John,
Let me expand on why clouds are not reflecting heat back to the Earth’s surface keeping it warmer at night. One of the great follies of the GHGT is that CO2 is reflecting heat back to the Earth’s surface and it is no different for clouds. Heat decreases with distance and it is a violation of thermodynamics to claim that energy traveling to an object and then returning can add energy to the source. The water in the clouds are conducting heat stored in the water and from the hotter (more kinetic energy) molecules higher in the atmosphere to the surface.
A thermometer has no way of determining how many molecules (mass) are transferring energy to it, just how much energy it receives. Since the number of molecules (mass) in the atmosphere decreases with increasing altitude the thermometer does’t tell if the decrease in heat is a result of less mass or lower kinetic energy (velocity).In order to determine the cause of the decrease in temperature you must use the universal gas law to determine the kinetic energy for a constant number of molecules (mass). This shows that the kinetic energy of molecules increases at a steady rate in the troposphere where water moderates the energy, and then increases exponentially in the higher layers of the atmosphere. The molecules on the surface the Earth have less kinetic energy than the molecules in the atmosphere above them. This makes perfect sense since the energy coming from the sun striking a gas molecule in the atmosphere will have its energy transferred to that molecule while the same energy striking the surface of the Earth will have that energy dispersed to a million molecules (in water).
The result is that the water droplets in the clouds will radiate their stored energy and more effectively transmit energy from the molecules higher in the atmosphere to the surface of the Earth at night than the sparse gas molecules on a clear night.
Herb
Reply
Pierre D. Bernier
| #
Herb / In order to determine the cause of the decrease in temperature you must use the universal gas law to determine the kinetic energy for a constant number of molecules (mass) /
Exactly. K/N = 3kT/2. So the temperature up there being lower means less kinetic energy per molecule, not more.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Pierre,
The pressure that confines the atmosphere and prevents its expansion is gravity and since it is measured from the center of the Earth the additional 30 miles of atmosphere doesn’t cause a significant change in pressure. PV=nrt. t= V/n. V/n = 1/density. When you compare the values at different altitude t increases with increasing altitude. When heat is added to the molecules of a gas it expands and the density decreases. If the kinetic energy of the gas molecules dropped the density would increase with altitude.To get the approximate temperature at different altitudes assume the 15 C at sea level is correct and multiply that value by the inverse of density. You will find at the altitude where planes fly the temperature is not -50 C but over 80 C resulting in planes flying through rain not ice. At the top of the troposphere the temperature reaches the boiling point of water and above that point there is an exponential increase in temperature.The ridiculous graph of the temperature measured by a thermometer is replaced by one curving upwards showing the sun is the source of heat for the Earth..
Herb.
Reply
Pierre D. Bernier
| #
Herb /the additional 30 miles of atmosphere doesn’t cause a significant change in pressure. /
What kind of voodoo mathematics is that ? You can’t just take P out. goto … https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html
second bloc… U.S. Standard Atmosphere Air Properties – SI Units
There is your T, P and d. an all in one package.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Pierre,
The pressure referred to in the universal gas law is not atmospheric pressure which is the weight of the molecules in the atmosphere. It is gravity that holds the atmosphere to the Earth and resists its expansion just like the elasticity of a balloon confines the gas in it and resists its expansion.
If energy was removed from the atmosphere it would become a layer of liquid on the surface held there by gravity not the weight of the top layer of the liquid. The rock on top of a mountain doesn’t hold the mountain to the Earth.
The force of gravity pulling on a gas molecule is equal to, the mass of the Earth times mass of the molecule divided by 4000 miles squared. The force of gravity pulling on the same molecule at an altitude of 30 miles is the mass of the Earth times mass of molecule divided by 4030 miles squared. The difference is 1.5 % which is not significant over a thirty mile distance.
The gases in the atmosphere are considered unconfined gases because they are free to expand and contract with temperature independent of pressure.
Herb
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You insist on playing stupid. You stated: “Let me explain …”. In Science you must first cite an observation. The observation is that that the nighttime atmospheric temperature often do not significantly cool during nights when there is a total cloud overcast through which one cannot observe stars and moon, when it should be present.
So, it is not enough to claim that clouds are not reflecting heat back to the Earth’s surface. You must explain how it is that the nighttime atmospheric 1.5m above the earth surface does not significantly cool when there is the described cloud cover but does significantly cool when there is no evidence of any cloud cover. And significant cooling is evidence of the general absence of cloud cover. Need to qualify this is a reproducible observation that occurs night after night for a few nights at some locations. This qualification to prevent James from concluding we are just having a conversation and there is no empirical evidence being cited.
And I further qualify that the phenomenon, by which clouds return the radiation being emitted back to the earth where it originated because of the surface’s temperature, is not reflection but a different phenomenon termed scattering, which was explained by Feynman, a theorist.
So, if what John stated is not correct, what is your theory to explain that the nighttime atmospheric temperature does not cool significantly when there is the described cloud cover?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
. . . it is a violation of thermodynamics to claim that energy traveling to an object and then returning can add energy to the source.
James:
No its not. You’ve misinterpreted the law. The law states that objects at a certain temperature cannot increase the temperature of objects that are at a higher temperature.
All objects radiate constantly. And all objects are absorbing radiation from all other objects in their vicinity constantly. So, the ground does radiate to clouds and clouds do radiate to the ground. And clouds are constantly absorbing radiation from the ground and the ground is constantly absorbing radiation from clouds.
The law states that increases in measurable temperature only go from hotter objects to cooler objects. A hotter object can raise the measurable temperature of a cooler object in its vicinity. But a cooler object cannot raise the measurable temperature of a hotter object in its vicinity.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Superstition and half-baked theory dominate the atmospheric sciences. That was true in the past and it continues to be true now. Currently meteorological theories on atmospheric flow and storms are dominated by the following three superstitious and half-baked notions: 1) Convection causes all non-orographic upward motion (included in this is the strange belief that H2O in the atmosphere magically becomes gaseous at temperatures/pressures that have never been detected in a laboratory); 2) Dry layer capping: this is a strange superstition that imagines dry layers have structural properties that oppose convective uplift to thereby explain inversion layers; 3) Latent heat: this is the pretentious notion that random phase changes of H2O (which have never been detected) in the upper atmosphere produce gusty winds.
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
In the troposphere the primary transmission of heat is through collisions not radiation. According to the thermometer the temperature at the troposphere/stratosphere interface is -50 C. Radiation of heat, either by collisions or radiation, from this water will not cause a significant slowing of the loss of heat from the surface.
Herb
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Now the issue involves atmospheric pressure. Are you familiar is the instrument termed barometer? The barometer measures the ‘pressure’ of the atmosphere and is always observed that as you move the barometer somewhat rapidly (as during an atmospheric sounding) the pressure consistently decreases as the altitude of the atmosphere (barometer) above the surface increases.
Please stop pretending you are stupid.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
jerry krause
| #
See I made one of my common mistakes. The question (Are you familiar is the instrument termed barometer?) should be; Are you familiar with the instrument termed barometer?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
I know what atmospheric pressure is and I also know it is not the pressure referred to in the universal gas law. Just because both are pressures doesn’t mean they are the same thing. The pressure referred to in the universal gas law is the pressure that confines the gas and resists its expansion like the skin of a balloon. For the atmosphere the pressure holding the gases to the Earth and resisting their expansion into space is gravity. The force of gravity is measured from the center of the Earth so the additional 30 miles of atmospheric altitude only causes a 1.5 % change in pressure.which is not significant.
Jerry, you must read what I write instead of believing what ever your mind wanders off to.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
“This why cloudy nights are usually considerable warmer than clear nights.”
Reversed causality. It’s because it’s warmer that there are clouds there.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi John,
How can water droplets in the clouds reflect infrared radiation back to the Earth when the temperature is -50 C? Water does not reflect heat it absorbs it.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
JN: Comments here omit (as is often the case) the fact that clouds also reflect infra red radiation back to earth which involves the whole of the Planck spectrum
JMcG: I agree. And this is very much under-emphasized by academia. Which probably has to do with the fact that the mechanism therof (it being one and the same as the mechanism of H2O’s high heat capacity) is not well understood. For example, few realize that this Planc spectrum only occurs in liquid H2O. (It is a trait of collectives of H2O and not a trait of individual molecules.)
JN: – nothing to do with carbon dioxide. This why cloudy nights are usually considerable warmer than clear nights. Being under a cloud in the daytime of course is cooler even though again the cloud is reflecting infra red back to earth
JMcG: I agree, except reflection is maybe not the best word. Liquid H2O absorbs and re-emits constantly, over the whole Planc spectrum (as you indicated).
JN: because the radiation from the earth is much less than the radiation coming from the sun, since a lot of the sun’s radiation is absorbed by the ground sand by the air in contact with it. On a clear day we receive an intensity from the sun which is only reduced by aerosol scattering and is more than 1,300 Wm^-2, However, after absorption by the surface soil and the air, the temperature of the ground is seldom more than about 65 C or 338 K which radiates energy at an intensity of sigma T^4 = 656 Wm*-2 being roughly half that received from the sun above. If all of that is reflected from the cloud we are under in place of being under the sun, then we are in a much reduced radiation field.
JMcG: Interesting. Makes sense.
JN: The process of evaporation involves “selected” molecules no matter what the temperature or circumstance. The molecules in a liquid are still subject to a statistical distribution of energies – a Gaussian – from which some molecules are at quite low energies and cannot escape from the surface even when the water is “boiling” which is why when you boil the kettle, the whole thing does not suddenly explode. However, even at temperatures far less than boiling some molecules in the energetic part of the distribution curve, will escape – evaporation.
JMcG: Although what you are saying here is undoubtedly true (standard kinetic theory) it does not, in my opinion, fully describe the peculiarities of evaporation of H2O. A more comprehensive understanding would also refer to the fact that the magnitude of the force that binds H2O molecules together in liquid water–their polarity–varies inversely with their degree of interconnectedness. (The mechanism of this I described in another post on this thread.) The upshot of this is that a group of H2O molecules can only break free (evaporate) from another group of H2O molecules if there is enough interconnectedness in the group to keep its collective polarity low. Consequently, evaporation only involves clusters/droplets (usually micro or nano droplets). These evaporated droplets can often be so small that they are invisible. This fact, in conjuction with general ignorance of the inverse relationship between polarity and interconnectedness that I indicated above, is the reason many mistakenly believe H2O produces gaseous H2O–which is impossible.
JN: This occurs even for frozen water in a “no frost” refrigerator, unless I cover my ice cubes with a plastic bag or something, (which I often forget to do!!), the ice cubes in the freezer compartment simply “sublimate” to my great annoyance and embarrassment when I have invited a fiend in for a Scotch!!!. Again, this occurs because even in ice, the Gaussian distribution of energies provides some molecules with enough energy to escape from what is the “surface tension”.
JMcG: I agree. Another factor to keep in mind is that air molecules are constantly bombarding the surface of liquid water, moving between 700 and 1100 mph.
JN: The stupidest claims about “feedbacks” are emphasised when people (climate “scientists” aka geographers)
JMcG: LOL. Yes, “geographers.” (This is why climatology [and meteorology] are so overwhelmingly taxonomic and conversational rather than empirical.)
JN: maintained that if the concentration of carbon dioxide continued we would reach a “scary” Tipping Point, when there would be runaway heating. They even tried quite falsely to claim that Venus was just such a case.
JMcG: Yes. And they did their best to dodge the fact that the cold atmosphere on Mars is also mostly CO2.
JN: However, they happily claimed that above the illogical 254.9 K of their falsely formed “model” Earth – without an atmosphere or soil – provided as the Effective Emission temperature for comparison with Earth’s known MEAN temperature of 288 K – the temperature increase of earth was because of about 12 K (C) provided by 250 ppmv of CO2 which lead to a feedback of – so conveniently – 21 C (I think these are the figures but not sure) to provide the magical 33 C difference.
JN: My question is: “What is it in the atmosphere which so conveniently stops the “feedback” from water vapour at 21 C? Surely if 12 C from CO2 can cause 21 C of water vapour feedback, then 21 C from water vapour must continue to further evaporate water from the oceans, producing even higher temperatures and in all likely hood – if all the other nonsense were correct – the Tipping Point!!!
JMcG: Run!!!
JMcG: One last question, John. Do you believe in convection:
Simple Refutation of the Convection Model of Storm Theory
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16661
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
James
| #
Hello all.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi John Nicol, Herb Rose, and James McGinn,
Good job John. But you began: “Comments here omit (as is often the case) the fact that clouds also reflect infra red radiation back to earth which involves the whole of the Planck spectrum – nothing to do with carbon dioxide.” James wrote: “I agree. And this is very much under-emphasized by academia.” And I agree with James and you.
Then you, John, wrote: “This why cloudy nights are usually considerable warmer than clear nights. Being under a cloud in the daytime of course is cooler even though again the cloud is reflecting infra red back to earth.” And James wrote: “I agree, except reflection is maybe not the best word.” Here I again agree with James but James seems not to tell you what a better word might be.
The better word is ‘scattering’. Scattering is a long observed physical phenomenon. Lord Rayleigh used this phenomenon to explain that the molecules of the atmospheres, being far smaller than the wave lengths of visible radiation ‘scatter’ the shorter wavelengths more strongly (intensely) than the longer wavelengths. Hence, the sky appears blue during the daytime when there are no clouds to ‘hide’ the sky.
But Herb seems not to agree with you and James as he wrote: “Let me expand on why clouds are not reflecting heat back to the Earth’s surface keeping it warmer at night. One of the great follies of the GHGT is that CO2 is reflecting heat back to the Earth’s surface and it is no different for clouds.” Many people have observed the fact (empirical evidence) that the atmosphere (given calm wind conditions) cools very little during the night when there is a thick (cannot see stars or moon) cloud overcast.
Another fact is that an academic (Richard Feynman, Caltech, The Feynman Lectures on Physics) asked his class— Why do we ever see clouds?—as an introduction to a different radiation scattering phenomenon. What I have never read is: Why do we ever see twilight? Twilight is not commonly blue. Twilight is not commonly white as clouds are when sunlight shines directly upon them. Twilight, before the sunrise and after sunset, usually is composed of a variety of colors, when the sky appears cloudless, from a faint blue (overhead) to a brilliant red (near the horizon). And these colors and their intensities change rapidly before sunrise and after sunset. And many a photo (empirical evidence) of this twilight have been taken because of their ascetic appeal. .
About this scattering Feynman taught: “That is to say, the scattering of water in lumps of N molecules each is N times more intense than the scattering of single atoms. So as the water agglomerates the scattering increases. Does in increase as infinitum? No! When does this analysis begin to fail? How many atoms can we put together before we cannot drive the argument any further? Answer: If the water drop gets so big that from on end to the other is a wavelength or so, then the atoms are no longer all in phase because they are too far apart. So as we keep increasing the size of the droplets we get more and more scattering, until a time that a drop gets about the size of a wavelength, and then the scattering does not increase anywhere nearly as rapidly as the drop gets bigger. Furthermore, the blue disappears, because for longwave lengths the drops can be bigger, before the limit is reached, than they can be for short wave lengths. Although the short waves scatter more per atom than the long waves, there is a bigger enhancement for the red end of the spectrum than for the blue end when all the drops are bigger than the wavelength, so the color is shifted from the blue toward the red.”
Now this scattering phenomenon that Feynman explained had been observed for about a century. But he never told his class what it was. Chemists are taught that it is colloidal scattering or the Tyndall effect. And it explains the colors we see in the twilight. And I have only found Feynman’s theoretical explanation of this phenomenon in his lectures.
But he limited the radiation being scattered to the visible spectrum and never referred to the invisible infrared radiation which follows the red light in the radiation spectrum. Meteorologists, somehow have measured the sizes of cloud droplets and concluded that ordinary drops have a diameter of about 20 micrometers. Which is greater than most all infrared (IR) wavelengths being emitted by the earth’s surface. Hence, according to Feynman’s scattering theory, clouds scatter the invisible IR radiation, being emitted by the earth’s surfaces, much, much more strongly than they scatter the visible portion of the solar radiation spectrum. And we should not forget, as we consider (study) the earth’s energy (radiation) balance system that the energy of the IR radiation is nearly equal to that of the visible portion.
Be interesting how each of you three will respond to this information about the scattering phenomena and twilight.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
D J C
| #
PSI has no valid explanation for global mean surface temperatures for Earth or Venus. Nor has anyone else here because the ONLY correct explanation is in my 2013 paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures. None of you knows the real reason why water vapor cools the surface. It has nothing to do with evaporation. By the time that raindrops are about to enter the ocean they are (on average) at similar temperatures to the ocean from which the original evaporation occurred. There has been no significant net gain or loss in thermal energy in that cycle. Joseph (“sunshine does it all”) Postma’s explanation is utter rubbish that I refuted years ago on my “PSI (Slayer) ERRORS” page at http://whyitsnotco2.com.
Lukewarmers score “own goals” by acknowledging implicitly that the “science” of climatology claiming carbon dioxide, water vapor etc warm us is correct. The AGW “science” implies rain forests should be 50 to 80 degrees hotter than deserts because these alarmists claim water vapor does most of their “33 degrees” of warming at average concentrations just over 1%. So how much warming should it do where it is 4% ? Lukes can’t say it just doesn’t do as much because then their 33 degrees would not be achieved in the first place.
Water vapor is about 98% of all “greenhouse” gases that are supposedly causing about twice as much heat from the cold atmosphere to the already-warmer surface as the Sun is doing with its direct radiation that reaches the surface. Why do some PSI authors implicitly endorse such junk science? Why does John O’Sullivan even publish it? Water vapor COOLS us by several degrees. It is gravity which makes the base of the troposphere warmer, not back radiation. Water vapor reduces that gradient and so the temperature does not rise as much between the effective radiating altitude and the surface. Studies confirm this: click and download the above paper free at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2876905.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
DJ,
Your “heat creep” is disguised backconduction and backconvection. You don’t understand how gravity works.
Reply
lifeisthermal
| #
If gravity warms the planets surface, how many W/m^2 of gravity is added? Since Surface emission is in W/m^2, if gravity adds energy to increase it, you must show how much power in W/m^2 that comes from gravity. Since gravity is in Newtons it shouldn´t be a problem. But there is another problem, if the sun adds 1361W/m^2, and gravity adds more to that, then you have an unidentified source:
TSI+g. Both sources of heat and force must be accounted for, gravity is not free energy. What generates that extra energy of gravity at 9.82N/kg/m/s, and how to convert it to W/m^2? Gravity is 9.8W/kg, since Nm=W. It´s not allowed to just add 9.8W without a source. So, unless you´ve solved the problem of what gravity is, and how it works, it´s energy creation to say that gravity warms the surface.
And on top of that, the first law, dU=Q-W, says that work done BY a system will be a reduction of heat in the flow. Work done by a system cools the system. Gravity is work done by Earth. Gravity accelerates low temperature molecules onto the surface. Accelerating low temperature air onto a surface is what a fan does. Fans doesn´t warm anything, they cool.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Allan Siddon, John Nichols, Herb Rose, James McGinn and PSI Readers,
I have just done the experiment of the simple experiment to measure the air’s dewpoint temperature (DP) as described by R.L.Snyder (http://biomet.ucdavis.edu/frostprotection/Measure%20Dewpoint/fp003.html). Except I used an aluminum non-alcoholic beer can with printing on its surface after removing its top, instead of a generic shiny metal can. The common electronic instrument in my house, which ‘measures’ the temperature and the relative humidity (RH), reported a temperature of 74F and a relative humidity of 51%. Which, when I went to an online dewpoint (DP) calculator, the calculator reported a DP of 55F.
According to Snyder’s and now my experiment the DP is about 40F. So which DP is the ‘correct’ one? I go with that of my experiment because I have seen what Snyder stated would happen. But I have no idea how the instrument in my house has measured the RH. I go back to the DP calculator and calculate what the RH must be if the DP is 40F. The calculated RH is 29%.
However, Snyder wrote: “Based on the definition, a simple method to measure the dew point temperature involves cooling a surface until water vapor begins to condense on the surface. This is the principle used in a chilled mirror hygrometer, which is used to measure the dew point. Unfortunately, a chilled mirror uses complicated electronics to measure the dew point and; therefore, it is expensive.” And the instrument in my house which measures temperature and RH is not expensive. Another reason I trust the experiment described by Snyder.
I report the results of this experiment so James McGinn cannot claim my science is merely conversational and not empirical.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Fellows,
I just discovered the non-electronic dial probe thermometer I was using was not well calibrated so I have calibrate it and do the experiment again. I will report back with the new results.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
There’s a lot of confusion in radiation.
People forget that photons have mass.
m = h / (f * w^2)
w – wavelength, f – freq., h – planck’s constant
Hot and cold objects do not send each other photons. Mass must occupy space, and so there would be collisions.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Only those photons lacking in the cold object are sent by the hot object.
Reply
lifeisthermal
| #
No, that´s the heat being transferred. If the surface emits at 287K towards an atmosphere at 255K, the emission of σ287^4 has an added transfer to the atmosphere which cools the surface by σ(287^4-255^4). So the total energy needed to maintain a steady state is:
σ(287^4+(287^4-255^4)=528W/m^2
This means that without an atmosphere there´d be no cooling transfer and all the energy would be emitted by the surface, it would have a temperature of 528W/m^2=311K=38C
Reply
Pierre D. Bernier
| #
I also did an experiment last night. I started the dish washer and when the washing cycle was over I pressed the cansel button just when the drying cycle started. I opened the door and saw that massive fog come out of the washer. The fog dissipated as it went up in the room and then I could not see anymore fog. Nor could I see any condensation anywhere in the room. The room was at 22C. So, either the dog ate it or the water vapor was there, in the air at 22C. Water vapor at 22C ? What a miracle ! Lo and behold, water vapor can exist at 22C…
//www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-properties-d_1573.html
What a miracle ! ! !
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Pierre:
The fog dissipated as it went up in the room and then I could not see anymore fog. Nor could I see any condensation anywhere in the room.
JMcG:
So, like a moron you assumed that it turned gaseous. Then you went to the internet to get confirmation from other morons.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
Reply
Pierre D. Bernier
| #
No. I went up there in the wind, got sucked up, came back.
Reply
Pierre D. Bernier
| #
Why is it that every F**KNN site talking climate change has their morons…
1) Refusing answering questions by deflecting, ?
2) Answering questions by questions ?
3) Resort to character assasination when nothing else works ?
Now I understang why Jow Postma wont take any comments on his posts here. This place is infested with ignorants and plants from the warmists SIDE. GOOD BYE ! ! ! TA TA ! ! !
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Here we get a sense of the origins of post-modern climate hysteria. It grew from the soil of modern sheepish meteorological stupidity.
Dolt after dolt comes on this forum. They are given an opportunity to demonstrate the validity of traditional meteorological atmospheric and storm theory. They don’t think anything through. They just repeat verbatim what the previous dolt stated. No thought. Not the slightest consideration of the possibility that they might be wrong.
Climate change stupidity did not just appear out of thin air.
Goodbye moron.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
The silliest thing about this brain-dead convection religion
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=225#p122389
Reply
Pierre D. Bernier
| #
When I bought my house about 21 years ago it would get very hot and humid in the basement in the summer time. Not knowing any better I bought a dehumidifier instead of an air conditioning. My mistake. The air in the basement was about 25C with the magical water molecules in suspension at 25C also. Ever heard of thermal equilibrium ? After starting the dehumidifier the air temperature in the basement shot up to about 28C and the condensed water in the container must have been at 28C also ! Damn thermal equilibrium ! What a fun breaker ! Now why would taking water at 25C in the air and putting it in a container would bring both the air and the water up from 25C to 28C ? I bought a dehumidifier, not a heater. Oh, I know, the angels came secretly at night and let go of big hot farts in my basement !
Oh. By the way. I’m MSc in chemistry. I know I dont know everything, but I surely know when I’m being taken for a ride. TA ! TA !
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Pierre,
You admitted admitted that you made a mistake and you accurately described the consequences of putting a dehumidifier in your basement instead of an air conditioning unit.
I make mistakes all the time because I forgot, or never knew, some fundamental facts.
It seems to me that you have overlooked a simple fundamental difference between an air conditioning unit and a dehumidifying unit. But maybe you didn’t, so I ask a question. What is a simple fundamental difference between these two units?
Einstein is said to have stated: “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” And Galileo is said, by someone who can translate Italian to English, to have stated: “We cannot teach people anything; we can only help them discover it within themselves.”
My question, as a chemistry teacher who finally learned to ‘see’ by reading Lane Cooper’s book (Louis Agassiz As a Teacher), is an attempt to help you find the answer in yourself. After giving you a chance to respond, I will offer my answer which you are free to consider to be wrong. Of course, you probably will find the same answer, or a better one, in yourself so I will only need to say: I agree.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Pierre:
When I bought my house . . .
JMcG:
Water is complex and poorly understood. It is not properly explained in universities. A big reason why is because people tend to throw temper tantrums when the empirical evidence doesn’t match what a lifetime of anecdote has convinced them is true.
Pierre:
Oh. By the way. I’m MSc in chemistry.
James
Michael Mann is a Phd. Does that mean the hockey stick is correct?
Pierre:
Pull your head out for a second and watch this video. Then read the comments. Take note of how emotional and these two well educated chemistry majors become when they realize they are ignorant about H2O.
Are You Confused About Hydrogen Bonding In Water?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfNuWJDJvRw
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
Pierre D. Bernier
| #
Geez ! Look at my comments ! They are at the extreme left of the page with no reference to any name. They are addressed to the general public, not to anyone in particular. Why are you 2 guys feel so called upon ? OK , since you insist, I give up.
You say that science uses half backed theories while you go on using your own not even in the oven yet theory. You think that water holds up in the air attached to the end of angel hairs. You have not proven your theory and never will because I have, by accident, I admit, proven some 19 years ago that your theory is a loony bin theory and that the so called half baked science theory of water vapour at room temperature holding latent heat of vaporisation is in fact a fully backed reality.
I’m retired with no job to lose and I don’t belong to any organisation to which I owe a decorum so as not to tarnish their image. So I can be just as crazy as I need to be or as you need me to be. Make your pick.
You have one who thinks that the atmosphere is upside down and one who thinks that water holds in the air at the end of angel hairs. Both theories belong to the loony bid and you belong in the cuckoo’s house. Watch it ! Don’t step on the black tiles ! Or is it the white ones ?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Pierre,
The only gasses in the atmosphere that have a smaller molecular weight than water are hydrogen and helium.Radon has a molecular weight over 12 times that of water. Butane and other organic compounds have more mass than water yet exist as gases in the atmosphere. Why do you believe that combinations of water molecules cannot also be in the atmosphere?
Herb
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Pierre,
I wonder if I am one of the two guys. I hope not. But have addressed one comment specifically to you and asked you to respond to a question. But you have not yet done so. This is just a reminder as I really hope you will respond. I am not trying to be critical of you but only trying to have a conversation.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi James and Others,
You claim that conversations are meaningless. Maybe not if you have the attitude of Galileo. For I have read that he stated: “I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn’t learn something from him.”
Hence, Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences is a conversation and your and my and other’s comments are conversations.
Here is a short conversation I heard two farmers who smoked cigarettes have. One farmer said to the other: “I used to lite my cigarette by holding it against the muffler of my tractor. But now that my tractor has a diesel engine I cannot do this.” And the other said: “I have had the same experiences.” (This conversation is actual but paraphrased as I do not have a memory capable of remembering precise details.)
I suspect these farmers knew little about the thermodynamics of their tractors’ engines but they knew a difference between a gasoline fuel engine and a diesel fuel engine. But I suspect they did know that a difference between these two engines was the compression difference.
Now, as a physical chemist I still do not understand how the rapid compression of gas heats the gas. But I certainly accept the observation that it does. And that the greater the compression the greater the greater the temperature of the gas becomes.
And I know that the study termed thermodynamics was an attempt to calculate the maximum the maximum thermodynamic efficiency (the energy of the fuel into useful work) of the steam engines which had been invented by technologists (maybe farmers).
From history lessons I had learned that James Watt invented the modern steam engine. So, I checked out who Watt was and found: James Watt FRS FRSE (/wɒt/; 30 January 1736 (19 January 1736 OS) – 25 August 1819) was a Scottish inventor, mechanical engineer, and chemist who improved on Thomas Newcomen’s 1712 Newcomen steam engine with his Watt steam engine in 1776.” (Wikipedia) So, a farmer did not invent the modern steam engine.
But who discovered the 2nd Law of thermodynamics? “Around 1850 Rudolf Clausius and William Thomson (Kelvin) stated both the First Law – that total energy is conserved – and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law was originally formulated in terms of the fact that heat does not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a hotter.” (Wikipedia)
The second Law has many definitions (descriptions). My definition of the 2nd Law is that a perfect ‘heat engine’ can only convert a fraction of the energy produced by the burning of a fuel into useful work. Seldom discussed is what happens to the large fraction of the energy produced by the burning of a fuel. It must be removed from the heat engine or the heat engine will self-destruct.
The farmers’ tractor engines do not self-destruct because this waste energy (heat) is partially removed from the engine directly by its exhaust and the remainder by forcing air to circulate through a water radiator to carry the ‘waste’ heat away from the vicinity of the engine.
That a diesel engine more efficiently (than a gasoline engine) converts the energy of the fuel into useful work is evidenced by the fact that the farmers could not lite their cigarettes on the mufflers of their diesel engines.
And this is just a conversational story.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
You claim that conversations are meaningless.
James:
Well, that is not something I said or ever would say. What I intended to convey was that meteorology’s convective model of storms is conversational and not empirical. And people are more convinced by conversation and dumbed down models than they are by rational truth and literal models.
As you demonstrate, once humans accept a model as true they lose their ability to look at it critically. Take note of how stubbornly Alan Siddons and Al Shelton maintain belief in this absurd model and how emotional Pierre became when I revealed it as nonsense.
Jerry:
James Watt invented the modern steam engine. . . . improved on Thomas Newcomen’s 1712 Newcomen steam engine . . .
James:
Do you know the difference? It is pertinent to what is being discussed here. The Newcomen engine used steam to create a vacuum. In other words, the Newcomen engine took advantage of the fact that as steam cooled below the boiling temperature/pressure of water it condenses into a liquid, creating a vacuum–something you morons claim does not happen in the atmosphere.
The Newcomen engine used atmospheric pressure as the power stroke. So, in a sense, the newcomen engine was not really a steam engine it was a condensation engine. Watt’s engine used steam (genuine gaseous H2O) as the power stroke.
Jerry:
And this is just a conversational story.
James:
Right. And I think you demonstrated one of the shortcomings of conversation as a teaching tool for science in that it leaves people with the delusion that they understand better than they actually do. This provides them the false confidence that they don’t have to dig deeper to really understand.
Moreover, all pseudoscientists use conversation to draw attention away from uncomfortable facts that conflict with their idealized narratives. And that includes yourself, Pierre, and all morons that believe in cold steam:
Disputing The Existence of ‘Cold Steam’ in the Atmosphere
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16851
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi James,
You just wrote: “Do you know the difference? It is pertinent to what is being discussed here. The ‘Newcomen engine” used steam to create a vacuum. In other words, the Newcomen engine took advantage of the fact that as steam cooled below the boiling temperature/pressure of water it condenses into a liquid, creating a vacuum–something you morons claim does not happen in the atmosphere.
The Newcomen engine used atmospheric pressure as the power stroke. So, in a sense, the newcomen engine was not really a steam engine it was a condensation engine. Watt’s engine used steam (genuine gaseous H2O) as the power stroke.”
No I did not know what the 1712 Newcomen steam engine was because I never heard of it. For the reason, which I conclude, that its power stroke was ‘powered’ by the atmospheric pressure of about 15 pounds per square inch whereas the power stroke of the Watt steam engine was ‘powered’ by the steam pressure at least (guessing or assuming) 150 pounds per square inch.
You just wrote: “The ‘Newcomen engine” used steam to create a vacuum. In other words, the Newcomen engine took advantage of the fact that as steam cooled below the boiling temperature/pressure of water it condenses into a liquid, creating a vacuum–something you morons claim does not happen in the atmosphere.”
I ask you: Do you know the difference between the ‘Newcomen engine’ and the ‘atmosphere’?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jim McGinn
| #
JMcG: . . . the Newcomen engine took advantage of the fact that as steam cooled below the boiling temperature/pressure of water it condenses into a liquid, creating a vacuum–something you morons claim does not happen in the atmosphere.”
JK: I ask you: Do you know the difference between the ‘Newcomen engine’ and the ‘atmosphere’?
JMcG: The gases of the atmosphere.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16471
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi James,
I wrote: You claim that conversations are meaningless. And you replied: “Well, that is not something I said or ever would say. What I intended to convey was that meteorology’s convective model of storms is conversational and not empirical.” You are correct, you did not state what I wrote and I did not claim that you did.
One example of what you did state is: “Alan, your article, Jerry’s response, and your response to Jerry is all conversational, anecdotal, and speculative.” So it is from statements like this I concluded my previous statement.
Will you accept that you claim that there are no water molecules in the atmosphere because only ‘steam’ (water vapor at 100C or greater temperature) can be composed of water molecules?
Many have questioned this belief, but it seems that you have no desire to learn anything from the comments of others. I like to learn from others whom I know have had more experience than I. Hence, I quote that which I suspect a PSI reader has not read or something which a reader has not considered. While I prepared the following to illustrate this for another purpose, I expect you might find it conversational, anecdotal, and speculative and not empirical.
So this an experiment to allow you to directly tell me, and others, if you find the following conversational, anecdotal, and speculative and not empirical.
R.C. Sutcliffe, an experience meteorologist, in his book—Weather and Climate—wrote about the problem of how do ordinary cloud droplets grow to a large side so they will grow to a size which allows they to rapidly fall through the atmosphere.
“Rain, we readily agree, is produced by the condensation of the excess water vapour in the air when this is cooled by ascent and expansion: the condensed moisture forms clouds of little drops which in time grow big enough to fall to the ground by gravity. All very well at first sight, but a little further examination brings one up against the facts of the fall-speed of droplets in air. The weight of a sphere depends upon its volume or the cube of its radius, whereas the air resistance depends in rather a complicated way on its fall-speed and radius. The result is that for a large and heavy body, air resistance is a secondary factor and it falls ‘like a stone’, but for a small body, such as a cloud droplet, the air resistance is all-important and it falls ‘like a feather’ only at its ‘terminal velocity’—the speed at which the air resistance just balances the force of gravity. These speeds have been measured experimentally for drops of different sizes, and a few figures are included in Table 3. [which a interested reader can study by buying Sutcliffe’s book] These values do not follow the theory for falling spheres because the larger drops are distorted by the air flow. Drops larger than about 3000µ (3 millimeters radius) disrupt, with the interesting result that that rain can never fall through the air more quickly than about 10 metres per second.”
I skip a bit to that which I consider more important. “The firm conclusion is that if there were no process for collecting the condensed water together into a relatively few really big drops, each the equivalent of perhaps a million cloud droplets, the clouds could remain in suspension almost indefinitely and rainfall would be very slight. The effect on world climate would be quite catastrophic. The atmosphere would become nearly saturated everywhere and the air generally cloudy; there would be little precipitation and of course very little evaporation and very little sunshine; what the consequences would be for life on Earth is hardly worth speculating upon, but they would be profound. Often it seems that matters which control our very existence are the outcome of side-effects in the laws of physics which may be looked upon either as accidents or as special dispensations of providence according to our point of view: that there is a natural process capable of changing clouds with a million droplets to the litre into rain with only one drop to the litre, a tremendous transformation, is a circumstance of this kind. What the process or processes responsible for the metamorphosis may be, has been among the more hotly debated of meteorological problems.”
This comment is becoming quite long for a comment but I have not gotten to the point that I would like you to consider. For its concerns a thunderstorm which according to conventional wisdom involves vertical convection. “For a time experts were almost persuaded that to overcome one curious and stubborn property of nature, the almost colloidal stability of cloudy air, it was necessary to invoke a special dispensation, namely the fact that the temperatures in the upper atmosphere are generally well below freezing-point and that ice also enters the picture.”
I stop here and ask: have you ever observed hail (large chunks of ice, more than an inch in greatest length) falling to the ground during a thunderstorm? I have.
So I ask you: What is debatable about the formation of ice being a critical component of this common, short lived, natural, localized, phenomenon from which not only can hail precipitate but also 5, or more, inches of cold liquid rain in less than an hour (sometimes termed a cloud burst)?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
Will you accept that you claim that there are no water molecules in the atmosphere because . . .
James:
I never made any such claim.
Jerry:
it seems that you have no desire to learn anything from the comments of others.
James:
Yes, unless the comments reference reproducible experimental evidence, even if only indirectly. Sorry.
Jerry:
I expect you might find it conversational, anecdotal, and speculative and not empirical.
James:
Yes, I suspect you are right about this.
Jerry:
So this an experiment to allow you to directly tell me, and others, if you find the following conversational, anecdotal, and speculative and not empirical.
James:
Yes, Jerry, it reads like scripture. It also completely sidesteps the issue of whether or not H2O defies its known and measured boiling temperature/pressure when it is suspended in the atmosphere.
So, Jerry, I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this.
Here is something for you to read if you want to get a better understanding of where science went wrong with respect to properly understanding water:
Correction to The Current Model of Hydrogen Bonding in Water
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=17448
Kind regards,
James McGinn / Self Declared Genius
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
I have an experiment for you to do which I proposed to that dumbass Doug.
Take a tall pot of boiling water and suspend thermometer in it submerging the bulb. Turn off the heat and lower the thermometer into the water covering some of the thermometer tube. What happens to the reading of the thermometer? The temperature of the water increases over 100 C. even though this is not possible if the pressure doesn’t change. This increases in temperature means the thermometer is receiving more kinetic energy even though there is no additional energy being added to the water. The mean kinetic energy of the water hasn’t changed and the velocity of the molecules hasn’t changed,.The only change is that there are more molecules transferring heat to the mercury in the thermometer. By misusing the thermometer and determining what is causing the error it is clear that the thermometer does not give the mean kinetic energy of the molecules.
The higher you go in the atmosphere the greater the kinetic energy of the molecules with the boiling point of water being reached at the top of the troposphere.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
Turn off the heat . . . the water increases over 100 C. even though this is not possible if the pressure doesn’t change. This increases in temperature means the thermometer is receiving more kinetic energy even though there is no additional energy being added to the water. The mean kinetic energy of the water hasn’t changed and the velocity of the molecules hasn’t changed,.
James:
I don’t think it will ever go above boiling temperature/pressure and it will begin to cool rapidly.
James Mcginn / Solving Tornadoes
Correction to The Current Model of Hydrogen Bonding in Water
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=17448
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
Try the experiment.
Herb
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Have you actually done the experiment you are proposing I do?
Do you know how chemists determine the boiling-temperature of a liquid? I doubt it so I will describe the procedure.
You take a special flask with a side arm through which the vapor being produced by the continuous ‘boiling action’ can escape. You place the thermometer through a stopper placed at the top of the flask. You position the thermometer so its bulb is at the level of the side arm through which the vapor escaping the flask.
The vapor will condense on the thermometer bulb so positioned and the condensed liquid will begin to drip back into the liquid being heated at the base of the flask which has a ‘boiling chip’ or two to prevent the super-heating of the liquid before the ‘boiling action’ of the liquid begins.
The thermometer thus measures the boiling temperature of the liquid. However, the chemist know there is a second step that must be done and he goes to ‘read’ the atmospheric pressure of the laboratory room at that time. For the chemist knows that the boiling temperature of a liquid is dependent (related) upon the air ‘pressure’ acting upon the surface of the ‘boiling’ liquid. For a chemist knows that he can produce the ‘boiling action’ of a liquid by putting a liquid in a ‘closed’ flask and using a water aspirator to reduce the air pressure over the liquid’s surface so that the ‘boiling action’ occurs at a much lower temperature than that measure at the natural atmospheric pressure of the laboratory at that time.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
Yes I did the experiment. Instead of just the bulb being submerged in the water I lowered the thermometer to the -20 mark on the thermometer. The mercury rose to over 120 C. I am not trying to tell you how to use a thermometer properly, I am telling you to misuse it and figure out what is causing the error reading of the thermometer. Is the mean kinetic energy of the water increasing causing the thermometer to record a higher temperature?
Have a good day,
Herb
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Did you read my last comment? What you observed is the reason that chemists do not measure the ‘boiling-point temperature of a liquid by simply putting a thermometer in a beaker of the boiling liquid Boiling action of a boiling liquid begins to occur at the bottom the beaker, or flask, being commonly heated, in a chemistry laboratory by the flame of a bunsen burner where the vapor pressure of a gas bubble at the bottom of the beaker is the atmosphere pressure at the surface of the liquid plus the pressure being exerted by the liquid above the base of the beaker. Hence, temperature at the bottom of the beaker, for the ‘boiling action’, created by the gas bubbles being formed there, has to be greater than the pressure vapor pressure of the liquid at its surface.
And, based upon my experience as a chemist, I can state that the ‘boiling action’ of liquid, which is being observed, quickly ceases after the flame heating the bottom of the beaker is removed. This because the heat (energy) of the flame is being removed from the ‘boiling’ liquid by the evaporation of the liquid. Because the surface (a very thin layer of molecules which cannot be measured with the much larger bulb of the thermometer), of the liquid cannot be heated above its natural boiling-point temperature. But if you hold the thermometer vertically above the surface of the boiling liquid in the beaker, you will see drops of liquid begin to drip from the thermometer’s bulb and the temperature of measured by the thermometer well be the ‘boiling-point temperature’ of the liquid.
Yes, I just repeated basically what I had written before because it seemed you have ignored what I had just previously written.
Have a good day, Jerry
Herb rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
Do you purposely ignore what I write so you can maintain the belief in your dead experts. Let’s try it this way. Submerge the entire thermometer in boiling water or 100 C water that is not boiling. See if the expanding mercury causes the thermometer to break or expands above the 100 C level. If a thermometers measuring the mean kinetic energy of the water the mercury will never expand above the 100 C level and break the thermometer.. You are not trying to test the temperature of the water you are testing the thermometer and whether it is measuring the mean kinetic energy of the water molecules.
Have a good day,
Herb
James McGinn
| #
Pierre:
I give up.
James:
That’s too bad. I would advise that you don’t give up. Instead you should politely acknowledge you were mistaken to think you understood what you actually just believed. The world is full of stubborn morons. Don’t join them.
Meteorology’s convection model of storm theory is just scripture. Along those lines, suppose you found an contradiction in the bible and you went to a priest or a pastor to discuss it. What do you think will happen? Will they discuss it? Possibly. Will they acknowledge it as a problem. No. At best they will make a few amorphous statements, assure you there is nothing to be concerned about, ask you how your family is doing, and maybe ask for a donation. And that will be it.
The same is true for meteorologists (as is also the case with climatologists). Deep down all meteorologists know the convection model of storm theory is nonsense. (Likewise, all climatologists know CO2 is benign.) They know that because it was glossed over in their college course work. I myself had meteorology courses.
We spend about 20 minutes on it in meteorology 101. It was presented as truth (scripture) and never referred to again. It’s only purpose is to draw attention away from the fact that meteorologists don’t have the slightest understanding of the physics of storms and have long ago given up trying. (BTW, meteorologists daily duties involve synoptics. The convection model of storm theory really plays no role in predicting the location of storms and their intensity. [obviously this is something they don’t want the public to know.])
Pierre:
I have, by accident, I admit, proven some 19 years ago that your theory is a loony bin theory
James:
Is that what you think? That’s hilarious. I was wondering what you point was with that. It read like you were babbling incoherently.
Pierre:
and that the so called half baked science theory of water vapour at room temperature holding latent heat of vaporisation is in fact a fully backed reality.
James:
Vague. Meaningless. It’s hard not to envision you frothing at the mouth as you wrote this.
Pierre:
I’m retired with no job to lose and I don’t belong to any organisation to which I owe a decorum so as not to tarnish their image. So I can be just as crazy as I need to be or as you need me to be. Make your pick.
James:
Settle down. It’s just science. First you need to get some help reading a phase diagram. Are their any elementary grade children in your vicinity that might be able to help you?
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
Pierre D. Bernier
| #
When I said I give up I meant I give up being silent
I saw your little video. Not many encouraging messages are there ?
So you admit to being a climatologist and a meteorologist ! Wow ! That explains a lot !
In your video… This zero here indicates an oxygen molecule !!! Really ? An oxygen molecule inside a water molecule ? No shit ?
The elements in column VI B of the periodic table are, O, S, Se and Te, in that order. What about H2Te, H2Se, H2S and H2O. Don’t they have the same molecular structure ? Yes they do and the boiling points are…
H2O, 100 C,
H2S, -62 C,
H2Se, -42 C,
H2Te, -4 C,
Wow ! That’s what hydrogen bonds do ! Invert the boiling points. And it is viscous since it’s in a water state at room temperature. All others are gases at room temperature. No viscosity there, is there ?
So go back to your Loonie bin where you belong and watch out for those black tiles ?
Reply
Pierre D. Bernier
| #
@Jerry Krause
What was that question again ? Oh ya ! What is the difference between a dehumidifier and an air conditioning ? Do you really think that I’m that moronic. I’ll play !
A dehumidifier condenses the water from gas state to liquid state but leaves the latent heat of condensation released in place in the process. That’s why it’s getting hot in the room.
An air conditioning take the heat out of the place and ejects it out of the house. Like a frig. Along the way water vapour is condensed and it too is recuperated and thrown out of the house.
Now that I’ve played, what kind of shit are you going to give me ? Be careful ! The loony bin is getting pretty full !
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Pierre,
I agree. But why be seemingly offend by the opportunity to demonstrate your intelligence?
You just wrote: “Now that I’ve played, what kind of shit are you going to give me ?” I do not consider my question to be shit and I do not consider your correct answer to be shit.
You previously wrote: “The air in the basement was about 25C with the magical water molecules in suspension at 25C also. Ever heard of thermal equilibrium ? After starting the dehumidifier the air temperature in the basement shot up to about 28C and the condensed water in the container must have been at 28C also ! Damn thermal equilibrium !”
I could ask: What does thermal equilibrium have to do with your problem (mistake). 25C does not seem a terribly uncomfortable temperature. Have you heard the common saying which I have heard: It’s not the heat; its the humidity. No it does not matter what your answer is.
My point is that I believe you bought the dehumidifier to reduce the relative humidity of your basement; and not to reduce the temperature of your basement. If the reason was the latter I suspect you would have initially bought a air conditioning unit.
I suspect you know why you wanted to reduce the relative humidity of your basement. I suspect you know that the normal temperature of the human body is 37C. And the natural processes involved in being alive generate heat. So like a heat engine doing useful work, heat most be removed from one’s body. And I expect you know that during hot temperatures one is urged to drink a lot of water. Why? Our bodies are primarily cooled by evaporation of water in the lungs and the evaporation of sweat on our skin.
If you initially measured the temperature of the condensed water collected in the dehumidifier’s tank, I would bet a large amount of money that its temperature would be less than 28C and only slightly less money that it temperature would be less than 25C. And I would expect that you would not take any bet because you do know how the dehumidifier condensed the excess water vapor of your humid basement.
I have made many mistakes when I was young and inexperienced. And now that I’m older I hope I have learned something from making mistakes.
I hope that you now have found in yourself that the mistake was not buying a dehumidifier but in not giving the dehumidifier a chance because you forgot why you bought it in the first place and why manufactures built the worthless piece of junk in the first place.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
PB: When I said I give up I meant I give up being silent.
JMcG: Hopefully the other members of your paradigm will recognize your sacrifice. (But probably not.)
PB: The elements in column VI B of the periodic table are, O, S, Se and Te, in that order. What about H2Te, H2Se, H2S and H2O. Don’t they have the same molecular structure ? Yes they do and the boiling points are… H2O, 100 C, H2S, -62 C,; H2Se, -42 C, H2Te, -4 C, Wow!
That’s what hydrogen bonds do!
JMcG: The high boiling temperature of H2O is one of over 70 anomalies of H2O.
PB: Invert the boiling points.
JMcG: Invert? And, again, the high boiling temperature is one of over 70 anomalies of H2O that are generally attributed to hydrogen bonds. Can you explain any of the rest of these? Or would you prefer to just gloss over these other observational inconsistencies?
PB: And it is viscous since it’s in a water state at room temperature.
JMcG: Uh huh. And its viscosity is consistent throughout its wide temperature range–these (width of temperature range of liquid phase and consistency of viscosity therein) being two more of H2O’s anomalies.
PB: All others are gases at room temperature.
JMcG: Right. (Kinda goes along with having a low boiling temperature.)
PB: No viscosity there, is there?
JMcG: Right. Can you explain why the temperature range of the liquid phase of these other chemicals is so narrow and their viscosity at different temperatures is so inconsistent, unlike H2O?
PB: So go back to your Loonie bin where you belong and watch out for those black tiles?
JMcG: LOL. You are just getting started. Don’t too get excited. Properly comprehending H2O and its anomalies is a marathon, not a sprint.
https://zenodo.org/record/37224
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
Pierre D. Bernier
| #
Geez ! Everybody is all railed up this morning ! Now I have 4 of them on my back ! I guess I’ll have to pick and choose it in order.
One thinks that the atmosphere and the ideal gas law is upside down. We’ll cut that one out first.
Another is an admitted climatologist/meteorologist who can’t even predict correctly tomorrow’s weather. He thinks that water contains oxygen molecules and thinks that he can give chemistry lessons to a chemist. He is so under water that he needs to show me wrong once so that he can be right 70 times. ME BEING WRONG ONCE DOES NOT PROVE YOU BEING COMPETENT ! He is pretending that if I give him his 70 reasons for water being as it is he will understand. How can he understand them when he can’t even understand that it’s the Sun and the ideal gas law, in his own field of expertise, that regulates the missing 33C in his fantasy world. Heck, he can’t even understand that the Sun shines on Earth one hemisphere at a time giving the Earth all the energy it needs to create the climate. Water and air does the rest. The climate does not create itself dude ! Look at the temperatures I have given you. Now you have your so desired hockey stick ! So that one is out too.
Reply
Pierre D. Bernier
| #
@Jerry Krause
/ I agree. But why be seemingly offend by the opportunity to demonstrate your intelligence? /
You’re the only one for now who responds without spewing accusations or non sense in the hope of hiding his incompetence, so I’ll answer you politely. The real starting and ending temperatures don’t matter at all, so forget about them. My house is an open area house where I can see just about everywhere in the house from just about anywhere. One big mass of air. The only enclosed apartment is the basement, but it had no door in the staircase. Buying the dehumidifier I thought would bring down the humidity with a little rise in temperature and after the dehumidifier would stop the cold earth around the house would bring the temperature down and that would be the end of it. I did not think that the humid air on the first floor would continually creep down to the basement and that the system would never stop. THAT was my mistake. Now that you have the full story don’t go full preacher on me. Just watch all the shit that’s gonna be coming about that. You’ll understand why I have such a short fuse.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Pierre,
First, last night I sent John O’Sullivan, editor of PSI, an email suggesting he deny James McGinn access to PSI. This morning I just sent him this email: “Upon more pondering I have concluded that I was wrong to suggest that you deny James McGinn (or anyone like him–Doug) access to the PSI forum. For wrong ideas spur others on to find the right ideas.”
Second, thank you for recognizing what I try to do.
Third, Thank you for the more complete definition (description) of your house. And as I write to you I have seen the problem you were dealing with. I assume that your ‘climate’ is similar to that of the southeast USA. Hot and humid with high temperatures of about 28C, commonly the maximum surface temperature of the nearby ocean during the summer and fall seasons. Correct me if I am wrong.
The climate at Salem OR, west coast of USA, is dry and hot (daytime) during the summer season. With cool nights because of the commonly cloudless sky. And dry because the temperature of the ocean surface about 60 miles away is no where near 28C.
Several years ago we installed a ductless heat pump system to heat the house during the fall, winter, and spring seasons. Our house has a second story where all the bedrooms are. And we have an open staircase. And amazingly when heating with the warm forced air at one local location on the first floor, the temperatures of the whole house during the winter season is within a degree or two F. Warm air rises but when it does it forces the colder air of the upstairs down the staircase where is mixed with the warmer air of the first floor. But this air circulation is so slight that one cannot feel a draft.
But, as everyone know, cold air does not rise. So during the summer we can air condition the first floor air with the heat pump but it has not influence upon the temperature of the second story rooms. A ceiling fan at the top of the staircase, rotating in the right direction does somewhat force the hot air of the second floor down where it becomes mixed with the air-conditioned air of the first floor.
But now I might preach a bit. Our homes are not airtight or we would suffocate. Hence, the dew-point temperature of the air outside and inside is nearly the same even when the air temperatures outside and inside are quite different, unless we remove the water vapor from the inside air with a dehumidifier or an air conditioner. But the water vapor in the outside air keeps entering the house as the outside air is exchanged with the inside air. You know this.
Now, the possible preaching (teaching). I am not sure everyone realizes that the dew-point temperature has no relationship to the air temperature. The dew-point temperature is related only to the vapor pressure of water in the air. You refer to thermal equilibrium. Well, there is a vapor pressure equilibrium also.
I very much enjoy reading your comments because I conclude we can ‘see’ (or imagine) many of the same things.
As I have recently commented, I like to quote others whose experiences and achievements far exceed mine. I read that Einstein stated: “The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.” and “Imagination is more important than knowledge.”
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
” . . . I sent John O’Sullivan, editor of PSI, an email suggesting he deny James McGinn access to PSI. . . . .For wrong ideas . . .”
James:
Jerry, why don’t you write a letter to the pope to see if he will put me under house arrest?
“In the sciences, the authority of thousands of opinions is not worth as much as one tiny spark of reason in an individual man.”
― Galileo Galilei
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Correction to The Current Model of Hydrogen Bonding in Water
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=17448
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi James,
You just wrote: ““In the sciences, the authority of thousands of opinions is not worth as much as one tiny spark of reason in an individual man.”
― Galileo Galilei
Galileo’s quote which I have read (I know not where) is: “In questions of sciences, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”
I have no idea which quote is the more accurate translation of what Galileo originally wrote in some language other than English. But I know that in your comment (https://principia-scientific.com/water-vapor-is-an-anti-greenhouse-gas/#comment-25879) you wrote: “Kind regards,
James McGinn / Self Declared Genius”
Doesn’t seem you qualify as being capable of only ‘humble reasoning’.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
“There are two circumstances that lead to arrogance: one is when you’re wrong and you can’t face it; the other is when you’re right and nobody else can face it.”
Superstition and half-baked theory dominate the atmospheric sciences. Currently meteorological theories on atmospheric flow and storms maintain three superstitious and half-baked notions: 1) Convection. This is the superstition that evaporation makes air buoyant enough to power strong updrafts in the atmosphere (included in this is the strange belief that H2O in the atmosphere becomes gaseous at temperatures/pressures that have never been detected in a laboratory); 2) Dry layer capping. This is a superstition that imagines dry layers having structural properties that explain the how/why convection does not constantly produce storms and uplift; 3) Latent heat. This is the superstition that phase changes from a gaseous phase of H2O (which are purported to exist despite never having been detected and being inconsistent with what is indicated in the H2O phase table) to a liquid phase releases “latent heat” which itself has never been confirmed/verified.
In accordance with which, the current meteorological paradigm assumes hurricanes are caused by warm water. Actually the energy of hurricanes and all storms comes from jet streams and is delivered through vortices in the form of low pressure. Wind shear at low altitudes is the most important predictor of severe weather. This is because wind shear is the mechanism underlying growth of the vortices that are the transport mechanism of the low pressure energy. Warm moist air/water is not the source of the energy of storms, it’s the target of vortice growth.
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jerry krause
| #
Hi James,
Just checked that he have referred to moron,/morons 30 times so far in your comments of the posting of Siddon. Does not seem what a humble person would write. Have you read this essay (https://principia-scientific.com/dr-jerry-l-krause-how-stupid-am-i/)?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry, all this effort you are putting into demonstrating how humble you are leaves me wondering how you are ever going to find the time to test your belief that dew point represents a phase change between gaseous H2O and liquid H2O as opposed to my belief that it merely represents the point at which the size of the liquid droplets become large enough to be visible. I mean, thus far you haven’t even indicated methods of detection.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Disputing The Existence of ‘Cold Steam’ in the Atmosphere
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16851
jerry krause
| #
Hi James,
You just wrote: “leaves me wondering how you are ever going to find the time to test your belief that dew point represents a phase change between gaseous H2O and liquid H2O as opposed to my belief that it merely represents the point at which the size of the liquid droplets become large enough to be visible. I mean, thus far you haven’t even indicated methods of detection.”
It seems you do not understand what you have written when you conclude: “I mean, thus far you haven’t even indicated methods of detection.”
You ask: “how you are ever going to find the time to test your belief that dew point represents a phase change between gaseous H2O and liquid H2O? My answer is that my means of detection are my eyes.
You wrote: “as opposed to my belief that it merely represents the point at which the size of the liquid droplets become large enough to be visible. ” Two questions: How will I know that the droplets have become large enough to be visible? Obviously, one must be seeing with one’s eyes if anything is to become visible. Second question: How do the little, invisible to the naked eye, droplets become large enough to be seen with one’s eyes? Obviously, more invisible water molecules must be condensing on the surface of the can.
In my comment #25813 I described the details of my second experiment, with a calibrated thermometer, to simply measure the dew-point temperature using R.L. Snyder’s procedure.
I quote some of these details because it is not easy to find this comment. “it is a little difficult to see the dew forming on the aluminum beverage can that I used. One needs to shine a light (flashlight) on the side of the can to see the minute droplets of the dew which begin to form when the surface temperature reaches the DP. I added too many ice cubes so that the surface temperature cooled too rapidly beyond the DP. Which was good because one can observe when the dew stops forming as the water in the can slowly warms. For I found I could wipe away the dew which had formed with my finger and watch as the dew redeposited on the can’s surface. So, when the dew did not redeposit I knew the DP because the temperature of the water in the can was very, very, slowly warming.”
You just wrote: “my belief [is] that it [a phase change between gaseous H2O and liquid H2O] merely represents the point at which the size of the liquid droplets become large enough to be visible.” The basis of your belief seems to be that there is no condensation of water molecules (dew) on the can’s cold surface hence there is no dew-point temperature. If there is no condensation of water molecules from the atmosphere, there is no latent heat of condensation. Is this also part of your belief?
A question (which you need to answer) is: Why did your very minute droplets stop ‘appearing’ on the can’s surface at a specific temperature as the water in the can warmed?
What I observed during this experiment is a reproducible empirical fact. Anyone, including you, can do Snyder’s simple experiment as I did and simply ‘see’ that which I have described.
Have a good day, Jerry
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
my means of detection are my eyes.
James:
How do your eyes discern between the invisibility of nanodroplets of H2O and the invisibility of gaseous H2O?
Jerry:
Obviously, more invisible water molecules must be condensing on the surface of the can.
James:
How do you know it is not invisible nanodroplets that are condensing on the side of the can?
Jerry:
If there is no condensation of water molecules from the atmosphere, there is no latent heat of condensation. Is this also part of your belief?
James:
Right. It is the high heat capacity of H2O that people mistake for “latent” heat. There really is no such thing as latent heat. It’s just simple heat. And H2O has a lot of it because of its high heat capacity If it did have “latent” heat the water in the glass would be heated above ambient temperature.
Jerry:
A question (which you need to answer) is: Why did your very minute droplets stop ‘appearing’ on the can’s surface at a specific temperature as the water in the can warmed?
James:
Due to the simple heat that is associated with the high heat capacity of H2O. There is no need to infer “latent” heat
Jerry:
What I observed during this experiment is a reproducible empirical fact. Anyone, including you, can do Snyder’s simple experiment as I did and simply ‘see’ that which I have described.
James:
In my humble opinion, the interpretations and embellishments that you have gratuitously tacked on to these observations have more to due with arrogant lunacy than they do humble reason.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=360#p123015
The sheath of a tornado is a form of surface tension. It is a plasma of spinning, churning H2O molecules. It has structural strength and a surface—common characteristics of plasmas. But the origin of this strength doesn’t involve the forces associated with ionic bonds, as is the case with most plasmas. Instead this is a kind of plasma that involves the forces associated with hydrogen bonds. I thought of it as surface tension that is expressed in three dimensions—surface tension on steroids!
HerbbRose
| #
Hi Jerry,
I haven’t seen any response from you on the experimentI proposed. It is simple boil some water. Turn off the heat. Submerge the thermometer in the water deeper than just the bulb. If the thermometer registers a temperature above 100 C then it is not measuring the mean kinetic energy of the water.It is simple. It is a repeatable experiment giving clear evidence that the definition of temperature as the mean kinetic energy is wrong. For someone who stresses the importance of evidence you seem quite willing to ignore evidence.that dispute you beliefs. There is no heat of crystallization or heat evaporation only kinetic energy missed by the thermometer because of its design.Since so much of your work is dependent on the thermometer I would think that defects in its design would be of as much concern as its calibration. If the design is wrong then all the calibration is wrong and instead of there being 100 degrees C between the melting of ice and the boiling of water there should be 720 degrees.
Do the experiment don’t ignore it because it contradicts your dead experts and Wikipedia
Have a good day,
Herb
Pierre D. Bernier
| #
Hi
/ The dew-point temperature is related only to the vapor pressure of water in the air./
Right, Knew it instinctively but never stopped to formalize it You can have air at 25C with 20% RH or 90% RH. 2 different dew points. thx.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Pierre,
“Knew it instinctively!!!” The publisher of Galileo’s Dialogues Concerning Two New Science, wrote a preface to the potential reader of the book. In the preface one can read that a common saying of that time was “intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition [description of the system being considered]. Intuitive–without thinking, instinctive.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Pierre D. Bernier
| #
/ Intuitive–without thinking, instinctive /
I don’t catch the meaning. Please explain.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Pierre,
When you wrote: “Right, Knew it instinctively but never stopped to formalize it “, you had stopped to formalize it. I understand ‘to formalize it’ to be the equivalent of ‘accurately defining’ the situation which you had not done before my comment helped you to find it in yourself. And because you did this intuitively (without thinking) you were unaware of having done the step of accurate definition. But you knew that “You can have air at 25C with 20% RH or 90% RH. 2 different dew points.” Maybe, if you had added: ‘at the same temperature (25C)’ at the end of your last phrase, you would have been more aware of what you had done.
I read that Einstein wrote: “Small is the number of people who see with their eyes and think with their minds.”
Example–Louis stated his greatest achievement was that he had taught men to see. But he had seen erratic boulders in the Swiss Alps and seen the fact that they were left after some of the glaciers of the Swiss Alps had melted. Hence, he convinced the general scientific community that very thick glaciers had once covered the large northern portions of Europe, Asia, and North America because of the erratic boulder left on their surfaces after the thick glaciers had melted. Geologists had seen the erratic boulders but they did not associate the erratic boulders with glaciers.
Why? My hypothesis is that they (the geologists) did not ask themselves the simple question: How did these erratic boulders get here?
Relative to Einstein’s quote: they saw but they did not think.
But until you study nature you cannot see nature and then begin to think about nature. You can know the words ‘dew-point temperature’ but until the words are accurately defined, the words are meaningless. Which you identified as your problem when you wrote: “but never stopped to formalize it ”
Many words and I hope I did not create greater confusion.
I have written many words to myself in an effort to see what I actually can claim to know.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Pierre D. Bernier
| #
I had a pretty good feeling at the beginning that it would come to this. See, I’m an atheist and atheists and preachers stuck in the 17th century dont make a good mix. So bye ! 3 for 3. Next
jerry krause
| #
Hi Pierre.
Sorry to read this. I will pray to my Creator God that you will see the light before you pass on to ???
Have a good day, Jerry