Missing component found in the evaporation process, making water vapor's role even more uncertain in climate models

From the INSTITUTE OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY OF THE POLISH ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

Evaporation for review — and with it global warming

Recoil of evaporating molecules changes the pressure at the surface of the liquid. CREDIT: IPC PAS, Grzegorz Krzyzewski
Recoil of evaporating molecules changes the pressure at the surface of the liquid. CREDIT: IPC PAS, Grzegorz Krzyzewski

The process of evaporation, one of the most widespread on our planet, takes place differently than we once thought – this has been shown by new computer simulations carried out at the Institute of Physical Chemistry of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Warsaw. The discovery has far-reaching consequences for, among others, current global climate models, where a key role is played by evaporation of the oceans.

They all evaporate: oceans and seas, microdroplets of fuel in engines and the sweat on our own skin. For every one of us evaporation is of paramount importance: it shapes the climate of the planet, it affects the cost of car travel, and is one of the most important factors controlling the temperature of the human body. So common is it that it seemed that evaporation was a phenomenon that had been stripped of any more secrets. In the renowned scientific journalSoft Matter physicists from the Institute of Physical Chemistry of the Polish Academy of Sciences (IPC PAS) in Warsaw, Poland, prove that this belief was erroneous and the mechanism of evaporation must operate differently than had previously been assumed.

“Science copes badly with descriptions of processes occurring in nature. We are perfectly able to describe the states at the beginning of the process and at its end. But what happens in between? How does the given process really take place? For so many years we have been asking ourselves this question in relation to the phenomenon of evaporation – and we are coming to ever more interesting conclusions,” says Prof. Robert Holyst (IPC PAS).

In scientific and technical deliberations we use the Hertz-Knudsen equation, known for over a hundred years, to describe the evaporation rate. What follows from it is quite an intuitive prediction: that at a given temperature the rate of evaporation of the liquid depends on how different the actual pressure at the surface is from the pressure which would be present if the evaporating liquid were to be in thermodynamic equilibrium with its environment.

“The further the system is from equilibrium, the more dynamically it should return to it. It’s so intuitive! So we checked the Hertz-Knudsen equation – because we like to check. In order to do this we prepared exceptionally accurate computer simulations which allowed us for the first time to take a closer look at the process of evaporation,” explains Dr. Marek Litniewski (IPC PAS).

Advanced computer simulations carried out using molecular dynamics showed that the values of some parameters describing evaporation are even several times larger than those predicted by the Hertz-Knudsen equation. However, an even more interesting effect was noted: the stream of gas being liberated from the surface of the liquid during evaporation changed very little despite significant fluctuations in pressure.

“There could only be one conclusion from this observation: the rate of evaporation and the vapour pressure, that is, the physical quantities that were previously considered to be closely related, were not so. For more than a century we had all been making a serious error in the theoretical description of the phenomenon of evaporation!,” says Dr. Litniewski.

The hitherto model of evaporation was based on the principle of conservation of mass: the mass of molecules released from the surface of a liquid had to respectively increase the mass of the gas in its surroundings. Physicists from the IPC PAS noticed, however, that since the particles released from the surface have a certain velocity, in order to describe this phenomenon what should be applied is the principle of conservation of momentum.

“We realized that to some extent evaporation resembles shooting from a cannon: the missile flies in one direction, but the overall momentum of the system must be maintained, so the gun recoils in the opposite direction. The same happens with the molecules of evaporating liquid. Since there is an increase in momentum, there must be recoil, and if there is recoil, the pressure felt by the molecules on the surface of the liquid will be different,” says Prof. Holyst.

The new computer simulations were also used to measure the velocities of the molecules released from the liquid surface. They proved to be small, of the order of hundreds of micrometres per second, which corresponds to only a few kilometres per hour. This fact means that practically any naturally occurring flow over the surface of the liquid has to strongly interfere with the evaporation process. The evaporation cannot thus be described by an equation derived for a very specific case, for liquid that is in thermodynamic equilibrium with the environment.

The discovery of the IPC PAS researchers is of the utmost importance for, among others, the understanding of the real mechanisms responsible for global warming. Contrary to common belief, the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere of our planet is not carbon dioxide but water vapour. At the same time, it is known that the speed of flow of air masses over the oceans can significantly exceed one hundred kilometres per hour and therefore they will certainly affect the rate of evaporation. The hitherto evaluation of the rate of evaporation of the oceans must therefore be subject to error, which will certainly affect the accuracy of the predictions of contemporary models of the Earth’s climate.

###

The researchers from the IPC PAS are investigating evaporation in collaboration with the Institute of Physics of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Warsaw, where experiments are being carried out to verify the correctness of the simulations.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
320 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Latitude
October 22, 2015 9:05 am

CO2 was supposed to raise temperatures a little bit…
…which caused humidity to rise
It was run away global humidity that was supposed to do it.
When that didn’t happen…they realized that was probably the stupidest theory ever put forth in the history of mankind.
….and now CO2 is directly responsible for all of the temp increase.
And they are not one bit smarter.

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  Latitude
October 22, 2015 1:30 pm

(sound of palm smacking forehead…)

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  Latitude
October 22, 2015 1:44 pm

Hey Lat, you’d think if CO2 was causing warming, it would be showing up in the desert at night and be provable there. Excluding UHI and urban landscape humidification of course. Am I wrong here?

looncraz
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
October 22, 2015 6:50 pm

I think you’re spot on.
I’ve argued for years that CO2-induced warming should be extremely easy to spot at its claimed magnitude. It would be most apparent as a concentration-locked deviation in the time it takes for nighttime temps to stabilize in the middle of the driest desert you could find (this would include Antarctica).
We should already be at a half hour offset or more where the temperature should be detectably higher than it should be without the added CO2. In fact, this should make for a super-simple experiment in the lab. It doesn’t matter where the temperatures reach during the sunniest part of the day, at all, if it can cool all the way back down at night as if that extra CO2 was not there.

Reply to  looncraz
October 22, 2015 7:06 pm

“We should already be at a half hour offset or more where the temperature should be detectably higher than it should be without the added CO2. In fact, this should make for a super-simple experiment in the lab. It doesn’t matter where the temperatures reach during the sunniest part of the day, at all, if it can cool all the way back down at night as if that extra CO2 was not there.”
Been there done that, ~78 million surface station records from the NCDC global summary of days data set, and then you compare daily warming to the following nights cooling, since 1940 cooling is slightly more, but at worst the average difference is 0.0F + / – 0.1F the uncertainty of the actual measurements.

Latitude
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
October 23, 2015 8:00 am

..or in Antarctica where there’s no humidity
Remember, global warming was supposed to have the most effect at the poles
…and Antarctic temps have been going down since the very beginning

Leo Smith
October 22, 2015 9:26 am

This fact means that practically any naturally occurring flow over the surface of the liquid has to strongly interfere with the evaporation process.
Good grief! That’s why we feel cold when wet with a wind blowing

Leo Smith
October 22, 2015 9:28 am

Sorry – last bit of my post got lost
“Theoretical climate scientists and physicists discover what any practical engineer has known for 60 years, and are amazed.”

commieBob
Reply to  Leo Smith
October 22, 2015 9:58 am

My thoughts exactly. Are we missing something?
Surely meteorologists must have a reasonably accurate idea of how much heat (and water) is transferred between the ocean and the air at various wind velocities. Anthony?

usurbrain
Reply to  commieBob
October 22, 2015 10:24 am

Do meteorologists (i.e. Pseudo Climate Scientists) have any idea at all how a sling Psychrometer (wet bulb hygrometer) works??? What do the teach in school today only digital and electronic instruments?

ferd berple
Reply to  commieBob
October 22, 2015 12:01 pm

http://www.mie.utoronto.ca/labs/tkl/publications/RahimiWardKin.EvapSRT.pdf
Another paper, similar finding. The theoretical approach does not match observation.

Martin Hovland
Reply to  commieBob
October 22, 2015 10:33 pm

Come on, – every meteorologist knows that evaporation is the opposite of condensation, and that latent heat is carried by the water molecules. If you have freezing water droplets in the atmosphere you get crystals of ice. The partial pressure of water vapor surrounding these crystals is lower than elsewhere, and new water molecules are attracted to the crystals. This is how snawflakes form. If evapration is the opposite process, then it obviously means that the partial pressure of water vapor is greater over an evaporation surface of liquid water than elsewhere. So this is what the Polish scientists have found out?

Reply to  commieBob
October 28, 2015 9:09 am

LOL. Meteorologists believe moist air is steam. Anthony too. Meteorology is dumb.

Reply to  commieBob
October 28, 2015 10:41 am

Martin Hovland:
Come on, – every meteorologist knows that evaporation is the opposite of condensation
Jim McGinn:
What meteorologists believe and what has actually been measured/tested (known) are two very, very different things. Condensation is also said to be the opposite of boiling. But boiling and evaporation are very different things. So . . . So it isn’t as simple as you suggest. Actually, nothing having to do with H2O in our atmosphere is a simple as meteorologists would have us believe.
Martin Hovland:
and that latent heat is carried by the water molecules.
Jim McGinn:
Why do you believe such silliness? There is no latent heat in evaporate. That is but a myth. Where is your evidence? Imagination?

JamesD
Reply to  Leo Smith
October 22, 2015 10:05 am

Convective mass transfer vs. diffusion.

Reply to  JamesD
October 28, 2015 9:53 am

Do you think those are the only choices? Why? What else might we (or should we) consider?

Patrick
Reply to  Leo Smith
October 22, 2015 10:44 am

Not strictly true. The amazement stems from the erstwhile inability to calculate/model evaporation not to the well known effect.

Ben of Houston
Reply to  Patrick
October 22, 2015 12:57 pm

Yes, this is why you don’t try and model evaporation on a molecular level. You lose yourself in pointless details. Do it on the mass of the whole and your calculation can be pretty darn accurate. Any more accurate is pointless because of everything else that’s going on.
This is why engineering is objectively better than the “pure” sciences, because we can let go of things that don’t matter.

Yirgach
Reply to  Patrick
October 24, 2015 11:13 am

@Ben of Houston
+1000

Tom Crozier
October 22, 2015 9:35 am

Will this possibly lead to settling, once and for all, the age-old question of why ice is slippery?

D.J. Hawkins
Reply to  Tom Crozier
October 22, 2015 9:56 am

I thought that was already settled. The pressure exerted by your boot/shoe causes micro-melting of the ice at the contact points. You actually slip on the water film thus formed. IIRC, if it’s cold enough outside you can’t ice skate because the pressure at the skate edge is not sufficient to cause melting at the low ambient temperatures.

Alec aka Daffy Duck
Reply to  D.J. Hawkins
October 22, 2015 10:37 am

And why snow squeaks as you step when it is really cold

Hugs
Reply to  D.J. Hawkins
October 22, 2015 11:17 am

I didn’t know snow squeaks in English. Maybe if you step on your shoe and forcibly turn it against snow in -20°C. I don’t know how I’d describe it if I just walk – maybe RRuck-RRuck-RRuck. Shudder. It’s soon here.
But hey, snow is a thing of the past.

Christopher Paino
Reply to  D.J. Hawkins
October 22, 2015 11:26 am

Apparently it’s not quite settled.
http://lptms.u-psud.fr/membres/trizac/Ens/L3FIP/Ice.pdf

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  D.J. Hawkins
October 22, 2015 12:06 pm

I can vouch for that. Below -15C it becomes difficult to skate on the canal in Ottawa. Mind you, I find it difficult to skate. And the wind chill effect of forward movement when skating can be considerable.

TonyL
Reply to  D.J. Hawkins
October 22, 2015 2:58 pm

@ Hugs:
Yes, it really does squeak. It gets really cold, and it goes way past RRuck-RRuck, and then scrunch, and then squeak, squeak. Now you know it is really cold. So we would grab our skis and head for lift, knowing it is colder still, up top. We thought it was all great fun. What on Earth was wrong with us?

Katherine
Reply to  D.J. Hawkins
October 22, 2015 7:54 pm

@Hugs: snow does squeak underfoot at very low temperatures. I’ve heard it myself with just walking forward, no sideways motion with the feet, at -5°F (-20.5°C).

Reply to  Katherine
October 22, 2015 8:02 pm

Was squeaking snow really in question and not sarcasm?
I guess I’ve spent far to much of my life in cold weather, and not enough someplace warm where there isn’t any snow, let alone squeaking snow!

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  D.J. Hawkins
October 23, 2015 3:07 pm

For side interest, a small sheet of bismuth metal also squeaks when gently flexed. First heard it with a piece the shape of a biscuit (cookie) between opposite hands. Noise does not seem to get less if you flex for a long time.
(One main use for bismuth is in France, in medicines to counter indigestion. While bismuth has little to do with cold ice and climate, one can speculate what else would make a noisy objection to being swallowed by a French person. Frogs?)

ferd berple
Reply to  Tom Crozier
October 22, 2015 12:04 pm

how about the question of why warm water freezes quicker than cold water?

menicholas
Reply to  ferd berple
October 22, 2015 12:17 pm

Please tell me you are kidding!

Tom Crozier
Reply to  ferd berple
October 22, 2015 12:38 pm

I’m afraid it’s true, at least under some conditions. What a strange substance!
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1310/1310.6514.pdf

David Ball
Reply to  ferd berple
October 22, 2015 12:46 pm

I have found quite a few articles regarding explanations about the Mpemba effect, but all the ones I found weren’t as certain as you seem to be, menicholas.
http://interestingengineering.com/why-hot-water-freezes-faster-than-cold-water/

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  ferd berple
October 22, 2015 1:06 pm

The explanation that I heard for warm water freezing faster than the same initial amount of cooler water is that the higher kinetic energy of the warmer water molecules escape the surface in larger quantities thereby leaving a smaller amount of water behind than the cooler water. This smaller amount of water then freezes more quickly because it is a smaller amount. Yikes! is this really true? By adding more energy to a system we can more quickly cool it? Well, I guess this happens inside of refrigerators and freezers, but that’s different.

TonyL
Reply to  ferd berple
October 22, 2015 3:14 pm

@ David Ball:
Mpemba Effect was likely a hoax. It had quite a lengthy Wikipedia entry, I checked about a year ago, no entry.
Anyway: Everybody Listen up.
Colligative Properties: Boiling point elevation and Freezing Point Depression.
You boil water, you drive off the dissolved gasses, raising the FP up to where it should be. Water loaded with dissolved gasses has TWO factors inhibiting freezing:
1) The FP is lower
2) The gas molecules interfere with water crystal formation, slowing the kinetics.
If you want to finesse an experiment, set a freezer at -2.0 deg C. Just below freezing. Boiling water will cool rapidly, then smoothly freeze. Cold water, loaded with gasses, will just sit there like it has no idea it should not be liquid anymore.
If they have all kinds of explanations, and experiments are not reproducible, or lots of strange things happen, then they really do not have an idea of what is going on. Like climate, for instance.

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  ferd berple
October 22, 2015 5:39 pm

Here’s one experiment for testing the role of dissolved gasses in this question:
Take 4 identical containers A, B, C, D each with the same amount of water. Enclose two of them, A & B, with lids. Leave C & D open. Put A & C in an oven and heat to a very low temperature so as not to explode A. Put all 4 containers in a freezer and record the times for each to freeze.

Jtom
Reply to  ferd berple
October 23, 2015 7:28 pm

I’ve seen this theory before, but no one has been able to explain this: if the warmer water is cooling faster, as it must if it is to feeze first, then at some point both samples are at the same temperature. At that point, what is the difference between the two samples? Are you suggesting that the previously warmer water has some ‘memory’ of having started warmer and is responding to it? I think an adequately controlled experiment would show this theory to be a myth.

Reply to  ferd berple
October 28, 2015 9:44 am

Seaice:
Nitrogen (N2), has a molecular mass of 28, O2 has mass 32. Water (H20) has mass 18. If you replace some N2 or O2 with H20, it will weigh less for the same number of molecules.
Jim McGinn:
Moist air at ambient temps ALWAYS weighs more than dry air. Water is NOT an ideal gas. Weight of H2O is 18 x X; X being 10 or larger. Thus 180 is the lightest possible.
See other post on this thread for details as to why moist air rises–it has nothing to do with convection. Convection is but a product of meteorological stupidity.

Reply to  ferd berple
October 28, 2015 9:51 am

@ David Ball:
Mpemba Effect was likely a hoax. It had quite a lengthy Wikipedia entry, I checked about a year ago, no entry.
Jim McGinn:
It’s not a Hoax. But a lot of details are being left out here. Mpemba was a culinary student from Kenya who was learning to make ice cream.
Look into non-Newtonian fluids.
H2O polarity, hydrogen bonding are implications. Another example is corn starch and water that “freezes” when pressure is applied.
Meteorology is permanently confused about the role of H2O in our atmosphere.
Another one is superchilled water.

Reply to  ferd berple
October 28, 2015 10:48 am

noaaprogrammer:
The explanation that I heard for warm water freezing faster than the same initial amount of cooler water is that the higher kinetic energy of the warmer water molecules escape the surface in larger quantities thereby leaving a smaller amount of water behind than the cooler water. This smaller amount of water then freezes more quickly because it is a smaller amount. Yikes! is this really true?
Jim McGinn:
No, it’s not true. The correct explanation is very complex. It depends on understanding the dynamics underlying H2O polarity, hydrogen bonding, and implications. I can explain it but I would first have to educate you and that would be difficult because you’d have to get rid of a lot of misconceptions that meteorology has been feeding you.
When it comes to H2O in the atmosophere almost everything meteorologists have been telling you is wrong.

Reply to  ferd berple
October 28, 2015 7:50 pm

Jim McGinn,
Do you have an answer for Jtom? I’m curious about it. He said:
if the warmer water is cooling faster, as it must if it is to freeze first, then at some point both samples are at the same temperature. At that point, what is the difference between the two samples? Are you suggesting that the previously warmer water has some ‘memory’ of having started warmer and is responding to it?
How about an elevator speech explaining it?
While you’re at it, there must be more to your other reply than this:
Convection is but a product of meteorological stupidity.
Pretend I’m stupid. Could I create convection?
Or, are you trying to claim that convection doesn’t exist?

Reply to  ferd berple
October 29, 2015 12:13 am

Jim McGinn,
Do you have an answer for Jtom? I’m curious about it. He said:
Not now.
Convection is but a product of meteorological stupidity.Pretend I’m stupid. Could I create convection? Or, are you trying to claim that convection doesn’t exist?
http://t.co/BUKr9dnK9O
http://t.co/BUKr9dnK9O

Reply to  ferd berple
October 29, 2015 12:37 am

dbstealey October 28, 2015 at 7:50 pm
Jim McGinn, do you have an answer for Jtom? I’m curious about it. He said:
if the warmer water is cooling faster, as it must if it is to freeze first, then at some point both samples are at the same temperature. At that point, what is the difference between the two samples? Are you suggesting that the previously warmer water has some ‘memory’ of having started warmer and is responding to it?
How about an elevator speech explaining it?
Jim McGinn:
Okay, fair enough. I put it out there, I should be willing to defend it. Hmm. How about I drop you a link for now:
Why Water is Weird
http://wp.me/p4JijN-49C
(also, scroll down for more links on that webpage)
While you’re at it, there must be more to your other reply than this:
Convection is but a product of meteorological stupidity.
Pretend I’m stupid. Could I create convection?
Or, are you trying to claim that convection doesn’t exist?
Essentially, yes. It doesn’t play much of any role in earth’s atmosphere.

Reply to  Jim McGinn
October 30, 2015 9:45 am

@J. McGinn,
That reply does nothing to answer Jtom’s question.

Mike
October 22, 2015 9:42 am

The researchers from the IPC PAS are investigating evaporation in collaboration with the Institute of Physics of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Warsaw, where experiments are being carried out to verify the correctness of the simulations.

That should have been done *before* publishing the study.

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  Mike
October 22, 2015 10:01 am

Mike — good point — Eugene WR Gallun

Patrick
Reply to  Eugene WR Gallun
October 22, 2015 10:48 am

Exactly so but in this age where career progression is so dependent on frequency of publications it is not in the least uncommon. Incidentally, this effect is seen in other parts of the climate debate. Not least where there is a rush to announce this and that and not research the fact that the models do not work even when we are in an unexpected temperature pause.

seaice
Reply to  Eugene WR Gallun
October 23, 2015 5:16 am

Interesting point you raise there- when should you publish results? In this case the result is interesting enough to be worth getting out to a wider audience of peers (scientists in your field), since whether or not the experiments reproduce the predicted result, it will leave questions requiring answers. If the theoretical model fails, then we need to know that so we can improve the model. If it succeeds, then we need to know that so we can include the improved model in our future predictions.
However, I wholheartedly agree that the press release is premature, and should have waited for confirmation or otherwise.
Always beware press releases. they are often used to make claims that cannot be substantiated by teh actual paper. Cold fusion springs to mind. Go look at the original paper to see what it really says, and you can usually rely in that not to make claims totally out of proportion to the facts.

Jeff Mitchell
Reply to  Mike
October 22, 2015 10:09 am

I used to work in the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation programming a simulation of the water system for the (then) proposed Jordanelle Dam on the Provo River. The simulation took into account evaporation rates on Deer Creek Reservoir and Utah Lake. The rates were calculated by experiment if I remember it correctly, not by use of simulations. Mike here has implied the question “why didn’t they check the simulations against observation?”
I want to know what is wrong with “scientists?” these days. Science is about using all of the scientific method, not half of it. These guys are publishing the equivalent of a hypothesis generated by simulation but advertising it as if it were a conclusion. You don’t get conclusions until you verify that what the simulation says happens actually happens in reality. They talk about their calculations as being extremely accurate and precise. That is all very poor and bad since they can’t know if it is accurate or precise until they can match it up with observational data from the real world.
It seems as if their “science?” is more about feelings and simulation than facts. They just “know” it has to be right.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Jeff Mitchell
October 22, 2015 1:05 pm

Exactly Jeff. Science has completely lost it’s ‘mojo’. As retired scientist I have lost all respect for science and my old institution Inst of Physics

Scott
Reply to  Jeff Mitchell
October 22, 2015 9:55 pm

Theoreticians have always hated empiricists, it’s a feud that goes back to the origins of science and beyond. No teller of tall tails appreciates some “person of limited imagination” sayin’ it just ain’t so.

Reply to  Jeff Mitchell
October 22, 2015 10:25 pm

Two words: “evaporation pans”.

Paul McG
Reply to  Mike
October 22, 2015 10:25 am

+1. Computer models without empirical verification of their predictions are merely computer models without empirical verification of their predictions.

Paul
Reply to  Paul McG
October 22, 2015 11:05 am

“Computer models without empirical verification of their predictions are merely”…a neat collection of ones & zeros.
The modeling step gets so much easier if you don’t have to verify the output against reality.

Billy Liar
Reply to  Paul McG
October 22, 2015 11:42 am

I think you meant to say – ‘Computer models without empirical verification of their predictions’ … form the basis of climate science. 🙂

DonM
Reply to  Paul McG
October 22, 2015 12:10 pm

“Computer models without empirical verification of their predictions” … allows the designer/user ignore reality and to massage the input & theoretical corrections in a manner that results in users’ desired data output.

BCBill
Reply to  Paul McG
October 22, 2015 12:30 pm

Computer models without empirical verification allow publication with getting your hands dirty or having to face the challenges of designing and constructing any apparatus. Any weenie can model, it takes some brilliance to design, for example, an oil drop experiment.

John in Oz
Reply to  Paul McG
October 22, 2015 2:28 pm

From a comment in the post ‘Lucia has a bad day with partial derivatives’ by Dr David Evans over at Joanne Nova’s site:

Both FullCAM and the system it replaced were theoretical estimates of carbon per hectare. Presumably FullCAM was a better estimate — it was certainly more bureaucratically defensible, and it sounded great to politicians. Very scientificy sounding. Can anyone else make a better sounding estimate? Taking all those factors into account? (Sound like a GCM?)
I asked if field trials were being done for validation. There were some, but they were pitiful in number. They generally said FullCAM was correct to within 10%, but the testing was only on a limited range of conditions and the tests were limited by expense and difficulty — how do you measure the weight of the fine roots (thinner than your little finger) of a tree? Or all the carbon in the soil? Not to worry I was told, just get on with modeling.

menicholas
Reply to  Mike
October 22, 2015 12:18 pm

Verification?
We no need no stinking verification!

Reply to  menicholas
October 28, 2015 6:24 pm

Look who’s talking. The same guy that says moist air is lighter than dry air despite never having verified it. Moist air rises at the equator. It has nothing to do with convection because moist air is heavier. Believers believe. Scientist measure. What is your excuse?

Retired Engineer Jim
Reply to  Mike
October 23, 2015 11:45 am

I’m intrigued that, apparently, these models are OK for the WUWT commenters to draw all sorts of conclusions, while the IPCC models are junk. Yet, these models were also unverified at the time of the rush to publication. Maybe the results are wrong, also?

Reply to  Retired Engineer Jim
October 28, 2015 6:25 pm

Good point. WUWT is run by a meteorologists. Meteorologists never test anything.

JimB
Reply to  Mike
October 23, 2015 1:34 pm

NOW you will test it?

Mike
October 22, 2015 9:46 am

At the same time, it is known that the speed of flow of air masses over the oceans can significantly exceed one hundred kilometres per hour and therefore they will certainly affect the rate of evaporation. The hitherto evaluation of the rate of evaporation of the oceans must therefore be subject to error, which will certainly affect the accuracy of the predictions of contemporary models of the Earth’s climate.

Absolute nonsense.
The uncertainty in measurement and grid cell averaging of the wind field will far outweigh this mini adjustment ( should it turn out to be verified by experiment).

Mike
Reply to  Mike
October 22, 2015 9:53 am

I certainly don’t see this affecting AGW theory since the whole thing is a mess in terms of modelling evaporation, cloud formation and precipitation, this tweak will not make an iota of difference to their problems.
What is will do provide a +1 for next Cook et al try to Cook the books and publish false claims. This paper will be classed as a work that implicitly endorses AGW.

Jeff Mitchell
Reply to  Mike
October 22, 2015 11:40 am

Mike, it IS nonsense.
Climate is the aggregate of daily weather averaged over multiple years. Likewise, future climate at a specific future year is the aggregate of the daily weather averaged over multiple future years just prior to the predicted year. It seems to me that if these statements are true, wouldn’t they need to accurately predict the daily weather for those multiple years? We can’t even predict weather more than a few days in advance let alone 50, 85 or 100 years. Most, if not all, the models failed to predict the current flat temperatures of the last 18 years despite new record CO2 emissions every year during that time.
So, for a moment, lets pretend CO2 was the cause of warming. I don’t think it is since water vapor swamps out CO2, but this is just pretend time, ok? That would mean some other process is holding the temperatures down. We AND the alarmists don’t know why. If we or they don’t know why, then no one really knows enough about atmospheric systems to predict warming or cooling for any time in the near or far future at present.
As financial services are required to say: “past performance is not indicative of future results.” So even if they torture past data to “predict” current climate, it still doesn’t mean anything for the future. Which means all the blather we hear about future climate is really purposed to changing political weather in favor of reduced freedoms and increased government control, a bureaucrat’s dream come true.

Reply to  Jeff Mitchell
October 22, 2015 12:10 pm

Climate is the aggregate of daily weather averaged over multiple years. Likewise, future climate at a specific future year is the aggregate of the daily weather averaged over multiple future years just prior to the predicted year. It seems to me that if these statements are true, wouldn’t they need to accurately predict the daily weather for those multiple years?

Not really, in electronics timing verification you can describe an input less set of conditions that determines the min and max data path timing, something like this could be done if we understood the climate, then if you could determine a distribution of weather you could generate a measure of climate with out know the weather. In fact this is what they attempt with their ensembles. This solves some of the computational limits of running weather simulations.
Doing climate models like this would likely take decades, as with our limited understanding of weather, we would need to create many variants of this type of model, run them into the future, and then I believe you’d have to wait for decades to see which ones had good results. Now genetic evolution of models might be better at this, but I don’t see how you could skip comparing results to future measured climate.

Steve Reddish
Reply to  Jeff Mitchell
October 22, 2015 1:59 pm

“Climate is the aggregate of daily weather averaged over multiple years. Likewise, future climate at a specific future year is the aggregate of the daily weather averaged over multiple future years just prior to the predicted year. It seems to me that if these statements are true, wouldn’t they need to accurately predict the daily weather for those multiple years?”
Not really, #2:
To know the climate, one needs to know the range of temperatures and precipitation amounts that occur during a given season in a given area. To predict the weather, one must predict the Temp. and Precip. on a particular day.
Not saying I agree with any climate predictions, though.
SR

Reply to  Mike
October 23, 2015 6:18 am

The paper is about the micro effects at the surface, in the case of a wind field this would be inside the boundary layer. Making measurements at this scale is very difficult, I would think some very fine scale laser techniques would be necessary, eliminating airflow near the surface and solubility of gas in the water wouldn’t be trivial either. Reminiscent of ‘polywater’ in the 70s.

Mike
October 22, 2015 9:49 am

The hitherto model of evaporation was based on the principle of conservation of mass: the mass of molecules released from the surface of a liquid had to respectively increase the mass of the gas in its surroundings. Physicists from the IPC PAS noticed, however, that since the particles released from the surface have a certain velocity, in order to describe this phenomenon what should be applied is the principle of conservation of momentum.[as well]

They still need to apply the conservation of mass. My impression from reading the press release is that this either not correctly reported or is a mistake that will be retracted once they try to verify it.

October 22, 2015 9:51 am

But water vapor/surface process greatly effect surface temps, evaporation as described, and conversely high rel humidity as water condenses out of the air at night slows radiative heat loss (watch the nightly cooling rate, and how it slow at high rel humidity for proof).

October 22, 2015 9:51 am

Moist air is less dense than dry air, evaporation decreases the air pressure above the water. The moist air rises and is replaced by cooler drier air and the cycle begins. Wind decreases the air pressure over the water due to the Bernoulli effect. Lower pressure increases the rate of evaporation.
The relative humidity can stay the same, but there is massive non radiative cooling occurring at the same time.

seaice
Reply to  jinghis
October 23, 2015 5:59 am

“Moist air is less dense than dry air” Thsi is somewhat counter-intuitive, but true (atthe same temperature). Nitrogen (N2), has a molecular mass of 28, O2 has mass 32. Water (H20) has mass 18. If you replace some N2 or O2 with H20, it will weigh less for the same number of molecules. The key insight is that a given volume of any (ideal) gas contains the same number of molecules.
However, if the water condenses into droplets of liquid, these will be much more dense than the gas. Air containing water droplets may be more dense than humid air containing water only as only vapor.

Reply to  seaice
October 28, 2015 9:36 am

Seaice:
Nitrogen (N2), has a molecular mass of 28, O2 has mass 32. Water (H20) has mass 18. If you replace some N2 or O2 with H20, it will weigh less for the same number of molecules.
Jim McGinn:
Moist air at ambient temps ALWAYS weighs more than dry air. Water is NOT an ideal gas. Weight of H2O is 18 x X; X being 10 or larger. Thus 180 is the lightest possible.
See other post on this thread for details as to why moist air rises–it has nothing to do with convection. Convection is but a product of meteorological stupidity.

Reply to  jinghis
October 28, 2015 9:30 am

Jinghis:
Moist air is less dense than dry air,
Jim McGinn:
Less dense in what respect? The myth is that moist air is lighter (weight not density) than dry air. The myth is just that, a myth. Moist air is heavier than dry air. Meteorology maintains this myth so that their poorly considered storm theory models are not revealed as the complete nonsense that they actually are.
Jinghis:
evaporation decreases the air pressure above the water.
Jim McGinn:
Low pressure tends to travel down (from jet streams) and into (and through) moist air. Being heavier, moist air has negative buoyancy. Moist air rises because it is a target of low pressure from above, thus it rises. But it has nothing to do with convection. Convection notions are but poorly considered myths from a paradigm that refuse to test and measure. Meteorology has a lot of bad thinking.
Don’t add to the bad thinking of meteorology. Insist that they measure the weight of moist/dry air.
Lets force meteorology to do real science and stop pretending.
Science is built on facts. Not imagination.
Meteorology is not science.

October 22, 2015 9:53 am

The “correctness” of the simulation can be observed in any of hundreds of industrial wet process & HVAC cooling towers.
As Leo observed, practicing engineers (me) dealing with reality learned the characteristics and power of water vapor every day and long ago.

Richard Carpenter
October 22, 2015 9:55 am

The researchers were performing numerical experiments on the molecular scale. Atmospheric models have no hope resolving scales that fine, so they resort to “bulk” parameterizations. Unless those parameterizations are shown to be in error, this won’t affect any model results.

Eugene WR Gallun
October 22, 2015 9:59 am

Last few lines say they are actually doing physical experiments to generate data to verify the computer simulation? NO! NO! This can’t be climate science! — unless they intend on calling in Gavin Schmidt to adjust the data.
Eugene WR Gallun.

Mike
October 22, 2015 9:59 am

“There could only be one conclusion from this observation:…

OH man, that’s always a good sign that someone is not thinking. It part of the “I must be right, what else could it be?” school of modern science.
Let me help them by providing just ONE other possible conclusion: YOUR MODEL MAY BE WRONG.
Just a thought

Curious George
October 22, 2015 10:02 am

Does this mean that our equations describing how much ocean water a 200 miles-per-hour hurricane evaporates were not entirely precise?

Mike
October 22, 2015 10:06 am

Since there is an increase in momentum, there must be recoil, and if there is recoil, the pressure felt by the molecules on the surface of the liquid will be different,” says Prof. Holyst.

This is basis of their error, I think. The molecules that escape are statistical outliers that manage to break free. The recoil is already there in the statistical distribution of the momenta of the remaining molecules. If they are adding an extra term to account for the “recoil” the model is probably wrong.
Conservation of mass can’t be wrong so if they see a conflict they are making a mistake.

Mike the Morlock
October 22, 2015 10:06 am

Psy krwi, Leave it to the Poles, gówno, don’t they know the “Séance is settled”?
michael

George E. Smith
October 22, 2015 10:09 am

Well I might even accept their description of how a single molecule of H2O gets fired from a cannon, hiding in the surface. I always thought that it was some sort of Van der Waals forces that kept the molecules attracted to each other, which results in the surface tension at the surface, because the molecules that were supposed to be pulling from above just aren’t there, so there is a net downward, surface contracting force.
When some tail end Charlie molecule, that has a KE way out on the high energy tail of the M-B distribution, finally breaks free, then you would expect that the force which had been pulling it downward, would get distributed somewhere else.
But at the Equilibrium evaporation rate; if it makes any sense to call that equilibrium; for every H2O molecule able to break away, there is another molecule in the adjoining gas phase, that has obtained a net momentum towards the liquid surface, from collisions with other atmospheric molecules, and that causes it to impinge on the surface, and get grabbed by what ever that force was that got severed in the previous escape.
So you have the typical dynamic equilibrium situation, which is really more of a steady state condition, than an equilibrium.
But as far as the evaporation rate is concerned; as every chemical process engineer knows (IANACPE) it is the removal of the escaping species from the scene, that determines if the evaporation will proceed.
The dynamic steady state, depends on the number of arriving molecules equaling the number of leaving molecules (on average, as they say).
So of course things like surface wind speeds, that whisk the exiting molecules off to some place, they can’t get back from, is the crucial thing in evaporation rates.
Well maybe their compotator gives them a different explanation.
But so what.
Global warming climate change does not rest on the dynamics of exit molecule removal.
It’s a closed loop feedback system, that balances cloud formation blocking solar energy, with thermal processes affecting the Temperature including the evaporation of water bodies.
The question they need to ask their computer, is how much does the total cloud cover change, for a given delta in their surface wind speed, with the whole feedback loop operational.
So what changes in experimentally measured evaporation rates, have been unearthed as a result of this discovery, and why were they previously unknown ??
Surely people have been measuring evaporation rates under varying conditions for eons.
g

Reply to  George E. Smith
October 23, 2015 6:45 am

George E. Smith October 22, 2015 at 10:09 am
Well I might even accept their description of how a single molecule of H2O gets fired from a cannon, hiding in the surface. I always thought that it was some sort of Van der Waals forces that kept the molecules attracted to each other, which results in the surface tension at the surface, because the molecules that were supposed to be pulling from above just aren’t there, so there is a net downward, surface contracting force.
When some tail end Charlie molecule, that has a KE way out on the high energy tail of the M-B distribution, finally breaks free, then you would expect that the force which had been pulling it downward, would get distributed somewhere else.
But at the Equilibrium evaporation rate; if it makes any sense to call that equilibrium; for every H2O molecule able to break away, there is another molecule in the adjoining gas phase, that has obtained a net momentum towards the liquid surface, from collisions with other atmospheric molecules, and that causes it to impinge on the surface, and get grabbed by what ever that force was that got severed in the previous escape.

Absolutely George, if you started out far from equilibrium then initially you have a net exchange but as equilibrium there’s a balance of ‘leaving molecules’ and ‘entering molecules’ as you say. By the way, in the case of water it’s ‘Hydrogen bonding’ which provides the attraction in the liquid phase which is much stronger than van der Waals, this is what gives water it’s unusual properties (compared with say hydrocarbon liquids which only have the van der Waals).

George E. Smith
Reply to  Phil.
October 23, 2015 10:22 am

Thanx Phil; you notice I said ” some sort of Van der Waals forces ” because although I have heard of them; I really have no fundamental understanding of exactly what VdW forces really are; I just learned of their existence at some very primitive level in a physics course, not a chemistry one, and that was about 60 years ago.
And as for ‘Hydrogen bonding’, that is much more recently invading my mental space, and I still don’t have what I consider a good grasp of the concept.
But water sure is weird stuff ! It’s dielectric constant of about 81, gives it apparently some of its chemical properties, because electrostatic forces should be reduced by that factor, between electric charges in water (presumable good DI (18 megohm)) water.
g

George E. Smith
Reply to  George E. Smith
October 23, 2015 12:49 pm

Since it tends to be the higher energy molecules in the distribution, that escape the binding forces of the liquid, the result is a net lowering of the energy content of the liquid, so it cools.
I have no idea how much of the latent heat of evaporation is simply due to the loss of the high end of the energy distribution. Maybe that is all of it.
I haven’t plotted an M_B energy distribution in many blue moons, but imagine that molecular KEs of several times the most probable molecule energy, are rather numerous, and the most likely to evaporate.
So the average energy per molecule, being lost in evaporation could be a sizeable amount, so it wouldn’t surprise me, if that is the sum total of the latent heat of evaporation or sublimation.
The latent heat of evaporation of water is about six times the heat required to heat ice water to the boiling point. Which is why steam burns are extremely dangerous.
g

climanrecon
October 22, 2015 10:10 am

Hmm, sceptics should be consistent, just because scientists link their work to global warming, that don’t make it so, maybe they try linking it to the evaporation models used in meteorology.

October 22, 2015 10:23 am

When that H2O molecule leaves the surface it takes 970.4 Btu/lb, 284 Wh/lb, with it as well as lowering the dry bulb. Recall the cooling aftermath of a summer rain storm.
Consider the psychrometric properties of moist air. Water evaporates into the air because the air is relatively dry, not necessarily because the air is warm.
With time and turbulence and contact evaporating water vapor can saturate any temperature of air. Frosty breath on a cold morning is saturated vapor.

Curious George
Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
October 22, 2015 11:43 am

Nick, the latent heat depends on temperature. Check if your numbers are correct for a boiling point or for a freezing point.

seaice
Reply to  Curious George
October 23, 2015 6:17 am

Latent heat does not vary very much with temperature. Heat of vaporisation of water reduces by about 10% from 10°C to 100°C. At 25°C it is 44 kJ/ mol, or 2444 kJ/kg.

Smoky
Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
October 22, 2015 11:50 pm

Hey there, Nicholas:
As it happens, evaporation does depend to a certain degree upon temperature, at least out in the wild: “surface level” air below about -40F (or C, hehe) can’t physically hold much water vapor in suspension (let alone coax it out of standing water… if you can find any!), and I’ve seen your example of ‘frosty’ breath at temps of ~ 80F in places like Bahrain where the ambient moisture is already thick enough that one’s breath pushes it past the point of condensation.
For the record, that was a weird experience: fog should not happen at 80F on a desert island, it’s unnatural. ^_~

Mike
October 22, 2015 10:25 am

Perhaps Anthony could get into the habit of providing refs rather than just doing copy/paste from UreaAlert. , since he is always dissing other for not providing refs.
The line following the end of the bit Anthony copied here, contains a link to the institute which has a direct link to download the full PDF paper:
Molecular dynamics test of the Hertz-Knudsen equation for evaporating liquids”; R. Hołyst, M. Litniewski, D. Jakubczyk; Soft Matter,
2015, 11, 7201-7206; DOI: 10.1039/C5SM01508A
http://ichf.edu.pl/press/2015/10/IChF151022a_PL.pdf

Mike
Reply to  Mike
October 22, 2015 10:27 am

oops wrong like for the paper. But at least the DOI.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Shijiazhuang
October 22, 2015 10:29 am

The boiling point is a guide to evaporation. Here is a discussion of the boiling point(s):
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/staff/chang/boiling/index.htm#5
The contents of the water and air are not the only things that promote evaporation. I vote that there are molecules on the surface that serve as nucleation sites which ‘launch’ the H2O molecules and that the mooted recoil is not present or is minor, and certainly not the only mechanism. The ‘pure water’ assumption is that energy from six molecules launches the one they surround. Well, sea water isn’t like that. It is chock-a-block with other polar molecules, large and small.
As has been demonstrated many times, evaporation of pure water can be delayed to a temperature as high as 200 C. Whatever bouncy-ball physics they are simulating, molecular evaporation catalysts should not be ignored as a major or dominant pathway.

Mike
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Shijiazhuang
October 22, 2015 10:53 am

I also recall a recent study ( 2 or 3 year ago) suggesting that ocean surface often displayed liquid crystal like properties.
They are a universe away from anything to do with ocean water in their simplistic billard ball models. But one can always rely on use of AGW to grab some attention. It got them onto UreaAlert anyway.
More money is needed to study the importance of this effect on climate change ……. blah, blah, blah.

commieBob
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Shijiazhuang
October 22, 2015 6:16 pm

As has been demonstrated many times, evaporation of pure water can be delayed to a temperature as high as 200 C.

My buddy’s thesis advisor told us about that. Naturally, we had to try the experiment. I can tell you that God exists and protects young males because, otherwise, none of us would still be alive. (ie. when the water finally boils, it does so explosively)

seaice
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Shijiazhuang
October 23, 2015 6:48 am

“As has been demonstrated many times, evaporation of pure water can be delayed to a temperature as high as 200 C.” I have seen pure water heated above its boiling point and not boil due to lack of nucleation sites for gas to form, but never anywhere near 200°C. At this temperature I was only aware of maintaining liquid by applying pressure -about 15 bar will keep water liquid at 200°C. I was very interested to learn from your link that Krebs had achieved 200°C without boiling by suspending water in other liquids and then heating.
However, whatever the mechanism of the “launch”, conservation of momentum still requires that there be recoil.

Reply to  seaice
October 23, 2015 7:04 am

As pointed out by George (above) there are also incoming molecules, also conservation of mass, momentum, and energy must apply, entropy effects could also be important.

October 22, 2015 10:37 am

Perhaps we are missing the point.
CAGW as an operational meme has run its course.
“Studies” such as this serve a different purpose.
The great glibbering climb down.
Our Models were perfect, science had it wrong about water and all its nasty habits.
Evaporation?Who knew!
CAGW right , bad science.
AKA Not our fault, nothing to see here, move along.
Next study will express amazement that we live on a world dominated by water.

Alx
October 22, 2015 10:39 am

…where experiments are being carried out to verify the correctness of the simulations.

I’ll be optimistic and assume they will be doing experiments in the real world, outside of a computer simulation. If the verification of the model simulations are other model simulations, then it’s the scientific equivalent of movie CGI; fun to look at, but not to be confused with reality.

n.n
October 22, 2015 10:43 am

The system is unwieldy to model/estimate, insufficiently and incompletely characterized, and conclusions are derived through inference. Not exactly a scientific enterprise.
And trillions of dollars in redistributive change. Perhaps it’s a cult.

Tom O
October 22, 2015 10:46 am

Let’s see, they say –
The further the system is from equilibrium, the more dynamically it should return to it. It’s so intuitive! So we checked the Hertz-Knudsen equation – because we like to check. In order to do this we prepared exceptionally accurate computer simulations which allowed us for the first time to take a closer look at the process of evaporation,” explains Dr. Marek Litniewski (IPC PAS).
If they were basing their research in standard theory, then, things wouldn’t be different. But they developed “exceptionally accurate computer simulations” to prove or disprove. Based on WHAT? Either it is based in the reality of what they know – you can’t model what you don’t know – or they created something based on their conceived beliefs. If is an actual simulation, even exceptionally accurate, it will prove what it is modeled on, not what it is not modeled on, and this has been my biggest beef about “climate crisis workers,” I can’t call them scientists, and that is that they can’t realize that their models and/or simulations can’t tell them anything but what they want to see, and it can’t project with any accuracy the reality of climate since they do NOT know climate to start with.

The Original Mike M
Reply to  Tom O
October 22, 2015 11:21 am

Well.. but … there’s no sport in a stationary target such as ~only~ aerosols or ~only~ heat hiding in the ocean and besides, they’re being paid to keep the excuses coming anyway. Once the pigeon flies there’s no time to complain about it – you only get that one chance to shoot at it!

The Original Mike M
October 22, 2015 10:46 am

Well I’m glad we got that settled. Now we can stop wasting billions of dollars on the green house effect and move on to studying the green horse effect. It was surmised that human CO2 emissions are causing horse sh** to turn greener at an alarming rate. A new “combating sh**” budget was proposed by the White House yesterday. NASA’s director Charles Bolden replied that new facilities will need to be constructed because, in his words, “We’re already up to our eyeballs in this green sh**”.
The Gaudyan reported of a scientist at Penn State University who decided to take an early step into studying of the severity of the green horse sh** problem in terms of determining the rate at which fewer and fewer people are able to notice it on the ground resulting in an alarming increase of tragic slip and fall accidents worldwide. It was noted that the greatest number of injuries are occurring in the poorest countries who are asking the UN to compensate them for the disproportionately larger expense they must bear compared to that of rich countries who unfairly delight in their excesses while burning most of the fossil fuel.

Walt The Physicist
October 22, 2015 10:50 am

Here is interesting article describing new theory of evaporation- http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.2261

Mike
Reply to  Walt The Physicist
October 22, 2015 11:00 am

All interesting stuff.
Now what happens if they add some impinging thermal photons to the model?
Does the water get warmer, or does it just increase the rate of evaporation?

Walt The Physicist
Reply to  Mike
October 22, 2015 11:14 am

Probably both…. Absorption of sun flux causes the temperature increase, which causes evaporation rate increase, that contributes to cooling of the near surface layer, that, if forced mixing is present, contributes to convective cooling of lower layers of water… And all this may reach equilibrium or may always be in transient state… But who, except for us, cares? Definitely the funding agencies don’t care, as they spend huge money on some exotic or Armageddon outcome research. All this evaporation is trivial science that was settled (ha!) last century.

October 22, 2015 11:05 am

If I put a drop of washing-up liquid onto the surface of a bowl of water will the water evaporate more quickly/slowly or stay the same, assuming no other changes in the environment? It certainly reduces the surface tension.
And as a rider, with all the soapy effluent pushed into the oceans, has the rate of ocean evaporation increased or decreased?

Gary Pearse
October 22, 2015 11:14 am

From the above comments, I see I am late in saying color me unimpressed. I guess until now, Polish Academy of Science must have thought that hanging a water bag on the front of landrovers in hot countries was a cultural affectation and not a practical practice. BTW why do all these modern scientific press releases use vague descriptors? Don’t say a moving air mass interferes with evaporation, say it increases evaporation!!
And before the Academy waits for another century, I will advise them that conservation of mass still DOES apply as well as the omnipresent conservation of momentum. While I’m at it, molecules of air masses traveling over the surface of the water collide with the surface and jar loose molecules of H2O. It gets better. Some H2O in the air mass also bumps into the water and joins itself on, too! The surface of the ocean with a hundred km wind has its exposed surface much more than doubled with the corrugation of waves and spray. I have a favorite small beach in Dom. Republic where I go down on a rough water day and breathe in the visible dry salt mist that blows on shore from evaporated spray.
And how about:
“Contrary to common belief, the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere of our planet is not carbon dioxide but water vapour.”
We have a daily serving of this in the climate science discussions.
I’ve got some 60 year old engineering textbooks somewhere that I could contribute to the academy. Since the progressives have reduced the Nobel Prize to ISO-Crackerjack quality, I guess they could be up for the prize for baroque physics.

Walt The Physicist
Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 22, 2015 11:30 am

Perhaps Polish scientists deserve respect and support. These days it is almost impossible to do research of ubiquitous phenomena like evaporation or substances like water. Science funding agencies look for exotic, Armageddon, or very near term outcome research. That’s why, in particular, the Nobel is reduced to “ISO-Crackerjerk” quality.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Walt The Physicist
October 23, 2015 6:39 am

Walt, I take your point. But if one has modeled the whole thing, why would it be a surprise that momentum is conserved (and mass, too, of course). I visualize molecules of water oscillating with heating until momentum outstrips the restraining bonds and some of them pop up into the atmosphere – analogous to an ‘escape velocity’ in a gravitational context.. They rightly must have modeled the pull back of the adjoining molecule still in the water for that nanosecond. Presumably they also modeled the cooling effect that would reduce the amplitude of the oscillations of those still in the water. Certainly, wind as a factor in evaporation is huge, not only for the energy of it at the boundary layer but also because of manifold increase is exposed water surface in a roiling sea.
Perhaps they have discovered something but they should isolate exactly what this is. It certainly isn’t that the Hertz-Knudsen equation is inapplicable to situations where it is windy – this was known.

usurbrain
Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 22, 2015 11:34 am

I am sure they could use them. Was looking at the MIT Open Courseware Courses. They are closer to (actually below) the level of my HS courses in Chem, Physics, and Math. It appears College is now Advanced High school.

Charles Nelson
October 22, 2015 11:20 am

Aw gee.
So every time I evacuate a refrigeration system to remove water vapour I guess I’ve been wasting my time…cause like water isn’t affected by pressure. (or lack thereof).
Thank God these people remain in the ‘theoretical realm’….please keep them there.

Walt The Physicist
Reply to  Charles Nelson
October 22, 2015 11:40 am

Your irony is understandable. But picture this: Hertz-Knudsen model says that below the temperature that corresponds to vapor saturation there is no evaporation at all! So, clothes hang out in -10C temperature should not dry. And this is foundational model for all modern theories that include evaporation. The Polish scientists show that the evaporation rates can be much higher than expected by H-K model. This is step in correct direction.

Curious George
Reply to  Walt The Physicist
October 22, 2015 11:58 am

There is a water vapor saturation even at -10C. Or even at 30C. Hertz-Knudsen assumes no wind – a condition usually found in a laboratory.

Charles Nelson
Reply to  Walt The Physicist
October 22, 2015 1:41 pm

Thanks Walt, I was aware of that. I’m also aware that too powerful a vacuum can have the same effect. However; perfectly dark, perfectly still, perfectly cold circumstances do not occur on this planet…nor do deep vacuums…far as I know.
As a side issue I wonder how many know that the word vacuum has its origins in the Green word for calf?!

Robert of Ottawa
October 22, 2015 12:00 pm

Look, this new evaporation theory may be correct, or not, but
The new computer simulations were also used to measure the velocities of the molecules released from the liquid surface
is not true. A computer simulation is NOT a measurement. The simulation is built on a theory and therefore it confirms that theory.
How about some empirical science.

rogerknights
October 22, 2015 12:17 pm

An unknown unknown!

October 22, 2015 12:43 pm

so they discovered wind chill basically.

October 22, 2015 1:23 pm

This could also cast doubt on the validity of Henry’s Law as regards CO2 exchanges with the oceans.

Berényi Péter
October 22, 2015 1:52 pm

The discovery has far-reaching consequences

There is no discovery, yet. We should wait for experimental verification. Patiently.

speed of flow of air masses over the oceans can significantly exceed one hundred kilometres per hour and therefore they will certainly affect the rate of evaporation

Wind also makes sea spray, increasing surface area of water-air interface by many orders of magnitude. Which is kinda significant.

M Seward
Reply to  Berényi Péter
October 22, 2015 2:28 pm

The wind does not deed to get up that much to create breaking waves, 15 knots or so, which in turn creates ‘white water’ with lots of surface area. Waves break when their slope gets to about 1 in 7. The mechanism also filters energy into the larger, faster waves which survive as ocean swells.

jmorpuss
October 22, 2015 2:09 pm

I see Earth as a battery it charges under high pressure systems and discharges from the ground up while under the influence of a low pressure system http://www.av8n.com/physics/anode-cathode.htm
Ocean currents are driven by the flow of electrons and it’s electric charge that drives wind and ocean evaporation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwGx7qqQe-Y

M Seward
October 22, 2015 2:25 pm

Well duhhhh!
When it evaporates, 1 kG of water draws in enough energy to cool the adjacent 2200 cubic metres of air by 1˚C or thereabouts. As a mechanism it is a few orders of magnitude more intense than the CO2 “greenhouse” effect. And the “Models” have ‘missed’ that. LOL
The “science sure is settled it is pretty clear but the big question folks is just where the hell, in what godforsaken swamp or cess pit, did it settle?

seaice
Reply to  M Seward
October 23, 2015 6:57 am

Pretty sure the modelers are aware of heat of vaporisation.

jmorpuss
October 22, 2015 3:06 pm

“Every water molecule (H 2 O) consists of one atom of oxygen and two atoms of hydrogen, as shown below. Each hydrogen atom is attached to the oxygen atom by a covalent bond in which the hydrogen atom shares an electron with the oxygen atom. The shared electron is slightly closer to the oxygen atom than to the hydrogen atom.
Fresh Water, Physics and Chemistry of
A water molecule has no net charge because the number of positively charged protons equals the number of negatively charged electrons. However, because the hydrogen ends of the molecule have a slight positive charge and the oxygen end has a slight negative charge, it is called a polar molecule. The negative and positive ends of different water molecules slightly attract each other, forming hydrogen bonds . These hydrogen bonds are about twenty times weaker than the covalent bonds between hydrogen and oxygen.”
Read more: http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/En-Ge/Fresh-Water-Physics-and-Chemistry-of.html#ixzz3pKwmK45x
http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/En-Ge/Fresh-Water-Physics-and-Chemistry-of.html

Curious George
Reply to  jmorpuss
October 22, 2015 4:26 pm

What makes you think that we can read?

Reply to  jmorpuss
October 28, 2015 9:02 am

It’s even more complicated than you suggest.

grumpyoldman22
October 22, 2015 4:33 pm

“In the renowned scientific journalSoft Matter physicists from the Institute of Physical Chemistry of the Polish Academy of Sciences (IPC PAS) in Warsaw, Poland”, Soft Matter seems to be a psuedonym for soft head. Can someone advise these trogdolites that the UN IPCC budget is overspent and to look elsewhere for possible funding?

RoHa
October 22, 2015 5:49 pm

“The process of evaporation, one of the most widespread on our planet, takes place differently than we once thought – this has been shown by new computer simulations”
Ah. Computer simulations. Right.
( And it should be “takes place differently from the way we once thought”. “Different/ly than” is wrong.)

halftiderock
October 22, 2015 6:54 pm

So these guys got this idea in a bathroom clustered around a hand dryer. A truly novel observation that requires a sophisticated computer model that can not be falsified. My observation is that my hands don’t dry quickly if the blow dryer isn’t turned on. Give me a break! OMG!

Eric Gisin
October 22, 2015 8:22 pm

“They proved to be small, of the order of hundreds of micrometres per second, which corresponds to only a few kilometres per hour.”
Rewrite the first part as 0.1 mm/s, which equals 0.36 m/hr. One of the measures is off by a factor of 10,000!

October 22, 2015 10:36 pm

These scientists should read Professor Gerald Pollack’s book The 4th Phase of Water, they’re still missing some big points. bit.ly/4thphaseofwater

Peter Azlac
October 23, 2015 1:07 am

George E Smith
“Surely people have been measuring evaporation rates under varying conditions for eons.”
Yes they have, for agriculture. Its called Class A Pan Evaporation and it only supports the claimed changes in surface temperature where wind speeds are high, e.g.:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.1061/pdf
http://english.cas.cn/bcas/2013_3/201411/P020141121530436552259.pdf

sud
October 23, 2015 4:52 am

You get almost nowhere with this reasoning. How sensitive are climate models to the linear assumption of Hertz–Knudsen? Where does the equation even show up in models? How does the flux at the immediate surface compare to turbulent transfer in the boundary layer — if one is the bottleneck, the other doesn’t matter too much and you can assume an equilibrium. Who cares when the transfer coefficients are anyway empirically constrained? If you are saying that evaporation is less sensitive to temperature than previously thought, then okay, great, so is precipitation. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v419/n6903/fig_tab/nature01092_F2.html Balance is retained. What about empirical data about water vapor concentration sensitivity to temperature? http://www.sciencemag.org/content/296/5568/727.full So let’s say the latent heat flux is suppressed — great, now the ocean is just warmer, and the evaporation rate shoots up again, together with convective instability which further facilitates water vapor transport.
This is lightyears from making a judgement about climate model uncertainty. These new results are probably more important for new cloud droplet paremterizations (and soft matter physics — to be clear the original article doesn’t mention anything about climate, after all this is not climate science).

Anthony Mills
October 23, 2015 9:12 am

The H-K equation is irrelevant to the calculation of evaporation of water in the atmosphere–which is controlled by species diffusion and heat transfer,both described by continuum equations.An exception might be evaporation of ice crystals at high altitudes–which is not of “utmost importance” to global warming.Incidentally,I wrote a Ph.D dissertation on the application of the H-K equation to the evaporation of water(U.C.Berkely,1965),and relevant heat and mass transfer texts.

Walt The Physicist
Reply to  Anthony Mills
October 23, 2015 11:26 am

Puzzeling… Continuity equations are inaplicable on the interafe of water and within Knudsen layer since the continuity equations assume Maxwelian distribution function. H-K theory corrected by R.W. Schrage (1953) and then by S.I.Anisimov (1965) is the best that we have at the moment. Except,of course for, MD simulation work by the discussed here Polish group or analytical work that was not published in peer-reviewer literature – http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.2261

October 23, 2015 9:46 am

Reblogged this on Norah4you's Weblog and commented:
What shall we do with the drunken sailor, was a song heard in my youth….
Guess the Alarmist ought to learn the difference in using words. They need it to understand THEY ARE WRONG….
The story goes: On a ship the captain noticed that the Chief mate always returned in drunk condition no matter which harbor they visited.
The captain wrote in the log book: Chief mate drunk
Not once but several times.
The Chief mate took the oportunity to write when the Captain once visited the town they entered: Captain sober today

Anthony Mills
October 23, 2015 12:06 pm

Walt:Continuum not continuity. The Schrage H-K theory is fine–but irrelevant since the”interfacial resistance” is negligible in this context.

Walt The Physicist
Reply to  Anthony Mills
October 23, 2015 2:06 pm

Yes, continuum equations…. I am not familiar with the “interfacial resistance” concept. Where can I read about it? What do you think of this Arxive article?

Anthony Mills
October 23, 2015 5:13 pm

Transport across the Knudsen layer can be represented by a mass transfer resistance with a potential difference of vapor pressure across the layer.This resistance is in series with the diffusion resistance into the bulk vapor-air mixture,which is orders of magnitude larger.Hence details of transport across the Knudsen layer are irrelevant in the present context(including the Arxive article).Some references:
Mills and Seban,Int.J.Heat Mass Transfer 10,1815-1827(1967).
Mills,A.F.” Heat Transfer” 2nd.Ed,Prentice Hall,1999,pp.719-730.

Walt The Physicist
Reply to  Anthony Mills
October 24, 2015 6:10 am

Thank you very much. I’ll read these refs.

October 23, 2015 6:15 pm

Here’s a timely thing to consider, how much heat did it take to boil all of the water in that hurricane, and then carry that weight 500 to 1,000 miles.
When I think it was David came up out of the gulf, through Ohio and Indiana ending up in Canada, I estimated it carried 25-30% of the volume of Lake Erie.
How much heat did that pull out of the ocean to be radiated into space as the water condenses.

Reply to  micro6500
October 28, 2015 8:56 am

Water doesn’t boil in hurricanes or any process that takes place at ambient temperatures. Evaporate is still a liquid, it is not a gas. And it is heavier than dry air, so the notion that convection powers hurricanes is but a meterology based myth.

Reply to  Jim McGinn
October 28, 2015 9:55 am

What’s the kinetic energy of a water molecule that has the energy to leave the liquid and become vapor, and why does evaporation cool the the liquid it leaves from?

Reply to  Jim McGinn
October 28, 2015 2:02 pm

Micro6500:
What’s the kinetic energy of a water molecule that has the energy to leave the liquid and become vapor,
Jim McGinn:
A single molecule cannot break off, except upon boiling, in which case many break off. (Beyond that I don’t know the answer to your question, sorry.)
Water’s polarity increases when one bond is broken, making the second very hard to break.
Evaporation doesn’t produce gas. H2O gas (steam) can only exist above its boiling point. Evaporation produces vapor, which is not a gas but small droplets.
BTW, this completely refutes meteorology’s notion that convection causes storms. There is no steam in earth’s atmosphere and only if it did exist would meteorology’s notion of convection make any sense at all.

Reply to  Jim McGinn
October 28, 2015 7:15 pm

Jim McGinn asserts:
A single molecule cannot break off, except upon boiling, in which case many break off.
So I guess evaporation is a myth?
Sorry, I haven’t read the thread, but that comment just stood out.
So do the insults about meteorologists. Why all the hating?
But you might be a smart guy, in which case I will defer to your knowledge. But I haven’t made up my mind yet.

Reply to  Jim McGinn
October 28, 2015 7:30 pm

” Jim McGinn:
A single molecule cannot break off, except upon boiling, in which case many break off. (Beyond that I don’t know the answer to your question, sorry.)”
So when I refer to all of the water in that hurricane being boiled out of the ocean (as evaporation ), you agree with me now, because for a water molecule in liquid form, it’s kinetic energy has to increase to the same as water turning to steam as it boils to escape. This is why evaporation cools the source of the water. BTW I never said the ocean boiled, just the water vapor is boiled out of the water. Next you mention that the jet stream powers a hurricane, not convection, and yet most people know hurricanes strength over warm water, and lose energy over cold surfaces, no jet stream needed.

Reply to  Jim McGinn
October 28, 2015 8:56 pm

Micro6500:
So when I refer to all of the water in that hurricane being boiled out of the ocean (as evaporation ), you agree with me
Jim McGinn:
I do not agree with that. The uplift in all storms is the result of low pressure energy delivered though/from jet streams. The energy of all storms comes from above, not from convection.
Keep in mind, meteorology’s convection model fails to explain the existence of jet streams. But jet streams, once explained, do not fail to explain the phenomena that has been mislabelled convection.
Meteorology is as dumb or dumber than climatology. They don’t do experiments or any quantitative analysis of any kind.
Micro6500:
now, because for a water molecule in liquid form, it’s kinetic energy has to increase to the same as water turning to steam as it boils to escape. This is why evaporation cools the source of the water. BTW I never said the ocean boiled, just the water vapor is boiled out of the water.
Jim McGinn:
You think that makes a difference? Honestly?
Micro6500:
Next you mention that the jet stream powers a hurricane, not convection, and yet most people know hurricanes strength over warm water, and lose energy over cold surfaces, no jet stream needed.
Jim McGinn:
Your, “most people know,” is a crappy rationale for an argument. But I’m not criticizing you, I’m criticising meteorology for never having done any empirical testing of that crappy argument. The energy of all storms comes from jet streams. IT DOES NOT COME FROM CONVECTION. That is but an urban legend.
Meteorologists don’t discuss storm theory just like climatologist don’t discuss CO2 theory. BECAUSE THEY ARE BOTH CRAPPY THEORIES.

Reply to  Jim McGinn
October 28, 2015 9:04 pm

Jim McGinn asserts:
A single molecule cannot break off, except upon boiling, in which case many break off.
So I guess evaporation is a myth?
Sorry, I haven’t read the thread, but that comment just stood out.
So do the insults about meteorologists. Why all the hating?
But you might be a smart guy, in which case I will defer to your knowledge. But I haven’t made up my mind yet.
Jim McGinn:
Good for you. Meteorology is a religion, not a science. Their convection model fails under the slightest scrutiny. Learn to ask the right questions. You won’t get answers, just evasiveness. They are bamboozled by storms and are trying to save face with the public by keeping their worthless theory vague. Just like climate scientists, they realize that as long as they keep it vague the public won’t realize how ignorant they really are.

Reply to  micro6500
October 28, 2015 2:03 pm

The energy of storms comes from jet streams. It does not come from convection,.

Reply to  Jim McGinn
October 28, 2015 7:18 pm

And here I always thought storms are the result of the temperature differential; hurricanes can’t form unless the ocean is 80º.
And yes, the jet stream tends to suck storms along. But I don’t recall it providing the storm’s energy.
You learn something new every day here. Whether it’s true or not. ☺

Reply to  Jim McGinn
October 28, 2015 8:39 pm

dbstealey:
And here I always thought storms are the result of the temperature differential;
JM:
Temperature differential? Between what and what? Evidence? Analysis? Testing? Imagination?
Why is it you nitwits never ask these quesitons of meterological pretender?
dbstealey:
hurricanes can’t form unless the ocean is 80º.
And you think this proves what, exactly?
And yes, the jet stream tends to suck storms along. But I don’t recall it providing the storm’s energy.
Really? Evidence? Analysis? Testing? Imagination?
You learn something new every day here. Whether it’s true or not.
Why don’t you nitwits ask meteorologist to verify their dumb theory that moist air is lighter than dry air 🙂

October 23, 2015 10:09 pm

“…This fact means that practically any naturally occurring flow over the surface of the liquid has to strongly interfere with the evaporation process. The evaporation cannot thus be described by an equation derived for a very specific case, for liquid that is in thermodynamic equilibrium with the environment.
The discovery of the IPC PAS researchers is of the utmost importance for, among others, the understanding of the real mechanisms responsible for global warming. Contrary to common belief, the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere of our planet is not carbon dioxide but water vapour. At the same time, it is known that the speed of flow of air masses over the oceans can significantly exceed one hundred kilometres per hour and therefore they will certainly affect the rate of evaporation. The hitherto evaluation of the rate of evaporation of the oceans must therefore be subject to error, which will certainly affect the accuracy of the predictions of contemporary models of the Earth’s climate…”

Statement by statement:
“…This fact means that practically any naturally occurring flow over the surface of the liquid has to strongly interfere with the evaporation process.”
1a) “…This fact means” No facts were interrogated for this model. -sheer assumption
1b) “…practically any naturally occurring flow…” – and impractically? What about unnatural flows?
1c) “…has to strongly interfere with the evaporation process…” -“has to” That is a strange assertion, no proof, all assumption. “strongly interfere” -assumption presumptive? Couldn’t the model display this interaction? Exactly why should they assume “flows” interfere?
“…The evaporation cannot thus be described by an equation derived for a very specific case, for liquid that is in thermodynamic equilibrium with the environment…”
2a) Based on what? Model incompatibilities programmed by goofs that build models that do not mimic experiments and observations?
“…The discovery of the IPC PAS researchers is of the utmost importance for, among others, the understanding of the real mechanisms responsible for global warming. Contrary to common belief, the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere of our planet is not carbon dioxide but water vapour…”
3a) Shhhh! This top secret amongst the CAGW deluded.
“…At the same time, it is known that the speed of flow of air masses over the oceans can significantly exceed one hundred kilometres per hour…”
4a) Yup! Definitely CAGW alarmist research. Phrase common average sea surface weather in the most alarming terms possible.
“…can significantly exceed one hundred kilometres per hour and therefore they will certainly affect the rate of evaporation. The hitherto evaluation of the rate of evaporation of the oceans must therefore be subject to error, which will certainly affect the accuracy of the predictions of contemporary models of the Earth’s climate…”
5a) “…certainly affect the rate of evaporation…” Well, no sh** Sherlock. Did it ever occur to anyone in your team to compare this to experiment and observations?
5b) “…hitherto evaluation of the rate of evaporation of the oceans must therefore be subject to error…” – Oh! Good grief, wasn’t any member of your team in line when brains were handed out? Surely, your team could’ve pooled digits and verified this, or was running a simple program or Excel spreadsheet too challenging?
5c) “…certainly affect the accuracy of the predictions of contemporary models of the Earth’s climate…” – I’m not harboring any expectations that your team is going to improve those model’s accuracy any.
PS Perhaps you and your team should keep their ‘day jobs’…

Basically Goldie Locks with her hand on the Thermostat
October 24, 2015 12:08 am

Simple planetary mechanics good News for Star Wars / Trek fans.
Water Vapour is the natural regulating mechanism in nature.
Hubble Space Telescope start looking for other planets with big oceans to find extra terrestrial life.
Too hot causes water precipitation reflects back the local sun light which cools things down then it all heats back up again precipitation etctill finds its normal operating temperature.
That process also equalizes the heating effect of man made and naturally occurring C02

TAD
October 24, 2015 6:00 am

As stated above, if everyone wants to have your mind blown about the mechanics of water – evaporation, chemistry, explanations of why water has a reflexive density change at 4 C, Gerald Pollack’s book and theory, The fourth phase of water, rates right up there with the simplicity of Einsteins book, Relativity, and matches Einsteins weight of implications.
Why does water evaporate in tendrils and not uniformly?
Why is the effect of H2O ignored, atomically, when analyzing biochemistry?
What is the explanation of Lord Kelvin’s Lightning experiment?
Basically, Pollack suggests that water at boundary layers does not organize randomly, but in 2 dimensional Sheets, causing interesting effects that explain observational differences from current theoretical models
Worthy of a read

Reply to  TAD
October 28, 2015 8:50 am

Pollack is stuck on this one notion. He has one insight and he tries to turn it into more than it is. There is a lot of confusion and a lot to be learned surrounding H2O bonding and polarity and their implications. Meteorologists are dunces on this subject–worse than climate scientists.

October 28, 2015 8:46 am

Note that the person that wrote the this article, Anthony Watt, is a meteorologist. He is using global warming as a way to deflect attention from meteorological incompetence.

Reply to  Jim McGinn
October 29, 2015 9:12 am

J. McGinn says:
…Anthony Watt, is a meteorologist. He is using global warming as a way to deflect attention from meteorological incompetence.
And yet, all McGinn does is emit endless pixels, meaning nothing.
Try making some testable predictions. Or try to produce a verifiable, testable, empirical measurement, quantifying the fraction of AGW out of global warming from all sources. That will get peoples’ attention. Either one would show you know what you’re talking about.
But throwing out an endless stream of insults just means you’ve got nothin’.

Reply to  dbstealey
October 29, 2015 12:41 pm

(Deleted. Please don’t feed the troll. -mod)

Reply to  dbstealey
October 29, 2015 7:03 pm

Try making some testable predictions.
So far… *crickets*

Reply to  dbstealey
October 30, 2015 10:42 am

dbstealey October 29, 2015 at 7:03 pm
Try making some testable predictions.
So far… *crickets*
Okay, I predict the droughts in US, Australia, Brazil, India, China, New Zealand will continue until they take the wind farms down. And the more wind farms they build the worse it is going to get. I also predict that there will continue to be a tornado drought downwind from wind farms.
I predict that world wide crisis of farmers committing suicide because of drought, leaving their families destitute, will continue, until the wind farms are taken down.
I predict that if California, Oregon, or Texas ban wind farms that their drought will end. Same is true for Australia, Brazil, India, China, New Zealand.
I predict that meteorology will never test their convection model of storm theory and they will go on pretending to understand storms in order to keep the public complacent–just like climatologists with CO2 Forcing.
I predict that meteorology will never test their theory.

Reply to  James McGinn
October 31, 2015 9:23 am

Those are very vague predictions. This is the only one that is even worth discussing:
I …predict that there will continue to be a tornado drought downwind from wind farms.
We need more parameters, and a baseline. If Mr. McGinn is interested in actually making a testable prediction, Sir Karl Popper explains what’s necessary:
It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations.
Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.
Every “good” scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.
Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of “corroborating evidence.”)
Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a “conventionalist twist” or a “conventionalist stratagem.”)
One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.

Popper’s definitions/requirements are the basis of the modern Scientific Method. They must be adhered to by anyone who wants to be a credible scientist. This is not a criticism of Mr. McGinn’s prediction attempt, it is an example of how to be scientifically rigorous.
McGinn needs to produce definitive measurements showing that droughts in very specific areas are exacerbated by windmills. They may be; I don’t know. But for that prediction to be valid (or at least worthwhile), he needs to provide a baseline, and much better parameters.
Every Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory, or Law has one thing in common: it must be capable of producing repeated and accurate predictions. The higher on that hierarchy, the more accurate the predictions must be. When Mr. McGinn or anyone else puts forth a conjecture, hypothesis, or theory, the onus is on them to rigorously define any predictions made, per Popper’s criteria.
I sincerely hope that McGinn re-defines his drought prediction so we can accurately measure any subsequent changes in drought or precipitation. McGinn may be on to something. But based on his intial prediction, it is impossible to know.

Reply to  dbstealey
October 31, 2015 12:55 pm

dbstealey:
A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
Jim McGinn:
You are preaching to the choir. Since I am an expert on this subject, your suggestions would be more useful if you directed them at meteorologists who appear to have no understanding of this subject whatsoever.
Do Google searchs using the following:
China wind farm map
China drought map
Do the same for other countries/regions. Draw your own conclusion.

Reply to  James McGinn
October 31, 2015 1:16 pm

James McGinn,
That’s no answer. I am asking you to make a prediction that can be tested.
Popper gives the parameters. Really, I’m intersted to see if you are onto something, or not. A correct prediction would be very convincing. But just saying “do a google search” and “draw your own conclusions” is not helpful. It’s nothing more than the ‘appeal to authority’ fallacy. If you are the expert you claim to be, show us. I’m willing to accept anything that is scientifically convincing. But no less.
Finally, it’s clear that you’re fixated on Meteorologists for some reason. Whatever that reason is, try to forget it, and either concentrate on the article, or make a testable prediction that Popper would approve of. At this point, I see no difference between your claims, and what you think of Meteorologists. You can rise above that by making a rigorous prediction that can be tested. Or not. It’s up to you.

Reply to  dbstealey
October 31, 2015 7:27 pm

dbstealey:
Finally, it’s clear that you’re fixated on Meteorologists for some reason.
jimmcginn:
Actually, I kind of feel sorry for them. They are somewhat pitiful. As per this:
https://goo.gl/n4SPQN
The weight of moist air in comparison to dry air (controlling for all other factors) is easily testable. Unfortunately, meteorology is a consensus science, and so they would never acknowledge the validity of the test or its results. It is like getting a climatologist to do a test on CO2 Forcing. Consensus sciences don’t do tests. They just agree to agree. And mostly they agree to whatever can be easily conveyed to a gullible public.

Reply to  dbstealey
October 31, 2015 7:57 pm

James McGinn,
I wrote upthread:
I sincerely hope that McGinn re-defines his drought prediction so we can accurately measure any subsequent changes in drought or precipitation. McGinn may be on to something. But based on his intial prediction, it is impossible to know.
I would really like to find out if there’s something to your somewhat vague conjecture. I asked you to define your prediction in a way that has a clear baseline and measurable parameters, so we could determine for certain whether wind farms cause more severe droughts. But above you’ve just given excuses.
I’m still interested in that conjecture. There are certainly ample records measuring precipitation for every area, so it shouldn’t be hard to show any measurable droughts since the wind farms were built.
So once again I ask for a Popper-style experiment. You have the necessary data, or access to it. Support your conjecture in a way that is scientifically and logically convincing.
But if you can’t (or won’t), then as Prof. Richard Feynman famously observed:
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.
The experiment here is the before and after precipitation records downwind from as many wind farms as you can find. There are wind farms world-wide, so rigorously proving your conjecture shouldn’t be difficult.
I personally hope you’re on to something. But so far, you haven’t been convincing. Try harder. I’d like to see you succeed.

Reply to  dbstealey
November 1, 2015 8:04 pm

dbstealey:
The experiment here is the before and after precipitation records downwind from as many wind farms as you can find. There are wind farms world-wide, so rigorously proving your conjecture shouldn’t be difficult.
James McGinn:
I don’t think that kind of an argument would be convincing no matter how much extra rigor one put into it. Moreover, anybody can go to google and search on drought maps and wind farm maps and come to their own conclusions, and then I won’t have to deflect accusations that I had allowed my interpretation of the evidence to influence the presentation.
Only through understanding is there any chance for somebody to be convinced of this theory. And this theory is hard to understand. Moreover, much of what you have to understand can only be understood through meteorology and therefore, the psychological pull of meteorology’s seductively simple mythology is inescapable. Consequently, in order to be successful at understanding my theory you first need to be aware that meteorology’s mythology is the nonsense that it actually is.
And that is just the first step to understanding. There are many other steps. And only after you had gained the understanding would the results of any experiment be meaningful or convincing.
Most people want to be convinced before they will take the time to fully understand. Unfortunately that won’t work with this theory. There are no shortcuts with this. Sorry.

Reply to  James McGinn
November 1, 2015 9:04 pm

I can picture how windmills could disturb weather patterns down wind. What I don’t see is having enough detailed weather data from the past to know what it use to be like at those same location, as you really need most of a complete ocean cycle to tell whether it’s the windmills or changes from the ocean cycles.

Reply to  dbstealey
November 1, 2015 9:22 pm

James McGinn,
All I see are excuses as to why you can’t, or won’t, do a very simple experiment using data that is readily available. You could easily demonstrate it, if downwind from a windmill farm there were unusual droughts. You could make verifiable predictions.
As you wrote: “There are no shortcuts with this. Sorry.”
I had high hopes that you were onto something. Now I know it’s only bluster. But thanx for playing ‘I’m a scientist’…

Reply to  dbstealey
November 2, 2015 10:55 am

dbstealey November 1, 2015 at 9:22 pm
All I see are excuses as to why you can’t, or won’t, do a very simple experiment using data that is readily available. You could easily demonstrate it, if downwind from a windmill farm there were unusual droughts. You could make verifiable predictions.
Jim McGinn:
As I explained, I wouldn’t be convinced by this. If you think it would be productive then you do the work
dbstealey:
As you wrote: “There are no shortcuts with this. Sorry.”
Jim McGinn:
That’s right. I’m not running a hand holding service here, If you aren’t willing to work at it there isn’t much I can do for you.
dbstealey:
I had high hopes that you were onto something. Now I know it’s only bluster. But thanx for playing ‘I’m a scientist’…
Jim McGinn:
If you want simple stick with standard theory. If my understanding was simple somebody would have discovered it before. People that are intellectually lazy are best advised to avoid my theory.
Science is complex. Find another hobby.

Reply to  dbstealey
November 2, 2015 12:27 pm

micro6500
. . . you really need most of a complete ocean cycle to tell whether it’s the windmills or changes from the ocean cycles.
James McGinn:
I agree. There is too much randomness in data for maps to be very convincing. Only when people are able to conceptualize the importance of boundary layers in the lower atmosphere as being the pathways for the delivery of the energy from the jet streams is there any chance that they will be convinced. And, unfortunately, that is not simple or easy.

October 28, 2015 9:11 am

Vapor is not steam. Evaporation is not boiling. Moist air does not contain steam. It contains vapor.
It’s not clear that these researchers even got that right.

October 28, 2015 10:58 am

Why Water is Weird
http://wp.me/p4JijN-49C

October 29, 2015 8:50 pm

It’s funny, but when I first set out to tell the world of my new theory I expected people to be thankful that I was reviving an intellectually dead subject. Convection theory was so ephemeral and vague that I knew nobody would or could defend it, as has been the case. However, I never expected the depth of emotions that people have for what is such a non-starter of a theory. I now realize that this is just normal for humans. When a scientific theory is devoid of details and facts people’s minds just naturally fill-in those details with their imagination, like children do with fairy tales. And they are more emotionally attached to these created details than they would be if the details were conveyed to them by somebody or if they had read them in a book.
Unlike any of my fellow students, when I took meteorology classes I was already well educated in physics, chemistry, math and geology. So the brain-washing aspects of meteorological indoctrination didn’t have the effect on me that it had on my classmates and that it, apparently, has had on all other meteorologists. Even then I was skeptical. I had gone out of my way to take the class because I was deeply curious about severe weather. I remember sitting there as the professor explained that convection was what powered all storms. “That couldn’t be right,” I said to myself, “how could such a benign process as convection underlie the power and majesty of thunderstorms, tornadoes and hurricanes? There has got to be something more to it than just that.”
My interest in severe weather began when I was twelve when I was given a book on meteorology from my uncle. Therein was a section, with pictures, that discussed frogs and fish falling from the sky having been sucked up by a tornado and carried for miles. Over the years I had tried to imagine how it was possible for atmospheric gases to, seemingly, conspire to cause such. Even if you could, somehow, imagine strong winds that, somehow, initially lift frogs and fish from a pond it didn’t seem conceivable that it would be coordinated enough to juggle them for miles and plop them down in one area. In my mind there had to be something structural involved. So when my professor had begun and ended our discussion of storm theory with that one word, convection, I was more than a little bit dissatisfied.
I’m not dissatisfied any more. These are my books currently available on Amazon:
Vortex Phase: http://goo.gl/JFbXQr
What Goes Up: http://goo.gl/R6798E
Other Books on the horizon:
Why Wind Farms Cause Drought
Meteorology of the Future
James McGinn

October 31, 2015 12:33 pm

This is a corollary to my comment to James McGinn above. It’s not intended as a criticism, but as an example of what scientific skeptics are dealing with.
Prof. Irving Langmuir studied what he called “pathological science”. There is a fascinating series of speeches here that Prof. Langmuir gave in the 1950’s. Anyone reading them would see that “dangerous man-made global warming” is no different from Langmuir’s description of ‘N-Rays’, the ‘Allison Effect’, ‘Mitogenic Rays’, ‘Flying Saucers’ (very big in the ’50’s), or any of the other subjects that Langmuir deconstructs. “Dangerous AGW” (DAGW) is the modern equivalent.
Here are Langmuir’s Symptoms of Pathological Science:
• The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
(The putative effect: ‘AGW’, is too small to even measure, while CO2 — the supposed cause of AGW — continues its steady rise.)
• The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability; or, many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.
(Think: DAGW, and the ridiculous climate alarmism over a very small fluctuation in global T of only ±0.7ºC — over a century and a half! And there are still no measurements quantifying AGW, which is still completely undetectable in any verifiable, testable, empirical measurements.)
• Claims of great accuracy.
(Think: Claims of “dangerous AGW”, and the wild-eyed arm waving over tenths, or even hudredths of a degree of temperature fluctuation — far outside of any error bars.)
• Fantastic theories contrary to experience.
(There is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening with global temperature.)
• Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment.
(Think: DAGW, and the endless ad hoc excuses made for the lack of any global warming for many years.)
• Ratio of supporters to critics rises up to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to oblivion.
We seem to be entering the final phase, as the number of critical comments in the mass media has been rising fast, and the number of defenders of DAGW has been dwindling just as fast.
Only money — and lots of it — keeps the DAGW scare alive. If not for the immense piles of grant money, DAGW would long ago have gone the way of N-Rays and flying saucers.

Science or Fiction
Reply to  dbstealey
October 31, 2015 2:03 pm

Thanks for making me aware of the works by Prof. Irving Langmuir studied what he called “pathological science”.
I think you can add to it that the global warming theory put forward by United Nations isn´t falsifiable. Consequently it isn´t a valid scientific theory.
Ref: Contribution from Working group I; On the scientific basis; to the fifth assessment report by IPCC)
“Ocean warming dominates the total energy change inventory, accounting for roughly 93% on average from 1971 to 2010. The upper ocean (0-700 m) accounts for about 64% of the total energy change inventory. Melting ice (including Arctic sea ice, ice sheets and glaciers) accounts for 3% of the total, and warming of the continents 3%. Warming of the atmosphere makes up the remaining 1%.”
The heat capacity of the oceans is about 1000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere. This means that an amount of energy, which would be sufficient to warm the atmosphere by 1 K, would only be sufficient to warm the oceans by 0.001 K.
This further means that any lack of warming of the atmosphere can be excused by claiming a minuscule change in the temperature of the oceans. A change so miniscule that it cannot be measured. If we add to it that there does not exists a reliable historical temperature record of the oceans, it becomes very clear that the Global Warming theory put forward by United Nations isn´t falsifiable.
It is then time to turn to Karl Popper for a take on the stratagem by United Nations climate panel. Karl Popper was the mastermind behind the modern scientific method – Popper´s empirical method. Quotes are from his book “The logic of Scientific Discovery”
“But I shall certainly admit a system as empirical or scientific only if it is capable of being tested by experience. These considerations suggest that not the verifiability but the falsifiability of a system is to be taken as a criterion of demarcation. In other words: I shall not require of a scientific system that it shall be capable of being singled out, once and for all, in a positive sense; but I shall require that its logical form shall be such that it can be singled out, by means of empirical tests, in a negative sense: it must be possible for an empirical scientific system to be refuted by experience.»
In short – if it isn´t falsifiable it isn´t science.
Regarding Ad Hoc excuses, Karl Popper also has a taken on such excuses:
“… it is always possible to find some way of evading falsification, for example by introducing ad hoc an auxiliary hypothesis, or by changing ad hoc a definition. It is even possible without logical inconsistency to adopt the position of simply refusing to acknowledge any falsifying experience whatsoever. Admittedly, scientists do not usually proceed in this way, but logically such procedure is possible”
Consequently, ad hoc excuses was ruled out from the scientific method:
“the empirical method shall be characterized as a method that excludes precisely those ways of evading falsification which … are logically possible. According to my proposal, what characterizes the empirical method is its manner of exposing to falsification, in every conceivable way, the system to be tested. Its aim is not to save the lives of untenable systems but … exposing them all to the fiercest struggle for survival.»
Clearly United Nations climate panel IPCC isn´t familiar with the norms of modern scientific methods.
Regarding ad hoc excuses, Dr. Kevin Trenberth was a lead author of the IPCC’s 2nd, 3rd and 4th Assessment Reports. Kevin Trenberth introduced the ad hoc hypothesis that the expected warming of the atmosphere went into the oceans:
“Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming?…The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
– Kevin E. Trenberth
In his paper, Trenberth and collaborators argue that the ‘missing’ heat is sequestered in the ocean, below 700 m. His paper was called: “Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content”
(Geophysical research letters – first published 10 May 2013)
In my opinion, this was very clearly an ad hoc hypothesis. The ad hoc hypothesis was to claim that the reason why the troposphere had not warmed, as anticipated by the global warming theory, was that the energy, which by United Nations climate theory should have been trapped by CO2 in the atmosphere, had gone into the deep oceans.
At this moment the Global Warming theory put forward by United Nations ceased to be be a scientific theory. It became unfalsifiable. So by the ad hoc excuse it ceased to be a valid scientific theory.
Add to it that the mechanism isn´t explained, and it isn´t reasonable. By the United Nations climate theory, energy is supposed to be trapped by CO2 in the atmosphere, but fails to warm it, then passes the upper oceans without warming it, and then is supposed to warm the deep oceans where it cannot be measured.
United Nations is responsible for an enormous waste of resources based on scientific misconduct.

Science or Fiction
Reply to  dbstealey
November 1, 2015 7:18 am

Thanks for the link – valuable experience and perspective by Irving Langmuir.
«The characteristics of this Davis-Barnes experiment and the N-rays and the mitogenetic rays, they have things in common. These are cases where there is no dishonesty involved but where people are tricked into false results by a lack of understanding about what human beings can do to themselves in the way of being led astray by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions. These are examples of pathological science. These are things that attracted a great deal of attention. Usually hundreds of papers have been published upon them. Sometimes they have lasted for fifteen or twenty years and then they gradually die away.»
– Irving Langmuir
Irving Langmuir was a chemist and physicist. He received the Nobel prize in chemistry.

Reply to  Science or Fiction
November 4, 2015 11:08 pm

dbstealey:
No, idiot. There is no steam in earth’s atmosphere. That’s not even wrong; it’s too vague. But I think I know what you mean, since you’ve repeatedly claimed that gaseous H2O cannot exist in the Earth’s atmosphere.
James McGinn:
You freekin idiot. After all this time you still haven’t bothered to be definitive about the nomenclature? This is why you loons never learn. You use terms like steam, moisture, moist air, evaporate, boiling, vapor, gaseous H2O interchangeably and ambiguously. You are a fool. This is why you can’t properly interpret a simple phase diagram.
dbstealey:
You actually seem to believe that water vapor cannot exist there, because it would require boiling water. heh
James McGinn:
If the semantic weren’t clear to you up to this point why didn’t you say something? Are you really that stupid? Do you know what a gas is? Do you know what a liquid is? Do you have the slightest idea how to read a phase diagram? Do you know that the words vapor and steam are used ambiguously in common parlance? Do you know what ambiguous means?
dbstealey:
So, what’s your definition of steam? If it’s ‘steam = H2O
James McGinn:
Yes, of course. Was this not obvious? If this wasn’t clear to you before why are you only asking this now? Why would you risk ambiguous interpretation? Are you a fool?
dbstealey:
in its gaseous state’, then yes, there’s plenty of water vapor in the atmosphere.
Where are you getting you misinformation from, anyway? Do you just invent it?
James McGinn:
As I just explained, these words are used ambiguously in common parlance. There is no one source. The words are ambiguous. How dimwitted must you be to not have realized this?
dbstealey:
You insult people and call them names because . . .
James McGinn:
I insult you because until I do you dimwits won’t make any effort at all to root out the ambiguity in your choice of verbiage, and then we go around in circles forever. Now do you get it? Evaporate is a liquid. Evaporate = Vapor; Steam = Gaseous H2O. Steam and Gaseous H2O can only exist at temperatures above 212F. No part of our atmosphere is that hot. THUS, THERE IS NO STEAM (GASEOUS H2O) IN EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE. All of the moisture in earth’s atmosphere is vapor (evaporate). That is the case even when the moisture in moist air is invisible. It exists in the liquid state. See the phase diagram if you don’t believe me. All the moisture in earth’s atmosphere is liquid. It consists of little droplets/clusters, most of which are too small to be seen. The process of evaporation doesn’t produce steam. It produces vapor (evaporate). Boiling produces steam. Steam is invisible. The white stuff that comes out of trains isn’t steam, or you wouldn’t be able to see it. It is vapor. The process of evaporation doesn’t produce steam, it produces evaporate (vapor). But vapor that is smaller than a photon is just as invisible as steam.
Frikin pay attention!

Reply to  James McGinn
November 5, 2015 10:06 am

McGinn,
In your fabricated quote I never wrote “You idiot”. Why did you misquote me? You obviously did that to try and bring me down to your level. I’ve never called you an idiot, and your fabricated quote is dishonest.
I don’t need to call you names, because I have correct facts that support my argument. But your invented “facts” are totally wrong, so you need to keep calling others insulting names in order to try and make your argument. But you fail: there is plenty of gaseous H2O in the atmosphere. No intelligent, educated person disagrees with that well established fact.
And when Prof Richard Feynman’s explanation was provided for you, your response was:
I would love to see that Feynman had an understanding of H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding… Because the world is full of dumb sheep like yourself that only believe what comes from big name scientists. And I was hoping to find some support from him. But it just isn’t there. Go back to watching cartoons.
Other times you’ve said essentially the same thing: that you are right, and Feynman is wrong. Who should we believe? You? Or one of the greatest minds in the twentieth century? (Don’t answer that, for your own sake.)
Next, you say:
THERE IS NO STEAM (GASEOUS H2O) IN EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE.
That is so wrong it makes me roll my eyes and LOL. Just like your assertion that there is no convection in the atmosphere. But you never answer my question: where do you get your misinformation from??
Your mind has been colonized by nonsense like that, and it is closed so tight that common sense cannot enter. So there’s no sense in rational folks continuing this pointless argument. We might as well be arguing with a Jehovah’s Witness. No, that’s not even right; a Jehovah’s Witness might possibly see the light, after enough schooling. But obviously the scales will never fall from your eyes. I supppose the next step for you is handing out leaflets on the street corner, still trying to convince your first proselyte that your New Physics™ is better at explaining reality than your epicycles. The great author Leo Tolstoy had you pegged:
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth, if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
You’ve argued your pseudo-scientific nonsense for so long now that you can’t possibly admit that mainstream physics found out long ago that water vapor (steam) is always present in the atmosphere. Because if you admitted that, all your arguing about your ridiculous beliefs would be time wasted.
Finally: I would be happy to try to help school you in the basics anyway, even if you were never able to learn them. I’ve learned a lot here myself, from people who know more than I do (and don’t kid yourself, you’re not one of them). I have an open mind like most skeptics, and I’m open to new information. So I was interested in your conjecture that droughts increase downwind from wind farms. But when I asked you for evidence, you did a fast climbdown, using a series of unconvincing and lame excuses for cover.
So you are unteachable; a parody of the pompous know-it-all who knows nothing. When another commenter wrote: “McGinn persists in pretending he is a scientific genius”, you replied with three words: “I’m not pretending.” (By the way, you never did answer my questions: Who elected you President of your organization? Who were the candidates? When were nominations? What was the vote count? Was it a tough election fight? &etc. ☺)
Still, I’d be happy to give you the basic education you so desperately need — except for one thing. Because you are relying on misinformation, you try to cover up your inadequate knowledge by emitting endless insults and name-calling, like:
You freekin idiot… Are you really that stupid?… you made a complete jackass out of yourself, shut off your computer and go back to watching cartoons… the world is full of dumb sheep like yourself… You are a bunch of politically motivated nitwits… Stop blabbing, you loon… Frikin pay attention!… you delusional loon… No, idiot… You are a kook… Are you a fool?… Listen you ignorant SOB… you retards… How dimwitted must you be… …dumb Phil. … I insult you… you fruitcake… you loon… You are too stupid for science… you evasive twit… you dimwits… etc., etc., & etc.
Are you proud of your juvenile insults and name-calling? Someone who has the correct facts has no need to use tactics like that in order to try and win an argument. Those tactics only make it clear that you’ve lost the argument. Anyone who asserts that there is no gaseous H2O, or convection in the atmosphere is starting out with provably wrong assumptions. So naturally your conclusions will be wrong. And they are, as evidenced by your climbdown regarding your wind farm/drought claim.
Generous guy that I am, I’m still willing to help school you in the basics of physics. That’s something you desperately need. But if you keep insulting everyone and calling them names like you have been, maybe a moderator can just snip out those comments. That’s fair, no?

Reply to  Science or Fiction
November 5, 2015 9:59 am

James McGinn:
Evaporate is a liquid. Evaporate = Vapor; Steam = Gaseous H2O. Steam and Gaseous H2O can only exist at temperatures above 212F. No part of our atmosphere is that hot. THUS, THERE IS NO STEAM (GASEOUS H2O) IN EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE. And, therefore, convection is refuted
All of the moisture in earth’s atmosphere is vapor (evaporate). That is the case even when the moisture in moist air is invisible. It exists in the liquid state. See the phase diagram if you don’t believe me. All the moisture in earth’s atmosphere is liquid. It consists of little droplets/clusters, most of which are too small to be seen.
The process of evaporation doesn’t produce steam. It produces vapor (evaporate). Boiling produces steam. Steam is invisible. The white stuff that comes out of trains isn’t steam, or you wouldn’t be able to see it. It is vapor. The process of evaporation doesn’t produce steam, it produces evaporate (vapor). But vapor that is smaller than a photon is just as invisible as steam.
Now, using the chart that Phil bought into the conversation can you now see that our atmosphere is far too cool for steam? And then using Avogadro’s law and STP can you now see that moist air in our atmosphere can only be heavier than dry air and, therefore, Meteorology’s notion of moist air convection is revealed as the pseudoscience that it actually is (and always has been).
You see, I figured this out. I don’t have a PhD. If I had tried to get a PhD I never would have been allowed to consider this. Consensus is for suckers. And people that are concerned with credibility have their hands tied behind their backs when it comes to making breakthroughs.
Now it’s time for you to start making some retractions.

Reply to  James McGinn
November 5, 2015 10:09 am

Now it’s time for you to start making some retractions.

For you to go read those chapters from Feynman’s lectures. To evaporate it has to have enough kinetic energy to boil out of the liquid, but once it’s evaporated, it has the same distribution of energy the original liquid has (some of which is a gas while still in the liquid).
Read the chapters idjit.

Reply to  Science or Fiction
November 5, 2015 12:22 pm

See my response at the end of this thread.

Reply to  dbstealey
November 2, 2015 11:14 am

dbstealey:
Prof. Irving Langmuir studied what he called “pathological science”.
• The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
Jim McGinn:
According to this definition meteorology’s storm theory is a pathological science. Unfortunately they don’t care nor does most of the rest of the populace.
All the things you are saying here are true but they don’t matter if people don’t apply them. Consensus sciences, like meteorology and climatology, don’t care about any of this stuff. They think anybody that doesn’t blindly accept their authority is pathological.

Reply to  James McGinn
November 2, 2015 11:35 am

J. McGinn,
Meteorology is a lot closer to the hard sciences than Sociology, English Lit, Psychology, etc. But you’re fixated only on Meteorology. Why?
Meteorologists are trying to understand how to better predict the weather. That’s a worthwhile goal, no? And just because their local foreecasts are not much more than 50% accurate beyond a week out only indicates the complexity of all the parameters involved.
Finally, I quoted Dr. Langmuir…
The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
…because that definition is as close to the claims of “dangerous AGW” (DAGW) as any of the nonsense that Prof Langmuir addressed: the Davis Barnes effect, flying saucers, the Allison Effect, N-Rays, etc.
The ‘causative agent’ is a tiny trace gas that we would not even be aware of without sensitive instruments. And of course, the magnitude (or really, the lack of magnitude: no global warming for many years now) and the supposed cause are obviously independent of each other.
Thus, the DAGW claim is no different from Langmuir’s other examples.

Reply to  James McGinn
November 2, 2015 12:11 pm

dbstealey:
Meteorology is a lot closer to the hard sciences than Sociology, English Lit, Psychology, etc.
James McGinn:
You could say the same for climatology.
dbstealey:
But you’re fixated only on Meteorology. Why?
James McGinn:
You are fixated on climatology. Tell us why you think the rules of science don’t apply to Meteorology.
dbstealey:
The ‘causative agent’ is a tiny trace gas that we would not even be aware of without sensitive instruments. And of course, the magnitude (or really, the lack of magnitude: no global warming for many years now) and the supposed cause are obviously independent of each other.
James McGinn:
For Meteorology’s storm theory, the ‘causative agent’ is a 1% difference in the weight of moist air in comparison to the weight of dry air that has never been detected empirically (and that can’t exist unless water magically turns to steam below its boiling point) and that is easily refuted by casual observation (clouds that are calculated to be 10% heavier than dry air don’t drop out of the sky).
dbstealey:
Thus, the DAGW claim is no different from Langmuir’s other examples.
James McGinn:
As you demonstrate vividly, facts are irrelevant to try believers.

Reply to  James McGinn
November 2, 2015 12:54 pm

(and that can’t exist unless water magically turns to steam below its boiling point)

I asked about the kinetic energy of evaporated water because I’ve read that for water to evaporate, it is effectively boiling (kinetic energy equal to or greater than 100C), and that’s the same reason I asked about the water boiling out of the ocean, it is effectively boiled out. This is how evaporation cools things during evaporation, it’s removing a lot of kinetic energy.
Basically it does magically turn to steam.

richardscourtney
Reply to  James McGinn
November 2, 2015 12:43 pm

James McGinn:
You say to dbstealey

According to this definition meteorology’s storm theory is a pathological science. Unfortunately they don’t care nor does most of the rest of the populace.

Well, meteorology gets predictions of storms right better than chance would suggest so it is NOT pathological science and, anyway, if it were then it would not cost much so there is no reason for anybody to “care” about it.
More importantly, your fixation on meteorology has no relevance to dbstealey’s observation that the AGW-scare is pathological science and that climatological scare threatens immense costs; e.g. the “Climate Fund” intended to be adopted at the Paris CoP next month is hoped to be $100billion per year.
Richard

Reply to  James McGinn
November 2, 2015 1:34 pm

micro6500:
I’ve read that for water to evaporate, it is effectively boiling (kinetic energy equal to or greater than 100C),
Jim McGinn:
You are one of many people that believe that–even though it is completely crazy.
micro6500:
Basically it does magically turn to steam.
Jim McGinn:
You must be a meteorologist.

Reply to  James McGinn
November 2, 2015 2:19 pm

Actually quantum mechanics is the applicable science.

Reply to  James McGinn
November 2, 2015 2:27 pm

micro6500 November 2, 2015 at 2:19 pm
Actually quantum mechanics is the applicable science.
Jim McGinn:
There is no limit to the lies people will tell when their scientific beliefs are on the line.

Reply to  James McGinn
November 2, 2015 2:34 pm

micro6500 November 2, 2015 at 2:19 pm
Actually quantum mechanics is the applicable science.
Jim McGinn:
There is no limit to the lies people will tell when their scientific beliefs are on the line.

Then explain evaporation and the amount of kinetic energy of the water molecule has when it leaves a liquid form and becomes vapor?

Reply to  James McGinn
November 3, 2015 12:33 am

micro6500:
Actually quantum mechanics is the applicable science.
Jim McGinn:
There is no limit to the lies people will tell when their scientific beliefs are on the line.
micro6500:
Then explain evaporation and the amount of kinetic energy of the water molecule has when it leaves a liquid form and becomes vapor?
Jim McGinn:
Okay. I get where you are coming from now. You are referring to Brownian motion. That isn’t inaccurate. It is incomplete, very incomplete. But not inaccurate.
1) Vapor is not a gas. It is a liquid. It is droplets/clusters of H2O.
2) Electric charges (static electricity) and negative (N2, O2) and positive (H2O) charges play a role also.
Water only becomes a gas above its boiling point. Even this is not a complete explanation. Sorry.

Reply to  James McGinn
November 3, 2015 6:00 am

Jim McGinn:
Okay. I get where you are coming from now. You are referring to Brownian motion. That isn’t inaccurate. It is incomplete, very incomplete. But not inaccurate.
1) Vapor is not a gas. It is a liquid. It is droplets/clusters of H2O.
2) Electric charges (static electricity) and negative (N2, O2) and positive (H2O) charges play a role also.
Water only becomes a gas above its boiling point. Even this is not a complete explanation. Sorry.

I would suggest, as well as many others that you are completely wrong on this subject.
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/%28Gh%29/guides/mtr/cld/dvlp/wtr.rxml
Water vapor in the atm, is a gas, but the other two states are also present in the atm as well.

Reply to  micro6500
November 3, 2015 6:21 am

Mike says:
Water vapor in the atm, is a gas, but the other two states are also present in the atm as well.
Glad you added that last sentence.

Reply to  James McGinn
November 3, 2015 7:46 am

micro6500:
Water vapor in the atmosphere, is a gas, . . .
James McGinn:
Not possible.

Reply to  James McGinn
November 3, 2015 9:16 am

micro6500:
Water vapor in the atmosphere, is a gas, . . .
James McGinn:
Not possible.

It’s very possible, because it is a gas. And it can be explained by quantum mechanics. So you just saying it isn’t possible carries no weight, you are going to have to do a lot more, and the fact that you don’t know or describe the kinetic energy of an evaporating water molecule proves to me you don’t know what you’re talking about.
But, at least for now, give me proof I’m wrong, I don’t mind being wrong if it improves my knowledge, but you do have a high bar to pass.

Reply to  James McGinn
November 3, 2015 9:38 am

micro6500:
It’s very possible, because it is a gas.
James McGinn:
It’s impossible for H2O to become a gas at temps below its boiling point/pressure.
micro6500:
And it can be explained by quantum mechanics. So you just saying it isn’t possible. It is carries no weight, you are going to have to do a lot more, and the fact that you don’t know or describe the kinetic energy of an evaporating water molecule proves to me you don’t know what you’re talking about.
But, at least for now, give me proof I’m wrong, I don’t mind being wrong if it improves my knowledge, but you do have a high bar to pass.
James McGinn:
Each, highly polar, H2O molecule can be attached to two other H2O molecules on its negative (oxygen) end. The first breaks off fairly easy. That is the one associated with evaporation. The second does not. It is a hard bond. (Strangely, it is the bond that is associated with ice.) It only breaks at temps above 100 C. From this understanding we an deduce that evaporation can only involve clumps of H2O (vapor), not steam (not gas). For details see the link I posted entitled, “Why Water is Wierd.”
Water is very confusing. It is very counterintuitive. But at least you are asking the right questions.

Reply to  James McGinn
November 3, 2015 11:07 am

Just to be thorough I dug out my Feynman Lectures and read the section on evaporation (Vol 1 42-1). If I understood it correctly, it has to have a high enough kinetic energy to become a gas, but as a collection of gas it will have the same distribution of kinetic energy as the liquid it came from. But in previous chapter, he describes that even a liquid will have gaseous molecules.

richardscourtney
Reply to  James McGinn
November 3, 2015 10:04 am

James McGinn:
You are incorrigible! It seems you post ridiculous nonsense solely as a method to disrupt threads.
You have here written

1) Vapor is not a gas. It is a liquid. It is droplets/clusters of H2O.
2) Electric charges (static electricity) and negative (N2, O2) and positive (H2O) charges play a role also.
Water only becomes a gas above its boiling point. Even this is not a complete explanation. Sorry.

Earlier today I explained to you that your assertion is plain wrong.
I wrote on another thread this post addressed to you.
***********************************
James McGinn:
You continue to waste space in threads by posting nonsense.
For example, you write this twaddle

Vapor is not a gas. It is a liquid. It consists of miniature droplets suspended in air. But not gaseous H2O. Our atmosphere is too cool for steam.

Bollocks!
Just so you know in future

water vapor
Water in its gaseous state, especially in the atmosphere and at a temperature below the boiling point. Water vapor in the atmosphere serves as the raw material for cloud and rain formation. It also helps regulate the Earth’s temperature by reflecting and scattering radiation from the Sun and by absorbing the Earth’s infrared radiation. See also vapor.

The American Heritage® Science Dictionary
Copyright © 2002. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved.
Richard
*****************************
Please stop posting nonsense. And take note of corrections to your nonsense.
Richard

Reply to  James McGinn
November 3, 2015 12:56 pm

micro6500:
Just to be thorough I dug out my Feynman Lectures and read the section on evaporation (Vol 1 42-1).
James McGinn:
Very interesting! I think I heard it or read it somewhere that Feynman had lectured on the peculiarities of the H2O molecule. But I could never find it. Thanks for the reference. I’m going to see if I can find it online somewhere. If you have a more refined reference that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for this!

Reply to  James McGinn
November 3, 2015 1:14 pm

I just read it at:
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_42.html
It would appear that Feynman had no understanding of H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding (and implications thereof) whatsoever. But, to his credit, he did give proper disclaimer and he did make his assumptions explicit. And he did limit the discussion to the Brownian motion aspect.
I had also vaguely remember him stating something in regard to atmospheric flow, but I haven’t found anything comprehensive from him on that subject.
Thanks again for the reference.

Reply to  James McGinn
November 3, 2015 1:19 pm

J. McGinn says:
It would appear that Feynman had no understanding…
OK, that’s enough.
Somebody, get the hook!

Reply to  James McGinn
November 3, 2015 1:46 pm

It would appear that Feynman had no understanding of H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding

I reject this out right, Feynman created another variation on how to solve quantum mechanical equation. If there’s anyone who understands H2O polarity and bonding it’s Feynman.

Reply to  James McGinn
November 3, 2015 2:14 pm

At the same time, however, the atoms in the liquid are jiggling about, and from time to time one of them gets kicked out. Now we have to estimate how fast they get kicked out. The idea will be that at equilibrium the number that are kicked out per second and the number that arrive per second are equal.
How many get kicked out? In order to get kicked out, a particular molecule has to have acquired by accident an excess energy over its neighbors—a considerable excess energy, because it is attracted very strongly by the other molecules in the liquid. Ordinarily it does not leave because it is so strongly attracted, but in the collisions sometimes one of them gets an extra energy by accident. And the chance that it gets the extra energy W which it needs in our case is very small if W≫kT. In fact, e−W/kT is the chance that an atom has picked up more than this much energy. That is the general principle in kinetic theory: in order to borrow an excess energy W over the average, the odds are e to the minus the energy that we have to borrow, over kT. Now suppose that some molecules have borrowed this energy. We now have to estimate how many leave the surface per second. Of course, just because a molecule has the necessary energy does not mean that it will actually evaporate, since it may be buried too deeply inside the liquid or, even if it is near the surface, it may be travelling in the wrong direction. The number that are going to leave a unit area per second is going to be something like this: the number of atoms there are near the surface, per unit area, divided by the time it takes one to escape, multiplied by the probability e−W/kT that they are ready to escape in the sense that they have enough energy.
We shall suppose that each molecule at the surface of the liquid occupies a certain cross-sectional area A. Then the number of molecules per unit area of liquid surface will be 1/A. And now, how long does it take a molecule to escape? If the molecules have a certain average speed v, and have to move, say, one molecular diameter D, the thickness of the first layer, then the time it takes to get across that thickness is the time needed to escape, if the molecule has enough energy. The time will be D/v. Thus the number evaporating should be approximately
Ne=(1/A)(v/D)e−W/kT.(42.3)
Now the area of each atom times the thickness of the layer is approximately the same as the volume Va occupied by a single atom. And so, in order to get equilibrium, we must have Nc=Ne, or
nv=(v/Va)e−W/kT.(42.4)
We may cancel the v’s, since they are equal; even though one is the velocity of a molecule in the vapor and the other is the velocity of an evaporating molecule, these are the same, because we know their mean kinetic energy (in one direction) is 12kT. But one may object, “No! No! These are the especially fast-moving ones; these are the ones that have picked up excess energy.” Not really, because the moment they start to pull away from the liquid, they have to lose that excess energy against the potential energy. So, as they come to the surface they are slowed down to the velocity v! It is the same as it was in our discussion of the distribution of molecular velocities in the atmosphere—at the bottom, the molecules had a certain distribution of energy. The ones that arrive at the top have the same distribution of energy, because the slow ones did not arrive at all, and the fast ones were slowed down. The molecules that are evaporating have the same distribution of energy as the ones inside—a rather remarkable fact. Anyway, it is useless to try to argue so closely about our formula because of other inaccuracies, such as the probability of bouncing back rather than entering the liquid, and so on. Thus we have a rough idea of the rate of evaporation and condensation, and we see, of course, that the vapor density n varies in the same way as before, but now we have understood it in some detail rather than just as an arbitrary formula.
This deeper understanding permits us to analyze some things. For example, suppose that we were to pump away the vapor at such a great rate that we removed the vapor as fast as it formed (if we had very good pumps and the liquid was evaporating very slowly), how fast would evaporation occur if we maintained a liquid temperature T? Suppose that we have already experimentally measured the equilibrium vapor density, so that we know, at the given temperature, how many molecules per unit volume are in equilibrium with the liquid. Now we would like to know how fast it will evaporate. Even though we have used only a rough analysis so far as the evaporation part of it is concerned, the number of vapor molecules arriving was not done so badly, aside from the unknown factor of reflection coefficient. So therefore we may use the fact that the number that are leaving, at equilibrium, is the same as the number that arrive. True, the vapor is being swept away and so the molecules are only coming out, but if the vapor were left alone, it would attain the equilibrium density at which the number that come back would equal the number that are evaporating. Therefore, we can easily see that the number that are coming off the surface per second is equal to the unknown reflection coefficient R times the number that would come down to the surface per second were the vapor still there, because that is how many would balance the evaporation at equilibrium:
Ne=nvR=(vR/Va)e−W/kT.(42.5)
Of course, the number of molecules that hit the liquid from the vapor is easy to calculate, since we do not need to know as much about the forces as we do when we are worrying about how they get to escape through the liquid surface; it is much easier to make the argument the other way.

Reply to  James McGinn
November 3, 2015 2:20 pm

This is prior to the previously quoted section, but I think it is important too.

The first example that we shall consider is the evaporation of a liquid. Suppose we have a box with a large volume, partially filled with liquid in equilibrium and with the vapor at a certain temperature. We shall suppose that the molecules of the vapor are relatively far apart, and that inside the liquid, the molecules are packed close together. The problem is to find out how many molecules there are in the vapor phase, compared with the number there are in the liquid. How dense is the vapor at a given temperature, and how does it depend on the temperature?
Let us say that n equals the number of molecules per unit volume in the vapor. That number, of course, varies with the temperature. If we add heat, we get more evaporation. Now let another quantity, 1/Va, equal the number of atoms per unit volume in the liquid: We suppose that each molecule in the liquid occupies a certain volume, so that if there are more molecules of liquid, then all together they occupy a bigger volume. Thus if Va is the volume occupied by one molecule, the number of molecules in a unit volume is a unit volume divided by the volume of each molecule. Furthermore, we suppose that there is a force of attraction between the molecules to hold them together in the liquid. Otherwise we cannot understand why it condenses. Thus suppose that there is such a force and that there is an energy of binding of the molecules in the liquid which is lost when they go into the vapor. That is, we are going to suppose that, in order to take a single molecule out of the liquid into the vapor, a certain amount of work W has to be done. There is a certain difference, W, in the energy of a molecule in the liquid from what it would have if it were in the vapor, because we have to pull it away from the other molecules which attract it.
Now we use the general principle that the number of atoms per unit volume in two different regions is n2/n1=e−(E2−E1)/kT. So the number n per unit volume in the vapor, divided by the number 1/Va per unit volume in the liquid, is equal to
nVa=e−W/kT,(42.1)
because that is the general rule. It is like the atmosphere in equilibrium under gravity, where the gas at the bottom is denser than that at the top because of the work mgh needed to lift the gas molecules to the height h. In the liquid, the molecules are denser than in the vapor because we have to pull them out through the energy “hill” W, and the ratio of the densities is e−W/kT.
This is what we wanted to deduce—that the vapor density varies as e to the minus some energy or other over kT. The factors in front are not really interesting to us, because in most cases the vapor density is very much lower than the liquid density. In those circumstances, where we are not near the critical point where they are almost the same, but where the vapor density is much lower than the liquid density, then the fact that n is very much less than 1/Va is occasioned by the fact that W is very much greater than kT. So formulas such as (42.1) are interesting only when W is very much bigger than kT, because in those circumstances, since we are raising e to minus a tremendous amount, if we change T a little bit, that tremendous power changes a bit, and the change produced in the exponential factor is very much more important than any change that might occur in the factors out in front. Why should there be any changes in such factors as Va? Because ours was an approximate analysis. After all, there is not really a definite volume for each molecule; as we change the temperature, the volume Va does not stay constant—the liquid expands. There are other little features like that, and so the actual situation is more complicated. There are slowly varying temperature-dependent factors all over the place. In fact, we might say that W itself varies slightly with temperature, because at a higher temperature, at a different molecular volume, there would be different average attractions, and so on. So, while we might think that if we have a formula in which everything varies in an unknown way with temperature then we have no formula at all, if we realize that the exponent W/kT is, in general, very large, we see that in the curve of the vapor density as a function of temperature most of the variation is occasioned by the exponential factor, and if we take W as a constant and the coefficient 1/Va as nearly constant, it is a good approximation for short intervals along the curve. Most of the variation, in other words, is of the general nature e−W/kT.

Reply to  James McGinn
November 3, 2015 1:31 pm

James McGinn:
Vapor is not a gas. It is a liquid. It consists of miniature droplets suspended in air. But not gaseous H2O. Our atmosphere is too cool for steam.
richardscourtney:
Bollocks! Just so you know in future:
water vapor
Water in its gaseous state, especially in the atmosphere and at a temperature below the boiling point. Water vapor in the atmosphere serves as the raw material for cloud and rain formation. It also helps regulate the Earth’s temperature by reflecting and scattering radiation from the Sun and by absorbing the Earth’s infrared radiation. See also vapor.
The American Heritage® Science Dictionary
Copyright © 2002. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved.
James McGinn:
Richard, it would appear that The American Heritage® Science Dictionary has conflated the concepts of vapor and gas. Unfortunately, this is typical. If you are so inclined, maybe you can contact them and ask for their source. I bet the source is a meterologist or a meteorological text of some sort. I guarantee you it is not based on anything empirical or substantive.
Unfortunately, books often reinforce the prejudices of the people that write them. Learn to be critical of everything that is in print. Books are created by humans, not gods.

Reply to  James McGinn
November 3, 2015 1:39 pm

J. McGinn says:
It would appear that Feynman had no understanding…
dbstealey:
OK, that’s enough. Somebody, get the hook!
J. McGinn says:
LOL. His lectures are online, birdbrain. If what I am saying is wrong it should be easy enough for you to demonstrate otherwise.
Obviously if you could have you would have.
(Reply: he could have, but everyone gets to post their views on science here, no matter how unusual their comments are. -mod)

Reply to  James McGinn
November 3, 2015 3:57 pm

@J. McGinn:
Am I the birdbrain? Or is it Mike? You don’t make it clear. It would be good if you followed the site style, and used either quotation marks or italics to differentiate comments. Do you understand how to create italics? If not, quote marks work too.
Anyway, individual water molecules in the atmosphere are a gas. They are no different in that respect from CO2, or Nitrogen, or Oxygen, which are other atmospheric gases. No boiling is needed to produce any of them.
Water droplets are different. That’s where you’re confused. Clouds are not a gas. Water vapor is a gas.
Even birdbrains know that.
And you say:
…it should be easy enough for you to demonstrate otherwise.
Yet, you won’t step up and demonstrate your own conjecture about droughts from wind farms. The more I read your comments, the more I see your massive psychological projection: imputing your own faults onto everyone else. You do it constantly.

Reply to  James McGinn
November 3, 2015 1:55 pm

James McGinn November 3, 2015 at 12:33 am
1) Vapor is not a gas. It is a liquid. It is droplets/clusters of H2O.

Not true, water vapor is the gas phase of water, see for example:
http://www.chem.ucla.edu/harding/IGOC/W/water.html
Water only becomes a gas above its boiling point. Even this is not a complete explanation. Sorry.
Also not true, see the phase diagram:
http://startswithabang.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/water-phase-diagram.jpg
Water vapor exists everywhere in the yellow portion of this diagram, to the high temperature side of the liquidus and the line separating solid and vapor phase (where sublimation takes place).

Reply to  James McGinn
November 3, 2015 2:36 pm

James McGinn:
1) Vapor is not a gas. It is a liquid. It is droplets/clusters of H2O.
Phil:
Not true, water vapor is the gas phase of water
James McGinn:
Your chart doesn’t indicate that. Your chart doesn’t indicate the word, “gas,” whatsoever. Obviously they are using the word vapor in place of the word gas. Right? (How was this not obvious?)
Phil, either you are not following this discussion or you don’t understand the chart you posted. Strangely, the chart actually makes my point. According to this chart gaseous H2O (what they, mistakenly, call vapor) does not exist at ambient temperature. It indicates that water is a liquid at ambient temps. Right? Did you not notice this?
Water only becomes a gas above its boiling point.
Phil:
Also not true, see the phase diagram:
Water vapor exists everywhere in the yellow portion of this diagram,
James McGinn:
Right. Look at the 1 ATM line. Tell us what you see. It clearly indicates water is a liquid all the way up to 100 C. Right?
So, according to this chart, there can be zero gaseous H2O in Earth’s atmosphere. I agree with this.
The only thing I disagree with, as I explained above, is that they are using the word “vapor” where they should be using the word “gas”. But the H2O that comprises clouds and humid air is, ACCORDING TO THE CHART THAT YOU PROVIDED, in the liquid phase of H2O. Right?
How is it you didn’t see this?
Think carefully before you respond.

Reply to  James McGinn
November 3, 2015 2:44 pm

James McGinn:
It would appear that Feynman had no understanding of H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding
Micro6500:
If there’s anyone who understands H2O polarity and bonding it’s Feynman.
James McGinn:
Reference?

Reply to  James McGinn
November 3, 2015 3:31 pm

You left off the part where he on his own created another unique method of solving quantum mechanics.
BTW, as air temps get close to dew point, water vapor does start collecting into larger liquid groups, this shows up in the night time cooling rate(it changes).

Reply to  James McGinn
November 3, 2015 4:20 pm

dbstealey:
Anyway, individual water molecules in the atmosphere are a gas.
James McGinn:
Not possible. Our atmosphere is too cool. See the chart posted by Phil below.

Reply to  James McGinn
November 3, 2015 5:05 pm

The chart by Phil. is very familiar to me. It shows the triple point of water, and one of those parameters makes it clear that H2O is also a gas at certain temperature/pressure points.
This is basic physics. The triple point of hydrogen is used in many instruments as a primary calibration standard. And so on.
But why am I trying to explain this? I’m just a “birdbrain” who worked in a metrology lab for more than thirty years. And MiCro has shown that he understands physics (plus he’s a N.E. Ohio boy, so he gets extra points ☺). And Phil. is also quite knowledgeable about physics, as is Richard Courtney. Between us there are a lot of years of experience in basic science. So I’m wondering where you got your misinformation from?
When you disagree with everyone, don’t you ever think it’s possible that maybe you’re wrong about water vapor being a gas? Or are you that certain that H2O can’t be a gas unless water is boiled?

Reply to  James McGinn
November 3, 2015 4:39 pm

micro6500 November 3, 2015 at 3:31 pm
You left off the part where he on his own created another unique method of solving quantum mechanics.
James McGinn:
Relevance?
Maybe you’d feel more comfortable if you made a retraction?

Reply to  James McGinn
November 3, 2015 4:49 pm

” Maybe you’d feel more comfortable if you made a retraction?”
Why? Are you saying I should take your word over Feynman? That’s funny.

Reply to  James McGinn
November 3, 2015 5:25 pm

James McGinn:
”Maybe you’d feel more comfortable if you made a retraction?”
Micro6500:
Why?
James McGinn:
Read upthread.
Micro6500:
Are you saying I should take your word over Feynman?
James McGinn:
I’m saying you shouldn’t pretend to put words in Feyman’s mouth.
Micro6500:
That’s funny.
James McGinn:
Is it? How so?

Reply to  James McGinn
November 3, 2015 5:40 pm

I think the couple pages of his own words do fine on their own.

Reply to  James McGinn
November 3, 2015 5:38 pm

dbstealey:
The chart by Phil. is very familiar to me.
James McGinn:
Me too.
dbstealey:
It shows the triple point of water, and one of those parameters makes it clear that H2O is also a gas at certain temperature/pressure points. This is basic physics. The triple point of hydrogen is used in many instruments as a primary calibration standard. And so on.
James McGinn:
Relevance?
dbstealey:
But why am I trying to explain this? I’m just a “birdbrain” who worked in a metrology lab for more than thirty years. And Micro6500 has shown that he understands physics (plus he’s a N.E. Ohio boy, so he gets extra points ☺). And Phil. is also quite knowledgeable about physics, as is Richard Courtney. Between us there are a lot of years of experience in basic science. So I’m wondering where you got your misinformation from?
When you disagree with everyone, don’t you ever think it’s possible that maybe you’re wrong about water vapor being a gas? Or are you that certain that H2O can’t be a gas unless water is boiled?
James McGinn:
Consensus is for suckers.

Reply to  James McGinn
November 3, 2015 6:38 pm

James McGinn asks:
“Relevance?”
The relevance is that you stated that water cannot be a gas in the atmosphere, and I pointed out that the graphic posted by Phil. shows that is wrong.
Next:
“Consensus is for suckers.”
I said nothing about consensus. By that evasion, you imply that teachers should simply be disregarded no matter how knowledgeable they are, because you know more than anyone else here, and thus you are unwilling to consider several decades more knowledge and experience than yours.
You’re flat wrong about H2O not being a gas without reaching the boiling point of water, and you’re not willing to support your belief that droughts increase downwind from windmill farms; a very testable experiment. So when you write that “consensus is for suckers”, it shows that you’ve got nothing more than your usual insults.
What’s your education or work experience background, anyway? It’s doubtful that it is anything related to the hard sciences, particularly physics. I am not trying to be insulting, I really want to know: where do you get your misinformation from? If it’s from some .edu factory, they owe you a refund.

Reply to  James McGinn
November 3, 2015 8:42 pm

James McGinn asks:
“Relevance?”
dbstealey:
The relevance is that you stated that water cannot be a gas in the atmosphere,
James McGinn:
Right. Our atmosphere would have to be over 212 F. I learned this in junior high. Did you, maybe, not make it past the sixth grade?
dbstealey:
and I pointed out that the graphic posted by Phil. shows that is wrong.
James McGinn:
I wonder why only you can see it?
dbstealey:
You’re flat wrong about H2O not being a gas without reaching the boiling point of water,
James McGinn:
I can’t even imagine how frustrating it must be to be so sure you are right and so completely unable to say how or why.

Reply to  James McGinn
November 3, 2015 8:56 pm

” James McGinn:
I can’t even imagine how frustrating it must be to be so sure you are right and so completely unable to say how or why.”
How does it feel to read the explanation of why you’re wrong, written about as simple as possible by an equal of both Newton, Einstein and Hawking and to still think you’re right, and then make another equally stupid comment that was also explained in the same document you linked?

Reply to  James McGinn
November 3, 2015 8:59 pm

” both”
I started with Newton and Einstein and then added Hawking at the last minute.

Reply to  James McGinn
November 3, 2015 9:05 pm

dbstealey:
When you disagree with everyone, don’t you ever think it’s possible that maybe you’re wrong about water vapor being a gas?
James McGinn:
When everybody agrees and nobody can explain why it is almost always a brain-dead consensus. It’s just group think. Intellectually, people are sheep. Once they believe something they don’t change their minds unless the whole herd changes its mind.

Reply to  James McGinn
November 4, 2015 9:17 am

J. McGinn, everyone has been explaining to you, chapter and verse, why you’re wrong. But all you do is argue. You even argue with zombie Feynman. You have some fantastic notions about water, including your repeatedly debunked belief that H2O cannot exist as a gas in the atmosphere. As I asked you before:
Where do you get your misinformation from?
You’re a newbie here, arguing with folks who at least know the basics. We all have extensive experience, but you? Who knows? That’s why I asked you:
What’s your education or work experience background, anyway? It’s doubtful that it is anything related to the hard sciences, particularly physics.
I think I know why you ignored that question. So why don’t you tell us, without deflecting onto something else as usual? So, who taught you the nonsense you’re trying to argue here? Where did you get all that misinformation? Where did you get your preposterous ideas from? So please, inform us. What’s your technical/edu background? It isn’t meterorology, is it? ☺

Reply to  James McGinn
November 3, 2015 9:15 pm

micro6500:
. . . read the explanation of why you’re wrong, written about as simple as possible by an equal of both Newton, Einstein and Hawking . . .
James McGinn:
Where do you go from here? Will you be copying passages from the bible, quoting God?

Reply to  James McGinn
November 4, 2015 4:17 am

Nah, but I did put you in the clueless category. You are telling us, we need to change our mind, but give no science to support that, I gave you one of the greatest scientist of our time, and you can’t answer a simple question on something you claim to know that everyone else is wrong. You’re just a fool.

Reply to  James McGinn
November 3, 2015 9:24 pm

James McGinn:
It would appear that Feynman had no understanding of H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding
micro6500:
If there’s anyone who understands H2O polarity and bonding it’s Feynman.
James McGinn:
It’s a pity he never mentioned such in any of his lectures. Why would he conceal this from the public? What would be his motive?
Wouldn’t it make more sense that you are delusional?

Reply to  James McGinn
November 4, 2015 4:32 am

” James McGinn:
It’s a pity he never mentioned such in any of his lectures. Why would he conceal this from the public? What would be his motive?
Wouldn’t it make more sense that you are delusional?”
Except the section I referenced, and you looked at and I then quoted was about evaporating water. He also defined the kinetic energy as liquid, as it evaporated and after.

richardscourtney
Reply to  James McGinn
November 4, 2015 5:18 am

Friends:
All onlookers can now see that whoever or whatever is posting as James McGinn is disrupting threads by only posting ridiculous nonsense which he/she/they/it refuses to retract when repeatedly shown to be wrong. This is now blatantly clear to all onlookers.
Therefore, I suggest that any further interactions with James McGinn can only assist him/her/them/it to disrupt threads.
In my opinion we have reached the stage where it is desirable to ‘not feed the troll’.
Richard

Reply to  James McGinn
November 4, 2015 5:52 am

James McGinn:
1) Vapor is not a gas. It is a liquid. It is droplets/clusters of H2O.
Phil:
Not true, water vapor is the gas phase of water
James McGinn:
Your chart doesn’t indicate that. Your chart doesn’t indicate the word, “gas,” whatsoever. Obviously they are using the word vapor in place of the word gas. Right? (How was this not obvious?)
Phil, either you are not following this discussion or you don’t understand the chart you posted. Strangely, the chart actually makes my point. According to this chart gaseous H2O (what they, mistakenly, call vapor) does not exist at ambient temperature. It indicates that water is a liquid at ambient temps. Right? Did you not notice this?

James McGinn:
Answer the question you evasive twit. Why did you post a chart that plainly refutes what you claim it proves?
James McGinn:
Water only becomes a gas above its boiling point.
Phil:
Also not true, see the phase diagram:
Water vapor exists everywhere in the yellow portion of this diagram,
James McGinn:
Right. Look at the 1 ATM line. Tell us what you see. It clearly indicates water is a liquid all the way up to 100 C. Right? So, according to this chart, there can be zero gaseous H2O in Earth’s atmosphere. I agree with this.
The only thing I disagree with, as I explained above, is that they are using the word “vapor” where they should be using the word “gas”. But the H2O that comprises clouds and humid air is, ACCORDING TO THE CHART THAT YOU PROVIDED, in the liquid phase of H2O. Right?
How is it you didn’t see this?

James McGinn:
Answer the question you evasive twit. Why did you post a chart that plainly refutes what you claim it proves?
What we are seeing here is that meteorology really isn’t a science. It’s a belief system that appeals to people that have very low scientific skills/standards. Take note of the fact that meteorologists won’t participate in these discussions. They know that the only thing that can come of it is loss of credibility.

Reply to  James McGinn
November 4, 2015 6:35 am

Friends:
All onlookers can now see that whoever or whatever is posting as James McGinn is disrupting threads by only posting ridiculous nonsense which he/she/they/it refuses to retract when repeatedly shown to be wrong. This is now blatantly clear to all onlookers.
Therefore, I suggest that any further interactions with James McGinn can only assist him/her/them/it to disrupt threads.
In my opinion we have reached the stage where it is desirable to ‘not feed the troll’.
Richard

Well, let’s just say that the time has come for you loons to get together and fly away to some safe place where you won’t be bothered by facts from a hawk like me.
Meteorologists are bamboozled by storms and are trying to save face with the public by keeping their worthless theory vague. Just like climate scientists, they realize that as long as they keep it vague the public won’t realize how ignorant they really are. And there is a endless supply of dunces who will swear to the very end that they can see the emperor’s new clothes.
Hmm. Let me see. What do we have here. Gee golly. We have Micro6500 quoting Feynman at length and putting forth arguments based on what Feynman allegedly stated but that aren’t evident in anything the loon posted. Hmm. Then we have Phil posting a chart and then making claims that are, clearly, refuted by the very chart the loon posted. Hmm. And we have dbstealey making arguments based on consensus and then claiming that his consensus isn’t a consensus. This thread is perfect evidence that meteorology is a religion, not a science.
Meteorology’s storm theory is a pathological science. Many meteorologists realize this. Unfortunately they don’t care nor does much of the rest of the populace, many of whom are aware of this. The convection model fails under the slightest scrutiny. The weight of moist air in comparison to dry air (controlling for all other factors) is easily testable. But they would never acknowledge the validity of the test or its results. It is like getting a climatologist to do a test on CO2 Forcing. Consensus sciences don’t do tests. They just agree to agree. And mostly they agree to whatever can be easily conveyed to a gullible public.
When everybody agrees and nobody can explain why it is almost always a brain-dead consensus. It’s just group think. Intellectually, people are sheep. Once they believe something they don’t change their minds unless the whole herd changes its mind. Or, in this case, the whole flock.
Fly away loons!

Reply to  James McGinn
November 4, 2015 8:40 am

micro6500
Except the section I referenced, and you looked at and I then quoted was about evaporating water. He also defined the kinetic energy as liquid, as it evaporated and after.
JM:
Your claims were about H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding, you delusional loon.

Reply to  James McGinn
November 4, 2015 9:00 am

No a$$but it was about the kinetic energy of evaporating molecule, you moved the goal post, what I said was Feynman was an expert on those topics, as they are all examples of quantum mechanics, and He was the giant in our time on the topic.
I’m not going to do your work for you, go start with Vol I chapter 40, and Vol II chapter 11. But you didn’t even understand the first chapter I pointed to, you’re just another troll.
You’re right Richard, I’m done.

Reply to  James McGinn
November 4, 2015 9:17 am

JM:
Your claims were about H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding, you delusional loon.
micro6500
No a$$but it was about the kinetic energy of evaporating molecule,
JM:
It’s right there in black and white. Read the freeking thread, you delusional loon.

Reply to  James McGinn
November 4, 2015 12:29 pm

micro6500:
Nah, but I did put you in the clueless category. You are telling us, we need to change our mind, but give no science to support that,
James McGinn:
None of you loons has a firm enough grasp of the evidence to be capable of having a firm opinion. You are a bunch of politically motivated nitwits that just blow in the wind of whatever is fashionable for people of your political perspective.

Reply to  James McGinn
November 4, 2015 12:43 pm

dbstealey:
The chart by Phil. is very familiar to me. It shows the triple point of water,
James McGinn:
We weren’t discussing the triple point of water, you loon. Frickin stick to the point.
dbstealey:
and one of those parameters makes it clear that H2O is also a gas at certain temperature/pressure points.
James McGinn:
Stop blabbing, you loon. Address the issue.
dbstealey:
This is basic physics. The triple point of hydrogen is used in many instruments as a primary calibration standard. And so on.
James McGinn:
Who cares. Address the issue or go away.

Reply to  James McGinn
November 4, 2015 2:40 pm

McGinn asserts:
The weight of moist air in comparison to dry air (controlling for all other factors) is easily testable.
Yes, it is. But you never answered when I pointed out that the N2 (Nitrogen) molecule is heavier than H2O, and that the O2 (Oxygen) molecule is also heavier than H2O.
You wrote upthread:
Moist air at ambient temps ALWAYS weighs more than dry air.
If you believe that, no wonder you’re so thoroughly confused.
The atmosphere comprises about 78% N2 (atomic weight: 28) and about 21% O2 (weight: 32). I’m not a chemist, but that shows that dry air is heavier than air containing H2O gas (weight: 18). There’s also Avogadro’s Law, which makes the number of molecules equal at STP. So aside from your claim that gaseous water doesn’t exist in the atmosphere, it is obvious that air containing water vapor is lighter than dry air.
No wonder you engage in so much juvenile name-calling. You’re getting demolished by facts.

Reply to  James McGinn
November 4, 2015 12:48 pm

James McGinn:
It’s a pity he never mentioned such in any of his lectures. Why would he conceal this from the public? What would be his motive? Wouldn’t it make more sense that you are delusional?”
Micro6500:
Except the section I referenced, and you looked at and I then quoted was about evaporating water. He also defined the kinetic energy as liquid, as it evaporated and after.
James McGinn:
You claimed that he understood H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding, you fruitcake.

Reply to  James McGinn
November 4, 2015 2:48 pm

You call people who don’t agree with your preposterous notions “you loon”, “you fruitcake”, “you birdbrain”, you “politically motivated nitwits”, you “twits”, and several other pejoratives. Those are your arguments.
If you had credible facts to support your pseudo-science, there would be no need to keep insulting everyone. Your facts would speak for themselves.
But the nonsense you’re peddling is so ridiculous that I suspect you’re just trying to get some eyeballs over to your very low-traffic blog. Why else? The things you’re asserting are plainly ridiculous, and don’t withstand even the mildest scrutiny.
Finally, I see from your bio that you are self-taught, and it looks like you don’t work in a scientific field. There’s nothing wrong with not having a PhD, or having no degree in the hard sciences, or not working in a science-related career. But for every Einstein, there are about ten thousand astrologers, Scientologists, and phrenologists. From your contrary to reality beliefs, I’d suspect you belong in the latter subset.

richardscourtney
Reply to  James McGinn
November 4, 2015 1:06 pm

Friends:
I write to point out that although James McGinn persists in pretending he is a scientific genius who refutes basic physical principles he refuses to answer any specific questions put to him.
I repeat my suggestion that we have reached the point of not feeding the troll and write to make a further suggestion.
McGinn claims to be President of the strangely named organisation ‘Solving Tornadoes’. So, whenever McGinn makes another of his posts (all of which are daft) he is again asked questions put to him by dbstealey about that Presidency; viz.
Who elected him President?
When was the election held?
And no responses other than those questions should be made to James McGinn until he answers those questions. Otherwise he can be anticipated to persist in his disruption of threads.
Richard

Reply to  James McGinn
November 4, 2015 3:19 pm

micro thanks for this Feynman quote, which also confirms the gravito-thermal effect and that gravity continuously does thermodynamic work upon air parcels:
“It is like the atmosphere in equilibrium under gravity, where the gas at the bottom is denser than that at the top because of the work mgh needed to lift the gas molecules to the height h.”

Reply to  hockeyschtick
November 4, 2015 4:11 pm

” which also confirms the gravito-thermal effect and that gravity continuously does thermodynamic work upon air parcels:”
I thought it delightfully ironic the fake and not pretending genius AB didn’t recognize it’s the physics that describes convection that he can’t find because it’s not real and no one can explain it.

Reply to  James McGinn
November 4, 2015 3:19 pm

dbstealey
There’s also Avogadro’s Law, which makes the number of molecules equal at STP.
James McGinn:
No, idiot. There is no steam in earth’s atmosphere.
Avogadro’s Law is not strictly based on molecular weght, it deals with particle weight to account for the fact that some molecules (like H2O) clump together. For H2O the correct number is 18 x X. X being highly variable but never less than 10. 10 x 18 = 180. 180 is heavier than 28 or 32.
You obviously have no clue what Avogadro’s law is about.
You are too stupid for science. Stick with the politics of global warming. Science isn’t for you. Sorry.

Reply to  James McGinn
November 4, 2015 3:26 pm

richardscourtney
I write to point out that although James McGinn persists in pretending he is a scientific genius who refutes basic physical principles he refuses to answer any specific questions put to him.
James McGinn:
I’m not pretending.

Reply to  James McGinn
November 4, 2015 7:19 pm

dbstealey:
There’s nothing wrong with not having a PhD, . . .
James McGinn:
In and of itself having a PhD isn’t a bad thing. But if you are trying to do cutting edge work it can be severely limiting. As you stated below, in order to have any credibility in meteorology (or climatology) you have to believe certain “facts.” If, for example, you happen to believe that the notion that moist air at ambient temperatures contains steam is absurd, as do I, you have no chance of even getting accepted to a PhD program. You also have no chance of making any breakthroughs.
I had the chance to go that route. I chose not to. And I am extremely glad I did not. Because if I had I would have been beholden to the brain-dead paradigm and their brain-numbing, pretend, “facts.”
For those interested in making scientific progress, a PhD program is a trap from which few escape.

Reply to  James McGinn
November 4, 2015 8:18 pm

J. McGinn,
Wow, three comments in a row! And three in a row before that. And another 3 in a row before that! It’s amusing to see you get spun up like this. Here, I’ll spin you up some more. You say:
For somebody that is sure I am mistaken you sure are spending a lot of time on this.
Wrong again. I’m not sure you’re wrong; I’m certain of it.
I also remind you: three comments in a row from you. Repeatedly. And you say I’m spending a lot of time here?? Your biggest failing, after your wacky pseudo-science beliefs is your psychological projection. We can see it in almost every insulting comment you make. I’ll bet there are no mirrors in your mom’s basement. Amirite?  ☺
Next, you kindly claim:
No, idiot. There is no steam in earth’s atmosphere.
That’s not even wrong; it’s too vague. But I think I know what you mean, since you’ve repeatedly claimed that gaseous H2O cannot exist in the Earth’s atmosphere. You actually seem to believe that water vapor cannot exist there, because it would require boiling water. heh
So, what’s your definition of steam? If it’s ‘steam = H2O in its gaseous state’, then yes, there’s plenty of water vapor in the atmosphere.
Where are you getting you misinformation from, anyway? Do you just invent it?
Admit it: you’re just making up your preposterous nonsense to get a rise out of folks. That would make far more sense than any of your anti-science beliefs.
And for good measure you add:
You are too stupid for science.
You don’t have many friends, do you? You are more insulting, and call people more names than everyone else here put together. Doubled and squared. And I know the reason:
You insult people and call them names because you are getting zero traction here on the internet’s “Best Science” site. You are extremely frustrated because you can’t get anyone to buy into your pseudo-scientific claptrap. What else do you have, but your impotent name-calling? You have no credible education, and your conjectures are based on a complete misunderstanding and/or rejection of basic physics. You regularly make statements that make other folks think, “That’s crazy!”
You’re good for a laugh though, James. You remind rational readers that people like you actually exist out there. What’s really scary is that you’re old enough to vote… you are, aren’t you?

Reply to  James McGinn
November 4, 2015 7:27 pm

richardscourtney:
All onlookers can now see that whoever or whatever is posting as James McGinn is disrupting threads by only posting ridiculous nonsense which he/she/they/it refuses to retract when repeatedly shown to be wrong.
James McGinn:
If you think I’m wrong on a particular point why not make an argument to that effect instead of whining.
I think people that lack the ability to think independently tend to resent those that don’t.

November 2, 2015 2:00 pm

richardscourtney:
Well, meteorology gets predictions of storms
James McGinn:
Meteorology’s storm theory plays no role in the synoptics that underlie their forecasts. So, your argument pivots off an apples and oranges comparison.
Ptolemaic theory of celestial motion could predict eclipses. Galileo’s observations showed that it was a nonsense theory. Unfortunately, many of its adherents simply refused to look through Galileo’s telescope. Consequently it took hundreds of years for Galileo’s truths to be accepted.
richardscourtney:
More importantly, your fixation on meteorology has no relevance to dbstealey’s observation that the AGW-scare is pathological science and that climatological scare threatens immense costs; e.g. the “Climate Fund” intended to be adopted at the Paris CoP next month is hoped to be $100 billion per year.
James McGinn:
Belief in climate change runs very deep. But, apparently, not as deep as those for Meteorology’s convection notion of storm theory.
A pathological science is pathological based on facts, not based on a price tag.

richardscourtney
Reply to  James McGinn
November 2, 2015 2:52 pm

James McGinn:
I am amused by your pathetic wriggling in response to the several refutations of your daft assertions by several people.
Your most recent pathetic wriggle is in response to my having pointed out one silliness you have provided.
You wrote

According to this definition meteorology’s storm theory is a pathological science. Unfortunately they don’t care nor does most of the rest of the populace.

I answered

Well, meteorology gets predictions of storms right better than chance would suggest so it is NOT pathological science and, anyway, if it were then it would not cost much so there is no reason for anybody to “care” about it.
More importantly, your fixation on meteorology has no relevance to dbstealey’s observation that the AGW-scare is pathological science and that climatological scare threatens immense costs; e.g. the “Climate Fund” intended to be adopted at the Paris CoP next month is hoped to be $100billion per year.

and you have responded

Belief in climate change runs very deep. But, apparently, not as deep as those for Meteorology’s convection notion of storm theory.
A pathological science is pathological based on facts, not based on a price tag.

No,dear boy, I said PRICE TAG IS A REASON TO CARE.
Which is why your claim that people not caring about failings of meteorology is “unfortunate” is plain daft.

I await your next pathetic wriggle.
Richard

Reply to  richardscourtney
November 3, 2015 12:48 am

Hmm. How about if we refer to climatology as an expensive pathological science and meteorology as a cheap pathological science? Fair enough?

richardscourtney
Reply to  richardscourtney
November 3, 2015 12:51 am

James McGinn :
Hmm. How about if we refer to the comments of James McGinn as being nonsensical waste of space in the thread? Fair enough?
Richard