A New Scientific Law And The Greenhouse Effect by Dr. Jerry Krause

[James McGinn]

http://principia-scientific.org/new-scientific-law-greenhouse-effect/


There is a mountain of ambiguity in what you write here. Meteorologists' understanding of the notion of "condensation" is not one and the same as that of a chemists/physicist. Same goes for notions like, "latent heat."

Meteorology has kind of it's own nomenclature that cannot be used interchangeably with much of the terminology associated with more decidedly empirical disciplines, like chemistry and thermodynamics. You seem to not grasp this, Dr. Jerry.

Because of that your article just feeds the consensus of confusion on this topic. Sorry, that is my opinion. I would suggest first starting with terminology that does not already have loaded and inconsistent connotations.

For example, instead of referring to the droplets on a glass as the result of condensation, which implies that it started with gas, refer to it as aggregation of water droplets. Afterall, that is what is really happening when, for example, water forms on a cold glass. It is microdroplets aggregating into larger, visible, droplets. It's not a phase change between gaseous H2O and liquid H2O. It's the author's and the editor's responsibility to clear up any ambiguity, IMO. Refusing to do so puts you in the same category as an AGW alarmists or any other kind of science based propagandist.

Jerry, we know for a fact that a phase change between gaseous H2O and liquid H2O is impossible at ambient temperatures. Consult Steam Tables for details.

BTW, the phrase, "latent heat" is a phrase co-opted by meteorologist. It's not something that is literal. They don't, for example, ever measure it. (They calculate it based on consensus based [and somewhat obscure] assumptions.) Be aware, however, that meteorology is a very political discipline. They would never admit any of this. Specifically, they would never concede that they had just co-opted this term. And if you attempt to get them to verify it empirically you can expect them to ignore you, with considerable deliberation..

BTW, Newton was almost perfectly clueless about H2O:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16306

Jim McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

[noTthaTguY]

the warmal globers do not even know Snell's laW, and
I don't see any sign of it in your quandary with evapotranspiration,
say o'er the AmazonianS ... especially those babes

[Poutnik]

Dne 06/10/2016 v 04:02 James McGinn napsal(a):

>
> [....] Meteorologists' understanding of the notion of "condensation" is not one and the same as that of a chemists/physicist. Same goes for notions like, "latent heat."
>
> Meteorology has kind of it's own nomenclature that cannot be used interchangeably with much of the terminology associated with more decidedly empirical disciplines, like chemistry and thermodynamics. [...]
>

As I am both a meteorologist and a chemist,
I am qualified to claim the above is nonsense.

--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[James McGinn]

LOL. So, if you had presented an argument would that have disqualified you?

[James McGinn]

On Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 7:02:10 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> http://principia-scientific.org/new-scientific-law-greenhouse-effect/
>
>

> There is a mountain of ambiguity in what you write here . . .

Jerry's response:
http://principia-scientific.org/new-scientific-law-greenhouse-effect/#comment-14876

Hi Jim,

Fortunately I did not make any critical comments about what you had written. So I do not have to apologize for what I only thought. But I have not stopped thinking about what you wrote and suddenly realized how it might have been that you wrote: “Afterall, that is what is really happening when, for example, water forms on a cold glass. It is microdroplets aggregating into larger, visible, droplets. It’s not a phase change between gaseous H2O and liquid H2O.”

So I now review what Sutcliffe wrote on the next page (pp 48) of his book after he had reviewed the results of experiments by C. T. R. Wilson. “These results, obtained first by Wilson and broadly confirmed by many later experiments, have a very important bearing on natural meteorology, not because supersaturation occurs in the atmosphere but because it does not occur: why is it that in the atmosphere condensation to clouds invariably happens as soon as normal saturation is reached? The answer is that the natural atmosphere, however clean it may appear to be, is always supplied with a sufficient number of minute particles of salts, acids, or other substances which serve just as well as liquid water in capturing water molecules from the vapor. These are the ‘nuclei of condensation’, and are effective as soon as the air becomes even slightly supersaturated.”

Hence, when you wrote–“For example, instead of referring to the droplets on a glass as the result of condensation, which implies that it started with gas, refer to it as aggregation of water droplets. Afterall, that is what is really happening when, for example, water forms on a cold glass. It is microdroplets aggregating into larger, visible, droplets. It’s not a phase change between gaseous H2O and liquid H2O.”–you are considering it is these nuclei of condensation which are aggregating on the cold glass. Which, if this were the case, it would be true that there would be no phase change occurring and no latent heat involved.

And it does seem to be the case that the presence of nuclei of condensation (condensed liquid or solid matter and not diffuse gaseous matter) tends to be disregarded not only by non-meteorologists but also by meteorologists. We all too commonly consider the atmosphere to be only a gas until we can see cloud.

However, it seems you go to the other extreme and consider there is no water vapor (molecules) in the atmosphere; but only invisible nuclei of condensation. Which, while invisible, are actually composed of many, many molecules of water and dissolved ions of a salt or acid, and maybe some molecules of an weak acid (which does not fully ionize in forming a water solution). Vinegar is an common example of a water solution of the weak acid, acetic acid.

You wrote: “Meteorology has kind of it’s own nomenclature that cannot be used interchangeably with much of the terminology associated with more decidedly empirical disciplines, like chemistry and thermodynamics. You seem to not grasp this, Dr. Jerry.” Jim, do you grasp that chemists, since the days of the alchemists, have primarily empirically studied matter and the changes it undergoes. So that maybe chemists better understand matter and the changes it undergoes better than other scientists whose attentions are divided by other factors involved in their sciences. And it is true that chemists consider their science is the ‘central’ science which needs to be considered regardless of what these other sciences might be. But, at the same time, the chemists consider that their science is the central science, they know they would be almost totally ignorant if not for the science of physics. For the physicists have given the chemists the tools (experiments and theories) with which to understand what they (the chemists) empirically observe.

Jim, you began your comment by the stating: “Meteorology has kind of it’s own nomenclature that cannot be used interchangeably with much of the terminology associated with more decidedly empirical disciplines … .” You ended it by stating: “BTW, the phrase, “latent heat” is a phrase co-opted by meteorologist. It’s not something that is literal. They don’t, for example, ever measure it. (They calculate it based on consensus based [and somewhat obscure] assumptions.) Be aware, however, that meteorology is a very political discipline. They would never admit any of this. Specifically, they would never concede that they had just co-opted this term. And if you attempt to get them to verify it empirically you can expect them to ignore you, with considerable deliberation.”

Jim, Sutcliffe’s book was published in 1966. At that time meteorology was not yet “a very political discipline.” You stated: “”BTW, the phrase, “latent heat” is a phrase co-opted by meteorologist. It’s not something that is literal.” In chapter 5 Sutcliffe discussed the empirical meteorological observation that cloud droplets commonly supercool (remain liquid at temperatures well below the melting point of ice). You refer to “thunderbolts” and “solving tornadoes”. In chapter 6, Sutcliffe discussed (explained) thunderstorms. I would like you to explain a ‘thunderstorm’ without considering the sudden release of energy (latent heat) that occurs when the supercooled liquid water droplets suddenly freeze (are converted to solid water, ice).

But you are correct if you intended to point out that all scientists, meteorologists included, do not really consider the possible consequences of nuclei of condensation beyond the fact they are necessary to understand how it is that the atmosphere has never been observed to be saturated with water vapor.

[James McGinn]

On Sunday, October 9, 2016 at 10:43:44 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 7:02:10 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > http://principia-scientific.org/new-scientific-law-greenhouse-effect/
> >
> >
> > There is a mountain of ambiguity in what you write here . . .
>
> Jerry's response:
> http://principia-scientific.org/new-scientific-law-greenhouse-effect/#comment-14876
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> Fortunately I did not make any critical comments about what you had written. So I do not have to apologize for what I only thought. But I have not stopped thinking about what you wrote and suddenly realized how it might have been that you wrote: “Afterall, that is what is really happening when, for example, water forms on a cold glass. It is microdroplets aggregating into larger, visible, droplets. It’s not a phase change between gaseous H2O and liquid H2O.”

JMcG:
The reason I wrote it is because it is true.

>
> So I now review what Sutcliffe wrote on the next page (pp 48) of his book after he had reviewed the results of experiments by C. T. R. Wilson. “These results, obtained first by Wilson and broadly confirmed by many later experiments, have a very important bearing on natural meteorology, not because supersaturation occurs in the atmosphere but because it does not occur: why is it that in the atmosphere condensation to clouds invariably happens as soon as normal saturation is reached? The answer is that the natural atmosphere, however clean it may appear to be, is always supplied with a sufficient number of minute particles of salts, acids, or other substances which serve just as well as liquid water in capturing water molecules from the vapor. These are the ‘nuclei of condensation’, and are effective as soon as the air becomes even slightly supersaturated.”
>
> Hence, when you wrote–“For example, instead of referring to the droplets on a glass as the result of condensation, which implies that it started with gas, refer to it as aggregation of water droplets. Afterall, that is what is really happening when, for example, water forms on a cold glass. It is microdroplets aggregating into larger, visible, droplets. It’s not a phase change between gaseous H2O and liquid H2O.”–you are considering it is these nuclei of condensation which are aggregating on the cold glass. Which, if this were the case, it would be true that there would be no phase change occurring and no latent heat involved.

JMcG:
This reads like nonsense. You provided no description of the experiment. It reminds me of when I tried to get a literal understanding of CO2 forcing, only to eventually realize that there is no such thing, it exists only in the imagination of believers. Your response confirms that such is also the case with meteorology's "latent heat." It is just something that is believed.

>
> And it does seem to be the case that the presence of nuclei of condensation (condensed liquid or solid matter and not diffuse gaseous matter) tends to be disregarded not only by non-meteorologists but also by meteorologists. We all too commonly consider the atmosphere to be only a gas until we can see cloud.

JMcG:
It's good to see that you recognize this. But it still seems you fail to recognize that this fact renders Meteorology's notions of storms as being equally inept as that of CO2 forcing.

>
> However, it seems you go to the other extreme and consider there is no water vapor (molecules) in the atmosphere; but only invisible nuclei of condensation. Which, while invisible, are actually composed of many, many molecules of water and dissolved ions of a salt or acid, and maybe some molecules of an weak acid (which does not fully ionize in forming a water solution). Vinegar is an common example of a water solution of the weak acid, acetic acid.

JMcG:
I can't figure out your point here.

>
> You wrote: “Meteorology has kind of it’s own nomenclature that cannot be used interchangeably with much of the terminology associated with more decidedly empirical disciplines, like chemistry and thermodynamics. You seem to not grasp this, Dr. Jerry.” Jim, do you grasp that chemists, since the days of the alchemists, have primarily empirically studied matter and the changes it undergoes. So that maybe chemists better understand matter and the changes it undergoes better than other scientists whose attentions are divided by other factors involved in their sciences. And it is true that chemists consider their science is the ‘central’ science which needs to be considered regardless of what these other sciences might be. But, at the same time, the chemists consider that their science is the central science, they know they would be almost totally ignorant if not for the science of physics. For the physicists have given the chemists the tools (experiments and theories) with which to understand what they (the chemists) empirically observe.

JMcG:
Yeah, so?

>
> Jim, you began your comment by the stating: “Meteorology has kind of it’s own nomenclature that cannot be used interchangeably with much of the terminology associated with more decidedly empirical disciplines … .” You ended it by stating: “BTW, the phrase, “latent heat” is a phrase co-opted by meteorologist. It’s not something that is literal. They don’t, for example, ever measure it. (They calculate it based on consensus based [and somewhat obscure] assumptions.) Be aware, however, that meteorology is a very political discipline. They would never admit any of this. Specifically, they would never concede that they had just co-opted this term. And if you attempt to get them to verify it empirically you can expect them to ignore you, with considerable deliberation.”
>
> Jim, Sutcliffe’s book was published in 1966. At that time meteorology was not yet “a very political discipline.”

From its inception meteorology has been political. Its founder, a quack named Espy, attempted to substantiate the notion that moist air contains gaseous H2O and failed. He ignored these results and continued on with the propaganda establishing the notion as a consensus "truth."

You stated: “”BTW, the phrase, “latent heat” is a phrase co-opted by meteorologist. It’s not something that is literal.”

JMcG:
Right.

In chapter 5 Sutcliffe discussed the empirical meteorological observation that cloud droplets commonly supercool (remain liquid at temperatures well below the melting point of ice). You refer to “thunderbolts” and “solving tornadoes”. In chapter 6, Sutcliffe discussed (explained) thunderstorms.

JMcG:
Right. Supercooled water. I discussed it briefly in my "Breakthrough" paper.

I would like you to explain a ‘thunderstorm’ without considering the sudden release of energy (latent heat) that occurs when the supercooled liquid water droplets suddenly freeze (are converted to solid water, ice).

JMcG:
Your imagination isn't evidence.

>
> But you are correct if you intended to point out that all scientists, meteorologists included, do not really consider the possible consequences of nuclei of condensation beyond the fact they are necessary to understand how it is that the atmosphere has never been observed to be saturated with water vapor.

JMcG:
The fact that you imagine something to be necessary doesn't mean it actually is necessary.

[James McGinn]

On Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 7:02:10 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:

[noTthaTguY]

you probably can just formalize the tensions
in the surface areas -- four times hte area
of the greatcicle area -- involved, and
no more problemma

> > However, it seems you go to the other extreme and consider there is no water vapor (molecules) in the atmosphere; but only invisible nuclei of condensation. Which, while invisible, are actually composed of many, many molecules of water and dissolved ions of a salt or acid, and maybe some molecules of an weak acid (which does not fully ionize in forming a water solution). Vinegar is an common example of a water solution of the weak acid, acetic acid.
>
> JMcG:
> I can't figure out your point here.
>
>
> >
> > You wrote: “Meteorology has kind of it’s own nomenclature that cannot be used interchangeably with much of the terminology associated with more decidedly empirical disciplines, like chemistry and thermodynamics. You seem to not grasp this, Dr. Jerry.” Jim, do you grasp that chemists, since the days of the alchemists, have primarily empirically studied matter and the changes it undergoes. So that maybe chemists better understand matter and the changes it undergoes better than other scientists whose attentions are divided by other factors involved in their sciences. And it is true that chemists consider their science is the ‘central’ science which needs to be considered regardless of what these other sciences might be. But, at the same time, the chemists consider that their science is the central science, they know they would be almost totally ignorant if not for the science of physics. For the physicists have given the chemists the tools (experiments and theories) with which to understand what they (the chemists) empirically observe.
>
> JMcG:
> Yeah, so?
>
>
> >
> > Jim, you began your comment by the stating: “Meteorology has kind of it’s own nomenclature that cannot be used interchangeably with much of the terminology associated with more decidedly empirical disciplines … .” You ended it by stating: “BTW, the phrase, “latent heat” is a phrase co-opted by meteorologist. It’s not something that is literal. They don’t, for example, ever measure it. (They calculate it based on consensus based [and somewhat obscure] assumptions.) Be aware, however, that meteorology is a very political discipline. They would never admit any of this. Specifically, they would never concede that they had just co-opted this term. And if you attempt to get them to verify it empirically you can expect them to ignore you, with considerable deliberation.”
> >
> > Jim, Sutcliffe’s book was published in 1966. At that time meteorology was not yet “a very political discipline.”
>
> From its inception meteorology has been political. Its founder, a quack named Espy, attempted to substantiate the notion that moist air contains gaseous H2O and failed. He ignored these results and continued on with the propaganda establishing the notion as a consensus "truth."

> In chapter 5 Sutcliffe discussed the empirical meteorological observation that cloud droplets commonly supercool (remain liquid at temperatures well below the melting point of ice). You refer to “thunderbolts” and “solving tornadoes”. In chapter 6, Sutcliffe discussed (explained) thunderstorms.

> I would like you to explain a ‘thunderstorm’ without considering the sudden release of energy (latent heat) that occurs when the supercooled liquid water droplets suddenly freeze (are converted to solid water, ice).

[noTthaTguY]

just d00 it, or sTfU ... for a while

[James McGinn]

[noTthaTguY]

Avagadro has you down for the count,
zero, minus one etc.

> > > you probably can just formalize the tensions

> > > in the surface areas -- 4(area of the greatcircle) -- involved, and

[James McGinn]

On Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 7:02:10 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote: