Guest Post by Werner Brozek, Professor Robert Brown from Duke University and Just The Facts
Image Credit: Josh
In order for climate science to be settled, there are many requirements. I will list four for now, although I am sure you can think of many more. Then I will expand on those.
1. We must know all variables that can affect climate.
2. We must know how all variables are changing over time.
3. We must know how each changing variable affects climate.
4. We must know about all non-linear changes that take place as a result of changes to variables.
As for the variables affecting climate, Just The Facts has done a superb job compiling many of them on WUWT’s Potential Climatic Variables Reference Page.
If you have an hour, there is lots of good reading here. For now, I will just give the main topics, but note that all main topics have an array of sub topics.
1. Earth’s Rotational Energy
2. Orbital Energy, Orbital Period, Orbital Spiral, Elliptical Orbits (Eccentricity), Tilt (Obliquity), Wobble (Axial precession) and Polar Motion
3. Gravitation
4. Solar Energy
5. Geothermal Energy
6. Outer Space/Cosmic/Galactic Effects
7. Earth’s Magnetic Field
8. Atmospheric Composition
9. Albedo
10. Biology
11. Chemical
12. Physics
13. Known Unknowns
14. Unknown Unknowns
If you know some more that should be added, please let us know.
The above covers my point 1 above. As for points 2 and 3, for all of the items listed above, we need to know if the changes, if any, are linear, exponential, logarithmic, sinusoidal, random or some other pattern. For example, depending on who you talk to and the interval you are considering, our emissions of carbon dioxide could be exponential, but the increase in the atmosphere could be linear, but the effect could be logarithmic. Then there are asteroids which could be totally random. As for point 4 above, the easiest example would be to consider a ball with air at 30 C and a relative humidity of 90%. When this is cooled, the gas molecules do not simply slow down indefinitely. At a certain point, the water molecules move so slowly that the hydrogen bonds cause molecules to stick together after collisions to cause liquid water or ice to form. Further cooling causes the various gases to condense to their liquid states and then to freeze to their solid state.
Further to this last point, Professor Brown offered a very interesting response to a question on a previous post. His comment is reproduced below and ends with his initials rgb:
rgbatduke
October 2, 2015 at 10:36 am
t’s not a law of nature, but outside of Le Chatelier’s principle, a more modern version (in case anyone is still reading this thread) is Prigogene’s Self-Organization of dissipative systems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization
Self-organization as a concept preceded Prigogene, but he quantified it and moved it from the realm of philosophy and psychology and cybernetics to the realm of physics and the behavior of nonlinear non-equilibrium systems.
To put it into a contextual nutshell, an open, non-equilibrium system (such as a gas being heated on one side and cooled on the other) will tend to self-organize into structures that increase the dissipation of the system, that is, facilitate energy transport through the system. The classic contextual example of this is the advent of convective rolls in a fluid in a symmetry breaking gravitational field. Convection moves heat from the hot side to the cold side much, much faster than conduction or radiation does, but initially the gas has no motion but microscopic motions of the molecules and (if we presume symmetry and smoothness in the heated surface and boundaries) experiences only balanced, if unstable, forces. However, those microscopic motions contain small volumes that are not symmetric, that move up or down. These small fluctuations nucleate convection, at first irregular and disorganized, that then “discovers” the favored modes of dissipation, adjacent counter rotating turbulent rolls that have a size characteristic of the geometry of the volume and the thermal imbalance.
The point is that open fluid dynamical differentially heated and cooled systems spontaneously develop these sorts of structures, and they have some degree of stability or at least persistence in time. They can persist a long time — see e.g. the great red spot on Jupiter. The reason that this is essentially a physical, or better yet a mathematical, principle is evident from the wikipedia page above — Prigogene won the Nobel Prize because he showed that this sort of behavior has a universal character and will arise in many, if not most open systems of sufficient complexity. There is a deep connection between this theory and chaos — essentially that an open chaotic system with “noise” is constantly being bounced around in its phase space, so that it wanders around through the broad stretches of uninteresting critical points until it enters the basin of attraction of an interesting one, a strange attractor. At that point the same noise drives it diffusively into a constantly shifting ensemble of comparatively tightly bound orbits. At that point the system is “stable” in that it has temporally persistent behavior with gross physical structures with their own “pseudoparticle” physics and sometimes even thermodynamics. This is one of the things I studied pretty extensively back when I did work in open quantum optical systems.
There is absolutely no question that our climate is precisely a self-organized system of this sort. We have long since named the observed, temporally persistent self-organized structures — ENSO, the Monsoon, the NAO, the PDO. We can also observe more transient structures that appear or disappear such as the “polar vortex” or “The Blob” (warm patch in the ocean off of the Pacific Northwest) or a “blocking high”. Lately, we had “Hurricane Joaquin”. Anybody can play — at this point you can visit various websites and watch a tiny patch of clouds organize into a thunderstorm, then a numbered “disturbance with the potential for tropical development”, then a tropical depression, and finally into a named storm with considerable if highly variable and transient structure.
All of these structures tend to dissipate a huge amount of energy that would otherwise have to escape to space much more slowly. They are born out of energy in flow, and “evolve” so that the ones that move energy most efficiently survive and grow.
Once again, one has to bemoan the lack of serious math that has been done on the climate. This in some sense is understandable, as the math is insanely difficult even when it is limited to toy systems — simple iterated maps, simple ODE or PDE systems with simple boundary conditions. However, there are some principles to guide us. One is that in the case of self-organization in chaotic systems, the dynamical map itself has a structure of critical points and attractors. Once the system “discovers” a favorable attractor and diffuses into an orbit, it actually becomes rather immune to simple changes in the driving. Once a set of turbulent rolls is established, as it were, there is a barrier to be overcome before one can make the number of rolls change or fundamentally change their character — moderate changes in the thermal gradient just make the existing rolls roll faster or slower to maintain heat transport. However, in a sufficiently complex system there are usually neighboring attractors with some sort of barrier in between them, but this barrier is there only in an average sense. In many, many cases, the orbits of the system in phase space have a fractal, folded character where orbits from neighboring attractors can interpenetrate and overlap. If there is noise, there is a probability of switching attractors when one nears a non-equilibrium critical regime, so that the system can suddenly and dramatically change its character. Next, the attractors themselves are not really fixed. As one alters (parametrically for example) the forcing of the system or the boundary conditions or the degree of noise or… one expects the critical points and attractors themselves to move, to appear and disappear, to get pushed together or moved apart, to have the barriers between them rise or fall. Finally (as if this isn’t enough) the climate is not in any usual sense an iterated map. It is usually treated as one from the point of view of solving PDEs (which is usually done via an iterated map where the output of one time step is the input into the next with a fixed dynamics). This makes the solution a Markov Process — one that “forgets” its past history and evolves locally in time and space as an iterated map (usually with a transition “rule” with some randomness in it).
But the climate is almost certainly not Markovian, certainly not in practical terms. What it does today depends on the state today, to be sure, but because there are vast reservoirs where past dynamical evolution is “hidden” in precisely Prigogene’s self-organized structures, structures whose temporal coherence and behavior can only be meaningfully understood on the basis of their own physical description and not microscopically, it is completely, utterly senseless to try to advance a Markovian solution and expect it to actually work!
Two examples, and then I must clean my house and do other work. One is clearly the named structures themselves in the climate. The multidecadal oscillations have spatiotemporal persistence and organization with major spectral components out as far as sixty or seventy years (and may well have longer periods still to be discovered — we have crappy data and not much of it that extends into the increasingly distant past). Current models treat things like ENSO and the PDO and so on more like noise, and we see people constantly “removing the influence of ENSO” from a temperature record to try to reductively discern some underlying ENSO-less trend. But they aren’t noise. They are major features of the dynamics! They move huge amounts of energy around, and are key components of the efficiency of the open system as it transports incident solar energy to infinity, keeping a reservoir of it trapped within along the way. It is practically speaking impossible to integrate the PDEs of the climate models and reproduce any of the multidecadal behavior. Even if multidecadal structures emerge, they have the wrong shape and the wrong spectrum because the chaotic models have a completely different critical structure and attractors as they are iterated maps at the wrong resolution and with parameters that almost certainly move them into completely distinct operational regimes and quite different quasiparticle structures. This is instantly evident if one looks at the actual dynamical futures produced by the climate models. They have the wrong spectrum on pretty much all scales, fluctuating far more wildly than the actual climate does, with the wrong short time autocorrelation and spectral behavior (let alone the longer multidecadal behavior that we observe).
The second is me. I’m precisely a self-organized chaotic system. Here’s a metaphor. Climate models are performing the moral equivalent of trying to predict my behavior by simulating the flow of neural activity in my brain on a coarse-grained basis that chops my cortex up into (say) centimeter square chunks one layer thick and coming up with some sort of crude Markovian model. Since the modelers have no idea what I’m actually thinking, and cannot possibly actually measure the state of my brain outside of some even more crudely averaged surface electrical activity, they just roll dice to generate an initial state “like” what they think my initial state might be, and then trust their dynamics to eventually “forget” that initial state and move the model brain into what they imagine is an “ensemble” of my possible brain states so that after a few years, my behavior will no longer depend on the ignored details (you know, things like memories of my childhood or what I’ve learned in school). They run their model forward twenty years and announce to the world that unless I undergo electroshock therapy right now their models prove that I’m almost certainly destined to become an axe murderer or exhibit some other “extreme” behavior. Only if I am kept in a dark room, not overstimulated, and am fed regular doses of drugs that essentially destroy the resolution of my real brain until it approximates that of their model can they be certain that I won’t either bring about World Peace in one extreme or cause a Nuclear War in the other.
The problem is that this whole idea is just silly! Human behavior cannot be predicted by a microscopic physical model of the neurons at the quantum chemistry level! Humans are open non-Markovian information systems. We are strongly regulated by our past experience, our memory, as well as our instantaneous input, all folded through a noisy, defect-ridden, and unbelievably complex multilayer neural network that is chemically modulated by a few dozen things (hormones, bioavailable energy, diurnal phase, temperature, circulatory state, oxygenation…)
As a good friend of mine who was a World’s Greatest Expert (literally!) on complex systems used to say: “More is different”. Emergent self-organized behavior results in a cascade of structures. Microscopic physics starts with quarks and leptons and interaction particles/rules. The quarks organize into nucleons. The nucleons organize into nuclei. The electrons bond to the nuclei to form atoms. The physics and behavior of the nuclei are not easily understood in terms of bare quark dynamics! The physics and behavior of the atoms are not easily understood in terms of the bare quark plus lepton dynamics! The atoms interact and form molecules, more molecules, increasingly complex molecules. The molecules have behavior that is not easily understood in terms of the “bare” behavior of the isolated atoms that make them up. Some classes of molecular chemistry produce liquids, solids, gases, plasmas. Again, the behavior of these things is increasingly disconnected from the behavior of the specific molecules that make them up — new classes of universal behavior emerge at all steps, so that all fluids are alike in certain ways independent of the particular molecules that make them up, even as they inherent certain parametric behavior from the base molecules. Some molecules in some fluids become organic biomolecules, and there is suddenly a huge disconnect both from simple chemistry and from the several layers of underlying physics.
If more is different, how much is enough? There is a whole lot of more in the coupled Earth-Ocean-Atmosphere-Solar system. There is a whole lot less, heavily oversimplified and with the deliberate omission of the ill-understood quasiparticle structures that we can see dominating the weather and the climate, in climate models.
Could they work? Sure. But one really shouldn’t expect them to work, one
should expect them to work no better than a simulated neural network “works” to simulate actual intelligence, which is to say, it can sometimes produce understandable behaviors “like” intelligence without ever properly resembling the intelligence of any intelligent thing and without the slightest ability to predict the behavior of an intelligent thing. The onus of proof is very much on the modelers that wish to assert that their models are useful for predicting long term climate, but this is a burden that so far they refuse to acknowledge, let alone accept! If they did, large numbers of climate models would have to be rejected because they do not work in the specific sense that they do not come particularly close to predicting the behavior of the actual climate from the instant they entered the regime where they were supposed to be predictive, instead of parametrically tuned and locked to match up well with a reference interval that just happened to be the one single stretch of 15-25 years where strong warming occurred in the last 85 years. There are so very, very many problems with this — training any model on a non-representative segment of the available data is obviously likely to lead to a poor model — but suffice it to say that so far, they aren’t working and nobody should be surprised.
rgb
In the sections below, as in previous posts, we will present you with the latest facts. The information will be presented in three sections and an appendix. The first section will show for how long there has been no warming on some data sets. At the moment, only the satellite data have flat periods of longer than a year. The second section will show for how long there has been no statistically significant warming on several data sets. The third section will show how 2015 so far compares with 2014 and the warmest years and months on record so far. For three of the data sets, 2014 also happens to be the warmest year. The appendix will illustrate sections 1 and 2 in a different way. Graphs and a table will be used to illustrate the data.
Section 1
This analysis uses the latest month for which data is available on WoodForTrees.com (WFT). All of the data on WFT is also available at the specific sources as outlined below. We start with the present date and go to the furthest month in the past where the slope is a least slightly negative on at least one calculation. So if the slope from September is 4 x 10^-4 but it is – 4 x 10^-4 from October, we give the time from October so no one can accuse us of being less than honest if we say the slope is flat from a certain month.
1. For GISS, the slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.
2. For Hadcrut4, the slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.
3. For Hadsst3, the slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.
4. For UAH, the slope is flat since May 1997 or 18 years and 5 months. (goes to September using version 6.0)
5. For RSS, the slope is flat since February 1997 or 18 years and 8 months. (goes to September)
The next graph shows just the lines to illustrate the above. Think of it as a sideways bar graph where the lengths of the lines indicate the relative times where the slope is 0. In addition, the upward sloping blue line at the top indicates that CO2 has steadily increased over this period.
Note that the UAH5.6 from WFT needed a detrend to show the slope is zero for UAH6.0.
When two things are plotted as I have done, the left only shows a temperature anomaly.
The actual numbers are meaningless since the two slopes are essentially zero. No numbers are given for CO2. Some have asked that the log of the concentration of CO2 be plotted. However WFT does not give this option. The upward sloping CO2 line only shows that while CO2 has been going up over the last 18 years, the temperatures have been flat for varying periods on the two sets.
Section 2
For this analysis, data was retrieved from Nick Stokes’ Trendviewer available on his website. This analysis indicates for how long there has not been statistically significant warming according to Nick’s criteria. Data go to their latest update for each set. In every case, note that the lower error bar is negative so a slope of 0 cannot be ruled out from the month indicated.
On several different data sets, there has been no statistically significant warming for between 11 and 22 years according to Nick’s criteria. Cl stands for the confidence limits at the 95% level.
The details for several sets are below.
For UAH6.0: Since December 1992: Cl from -0.009 to 1.688
This is 22 years and 10 months.
For RSS: Since March 1993: Cl from -0.014 to 1.597
This is 22 years and 7 months.
For Hadcrut4.4: Since January 2001: Cl from -0.048 to 1.334
This is 14 years and 9 months.
For Hadsst3: Since July 1995: Cl from -0.002 to 1.949
This is 20 years and 3 months.
For GISS: Since September 2004: Cl from -0.033 to 2.020
This is 11 years and 1 month.
Section 3
This section shows data about 2015 and other information in the form of a table. The table shows the five data sources along the top and other places so they should be visible at all times. The sources are UAH, RSS, Hadcrut4, Hadsst3, and GISS.
Down the column, are the following:
1. 14ra: This is the final ranking for 2014 on each data set.
2. 14a: Here I give the average anomaly for 2014.
3. year: This indicates the warmest year on record so far for that particular data set. Note that the satellite data sets have 1998 as the warmest year and the others have 2014 as the warmest year.
4. ano: This is the average of the monthly anomalies of the warmest year just above.
5. mon: This is the month where that particular data set showed the highest anomaly. The months are identified by the first three letters of the month and the last two numbers of the year.
6. ano: This is the anomaly of the month just above.
7. y/m: This is the longest period of time where the slope is not positive given in years/months. So 16/2 means that for 16 years and 2 months the slope is essentially 0. Periods of under a year are not counted and are shown as “0”.
8. sig: This the first month for which warming is not statistically significant according to Nick’s criteria. The first three letters of the month are followed by the last two numbers of the year.
9. sy/m: This is the years and months for row 8. Depending on when the update was last done, the months may be off by one month.
10. Jan: This is the January 2015 anomaly for that particular data set.
11. Feb: This is the February 2015 anomaly for that particular data set, etc.
19. ave: This is the average anomaly of all months to date taken by adding all numbers and dividing by the number of months.
20. rnk: This is the rank that each particular data set would have for 2015 without regards to error bars and assuming no changes. Think of it as an update 45 minutes into a game.
| Source | UAH | RSS | Had4 | Sst3 | GISS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.14ra | 5th | 6th | 1st | 1st | 1st |
| 2.14a | 0.188 | 0.255 | 0.564 | 0.479 | 0.75 |
| 3.year | 1998 | 1998 | 2014 | 2014 | 2014 |
| 4.ano | 0.482 | 0.55 | 0.564 | 0.479 | 0.75 |
| 5.mon | Apr98 | Apr98 | Jan07 | Aug14 | Jan07 |
| 6.ano | 0.742 | 0.857 | 0.832 | 0.644 | 0.97 |
| 7.y/m | 18/5 | 18/8 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 8.sig | Dec92 | Mar93 | Jan01 | Jul95 | Sep04 |
| 9.sy/m | 22/10 | 22/7 | 14/9 | 20/3 | 11/1 |
| Source | UAH | RSS | Had4 | Sst3 | GISS |
| 10.Jan | 0.276 | 0.365 | 0.688 | 0.440 | 0.82 |
| 11.Feb | 0.174 | 0.326 | 0.660 | 0.406 | 0.88 |
| 12.Mar | 0.164 | 0.255 | 0.681 | 0.424 | 0.90 |
| 13.Apr | 0.086 | 0.172 | 0.656 | 0.557 | 0.74 |
| 14.May | 0.284 | 0.309 | 0.696 | 0.593 | 0.79 |
| 15.Jun | 0.332 | 0.391 | 0.730 | 0.575 | 0.77 |
| 16.Jul | 0.182 | 0.288 | 0.696 | 0.637 | 0.73 |
| 17.Aug | 0.275 | 0.389 | 0.740 | 0.665 | 0.81 |
| 18.Sep | 0.253 | 0.382 | 0.786 | 0.729 | 0.81 |
| Source | UAH | RSS | Had4 | Sst3 | GISS |
| 19.ave | 0.225 | 0.320 | 0.702 | 0.558 | 0.81 |
| 20.rnk | 3rd | 4th | 1st | 1st | 1st |
If you wish to verify all of the latest anomalies, go to the following:
For UAH, version 6.0beta3 was used. Note that WFT uses version 5.6. So to verify the length of the pause on version 6.0, you need to use Nick’s program.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/tltglhmam_6.0beta3.txt
For RSS, see: ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_3.txt
For Hadcrut4, see: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.4.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt
For Hadsst3, see: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadSST3-gl.dat
For GISS, see:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
To see all points since January 2015 in the form of a graph, see the WFT graph below. Note that UAH version 5.6 is shown. WFT does not show version 6.0 yet. Also note that Hadcrut4.3 is shown and not Hadcrut4.4, which is why the last few months are missing for Hadcrut.
As you can see, all lines have been offset so they all start at the same place in January 2015. This makes it easy to compare January 2015 with the latest anomaly.
Appendix
In this part, we are summarizing data for each set separately.
RSS
The slope is flat since February 1997 or 18 years, 8 months. (goes to September)
For RSS: There is no statistically significant warming since March 1993: Cl from -0.014 to 1.597.
The RSS average anomaly so far for 2015 is 0.320. This ties it as 4th place. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. The anomaly in 2014 was 0.255 and it was ranked 6th.
UAH6.0beta3
The slope is flat since May 1997 or 18 years and 5 months. (goes to September using version 6.0beta3)
For UAH: There is no statistically significant warming since December 1992: Cl from -0.009 to 1.688. (This is using version 6.0 according to Nick’s program.)
The UAH average anomaly so far for 2015 is 0.225. This would rank it as 3rd place. 1998 was the warmest at 0.483. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.742. The anomaly in 2014 was 0.188 and it was ranked 5th.
Hadcrut4.4
The slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.
For Hadcrut4: There is no statistically significant warming since January 2001: Cl from -0.048 to 1.334.
The Hadcrut4 average anomaly so far for 2015 is 0.702. This would set a new record if it stayed this way. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.832. The anomaly in 2014 was 0.564 and this set a new record.
Hadsst3
For Hadsst3, the slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning. For Hadsst3: There is no statistically significant warming since July 1995: Cl from -0.002 to 1.949.
The Hadsst3 average anomaly so far for 2015 is 0.558. This would set a new record if it stayed this way. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in August of 2014 when it reached 0.644. This is prior to 2015. The anomaly in 2014 was 0.479 and this set a new record. The September 2015 anomaly of 0.729 also sets a new record.
GISS
The slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.
For GISS: There is no statistically significant warming since September 2004: Cl from -0.033 to 2.020.
The GISS average anomaly so far for 2015 is 0.81. This would set a new record if it stayed this way. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.97. The anomaly in 2014 was 0.75 and it set a new record.
Conclusion
After reading this article, do you think climate science is settled? If not, do you think it will be settled in your lifetime?
James McGinn November 9, 2015 at 3:26 pm
Werner Brozek:
Yes, I agree. Yes. Yes, with respect to polar molecules.
James McGinn:
I will need an hour or two to formulate my continuation of the argument.
—————————
JM: Well, it took longer than an hour.
Let us reconsider our theoretical (but impossible) substance H2C. As we established, it has the shape of the water molecule. But it has only 1/3 (.45 / 1.34) of the electronegativity difference. Using the boiling point of methane (-164) as the theoretical bottom limit and the boiling point of H2O (100) as the upper limit, let’s do the math and designate the boiling point of this theoretical substance:
164 + 100 = 264. 264/3 = 87 -164 + 87 = -77 C
Now let’s consider three of these molecules ([a], [b] and [c]). And let’s say that in the first of these three [a] we (magically) reactivated its ability to form covalent bonds with hydrogen molecules. And, instead of using independent hydrogen atoms we use one of the atoms from [b] and [c], essentially restoring the full tetrahedral. And, keep in mind, in so doing we are also restoring the symmetry of that first molecule. (Yes, I know, it creates a totally new kind of molecule. But please disregard that for purposes of this demonstration.) And, as we discussed, in restoring its symmetry we are nullifying its polarity. (Remember, it has to have non-zero electronegativity [between 0.1 and 1.6] AND it has to be non-symmetrical to be a dipole.) And, in that sense, we return its EFFECTIVE melting point to -164. And then, let’s say we were to break one of these two additional covalently bonded other molecules, let’s say [c]. That would reactivate one half of that nullified polarity. And, in so doing, that would change its EFFECTIVE melting point to -164 + (87 / 2) = -121.
Now we can ask ourselves a question. What if instead of covalent bonds we were to reconsider the whole scenario with hydrogen bonds? And keep in mind that the strength of the hydrogen bond is determined by the strength of its polarity. With the addition of [b] and [c] all of the additional polarity would be nullified. These would be two very weak hydrogen bonds (effective melting point being -164). And if we remove one of them, let’s say [c], we would reactivate one half of that nullified polarity. And, in so doing, that would create a STRONGER bond (effective melting point being -121). (Remember, with hydrogen bonds the bond strength is a consequence of the polarity.)
Now, taking all of this into account, reconsider the the conversation we had about 4 or 5 posts ago:
JM: I took a different approach to theorizing H2O polarity, hydrogen bonding, and implications thereof. I decided that I would develop an understanding that explained all of the outlier phenomena, one of which being non-Newtonian fluids:
Solution to the molecular mechanism underlying non-Newtonian fluids?
http://t.co/Uftino7mHm
What is the molecular mechanism underlying non-Newtonian fluids?
http://t.co/o8ZWxviFEX
JM: Consequently when a water molecule has two bonds on its negative oxygen molecule the polarity is neutralized and the resulting force of the bond disappears (2∂ – 2∂ = 0∂). So, when there are two hydrogen bonds completed the positively charged hydrogen atoms just kind of float – this being the bond associated with evaporation and sublimation (*see note below). The only thing holding them is that if they move away the charge returns pulling them back. And when we pull off only one of the two hydrogen bonds (2∂ – 1∂ = 1∂) it restores one half of the polarity, producing a strong hydrogen bond – this being the bond associated with boiling.
(*note The bonds associated with evaporation and sublimation can only be broken if there is a collective of molecules breaking off. This is due to the fact that if it was one molecule both the weak and the strong bond would have to be broken. And that can’t happen at low energy.)
WB: You lost me here. The oxygen end of water is always negative and the hydrogen end is always positive. This is because of the large electronegativity difference between oxygen and hydrogen. There are strong polar covalent bonds between each oxygen and hydrogen of each individual water molecule in a liquid. Furthermore, there are always attractions between the positive hydrogen end of one water molecule and the negative oxygen end of the adjacent water molecule. This is the hydrogen bond and it is never neutralized since you simply cannot reduce the partial charges to zero, regardless how wish to rearrange the water molecules relative to each other. So partially positive hydrogen atoms never “just kind of float”.
JM: So, Werner, I hope you get my point now. According to this understanding, the hydrogen end is actually neutralized with the restoration of the symmetry that underlies the polarity. And only half of it is neutralized with the restoration of just one of them. And so, polarity is not a constant. It is a variable and completion of bonds is the mechanism that restores the symmetry to neutralize polarity.
Understanding this mechanism is one of the keys (but just one of the keys) to getting insight into the quirky behavior of H2O molecules. Another key understanding has to do with the geometric aspects of how H2O molecules fit together (cancelling polarity) and, in some cases, don’t fit together (causing “surface” tension). Enough for now, but this all has huge implications on how we conceptualize surface tension, evaporation, sublimation, freezing, size of suspended micro-droplets, non-Newtonian fluids, heat capacity, the nature of boiling, Mpenga effect, super-chilled water, . . . the list goes on. And, it also has huge implications on how we conceptualize atmospheric flow – vortices – a subject that I discuss in my book. (I’ll give you a hint. I refer to the substance that comprises vortices as, “surface tension on steriods.”)
Thanks again for all of your assistance. It was especially helpful that you enumerated electronegativity.
Kindest Regards,
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
Werner,
You probably figured it out by now but, just in case, I made some corrections to the second paragraph. (I capitalized additions/changes.):
Now let’s consider three of these H2C molecules ([a], [b] and [c]). And let’s say that in the first of these three [a] we (magically) reactivated its ability to form covalent bonds with hydrogen molecules. And, instead of using independent hydrogen atoms we use one of the HYDROGEN atoms from [b] and FROM [c]. WE ARE, essentially, restoring the full tetrahedral USING ONE OF THE HYDROGEN ATOMS FROM [B] AND ONE FROM [C]. In so doing we are also restoring the symmetry THAT IT WOULD HAVE HAD AS A METHANE MOLECULE. (Yes, I know, it creates a totally new kind of molecule. But please disregard THIS FACT for purposes of this demonstration.) And, as we discussed, in restoring its symmetry we are nullifying its polarity. (Remember, it has to have non-zero electronegativity [between 0.1 and 1.6] AND it has to be non-symmetrical to be a dipole.) And, in that sense, we return its EFFECTIVE melting point (METHANE) to -164. And, IN ADDITION, let’s say we were to, THEN, break one of these two additional covalently bonded other molecules, let’s say [c]. That would reactivate one half of that nullified polarity. And, in so doing, that would change its EFFECTIVE melting point to -164 + (87 / 2) = -121. (OR, -77 + -44).
I hope this is clearer.
This is getting extremely complicated! And I am not sure I totally understand what you are saying. But let me just say this. When a water molecule evaporates, the covalent bond between an H and the O is not broken. The only thing that is broken is a hydrogen bond between an H and an O of a neighboring molecule. And when this happens, the boiling point or melting point is not changed at all for any remaining molecules.
Hydrogen bonds in water have a certain strength. Period. These bonds are broken with evaporation and sublimation. There is no weak and strong bond being broken.
Werner Brozek November 10, 2015 at 5:38 pm
JM: And then, let’s say we were to break one of these two additional covalently bonded other molecules, let’s say [c]. That would reactivate one half of that nullified polarity. And, in so doing, that would change its EFFECTIVE melting point to -164 + (87 / 2) = -121.
JM: Oops, I just noticed an error on my part. Here I said “melting point.” I meant to say BOILING point. Sorry.
WB: This is getting extremely complicated!
JM: You have to struggle with it. It took me a long time to work all of this out. You’ve only had a few hours.
WB: And I am not sure I totally understand what you are saying. But let me just say this. When a water molecule evaporates, the covalent bond between an H and the O is not broken.
JM: Well, this is obvious. But the fact that you are telling me this suggests that there is something fundamental that you are not getting. I suggest starting back up-thread and working through it again. (Also, it’s important to understand that I am kind of using the methane molecule as an explanatory proxy so that we can temporarily sidestep the confusion associated with the completion of a hydrogen bond being the mechanism that neutralizes the symmetry/polarity.)
WB: The only thing that is broken is a hydrogen bond between an H and an O of a neighboring molecule.
JM: Again, this is obvious and, again, the fact that you are telling me this suggests that there is something fundamental that you are not getting. (I don’t want to guess what it might be because it might make you even more confused.)
WB: And when this happens, the boiling point or melting point is not changed at all for any remaining molecules.
JM: (I apologize for including “melting” point. I meant to say BOILING point only. My bad.)
JM: I don’t know how to answer this. (I’m afraid that no matter how I answer my answer will only increase your confusion at this juncture.)
JM: The bonds associated with evaporation and sublimation can only be broken if there is a collective of molecules breaking off. This is due to the fact that if it was one molecule both the weak and the strong bond would have to be broken.
WB: Hydrogen bonds in water have a certain strength. Period.
JM: Nope! They are not constant. They are variable. And the reason they vary is because symmetry that underlies the polarity varies with completion of bonds. (I know you will eventually get this. I didn’t get it at first either.)
WB: These bonds are broken with evaporation and sublimation.
JM: Only weak ones are broken. And that can only happen when collectives of water molecules break off. (You have to get the mechanism straight in your mind and then you have to consider the collective implications thereof. It’s going to take a while for you to get it. Don’t give up.)
WB: There is no weak and strong bond being broken.
JM: Yes there is. Go over it again, you’ll get it. (Remember, it has to have non-zero electronegativity [between 0.1 and 1.6] AND IT HAS TO BE NON-SYMMETRICAL to be a dipole. With the achievement of hydrogen bonds the [tetrahedral] symmetry is restored. And that neutralizes the polarity [WHICH IS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE NON-SYMMETRY].)
JM: Start upthread and read it over again. You may have to do this multiple times, but I am sure you will eventually get it.
McGinn,
When Werner Brozek, a physics professor for many years before he retired, makes a statement based on physics and you flatly contradict him, you need to provide support for your beliefs. So far, all you’ve done is emit your opinion. But here at the internet’s “Best Science” site, you need more than that. Much more.
We keep asking, but you rant on as if you possess some inside knowledge. You don’t, at least not concerning basic physics.
So once again I challenge you to produce the name of just one public figure who either teaches physics or chemistry at university level, or who has written physics or chem texts that are currently in use, to agree with you and state that individual water molecules are not a component of the atmosphere, and that they cannot exist in the atmosphere — explicit statements that you have made here repeatedly. Give us one name.
The challenge is to go find a well known physicist or chemist who agrees with you. If you’re onto something, and not trying to promote some kind of lunacy, there must be at least one esteemed professor, out of many thousands in this country alone, who agrees with you. Go find him or her.
Take your time, I’ll wait here. I’m retired, got nothin’ else to do… ☺
I will pass on this suggestion. It is way off topic anyway.
For the record, I taught high school physics. I also proofread two high school physics textbooks by Pearson.
I am also regularly the last to proofread our grade 12 diploma exams in Physics 30 and Science 30 before the students write them.
That’s good enough for me. ☺
(You’ve explained that before. I gave you the professor title because you certainly know the basics of physics, which is all we’ve been discussing here in trying to educate our young but misguided friend.)
Werner Brozek November 10, 2015 at 8:14 pm
You may have to do this multiple times, but I am sure you will eventually get it.
I will pass on this suggestion. It is way off topic anyway.
You’ve got to be kidding me. I stepped you through this whole argument and NOW, you are bailing. Geez.
McGinn,
When Werner Brozek, a physics professor for many years before he retired, makes a statement based on physics
Physics is a subject. It’s not an argument.
and you flatly contradict him,
He bailed. There was nothing to contradict.
you need to provide support for your beliefs. So far, all you’ve done is emit your opinion. But here at the internet’s “Best Science” site,
Surreal.
Reality is complex. Werner bailed because he reached his limit. Not my problem.
It’s easy to believe something if believing it will help you avoid something that is complex.
One of Werner’s last statements was, “Hydrogen bonds in water have a certain strength. Period.”
If this was true water would be simple to understand, and there would be no outlier phenomena to be resolved.
For many, being honest about what they don’t understand is the hardest thing of all.
Sorry about that! There were just too many holes in your theory as I have repeatedly tried to point out. But save your arguments for others and if you should be able to convince some one like Dr. Spencer that H2O(g) for example is very rare in the atmosphere that has a relative humidity of 50%, and that the individual H2O(g) are at a much higher temperature than the surrounding air molecules, then I may reconsider my position. Of course, that would require a rewriting of the basic laws of thermodynamics. Good luck with that!
You’ve got to be kidding me. I stepped you through this whole argument and NOW, you are bailing. Geez.
Sorry about that! There were just too many holes in your theory
Reality is too complex for you. You haven’t an alternative. You have an excuse.
as I have repeatedly tried to point out.
You want simple. I want accurate.
But save your arguments for others and if you should be able to convince some one like Dr. Spencer that H2O(g) for example is very rare in the atmosphere that has a relative humidity of 50%,
You need an authority? Is this science or Sunday school?
and that the individual H2O(g) are at a much higher temperature than the surrounding air molecules,
So, now you’re putting words in my mouth.
then I may reconsider my position. Of course, that would require a rewriting of the basic laws of thermodynamics. Good luck with that!
LOL. There is more to science than throwing big word around.
You tried to win, and lost. Take it like a man.
Did you never claim that if H2O(g) existed in the atmosphere, that it had to be at least 100 C?
Was this loss a unanimous decision?
Better yet consider the molecules H2S or H2Se which have the same structure as H2O with bond dipoles very close to C-H.
UAH Update:
With the October numbers, the flat streak for UAH6.0beta3 goes up by one month to 18 years and 6 months. October showed a huge jump, so the negative value of the slope decreased from last month, but it was still negative.
(As reported earlier, the RSS streak rose to 18 years and 9 months.)
I forgot to insert “stinking” between insane and splat.
Have you all considered the possibility that you may all be wrong?
That reminds me of the mother whose son played in a band. She said that at one point, every one in the band made a mistake except her son.
That reminds me of the mother whose son played in a band. She said that at one point, every one in the band made a mistake except her son.
Be glad that she stuck up for you?
See I have been quite certain he was wrong on all these points from the beginning because all of his conclusions come from a deeply flawed premise (he thinks the hydrogen bond associated with the H20 molecule is MUCH stronger than it actually is). There is no point in answering his questions because he has no real understanding of physics or chemistry and because of this has no apparent ability to grasp arguments from those who do understand them.
But I think it is worthwhile to point out where he is objectively wrong (e.g. boiling does not have an opposite – it is or isn’t). It does feed the troll, though, so I could well be wrong on this point.
It depends on your perspective. Suppose I have water at 70 C and I steadily apply heat. What happens is that the water increases in temperature to 100 C. Then with more heat, we have H2O(l) + heat gives H2O(g). Then with more heat, H2O(g) goes from 100 C to let us say 130 C if we apply heat that long.
What happens if we start with H2O(g) at 130 C and let it cool off until we get liquid water at 70 C? Exactly the reverse or opposite happens.
With all due respect, this is not correct. Boiling occurs when bubbles form in a liquid due to the vapor pressure above the liquid being greater than the pressure of the overlying gas. The point at which this occurs depends on temperature and pressure, not on whether energy is being applied to or removed from the liquid, the gas, or any other element of the system.
Boiling is an on or off process that happens in a liquid when specific conditions are met. It is not a process that has a reverse. There are no temperature/pressure combinations where a gas can be forced back into liquid form in a manner that is analogous to the way it leaves a liquid when it boils.
Granted, there are differences. However would you agree that to heat and boil and heat 100 grams of liquid water at 70 C to steam at 130 C would require the exact same heat that is given off if 100 g of steam at 130 C were to cool and become water at 70 C?
Werner Brozek November 10, 2015 at 9:09 pm
(e.g. boiling does not have an opposite – it is or isn’t)
It depends on your perspective.
Uh, I’m going to pretend you didn’t say this.
Suppose I have water at 70 C and I steadily apply heat. What happens is that the water increases in temperature to 100 C. Then with more heat, we have H2O(l) + heat gives H2O(g). Then with more heat, H2O(g) goes from 100 C to let us say 130 C if we apply heat that long.
Oh brother. Werner, you’ve never done an experiment in your whole life, have you? Your whole understandng comes from books. Doesn’t it.
Why don’t you try this? Get pot of water. Get a thermometer and see if you can get it over 100 degrees.
What happens if we start with H2O(g) at 130 C and let it cool off until we get liquid water at 70 C? Exactly the reverse or opposite happens.
So, you’re not a meteorologist?
hipper November 10, 2015 at 9:22 pm
With all due respect, this is not correct. Boiling occurs when bubbles form in a liquid due to the vapor pressure above the liquid being greater than the pressure of the overlying gas.
Vapor pressure? Are you serious. This isn’t evaporation and it isn’t a closed container. It’s just a pot of boiling water on a stove.
The point at which this occurs depends on temperature and pressure,
Right.
not on whether energy is being applied to or removed from the liquid, the gas, or any other element of the system.
What?
Boiling is an on or off process that happens in a liquid when specific conditions are met.
Right.
It is not a process that has a reverse. There are no temperature/pressure combinations where a gas can be forced back into liquid form in a manner that is analogous to the way it leaves a liquid when it boils.
Wrong. It’s the same as boiling. Below 100 it is a liquid. It’s perfectly reversible.
I never said that you would have liquid water at one atmosphere pressure at 130 C. I said you would have steam. However it is possible to have liquid water above 100 C if the pressure is high enough.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheated_water
“This pressure is given by the saturated vapour pressure, and can be looked up in steam tables, or calculated.[9] As a guide, the saturated vapour pressure at 121 °C is 200 kPa, 150 °C is 470 kPa, and 200 °C is 1,550 kPa. The critical point is 21.7 MPa at a temperature of 374 °C, above which water is supercritical rather than superheated. Above about 300 °C, water starts to behave as a near-critical liquid, and physical properties such as density start to change more significantly with pressure.”
Werner Brozek November 10, 2015 at 10:25 pm
Oh brother. Werner, you’ve never done an experiment in your whole life, have you? Your whole understandng comes from books. Doesn’t it.
Why don’t you try this? Get pot of water. Get a thermometer and see if you can get it over 100 degrees.
I never said that you would have liquid water at one atmosphere pressure at 130 C. I said you would have steam.
That too is impossible except in a closed container.
You should have quit when you still had people here fooled.
You know what they say about opening one’s mouth and removing all doubt.
hipper November 10, 2015 at 8:50 pm
It’s interesting that your argument is indistinguishable from that of AGW advocates.
Werner Brozek wrote: “Granted, there are differences. However would you agree that to heat and boil and heat 100 grams of liquid water at 70 C to steam at 130 C would require the exact same heat that is given off if 100 g of steam at 130 C were to cool and become water at 70 C?”
Oh, absolutely. But one cannot say that something analogous to boiling (or the opposite of boiling) is involved in the reverse process. Boiling does not have a direct opposite.
OK. Fair enough.
Werner Brozek November 10, 2015 at 9:51 pm
OK. Fair enough.
I suggest doing some research before you agree with that.
If you sense that you might be in a hole, it is time to stop digging.
James McGinn:
debstealey
said to you
and you have replied
You now know you are certainly wrong.
dbstealey can refute your silly assertion by naming me now I have provided my recent reply to you that explains how and why an everyday observation demonstrates that water vapour in the air is a gas.
Millions of scientists could have provided other answers but your assertions are too silly to bother refuting. A week ago I gave you a reference that explained you were wrong but you have continued with proclaiming your idiotic assertions. You have now obtained complete refutation of those assertions.
Is it too much to ask you to – at long, long last – take your silly assertions elsewhere instead of polluting WUWT with them?
Richard
Meteorology is a belief system that brings comfort. But it’s not a real science. It’s a religion.
These climate scientists are so blinded by their ideology they can’t see the forest through the trees:
1) He laughs off the comment that CO2 lagging temperature is a serious problem. In their world X = Ym+b, not Y = mX+b.
2) He clearly identifies volcanoes as a major source of CO2. Last I checked we don’t have good measurements of how much CO2 volcanoes pump out. They seem to be finding a new undersea volcano just about every other day.
3) Measuring the output of the sun is irrelevant, it is the radiation that reaches the earth that is relevant. last I checked we don’t have long term records of albedo and cloud cover.
4) His own records show 4000 ppm CO2 and no catastrophic warming.
5) CO2 changes occur over 1/2 million years, those changes are way to slow to explain the high variability of temperature.
6) In this video clip starting at 19 min 30 seconds he highlights how CO2 and ice are correlated. No freaking way, ice and CO2 are related? Who would have thunk that? Has this guy never studied Henry’s Law? The colder the temperature the more CO2 the oceans will absorb. Didn’t they guy ever bother to ask why it got so cold when CO2 was 4000 PPM if CO2 was the cause of the warming? What caused the cooling? High levels of CO2? Duh!!! These people make such circular arguments it is ridiculous. Here is a model that makes sense, the sun warms the oceans, ice melts, CO2 increases, the sun cools the oceans, the oceans absorb CO2, ice expands with the cooling. Duh!!! His own charts show that and he blames CO2 as the only cause. Once again, what caused the cooling and expanding ice when CO2 was 4000 PPM? By what possible mechanism can CO2 cause and ice age? By what mechanism can CO2 pull us out of the ice age if CO2 lags temperatures? They can’t even answer the most basic questions. Lastly, how does IR between 13 and 18 microns warm the oceans? The entire model he details is dependent upon the oceans, yet no one can explain how CO2 and IR between 13 and 18 microns can warm water, let alone the oceans. Climate science is a joke, and it certainly isn’t science.
https://youtu.be/RffPSrRpq_g?t=19m30s
Once again, these ideologically blinded climate scientists can’t see the forest through the trees. They reverse the dependent and independent variables. He clearly states that 1) Volcanism produces huge amounts of CO2, ie natural causes change atmospheric CO2 far greater than your SUV, the history easily proves that. 2) Huge amounts of volcanism, given 3/4 of the earth is under H2O, most likely resulted in warming the oceans. Warm oceans release CO2, but the oceans warming is due to volcanoes, not CO2. Also, once again, how does CO2 increase to pull us out of the ice age? There is a clearly identified pattern of ice ages, but the ending of the ice ages don’t correlate with volcanic activity. What causes the warming to end ice ages? How do ice ages start with high CO2 levels. Any real science would start with answering those questions. Climate science is a joke, and it certainly isn’t a science.
https://youtu.be/RffPSrRpq_g?t=21m50s
There is no such thing as cold steam. It is but an urban myth. The H2O that is in clear moist air is not invisible because it is gaseous H2O(g). It is invisible because it consists of microdroplets that are too small to be seen.
When all else fails, do an experiment.
Who would like to participate?
James,
Why are you ignoring the experiments that have been shown you here demonstrating that your delusion is an urban myth of your own crackpot creation.
Water vapor is invisible to visible light because it is molecular gas, not liquid. Steam is nothing but hot water vapor. In cold enough air, it quickly cools, condenses and turns to ice.
Boiling is simply more rapid evaporation, due to the difference in temperature of the water and the air, which occurs throughout the water mass, not just at its surface. Whether boiling or evaporating more slowly, the liquid water changes phase to gas, that is, to molecular water.
Werner Brozek November 10, 2015 at 5:38 pm
Werner Brozek:
This is getting extremely complicated!
Hydrogen bonds in water have a certain strength. Period.
James McGinn:
You are being obstinate and close minded. If that were true then all of the outlier phenomena that my theory is attempting to explain (and that are currently so poorly explained) would not exist (including the invisibility of evaporate, atmospheric H2O[l]).
For example, if it was true that, as you state, “Hydrogen bonds in water have a certain strength, Period,” and “There is no weak and strong bond being broken,” then ice would and could only be denser than liquid water. Ice actually involves bonds being broken. (Thus the reason it expands.) And, as that take place, the assymetry of the electronegativity is re-established (polarity is reactivated), turning the remaining weak bonds into strong bonds, thus the reason ice is hard.
Yes, I know, the mechanism I am proposing is complicated (and downright counterintuitive). But it works. And its explanatory power is not limited to this one example. It is instrumental in resolving ALL of the outlier phenomena: surface tension, evaporation, sublimation, freezing, size of suspended micro-droplets, non-Newtonian fluids, heat capacity, the nature of boiling, Mpenga effect, super-chilled water, . . . the list goes on.
And, it also has huge implications on how we conceptualize atmospheric flow – vortices – a subject that I discuss in my book. (I’ll give you a hint. I refer to the substance that comprises vortices as, “surface tension on steriods.”)
Don’t let the complexity scare you.
When a resolute fellow steps up to the great bully, the world, and takes him boldly by the beard, he is often surprised to find it comes off in his hand, and that it was only tied on to scare away the timid adventurers.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
That is for sure! The quote below seems very contradictory. First bonds are broken, then weak bonds are turned into strong bonds.
So tell me exactly why water expands when cooled from 3.98 C to 0.01 C?
It takes but a feather of evidence for a believer to find confirmation for what they believe and they put the feather in their cap and go on their merry way.
Meteorology is a consensus science and consensus is for fools.
James McGinn:
Yesterday morning, in a post way upthread I explained to you that an everyday observation (i.e. clothes are wetted by fog but not water vapour) demonstrates that water vapour in the air is a gas and not “crystals” of ice and is not liquid droplets of water when I wrote to you
You tried to evade that writing
But I rejected that evasion saying
A day has passed and you have made 8 posts in this thread since then but you have not answered my question. I repeat it.
Liquid water wets and ice is coated with liquid water so wets.
Gaseous water doesn’t wet.
Water vapour doesn’t wet and, therefore, is observed to be gaseous.
What “understanding” of this do you claim is “not possible”?
Richard
Excellent response.
It appears that James has never studied elementary chemistry.
Or been in an airplane in a cloud to observe how “clumped” water molecules, ie liquid, behave.
Maybe on his planet clothes get wet standing in room temperature air with 1% water vapor but without water droplets, such as fog or mist.
Mods:
I have made a post asking JM to answer my question of a day ago that he has evaded.
The system has given me an indication the post is awaiting moderation and that if it is approved – for some inexplicable reason – it will appear at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/06/is-climate-science-settled-now-includes-september-data/#comment-2070020
which is in the midst of posts from nearly a week ago.
If you do approve my post then please be so kind as to move it or copy it to the present end of the thread where I intended it to be.
With thanks in appreciation for your consideration
Richard
Mods: Apparently it’s become impossible for me to post a reply on here as I’ve posted a reply here 4 times and it’s disappeared each time.
(Reply: James McGinn is in moderation hold due to violating site policy [threadjacking, etc]. Any comment with his name is automatically held for review. Your comment is posted now. ~mod.)
A climate variable not listed above is the distribution of mass on Earth; it is of course related to Gravitation. Where there is more mass, near mountains, the variable increases, where there is less mass a deep valley, the variable decreases. This will have an effect on air flow, water flows, snow, ice, etc.
This section has a huge amount of material. The following seem to have some relevant material, especially the last point.
“Through the course of a Wilson cycle continents collide and split apart, mountains are uplifted and eroded, and ocean basins open and close. The re-distribution and changing size and elevation of continental land masses may have caused climate change on long time scales”;
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ice/chill.html
Isostasy also exists whereby a “state of gravitational equilibrium between the earth’s lithosphere and asthenosphere such that the tectonic plates “float” at an elevation which depends on their thickness and density.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isostasy
Similarly, variable composition within the Earth’s interior which has not yet achieved maximal stability and minimal energy (in other words, with densest parts deepest) continues to cause a fraction of the convection of fluid rock and molten metal within the Earth’s interior (see below).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection#Gravitational_or_buoyant_convection