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.

Advertisements

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

  1. 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.

    • 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?

      • 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.

        • “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.

      • ..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

  2. 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

  3. 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.”

    • 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?

      • 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?

      • 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?

      • 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?

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

      • 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.

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

    • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • @ 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?

      • @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).

        • 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!

      • 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?)

      • 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.

      • @ 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • @ 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.

      • 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.

      • 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?

      • 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.

  5. 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

    • 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.

      • 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

      • 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.

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

      • “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.

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

      • “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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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?

    • 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?

  6. 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).

    • 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

      • “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

    • 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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).

  9. 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.

    • “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.

      • 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.

    • 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. “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

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

  15. 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.

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

  17. 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

    • 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).

      • 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

    • 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

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

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

      • 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.

    • 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. ^_~

  20. 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

  21. 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.

    • 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.

    • 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)

    • “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.

      • 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.

  22. 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.

  23. …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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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.

    • 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!

  26. 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.

    • 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?

      • 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.

  27. 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?

  28. 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

    • 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.

  29. 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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?!

  30. 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.

  31. 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.

    • 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.

  32. 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?

  33. “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

  34. “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?

  35. “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.)

  36. 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!

  37. “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!

  38. 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).

  39. 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.

    • 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

  40. 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

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

    • 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?

  42. 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.

  43. 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.

    • 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.

      • 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?

      • 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.

      • 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:
        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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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. ☺

      • 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 🙂

  44. “…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’…

  45. 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

  46. 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

    • 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.

  47. 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.

    • 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’.

      • 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.

        • 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.

      • 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.

        • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

        • 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.

      • 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’…

      • 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.

      • 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.

  48. 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.

  49. 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

  50. 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

      • 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!

        • 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?

      • 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.

        • 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

        • (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.

      • 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

      • 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.

      • 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.

        • 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?

      • 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.

        • 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.

        • 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.

      • 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.

        • 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.

      • 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

      • 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!

      • 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.

        • 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.

        • 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.

        • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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)

        • @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.

      • 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).

      • 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.

      • 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?

        • 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).

      • 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.

        • 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?

      • 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?

      • 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?

      • 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.

        • 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.

      • 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.

        • ” 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?

      • 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.

        • 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? ☺

      • 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?

        • 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.

      • 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?

        • ” 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.

      • 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

      • 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.

      • 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!

      • 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.

        • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

        • 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.

      • 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.

        • 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.

      • 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

      • 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.”

        • ” 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

        • 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?

      • 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.

  51. 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.

    • 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

      • 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

      • James McGinn November 3, 2015 at 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?)

        Exactly, as the reference I quoted showed water vapor is the correct terminology for the gas phase of water,
        here it is again:
        http://www.chem.ucla.edu/harding/IGOC/W/water.html
        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?
        Like a former poster on here, Steve Goddard, you don’t understand phase diagrams, the pressure scale is the partial pressure of water, not the atmospheric pressure!
        Water only becomes a gas above its boiling point.
        No water exists as a gas at any temperature in that yellow zone. The boiling point is defined as the temperature at which the vapor pressure of water equals one atmosphere, at the triple point the vapor pressure of water is 0.006 atm at a temperature of 0.01ºC. Below the triple point temperature water can only exist in two phases, solid and vapor.
        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?

        No it doesn’t, it indicates that the vapor pressure of water at 100ºC is 1 atm!
        So, according to this chart, there can be zero gaseous H2O in Earth’s atmosphere.
        No, the chart shows that water vapor can exist anywhere in the earth’s atmosphere, at -50ºC the vapor pressure is 1Pa (1µatm), at 100ºC the vapor pressure is 100kPa (1 atm)
        Think carefully before you respond.
        Something you should have done before starting this nonsense.

        • Phil., who made the comment above that “No water exists as a gas at any temperature in that yellow zone.”? It’s hard to tell. But it’s wrong, so I assume it’s a McGinn quote.
          Also, check out the reader comments under McGinn’s e-book. They seem to echo everyone else’s comments here.
          McGinn’s own bio says:
          I am a serial science theorist. I’m obsesses (sic) with finding what people think is true but really isn’t and then using knowledge from other disciplines to reveal what is actually true. The two books I’ve authored here for kindle are in the field of meteorology. And even though I took classes in meteorology (as an Earth Sciences Major) I don’t consider myself a Meteorologist. My other interests include Paleoanthropology, Climatology, and Complexity Theory, and Physics.
          That could explain his hatred of meteorology and meteorologists.
          And who is Claudius Denk? He seems equally nuts. Is he another “serial science theorist”?

      • Phil. November 4, 2015 at 11:01 am
        James McGinn November 3, 2015 at 2:36 pm
        “Water only becomes a gas above its boiling point.”
        No, water exists as a gas at any temperature in that yellow zone. The boiling point is defined as the temperature at which the vapor pressure of water equals one atmosphere, at the triple point the vapor pressure of water is 0.006 atm at a temperature of 0.01ºC. Below the triple point temperature water can only exist in two phases, solid and vapor.

        Sorry for the typo (the missing comma), it completely changed the meaning on the sentence, corrected version above.

      • Phil. November 4, 2015 at 11:01 am
        Phil:
        No water exists as a gas at any temperature in that yellow zone.
        James McGinn:
        Right. Just as a said. They use the word vapor. Which is what has you confused.
        Phil:
        Water vapor exists everywhere in the yellow portion of this diagram,
        James McGinn
        Make up your fricking mind.
        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?
        Phil:
        No it doesn’t, it indicates that the vapor pressure of water at 100ºC is 1 atm!
        James McGinn:
        Wrong. They just used the wrong word in their chart. This is just semantics.
        James McGinn:
        So, according to this chart, there can be zero gaseous H2O in Earth’s atmosphere.
        Phil:
        No, the chart shows that water vapor can exist anywhere in the earth’s atmosphere,
        James McGinn:
        The temperature in earths atmosphere is never over 100 degrees C!
        You are worse than a global warming advocate.

      • James McGinn
        “Water only becomes a gas above its boiling point.”
        Phil:
        No, water exists as a gas at any temperature in that yellow zone.
        James McGinn:
        The line between blue and yellow (pink on my computer) is the boiling points at different temperatures. According to this chart there is zero gaseous H2O (for some strange reason they use the word vapor when they should us the word gas) in earth’s atmosphere.
        BTW: the chart refers to atmospheric pressure, not vapor pressure. (Vapor pressure cannot be measured outside of a closed container, for the most part.)

      • dbstealey:
        Phil., who made the comment above that “No water exists as a gas at any temperature in that yellow zone.”? It’s hard to tell. But it’s wrong,
        James McGinn:
        LOL. Now you retards are putting words in my mouth. Phil made that dumbass comment.
        You are worse that a global warming advocate.

      • James McGinn:
        The line between blue and yellow (pink on my computer) is the boiling points at different temperatures.
        Oops. I meant to say it is the boiling point at different pressures.

      • Phil:
        Exactly, as the reference I quoted showed water vapor is the correct terminology for the gas phase of water,
        here it is again:
        http://www.chem.ucla.edu/harding/IGOC/W/water.html
        James McGinn:
        The nomenclature is used interchangeably. Which appears to have left you permanently confused.
        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?
        Phil:
        Like a former poster on here, Steve Goddard, you don’t understand phase diagrams, the pressure scale is the partial pressure of water, not the atmospheric pressure!
        James McGinn:
        Steve is correct. It’s the atmospheric pressure. You are a kook who is easily confused by semantic ambiguity. Find a new hobby. Science is full of these little land mines.

      • James McGinn November 4, 2015 at 12:18 pm
        Phil:
        Exactly, as the reference I quoted showed water vapor is the correct terminology for the gas phase of water,
        here it is again:
        http://www.chem.ucla.edu/harding/IGOC/W/water.html
        James McGinn:
        The nomenclature is used interchangeably. Which appears to have left you permanently confused.

        I’m not the one who’s confused!
        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?
        No, not right. It indicates that at ambient temperature water vapor and liquid water co-exist.
        Phil:
        Like a former poster on here, Steve Goddard, you don’t understand phase diagrams, the pressure scale is the partial pressure of water, not the atmospheric pressure!
        James McGinn:
        Steve is correct. It’s the atmospheric pressure. You are a kook who is easily confused by semantic ambiguity. Find a new hobby. Science is full of these little land mines.

        Indeed, and like Steve you’ve stepped on one! The phase diagram represents all the physical states of a single substance under different conditions of temperature and pressure. In the case of water the pressure axis is PH2O.

      • James McGinn:
        Steve is correct. It’s the atmospheric pressure. You are a kook who is easily confused by semantic ambiguity. Find a new hobby. Science is full of these little land mines.
        Phil:
        Indeed, and like Steve you’ve stepped on one! The phase diagram represents all the physical states of a single substance under different conditions of temperature and pressure.
        James McGinn:
        Obviously. Do you have a point?
        Phil:
        In the case of water the pressure axis is PH2O.
        James McGinn:
        It’s a phase diagram, dumbass. Do you know what 1 ATM means? On that 1 ATM line draw a circle half way between the 0 and the 100. Make it about as big as a dime. Then label that circle with the words, Earths Atmosphere. Take note of the fact that the circle is completely in the blue area of the diagram. Take note of the fact that no part of that circle is in the white or the yellow part of the diagram.
        Once you have realized that you made a complete jackass out of yourself, shut off your computer and go back to watching cartoons.

      • James McGinn November 4, 2015 at 10:15 pm
        James McGinn:
        Steve is correct. It’s the atmospheric pressure. You are a kook who is easily confused by semantic ambiguity. Find a new hobby. Science is full of these little land mines.
        Phil:
        Indeed, and like Steve you’ve stepped on one! The phase diagram represents all the physical states of a single substance under different conditions of temperature and pressure.
        James McGinn:
        Obviously. Do you have a point?
        Phil:
        In the case of water the pressure axis is PH2O.
        James McGinn:
        It’s a phase diagram, dumbass. Do you know what 1 ATM means?

        Yes it means that the pressure of water is equal to 1 atm (100kPa)
        On that 1 ATM line draw a circle half way between the 0 and the 100. Make it about as big as a dime. Then label that circle with the words, Earths Atmosphere.
        Since the vapor pressure of water in the earth’s atmosphere is much less than 1atm that’s incorrect, ‘surface waters of the ocean’ would be more accurate.
        Once you have realized that you made a complete jackass out of yourself, shut off your computer and go back to watching cartoons.
        Good idea, I suggest you do so.

      • James McGinn November 4, 2015 at 10:15 pm
        On that 1 ATM line draw a circle half way between the 0 and the 100. Make it about as big as a dime. Then label that circle with the words, Earths Atmosphere. Take note of the fact that the circle is completely in the blue area of the diagram. Take note of the fact that no part of that circle is in the white or the yellow part of the diagram.

        For correct use of the phase diagram do the following.
        Let’s say that the temperature of the atmosphere near the surface ranges from -50ºC to 40ºC.
        On the phase diagram draw a vertical line from -50 to the line separating the white and yellow zones, then draw a vertical line from 40 to the line separating the blue and yellow zone. The yellow region bounded by those two lines represents the Earth’s Atmosphere, if the atmosphere goes above that region water vapor will condense out (i.e. clouds and fog).

      • James McGinn:
        Do you know what 1 ATM means?
        Phil:
        Yes it means that the pressure of water is equal to 1 atm (100kPa)
        James McGinn:
        Wrong. It is the atmospheric pressure at the surface of our planet. As you go up in altitude the pressure goes down. (It is very confusing that they refer to gaseous H2O [steam] as, “water vapor.” Undoubtedly this was constructed by some dumbass meteorologists.)
        No part of earth’s atmosphere is in the yellow (orange) area.
        You don’t understand the diagram.

      • James McGinn November 5, 2015 at 9:35 am
        James McGinn:
        Do you know what 1 ATM means?
        Phil:
        Yes it means that the pressure of water is equal to 1 atm (100kPa)
        James McGinn:
        Wrong. It is the atmospheric pressure at the surface of our planet. As you go up in altitude the pressure goes down. (It is very confusing that they refer to gaseous H2O [steam] as, “water vapor.” Undoubtedly this was constructed by some dumbass meteorologists.)

        No it was used in a geosciences website from Carleton university but the terminology ‘water vapor’, ‘vaporization’, ‘vapor phase’, etc. is used throughout chemistry. As used in this diagram, atm is just a unit of pressure and has no meaning other than that. Here’s another version of the Phase diagram using SI units, perhaps you won’t find it so confusing:
        http://www.phy.duke.edu/~hsg/363/table-images/water-phase-diagram.gif
        This one is from the Physics Dept at Duke university.
        No part of earth’s atmosphere is in the yellow (orange) area.
        On the contrary, it all is!
        You don’t understand the diagram.
        Actually I understand it very well, you, however, don’t have a clue.

        • J. McGinn says the diagram shows that water cannot be a gas at the indicated pressures and temperatures.
          Phil. replied:
          On the contrary, it all is!
          Phil. is correct. Global T is a little under 15ºC. That’s ≈287º K .
          There have been millions of empirical (real world) measurements made, confirming that water vapor (gaseous H2O) is a component of the atmosphere; a major component, higher than Argon or CO2. But James McGinn says that water vapor does not exist in the atmosphere. He is so certain that he shouts it in ALL CAPS.
          Readers can decide for themselves who is right, and who is wrong.

      • James McGinn:
        Do you know what 1 ATM means?
        Phil:
        Yes it means that the pressure of water is equal to 1 atm (100kPa)
        James McGinn:
        It is the atmospheric pressure at the surface of our planet.
        Phil:
        No it was used in a geosciences website from Carleton university
        James McGinn:
        Yeah, so. It is the atmospheric pressure at the surface of our planet. This isn’t debatable. This is an established and agreed upon convention.
        Why don’t you provide a link so that the audience can see the legend and any accompanying caption?
        Phil:
        but the terminology ‘water vapor’, ‘vaporization’, ‘vapor phase’, etc. is used throughout chemistry.
        James McGinn:
        No duh. Unfortunately this terminology is not used consistently. Thus there is a lot of potential for ambiguity. Amateurs constantly make errors as a result. And this often leads to them drawing ridiculous conclusions.
        Phil:
        As used in this diagram, atm is just a unit of pressure and has no meaning other than that.
        James McGinn:
        That is an absurd claim.

      • dbstealey:
        J. McGinn says the diagram shows that water cannot be a gas at the indicated pressures and temperatures.
        Phil. replied:
        On the contrary, it all is!
        dbstealey:
        Phil. is correct. Global T is a little under 15ºC. That’s ≈287º K.
        James McGinn:
        You lost me. This whole conversation is more and more starting to resemble a conversation with the AGW whackos. I can’t keep up with your lunacy.
        dbstealey:
        There have been millions of empirical (real world) measurements . . .
        James McGinn:
        These are the kind of lunatic claims that global warming advocates make all the time.
        dbstealey:
        Readers can decide for themselves who is right, and who is wrong.
        James McGinn:
        I’m afraid you will leave our readers confused. (I know I am.) But, to your benefit, that tactic seems to have worked very well for Al Gore and his merry band of environmental pirates.

        • McGinn,
          Every one of your counter “arguments” is nothing more than a baseless assertion. Your opinion, nothing more.
          You’re not really “confused” as you say (I could have fun with that, but I won’t). You just lack any credible arguments.
          At this point it’s up to any readers who want to step up and defend your belief system: that there is no water vapor in the atmosphere. I would sincerely like to hear from anyone else who believes that. Because it’s so preposterous that it may be you’re just having fun trolloing this thread with that kind of pseudo-science.

  52. J. McGinn says:
    …clouds that are calculated to be 10% heavier than dry air don’t drop out of the sky
    I thought water vapor was lighter than dry air (H2O, vs N2 + O2).
    Next:
    You are fixated on climatology.
    Umm-m, maybe I’m interested because this is the internet’s #1 climate site? I’m interested in the subject because it is science being perverted into a political movement. There’s little comparison between that, and your singling out of meteorology.
    OK, I’ve answered you; your turn now:
    Why haven’t you shown via experiment that your windmill/drought hypothesis is valid? That’s what got me interested. That’s what I’ve been asking you about. But you keep deflecting onto other things.
    Your hypothesis (that downwind from windmill farms there should be increasing droughts) is very easy to confirm — if it’s true. There are wind farms all around the world, and precipitation records are available almost everywhere.
    So it shouldn’t be difficult at all to validate your hypothesis. In fact, it’s one of the easiest I can think of. All the data is there, most for free, and it’s just waiting for you to demonstrate conclusively that droughts increase downwind after wind farms are built. With literally hundreds of locations available to you, I’m surprised you haven’t done the experiment yet. You could really leave a mark — if you wanted to. And, of course, if you’re right.
    As I wrote upthread, I had high hopes for your hypothesis. It was interesting and provacative. But ever since then you’ve done nothing but change the subject, deflect, and as usual, attack meteorology and Meteorologists.
    Isn’t it time to put up? The ball is in your court. You made the claim. Now show us.

  53. Your hypothesis (that downwind from windmill farms there should be increasing droughts) is very easy to confirm — if it’s true. There are wind farms all around the world, and precipitation records are available almost everywhere.
    JM:
    It would still be anecdotal. It would not be immune to accusations of cherry picking. It would not be a controlled experiment. So it wouldn’t be very convincing.

    • JM,
      I give up. I know dodging, weaving, and deflection when I see it. The excuses you give could apply just as easily to any scientific hypothesis. They are lame excuses. That’s all they are.
      The precipitation data is freely available (in other words, it’s free of cost). It is ubiquitous, and it is not questioned by other scientists. So your hypothesis would be very easy to test, and to prove — if you believed it yourself.
      But you don’t believe it, do you? That’s OK, you’ve now convinced me that it is a failed hypothesis, because of the weak excuses you use to avoid confronting your own fear that it isn’t true.
      Too bad. I had high hopes you were onto something there.

  54. I just found a very relevant recent comment in a newspaper:
    ======================
    My colleagues are silent because they realized the futility of reasoning with you more quickly than I did.
    I thought references pointing out that you are completely and totally wrong in virtually everything you post might just get through to you.
    But it didn’t.

    -LipperF in response to …. James McGinn
    http://www.mercurynews.com/milpitas/ci_29064730/milpitas-second-accident-blocks-southbound-i-880-lanes
    ====================
    14 days ago.
    🙂

  55. dbstealey:
    Mr. McGinn should realize that when he labels everyone else “delusional”, he is once again projecting.)
    James McGinn:
    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.

  56. J. McGinn, says:
    When… nobody can explain why…
    McGinn, everyone here has been trying to explain basic physics to you. It’s just that you are blind to any facts that don’t confirm your bias.
    Re-read the comments. You will see that numerous explanations and sources have been posted. But your response to the basic facts that contradict your belief system is just like some of the climate alarmist crowd, who insist against plenty of verifiable evidence that global warming never stopped.
    And your constant projecting of your own faults onto everyone else gets tiresome. There is a reason that society employs teachers and professors, so your discounting them as a mere “consensus” is simply your way of refusing to acknowledge standard physics. Calling someone a “birdbrain” and a “loon” for a difference of opinion doesn’t get you a lot of supporters, either.
    I tried to be supportive at first, because your proposed hypothesis intrigued me. But your excuses for not testing it are a clear admission that you strongly suspect what the results would be: that there would be no observation of droughts consistently increasing downwind from windmill farms.
    No problem there, most hypotheses turn out to have problems. The real problem is your attitude that everyone else is completely wrong about everything. But in your case here, a lot of what you’re arguing against is trivially provable. For example, the atmosphere has ≈1% – ≈4% water vapor, meaning H2O as a gas. No freshman Physics professor would disagree that the atmosphere contains much more water in gaseous form than CO2, or even Argon.
    So that isn’t in dispute anywhere else; it’s an accepted fact. And convection is an accepted fact. By continuing to argue that they’re not true just erases your credibility. Why would you want to do that?

    • db what gets me is, I don’t really care if he thinks I’m wrong, I’ve been wrong before, and I’ll be wrong again, but when I point to Dr Feynman’s lecture on his topic that proves he’s wrong, he must either think he’s more versed in physics, or he doesn’t know who he is, and well if you claim to know physics, and don’t know of the guy who invented his own method of solving QM’s (and got a Nobel prize for it, one of only 3 methods), and it directly provides the physics that he denies, which is all explained by QM, well I’m not responding to him anymore, and it explains his stellar reviews of his books.

      • micro6500:
        db what gets me is, I don’t really care if he thinks I’m wrong, I’ve been wrong before, and I’ll be wrong again, but when I point to Dr Feynman’s lecture on his topic that proves he’s wrong, he must either think he’s more versed in physics, or he doesn’t know who he is, and well if you claim to know physics, and don’t know of the guy who invented his own method of solving QM’s (and got a Nobel prize for it, one of only 3 methods), and it directly provides the physics that he denies, which is all explained by QM, well I’m not responding to him anymore, and it explains his stellar reviews of his books.
        James McGinn:
        Listen you ignorant SOB. I would love to see that Feynman had an understanding of H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding. I’ve been looking for it. 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.
        (Please stop calling people names just because they have a different point of view. -mod)

        • Listen you ignorant SOB. I would love to see that Feynman had an understanding of H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding.

          Bwhahahahahahaha
          snort, snort
          Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    • dbstealey:
      For example, the atmosphere has ≈1% – ≈4% water vapor,
      James McGinn:
      True.
      dbstealey:
      meaning H2O as a gas.
      James McGinn:
      The chart that dumb Phil introduced and that you subsequently endorsed clearly and unambiguously indicates that H2O is a LIQUID at the temperatures of the atmosphere. Open your eyes and look you dumb SOB. The H2O suspended in our atmosphere is liquid, droplets. (And as long as the droplets are smaller than a photon they are invisible.)
      dbstealey:
      No freshman Physics professor would disagree
      James McGinn:
      On this point I agree with you–sadly.
      dbstealey:
      So that isn’t in dispute anywhere else
      James McGinn:
      Correct. In fact it has never been in dispute anywhere. Ever!
      Consensus sciences don’t contest anything. They just agree to agree. And mostly they agree to whatever can be easily conveyed to a gullible public. The reason they won’t test this notion (a notion which is plainly contradicted by the chart Phil introduced and you endorsed) is because then they would have to abandon the convection model of storm theory altogether.
      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.
      dbstealey:
      it’s an accepted fact. And convection is an accepted fact. By continuing to argue that they’re not true just erases your credibility. Why would you want to do that?
      James McGinn:
      LOL. And if you want to be credible as a climatologist you have to accept that CO2 is causing climate change. Right? I have no interest in that kind of credibility.
      In science people that are concerned with credibility and consensus have a ball and chain that will prevent them from ever making progress.
      For somebody that is sure I am mistaken you sure are spending a lot of time on this. Hmm.

    • 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 (see below). And meteorology’s notions of storm theory are revealed as the pseudoscience they have always been.
      (You have no substantive dispute with this assertion. All you have is an authority based dispute based on a guy, Feynman (who had no understanding of H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding), who would have advised you against authority based disputes/assertions.)
      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 (upthread). 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. (It is steam originally, but quickly cools) 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. (This is why the white vapor that comes out of trains [usually] disappears within 30 seconds or so.)
      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).
      (If you can’t see this there is no hope for you ever breaking away from the brain-numbing effects of the meteorological paradigm.)
      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.
      Also, stop whining. If you have a substantive dispute then present it. Otherwise, kindly go away.

      • There are thoroughly substantive disputes to the assertion that water cannot exist as a gas below 212F in the atmosphere. Metrologists have measured the weight/density of moist vs dry air to extreme accuracy and found that moist air is lighter/less dense. Radiative transfer measurements in the atmosphere indicate that the overwhelming majority of water molecules in the atmosphere are in a gaseous state. Experimental data comparing differences between the measured diffusion coefficient and the predicted diffusion coefficient by monomolecular water vapor and by microdroplets of water in cool air clearly indicate that water vapor is present.
        This argument is fanciful nonsense.

      • McGinn keeps digging his hole deeper:
        THERE IS NO STEAM (GASEOUS H2O) IN EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE.
        There is no university Physics department that would agree with that. McGinn also asserts:
        All you have is an authority based dispute based on a guy, Feynman (who had no understanding of H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding), who would have advised you against authority based disputes/assertions…. You see, I figured this out… Consensus is for suckers. &etc.
        First, ‘consensus’: McGinn misunderstands the ‘appeal to authority’ logical fallacy, which only applies to an ‘authority’ that is not speaking from expertise in a particular field (like a movie star explaining “climate change”), or an ‘authority’ that has been corrupted by outside influence, or otherwise compromised.
        Prof Feynman was none of those things, thus he is a universally accepted authority in physics. But McGinn contradicts Feynman. Therefore, one of them is right, and the other one must ipso facto be wrong. Readers can make up their own minds which is which.
        Next, McGinn asserts:
        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.
        That statement ( that water in the atmosphere is only found in its liquid state) is contradicted by many thousands, if not millions of empirical measurements over many decades. Water in its gaseous state is found almost everywhere in the atmosphere, in typical concentrations of ≈1% to 4%+, depending on location (some Polar regions are very dry). To be very clear: water as a gas is a component of the atmosphere.
        Next, McGinn asserts that:
        …moist air in our atmosphere can only be heavier than dry air
        To better define that vague statement: when we compare dry air (air without any H2O) vs air containing water vapor (air containing H2O as a gas), the dry air will weigh more per volume.
        Finally, McGinn once again projects his own foibles onto others:
        For somebody that is sure I am mistaken you sure are spending a lot of time on this.
        No one has commented on this thread more than McGinn. I won’t presume to ask for a ‘retraction’, because that is just more juvenile game playing; similar to McGinn’s usual ‘gotcha’ attempts. The central issue here (there are others) is McGinn’s complete misunderstanding of basic physics.
        McGinn’s comments are astonishing, in that they are not something dubious or questionable, but nevertheless possibly still arguable; like ‘dangerous AGW’, for example, which is possible, but unlikely.
        But no one here agrees with McGinn’s physics model, in which he denies the existence of any water vapor in the atmosphere, or the existence of convection as a factor in weather.
        To put it simply, McGinn’s beliefs are preposterous.

      • dbstealey:
        McGinn keeps digging his hole deeper:
        THERE IS NO STEAM (GASEOUS H2O) IN EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE.
        There is no university Physics department that would agree with that.
        James McGinn:
        I have two responses to this:
        1) Yes, you are absolutely right, no university Physics department that would agree.
        2) Consensus is for suckers.
        dbstealey:
        McGinn also asserts:
        All you have is an authority based dispute based on a guy, Feynman (who had no understanding of H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding), who would have advised you against authority based disputes/assertions…. You see, I figured this out… Consensus is for suckers. &etc.
        First, ‘consensus’: McGinn misunderstands the ‘appeal to authority’ logical fallacy, which only applies to an ‘authority’ that is not speaking from expertise in a particular field (like a movie star explaining “climate change”), or an ‘authority’ that has been corrupted by outside influence, or otherwise compromised.
        James McGinn:
        LOL. Really? I disagree with you on this point. And, apparently, so would Feynman. I suggest reading his quote again. Commit it to memory.
        dbstealey:
        Prof Feynman was none of those things, thus he is a universally accepted authority in physics. McGinn disputes Feynman. Therefore, one of them is right, and the other one must ipso facto be wrong. Readers can make up their own minds which is which.
        James McGinn:
        So, let me get this straight, if Feynman had appeared in a movie we would be required to ignore him? Hmm.
        dbstealey:
        Next, McGinn asserts:
        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.
        That statement (that water is only found in its liquid state) is contradicted by many thousands, if not millions of empirical measurements over many decades.
        James McGinn:
        Why do you think it is that they are hiding the data from your alleged “empirical measurements” from us? I mean, what would their motive be for concealing it from the public? Doesn’t it make more sense that you are delusional? Be honest.
        Also, if what you are saying is true, why don’t you contact that authors of that Phase Diagram that you endorsed (upthread) and inform them that they need to revise it.
        dbstealey:
        Water in its gaseous state is found almost everywhere in the atmosphere, in typical concentrations of ≈1% to 4%+ depending on location (some Polar regions are very dry). To be very clear: water as a gas is a component of the atmosphere.
        James McGinn:
        If this is really what you believe then why not make a substantive argument to this effect? It should be really easy for you to find the results of one of the, “thousands, if not millions of empirical measurements over many decades,” that you claim took place. Right?
        dbstealey:
        Next, McGinn asserts that:
        …moist air in our atmosphere can only be heavier than dry air
        To better define that vague statement: when we compare dry air (air without any H2O) vs air containing water vapor (air containing H2O as a gas), the dry air will weigh more per volume.
        James McGinn:
        If this is really what you believe then why not make a substantive argument to that effect?
        dbstealey:
        Finally, McGinn once again projects his own foibles onto others:
        “For somebody that is sure I am mistaken you sure are spending a lot of time on this.”
        No one has commented on this thread more than McGinn. I won’t presume to ask for a ‘retraction’, because that is just more juvenile game playing; similar to McGinn’s usual ‘gotcha’ attempts. The central issue here (there are others) is McGinn’s complete misunderstanding of basic physics.
        McGinn’s comments are astonishing, in that they are not something dubious or questionable, but nevertheless possibly still arguable; like ‘dangerous AGW’, for example, which is possible, but unlikely.
        But no one here agrees with McGinn’s physics model, in which he denies the existence of any water vapor in the atmosphere, or the existence of convection as a factor in weather.
        James McGinn:
        Consensus is for suckers. (Oh, and I don’t deny the existence of “water vapor” [evaporate] in earth’s atmosphere. I deny the existence of gaseous H2O [steam] in Earth’s atmosphere. You need to get this distinction straight in your mind. If you have trouble dealing with ambiguous terminology I suggest avoiding science in general and meteorology in particular.)
        dbstealey:
        To put it simply, McGinn’s beliefs are preposterous.
        James McGinn:
        Well, if it is any consolation, I will still allow you to make a retraction.
        I know that would be somewhat embarrassing for you. And I don’t want you to feel embarrassed. How about this. All you have to do is not respond to this comment and I will consider you to have made a full retraction! Fair enough?
        Don’t do it . . . don’t do it . . . think carefully before you click the “Post Comment” button. Don’t do it . . .

      • dm:
        There are thoroughly substantive disputes to the assertion that water cannot exist as a gas below 212F in the atmosphere.
        James McGinn:
        Why do you think it is that they are hiding the data from us? I mean, what would their motive be for concealing it from the public?
        dm:
        Metrologists have measured the weight/density of moist vs dry air to extreme accuracy and found that moist air is lighter/less dense.
        James McGinn:
        Why do you think it is that they are hiding the data from us? I mean, what would their motive be for concealing it from the public?
        dm:
        Radiative transfer measurements in the atmosphere indicate that the overwhelming majority of water molecules in the atmosphere are in a gaseous state.
        James McGinn:
        Why do you think it is that they are hiding the data from us? I mean, what would their motive be for concealing it from the public?
        dm:
        Experimental data comparing differences between the measured diffusion coefficient and the predicted diffusion coefficient by monomolecular water vapor and by microdroplets of water in cool air clearly indicate that water vapor is present.
        James McGinn:
        Why do you think it is that they are hiding the data from us? I mean, what would their motive be for concealing it from the public? (BTW, “water vapor” is not a gas. It is a liquid.)
        dm:
        This argument is fanciful nonsense.
        James McGinn:
        Intellectually, people are sheep. Once they believe something they don’t change their minds unless the whole herd changes its mind. There is no steam (gaseous H20) in earth’s atmosphere. (Even when it is invisible it is liquid [evaporate, vapor]. The notion that invisible moist air contains steam is a myth.) It is far too cool. Don’t believe the sheep. Sheep don’t think. They just follow.

  57. dbstealey
    I have correct facts that support my argument. There is plenty of gaseous H2O in the atmosphere.
    James McGinn:
    Why not make an argument to that effect?
    dbstealey:
    No intelligent, educated person disagrees with that well established fact.
    James McGinn:
    Consensus is for suckers.
    dbstealey:
    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 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.)
    James McGinn:
    I will let Feynman answer that question for me:
    http://amiquote.tumblr.com/post/4463599197/richard-feynman-on-how-we-would-look-for-a-new-law
    dbstealey:
    Next, you say:
    THERE IS NO STEAM (GASEOUS H2O) IN EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE.
    That is so wrong it makes me roll my eyes
    James McGinn:
    You have no dispute. Right?
    “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.”
    dbstealey:
    Anyone who asserts that there is no gaseous H2O, or convection in the atmosphere is starting out with provably wrong assumptions.
    James McGinn:
    It’s regrettable that you appear to be incapable of making a substantive argument to this effect. (I wonder why . . . Hmm.)
    dbstealey:
    Generous guy that I am, I’m still willing to help school you in the basics of physics.
    James McGinn:
    Really?

  58. dbstealey:
    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:
    James McGinn:
    I’m just your ordinary, everyday, run of the mill, garden-variety genius.

  59. WordPress seems to misplace comments on occasion. My response to McGinn’s comment @12:28 pm here appeared above his comment, not below, which is what I replied to. I’ve answered most of McGinn’s points there.
    One that I didn’t answer was McGinn’s assertion:
    Other times you’ve said essentially the same thing: that you are right, and Feynman is wrong.
    Citations, needed. Cut and pasted verbatim, please.
    McGinn is new here, but Prof Feynman’s quote has been posted in text and on video dozens of times here, at least. We’re all familiar with them, and I am in full agreement.

  60. dbstealey:
    McGinn is new here, but Prof Feynman’s quote has been posted in text and on video dozens of times here, at least. We’re all familiar with them, and I am in full agreement.
    James McGinn:
    It’s great that we found something that we agree on.

  61. dm:
    There are thoroughly substantive disputes to the assertion that water cannot exist as a gas below 212F in the atmosphere.
    James McGinn:
    You sound like pompous jerk. What you believe is irrelevant. Put up or shut up.
    dm:
    Metrologists have measured the weight/density of moist vs dry air to extreme accuracy and found that moist air is lighter/less dense.
    James McGinn:
    You are a fool who can’t distinguish between reality and your imagination.
    dm:
    Radiative transfer measurements in the atmosphere indicate that the overwhelming majority of water molecules in the atmosphere are in a gaseous state.
    James McGinn:
    This isn’t even remotely possible. You obviously don’t know what radiative transfer is you silly twit.
    dm:
    Experimental data comparing differences between the measured diffusion coefficient and the predicted diffusion coefficient by monomolecular water vapor and by microdroplets of water in cool air clearly indicate that water vapor is present.
    James McGinn:
    It is clear that you are clueless.
    *************************
    [Reply: You were warned before to stop your name-calling and insulting of other readers who simply have a different point of view than you. This is your second warning. If you wish to continue posting here, stop all your insults and name calling. ~mod.]

  62. 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.
    James McGinn:
    And your hero worship of Feynman isn’t an argument. Feynman had no understanding of hydrogen bonding.
    I wouldn’t pretend to try to educate you in hydrogen bonding. There is a lot to it. But here is a ballpark explanation:
    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.”
    Why Water is Weird http://t.co/nJkR1HE5UI

      • After seeing the regular links to his blog being posted, I’m starting to think that McGinn is trolling here for traffic. I won’t click on his links, because I have no trust or confidence that McGinn understands even basic physics.
        But if McGinn can get the head of even one accredited colllege or university’s head of their physics or chemistry department to post here, agreeing with his belief that water vapor does not exist in the atmosphere, then I’ll retract and apologize.
        I note that McGinn has not been able to get even one other reader to agree with him. That’s not a consensus, that is being totally demolished.

      • dbstealey:
        After seeing the regular links to his blog being posted, I’m starting to think that McGinn is trolling here for traffic. I won’t click on his links, because I have no trust or confidence that McGinn understands even basic physics.
        James McGinn:
        Nobody, certainly not me, is suggesting you are under any obligation to think if you don’t want to.
        dbstealey:
        But if McGinn can get the head of even one accredited college or university’s head of their physics or chemistry department to post here, agreeing with his belief that water vapor does not exist in the atmosphere, then I’ll retract and apologize.
        James McGinn:
        There is already enough consensus nonsense stinking up this thread. Appeals to consensus and appeals to authority are not something I want to be associated with, if it’s all the same to you. However, I would be interested in some reproducible experimental evidence–this being the one and only true arbiter of science.
        What happened to the millions of experiments you keep eluding to? Did they, maybe, take place in some far-away land that has yet to gain access to the internet? LOL. Can you tell us how you know about these experiments? Or is that your special secret?
        dbstealey:
        I note that McGinn has not been able to get even one other reader to agree with him. That’s not a consensus, that is being totally demolished.
        James McGinn:
        Galileo, Newton, Einstein and Wegner were similarly “demolished.” So I think I’m in good company.
        You are becoming a bore.

        • McGinn, everyone else you cited (Galileo, Newton, Einstein and Wegner) had lots of support. Maybe the establishment of the time was opposed to them. But a lot of scientists were in agreement with them. But you have zero supporters.
          There are thousands of colleges and universities. All I ask is that you have ONE verifiable department head post here, agreeing with you that water vapor/steam does not exist in the atmosphere. Just cite one, out of thousands.
          You seem to be living in your own world. And if I’m boring you, no problem; you have no obligation to respond. Just move on.

      • dbstealey:
        McGinn, everyone else you cited (Galileo, Newton, Einstein and Wegner) had lots of support. Maybe the establishment of the time was opposed to them.
        James McGinn:
        Your understanding of science history seems not much better than your understanding of H2O in the atmosphere.

    • James McGinn November 5, 2015 at 7:42 pm
      I wouldn’t pretend to try to educate you in hydrogen bonding. There is a lot to it. But here is a ballpark explanation:

      Judging by your ‘explanation’ you don’t understand it yourself, so it’s just as well that you don’t pretend to educate anyone on the subject.
      Each, highly polar, H2O molecule can be attached to two other H2O molecules on its negative (oxygen) end.
      Actually each water molecule links to four other water molecules via hydrogen bonds, each of which has an attractive force of ~23 kJ/mol compared with the covalent OH bonds which have a bond strength of 492 kJ/mol
      The first breaks off fairly easy. That is the one associated with evaporation. The second does not. It is a hard bond.
      This is nonsense, all the hydrogen bonds are of equal strength
      (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).
      From this total lack of understanding one can deduce nothing of value.
      This is what the actual phases of water look like:
      http://www.scottsmithonline.com/interests/medicalschool/biology/110a/Midterm1Materials/Notes/graphics/figure%2002-15.jpg

      • James McGinn:
        I wouldn’t pretend to try to educate you in hydrogen bonding. There is a lot to it. But here is a ballpark explanation:
        Phil:
        Judging by your ‘explanation’ you don’t understand it yourself, so it’s just as well that you don’t pretend to educate anyone on the subject.
        James McGinn:
        Each, highly polar, H2O molecule can be attached to two other H2O molecules on its negative (oxygen) end.
        Phil:
        Actually each water molecule links to four other water molecules via hydrogen bonds,
        James McGinn:
        Right, but two are on its negative (oxygen) end, as I stated
        Phil:
        each of which has an attractive force of ~23 kJ/mol compared with the covalent OH bonds which have a bond strength of 492 kJ/mol
        James McGinn:
        It’s not that simple, powderpuff. (That may be what it says in your source. But that doesn’t mean is is right.)
        James McGinn:
        The first breaks off fairly easy. That is the one associated with evaporation. The second does not. It is a hard bond.
        Phil:
        This is nonsense, all the hydrogen bonds are of equal strength
        James McGinn:
        Wrong. Here is why:
        http://t.co/AtYiUUhTwA
        James McGinn:
        (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).
        Phil:
        From this total lack of understanding one can deduce nothing of value.
        James McGinn:
        I don’t doubt your sincerity in the least.
        Phil:
        This is what the actual phases of water look like:
        James McGinn:
        One of those three is accurate: the one on gas. The other two are nonsense. Read my webpage (link above) for details.
        H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding are extremely counterintuitive. You aren’t going to get it without a considerable amount of effort. And internet soures will only leave you confused. Sorry I can’t be more helpful in this regard, at this juncture.

      • Phil. November 5, 2015 at 8:18 pm
        BTW, to give you a sense of how strange the H2O molecule is, if you were to switch the labels in a) Solid water (ice) and b) Liquid water it would actually be, in many but not all respects, more accurate.

      • James McGinn November 5, 2015 at 9:28 pm
        James McGinn:
        I wouldn’t pretend to try to educate you in hydrogen bonding. There is a lot to it. But here is a ballpark explanation:
        Phil:
        Judging by your ‘explanation’ you don’t understand it yourself, so it’s just as well that you don’t pretend to educate anyone on the subject.
        James McGinn:
        Each, highly polar, H2O molecule can be attached to two other H2O molecules on its negative (oxygen) end.
        Phil:
        Actually each water molecule links to four other water molecules via hydrogen bonds,
        James McGinn:
        Right, but two are on its negative (oxygen) end, as I stated
        Phil:
        each of which has an attractive force of ~23 kJ/mol compared with the covalent OH bonds which have a bond strength of 492 kJ/mol
        James McGinn:
        It’s not that simple, powderpuff. (That may be what it says in your source. But that doesn’t mean is is right.)

        Actually it is that simple! Looking at any individual H2O molecule there are two hydrogen bonds associated with the O end of the molecule (where the slight negative charge exists) and the H ends of neighboring H2O molecules, there are also two hydrogen bonds associated with the H ends of the molecule and the O ends of neighboring, clearly these bonds are identical!
        James McGinn:
        The first breaks off fairly easy. That is the one associated with evaporation. The second does not. It is a hard bond.
        Phil:
        This is nonsense, all the hydrogen bonds are of equal strength
        James McGinn:
        Wrong. Here is why:
        http://t.co/AtYiUUhTwA

        Again, totally wrong, hydrogen bonds in the liquid phase are constantly being broken and remade due to the motion of the molecules. To reiterate there are no differences between the H-bonds, it doesn’t matter which molecule the O is on, they are all weak compared with covalent bonds.
        James McGinn:
        (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).
        H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding are extremely counterintuitive.
        I find it to be very straight forward, but then I’m a physical chemist. My students don’t seem to have any problems understanding it, although the entropy component due to H-bonding in protein folding sometimes causes problems. But then they have an excellent teacher.
        You aren’t going to get it without a considerable amount of effort. And internet soures will only leave you confused.
        Internet sources such as your totally incorrect one could indeed cause confusion, fortunately I don’t need to use internet sources for my understanding. It bothers me that flawed sites such as yours might be read by someone who would be misled by them.

  63. James McGinn:
    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.
    dbstealey:
    That statement ( that water in the atmosphere is only found in its liquid state) is contradicted by many thousands, if not millions of empirical measurements over many decades.
    James McGinn:
    Try to imagine how ridiculous you sound. These are the kinds of arguments global warming advocates make in regard to CO2 Forcing or the greenhouse effect. They too claim to have done millions of measurements and thousands of experiments. But they can’t ‘provide a direct reference to even one.
    And then there is the constant claims of consensus:
    97% of all scientists agree. Every scientific institution on the planet agrees. On and on and on. It is endless. Everyone agrees . . . Nobody disputes . . .
    The difference between pseudoscience and science is that science has its limits.

    • J. McGinn,
      You have already made your beliefs clear: you believe that water vapor — H2O in its gas state — cannot exist in the atmosphere.
      Both Phil. and I replied, contradicting you. I wrote that readers can make up their own minds. As I said, you’ve already stated your own beliefs. Repeating what you believe doesn’t make it any more true. What I am interested in is seeing if any other reader is in agreement with you. Because either you are right, or you are wrong. There is no middle ground here.

      • micro6500:
        Oh great and clueless one, let’s see you write out the math to describe the electro magnetic interactions of hydrogen?
        James McGinn:
        Anybody with a computer, internet access, and half a brain could do that. You at least have two out of three. Why not take a shot at it. You might surprise yourself.

      • James McGinn November 5, 2015 at 10:32 pm
        dbstealey:
        You have already made your beliefs clear: you believe that water vapor — H2O in its gas state — cannot exist in the atmosphere.
        James McGinn:
        Right. And my belief is supported by a wealth of laboratory evidence, not the least of which being confirmed in charts presented by Phil and endorsed by you yourself.

        The phase diagrams which I posted do not support your view, unfortunately you don’t understand the phase diagram. You appear to think that the phase diagram refers to the atmosphere, it does not it refers to water alone, that seems to be the source of your error.
        dbstealey:
        Both Phil. and I replied, contradicting you.
        Both of you expressed different opinions. And you failed to provide any empirical support for your opinions.
        Phase diagrams are the summary of a vast number of empirical measurements, so I did provide empirical support.
        (Which surprised me not in the least.) Instead you provided all the anecdotal observations, imaginary experiments (complete with claims of data that nobody can find) and consensus claims that are typical of pathological sciences. (All of which is also, strangely, typical of all sciences that deal with the atmosphere. [Why this is the case, I don’t know. It might have something to do with the fact that humans consider the sky to be sacred, like heaven. I don’t know. But it is incredibly strange how irrational people are when it comes to the atmosphere.])
        The data I produced is not specific to the atmosphere it’s basic physical chemistry data which is used successfully by engineers on a daily basis, were you correct steam turbines the world over would not be working as designed!

    • dbstealey:
      You have already made your beliefs clear: you believe that water vapor — H2O in its gas state — cannot exist in the atmosphere.
      James McGinn:
      Right. And my belief is supported by a wealth of laboratory evidence, not the least of which being confirmed in charts presented by Phil and endorsed by you yourself.
      dbstealey:
      Both Phil. and I replied, contradicting you.
      James McGinn:
      Both of you expressed different opinions. And you failed to provide any empirical support for your opinions. (Which surprised me not in the least.) Instead you provided all the anecdotal observations, imaginary experiments (complete with claims of data that nobody can find) and consensus claims that are typical of pathological sciences. (All of which is also, strangely, typical of all sciences that deal with the atmosphere. [Why this is the case, I don’t know. It might have something to do with the fact that humans consider the sky to be sacred, like heaven. I don’t know. But it is incredibly strange how irrational people are when it comes to the atmosphere.])
      dbstealey:
      I wrote that readers can make up their own minds.
      James McGinn:
      I don’t think they can. Honestly. In my experience, most people are incapable of being rational when it comes to the atmosphere. It might harken back to our religious mindset and the fact that many people believe (instinctually) that that is where we go when we die. I don’t know. Maybe this is why the most recognized authority for the atmosphere on our planet is not a scientist, its a former divinity student who got D’s in all of his science classes: Al Gore.
      dbstealey:
      As I said, you’ve already stated your own beliefs. Repeating what you believe doesn’t make it any more true. What I am interested in is seeing if any other reader is in agreement with you.
      James McGinn:
      Be it as it may.
      dbstealey:
      Because either you are right, or you are wrong. There is no middle ground here.
      James McGinn:
      I am right. But it’s no great thing. Or, at least, not scientifically. What I mean is that the scientific aspects of what I’ve achieved (which you don’t know much about — yet) are actually kind of mundane. The talent I brought to the subject was being really good at being agnostic, which I obtained from years of debating evolutionary theory. I’m not saying that reverse engineering storms was simple or easy. Hell, it took four years. But it was a lot easier for me since — from the outset — I did not have the slightest doubt that the convection model was nonsense.

      • James McGinn:
        dbstealey is stating his knowledge and not his “belief”.
        So, instead of repeatedly demonstrating your ignorance, please say something you do know. You claim to be “President” of an organisation with the strange name of “Solving Tornadoes”.
        dbstealey asked you
        when were you elected President of Solving Tornadoes and who elected you?
        Please answer dbstealey’s questions that directly pertain to a claim you made.

        Additionally, I would be interested to know how tornadoes can be “solved”.
        Tornadoes – like rain – are an atmospheric effect that is potentially capable of observation, measurement, explanation, and prediction, but how can they be “solved”: do you dilute them?
        Richard

        • Hi Richard,
          McGinn won’t post a verifiable answer to any of those election questions. We know that whole “President” claim is a farce.
          And in observing McGinn’s latest collection of pixels, I see nothing that I would change in my previous comment:
          Every one of your counter arguments is nothing more than a baseless assertion. Your opinion, nothing more.

      • dbstealey:
        You rightly say to me

        McGinn won’t post a verifiable answer to any of those election questions. We know that whole “President” claim is a farce.
        And in observing McGinn’s latest collection of pixels, I see nothing that I would change in my previous comment:
        “Every one of your counter “arguments” is nothing more than a baseless assertion. Your opinion, nothing more.”

        Yes, but I point out the following.
        Two days ago I suggested we had reached the stage of ‘don’t feed the troll’, but people persisted in putting comments in the troll trough and McGinn relished them.
        So, yesterday I pointed out I had suggested we had reached the stage of ‘don’t feed the troll’, and I added the suggestion that only your earlier questions about McGinn’s ‘Presidency’ should be put in the trough because – I thought – McGinn would be unable to digest them.
        People continued to put comments in the troll trough and he continued to relish them. So, today I repeated your questions about McGinn’s ‘Presidency’ and I note that – so far – he has not made a post after that.
        I am writing this post to explain and repeat my suggestion that only your earlier questions about McGinn’s ‘Presidency’ should be put in the troll trough because I think McGinn will be unable to digest them and, therefore, he will stop wasting space with his nonsense.
        Richard

      • Just had a look in here, and the level of delusion exhibited by James McGinn is astounding. Clothes dry when left on the line, condensdation forms on a cold window. Gaseous water in the atmosphere is the best explanation for these. The boiling point of water increases with pressure. At 1 barg the boiling point is 121°C. Boiling point is simply the temperature at which vapor pressure equals applied pressure – usually 1 atm. Anyway, I won’t post anything else on this post, but it does illustrate the difficulty of persuading with evidence.

Comments are closed.