H/T to ‘intrepid Wanders‘ for this repost from the Uni of Reading meteorology section. No settled science here, and lab model derived from far IR wavebands used in climate models and energy budget diagrams rests on a bunch of assumptions. Who knew? Obviously not Trenberth, who has no error bounds on his energy budget. So along with cloud microphysics getting the predicted absorption of energy by clouds wrong by a large margin, we have big uncertainty in the spectral absorption lines of water vapour. Ho hum. Business-as-usual in climate science land.
Water vapour continuum
In addition to the spectral lines, it has long been recognized that water vapour possesses a continuum absorption which varies relatively slowly with wavelength and pervades the entire IR and microwave spectral region. This has a marked impact on the Earth’s radiation balance with consequences for understanding present day weather and climate and predicting climate change. It is also important for remote sensing of the Earth and its atmosphere.
Discovered by Hettner (1918) as a low-frequency component of water vapour absorption in atmospheric transparency window 8-14 mcr, this phenomenon remained unexplained for 20 years, until Elsasser (1938) suggested that the continuum is an accumulated far-wingcontribution of strong water vapour spectral lines from neighbour bands. This hypothesis was generally accepted until the end of 70th years when the strong quadratic pressure dependence of the continuum absorption (which could not be explained by Lorentz (1906) line profile) as well as the strong negative temperature dependence have been detected (Bignell et al.,1963;Penner and Varanasi,1967). In this connection Penner and Varanasi (1967) and Varanasi et al. (1968) suggested that the main contribution to the self-continuum could be caused not by far wings of water monomer lines but rather by water dimers. Similar assumption was made also by Viktorova and Zhevakin (1967) for microwave spectral region.
The dimer model have explained quite easily the pressure and temperature dependencies of the self-continuum absorption observed since then in many experiments (Mc Coy et al. 1969;Bignell, 1970; Burch, 1970; etc.). Since that time a long scientific discussion has started between adherents of the “monomer” (or “far-wings”) and the “dimer” nature of the water vapour self-continuum, which is continuing up to the current time.
On the one hand, more sophisticated (than Lorentz theory) ab-initio (Tvorogov et al. 1994; Ma and Tipping 1999, 2002; etc.) and semi-empirical (Clough et al. 1989, 1995, etc; Mlawer et al. 1999; etc.) line shape models have been developed, which could explain quite well the experimental facts mentioned above, and due to which the dominating role of the far wings of water vapour lines in the continuum absorption, especially in atmospheric conditions, is most commonly accepted today.
On the other hand, water dimers have been and are being often discussed as a possible component of the water self-continuum absorption (Lowder, 1971; Penner, 1973; Roberts et al. 1976; Arefev and Dianov-Klokov 1977; Montgomery, 1978; Dianov-Klokov et al. 1981;Varanasi, 1988; Devir et al. 1994; Vigasin et al. 1989, 2000; Cormier et al. 2005, etc.).
Finally, collision-induced absorption, resulting from the generation of a short-lived complex of water vapour and colliding molecules, has been proposed as a dominant within water vapour bands in the recent MT_CKD continuum model (Mlawer et al., in preparation, http://rtweb.aer.com/continuum_frame.html).
The possibility of both collision-induced and water dimer marked contribution to the water continuum absorption is however highly disagreed by Tipping (personal communication; Brown and Tipping, 2003). This point of view is shared by Vigasin only in respect to the free pairstates, which negligible role as compared to the metastable or true bound water dimers at near-room temperatures has been shown by Vigasin (1991) and by Epifanov and Vigasin(1997) on the basis of preliminary statistical partitioning of the pair states in water vapour.
Thus, a deep controversy on the nature of the water vapour continuum still remains unresolved. The atmospheric science community has largely sidestepped this controversy, and has adopted a pragmatic approach. Most radiative transfer codes used in climate modelling, numerical weather prediction and remote sensing use a semi-empirical formulation of the continuum – CKD-model (Clough et al. 1989). This formulation was tuned to available (mostly laboratory) observations in rather limited (far-infrared) spectral regions.
The CKD model has served the community extremely well but we lack confidence that its semi-empirical formulation works at wavelength, or in atmospheric conditions, away from those in which it has been tested. This lack of confidence is exacerbated by the recent up-to-date theoretical (Schofield and Kjaergaard, 2003; Daniel et al. 2004; Scribano et al. 2006) and experimental (Vigasin et al. 2000, 2005; Ptashnik et al. 2004, 2005, 2006; Cormier et al.2005; Paynter et al. 2007) studies that very well correlate and supplement each other, indicating all together the marked water dimer contribution to the water vapour self-continuum in some spectral regions.
- Aref’ev VN, Dianov-Klokov VI. Attenuation of 10.6-µm radiation by water vapor and the role of (H20)2 dimers. Opt. Spectrosc. (1977) 42(5), 488-492.
- Bignell K, Saiedy F, Sheppard PA. On the atmospheric infrared continuum. JOSA (1963) 53(4), 466-479.
- Bignell KJ. The water-vapour infra-red continuum. Q. J. Royal. Meteorol. Soc. (1970) 96(409), 390-403.
- Burch DE. Investigation of the Absorption of Infrared Radiation by Atmospheric Gases. Semi-Annual Technical Report. Philco-Ford Corporation, Aeronutronic Division, Newport Beach, CA, Rept. U-4784 (1970).
- Brown A, Tipping RH.Collision-induced absorption in dipolar molecule – homonuclear diatomic pairs. In “Weakly Interacting Molecular Pairs: Unconventional Absorbers of Radiation in the Atmosphere” ed. by C. Camy-Peret and A.A.Vigasin, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands (2003), p. 93-99.
- Clough SA, Kneizys FX, Davies RW. Line shape and water vapor continuum. Atmos. Res. (1989) 23, 229-241.
- Clough SA. The Water Vapor Continuum and its Role in Remote Sensing, in Optical Remote Sensing of the Atmosphere. OSA Technical Digest Series (Optical Society of America, Washington, DC, 1995) v. 2, 76-78.
- Cormier JG, Hodges JT, Drummond JR. Infrared water vapor continuum absorption at atmospheric temperatures. J. Chem. Phys. (2005) 122(11), 114309.
- Daniel JS, Solomon S, Kjaergaard HG, Schofield DP. Atmospheric water vapor complexes and the continuum. Geophys. Res. Letters. (2004) 31, L06118.
- Devir AD, Neumann M, Lipson SG, Oppenheim UP. Water vapor continuum in the 15- to 25-?m spectral region: evidence for (H2O)2 in the atmosphere. Optical Engineering (1994) 33, 746-750.
- Dianov-Klokov VI, Ivanov VM, Aref’ev VN, Sizov NI. Water vapour continuum absorption at 8-13 mm. JQSRT (1981) 25, 83-92.
- Elsasser WM. Mean Absorption and Equivalent Absorption Coefficient of a Band Spectrum. Phys. Rev. (1938) 54, 126-129.
- Epifanov SYu, Vigasin AA. Subdivision of the phase space for anisotropically interacting water molecules. Molec. Phys. (1997) 90, 101-106.
- Hettner G. Infra-red absorption spectrum of water-vapour. Ann. Phys. (1918) 55, 476-496.
- Lorentz HA. Proc. Amst Akad. Sci. (1906) 8, 591.
- Lowder JE. Increase of integrated intensities of H2O infrared bands produced by hydrogen bonding. JQSRT (1971) 11, 153-159.
- Ma Q, Tipping RH. The averaged density matrix in the coordinate representation: Application to the calculation of the far-wing line shapes for H2O. J. Chem. Phys. (1999) 111, 5909-5921.
- Ma Q, Tipping RH. The frequency detuning correction and the asymmetry of line shapes: The far wings of H2O-H2O. J. Chem. Phys. (2002) 116, 4102-4115.
- Mc Coy JH, Rensch DB, Long RK. Water vapor continuum absorption of carbon dioxide laser radiation near 10 m. Appl. Opt. (1969) 8(7), 1471-1478.
- Mlawer EJ, Clough SA, Brown PD, Tobin DC. Recent developments in the water vapor continuum. In Ninth ARM Science Team Meeting Proceedings, San Antonio, TX, March 22-26 (1999), p. 1-6.
- Mlawer EJ, Tobin DC, Clough SA. JQSRT, in preparation (the code is available at http://rtweb.aer.com/continuum_ frame.html).
- Montgomery GP. Temperature dependence of infrared absorption by the water vapor continuum near 1200 cm-1. Appl. Opt. (1978) 17(15), 2299-2303.
- Paynter DJ, Ptashnik IV, Shine KP, Smith KM. Pure water vapor continuum measurements between 3100 and 4400 cm-1: Evidence for water dimer absorption in near atmospheric conditions. Geoph. Res. Lett. (2007) 34, L12808.
- Penner SS, Varanasi P. Spectral absorption coefficient in the pure rotational spectrum of water vapor. JQSRT (1967) 7, 687-690.
- Penner SS. Effect of dimerisation on the transmission of water vapor in the near-infrared. JQSRT (1973) 13, 383-384.
- Ptashnik IV. Smith KM, Shine KP, Newnham DA. Laboratory measurements of water vapour continuum absorption in spectral region 5000-5600 cm-1: Evidence for water dimers. Q. J. Royal Meteorol. Soc. (2004) 130, 2391-2408.
- Ptashnik IV. Water dimers: an “unknown” experiment. Atmos. Oceanic. Opt. (2005) 18(4), 324-326.
- Ptashnik IV. Evidence for the contribution of water dimers to the near-IR water vapour self-continuum. JQSRT (2008) 109, 831-852.
- Roberts RE, Selby JE, Biberman LM. Infrared continuum absorption by atmospheric water vapour in the 8-12- m window. Appl. Opt. (1976) 15(9), 2085-2090.
- Schofield DP, Kjaergaard HG. Calculated OH-stretching and HOH-bending vibrational transitions in the water dimer. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. (2003) 5, 3100-3105.
- Scribano Y, Goldman N, Saykally RJ, Leforestier C. Water Dimers in the Atmosphere III: Equilibrium Constant from a Flexible Potential. J. Phys. Chem. A. (2006) 110, 5411.
- Tvorogov SD, Nesmelova LI, Rodimova OB. Model description of temperature dependence of the H2O absorption in 8-14 microns atmospheric window. Atmos. Ocean. Phys. (1994) 7(11-12), 802.
- Varanasi P, Chou S, Penner SS. Absorption coefficients for water vapor in the 600-1000 cm-1 region. JQSRT (1968) 8, 1537-1541.
- Varanasi P. On the nature of the infrared spectrum of water vapor between 8 and 14 m. JQSRT (1988) 40, 169-175.
- Victorova AA, Zhevakin SA. Absorption of micro-radiowaves in air by water vapor dimers. Sov. Phys. Dokl. (1967) 11, 1059-1062.
- Vigasin AA. Weakly bound molecular complexes in the atmosphere. Atmos. and Ocean Opt. (1989) 2(10), 907-924
- Vigasin AA. Water vapor continuous absorption in various mixtures: possible role of weakly bound complexes. JQSRT (2000) 64, 25-40.
- Vigasin AA. Bound, metastable and free states of bimolecular complexes. Infrared Phys. (1991) 32, 461-470.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
A recent update on the problem from NASA. H/T Intrepid Wanders again
Click to access 20140002372.pdf
“at higher temperatures, the
MT_CKD model provides very low values,
up to 50% less than those experimentally
measured. This indicates that
the T dependence exhibited in the current
MT_CKD model is not correct, and
this model has to be modified.
This work was done by Qiancheng Ma of
Goddard Space Flight Center. Further information
is contained in a TSP (see page 1). GSC-
16075-1″
Fascinating implications (that water is doing even more that thought)…
PS; get some proofing help on this, TB. Too many grammar groaners to list. Reads like a first draft, done late at night.
typo: than thought)…
Brian H: Written by a non- native English speaker. You get the gist.
tallbloke:
H2O has a large dipole moment, 1.8D. Thus at distances on the order of Angstroms isolated molecules should interact through electrostatics. You can think of this as either an intermolecular Stark effect, or field induced quantum mechanical interactions. There may not be a closed form solution, but it should be possible to get reasonable estimates of concentration and temperature dependence with molecular dynamics. I don’t think there is any concentration of dimers as such, just the interaction between passing pairs of molecules. This random effect would vary as concentration squared, but could get complicated as condensation begins.
A. A: Thanks and welcome. Water is amazing stuff. I found this page which seems informative too:
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.html
It is things like this that give me confidence as a skeptic: There is no way that the GCM’s/consensus is giving useful information with this many unknown unknowns, and badly measured known unknowns.
Hunter. Indeed. If I hadn’t posted Jim’s article, I wouldn’t have found out about this. Everyone has a part to play. Worth a thought.
Interesting stuff on water in the atmosphere here:
http://www.climates.com/KA/ATMOSPHERIC%20WATER/waterindex.htm
Here is another Elsasser paper for your Roger.
tallbloke says:
July 17, 2014 at 9:23 pm
A. A: Thanks and welcome. Water is amazing stuff.I found this page which sees informative too:
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.html
The water absorption spectrum is very complex. Water’s vapor spectroscopy has been recently reviewed [348].
P. F. Bernath, The spectroscopy of water vapour: Experiment, theory and applications, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 4 (2002) 1501-1509; J. Tennyson, P. F. Bernath, L. R. Brown, A. Campargue, A. G. Császár, L. Daumont, R. R. Gamache, J. T. Hodges, O. V. Naumenko, O. L. Polyansky, L. S. Rothman, A. C. Vandaele and N. F. Zobov, A database of water transitions from experiment and theory (IUPAC Technical Report), Pure Appl. Chem. 86 (2014) 71-83. [Back]
Being skeptical and somewhat cynical, I can’t help but wonder if the reason that, as it states here, water’s (or water vapor’s) “absorption spectrum is very complex” might have something to do with the fact that, contrary to what they assumed, water vapor is comprised of multimers and not monomers. And since they didn’t know. And since there is no way of measuring/detecting it they simply assumed it was comprised of monomers. (As does everybody else on this planet, except me.) Either that or they asked a meteorologists who assumed such and, unwittingly, told them not to worry about it. IOW, might the fact that moist air is, in actuality, comprised of multimers and not monomers explain the complexity of water vapor’s absorption spectrum? I don’t know. And I haven’t read this paper, so I can’t say what steps they may or may not have taken in that regard. But it makes you wonder. Do they know? Or did they just ASS-U-ME?
Also, I had come across this website about 2 or 3 months ago. I was, of course, looking to see if there was anything here that would clarify my issue (moist air heavier/lighter). I sent an email to the author (Martin Chaplin) and he has yet to respond.
tallbloke says: July 17, 2014 at 9:33 pm
“Hunter. Indeed. If I hadn’t posted Jim’s article, I wouldn’t have found out about this. Everyone has a part to play. Worth a thought”.
Roger,
I agree, Jim appears wierd, but nowhere as wierd as H2O, in all its phases, and all the in between, just starting to get noticed. All of this is as important to your analysis of open water evaporation as well as to the very complex condensation process in clouds. With understanding, this is likely to become so simple, so elegant, and “why did I not think of that”!
The first 3D H2O mers have been identified. They are hexamers, stable in 3 different forms but with a variable density Avagadro now is awake and scratching his chin. Nothing in this article is in disagreement with my wierd measurements. Please take care, the Hitran database overestimates atmospheric absorption, as the absorption coeficients include forward and back scattering for a modilated signal. This data base can “never” be used for bulk absorption when the air parcel is in thermodynamic equilibrium.
Will: I think it is intuitively reasonable that “H2O mers” would be hexamers. After all, snow flakes are usually hexagonal in form.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowflake
This is an interesting video. it doesn’t resolve/solve any of the issues discussed/argued herein but it does kind of provide an overview of why H2O’s hydrogen bond implications are so intractable:
Enjoy,
Hexagons turn up unexpectedly in other places in fluid dynamics too
http://ecocosmology.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/saturn-home-of-hexagon-mystery.html
TB, the snowflake reference is interesting. Before a certain kook runs this off the track, here is a credible summary of the science behind them.
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/primer/primer.htm
With that in mind, if Xmers of H2O vapor molecules do link up, however briefly, it is logical to presume that they would tend to align according to their atomic geometry. And if H2O molecules were to do this, one could also see that they might absorb spectra differently from single atoms of H2O vapor.
But let’s not forget that the physics of water, along with the evaporative rate in varying pressures and temps, is well established by empirical oft-repeated measurements over many years. This could easily turn out to be a distinction with no difference situation.
Uh, yeah. Martin Chaplin is a close scientific relative of Gerry Pollack, whose “Fourth Phase of Water” book I mentioned on a TB thread last week.
Highly recommend y’all TBers check out the Ninth Annual Conference on Physics & Chem of Water orchestrated by Pollack, in Nov in Bulgaria: http://www.waterconf.org/ A veritable heretic’s hoedown. 😉
Pollack has a bunch of stuff on IR emissivity of H20, cloud formation, water vapor dynamics in his book. I hope he will chime in here. Or perhaps TB could invite him to do a guest thread…?
Rhyzotika says:
July 18, 2014 at 1:56 am
Uh, yeah. Martin Chaplin is a close scientific relative of Gerry Pollack, whose “Fourth Phase of Water” book I mentioned on a TB thread last week.
I’m watching this now–4 minutes in.
Very cringe making program on BBC TV the other night. ‘Cloud Lab’, I think was the title. A pair of ‘scientists’ fly off in an airship and measure the weight of a cloud. I kid you not. They also reach a conclusion that a lot of rain is caused by BACTERIA in the cloud. This bacteria being rather smaller than the standard cloud condensation nucleus caused such ‘infected’ clouds to rain sooner. At this stage I had lost the ability to concentrate and did not learn how or where this bacteria originated. But I gave the BBC full marks for another excellent propaganda screening that must have earned those ‘scientists’ more grants to fly around in airships.
@ Richard111
Yes I saw that programme too. Wasn’t sure whether to laugh or switch off after listening to some of their facile nonsense. The BBC needs straightening out, big time.
Some of this is drifting perilously close to polywater.
http://condensedconcepts.blogspot.com/2012/03/polywater-lest-we-forget.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywater
Given who is likely to read this and incorporate it into more kooky crap, I hesitated to bring it up. However,I have noticed how climate kooks recycle old, failed claims about climate doom. SLR doom, OA doom, polar bear doom, Arctic ice doom, drought doom, rain doom, storm doom, war winter doom, cold winter doom, etc doom.
This recycling of scams is not isolated to climate kooks. It is an emergent property of kookdom in general.
As this H2O discussion goes forward be at least aware that people have thought about water before.
Be forewarned.
Hunter: I’m not levelling this at you personally, but accusations of ‘kookiness’ and labels such as ‘crank’ are used by mainstreamers to shut down those who challenge mainstream concepts. They are also used by Anthony Watts, Leif Svagaard, Willis Eschenbach and their lukewarmer grouping to try to shut down this blog. Watts got all biblical and declared me “a pariah”, told me that because of our publication of the PRP special issue and his condemnation of it that my blog would “wither and die”. To help it on it’s way he categorised the blog under a heading of “Transcendent Rant and way out there theory”. After that, we won ‘Best European Blog’ again, to follow being a top five finalist in the ‘Best Science or Technology Blog’ in last years Bloggies.
Kicking the tyres of novel concepts can lead to important insight. It may well be that someone’s hypothesis has serious flaws and that the wheels will come off once the road gets rocky. But on the journey, something important may be realised. Often the journey is more interesting than the destination.
So, less of the “kooks”, “cranks” and other unnecessary ad homs please. This is a friendly blog where people get a friendly debate, with some friendly rib tickling and piss taking as warranted. There’s no need for pejorative labels – they just rile people up and the ensuing heat and smoke clouds the discussion. “Your idea won’t work because…” is more productive than “You’re a crank – full stop”.
Fascinating, for me, video by Gerry Pollack above. Stuff I have never heard of. Not enough science background on my part to make any valid comment. BUT! It appears to me that ‘work is being done’ in those EZ zones. Does this mean the oceans have an alternate method of cooling, losing energy?
I wonder whether it isn’t the complex radiative characteristics of water vapour that matters but rather that there is more evaporation, convection, condensation and radiation to space when convective overturning accelerates and less when it slows down.
More GHGs would cause it to slow down because allowing radiation to space from within the atmosphere means that less kinetic energy must be returned to the surface on descent than was taken away from the surface on ascent.
That would fit with the Miskolczi observation that more GHGs results in less water vapour.
Slower convective overturning would also result in less water vapour.
@hunter, You’re actually not far off the mark bringing up polywater. But don’t dismiss this development just because of that past debacle. Maybe the polywater case was misjudged. It would not be the first time that science has reversed itself. Gerald Pollack retells the polywater story in his book, The Fourth Phase of Water.
Maybe this weekend I will have a chance to transcribe some excerpts that relate directly to this thread. Pollack unpacks conventional concepts of brownian motion, heat, temperature and entropy by looking carefully at the relationship of radiant energy and water structure/behavior. Maybe that sends up more red flags of “kookdom” for you. If so, oh well. But it’s worth taking a peek at this stuff.
Pollack’s basic finding of “long-range ordering” of water molecules next to hydrophilic surfaces (THOUSANDS of molecular layers deep) seems to have been replicated by up to a dozen outside groups now, and is convergent with/complementary to a lot of other cutting edge work from people like Martin Chaplin, Mae Wan Ho, Emilio Del Giudice, Vladimir Voiekov. If you dig thru the various papers posted on Pollack’s Water Journal and Conference site you’ll see other groups confirming the basic result – if not necessarily Pollack’s interpretation. A number have been published in specialist peer-reviewed journals.
@Solvingtornadoes. I have to re-read the booklet but I’m pretty sure Pollack maintains that EZ or 4th phase water, ie large water clusters, operate in the air, and form the basis of water droplets. He’s saying that in this video too. Is it possible that there is an electrodynamic aspect to tornadoes?
tallbloke says:
July 18, 2014 at 10:49 am
Hunter: I’m not levelling this at you personally, but accusations of ‘kookiness’ and labels such as ‘crank’ are used by mainstreamers to shut down those who challenge mainstream concepts.
Thanks Roger. Eventually they will stop pretending they see the emperor’s clothes:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Fairy_tales_of_Andersen_(Paull)/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes
“I shall send my honest old minister to the weavers,” thought the emperor. “He can judge best how the stuff looks, for he is intelligent, and nobody understands his office better than he.”
The good old minister went into the room where the swindlers sat before the empty looms. “Heaven preserve us!” he thought, and opened his eyes wide, “I cannot see anything at all,” but he did not say so. Both swindlers requested him to come near, and asked him if he did not admire the exquisite pattern and the beautiful colours, pointing to the empty looms. The poor old minister tried his very best, but he could see nothing, for there was nothing to be seen. “Oh dear,” he thought, “can I be so stupid? I should never have thought so, and nobody must know it! Is it possible that I am not fit for my office? No, no, I cannot say that I was unable to see the cloth.”
“Now, have you got nothing to say?” said one of the swindlers, while he pretended to be busily weaving.
“Oh, it is very pretty, exceedingly beautiful,” replied the old minister looking through his glasses. “What a beautiful pattern, what brilliant colours! I shall tell the emperor that I like the cloth very much.”
“We are pleased to hear that,” said the two weavers, and described to him the colours and explained the curious pattern. The old minister listened attentively, that he might relate to the emperor what they said; and so he did.
Now the swindlers asked for more money, silk and gold-cloth, which they required for weaving. They kept everything for themselves, and not a thread came near the loom, but they continued, as hitherto, to work at the empty looms.
Soon afterwards the emperor sent another honest courtier to the weavers to see how they were getting on, and if the cloth was nearly finished. Like the old minister, he looked and looked but could see nothing, as there was nothing to be seen.
“Is it not a beautiful piece of cloth?” asked the two swindlers, showing and explaining the magnificent pattern, which, however, did not exist.
“I am not stupid,” said the man. “It is therefore my good appointment for which I am not fit. It is very strange, but I must not let any one know it;” and he praised the cloth, which he did not see, and expressed his joy at the beautiful colours and the fine pattern. “It is very excellent,” he said to the emperor.
Everybody in the whole town talked about the precious cloth.
TB,
I appreciate your heads up. You are right. I am a bit free with the labels. The long term nature of dealing with this climate social madness does not necessarily bring out the best in any of us.
Mercy, as they say, is the heart of the law.
And congratulations on winning the award.
I think water vapor rather then co2 determines GHG effectiveness. With cooling oceans going forward water vapor should continue to decline as well as co2 levels.
GHG EFFECT being an aftermath of the climate not a controller of the climate.
hunter says:
July 18, 2014 at 10:25 am
Hunter:
As this H2O discussion goes forward be at least aware that people have thought about water before. Be forewarned.
Jim McGinn:
Polywater was disputed/refuted because people did experiments to test the notion, not because they sat around talking about how they had it all figured out.
By the way, Miles Mathis, who had a couple guest posts on Talkshop, has some commentary on Pollack’s work here:
Click to access poll.pdf
solvingtornadoes,
I look forward to reading about your experimental results.
Sincerely,
hunter
July 18, 2014 at 9:21 pm
hunter says:
I look forward to reading about your experimental results.
Solving Tornadoes:
Maybe you should do something more than sit in front of your computer and whine about the fact that everything isn’t spelled out for you. You could, for instance, begin contacting meteorologists and urge them to test their convective model of storm theory. I would be glad to consult with you and them with respect to experimental methods. Arguably, they should have tested this 170 years ago. You might mention that to them. Or you could even do the experiment yourself. Of course, then, you’d be facing the uphill battle of getting them to accept whatever results you got. But you seem to have a lot of free time on your hands anyway.
Jim
One wonders if ST is familiar with “The Thunderstorm Project” that took place in 1947, well before he was born I would imagine. A lot of valuable information was gleaned to support or discard various ‘theories’ of the day regarding convective thunderstorm development.
I defer to pre-drafted text to summarize:
– – – – – – –
The Thunderstorm Project was the nation’s first large-scale, scientific study of thunderstorms. It was a cooperative undertaking of the U.S. Weather Bureau, Army Air Force, Navy, and the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (predecessor of NASA).
The first phase of the Thunderstorm Project was conducted in Florida in 1946 and the second phase in Wilmington, Ohio in 1947. Pilots from the Clinton County Army Air Force Base made many flights through storms of varying intensities and all stages of development.
Scientists also used radar, balloon soundings, and an extensive network of weather instruments to gather observations which led to an understanding of the structure and life cycle of thunderstorms.
The Thunderstorm Project was the first weather research study in which radar and airplanes had a central role. It demonstrated that radar could be used to detect the most dangerous parts of thunderstorms and guide airplanes around them. Scientists at the University of Chicago analyzed data from the project and published their results in 1949. Theories they developed from data gathered here and in Florida remain essential for understanding thunderstorms and related
weather phenomena.
– – – – – – –
Further information: http://www.erh.noaa.gov/iln/research/ThunderstormProject/TSP.php
A brief video on the subject:
.
I would be remiss if I did not post at least one report of observed data resulting from “The Thunderstorm Project” that was underway in 1946 and 1947. Here is one such report published in 1948 of observed conditions in and around thunderstorms.
Title: “Thunderstorm Structure and Circulation”
http://www.erh.noaa.gov/iln/research/ThunderstormProject/TSP.php
Note in particular the measurement of vertical wind currents and also temperature-humidity measurements as well.
These measurements went a long ways in refining theories in how thunderstorms formed and the conditions that exist within them. Note well these are observations and measurements using a variety of instruments, some ‘hanging’ from radiosondes or weather balloons even which were sent into the storms and their movements tracked with RADAR.
.
Rhyzotika says:
July 18, 2014 at 3:26 pm
@Solvingtornadoes. I have to re-read the booklet but I’m pretty sure Pollack maintains that EZ or 4th phase water, ie. large water clusters, operate in the air, and form the basis of water droplets. He’s saying that in this video too. Is it possible that there is an electro-dynamic aspect to tornadoes?
Certainly, IMO. When you see the vortex (or cone) of a tornado you are seeing a plasma phase of H2O molecules. This plasma phase exists under very specific conditions: wind shear at moist air/dry air boundaries. It literally it involves chains of H2O droplets (bombarded by dry air from the other side of a wind shear boundary) beginning to spin. The centrifugal force of the spinning forces them to stretch out into chains. As they stretch out some (not all) of their hydrogen bonds are broken. This activates their polarity. This activation of polarity induces increased strength of existing hydrogen bonds (which enables them to remain a chain regardless of centrifugal forces) and (most significantly) causes them to release large amounts of surface tension (EMF). The large amount of surface tension is what you are seeing when you witness the vortex of a tornado. (The same phenomena is what allows the jet stream its high efficiency/proficiency.) (Note: tornadoes are, actually, a down-reaching extension of a [the] jet stream.) The electro-dynamic aspect comes into play with respect to the fact that what makes all of this possible are hydrogen bonds etc. And hydrogen bond are themselves electro-dynamic. (See video above.)
Thank you for asking such an intelligent (and well considered) question.
If you don’t fully understand what I’m saying above, don’t fret. More details will be made available soon.
Also, thank you for bringing Pollack to our attention. And, yes, if Pollack has more insight into how (and if) water clusters exist in the atmosphere, please let us know.
Regards,
Jim McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
OK here’s an except, from part way thru “Clouds from Coffee: The Remarkable Nature of Evaporation,” (chapter 15) The Fourth Phase of Water, G. Pollack:
The Evaporative Event
What, then, triggers each evaporate puff?
This question brings to mind the larger question: what energy drives evaporation? Since water evaporates most rapidly when it receives ample heat or sunshine, a good candidate should be radiant energy. Material from the previous chapter offers a plausible scenario: radiant energy builds vesicle [vesicles = bubbles &/or droplets] EZs [Exclusion Zones]; the EZs add interior protons, which raise internal pressure; the increased internal pressure may then expand the vesicles, turning their liquid interiors to vapor; the vapor-filled vesicles then evaporate. So radiant energy produces evaporation.
But why should those vesicles rise into the air? Vapor-filled vesicles are certainly less dense than vesicles filled with liquids; perhaps the low density causes them to rise. Interior density reduction cannot be the full story, however, for vesicles have shells. The shell consists of dense EZ material., denser even than liquid water. Depending on the shell-to-interior mass ratio, vesicles could easily remain denser than air. Something more certain than reduced density seems necessary for propelling the vesicles upward.
That upward propellant may be charge. Let me explain with a small digression.
Envision evaporated vesicles rising high into the atmosphere. Those evaporated vesicles, often called droplet, may eventually condense to form clouds. The water contained in those clouds can be massively heavy: an atmospheric science colleague estimates the weight of clouds not in terms of kilograms but in terms of easier to fathom units: elephants. In a large cumulonimbus cloud, the total aerosol droplet weight can amount to fifteen MILLION elephants. That’s a lot of elephants to keep suspended in the sky (and a better-than-average reason to carry a good umbrella).
Such mammoth amounts of water eventually plummet to the earth. Rain happens. Cloud vesicles seem to have two clear options — fall or don’t fall. Falling must involve some reduction of the upward-directed force that ordinarily keeps the water suspended high in the sky. What if that upward force were the same as the upward force that lifts the vesicles up from the water?
The lifting force4 may be electrostatic, i.e., based on charges. You may recollect that vesicles carry a net negative charge (Chapter 14). Negative charge alone cannot explain lift; however the earth bears negative charge as well (see Chapter 9). The Earth’s negative charge may repel the vesicles, pushing them upward. That upward force could help power the evaporative rise (Fig. 15.13).
A familiar example of this electrostatic lifting force may be seen in waterfalls. Descending water creates a mist of droplets that rise upward, forming clouds. Such clouds can rise above the tops of the falls (Fig 15.14). Since droplets cannot mechanically rebound higher than the height from which they started, some other force is implied, and a good option is electrostatic charge. The upward force arising from droplets’ negative charge may be the same as the upward force that suspends the elephantine clouds — and perhaps the same force that propels the tubular structures upward. Those tubular structures merely need to acquire enough negative charge to facilitate the rise. [– pp 267-268, Fourth Phase of Water, Ebner & Sons Pub, http://www.ebnerandsons.com%5D
Free pdf w 3 sample chapters here:
http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0161/7154/files/FOURTH_PHASE_SAMPLE.pdf?1585
July 19, 2014 at 3:25 am & July 19, 2014 at 4:24 am
Jim says:
A lot of valuable information was gleaned to support or discard various ‘theories’ of the day regarding convective thunderstorm development.
Theories they developed from data gathered here and in Florida remain essential for understanding thunderstorms and related
weather phenomena.
These measurements went a long ways in refining theories in how thunderstorms formed and the conditions that exist within them.
Jim McGinn:
This is all well and good. But does any of this really have any bearing on the questions being asked here? Did any of this prove or test the notion that the energy of storms is the result of buoyant uplift of lighter, moist air? Did they ever weigh equal volumes of air? Did they ever do anything but blindly assume that H2O is mono-molecular in the atmosphere?
The answer to all of these questions is, no.
re: Rhyzotika July 19, 2014 at 8:19 am
A familiar example of this electrostatic lifting force may be seen in waterfalls. Descending water creates a mist of droplets that rise upward, forming clouds. Such clouds can rise above the tops of the falls (Fig 15.14). Since droplets cannot mechanically rebound higher than the height from which they started, some other force is implied, and a good option is electrostatic charge.
Do not forget a large amount of air is ‘entrained’ and or/moved by the falling water (a hose spraying water *also* moves a quantity of air with it – a simple experiment to test in the garden!), and since this air meets ‘resistance’ at the base of the falls (the air does not ‘fall’ into the water like the water does!) it must return back to the environment in the vicinity, also taking with it some smaller droplets one would call mist.
About the electrostatic theory, this could be easily verified at any waterfall using an Electrometer, a device capable of measuring and indicating “DC” or static electric fields. I have a JCI model 111 ‘field mill’ style eletrometer which is used in experiments (and charge monitoring of overhead cumulus during on-going thunderstorms), the next time I visit the “Allen Dam” I’ll see if I can take some readings. One doesn’t need Niagara Falls to confirm this effect!
In a thunderstorm, it is when liquid water ascends above the ‘freezing’ line then begins to interact with falling ‘ice’ crystals when charge separation occurs, after which lightning can occur. Observation of local cumulus cum-cumulonimbus cum-thunderstorm bears this out.
Home brew field mill electrometer. Note the rotating vane breaks up the static field so the underlying electronics amplifies and detects AC voltages:
http://www.precisionstrobe.com/jc/fieldmill/fieldmill.html
.
I’m surprised that anyone would assume that water vapour exists only as a monomer. The devil being in the detail of calculating what degree of association pertains under the multitudinous atmospheric conditions.
Examples:
Active Thermochemical Tables: Water and Water Dimer
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp403197t?prevSearch=%2528water%2Bdimers%2529%2Band%2B%255BTitle%253A%2Bwater%255D&searchHistoryKey=
Atmospheric Significance of Water Clusters and Ozone–Water Complexes
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp407282c
ACS publications generally paywalled, I’m afraid, but the abstracts still give interesting information.
re: michael hart July 19, 2014 at 2:33 pm
I’m surprised that anyone would assume that water vapour exists only as a monomer.
One wonders what the ‘lifetime’ of such polymers might be since gases exist in a ‘Brownian’ state of motion and collisions with other gas molecules (and surfaces of solids even). How many H2O pairs combine and then separate in say 1 millisecond? What is the corresponding energy release or capture, do collisions with other molecules result in dislodging the polymer pair? … I suppose I will have to dig into the papers to see those numbers …
July 19, 2014 at 2:33 pm
Michael Hart says:
I’m surprised that anyone would assume that water vapour exists only as a monomer
Jim McGinn:
I’m never (or, no longer) surprised by the power of group-think to take the seemingly most intelligent human beings and reduce them to complete buffoons.
Michael Hart:
The devil being in the detail of calculating what degree of association pertains under the multitudinous atmospheric conditions.
Jim McGinn:
I think the devil is in the details of the H2O molecule, which I attempt to explicate here:
Also take note of the comment section where I take Lucia to task for failing to distinguish between density and relative density (two very different concepts).
July 19, 2014 at 3:00 pm
Jim says:
One wonders what the ‘lifetime’ of such polymers might be since gasses exist in a ‘Brownian’ state of motion and collisions with other gas molecules (and surfaces of solids even).
Jim McGinn:
Okay, but this is true for all gasses. So it isn’t pertinent to what is distinctive about H2O.
(BTW, H2O is not [and cannot be] a gas at temperatures below the boiling point of water.)
re: solvingtornadoes July 19, 2014 at 5:53 pm
<crank>
(BTW, H2O is not [and cannot be] a gas at temperatures below the boiling point of water.)
</crank>
Ever experimented with a beaker of water under a Bell jar (implying a vacuum pump was also in use to reduce the air pressure beneath the Bell jar)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_jar
Oh – and what is that vapor ‘evolving’ (technical term) off my hot cup of coffee?
.
re: solvingtornadoes July 19, 2014 at 5:53 pm
(BTW, H2O is not [and cannot be] a gas at temperatures below the boiling point of water.)
.
Maybe, just maybe, you’re unfamiliar with this term or concept:
. . Vapor pressure, or sometimes referred to as “equilibrium vapor pressure”.
Here is wiki’s take on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor_pressure
.
Have you ever studied that term before? Do you know what it refers to?
.
_Jim says:
July 19, 2014 at 6:21 pm
LOL. Boiling point (temperature) changes with air pressure, you idiot. This is high school stuff. (BTW, H2O is not [and cannot be] a gas at temperatures below the boiling point of water.)
Do you know what partial pressure is? Why don’t you look it up. Guess what the partial pressure of H2O is (at ambient temps)?
Simpleminded twits like you are why people still die in tornadoes.
re: solvingtornadoes July 19, 2014 at 6:55 pm
Whoa, sonny boy, that was not the question (I know you’re being obtuse, and now the readers know that you’re being obtuse and that I recognize that fact.)
I assume you are also unaware of the term ‘vapor pressure’ and how that involves some amount of ‘vapor’ evolving off from a ‘liquid’ in order to form a ‘partial pressure’ in the atmosphere (otherwise, the partial pressure would be zero for a given particular compound were no ‘vapor’ capable of being formed or evolving off any given liquid).
Are you still going to quote this tired old line (shown below for illustrative purposes) again and state that Water Vapor (evolving or evaporating from liquid water) forms _no_ partial pressure in the atmosphere?
<crank>
(BTW, H2O is not [and cannot be] a gas at temperatures below the boiling point of water.)
</crank>
.
reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapour_pressure_of_water
Do you see in the above reference where at 0 deg C the vapor pressure of H2O is 4.5 mm Hg (4.5 millimeters of Mercury)?
At 25 deg C that rises to 24.0 mm of Hg? Do you understand what that means, and furthermore do you see what is taking place as temperature rises? Do you furthermore see where the vapor pressure approaches sea level atmospheric pressure as the temperature reaches 100 deg C?
Furthermore, do you understand it is the molecular ‘makeup’ (this gets into the nuclear physics aspect of particles making up molecules) of H2O that yields these particular ‘traits’ yielding different vapor pressures at different temperatures? Do you even know what any of this means? Or, are you just getting back at the world because some teacher ‘taught you wrong’ in school?
.
_Jim says:
July 19, 2014 at 8:00 pm
re: solvingtornadoes July 19, 2014 at 6:55 pm
_Jim says:
Water Vapor forms _no_ partial pressure in the atmosphere?
ST:
That’s right! Why do you think that is?
Here is a link that might help you answer this question: http://wp.me/p4JijN-3X
_Jim says:
reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapour_pressure_of_water
ST:
Apples and oranges. These are two completely different concepts/subjects. If you have a tendency to transpose concepts that sound similar but that have totally different meanings you will be forever confused. (And that, unfortunately, is especially true for meterology.)
Our thinking and language is often framed in terms of phenomena from thermodynamics. But thermodynamics requires all energy and mass flows to be at equilibrium, and the atmosphere is never at equilibrium, and often not even close. Pollack shows a “phase” (meaning a stable non-equilibrium concentration) can exist as the result of a non-equilibrium radiation field. At temperatures where ice or liquid could have nucleated, but has not, could we have a variety of metastable water structures? Not excluding electric fields and various radiations, I’m pretty sure we could have all the things so far suggested.
The immediate problem posed by this thread is that we still do not know what is moving the spectra around, thermodynamic or, more likely. otherwise.
I would like to note that extremely small absorbances get amplified by the multiple scattering that goes on in clouds and fogs.
ST,
Please clarify why talking about the vapor pressure of water is not relevant to your assertion that water vapor does not have a partial pressure? Linking to your prior circular non-answer is not an answer, by the way.
Solving Tornadoes:
Maybe you should do something more than sit in front of your computer and whine about the fact that everything isn’t spelled out for you.
hunter:
I’m not running a hand holding service here. Why don’t you and Jim put your heads together and see if you can come up with a counterargument. I’m open to the possibility that I’ve made a mistake.
solvingtornadoes says: July 19, 2014 at 8:36 pm
_Jim says:Water Vapor forms _no_ partial pressure in the atmosphere?
ST: “That’s right! Why do you think that is?
Here is a link that might help you answer this question: http://wp.me/p4JijN-3X”
Only a link to yourself, never to any part of this physical!
_Jim says: “reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapour_pressure_of_water”
ST: “Apples and oranges. These are two completely different concepts/subjects. If you have a tendency to transpose concepts that sound similar but that have totally different meanings you will be forever confused. (And that, unfortunately, is especially true for meterology)”
Why do you refuse to engage with anyone that chalanges your lone concept on no water vapor below 100 Celsius? That monomer water vapor pressure is that that makes your Newcomen engine reciprocate, without it no engine! Please discuss the valid concept of “Vapour pressure of water” no apples and oranges, only “Vapour pressure of water”. This is also known as a partial pressure in an atmosphere of mixed gases, like this atmosphere. Do you deny even the concept, let alone the precise measurement of such?
solvingtornadoes says: July 19, 2014 at 5:53 pm
_Jim says:July 19, 2014 at 3:00 pm
One wonders what the ‘lifetime’ of such polymers might be since gasses exist in a ‘Brownian’ state of motion and collisions with other gas molecules (and surfaces of solids even).
Jim McGinn:
“Okay, but this is true for all gasses. So it isn’t pertinent to what is distinctive about H2O.”
“(BTW, H2O is not [and cannot be] a gas at temperatures below the boiling point of water.)”
This only your personal obscene claim, never to be demonstrated. What is the boiling point of water at a pressure of 770 Pascals? A confirmed pressure in this earth’s atmosphere.
Will Janoschka says:
July 20, 2014 at 2:57 am
ST:
Here is a link that might help you answer this question: http://wp.me/p4JijN-3X”
Will Janoschka:
Why do you refuse to engage with anyone that challenges your lone concept on no water vapor below 100 Celsius?
ST:
What is your challenge?
Will Janoschka:
That monomer water vapor pressure is that that makes your Newcomen engine reciprocate, without it no engine!
ST:
I can’t make any sense of this.
Will Janoschka:
Please discuss the valid concept of “Vapour pressure of water” no apples and oranges, only “Vapour pressure of water”. This is also known as a partial pressure in an atmosphere of mixed gases, like this atmosphere. Do you deny even the concept, let alone the precise measurement of such?
ST:
I think my position is fairly clear. If you think I made mistake on this then why not make a detailed argument to that effect.
Will Janoschka says:
July 20, 2014 at 3:11 am
ST:
“(BTW, H2O is not [and cannot be] a gas at temperatures below the boiling point of water.)”
This only your personal obscene claim, never to be demonstrated. What is the boiling point of water at a pressure of 770 Pascals? A confirmed pressure in this earth’s atmosphere.
ST:
My statement is true/valid regardless of atmospheric pressure.
Will Janoschka says:
July 20, 2014 at 2:57 am
———————————
Will,
you are entirely correct, the Newcomen engine was a condensation engine not a steam engine.
The simples empirical experiment can prove that water vapour can be absorbed into air without the individual molecules being above boiling temperature and this will change the buoyancy of the saturated air –
Take 1 soft sided 2L empty plastic water container with an air tight lid.
Pour in a small amount of 80C water, screw the cap on an shake vigorously. The container will swell, partly due to heating of the air and partly due to water vapour being absorbed by the air.
Tun the container upside down and empty the water and replace the lid. The container is now filled with moist air at room pressure. As the container cools, vapour visibly condenses inside and the container crumples.
The more accurate version of the experiment is run with no temperature differential like so –
This stuff about saturated air not being lighter than dry air is in complete defiance of empirical evidence.
Konrad said: This stuff about saturated air not being lighter than dry air is in complete defiance of empirical evidence.
No, no, no (!) the picture shows the crumpled brain of climastrologers, can nobody see that (!)
@solvingtornadoes: keep up the good work, thank you!
@Will Janoschka: what was your experiment?
solvingtornadoes says: July 20, 2014 at 3:29 am
Will Janoschka says: July 20, 2014 at 3:11 am
“This only your personal obscene claim, never to be demonstrated. What is the boiling point of water at a pressure of 770 Pascals? A confirmed pressure in this earth’s atmosphere.”
ST: “My statement is true/valid regardless of atmospheric pressure.”
Jim McGinn, You have absolutly no evidence of your personal obscene claim.
Konrad. says: July 20, 2014 at 4:59 am
“Will, you are entirely correct, the Newcomen engine was a condensation engine not a steam engine. The simple empirical experiment can prove that water vapour can be absorbed into air without the individual molecules being above boiling temperature and this will change the buoyancy of the saturated air ”
Indeed! Can we ever get Jim McGinn to drop his singular fantasy, and help to try us, and himself to understand this atmosphere? The hurricanes and tornadoes demonstrate the ability of water to convert all human “work” and “action” back into the necessary entropy! The arrogant academics, like Jim’s Meteorologists will never learn. Those that admit “they do not know” may learn a wee bit.
Chaeremon says: July 20, 2014 at 5:19 am
Konrad said: This stuff about saturated air not being lighter than dry air is in complete defiance of empirical evidence.
No, no, no (!) the picture shows the crumpled brain of climastrologers, can nobody see that (!)
@solvingtornadoes: keep up the good work, thank you!
@Will Janoschka: what was your experiment?
I have no experiment. I have only many measurements of IR transmission through mostly horizontal atmospheres. My only conclusion is that atmospheric water vapor, is really really weird.
Konrad. says:
July 20, 2014 at 4:59 am
you are entirely correct, the Newcomen engine was a condensation engine not a steam engine.
ST:
That the steam condenses is the point. How in the world is this not obvious?
Konrad:
The simples empirical experiment can prove that water vapour can be absorbed into air without the individual molecules being above boiling temperature
ST:
Yeah, so? Who supposedly stated otherwise?
Konrad:
and this will change the buoyancy of the saturated air –
ST:
Change the buoyancy? How are you going to measure/estimate the buoyancy?
Konrad:
Take 1 soft sided 2L empty plastic water container with an air tight lid.Pour in a small amount of 80C water, screw the cap on an shake vigorously. The container will swell, partly due to heating of the air and partly due to water vapour being absorbed by the air. Turn the container upside down and empty the water and replace the lid. The container is now filled with moist air at room pressure. As the container cools, vapour visibly condenses inside and the container crumples.The more accurate version of the experiment is run with no temperature differential like so –
ST:
I did your experiment. My bottle did crumple a bit, as you suggest. And I saw the link you indicated. But neither of these demonstrations proves/demonstrates that the air that is saturated with water is lighter. At best it demonstrates that H2O can make a small contribution to the air volume. It doesn’t demonstrate that H2O’s contribution is monomolecular, which would have to be the case if the volume of air became lighter. And it would have to be lighter to effect buoyancy.
Konrad:
This stuff about saturated air not being lighter than dry air is in complete defiance of empirical evidence.
ST:
No its not. And the fact that you think your experiment demonstrated that is more evidence that it is just an urban legend. Buoyancy (or, relative buoyancy) is a function of weight of dry air vs weight of moist air. Your experiment didn’t measure that.
Chaeremon says:
July 20, 2014 at 5:19 am
Konrad said: This stuff about saturated air not being lighter than dry air is in complete defiance of empirical evidence.
No, no, no (!) the picture shows the crumpled brain of climastrologers, can nobody see that (!)
@solvingtornadoes: keep up the good work, thank you!
@Will Janoschka: what was your experiment?
ST:
I sometimes feel like I’ve entered an alternate universe. If you are going to do an experiment on the weight of dry air vs. moist air shouldn’t the experiment have something to do with measuring the weight of dry air vs, moist air?
Chaeremon says:
July 20, 2014 at 5:19 am
————————————
“No, no, no (!) the picture shows the crumpled brain of climastrologers, can nobody see that (!)”
Climastrologrers have brains?! (crumpled or otherwise) This is an extraordinary claim!! I demand empirical evidence!!!
Will Janoschka says:
July 20, 2014 at 5:45 am
ST:
BTW, H2O is not (and cannot be) a gas at temperatures below the boiling point of water.
WJ:
This only your personal obscene claim, never to be demonstrated. What is the boiling point of water at a pressure of 770 Pascals?
ST:
My statement is true/valid regardless of atmospheric pressure. If you have evidence that contradicts this feel free to present it.
WJ:
What is the boiling point of water at a pressure of 770 Pascals?
ST:
I don’t know. Why don’t you look it up. You own a computer hooked to the internet, don’t you?
WJ:
You have absolutely no evidence of your personal obscene claim.
ST:
LOL. If you have evidence that H2O remains a gas at temperatures below its boiling point then, by all means, please present it. You should write up your findings and submit them to a journal. It would be big news. You might win the Nobel prize!
Konrad. says: July 20, 2014 at 4:59 am
“Will, you are entirely correct, the Newcomen engine was a condensation engine not a steam engine. The simple empirical experiment can prove that water vapour can be absorbed into air without the individual molecules being above boiling temperature and this will change the buoyancy of the saturated air ”
WJ:
Indeed!
ST:
Indeed what? Just because you turkeys claim to be able to see the emperor’s new clothes doesn’t mean I’m obligated to substantiate it.
WJ:
Can we ever get Jim McGinn to drop his singular fantasy, and help to try us, and himself to understand this atmosphere? The hurricanes and tornadoes demonstrate the ability of water to convert all human “work” and “action” back into the necessary entropy!
ST:
Are you losing your mind? Entropy? Oh brother. Next you’ll be telling us everything is comprehensible through the second law of thermodynamics and its just a big conspiracy that everybody doesn’t follow suit.
WJ:
The arrogant academics, like Jim’s Meteorologists will never learn. Those that admit “they do not know” may learn a wee bit.
ST:
Is this Pat Obar? You need to get a different spiel. You are so predictable.
solvingtornadoes says: July 20, 2014 at 5:59 am
Konrad. says: July 20, 2014 at 4:59 am
“you are entirely correct, the Newcomen engine was a condensation engine not a steam engine.”
ST: “That the steam condenses is the point. How in the world is this not obvious?”
That steam only condenses to the point that the temperature determines the equilibrium vapor pressure of the gaseous water vapor. The H2O gaseous monomer must have the highest pressure of any water vapor “mer” thus dominates any pressure. In only H2O vapour, or the partial pressure of H2O vapor in any mixture of gases.,
Konrad: “The simples empirical experiment can prove that water vapour can be absorbed into air without the individual molecules being above boiling temperature”
ST: “Yeah, so? Who supposedly stated otherwise?”
You did Jim McGinn. You insist “no atmospheric water vapor below 100 Celsius, your fantasy!
Konrad:”and this will change the buoyancy of the saturated air”
ST: “Change the buoyancy? How are you going to measure/estimate the buoyancy?”
Is an inability to measure an opposite, a proof of your obsene claims?
Konrad: “This stuff about saturated air not being lighter than dry air is in complete defiance of empirical evidence.”
ST: “No its not. And the fact that you think your experiment demonstrated that is more evidence that it is just an urban legend. Buoyancy (or, relative buoyancy) is a function of weight of dry air vs weight of moist air. Your experiment didn’t measure that”.
Konrad correctly identified buoyancy, in realtion to density You JIm, refuse to discuss the important difference between weight and density!
Will Janoschka says:
July 20, 2014 at 5:57 am
Chaeremon says: July 20, 2014 at 5:19 am
@Will Janoschka: what was your experiment?
I have no experiment. I have only many measurements of IR transmission through mostly horizontal atmospheres. My only conclusion is that atmospheric water vapor, is really really weird.
Jim McGinn:
It’s “wierd” because it clumps. (If it didn’t it wouldn’t be “wierd.”) And it clumps in different sized and, unlike a lot of other substances, clumping in different sizes has implications on it’s residual EMF (which is more directly a function of whether or not and how many of its hydrogen bonds are bonded.) And even then it’s wierd because clumps of the same size can have different EMF signatures as a result of spinning, which can break some hydrogen bonds, which releases more EMF. Yes water is wierd. I’d go further: It’s freekin wierd. And the more you drill down to the molecular level the weirder it gets. For more details see this: http://wp.me/p4JijN-3X
solvingtornadoes says:
July 20, 2014 at 5:59 am
———————————-
PWNED………….and how!
You have made a critical mistake. Sceptics are not sceptical of empirically verifiable claims. They are sceptical of BS (blackboard scribbling).
Your claims are trash. Instantly disproved by the simplest empirical experiment.
You haven’t done this –
– and nothing you can say or do can ever excuse your coming on to this forum and making your claims without empirical results from such an experiment.
You sir, are a squealing little lightweight. Want to step up to the plate? Then do the work! BS (blackboard scribbling) won’t cut it. No if. No But. No maybe. I have given you the experiment design. So no type, type,type. No links. Just bloody do it for yourself! Sheesh….
Will Janoschka says:
July 20, 2014 at 6:46 am
solvingtornadoes says: July 20, 2014 at 5:59 am
Konrad. says: July 20, 2014 at 4:59 am
“you are entirely correct, the Newcomen engine was a condensation engine not a steam engine.”
ST: “That the steam condenses is the point. How in the world is this not obvious?”
WJ:
That steam only condenses to the point that the temperature determines the equilibrium vapor pressure of the gaseous water vapor.
ST:
True, but there is no drama there. Or very little. (As was demonstrated in the experiment Konrad introduced above.) If the newcomen engine wasn’t able to create a significant vacuum it wouldn’t have been very useful.
Konrad: “The simples empirical experiment can prove that water vapour can be absorbed into air without the individual molecules being above boiling temperature”
ST: “Yeah, so? Who supposedly stated otherwise?”
WJ:
You did Jim McGinn. You insist “no atmospheric water vapor below 100 Celsius, your fantasy!
ST:
No I didn’t, you loon. Freekin pay attetion. My claims were in regard to gaseous H2O (steam) not water vapor (moist air) don’t attribute your inability to distinguish between two different concepts on me.
Konrad:”and this will change the buoyancy of the saturated air”
ST: “Change the buoyancy? How are you going to measure/estimate the buoyancy?”
WJ:
Is an inability to measure an opposite, a proof of your obscene claims?
ST:
If you think it’s opposite then you need to establish that, you loon. (Fat chance that.)
Konrad: “This stuff about saturated air not being lighter than dry air is in complete defiance of empirical evidence.”
ST:
“No its not. And the fact that you think your experiment demonstrated that is more evidence that it is just an urban legend. Buoyancy (or, relative buoyancy) is a function of weight of dry air vs weight of moist air. Your experiment didn’t measure that”.
WJ:
Konrad correctly identified buoyancy, in realtion to density You JIm, refuse to discuss the important difference between weight and density!
ST:
LOL. You failed to define your terms, and so now you’ve only managed to confuse yourself even further. If you can’t distinguish between steam (mono-molecular H2O, that can only exist above boiling point of water) and moist air (water vapor) which is comprised of N2, O2 and multimers (not monomers) of H2O you will be forever confused and relegated to being an obscene jackass into eternity.
Konrad says:
July 20, 2014 at 7:11 am
You have made a critical mistake. Sceptics are not sceptical of empirically verifiable claims. They are sceptical of BS (blackboard scribbling).
Your claims are trash. Instantly disproved by the simplest empirical experiment.
ST:
LOL. Your experiment demonstrates that warm (moist) air contracts as it cools. That you think it demonstrated something different than that is your delusion.
Konrad:
Just bloody do it for yourself!
ST:
I did. (I just used hot tap water.) I got the results you suggested. (The bottle collapsed by about 1/8th of its volume. I imagine if I used a little bit hotter water it would have collapsed a little more.) My results were consistent with what was on your web link. No drama. Your experiment demonstrates that warm (moist) air contracts as it cools. That you think it demonstrated something different than that is your delusion.
solvingtornadoes says: July 20, 2014 at 6:38 am
Will Janoschka says: Juuly 20, 2014 at 5:45 am
ST:”BTW, H2O is not (and cannot be) a gas at temperatures below the boiling point of water.”
WJ: “This only your personal obscene claim, never to be demonstrated. What is the boiling point of water at a pressure of 770 Pascals?”
ST: My statement is true/valid regardless of atmospheric pressure. If you have evidence that contradicts this feel free to present it.”
WJ: “What is the boiling point of water at a pressure of 770 Pascals?”
ST: “I don’t know. Why don’t you look it up. You own a computer hooked to the internet, don’t you?
A pressure of 770 Pascals and 273.2 Kelvin is the triple point of water, below that pressure liquid water cannot exist. however gaseous water and solid water do exist with both existing down to temperatures of less than 200 Kelvin. It is obvious that you know nothing of water.
WJ: “You have absolutely no evidence of your personal obscene claim.
ST: “LOL. If you have evidence that H2O remains a gas at temperatures below its boiling point then, by all means, please present it. You should write up your findings and submit them to a journal. It would be big news. You might win the Nobel prize!”
It is your claim of no H2O gas below some temperature. Please demonstrate your claim!
Konrad. says: July 20, 2014 at 4:59 am
“Will, you are entirely correct, the Newcomen engine was a condensation engine not a steam engine. The simple empirical experiment can prove that water vapour can be absorbed into air without the individual molecules being above boiling temperature and this will change the buoyancy of the saturated air ”
WJ:”Indeed!”
ST: “Indeed what? Just because you turkeys claim to be able to see the emperor’s new clothes doesn’t mean I’m obligated to substantiate it.”
Your insane claims Jim, not those of the emperor.
WJ: “Can we ever get Jim McGinn to drop his singular fantasy, and help to try us, and himself to understand this atmosphere? The hurricanes and tornadoes demonstrate the ability of water to convert all human “work” and “action” back into the necessary entropy!
ST: Are you losing your mind? Entropy? Oh brother. Next you’ll be telling us everything is comprehensible through the second law of thermodynamics and its just a big conspiracy that everybody doesn’t follow suit.
Find any error in my statement about weather?
WJ: “The arrogant academics, like Jim’s Meteorologists will never learn. Those that admit “they do not know” may learn a wee bit.”
ST: “Is this Pat Obar? You need to get a different spiel. You are so predictable.?”
Only at Principia Scientific, Predictable yes, I must destroy your claimed scientific Bull Shit!
Sorry to be off topic but I have a question. In my memory I remember the acronym CAGW being commonly used by proponents, and skeptics. I know there was, and are currently countless proclamations of catastrophe by the media, and scientist.
However currently the warmist say that CAGW is a term used by the skeptics. They point to the IPCC using the term CC, for Climate Change since its inception. I know that most scholarly publications used most commonly the term AGW, or GW. Yet I remember may uses of the term CAGW by proponents.
Am I wrong?
Did skeptics create that term?
If you have any linked evidence I would appreciate it.
Clearly the term CAGW is more accurate and pertinent, but I still need the history of the acronym.
Thanks in advance.
David A
solvingtornadoes says:
July 20, 2014 at 7:25 am
———————————-
Konrad:
Just bloody do it for yourself!
ST:
I did. (I just used hot tap water.)
You know I meant this –
– so don’t even think you can try that evasion on for size.
Want to solve tornadoes? The Russians did. M2010 discussion paper. I empirically verified their results. You’re late to the party. Way too late. Not in the running. Nowhere close. Just forget it.
David A says:
July 20, 2014 at 7:43 am
———————————–
You ask a valid, if not on topic, question.
The providence of “CAGW” is certainly from the sceptic side on my reading. An attempt to draw a line between mild warming of no serious consequence and warming with catastrophic results at a time when AGW propagandists were equating all warming with catastrophe.
Currently the term CAGW as opposed to AGW is the fig leaf that “lukewarmists” hold over their shrivelled shame. These were the sceptics so foolish as to believe “adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will reduce the atmosphere’s radiative cooling ability”, and were inane enough to think that arguing about “degree” would make themselves more scientifically respectable. Truth is the question was “do radiative gasses have a net warming or a net cooling effect?”. Those sceptics who lacked a spine and settled for “warming, but, but, but less than thought” had sponges for brains. Most can never be forgiven, as they attacked sceptics who got the science right.
Some kept an open mind. Anthony Watts was one. (don’t judge WUWT just on Wally and the Leaf Blower…)
Will Janoschka says (July 20, 2014 at 5:57 am): I have no experiment. I have only many measurements of IR transmission through mostly horizontal atmospheres. My only conclusion is that atmospheric water vapor, is really really weird.
😦 damn (!) I’m here to learn something new 😦 next time I ask please do better 😉
P.S. “entropy” is not something has been measured, only by religious interpretations of the impresarios of the academic theatre (for ever more research budgets, see the elementary contradiction with “entropy” ?) The universe explodes and collides solar/planetary systems into new dust and nebulae from which it creates new solar/planetary systems. The rest is rounding errors, like the basic skills of climastrology.
David A says:
July 20, 2014 at 7:43 am
CAGW
Am I wrong?
Did skeptics create that term?
If you have any linked evidence I would appreciate it.
ST:
I don’t remember. But I know a good place to look. Look in the archives of alt.global.warming. I remember using the term then to distinguish it from AGW. (I might even be the person that originated it.)
You can get there by going to Google. Type in groups. Then search alt.global.warming. And there is even a search function that will allow you to go back to different years. If I am the one that created it (which I doubt) it would have been around 2006 or 2007.
Konrad says:
July 20, 2014 at 7:43 am
You know I meant this –
ST:
Actually I didn’t. I’m no mind reader. I don’t dispute the results that are apparent in the picture. So, what would be the point of me doing the experiment?
Konrad:
– so don’t even think you can try that evasion on for size.
ST:
What am I evading? Your imagination?
Konrad:
Want to solve tornadoes? The Russians did. M2010 discussion paper. I empirically verified their results. You’re late to the party. Way too late. Not in the running. Nowhere close. Just forget it.
ST:
Darn.
solvingtornadoes says: July 20, 2014 at 6:53 am
Will Janoschka says:July 20, 2014 at 5:57 am
Chaeremon says: July 20, 2014 at 5:19 am ” what was your experiment?”
WJ: “I have no experiment. I have only many measurements of IR transmission through mostly horizontal atmospheres. My only conclusion is that atmospheric water vapor, is really really weird.”
Jim McGinn:
It’s “wierd” because it clumps. (If it didn’t it wouldn’t be “wierd.”) And it clumps in different sized and, unlike a lot of other substances, clumping in different sizes has implications on it’s residual EMF (which is more directly a function of whether or not and how many of its hydrogen bonds are bonded.) And even then it’s wierd because clumps of the same size can have different EMF signatures as a result of spinning, which can break some hydrogen bonds, which releases more EMF. Yes water is wierd. I’d go further: It’s freekin wierd. And the more you drill down to the molecular level the weirder it gets. For more details see this: http://wp.me/p4JijN-3X
OK, Jim! I only have measured weird! You try to explain weird. I refuse to accept your explanation. Which is no more than a childlike expression with no understanding. Do not drill down, that is the swamp,Try to rise above that, and try to learn a wee bit!
Will Janoschka says:
July 20, 2014 at 7:32 am
A pressure of 770 Pascals and 273.2 Kelvin is the triple point of water, below that pressure liquid water cannot exist. however gaseous water and solid water do exist with both existing down to temperatures of less than 200 Kelvin. It is obvious that you know nothing of water.
ST:
I wish I wuz more smarter lyke yiew.
WJ: “You have absolutely no evidence of your personal obscene claim.
ST: “LOL. If you have evidence that H2O remains a gas at temperatures below its boiling point then, by all means, please present it. You should write up your findings and submit them to a journal. It would be big news. You might win the Nobel prize!”
It is your claim of no H2O gas below some temperature. Please demonstrate your claim!
ST:
I didn’t come here to play trivial pursuit.
ST: “Is this Pat Obar? You need to get a different spiel. You are so predictable.?”
Only at Principia Scientific, Predictable yes, I must destroy your claimed scientific Bull Shit!
We’ve had this same dumbass conversation five times now. Each time you are unable to distinguish steam from moist air (water vapor). Each time I spell it out for you. Each time you go off the deep end and start calling names. Are you mental?
Will Janoschka says:
OK, Jim! I only have measured weird! You try to explain weird. I refuse to accept your explanation.
ST:
What you choose to believe is your business. Feel free to contribute your own explanation.
Will Janoschka says
Which is no more than a childlike expression with no understanding. Do not drill down, that is the swamp,Try to rise above that, and try to learn a wee bit!
ST:
If your only tool is a hammer every problem looks like a nail.
David A says: July 20, 2014 at 7:43 am
“Sorry to be off topic but I have a question. In my memory I remember the acronym CAGW being commonly used by proponents, and skeptics. I know there was, and are currently countless proclamations of catastrophe by the media, and scientist.”
“However currently the warmist say that CAGW is a term used by the skeptics. They point to the IPCC using the term CC, for Climate Change since its inception. I know that most scholarly publications used most commonly the term AGW, or GW. Yet I remember may uses of the term CAGW by proponents.”
David,
You are not investigating the scientific, or statistical. Only the vernacular of acronyms. First AGW Anthropogenic Global Warming. That was not scary enough, all was ho hum. Add Catastrophic to the front now CAGW still ho hum. that did not work either. All must quickly back off. how we only have Climate Change, from the IPCC, which is still; AGW which is still, ho hum.
But now, You wish to confiscate our meger wealth.
Is this not lingustic fun yet?
Am I wrong? Did skeptics create that term?
If you have any linked evidence I would appreciate it.
Clearly the term CAGW is more accurate and pertinent, but I still need the history of the acronym.
Thanks in advance.
David A
solvingtornadoes says: July 20, 2014 at 8:34 am
Will Janoschka says:”OK, Jim! I only have measured weird! You try to explain weird. I refuse to accept your explanation.”
ST: “What you choose to believe is your business. Feel free to contribute your own explanation.”
I wish not to explain, ’tis to weird. I only wonder.
Will Janoschka says “Which is no more than a childlike expression with no understanding. Do not drill down, that is the swamp,Try to rise above that, and try to learn a wee bit!”
ST: “If your only tool is a hammer every problem looks like a nail.”
Indeed, My children try to get a better tool. They still very much avoid the swamp!
solvingtornadoes says:
July 20, 2014 at 8:19 am
———————————
“I don’t dispute the results that are apparent in the picture. So, what would be the point of me doing the experiment?”
results apparent in a picture? What are you blithering about? Forget the picture, do the experiment!
“What would be the point”?
Only that it utterly disproves every thing you have claimed without supporting empirical experiment…
I am a real AGW sceptic. I don’t waste time with believers. I hunt “sleepers” on sceptic blogs. For sport.
You are not in the running, sunshine. Did I mention “light-weight”?. That was me being polite….
Konrad wrote (July 20, 2014 at 9:41 am): Only that it utterly disproves every thing you have claimed without supporting empirical experiment…
Explain “it” to me; until now I haven’t seen your scientific argument; your “it utterly disproves every thing you have claimed” is not accepted.
We are not in WUWT, this is tallbloke’s talkshop here.
Konrad says:
July 20, 2014 at 9:41 am
Only that it utterly disproves every thing you have claimed without supporting empirical experiment…
ST:
LOL. Your experiment is meaningless.
I am a real AGW sceptic. I don’t waste time with believers. I hunt “sleepers” on sceptic blogs. For sport.
You are not in the running, sunshine. Did I mention “light-weight”?. That was me being polite….
ST:
Go away you fool.
Chaeremon says:
July 20, 2014 at 10:01 am
———————————-
“We are not in WUWT, this is tallbloke’s talkshop here.”
Correct. Do you know what that means? Apparently not.
Do the empirical experiment yourself. People who type, type type, and cut and paste are light weights.
You must be better at empirical experiment than me to win. Are you? Apparently not…
solvingtornadoes says:
July 20, 2014 at 10:08 am
————————————
“Go away you fool.
Cough. Ahem.
Chaeremon says: July 20, 2014 at 10:01 am
Konrad wrote (July 20, 2014 at 9:41 am): Only that it utterly disproves every thing you have claimed without supporting empirical experiment…”
“Explain “it” to me; until now I haven’t seen your scientific argument; your “it utterly disproves every thing you have claimed” is not accepted.”
We are not in WUWT, this is tallbloke’s talkshop here.
Have you not been following? Are you some sort of WUWT troll here?
Konrad says: July 20, 2014 at 10:54 am
solvingtornadoes says: July 20, 2014 at 10:08 am
————————————
“Go away you fool.” (Cough. Ahem.)
Roger prefers that we not scare the horses. Roger is silent on horses asses!
@Konrad (July 20, 2014 at 10:50 am): I do not accept ad hominem attacks as scientific argument. And you do not know what I mean or not. I exclusively speak for myself.
Why would I want to “win”, against what, if there is nothing presented.
EOD
Will Janoschka says (July 20, 2014 at 10:56 am): Have you not been following? Are you some sort of WUWT troll here?
I’m sorry I asked, really, didn’t expect nothing in return 😉
For the rest of it: EOD, I have no experience in exchange of insult (err, you win 😉
Chaeremon says: July 20, 2014 at 11:04 am
@Konrad (July 20, 2014 at 10:50 am): I do not accept ad hominem attacks as scientific argument. And you do not know what I mean or not. I exclusively speak for myself.
“Why would I want to “win”, against what, if there is nothing presented. EOD”
So you are definitely a troll, with nothing to offer!
Chaeremon says: July 20, 2014 at 11:13 am
Will Janoschka says (July 20, 2014 at 10:56 am): Have you not been following? Are you some sort of WUWT troll here?
I’m sorry I asked, really, didn’t expect nothing in return 😉
For the rest of it: EOD, I have no experience in exchange of insult (err, you win 😉
Why are you hanging about, pest!
Chaeremon says:
July 20, 2014 at 11:04 am
————————————
EOD?
Oh please. Come back when you are even close to starting a discussion…
I don’t fight warmists. I fight “lukewarmist sceptics” (you know, the pretend ones?). You aren’t even close to the league. I hunt and kill sleepers on sceptic blogs. You would never be entrusted to carry out a sleeper role. Like I’d get a tone when I’d got you in the reticle? Like I’m going to activate the R34 and chill the seeker head? Any part of “not in the running” you didn’t get ?
Will Janoschka says:
July 20, 2014 at 11:18 am
————————————-
This is strange, but I cannot get a lock. What is your nationality?
Your surname gets multiple hits for German, but your thinking matches Russian or Serbian maths skills?
Confused….. Answers?
Will, I think McGinn has re-discovered “water surface tension” (due to ‘polar’ molecule) all over again; McGinn has never seen a meniscus in a test tube b/c he has never ever been in the lab to perform experiments. The witness of surface tension is something McGinn should seen someplace in grade school physics, as outlined in this class material:
http://butane.chem.uiuc.edu/pshapley/Enlist/Labs/SurfaceTen/Surface.html
He has also never storm chased, has never witnessed (quite literally, before one’s own eyes) the appearance of water vapor forming, in what we term, an ‘inflow’ area at the base of a thunderstorm. This is something storm chasers and NWS storm spotters learn to observe for very early in their activity of storm spotting. Again, he has never seen these sorts of ‘phenomenon’ since he has zero field experience living in California his entire life.
For others who would like an ‘adult’ perspective not tainted by limited perspective views of McGinn, I can recommend a good overview of WV (water vapor) ‘action’ in the atmosphere and the vital part it plays in a work such as this:
“ATMOSPHERIC MOIST CONVECTION” by Bjorn Stevens
Click to access Stevens_annurev.earth.33.092203.pdf
To sum it up, we have an outstanding example of an malcontent in the form of ST/McGinn who continually asserts his right to the throne because he and he alone has been persecuted not unlike that of Galileo (so he perceives). Rather, we have become part of his ‘educational feedback loop’ that normally McGinn would have been part of in a classroom setting years ago when he was educable, but, since he has chosen to forgo attending any decent classes on the subjects and instead simply asserting his supremacy on subjects, we are left trying to ‘knock some sense’ into the boy all the while a few of his even less educated acolytes begin to appear since they cannot divine sh!t from shinola.
Respectfully submitted, as always, to the host of this blog.
.
_Jim says:
July 20, 2014 at 3:34 pm
Will, I think McGinn has re-discovered “water surface tension” (due to ‘polar’ molecule) all over again; McGinn has never seen a meniscus in a test tube b/c he has never ever been in the lab to perform experiments.
ST:
No pun intended but you are just scratching the surface of what is significant about surface tension. Did you know, for example, that the surface tension that is commonly observable in liquid water is but a fraction of its potential? (Understanding how this potential can be released is the key to understanding how structure can exist in our atmosphere.)
Jim:
The witness of surface tension is something McGinn should seen someplace in grade school physics, as outlined in this class material:
http://butane.chem.uiuc.edu/pshapley/Enlist/Labs/SurfaceTen/Surface.html
ST:
When believers see evidence their minds filter out the evidence that is inconsistent with what they believe. For example, the cone or vortex of a tornado–completely unexplained by meteorology. Another explanatory shortcoming: the energy of large tornadoes. Meteorologists are stumped by how/why so much energy arrives on the scene so quickly. Another one: Low pressure of storms. Why is low pressure associated with convection? Is there anything about convection that would suggest the emergence of low pressure? They have no answer to this questions. And then there is rotation. What initiates rotation. They don’t know. They are just guessing. Also, why are storms so cold? If they are initiated by warm air rising where does the cold, windy air come from. And, another thing, if storms are powered by convection then why do they often take place hundreds of miles from the source of convection. If you ask meteorologists these questions mostly they will shrug their shoulders and respond: because that is what is in the books, or, because that is what we were taught, or, because that is what everybody believes, or, because that is what is. Believers only see the things that confirm what they have already chosen to believe.
Meteorology is a belief system, not a science. If it was a science the things that they can’t explain would be foremost on their minds. Instead the things they can’t explain are literally not in their minds at all.
Rhyzotika says:
July 19, 2014 at 8:19 am
Envision evaporated vesicles rising high into the atmosphere.
ST:
I suppose he is just analogizing here. He’s saying that air molecules can act as vesicles, I’m assuming.
The lifting force4 may be electrostatic, i.e., based on charges.
ST:
This makes perfect sense. I also know that the smaller is the H2O cluster the higher is the charge to weight ratio. Additionally the more the H2O cluster is spinning the higher is it’s charge (spinning causes cetrifugal force that breaks peripheral hydrogen bonds).
That upward force could help power the evaporative rise (Fig. 15.13).
A familiar example of this electrostatic lifting force may be seen in waterfalls. Descending water creates a mist of droplets that rise upward, forming clouds. Such clouds can rise above the tops of the falls (Fig 15.14).
Since droplets cannot mechanically rebound higher than the height from which they started, some other force is implied, and a good option is electrostatic charge.
ST:
Makes sense. And when you see an “inversion” layer you are seeing the upper limit to which moist air can rise electrostatically. That is why they form in long, flat layers.
ST – Pollack uses the term “vesicles” as an umbrella term for both droplets and bubbles. He shows how one can convert into the other. Therefore a broader entity to denote both. I can’t recommend enough that people read Pollack’s book. I would love to see some in-depth debate here of his research & theories. There’s a free pdf w/ three chapters here:
http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0161/7154/files/FOURTH_PHASE_SAMPLE.pdf?1585
Tangentially, someone posted an intriguing speculation on judithcurry.com comment thread that rain droplets might be able to “clean up” ie absorb CO2 as they fall. Which would reduce the infamous “residence time” of CO2, I’d imagine.
@_Jim – re surface tension. As I understand it, conventional theory suggests its restricted to just a few molecular layers. But then there’s this, among other anomalies:
Water forms floating ‘bridge’ when exposed to high voltage
http://phys.org/news110191847.html
Gerry Pollack argues that surface tension is generated by “long-range ordering” of water molecules that can extend thousands of molecular layers deep – millimeters or even centimeters, or more, depending on the scenario.
Rhyzotika says:
July 20, 2014 at 6:44 pm
ST – Pollack uses the term “vesicles” as an umbrella term for both droplets and bubbles.
ST:
Aha. Okay, that makes more sense.
Rhyzotika says:
He shows how one can convert into the other. Therefore a broader entity to denote both. I can’t recommend enough that people read Pollack’s book. I would love to see some in-depth debate here of his research & theories. There’s a free pdf w/ three chapters here:
http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0161/7154/files/FOURTH_PHASE_SAMPLE.pdf?1585
ST:
I will look into it. It does seem, however, that he is dealing with things different from what I’m dealing with. I don’t see him, for example, discussing much about the large amounts of surface tension that are unleashed when hydrogen bonds are broken, which I discuss in my book, details of which can be found here: http://wp.me/p4JijN-3X
Rhyzotika says:
Tangentially, someone posted an intriguing speculation on judithcurry.com comment thread that rain droplets might be able to “clean up” ie absorb CO2 as they fall. Which would reduce the infamous “residence time” of CO2, I’d imagine.
ST:
Well, I dont’ know where you stand on the whole global warming/climate change controversy. I’ll just say that, IMO, it is 100% hoax/pseudo-science. It is the most blatant example of the human tendency to see the emperor’s new clothes. The people that believe it are in a state of perpetual confusion and the people selling it have no incentive but to maintain the confusion.
Couple more good links on the floating bridge thingie:
Collective Molecular Dynamics of a Floating Water Bridge
Fuchs, Del Giudice
When a high voltage is applied to pure water filling two beakers kept close to each other, a connection forms spontaneously, giving the impression of a floating water bridge. This phenomenon is of special interest, since it comprises a number of phenomena currently tackled in modern water science. The formation and the main properties of this floating water bridge are analyzed in the conceptual framework of quantum electrodynamics. The necessary conditions for the formation are investigated as well as the time evolution of the dynamics. The predictions are found in agreement with the observations.
http://www.waterjournal.org/volume-2/fuchs
Rhyzotika says:
July 20, 2014 at 6:54 pm
@_Jim – re surface tension. As I understand it, conventional theory suggests its restricted to just a few molecular layers. But then there’s this, among other anomalies:
Jim McGinn:
Water’s structural capabilities are almost completely hidden from view by the fact that the H2O molecule’s hydrogen bonds neutralize its polarity. For example, let’s compare the H2O molecule’s structural capabilities to those of another compound molecule, silica. Imagine two globs of each, let’s say 25 molecules per glob. At ambient temperatures water is a liquid and silica is a solid. Both have surface tension. That is, both have the ability to collectively absorb energy and spread it to the other members of its glob so that they act as a singular entity, more or less. Of course with water, a liquid, this surface tension is much less than it is with silica, a solid. But here is what is strange about the H2O molecule. If you break one molecule off of the silica glob the electro magnetic forces of that silica molecule are the same as they were when that molecule of silica was attached to the glob. But with water something very different is the case. If you break one molecule off of the H2O glob that molecule now possesses electromagnetic forces that are more similar to those of the silica molecule than it does to the other molecules from the H2O glob!
What does this mean in regards to water’s role with respect to structure in the atmosphere? It means that there are surface tensions hidden inside water that only become active when individual water molecules are detached (or relatively detached [this is important]) from other water molecules. Mathematically this is what it amounts to: in silica and most solids an increase in surface area causes surface tension to increase at a linear rate; in water an increase in surface area causes an increase in surface tension at an exponential rate. This has huge implications for understanding the basis of the cone/vortex structure witnessed in tornadoes (and the jet stream).
Rhyzotika says:
Water forms floating ‘bridge’ when exposed to high voltage
http://phys.org/news110191847.html
Jim McGinn:
I did see that. And I also saw the one with the drops floating. But I’m not sure if Pollack and myself are on the same page with respect to my assertion that H2O molecule’s hydrogen bonds neutralize its polarity concealing (relatively) huge amounts of surface tension that can subsequently become available when these bonds are broken (or partially broken).
Rhyzotika says:
Gerry Pollack argues that surface tension is generated by “long-range ordering” of water molecules that can extend thousands of molecular layers deep – millimeters or even centimeters, or more, depending on the scenario.
Jim McGinn:
I’d be really interested to find out what Pollack thinks about what I expressed above, that hydrogen bonds are the mechanism that neutralizes water’s underlying (and relatively huge) surface tensions and breaking or partial breaking of these bonds is the mechanism that can release these hidden electro magnetic forces.
@ST – “I don’t see him, for example, discussing much about the large amounts of surface tension that are unleashed when hydrogen bonds are broken, which I discuss in my book, details of which can be found here: [mod: snip short link]”
Can you explain “large amounts of surface tension are unleashed when hydrogen bonds are broken”? Do you mean energy is released? I’ve read most of the stuff on your blogsite. I scanned the version of your book online. No, I haven’t seen Pollack talk about what happens when hydrogen bonds are broken. He also doesn’t address what happens to spinning H20 clusters.
As for CAGW, “it’s complicated.” I had generally accepted it, with some minor question marks around the science, and larger question marks around the policy mechanisms. I watched a lot of the carbon capture & carbon market policy stuff from a inside/outside vantage point. Carbon markets just seemed like another version of derivatives to me. The coal gasification/CO2 capture tech was interesting but the costs were insane, and not all that much has happened with that in 7 or 8 years now. I always thought biofuels were a mad joke, and CAGW was used as big support for that, even tho the real driver was the midwest ag lobby. I’d heard Michael Crichton speak, I didn’t do too much with it at the time but it must have left an impression. Then Richard Hoagland’s stuff on hyperdimensional physics and alleged energy shifts in all the planets got me wondering if that could explain the warming trend & (apparent) weather weirding. But the lack of a historical baseline to read current behavior against seemed like a little problem there (similar to a lot of CAGW arguments, actually).
Finally the thing that sent me into full scale “Doubter” mode was a Facebook argument with a friend, who was throwing all kinds of numbers around and insisting that “we” couldn’t make any progress in “saving the planet” (or whatever) without coming to a “consensus” around the nature of global warming & what to do about it. That push for a forced consensus really set off my alarm bells & I started playing Devils Advocate. I looked at his claims and asked myself, “really? how do they know that?” Since then I’ve been addicted to WUWT, JudyCurry & Talkshop comment threads, and occasionally dip into RealClimate & SKS. (The consensus guys always sound so locktight & authoritative, but when you go away, think about it, and do your own digging, it always seems to fall apart. That’s been my experience anyway, so far. Maybe I will change my mind tomorrow.)
Extreme cognitive dissonance hanging out with arch-conservatives & libertarians, but on the climate matter the skeptical POV just makes more sense than the consensus shpiel. Definitely it’s become a secular religion for urban left/liberals/enviros. I think the focus is misplaced, although I’m all for as much renewables & decentralized energy as possible. Little bit of a problem with baseload & low net energy with most of the renwables though. OTOH net energy for fossil fuels is declining too. I think a flat carbon tax wouldn’t be the worst thing, esp if a big chunk were returned to people who make under X amt of $$. It could drive a lot of efficiency, new technology adoption, investment in “smart development” etc.
What bothers me most with CAGW is the “settled science” meme, shouting people down as “Deniers” just for asking questions.
When a high voltage is applied to pure water filling two beakers kept close to each other, a connection forms spontaneously, giving the impression of a floating water bridge.
I am not surprised! I think the trick could be performed by using small pieces of paper, styrofoam and the like. Again, much is explained by knowing H2O is a polar (polarized) molecule owing to the off-balance position of the hydrogen WRT to the center of mass with the Oxygen atom. Other liquids possessing similar offset hydrogen atoms should behave likewise I would expect.
One aspect of all this that I would like to gain a deeper understanding of is how the “latent heat of evaporation” works WRT water molecule condensation on particulates (the nucleation process) which then eventually fall as ‘rain’. It may be that part of this equation involves water polymers vs individual molecules in some manner.
For the most part, meteorology seems to examine the ‘gross’ effects of the components involved, leaving the intricacies of the science to the physicists. Take for instance a related area of meteorology, the consideration of how lightning forms at the very elementary level where ‘charge’ separation takes place, seemingly with ice playing a part and perhaps some variation on the
‘Triboelectric Effect’ between liquid water and ice particles.
.
Rhyzotika says:
July 20, 2014 at 8:19 pm
Rhyzotika:
Can you explain “large amounts of surface tension are unleashed when hydrogen bonds are broken”? Do you mean energy is released? I’ve read most of the stuff on your blogsite. I scanned the version of your book online. No, I haven’t seen Pollack talk about what happens when hydrogen bonds are broken. He also doesn’t address what happens to spinning H20 clusters.
Jim McGinn:
On a molecular level water is very aggressive about getting together with other water molecules to become decidedly unaggressive. We mostly notice the result of the water molecule’s aggression, its complete lack of aggression, and we are, therefore, mostly unaware of how incredibly aggressive it, the H2O molecule, can be to become unaggressive. More specifically, the H2O molecule’s aggression is a result of its inherit polarity and the electromagnet implications thereof: as water, on the molecular level, aggressively seeks out connections with other water molecules, The strength and persistence of these forces cause it to collectively (in the form of liquid water) to become more interconnected molecularly, more entangled, denser. And that’s where things get strange. Because the more entangled and denser it (water) becomes (the more bonds are achieved between molecules of H2O) the more the forces that caused it to become entangled are neutralized, turned off, resulting in the high fluidity (low viscosity) of water. In a sense, H2O molecules are in a great big hurry to surround themselves with other H2O molecules (by way of hydrogen bond connections at all four locations of their structure) so that they can treat other H2O molecules with (almost) complete indifference.
The mechanism that underlies this strange passive-aggressive behavior of the water molecule—this individual tendency to aggressively seek to become collectively unaggressive—might best be understood with respect to the fact that the bond that takes place between water molecules is a hydrogen bond. Unlike a covalent bonds, water’s hydrogen bond is the result of (a function of) the polarity of the two H2O molecules that are participants in the bond. However, and in complete contrast to a covalent bond, when a hydrogen bond is achieved a fraction of the polarity is neutralized, turned off, in both of the two H2O molecules that participate in the hydrogen bond. So, ironically, the achievement of a hydrogen bond (and each H2O molecule can participate in up to four bonds, each with a different H2O molecule) is at one and the same time the result of the water molecule’s polarity and the (partial) neutralization thereof.
This tendency to become entangled, to aggressively fold in on itself, and to, thereby, neutralize its polarity as it becomes entangled is so effective and so instantaneous (and happening on such a such a microscopic scale) that we are mostly unaware of the H2O molecule’s underlying ability to produce some fairly significant electromagnetic forces (surface tension) and bond strength (tensile strength). (Note: liquid water’s hydrogen bond offer’s no compressive strength whatsoever.) All in all, what it really comes down to is this: H2O molecules are so effective at getting together with other H2O molecules and neutralizing the polarity that brought them together, we (us humans) generally are unaware of the possibility that if a mechanism can be theorized (or experimentally revealed) that will defeat the H2O molecule’s aggressive and insidious tendency to collectively fold in on itself and, thereby, neutralize its polarity, then these structural capabilities can emerge (there are two: [a.] bond strength [tensile strength only] and [b.] surface tension).
In a sense H2O is like a superhero. It’s superpowers are concealed from us by its ability to blend in with a crowd of other depolarized, mild mannered H2O molecules. Its true strength is only revealed when events tear it away from the crowd. Only when alone do water’s superpowers emerge.
Konrad says: July 20, 2014 at 1:15 pm
Will Janoschka says: July 20,2014 at 11:18 am
————————————-
This is strange, but I cannot get a lock. What is your nationality?
Your surname gets multiple hits for German, but your thinking matches Russian or Serbian maths skills? Confused….. Answers?
I am a natural born citizen of the US. Both my parents were immigrants from Germany near the Polish border. I had an older sister and brother, so I was the one to go touch and see if it is hot.
That gives one a particular outlook on life. I Have a BSEE, but received my education in optics and IR transmission, at Texas Instruments, from wonderful folk, who were all learning to measure optical performance of a system the Mark 1 mod 3 standard eyeball could see through. Then to measure performance through an atmosphere that never cooperates. The only way to quantify such, is to re-learn mathematics from a completely different viewpoint.
Texas Instruments, the first with the LWIR imaging CCD…
Reblogged this on acckkii.