Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
In The Real World
The early Greeks had a better, more basic understanding of weather and climate than the people involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Indeed, the word climate derives from the Greek word klima, meaning inclination, referring to the climate conditions created by the angle of the Sun. They paid great attention to the wind, realizing its role in creating local, regional and seasonal conditions. They even erected a tower to the wind in Athens (Figure 1) with sculptures representing each major compass direction.
Figure 1
The Greeks focused on the more important horizontal movement of air, technically called advection or more commonly, wind. In the modern era people like C. W. Thornthwaite understood the role of wind as he considered, surface and air temperatures, insolation and wind speed, major factors affecting the potential for evaporation and evapotranspiration. More recently, Hans Jelbring’s 1998 doctoral thesis, Wind Controlled Climate was one of the few to draw attention to the critical role of wind.
Wind, Water, and Energy Transfer
It is not possible to identify critical points in the complex system that is weather and climate, but that is what the IPCC was set up to do. It began with the limited definition of climate change and continued with the selection of variables and mechanisms used in their computer models. It is possible to identify areas they omit that are critical to understanding, or at least make understanding impossible without their inclusion. Two of them are the phase changes of water and the related energy absorptions and releases involved, and the transport of that energy by the wind.
The IPCC essentially consider only the vertical winds of convection, but by their admission do it inadequately. Convective cells are the major mechanism of vertical energy transfer from the surface to the atmosphere, especially in the tropics. Like so many individual portions of their models it is sufficient alone to explain why their predictions (projections) are consistently wrong. The region where the greatest transfer occurs is along the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ). A major part of the IPCC problem is that the convective cells created and visible as large cumulus clouds around the Equator (Figure 2) are too small to appear in the model grids. Modelers describe them as “sub-grid scale”.
A bigger failure of IPCC analysis of weather and climate involves advection, the horizontal movement of air commonly known as wind.
Phase changes of water and wind are most important right at the surface, but the IPCC only deal with conditions at the Stevenson Screen from 1.25 to 2 meters and above. Traditional climate research involved microclimate studies in the boundary layer, defined as the layer of air within a few meters of the surface. Oliver and Fairbridge in their 1987 Encyclopedia of Climatology define “Boundary layer climatology” as
“the study of the processes that link the surface of the Earth to the lower atmosphere as well as the general features that are established as a consequence.”
“The term boundary layer initially was borrowed from the field of fluid mechanics by micrometeorologists who used it in their investigations of the lower atmosphere.”
Some refer to this layer on the land as the Biosphere because it is where the majority of flora and fauna exist, but they only serve to complicate the dynamics in an already complex area. As Essex and McKitrick explain in Taken By Storm when discussing the relatively less complicated ocean/atmosphere surface,
“The interactions between the air and oceans form a whole universe of impossible complexities of its own.”
“The fluid dynamics and thermodynamics together place such impossible demands on us that we can neither measure nor calculate from either of these two classical theories alone or together.”
The basic physics is extremely problematic, but like everything else for the IPCC the lack of real data is an equally serious problem.
Amount of wind data is as limited in space and time as all other weather variables. Averages have little value as it relates to the work done. A low average may include a few severe gusts that do more work and create extensive damage very quickly. Besides, wind at the weather station doesn’t represent conditions even a short distance away because the station is deliberately exposed. In any other location the season of the year and local features all modify conditions. A body of water will create onshore and offshore breezes almost daily. Wind direction and speed varies with seasons.
The IPCC predictions (projections) are consistently wrong. When you read their Working Group I Physical Science Basis Report, it is easy to understand why. There is a multitude of limitations, omissions, and misrepresentations most of which on their own could explain the failed predictions. They cover this by creating the illusion of certainty in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM). There they fudge, cherry pick, omit, misrepresent and make unjustified speculations about data and evidence that doesn’t fit their agenda.
These actions are necessitated by the constant push to prove their hypothesis. As Richard Lindzen said years ago, the consensus was reached before the research had even begun. From the beginning, evidence has constantly emerged, and almost all of it contradicts the assumptions made and reinforces a null hypothesis, which the IPCC never entertained. Instead, they create explanations that are later proved incorrect. Their claim of a positive feedback from water vapor in the climate sensitivity of CO2 problem is a good example.
IPCC Water Problems
Failure to deal with water in all its phases is a serious limitation in every aspect of weather and climate studies, and the IPCC make it worse. Here is another example that involves water. The rate of evaporation and evapotranspiration has been declining in most parts of the world. This is in apparent contradiction to the IPCC theory that with global warming evaporation will increase. Here is how they try to explain it away in AR5.
AR4 concluded that decreasing trends were found in records of pan evaporation over recent decades over the USA, India, Australia, New Zealand, China and Thailand and speculated on the causes including decreased surface solar radiation, sunshine duration, increased specific humidity and increased clouds. However, AR4 also reported that direct measurements of evapotranspiration over global land areas are scarce, and concluded that reanalysis evaporation fields are not reliable because they are not well constrained by precipitation and radiation.
In summary, there is medium confidence that pan evaporation continued to decline in most regions studied since AR4 related to changes in wind speed, solar radiation and humidity. On a global scale, evapotranspiration over land increased (medium confidence) from the early 1980s up to the late 1990s. After 1998, a lack of moisture availability in SH land areas, particularly decreasing soil moisture, has acted as a constraint to further increase of global evapotranspiration.
The leading excuse is “decreased surface solar radiation” or “dimming” as some call it. It is the primary choice because even if they are wrong it is desirable to have a human cause. The claim that decreasing soil moisture is a problem is offset by their admission that,
Since the TAR, there have been few assessments of the capacity of climate models to simulate observed soil moisture. Despite the tremendous effort to collect and homogenize soil moisture measurements at global scales (Robock et al., 2000), discrepancies between large-scale estimates of observed soil moisture remain.
The most likely explanation is changing wind speed, but that is only listed in the summary. Three factors determine the rate of evaporation: temperature of the water, air temperature, and wind velocity. Simple basic research confirms that wind velocity is the most important. Without adequate wind data, chances of determining the flux accurately are very low.
AR4 Physical Science Report says,
Unfortunately, the total surface heat and water fluxes are not well observed. Normally, they are inferred from observations of other fields, such as surface temperature and winds. Consequently, the uncertainty in the observational estimate is large – of the order of tens of watts per square metre for the heat flux, even in the zonal mean.
The AR5 Report says,
Surface fluxes play a large part in determining the fidelity of ocean simulations. As noted in the AR4, large uncertainties in surface heat and fresh water flux observations (usually obtained indirectly) do not allow useful evaluation of models.
The phrase “usually obtained indirectly” indicates a measure calculated from other variables and usually far removed from actual measures. Often they are estimates from another computer model, input into other models as if it is real data. In the case of a flux, it is a combination of variables that determine the rate of movement of gas or liquid across the interface between the water or land surface and the atmosphere. The accuracy of data and knowledge of mechanisms at this interface are critical in weather and climate studies.
Monsoons are one place where the failure of the data and models to deal with flux and wind are most evident. The Indian Monsoon is one of the largest global transfers of heat and energy. AR4 said,
In short, most AOGCMs do not simulate the spatial or intra-seasonal variation of monsoon precipitation accurately.
AR5 specifies the importance of the monsoons to forecast accuracy.
High-fidelity simulation of the mean monsoon and its variability is of great importance for simulating future climate impacts.
However, they also conclude in as obtuse a language as they can muster that the models don’t work. They claim better results than for AR4, but they still fail to simulate monsoons.
These results provide robust evidence that CMIP5 models simulate more realistic monsoon climatology and variability than their CMIP3 predecessors, but they still suffer from biases in the representation of the monsoon domain and intensity leading to medium model quality at the global scale and declining quality at the regional scale.
The early Greeks didn’t know about fluxes, or phase changes, but they knew about the importance of the sun and the wind in determining weather and climate. Based on their failed predictions the IPCC hasn’t made any advances on what they knew and understood. Aristotle’s student Theophrastus produced the first book On Weather Signs listing empirical observations used to forecast weather. Many are still used today. IPCC computer model forecasts have failed in less than 30 years.
Thank you Dr Ball. I always learn something of interest from your posts. Perhaps in this instance that the ancient Greeks were wiser than we can ever be. The cause?……who knows…….but one must suspect the computer is partially to blame.
Computer?
The ancient Greeks were said to have made the first computer some 3000 Years ago
http://www.gizmag.com/hublot-antikythera-mechanism-first-computer-watch/20517/
Tonyb
In the last few years I noticed my lawn was not drying up as quickly as it did 20 to 30 years ago. I thought I was nuts and kept thinking about why my observations must be wrong. Was I watering more? Was the grass longer? etc .There might be a chance I am actually sane.
If you fertilize your lawn, or if you let the fall leaves lie there and decay (or make them into mulch with a mulching lawn mower), you are changing the soil content and consistency; addition of decayed plant matter often leads to better water absorption and distribution. Leaving the grass clippings on the lawn when you mow will produce the same effect, though more slowly. You may be transforming your own lawn! (Actually, you can hardly avoid doing so.) Additionally, earthworms, grubs, voles, moles, and other ground creatures change the soil both by aerating it and by defecating in it, thus adding and redistributing organic content. Your lawn or other land is not exactly what it was when you got there.
Yes, you are right. That certainly might be at work in the largest part of the lawn. What i should have said was that a certain portion of my lawn which has always been thin of grass and not covered by leaves etc. which is the area I have most noticed it. That area would quickly dry out and be parched by June but it has stayed fairly moist all summer. I have thought of how much rain we have gotten but that hasnt been greater. I am sure the rest of the lawn has been affected by many of the factors you have listed, but this one area is still a mystery to me.
There is also about 15% more co2 than in 1985. More CO2 requires less water.
https://ag.arizona.edu/pubs/garden/mg/botany/physiology.html
Yes more CO2 more desert greening. Even of your micro desert dusty patches in lawn…
You cannot leave leaves on grass, before they decay they will kill the grass, that is how trees keep grass down. You either have to mulch them with a mower or rack them up into a pile and let them decay and them spread that decayed matter back on the grass in a light application. Anyone who mows grass and than bags the clipping and throw them away is a fool. If you use a mulching mower and mow often enough so the clipping fall back into the grass not on top you will have a health lawn using far less water and fertilizer and herbicides. The only time you should bag you clipping is when you have a thatch problem, at that point you need to de-thatch. Last do not mow you grass short, at a minimum the grass stem should be at least two inches long. If you follow these simple steps you should have a wonderful “bare foot lawn”. Now with that said right now I do not have and grass at my residence, since I live in a desert and here in the desert growing grass is a waste of water.
Your local water table might have risen causing surface moisture to drain away slower.
Did you hear more spring peepers this year? Close by?
The natural state of land is with plant litter falling and composting. Earthworms surface to eat the litter, spreading the digested litter, (worm mulch), through the soil.
Man’s fetish for lush green urban and suburban lawns is not a natural state. Consider those lawns obsessively tended gardens of grass plants with their de-thatching over fertilized weed and insect killed treatments.
Mulching lawnmowers go a long way towards more natural lawns; avoiding weed and insect killing preparations foster food conditions that keep songbirds healthy and local, locally flickers, goldfinches, bluebirds, catbirds and mocking birds are common. Not so, in a not too distant suburb where grackles are the overwhelming common bird.
Apologies to the British and European folks; I would include robins, but our robins are very poor singers though they do love worms, grubs and insects and bring color early in the spring.
Our local populations of hawks and owls discourages grackles though they do make for noisy crow gatherings.
” Man’s fetish for lush green urban and suburban lawns is not a natural state ‘
yep, you’re right. Barren earth around the house was the norm. Before the advent of lawnmowers. No grass meant the house wasn’t going to burn down from a low burning forest fire. No grass meant no snakes or other venom would be lurking about. Downside was erosion and mud and when the wind blew, dirt. I like the nice green grass. If you doubt the therapeutic benefits of green, live out west where it’s shades of brown and then you’ll understand why people pay the price for water to have a nice green yard.
ATheoK April 14, 2015 at 6:43 am
Not so! The familiar and beloved American robin, Turdus migratorius is an excellent singer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrush_(bird)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_robin
American Robin dictionary of songs and sounds:
http://www.learner.org/jnorth/tm/robin/Dictionary.html
The Turdinae thrushes are widespread, consisiting of about 65 species, but the American robin is not closely related to the European robin Erithacus rubecula, but is from the same genus as the European blackbird T. merula, featured in a song of the same name from the Beatles’ White Album and sung by you know whom.
To be fair, in the drier, western part of its range, the Robin does not always have the benefit of block after block of green lawns growing in damp soils, with plenty of maples and oaks for nesting, and my observation is that these robins are more shy and secretive than their eastern counterparts, and do not sing as often.
Other than that, good remarks!
Thank you most sincerely Dr. Tim Ball. It’s always a pleasure to read your work ……. always.
Thank you Dr. Ball, very interesting. Another arrow to fire at the alarmists.
As warming is predicted to happen most at the Poles – and thus the temperature gradient of the planet is predicted to decrease – doesn’t this explain the reduced evaporation?
Lower temperature gradient -> less pressure differentials -> less wind -> less evaporation -> less clouds -> less precipitation…
Which would be the exact opposite of what the IPCC predicted
But it makes sense at first glance.
Have there been any studies regarding average wind velocity over the last 50 years?
Would surface changes make such a study close to useless anyway?
The rate of evaporation and evapotranspiration has been declining in most parts of the world. This is in apparent contradiction to the IPCC theory that with global warming evaporation will increase.
It is believed that increasing levels of CO₂ in the atmosphere have lead to a reduction in the size of stomata in plant leaves. This will reduce the amount of water transpired by the plant, though this may be offset to an extent by the extra vegetation that can grow in the enriched atmosphere.
That was new idea to me, thanks for sharing.
Annual plants probably very quickly adapt to this kind of change, because smaller evapotranspiration gives a clear competitive edge in water scarce conditions, which many species meet over and over again. There is naturally some natural variation on stomata size and number (and thanks, now I know the word stoma in English plus I can enjoy the faqing fact that I can inflect it in a latinist compatible manner). So the evolutive pressure quickly changes average plant when carbon dioxide is more abundant.
Not to mention the paved surfaces and structures within 30m. #B^)
Finding and testing an incorrect approach is an advance.
Now I know that people are wrong when they say “surface temperatures are where we live”. I’m only 65″ tall, (well I was- I’m old and shrinking; except around the girth). But that means at 2m and above they are not where I live. 🙂
It’s only an advance if you recognize that it is an incorrect approach and abandon it.
If instead you decide that you can continue doing it the wrong way, but mathematically “adjust” your results to “fix them up”, then you are actually regressing, not progressing.
Not sure what point is being made. 3D models like those followed by the IPCC must include advection, otherwise they aren’t 3D. Their inability to simulate certain things well isn’t for a lack of advective terms in the equations.
#B^)
Keep up the good work. Don’t let the bums take your precious UAH away from you and yours.
I’ve already seen Latitude once, and I don’t want to see a repeat of its saddest scene.
I am complete amateur in the climate matters, normally concentrate on the N. Atlantic’s events. Atmospheric pressure is presumably one of the major factors in the advection. There is a very odd , at first sight ‘irrational’ long term relationship between the SST and the surface atmospheric pressure. Until this ‘oddity’ is understood, whatever equations are used for the N. Atlantic, they may or could not work. It is likely that the equations may be more successful for long term simulations if the atmospheric pressure variability is simply left left out.
If the IPCC is the one claiming the models are 3D, maybe the IPCC doesn’t realize the models need to include advection? Or maybe the advective terms in the equations are just random values plucked out of another model and treated as constants because there’s no actual data?
Since the model linear equations collectively “parametrize” most of the unknowns that cannot be determined with any first-principle, including the influence of ocean surface advection, the modellers simply perform short trial runs to tune those equation parameters to get what they think looks like reasonable outputs, before starting a several months long GCM run on the expensive Supercomputer.
Thus the models are not really “models”, they are simulations of what modellers think they should get. They are more akin to Hollywood CGI simulations where a Director needs a certain look, feel, and action output. The modellers give the output they think their funding providers want to see to keep getting the funding.
“Thus the models are not really “models”, they are simulations of what modellers (sic) think they should get.”
Mr. O’Bryan,
Everything I have been able to gather on this subject of models has led me to this same conclusion.
Thank you for the excellent summation.
The models are 3D in that they have individual cells that cover the surface of the planet, plus additional cells that cover the atmosphere from ground to space.
That does not mean that they try to simulate wind speeds within the individual cells. Most likely, if wind speed is included at all, it’s parameterized. That is, they assume that under particular conditions, wind speeds will be such and such, and then enter the assumed value into the equations.
Dr. Spencer, I think the point was this, “Consequently, the uncertainty in the observational estimate is large – of the order of tens of watts per square meter for the heat flux, even in the zonal mean.
When I think of the energy in the entire water cycle, I see immense energy NOT expressed as heat. The amount of energy it takes to evaporate the entire atmospheres water vapor content, lift it high in the atmosphere, move it across the earth at disparate rates through wind, both vertical and horizontal, move the ocean currents through wind and T differentials, etcetera, I see that it is easy to lose a couple of watts per square meter in these processes alone.
Yes, we have immense number crunching computers that can spit out reams of paper, This IMV, only gives an illusion of answers. Dr. Koonin, in a recent thread was articulating the difficulty in finding the anthropogenic forcing of a couple of watts in a system where inputs are over a thousand watts, and the GHG affect several hundred watts, and the oceans are a selective short wave surface greatly affecting earth’s energy budget, but hiding that affect from the atmosphere for time periods of many centuries, and many other processes, like clouds, cloud location, jet stream movements, etc are also poorly understood. It is, IMV human hubris, to think we have adequate knowledge of and understanding of this system we call earth’s climate.
What we do know is the basic scientific principles apply. The harms of additional CO2 are NOT manifesting as predicted, and the KNOWN benefits of CO2 (now this we do have a good handle) are indeed continuing to manifest, and will continue to increase at a linear rate until at least 1200 PPM, while the warming effects of additional CO2 are KNOWN to decrease logarithmically.
No! moisture contents on the land surface of the earth controls climate.green house gas idea is ridiculous, greatest cheating in the history of science. gases are helping the earth to cool down by convection method of heat transmission – the cooling system of nature that goes on all the time and man has no control over it. CO2 is not pollutant, pollution like smoke, dust particles are health hazards and they block sun light causing cooling effect not warm. which one is man made in the GHG and GHE ideas? CC is due to the urbanization, deforestation and desert formations blocking or reducing evaporation vital for rain cycle – besides many roles of rain and water, it is the most effective cooling system.
Except that ground water extraction on all habitable continents has lowered ground water. Near surface moisture when evaporated will form clouds and the amount of clouds is determined by the amount of moisture, sun and the prevailing air temp. Here in the UK and after some rain the amount of clouds can end up covering the sky and blocking direct heat from the sun. After some days of this the amount of cloud reduces as the surface moisture is evaporated away. Doesn’t experience tells us that moisture at the surface has a cooling effect just like sweating and lack of moisture will mean hotter surface temps? Consider the Aral sea where local temperatures have come down where restoration of this lake has taken place. Both the destruction of this lake and its restoration are man made.
That’s right. So he solution is to keep land surface always moist. For this, we need to develop water supply networks so that every inch of land surface is kept always moist. ONLY excess Water, after saturation of the land part should go to the sea.
That’s right. So the solution is to keep land surface always moist. For this, we need to develop water supply networks so that every inch of land surface is kept always moist. ONLY excess Water, after saturation of the land part of the earth should go to the sea.
Maybe, maybe not.
What people overlook is that river outputs to the oceans have been steadily decreasing.
Causes are many including ground water extraction along with drainage area and river extractions. Water treatment plants expose water to the air during treatment. Landscape watering also spreads drainage extracted water across the surface.
Water that is extracted yet never drains into the oceans increases evaporation and humidity levels.
Cooling as it is evaporated, yes. But water vapor is the major greenhouse gas.
As an example of local changes to humidity, Las Vegas thirty years ago: When the temperature went over 100°F (37.7°C) it was a burning heat, but sweat evaporated quickly; nowadays, with the increased local humidity, temperatures over 100°F are suffocating.
Local changes to atmospheric water vapor conditions are just another form of UHI ignored or belittled by the climastrologists.
Another factor to increased evaporation is the fact that warm humid air is less dense. This means increased convection. One problem with Las Vegas is that it is located in a bowl which tends to create temperature inversions. This tends to trap the local air making it harder for convection to get started.
Los Angeles is another example of this problem.
I think there is a mild Arrhenian CO2 thumb under the scale. The temp graphs since 1950 correlate reasonably well. From what I can gather, the models exaggerate ECS and balance it out by fiddling the aerosol inputs. That’s okay for a game design, but this is no game. All a game really requires is a “fun factor”. The requirements here are not the same.
At what level is the mild Arrhenian CO2 thumb? At low levels the impact of extra CO2 may be greater than at higher levels – it’s a log scale after all.
And both positive and negative feedbacks may well kick in at different levels.
So I’m afraid I can’t even detect a slight thumb push. There are just so many other fingers in the pie.
Yay, a science thread!
“the convective cells created and visible as large cumulus clouds around the Equator (Figure 2) are too small to appear in the model grids. Modelers describe them as “sub-grid scale”.”
This is hardly an issue unique to ‘the models’ nor new to mathematical modelling using mesh modelling based CFD/FEA methods.
I am not a climate scientist but an engineer who has had the need to use CFD software to model liquid flow around solid bodies. Selecting a grid size to give a reasonable model of a local phenomenon ( a water wave in my case or a convective cell) is a CFD 101 level problem and for anyone to purport that they have a viable model without sorting out that basic issue is either fraudulent or utterly incompetent (perhaps manifesting as immature narcissism).
It is not like this sort of local cell issue is new either as it was the issue that frustrated the reasonably accurate modelling of turbulence in fluid flow. The problem was the exponential increase in calculations required to get a convergent solution with a model mesh of sufficient discrimination to model the actual phenomenon. and not having enough number crunching power to do so in an acceptable timeline.
Perhaps “sub grid scale” could be used as a euphamism for the whole CAGW Team deficiency.
What a bloody joke it all is when you consider the self important arrogance of The CAGW Team et al and all its hanging on rent seekers.
And then there is the mad obsession with anthropogenic CO2 as exposed with clinical effectiveness by Professor Murray Salby.
Thanks WUWT for this post and the Salby post.
A few years back, one of the agencies got a more powerful computer. They re-ran their existing model changing nothing but the grid size. The result was not a more detailed version of the previous result, but a radically different result. Just more evidence that we are decades, at least, away from having computers that are powerful enough to even begin to run such models, even assuming we ever to get the math right.
It is important to not that we are also decades away from knowing what inputs we need to put into our super duper computers, or else we run the danger of only getting wrong answers more quickly.
When I first had cause to use CFD software that was exactly the problem I first encountered. I created a mesh which I thought might be a fair thing and ran it. The height of the surface disturbance seemed a bit high and fortunately I was using the geometry of a form I also had photographs of in service. It was clear that the surface disturbance was about twice the actual height and so I had my first insight to the mesh size problem. I figured it out and sorted it eventually getting results consistent with reality, providing me a rubric which formed the basis of an extremely successful modelling of the next generation solution.
Fortunately I was working with water as the fluid, so the internal mechanisms of the fluid flow were dramatically simpler than what the climate modellers are attempting, leaving aside the mesh size issue.
What is it with these people? WTF is wrong with these turkeys running these models and the idiots who accept them as some sort of holy writ? If 97% of ‘climate scientis’ are agreed tha CAGW is real then clearly 97% of climate scientists are gormless fools. They remind me of the mouse who ‘rapes’ an elephant and in its frenzied egotims, believing its ‘victim’ is grunting with orgasmic pleasure when actually a branch falls on its head.
The arrogance. The sheer, egotistical, puffed up arrogance of these pathetic little twatts!
LOL. Whoops we left out the winds when we said there were less cyclones. So we hid the missing heat that wasn’t really there like the cat with no hat.
This gets more and more absurd, yet the squeals of rage over deniers is louder than ever.
Yes to hope to understand climate change then you need to try to understand the changes in weather that make it happen. When l look at climate change in the past, l always ask “what would the weather have to be doing to make this happen”. Because its not climate change what changes the weather, its changes to the weather over the longer term that is what makes the climate change.
What has surprised me has been how much recent “Arctic blast” winters in North America have had an effect on the Northern Atlantic. So it got me wondering what was going on. What l think its down to is because when this cold air has pushed down across North America it made the jet stream to become very powerful over the northern Atlantic. Which made both the storms and winds over the northern Atlantic to become stronger and so cooling the waters quicker. Also the Gulf stream running along the USA coast is much warmer then the surrounding waters. Now with the Gulf stream still running this warm while all the cold air from North America and stronger winds was flowing over it. Then l would have thought it must be losing a fair amount of its heat. Now would this also explain the cooler waters further out in the ocean.?
Thanks Dr Ball, makes sense to me, as someone experienced in CRD (climate-responsive design), relating to conditions where heat is the main problem.
?dl=0
?dl=0
I was surprised that advection appeared to be missing from the “climate science”, along with an understanding of evaporation and evapo-transpiration. Climatic design research covers all of this, along with boundary layer characteristics and effects, airflow patterns relating to topography, bluff bodies, Bernoulli effects etc. Maybe the gap between micro and macro is too great, or maybe the problems are being exaggerated? As we know, there are major problems with the fudging of temperature data, but if the “[a]mount of wind data is as limited in space and time as all other weather variables” then how is it possible to construct something like the earth wind mapping at http://earth.nullschool.net/ ?
Ok, this is modelling rather than observation, but it seems to be reasonably accurate.
Wind rose diagrams on older meteorological charts were not that easy to read, but as far as I am aware, most weather stations have wind direction, intensity and frequency, and software such as Ecotect can translate this into a meaningful form:
Oops. Apologies. Supposed to be links to the images.
Ultimately I think advection is a circular argument. Nobody disputes that advection plays some role. But it fails to explain the prevailing part of prevailing winds:
http://www.solvingtornadoes.com
IPCC’s clearly stated mandate, for which they get paid and answer to the boss, is exclusively and only man caused climate effects. Natural forces are not in their scope of supply. And in AR5 TS.6 they admit uncertainty about clouds, precipitation, etc.
Advection depends on the thermal (Carnot) efficiency of the earth, which is a measure of the work the system can perform. This is approximated by:
efficiency = 1 – (absolute temperature at poles / absolute temperature at equator)
AGW is predicted to warm the poles more than the equator. Thus, back of the envelop calculations show that AGW could reduce the earth’s thermal efficiency from something like 20% today to 18% in the future. This means that the work (advection) might be reduced by 2/20 = 10%.
This will reduce the rate of evaporation, reducing the water feedback predicted by temperature alone. This is consistent with observations, which show that wind speed and humidity are decreasing, contrary to the positive feedback predictions of AGW.
In other words, climate science failed to include the effects thermal efficiency in their calculation of feedbacks.
“failed to include” or “choose to ignore”?
+1(%)
Campaigners in the Netherlands are taking the government to court for allegedly failing to protect its citizens from climate change.
The class action lawsuit, involving almost 900 citizens, aims to force the government to cut emissions faster.
The first hearing opened in the Hague on Tuesday.
It is said to be the first time in Europe that citizens have tried to hold a state responsible for alleged inaction on climate change.
It is also believed to be the first case in the world in which human rights are used – alongside domestic law – as a legal basis to protect citizens against climate change.
The campaigners, led by the Urgenda Foundation, want the judges to compel the Dutch government to reduce its carbon emissions to 40% below 1990s levels by 2020.
Prominent Dutch DJ Gregor Salto is among those taking part in the lawsuit
The activists also want the court to declare that global warming of more than 2C will lead to a violation of fundamental human rights worldwide.
Among the plaintiffs is Joos Ockels, wife of the late astronaut Wubbo Ockels, along with DJ Gregor Salto and Nasa climate scientist Prof James Hansen.
“Everybody is waiting for the government to take action but the government has done so little. If the case succeeds, they will be forced to take action,” Salto told the UK’s Guardian newspaper.
The EU has pledged to cut emissions by 40% by 2030, while the US promised last month to reduce its carbon emissions 26-28% by 2025.
However, analysts say the pledges being made ahead of a global deal in Paris in December are not strong enough to stop temperatures rising above the internationally agreed maximum of 2C.
The 2C target was acknowledged at the UN climate convention (UNFCCC) in 2009 as the threshold of dangerous climate change, which scientists say is largely caused by the use of fossil fuels.
Sceptics say the threat from climate change is exaggerated.
Commentators say it remains to be seen whether the Dutch court is able and willing to rule on an issue that is still the subject of scientific debate.
However, Jaap Spier, Advocate-General to the Dutch Supreme Court, was quoted by the newspaper Trouw earlier in April saying that courts could force countries to adopt “effective climate policies”.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32300214
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/14/dutch-government-facing-legal-action-over-failure-to-reduce-carbon-emissions
“Everybody is waiting for the government to take action”
How typical.
Not everybody; just these 900 deluded citizens trying to impose tyranny of the minority.
“The early Greeks had a better, more basic understanding of weather and climate than the people involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”
No, I think I can safely say this is not true.
I disagree. There lives depended on understanding weather and climate so I think the statement is valid.
There should be Their.
“I think”
Since we already know that in your case, this is not true, the rest of your post is thus falsified.
Of course I agree and understand this. However, the IPCC maintains, still, that more heat is being retained than being released in the energy budget. That’s how they are able to say that big wind events will become worse. The heat gets transformed into mechanical energy. With the lack of hurricanes and such, I wonder what happened? Where is the missing heat? Is it possible that the math is wrong on the retention of heat in an open atmospheric state rather than a closed controlled one?
“It is not possible to identify critical points in the complex system that is weather and climate, but that is what the IPCC was set up to do. ”
Actually, the purpose of the IPCC was to produce propaganda while pretending to be studying climate. They had no real intention of embracing the real science as it would hog against the Summary for Policy Makers and the agenda goals.
“The IPCC essentially consider only the vertical winds of convection, but by their admission do it inadequately. ”
The IPCC’s treatment of convection is token, as they manage to completely ignore the global heat engine of the water cycle, with warm humid air carrying as much as 85% of the energy budget away from Earth’s surface. This comprises the “missing heat” that Trenberth is always moaning about and trying to claim is hiding in the ocean depths.
The great part about the water cycle is that, as the climate warms, this heat engine revs up and serves to bring the temperature back down. It is a huge negative feedback mechanism that the IPCC will never admit to.
“warm humid air carrying as much as 85% of the energy budget away from Earth’s surface. ”
This physical convective motion of the atmosphere is independent of CO2 concentration entirely, which is why radiative climate models are junk.
Dr. Ball, thanks for your clear and revealing explanation.
Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) must have also read the classics when he said: “Water is the driver of nature”. Interestingly, winds are also key in the ocean pacemaker, AMOC:
“These anomalies modulate the trajectory and strength of the North Atlantic Current. The importance of the western margin is a direct consequence of the thermal wind relation and is independent of the mechanisms that create those density anomalies. (ii) Density anomalies in this key region are part of a larger-scale pattern that propagates around the subpolar gyre and acts as a “pacemaker” of AMOC variability. (iii) The observed variability is consistent with the primary driving mechanism being stochastic wind curl forcing, with Labrador Sea convection playing a secondary role.”
More here: https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/04/13/climate-pacemaker-the-amoc/
I constantly see references to “thermodynamics” however, I have not seen any reference to the effect I was taught in thermodynamics of heat transfer in a heat exchanger about fluid flow in a pipe. In a pipe, tube, tank, etc. even with rapid fluid flow, the water on the surface is essentially stationary – not moving at all. This has an insulating effect in that it slows down the transfer of heat to the flowing medium (water, etc.) If not taken into consideration in high temperature boilers this effect can cause failure of the tubing.
I and I am sure most reading this have seen this effect in the atmosphere. Standing up you feel a breeze on your face and body, Laying down, flat on the ground – you feel nothing. No breeze at all. This effect is even used as advice for people caught in a severe storm or tornado – Get out of you car and lay down flat on the ground.
So, just what does this effect have on global warming science and calculations? How much does it factor into the so called “base” greenhouse effect of the atmosphere (you know, the 33 degrees)? Don’t tell me it does not exist, you use it and rely on it every time you hit a gulf ball.
@Mr. brain
-for the sake of skeptics here and everywhere, please try not to ‘Do a Daniel’
i.e. Unlike Daniel, its good to read the writing before commenting, esp that which follows Figure 2 above
I had read that and got the impression that they were only concerned with the atmosphere at/above 1 meter I.e. “but the IPCC only deal with conditions at the Stevenson Screen from 1.25 to 2 meters and above. ” In water systems a layer thinner than paper can cause utter destruction. My google searches have been unable to lead me to information on the last mm or even inch for air. Even though they use the same and similar terms, they kind of lump all of the area below 1 meter together. a Reynolds number for that are would not work, IMHO. If I did that with water flow I would design a disaster. Would appreciate any good links.
“…you hit a gulf ball.”
usurbrain, you mean GOLF right? Unless you are playing down in Florida then you could hit a gulf ball.
The blasted new tablet I am using likes to guess the words I am typing when using the touch-screen keyboard and auto finishes them. Worse yet, when I see them and correct them, it changes them back to the one it wants again! It thinks it knows what I am writing and what word I should. Have found no way to shut it off.
The joy of auto-correct …
http://media.tumblr.com/9fce62e9b79710b7323dec08dab7983d/tumblr_inline_njca04LsIG1t6a1wv.gif
usurbrain April 14, 2015 at 7:51 am
The water in your simple heat exchanger example is in liquid form, sensible heat applies, 1.0 Btu/lb-F. For a 50% glycol mix, 0.85 Btu/lb-F.
Consider what happens in a steam condenser or wet cooling tower. Latent heat of evaporation/condensation moves heat at about 1,000 Btu/lb. Consult the psychrometric properties of moist air. Trane’s commercial web site has a nice interactive app.
A 30% change in humidity, 20% to 50%, moves 4.31 Btu/lb without a temperature change, i.e. isothermal. If the grains/lb dry air stay constant, no moisture added by evaporation to the air, that same 4.31 Btu/lb heat transfer would raise dry bulb by over 17 F.
That’s the fundamental problem with the popular greenhouse analogy, it does not account for the power of humidity to absorb/release heat and act as a thermostat or moderate/modulate the temperature.
IPCC AR TS.6 admits they don’t understand this.
(I’m using my BSME and 35 years of actually applying it.)
Finally someone that has at least though about some of my questions/concerns. My training was in Nuclear Engineering 50 years ago and just had one course in thermo and one in Heat Transfer/Fluid Flow. And, talking about “the power of humidity to absorb/release heat” I have never seen any AGW believers talking about the three (four) states of water and the heat of fusion, sublimation and vaporization and the mechanisms that the changes from one state to the other has on heat transportation through the atmosphere. When a tube gets hot enough to cause nucleate boiling massive amounts of heat can be transferred.
I have read about rivers of water carrying more water than the Amazon river in the upper atmosphere. What happens when that water (vapor) turns to liquid? or the liquid turns into ice? the latent heat has to come from/go somewhere. I see gazillions of BTUs taken from the warm parts of the ocean and dumped over land thousands of miles away by these rivers. Would they not have an effect similar to the ocean currents? How are they modeled in AGW models? But all I read about is 2 degrees of temperature change, My electronic, solid-state microprocessor thermostat is actually not much more accurate than that, on that is on a daily basis! Even before the furnace starts pumping out heat on a very cold day the change can be more than a full degree (from max to min) inside the house.
You are told to lay flat on the ground in a tornado so that you won’t be hit by flying debris.
Having lain on the ground during a light breeze, I can assure you that you can still feel the breeze. It may be less, but it is not gone.
Here is another effect of advection to ponder. The ARGO buoys allegedly follow a consistent mass of water and report its time rate of temperature change. The IPCC would interpret this to mean the partial derivative with respect to time. In fact, what the buoys measure is total time derivative of temperature. There is an advective influence on the total measurement that derives from a term like the dot product of buoy velocity against horizontal temperature gradient. If buoys preferentially move with respect to the water mass across isotherms, then there is the possibility of confounding steady horizontal drift with time rate of temperature change. Since buoys are buoyant they will respond to inclinations in ocean surface. Sea surface inclination and horizontal temperature gradient are correlated–I see the potential for a warm bias in ARGO data because of advection of buoys.
Kevin, if our land based thermometers moved both laterally and vertically, I think I would see the potential for a bias in their observations as well, so I agree with you.
Fortunately our land based climate stations do not move.
Unfortunately we move them via adjustments and computer algorithms, and choice of stations used ever changing.
“Unfortunately we move them via adjustments and computer algorithms, and choice of stations used ever changing.”
And yet the satellites are said to be less reliable and/or accurate than these surface station records.
This makes no sense to me, if the idea is to objectively measure the actual temperature and trends.
What say you?
Evaporation is a negative feedback, cooling the ocean and atmosphere.
So thinking back to the article on deforestation and albedo…. do trees take the 2 meter boundary layer and make it 10-30 m thick?
I sometimes refer to Warmists as; ‘water vapour convection cooling deniers’. Not very catchy though!
How about evaporation deniers?
A few years back one of the IPCC AR models predicted a 4.0 C increase in global temperatures by the year 2100. The World Bank published a report on the calamity ensuing from such a temperature rise. In subsequent IPCC reports that rise has fallen to 2.0 C or even 1.5 C. Let’s just stay with the 4.0 C.
1.0 C= 1.8 F 4.0 C = 7.2 F
Suppose the beginning average global temperature to be 60.0 F and 67.2 F by 2100.
According to the psychrometric properties of moist air, an increase in temperature without any increase in water content from 60.0 F to 67.2 F requires the input of 1.74 Btu/lb.
The same 1.74 Btu/lb of heat could be absorbed by evaporating more water into the air, increasing the grains per pound of dry air.
At 60 F, 50% RH water vapor comprises 0.550% of the air. At 60F, 64.4% RH water vapor comprises 0.71% of the dry air.
A relatively small change in RH and water vapor concentration could absorb the same amount of heat with no dry bulb temperature change.
That’s where the missing heat went, into the clouds. Look at both sides, now.
When I first saw he word “advection” I thought you were referring to how we’re constantly vexed in the MSM with ads for CAGW. 😎
Dr. Ball,
When I was a kid taking numerous courses on mathematical methods in geophysics, the professors always went to great lengths to emphasize how limited and modest the various models were. They were forever checking students on running too far with results. It was drilled into us over and over and over that these models, while not without charm and utility, were gross — almost laughable — oversimplifications, and that the real world was infinitely more complex.
So ingrained is this understanding that ‘a stick figure is not a real man’ that I am now constantly flabbergasted, if not appalled, by the extent to which climate models are now presented as near perfect substitutes for real climate. It’s like a bizarre dream.
Please keep posting here! Your articles are invaluable, and I look forward to each and every one.
Max
And for the environmentalists, The problem with the faulty steam generators that caused the shutdown and eventual closure of the San Onofre Nuclear power plant was – wait – – – An inadequate computer analysis of the fluid dynamics in the steam generator, A fairly trivial thing to model compared to trying to model the entire Earths atmosphere.
Excellent comment: “‘a stick figure is not a real man.’
Are your ready for a non-conventional explanation? Other explanations (advection in this instance) are not wrong as much as they are incomplete and lacking in details (sometimes important details) that are necessary to properly conceptualize atmospheric flow.
First some basic facts:
1) Our atmosphere is a big sponge for energy. This is the result of the friction of gases.
2) Consequently there is a large amount of energy in our atmosphere. The molecules are moving very fast, 900 miles an hour. We generally refer to this energy as air pressure. Believe it or not this energy (air pressure) is the source of the energy that powers winds–but maybe not in the way you might first assume:
3) The means or mechanism by which the energy in air (air pressure) is converted to wind involves aerodynamics.
4) Aerodynamics requires a surface that can reflect energy and/or isolate a flow from the friction of gases.
5) Due to the friction of gases, streams, like jet streams, could not exist in our atmosphere unless there was some way to isolate the stream-flow from the friction of gases. Again this involves the existence of a surface that can reflect energy into a stream flow–aerodynamics.
6) At and along boundary layers between moist air and dry air, with the inclusion of energy (wind shear) a plasma phase of H2O emerges. This plasma provides the surface that reflects energy into a stream flow.
(BTW: this “plasma” is plainly observable as the “thick air” that comprises the cone/vortex of tornadoes.)
7) This plasma tends to spin around the central axis of flow producing a tubular structure (a vortex) that further isolates a stream flow (the jet streams) from the friction of gases. This isolation and the above mentioned reflection of energy into a stream flow is the reason for the high winds of the jet stream.
8) The jet stream is located at the boundary between the stratosphere and the troposphere. The reason it is located here is because, as explained in #6 above, the plasma must have a boundary between moist air and dry air and that is what exist between the very dry stratosphere and the relatively moist troposphere.
9) This is not a perfect system in that eventually the moisture falls out and the structure of the jet stream breaks down, this causes winds (advection) that generally track the same direction as the jet stream.
10) Additionally, the energy that would have been contained in the jet stream will tend to track down producing storms. Storms pull more moisture up higher (sometimes all the way up into the lower stratosphere) and this functions to re-establishes the moisture content in the upper troposphere.
11) Sometimes this, above mentioned, down tracking energy will encounter a moist/dry boundary layer in the lower atmosphere. This can result in the re-establishment of a plasma vortex similar to that of a jet stream. This vortex can sometimes grow all the way to the ground to produce a tornado.
12) Mitigating tornadoes can be achieved by interrupting the smoothness, length and integrity of moist/dry boundary layers in the lower troposphere.
It is important to note that without the H2O-based plasma that I mentioned above jet streams (and tornadoes) couldn’t possibly exist because friction of gases would prevent the conservation of energy (wind speed) that makes them possible. And since the jet streams are what powers the winds, the winds too would not exist without this H2O-based plasma. And this is all a good thing because the (usually) relatively calm weather conditions that we experience on this planet also would not exist (theoretically).
The general misconception is that winds are produced by differential air pressure. As I explained above, although this is not completely mistaken in reality this type of flow is generally not able to overcome the sponge effect of the friction of gases.
For more follow this link:
http://www.solvingtornadoes.com
Very interesting comment! Wondering if this plasma also has something to do with the “atmospheric rivers” all the rage in forecasting.
Yes, absolutely. Jet streams and “atmospheric rivers” are one and the same. Here is another post along those lines:
http://wp.me/p4JijN-by
Discover the spin that underlies the twist:
http://wp.me/p4JijN-aE
Thanks for the response!
Jim McGinn
@ Solvingtornadoes:
“6) At and along boundary layers between moist air and dry air, with the inclusion of energy (wind shear) a plasma phase of H2O emerges. This plasma provides the surface that reflects energy into a stream flow.”
Totally down with your explanation, but can you comment on the “chicken and egg” issue here where, based on the above, it makes it sound like it took wind to form the plasma that formed the jet streams that make the wind. How did the jet stream get formed in the first place then, and what role do the rotation of the planet and pressure differentials have in that process, whether initially or now?
Also, I would assume that on other planets where H20 is not as common in the atmosphere, the plasma for seeding the jet streams comes from another compound?
Has anyone heard of the period of great winds around 6-7000 years ago that filled in many low-lying areas with vast amounts of sand in places like the Gobi desert and Kyzylkum desert in Uzbekistan where there had been civilizations before?
Great question. As you suggest, the notion that winds can’t result from differentials in pressure is itself not exactly true. A better way to conceptualize it is that differential pressure cannot, in and of itself, produce highly focused, directed winds that bring us to refer to them as “prevailing” winds. So differential pressure doesn’t not produce any wind. It just doesn’t produce the bulk of the winds (how much? I don’t know) in contrast to what people generally assume. The jet streams are the conduits that do most of the work of achieving relative equillibrium. And I agree with you that pressure differentials must have been involved with initiating the first jet streams and, I suspect, that it regularly plays a role in initiating new jet streams even now. (Frankly, I’m somewhat amazed at the insight evident in your question. It’s encouraging to me to know that I’m not the only one that thinks about these things.)
As for your conjectures about alternate forms of plasma on other planets, I don’t know. I do know that one reason H2O is capable of forming a plasma is because of its non-Newtonian properties (related to its polarity and resulting hydrogen bonding). And only under very peculiar and particular conditions (wind shear along moist/dry boundaries) can the plasma phase of H2O emerge.
I had not heard of the “period of great winds,” that you mention. But that sounds fascinating.
I highly encourage you to look further into understanding the plasma phase of H2O. It is the most important concept in all of atmospheric physics and it is almost completely unknown and obscured by superstition from meteorologists and climatologists.
Follow this link for more:
http://wp.me/p4JijN-aE
@solvingtornadoes from Laredo
Thanks for the info. Yes. plasma is just beginning to be understood. M.T. Keshe talks a lot about plasma and magnetic field interaction although I’m not sure how much of it is validated, but it sounds like you may be able to determine if his work sounds legit. I’d love to hear your opinion on it. My friend hosts live online workshops weekly with Mr. Keshe that you may want to check out: http://original.livestream.com/kesheworkshop
Another great book from 1955 that I believe is all about plasma is Karl Schappeller’s work by Davison called “The Physics of the Primary State of Matter,” in which he says that steam production requires a “heat stressfield,” adding to your idea that there is no “cold steam.” The book is at
http://www.free-energy-info.com/Davson.pdf
All I know about the great winds is from the following:
From pg ~290 of Beelzebub’s Tales to his Grandson by G.I. Gurdjieff (ca 1925)
“The cause of the destruction of these ‘centers of culture’ and of the
changes on the surface of the Earth was a new catastrophe, the third for this
ill-fated planet.
“This third catastrophe was entirely local in character, and occurred as a
result of unprecedented accelerated ‘displacements of parts of the atmosphere’
or, as your favorites would say, ‘great winds,’ which lasted several years.
“And the cause of these abnormal displacements, or ‘great winds,’ was
once again those two fragments which had broken off from this planet of
yours during the first great calamity [comet strike] and which later became small
independent planets of that solar system, known today as the ‘Moon’ and ‘Anulios.’
“Strictly speaking, the main cause of this third terrestrial catastrophe was
the larger of the fragments, namely the Moon, the smaller fragment, Anulios,
played no part in it whatsoever.
“The accelerated displacements in the Earth’s atmosphere came about in
the following way:
“When the atmosphere around the small, accidentally arisen planet Moon
had been finally formed, and the Moon was still falling back upon its
fundamental mass, by a path established according to the already mentioned
‘law of catching up,’ and this newly arisen definite presence around the Moon
had not yet acquired its own harmony within the ‘common-system harmony of
movement,’ then the ‘osmooalnian friction,’ as it is called, not being
harmonized with the whole, provoked in the Earth’s atmosphere these
accelerated displacements, or ‘great winds.’
“And by the force of their currents these unprecedented ‘great winds’ began
to wear away the projecting land masses and to fill up the corresponding
depressions.
“Among these depressions were the two regions of the continent of
Ashhark where the process of existence of the first and second groups of the
beings of what is now called ‘Asia’ were chiefly concentrated, that is to say,
the main parts of the countries of Tikliamish [Uzbekistan] and Maralpleicie
[Gobi Desert].
“Certain parts of the country of Pearl-land [India] were also covered by sand, as
well as the region in the middle of the continent of Grabontzi [Africa] where, after the
loss of Atlantis, there was formed the leading ‘center of culture,’ as they called
it, for all the three-brained beings there—a region that in those times was the
most flourishing part of the surface of your planet and is now a desert, known
as the ‘Sahara.’
“Bear in mind that, besides the countries I have mentioned, several other smallish
land surfaces of that hapless planet were also covered by sand as a result of those
abnormal winds.
“It is interesting to note here that your contemporary favorites also learned, by
some means or other, that the three-centered beings of that period changed the
places of their permanent existence, and having attached one of their ‘labels’
to this, namely, the ‘great migration of races,’ they stuck it on to what they call
their ‘knowledge.’
“A number of the ‘learned’ there are now puffing and blowing with all their
might to find out why and how it all occurred, so that they can tell everybody
else about it.
“At the present time there are several theories about this that have nothing
in common and, in an objective sense, are each more absurd than the other,
but are nevertheless recognized there by what is called ‘official science.’
“But in fact, the true cause of the migration of the three-centered beings of
that epoch was that as soon as this process of erosion began, the beings
inhabiting the continent of Ashhark, fearing to be buried by the sands, started
to move to other, safer places. And this migration took place in the following
order:
“Most of the three-brained beings populating Tikliamish moved to the
southern part of the continent of Ashhark, to the country later called ‘Persia,’
while the rest moved north and settled in the regions afterward called
‘Kirghizcheri’ [Russia??].
“As for the beings inhabiting the country of Maralpleicie, some wandered
eastward, while the others, the majority, went toward the west.
“Those who went east, after crossing high mountains, settled on the shores
of a large ‘saliakooriapnian’ space, in the region later called ‘China.’
“And those beings of Maralpleicie who had sought safety by moving to the
west, after wandering from place to place,
ultimately reached the neighboring continent, later called ‘Europe. ‘
“As for the three-brained beings who existed in the middle of the continent
of Grabontzi, they dispersed over the whole surface of the planet.
Blowhards ignoring wind. Go figure.
Is it true that the GCMs model the earth’s radiation balance as on a a disc rather than on a sphere?
Yes, otherwise they’d have to use mathematics.
On wind.
Here is another variation on that theme:
The Fourth Phase of Water:
http://wp.me/p4JijN-5A
http://www.solvingtornadoes.com
Pollock gets some things right. He recognizes that evaporation and atmospheric moisture involves clumps of positively charged H2O that are pulled up by residual negative charges from the other gases in the atmosphere. In and of itself, this conceptualization is a major advance over meteorologists (including Tim Ball) who have self-deluded themselves into believing in convection is the result of “cold steam.”
But Pollock does’t realize that this only explains how moisture gets about 1000 meters (to produce “inversion” layers). And his speculation about electric charges powering wind is wrong. It fails to explain, for example, why the winds generally blow from west to east.
And, what about the importance of wind across ocean surfaces and the uptake on carbon dioxide?
Weather micro climate is already utilized in computers like what you are right now using. It is called “heat-pipe”. It can move heat very fast long distances from the CPU to the heat sink.
Heat pipes moves heat energy very effectively around and now if you think how effective can be globe size heat pipe.
http://www.heatpipe.nl/index.php?page=heatpipe&lang=EN
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pipe#/media/File:Laptop_Heat_Pipe.JPG
But your heat pipe is using sensible heat transfer, not latent heat of evaporation. Spray some water on that CPU and it will lose heat much faster than the heat pipe.
Don’ do this at home!
Latent heat is not applicable. Evaporation is not a phase change.
“Evaporation is not a phase change.”
Please disregard my comments to you below. I had skipped to the bottom of this comments section, and thus was unaware that you are not to be taken seriously.
My apologies.
Only simpleminded twits believe evaporation is a phase change. Why don’t you collective geniuses start a company that makes auto engines that run on the power of evaporation. LOL.
Get an education.
“Only simpleminded twits believe evaporation is a phase change. Why don’t you collective geniuses start a company that makes auto engines that run on the power of evaporation. LOL.
Get an education.”
I regret suggesting you are not a serious person.
Obviously you are serious.
Out of respect for the host of this site and the clearly stated guidelines, I shall decline to engage you further.
Except to wonder if it has ever occurred to you to take your own advice?
All the best to you, sir.
What next? Are you going to invent a time machine?
Can you explain how you get latent heat from a nonexistent phase change?
“Can you explain how you get latent heat from a nonexistent phase change?”
No.
Can you explain why you think that H2O cannot exist in the air as single molecules?
Some demonstration of the factual basis of this claim please.
BTW, does this apply to other molecules with significant hydrogen bonding, such as ammonia, NH4?
No. I cannot explain why it cannot happen. Can you explain why something that, according to you, is so prevalent in the atmosphere has never been observed, measured, or even detected under controlled laboratory conditions?
To solvingtornadoes and Menicholas, I second the questions put by solvingtornadoes and also ask Menicholas to explain meaningfully. I don’t understand why do you worry for the existence of water as a molecule H2O, one way to isolate it into molecular form is by heating to 100 degree centigrade with latent heat, but what is the other way? Thanks! solvingtornadoes, I am honored.
“I don’t understand why do you worry for the existence of water as a molecule H2O,”
I don’t get that either. Why are people so attached to a notion that has zero confirming evidence and for which there is a wealth of evidence that suggests the boiling point of water is unalterable. A guy on Quora stated that all of thermodynamics would have to be thrown out if what I’m saying is true. That’s crazy, of course. But he seemed to think that was a good argument for it being wrong, which is even more crazy. People lose their minds when something they have believed for a long time is revealed as nonsense.
“BTW, does this apply to other molecules with significant hydrogen bonding, such as ammonia, NH4?”
Of course.
“Can you explain why something that, according to you, is so prevalent in the atmosphere has never been observed, measured, or even detected under controlled laboratory conditions?”
Untrue.
The volume of one mole of water at STP is about [22.4] liters, just as it is for other gasses.
This can only be the case if it exists as individual molecules.
Also, the formation of frost as a crystalline form of ice demonstrates that water molecules are being added one at a time.
Why do you think that you know something that every physical chemist has overlooked?
What is your evidence that H2O exists as “H2O x X”?
When students take college levels course in such scientific studies as physics, chemistry etc, they are not simply fed facts from a book. Every class must be taken with a laboratory section, in which things are verified, from the simple and mundane to the complicated.
If you like I can refer you to the proof you state does not exist.
“The volume of one mole of water at STP is about 2.4 liters, just as it is for other gasses.”
STP corresponds to 273 K (0° Celsius) and 1 atm pressure. That is the freezing point of water. How did you manage to make such an obvious mistake?
“This can only be the case if it exists as individual molecules.”
What?
“Also, the formation of frost as a crystalline form of ice demonstrates that water molecules are being added one at a time.”
Really? How so?
“Why do you think that you know something that every physical chemist has overlooked?”
Why do you think I don’t know something that every physical chemist has overlooked?
“What is your evidence that H2O exists as “H2O x X”?”
Hundreds of years of laboratory evidence confirms the boiling point of H2O. You know this, of course.
“When students take college levels course in such scientific studies as physics, chemistry etc, they are not simply fed facts from a book. Every class must be taken with a laboratory section, in which things are verified, from the simple and mundane to the complicated.
If you like I can refer you to the proof you state does not exist.”
You cannot and will not. Because it cannot be done.
This is not just academic. This is why it matters:
http://wp.me/p4JijN-78
“If you like I can refer you to the proof you state does not exist.”
Well . . . ?
“The volume of one mole of water at STP is about [22.4] liters, just as it is for other gasses.”
Pardon my typo. Of course I meant to type 22.4 liters.
I am cooking dinner, and am in a hurry. Among the dishes I am preparing is some steamed rice and veggies!
Impossible you say!
Maybe that is why you aren’t making any sense. You are confused on STP. Just assume 1 ATM and and ambient temps. Do you believe water is a gas at this pressure and temperature? Seriously?
solvingtornadoes wrote: “Do you believe water is a gas at this pressure and temperature?”
So a sealed box containing only water molecules with a temperature maintained at 0 C would have only liquid/solid water at the bottom? No water vapor anywhere in the box? No vapor pressure above the liquid? Just a vacuum?
I think not. Fatal flaw in solvingtornadoes logic.
Are you dense? I indicated 1 ATM. You changed it to 0 ATM (a vacuum). At 0 ATM and 0 degrees celsius the boiling point of water is below -50 Celsius. So any of the ice that melts will instantly turn to gaseous H2O (steam). If you were paying attention you would have seen that right on this same thread there is a chart that indicates just that.
(Of course, the size of the container would also be a factor in that in a smaller container the pressure would go up faster.)
You are not following the logic. The temperature is maintained at 0 C. It cannot change (up or down). By your logic, if you put just H20 molecules in a box, they would all form a liquid/solid at the bottom and a vacuum would form in the rest of the container. In reality (and according to established molecular theory), gaseous H20 forms at all temperatures above absolute zero in the box. If there is 22.4 L of space in the box, the pressure from the water vapor at 0 C would be 1 atm. That is the meaning of the statement “The volume of one mole of water at STP is about 22.4 liters, just as it is for other gasses.”
Stop pretending you understand something you don’t and read the chart I suggested above. At 1 ATM 0 degrees Celsius is the freezing point of liquid water. Its boiling point is 100, at 1 ATM. At 0 degrees Celsius, if air is mixed into the box (which you must have to get 1 ATM) you will also have evaporate. Evaporate is not a gas. It is a liquid. Any vapor pressure in your box will NOT BE THE RESULT OF GASEOUS H2O IT WILL BE THE RESULT OF ELECTRO-STATIC FORCES THAT EXIST BETWEEN THE DROPLETS AND THE AIR MOLECULES.
It’s meaningless–and just plain stupid–to talk about the gas volume of something that is not a gas.
Do not respond to this unless and until you’ve thoroughly considered what I have stated here.
Nope, you are missing point. It is not necessary to add air to get 1 atm of pressure. Any gas can exert pressure. And water does just that, in vapor form, at all temperatures above absolute zero according to both theory and experiment.
Your assertion that water cannot exist in vapor form at 1 C and 1 atm is simply wrong.
OMG, this is surreal. Read the frickin chart you dumb SOB. If you don’t add air then you have a vacuum, 0 ATM. And the boiling point will be below -50, as we already discussed. And, yes, this will produce some GAS pressure (not vapor pressure).
Then, as if to prove you are dumber than dumb, you claim I stated something I didn’t. Yes, I know water can exist as a vapor (evaporate) if there is some air in the container. I FRICKIN JUST EXPLAINED THIS TO YOU. I stated that it cannot/will not be a gas at 1 ATM unless it is over its boiling point temp of 100 Celsius. A vapor (evaporate) is liquid droplets/clusters suspended between air molecules by electrostatic charges. A gas is mono-molecular H2O. H2O only becomes a gas above its boiling point, which at 1 ATM is 100 degrees Celsius.
Pay attention.
For more follow this link:
http://wp.me/p4JijN-6R
[Cut the cursing. .mod]
Oops, 0 C.
If you wish to redefine vapor to suit your needs, that is your decision. But don’t expect the rest of the world to understand your argument. Water vapor (gas) is quite capable of exerting a measurable pressure in the absence of all other gases at 0 C. Your assertion to the contrary is pure fantasy, and contradicts established experiment and theory.
The behavior of water is one of the most deceptively complex and counter-intuitive things known to science. People want to believe it is simple. Consequently what has emerged is a whole cult of beliefs that are not based on anything empirical but on the lowest common denominator–consensus. Consensus based group-think causes people to believe that what other people believe is itself empirical evidence.
As you have demonstated vividly, there is zero empirical evidence to support your fantasy. All you have is a bunch of other fellow believers who, like you, are incapable of being objective about something that seems simple but is not.
http://wp.me/p4JijN-c4
That you would assert a lack of evidence for water vapor (gas) exerting a pressure and that “evaporation is not a phase change” puts you squarely in the “crank” category. I think we are done here.
“That you would assert a lack of evidence for water vapor (gas) exerting a pressure . . . “.
There is no a lack of evidence. There is lack of intelligence in regard to interpreting/explaining it, as you demonstrated vividly.
” . . . and that ‘evaporation is not a phase change puts you squarely in the “crank” category. ‘”
LOL. If you have a hard time distinguishing between what you understand and what you believe you should avoid the water molecule. Because it will kick your ass every time. Don’t blame me. I’m just the messenger. If you are so sure that evaporate is a gas then, by all means, do an experiment and make your methods and results public. If you do you will be the first. And, if you do, the results will demonstrate that what I am saying is right. Then you can expect a whole world of meteorology groupies and global warming advocates to accuse you of falsifying your results and labeling you a science denier–and a crank!
” I think we are done here.”
You were done before the argument began, you fruitloop.
Follow this link for more:
http://wp.me/p4JijN-45s
Will Dr. Tim Take His Own Medicine?
I appreciate Dr. Tim Ball’s scrutiny of IPCC, but I think the same scrutiny when applied to his own paradigm would yield similar disparities with empirical reality. For example, he states: “Convective cells are the major mechanism of vertical energy transfer from the surface to the atmosphere, especially in the tropics.”
Has this notion and its underlying assumptions (the most pertinent being the assumption that moist air is lighter than dry air and its underlying assumption [that the moisture in moist air is gaseous H2O {“cold steam”} and not a much heavier variant of atmospheric H2O, vapor {vapor being clumps/droplets of H2O}]) been tested? Or, for that matter, have meteorologists even thought about the fact that “cold steam” has never been detected in a laboratory — or anywhere!
If one were to look into it, as have I, they would find that the following comment can be more broadly applied: “As Richard Lindzen said years ago, the consensus was reached before the research had even begun. From the beginning, evidence has constantly emerged, and almost all of it contradicts the assumptions made and reinforces a null hypothesis, which the IPCC never entertained.”
Do You Believe in Cold Steam?
http://wp.me/p4JijN-81
A Simple Experiment That Meteorologists Refuse to do
http://wp.me/p4JijN-7G
BREAKING NEWS: Convection has been tested. And it has failed miserably, a long time ago
http://wp.me/p4JijN-6R
Jim McGinn
http://www.solvingtornadoes.com
Reblogged this on Confronting the Storm of Science Denialism in Meteorology, Storm Theory and Tornadogenesis and commented:
Will Dr. Tim Take His Own Medicine?
65 F, 0% RH, 0.0756 lb/cu ft.
65 F, 100% RH, 0.0750 lb/cu ft.
Yes, moist air is lighter than dry air.
IMHO the term “steam” is reserved for water vapor over 212 F at 14.7 psia or 91.5 F at 1.5 “Hga.
“cold steam” is a contradiction in terms.
I think your data is nonsense. Seriously? Where did you get this? What methodology was employed?
Also, (0.0006 / 0.0750) * 100% = 0.8%
Are you really trying to suggest that a difference of less than 1% (at most) is what powers storms and tornadoes? Are you serious?
“Are you really trying to suggest that a difference of less than 1% (at most) is what powers storms and tornadoes? ”
Are you really trying to suggest that the only energy available in the atmosphere is due to the density differential between different air masses?
Air and water have vastly different densities. Do you think that this difference is what causes waves?H
You seem to believe that the substance called water is incapable of a gaseous phase at temperatures below it’s boiling point.
I would imagine you think that the phase diagram of a substance is a ridiculous fiction, invented by clowns to tease the ignorant?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Phase_diagram_of_water.svg/725px-Phase_diagram_of_water.svg.png
It is not my intent to mock or argue, but merely to understand why and how you have arrived at your views?
Whomever instructed you in your no-doubt extensive education in Physical Chemistry must have been a remarkable individual.
Those who instruct such classes have to deal with a great many misconceptions and erroneous ideas from their students, in order to convey the sometimes very challenging principles involved. Most have learned how to avoid the urge to pull their own hair out in clumps, or to drink heavily, or to commit ritual seppuku.
Most I say. But I am wondering…
“You seem to believe that the substance called water is incapable of a gaseous phase at temperatures below it’s boiling point.”
Yes. It’s absolutely impossible. It’s like “time travel impossible,” as I indicated previously. You might as well be telling me that you can flap your arms and fly.
“I would imagine you think that the phase diagram of a substance is a ridiculous fiction, invented by clowns to tease the ignorant?”
I won’t pretend to understand what you think you see. Pretend I am a naive child. Go ahead. Explain what you think you see. Keep in mind, I never stated that the boiling point does not change with pressure. You stated that the boiling point goes below what is indicated on your chart. So, your own chart proves you wrong–or did I misinterpret something. Go ahead. Explain it to me like I’m a child. What are you waiting for?
“It is not my intent to mock or argue, but merely to understand why and how you have arrived at your views?”
My intention is to get you so embarrassed that you snap our of your delusion. I invite you to do the same to me. But, keep in mind, my creative reading skills might not be as well developed as are yours. I have no dispute with anything on your chart. If you think I missed something then please point it out precisely.
“Whomever instructed you in your no-doubt extensive education in Physical Chemistry must have been a remarkable individual.
Those who instruct such classes have to deal with a great many misconceptions and erroneous ideas from their students, in order to convey the sometimes very challenging principles involved. Most have learned how to avoid the urge to pull their own hair out in clumps, or to drink heavily, or to commit ritual seppuku.
Most I say. But I am wondering…”
I’ve had many great teachers. If you can explain the beliefs that are plainly disputed by the chart you presented then you will join the ranks of the many great teachers I have had. Go ahead. Explain it to us.
“My intention is to get you so embarrassed…”
Not there yet.
Let’s see how you feel after you fail to reconcile the very low magnitude of vapor pressure with your belief that it is indicative of “cold steam.”
“Let’s see how you feel after you fail to reconcile the very low magnitude of vapor pressure with your belief that it is indicative of “cold steam.” end quote
Wait, what?
You are a nitwit that can’t follow a mildly complex argument.
IMHO the term “steam” is reserved for water vapor over 212 F at 14.7 psia or 91.5 F at 1.5 “Hga.
“cold steam” is a contradiction in terms.
If you can’t distinguish between a gas or a vapor then you should avoid science.
IMHO is shorthand for “I My Humble Opinion”.
For someone who thinks nothing of tossing out rude insults, while asserting such things as that everyone who takes words to mean as they have been used, by millions of people for hundreds of years (Such as evaporation meaning the change in phase from, liquid to gas), you opinions would seem somewhat less than humble. But that is just my (not quite as humble) opinion.
IMHO is shorthand for “I My Humble Opinion”.
“For someone who thinks nothing of tossing out rude insults, while asserting such things as that everyone who takes words to mean as they have been used, by millions of people for hundreds of years (Such as evaporation meaning the change in phase from, liquid to gas), you opinions would seem somewhat less than humble. But that is just my (not quite as humble) opinion.”
The first step in my attempt to educate you is to get you to admit that what you believe is not based on anything empirical but is, instead, based on consensus and/or tradition. You have achieved that. Even though you have not yet accepted it emotionally, you have made the conceptual breakthrough to the realization that your belief that evaporation involves a, “change in phase from, liquid to gas” is based not on anything substantive or empirical but on consensus and tradition. You probably don’t fully realize that you just admitted/declared that but there it is in black in white. You stated, ” . . . words to mean as they have been used, by millions of people for hundreds of years . . .”. So, you see, my rudeness has had its intended effect. I snapped you out of your delusion so that you can achieve the self-realization that your belief in “cold steam” is not scientifically valid but is, as you just admitted/declared, nothing but an artifact of group think.
I should warn you, however. You have only taken one small step. You must continue down the path if you are to permanently break free from the mind-numbing effects of meteorology’s mythology.
Keep going! Keep struggling! You’ve taken the first step. Do not stop there!
Nick:
You assumed “cold steam” in your calculations and failed to reveal it. That is dishonest. And then, even with the absurd assumption of relative humidity (100% vs. 0%) you only got a 0.8% difference! You must be a meteorologists.
“cold steam” is a contradiction in terms.
This isn’t english grammar we’re discussing here. “Cold Steam,” is physically impossible. You assumed “cold steam” in your explanation. Now you are dodging the issue.
The issue is vapor pressure. The boiling point of a substance is merely the temperature at which the vapor pressure of that substance in liquid phase is equal to the ambient atmospheric pressure.
At lower temperatures, vapor pressure varies, and this variance is non-linear. Do you believe that the vapor pressure of water is zero below 100C? And instantly rises to 1 bar at 100C?
Do you believe in the concept of vapor pressure?
That molecules in a liquid have a range of velocities and that some of the molecules are thus moving fast enough to escape the surface of a liquid (lets skip sublimation until later), even when the temperature of the liquid is far below the boiling point.
Do you have views on molecular forces other than hydrogen bonding?
What do you have to say about London forces and other van der Walls forces?
If there is no such thing as water vapor, is the phenomenon of evaporative cooling a myth too?
What are we looking at here: (they are from a sort of time machine called a “camera”)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPV-R1BcJZc
“The issue is vapor pressure.”
Well, no. I think you need to take caution when it come to defining what separates our respective conceptualization of this issue. It is not the whole ballgame, nevertheless I agree that vapor pressure is one dimension that provides a substantive platform upon which we can both stand. IOW, we both agree that vapor pressure needs to be reconciled with our respective and differring paradigms. I need to explain it in the context of my thinking and you need to explain it in the context of your thinking and if either of us fail then we have not choice but to reject our own thinking/paradigm.
“The boiling point of a substance is merely the temperature at which the vapor pressure of that substance in liquid phase is equal to the ambient atmospheric pressure.”
You are guilty of circular reasoning with this statement. Boiling is a phase change from liquid to gas. The boiling point of water is not something that is flexible. It’s something that has been demonstrated over and over again in laboratories. Vapor is not a gas. Vapor involves clumps of H2O suspended between air molecules as a result of residual electric charges. It is relatively weak. You are dodging this observation because it does not fit with what you choose to believe. That is foolish. That is dumb. That is stupid. You should kick yourself in the ass for failing to recognize the dramatic difference in magnitude of vapor pressure to gas (steam). You can’t explain, for example, why the vapor pressure at 1 degree below the boiling point and the “vapor” gas pressure at one degree above the boiling point is something like 15 to 20 times greater magnitude. You can’t explain it so you pretend it doesn’t exist. You can’t explain it so you delve deeper into your delusion. I have no need to delude myself. I have no need for self-delusion because I understand the residual electric charges that exist between air molecules and clumps of H2O molecules (vapor). Your ignorance causes you to close your mind and broaden your ignorance. My understanding allows me to see evidence for what it is and does not bring me to pretend I understand something that I do not.
“At lower temperatures, vapor pressure varies, and this variance is non-linear. Do you believe that the vapor pressure of water is zero below 100C? And instantly rises to 1 bar at 100C?”
No. As I explained above.
“Do you believe in the concept of vapor pressure?”
Of course. I just don’t believe that it involves “cold steam.” That is your delusion.
“That molecules in a liquid have a range of velocities and that some of the molecules are thus moving fast enough to escape the surface of a liquid (lets skip sublimation until later), even when the temperature of the liquid is far below the boiling point.”
Right. This is evaporation. And you believe evaporation produces “cold steam,” as you just described. You believe this not because you have any evidence to substantiate this. You believe this because you have deluded yourself into thinking that the weak magnitude of “vapor pressure,” is somehow comparable to the high magnitude pressure of H2O gas (steam) pressure and you want to believe this so badly that you pretend not to notice this huge discrepancy.
“Do you have views on molecular forces other than hydrogen bonding?
What do you have to say about London forces and other van der Walls forces?”
Don’t try to change the subject. Address the issue I raised above: You should kick yourself in the ass for failing to recognize the dramatic difference in magnitude of vapor pressure to gas (steam). You can’t explain, for example, why the vapor pressure at 1 degree below the boiling point and the “vapor” gas pressure at one degree above the boiling point is something like 15 to 20 times greater magnitude. You can’t explain it so you pretend it doesn’t exist. You can’t explain it so you delve deeper into your delusion. I have no need to delude myself. I have no need for self-delusion because I understand the residual electric charges that exist between air molecules and clumps of H2O molecules (vapor). Your ignorance causes you to close your mind and broaden your ignorance. My understanding allows me to see evidence for what it is and does not bring me to pretend I understand something that I do not.
“If there is no such thing as water vapor, is the phenomenon of evaporative cooling a myth too?”
Uh, you say that water vapor (clumps/droplets [often so small they are invisible] of H2O molecules) do not exist. You equate vapor to steam. You believe in cold steam. Not me. Leave me out of your delusions. I would never believe such obvious nonsense.
“What are we looking at here: (they are from a sort of time machine called a “camera”)”
I can’t figure out what your point is. You need to slow down and take it one step at a time. The fact that you believe in “cold steam,” does not mean it exists. And the fact that you conceptually conflate the concept of vapor and the concept of gas does not mean that this is what happens in reality. You are just sidestepping the issue.
BTW, thunderclouds are an observation that REFUTES convection. The fact that you can see a cloud proves that it is not comprised of steam, because steam is invisible. And if the moisture is droplets then the air can only be heavier than dry air. In conclusion, thunderclouds are not powered by and have nothing whatsoever to do with convection.
That meteorologists could have for some many years looked at clouds in the distance and said, “look there’s convection,” show what a intellectually dead paradigm meteorology has become.
“The fact that you can see a cloud proves that it is not comprised of steam, because steam is invisible.”
*rolls the eyes*
Address the issue you evasive jackass.
[trimmed. .mod]
My calculation source was the psychrometric properties of moist air, “cold steam” has nothing to do with it. The range of 0% to 100% was illustrative to show that moist air is lighter than dry air.
For real steam properties consult ASME or Keenan & Keyes.
No meteorology, just a BSME and 35 years of power generation using real steam.
“My calculation source was the psychrometric properties of moist air, “cold steam” has nothing to do with it. The range of 0% to 100% was illustrative to show that moist air is lighter than dry air.”
You pretend to understand something that you don’t. You are still being dishonest. You are still concealing the fact that you assumed “cold steam” in the atmosphere (in your calculations). Your books will not protect you. Your books DO NOT indicated that steam can exist below it’s boiling point. That is your own delusion. Generally, engineers make bad scientists, because they lack the intellectual honesty that is necessary to defeat what you want to believe.
Below its boiling point moisture can only exist as a vapor. It can’t exist as a gas. It doesn’t matter how much you wish to believe otherwise.
What is important here is that the 0.8% difference in water vapor added 972 Btus per pound of air without an increase in the dry bulb.
Atmospheric water vapor concentration is 2,500 ppm while CO2 is 400 ppm. CO2 is a bee fart in a hurricane compared to water vapor which is why CO2 has been increasing while the temperature flat lines because water vapor is absorbing that heat isothermally.
Pollock gets some things right. He recognizes that evaporation and atmospheric moisture involves clumps of positively charged H2O that are pulled up by residual negative charges from the other gases in the atmosphere. In and of itself, this conceptualization is a major advance over meteorologists (including Tim Ball) who have self-deluded themselves into believing in convection is the result of “cold steam.”
But Pollock does’t realize that this only explains how moisture gets about 1000 meters (to produce “inversion” layers). And his speculation about electric charges powering wind is wrong. It fails to explain, for example, why the winds generally blow from west to east.
What is important here is that you stop lying to yourself about what you think you understand but only believe. Moist air is heavier than dry air. Consequently the notion that storms are caused by convection is nonsense. There is not such thing as “cold steam.” That is but a myth.
Sir,
” Moist air is heavier than dry air.” is certainly and demonstrably incorrect.
This can be gleaned in any number of ways. Dry air consists mostly of Oxygen, with molecular weight of 32, and nitrogen, with molecular weight of 28. Water has a molecular weight of 18, and thus water vapor is only about 2/3 as dense as dry air.
This is demonstrated to be true by the atmosphere itself, as air masses interact. When moist air is pushed up against dry air, it climbs up over it, and when dry air is pushed into moist air, it pushes it up quite abruptly.
Since most frontal boundaries also have a difference in the temperature of the two (or more) air masses, the picture is complicated somewhat, but not much. And there are fronts which have little temperature difference, but a large difference in the dew point (absolute humidity). The dry lines which give rise to severe weather (Due to the dry air causing the moist air to be lifted rapidly) in the West Texas region attest to this very clearly.
I am not sure why you say what you are saying, but perhaps it is that the humidity makes people think of and describe such air as “heavy”. This is a perceptual reality due to our physiology, not a physical reality.
Dry air is heavier than moist air.
Why do you doubt it?
If something is demonstrably correct or incorrect is must be demonstrated. You have not done that. If you try to work it out rationally and you make one mistake then your whole argument is worthless. That is what you have done. Your argument is nonsense.
The weight of the moisture in moist air is not 18. It is 18 x X. X being the size of the clump of moisture.
You are a victim of the cold steam myth: http://wp.me/p4JijN-5A
The belief that steam (gaseous H2O) can persist at ambient temperatures in earth’s atmosphere is just dumb. The reason moist air feels heavier is because it is heavier. Moist air is *always* 5 to 15% heavier than dry air.
Why you should never trust what a meteorologist tells you:
http://wp.me/p4JijN-7p
You also make claims about moist air “climbing” over dry air. You think this is a result of convection. You are wrong. It is a result of storms. You probably think storms are caused by convection. Once again, you are wrong.
Yes, storms cause moist air to rise above dry air. But the mechanism is not convection. See my explanation above for a better understanding of what the actual mechanism is.
Don’t believe thing just because you were told to believe them.
O2 = 32, N2 = 28 and CO2 = 44 Total 104 Average is about 104/3 = 35 moist air 104 + 18 (H2O) Average = 122/4 = 33 so moist air is lighter than dry air. Surely it is.
You are not paying attention:
The weight of the moisture in moist air is not 18. It is 18 x X. X being the size of the clump of moisture.
H2O is not a gas at ambient temps. It is a liquid.
You are a victim of the cold steam myth: http://wp.me/p4JijN-5A
The belief that steam (gaseous H2O) can persist at ambient temperatures in earth’s atmosphere is just dumb. The reason moist air feels heavier is because it is heavier. Moist air is *always* 5 to 15% heavier than dry air.
Why you should never trust what a meteorologist tells you:
http://wp.me/p4JijN-7p
“O2 = 32, N2 = 28 and CO2 = 44 Total 104 Average is about 104/3 = 35 moist air 104 + 18 (H2O) Average = 122/4 = 33 so moist air is lighter than dry air. Surely it is.”
You are right. Thank you. The above equation is wrong. Water vapour in the air is small droplets floating in the air and that means many many (may be 1000ds of) times heavier than water molecule. SURELY MOIST AIR IS HEAVIER THAN DRY AIR.
Today at 5:35 AM
“O2 = 32, N2 = 28 and CO2 = 44 Total 104 Average is about 104/3 = 35
moist air 104 + 18 (H2O) Average = 122/4 = 33
so moist air is lighter than dry air. Surely it is.”
The above calculation is wrong I agree, moist air is heavier than dry air. water in the air is surely NOT in the form of gas but floating droplets, MEANS THOUSANDS OF MOLECULES.
THANKS solvingtornadoes
You may be the first person in the history of the internet to change his or her mind and admit it. Thank you, indrdev200.
The world is full of science groupies like yourself who take a few facts and run with them to produce a dumb result. Then they spread the dumb result from person to person. Never does one of them ever bother to think about what they are actually saying. When challenged they do nothing but repeat the few facts they understand and declare victory–Just like you are doing here.
If you are right, then you are the smartest person in the world and everyone else is a ignorant fool.
As such, it would be a waste of your time for me to engage you.
If you are wrong, I would be wasting my time.
Thank you for your reply.
Toodles.
There are two kinds of people in the sciences. Those who take other people’s word on things. And scientists.
OK, I am already unable to stick to my guns here.
“There are two kinds of people in the sciences. Those who take other people’s word on things. And scientists.”
Assuming this is true, what would you call a person who took your word on the assertions you are making?
As you suggests, they would be equally shortsighted to take my word. Thus the most correct path would involve being open minded. The correct path would be to look for further insight. Right?
“If you are right, then you are the smartest person in the world and everyone else is a ignorant fool.”
I changed my mind.
indrdev200 is the smartest person alive.
Bravo!
“The world is full of science groupies like yourself”
I wish!
Even insults don’t snap you out of your delusion. You believe because that is what believers do.
The purpose of this little exercise is to illustrate the power of water vapor in controlling the climate’s heat load.
For this example 350 W/m2 is the approximate heat flux at ToA.
A watt is a power unit, energy over time, and equals 3.4 Btu/h.
In 24 hours the entire atmospheric volume will see this example heat flux and accumulate x.xx Btus.
For dry air to absorb this heat would require a temperature increase of 1.34 F.
The evaporation of water into vapor at 950 Btu/lb without any increase in temperature, i.e. isothermal, would increase the atmospheric water content by about 14%, i.e more clouds, more albedo, less heat.
It’s the H2O thermostat that controls the greenhouse, not CO2. It’s the H2O thermostat that controls the simplistic blanket analogy as well.
Heat Input, W/m2 350
Btu/h per W, Btu/h 3.4
Heat Input, (Btu/h)/m2 1,190.0
Earth Cross Sectional Area, m2 1.28E+14
Time, h 24.0
Heat Input over 24 Hours, Btu 3.64E+18
Atmospheric Dry Air, lb 1.13E+19
Dry Air Heat Capacity, Btu/lb-F 0.24
Dry Air Temp. Rise for 24 Hours, F 1.34
Water Vapor Heat Capacity, Btu/lb 950
Water Vapor Increment, lb 3.83E+15
Water Vapor in Atmosphere, lb 2.80E+16
Incremental Water Vapor, % 13.70%
Miatello explains it with calculus.
http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PSI_Miatello_Refutation_GHE.pdf
http://www.writerbeat.com/articles/3713-CO2-Feedback-Loop
Thank you Dr. Ball.
I recently have made comments which raised many of these same issues which you discuss here. I am right on board with your lines of reasoning, observations and conclusions.
How on earth did the cartoon versions of reality used by the IPCC and the GCMs gain any foothold at all, let alone the stranglehold it has achieved on so much of scientific investigation?
“[Cut the cursing. .mod]”
Yes, I know. And I apologize. But when people refuse to think sometimes that is the only way to get through to them. Regards, Jim McGinn