These are the people whom I admire and completely trust.
Bill Gray
Bill has been a tireless and fearless warrior for decades, and has been self-funded since Vice-President Al Gore cut off his hurricane research money in 1993 for refusing to agree to Gore’s climate agenda.
Marc Morano
Marc has shown impeccable judgement and publicity skills. He is always able to discern the big story, and is the most visible face in this battle.
Don Easterbrook
Don is a tireless and hard working defender of science, and uncompromising with the facts.
Joe Bastardi
Joe is a person who refuses to make any compromises with the truth, and has the highest character and moral values.
Joe D’Aleo
Joe is a rock solid meteorologist and person who has been fighting this battle for many years.
Thanks to all of you for your inspiration.
you know goofy….you just invalidated everyone’s work, including every climate model
I love it!
On the other hand a large portion of these fellows do not fall into the respected and trustworthy category:
Myles Allen, Review editor, Fourth Assessment Report.
Richard Alley (1957- ), American, Earth’s cryosphere and global climate change.[1]
Kevin Anderson, is the Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and is an adviser to the British Government on climate change.[2]
Svante Arrhenius (1859–1927), Swedish, greenhouse effect.[3]
Sallie Baliunas, American, astrophysicist, solar variation.
Robert Balling, American, former director of the Office of Climatology and is a professor of geography at Arizona State University, climatology, global climate change, and geographic information systems.[4]
Édouard Bard, French climate scientist, specialized in past climate reconstruction.
Richard A. Betts, Head of the Climate Impacts strategic area at the Met Office Hadley Centre.
Vilhelm Bjerknes (1862–1951), Norwegian, forecasting, numerical models.[5]
Raymond S. Bradley, American, historical temperatures, paleoclimatology, and climate variability.
Keith Briffa (1952- ), United Kingdom, dendrochronology, temperature history.
Wallace Smith Broecker (1931- ), American, Pleistocene geochronology, radiocarbon dating, and chemical oceanography.[6]
Harold E. Brooks (1959- ), American meteorologist, severe convective storm and tornado climatology as well as conducive atmospheric environments
Ken Caldeira, American, climate engineering, ocean acidification, atmospheric chemistry.
Guy Stewart Callendar, English,(February 1898 – October 1964), steam engineer and inventor who proposed what eventually became known as the Callendar effect, the theory that linked rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere to global temperature.
Mark Cane, American, modeling and prediction of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation.
John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. Best known (with Dr. Roy Spencer) for developing the first version of the satellite temperature record.
William Connolley, British software engineer, writer, and blogger on climatology. Until December 2007 he was Senior Scientific Officer in the Physical Sciences Division in the Antarctic Climate and the Earth System project at the British Antarctic Survey, where he worked as a climate modeller.
Paul J. Crutzen (1933- ), Dutch, stratospheric and tropospheric chemistry, and their role in the biogeochemical cycles and climate.[7]
Judith Curry American climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology
Kerry Emanuel (1955- ), American, atmospheric dynamics specializing in hurricanes.[8]
Matthew England (1966-), Australian, physical oceanographer and climate dynamicist.
Joe Farman, British, ozone hole above Antarctica
Joseph Fourier (1768–1830), French, greenhouse effect.[9]
Inez Fung American, climate modeling, biogeochemical cycles, and climate change.
Peter Gleick (1956- ), American, hydroclimatologist, hydrologic impacts of climate change, snowfall/snowmelt responses, water adaptation strategies, consequences of sea-level rise.
Jonathan M. Gregory
Jean M. Grove (d. 1927-2001), British, glaciologist; the Little Ice Age
Joanna Haigh, British, solar variability
James E. Hansen (1941- ), American, planetary atmospheres, remote sensing, numerical models, and global warming.[10]
Ann Henderson-Sellers (1952- ), Australian, climate change risk evaluation.[11]
John T. Houghton (1931- ), British, atmospheric physics, remote sensing.[12]
Phil Jones (1952- ), British, instrumental climate change, palaeoclimatology, detection of climate change.
Jean Jouzel, French, glaciologist and climatologist specializing in major climatic shifts
Thomas R. Karl (1951- ), American, climate extremes and variability.
Charles David Keeling (1928–2005), American, atmospheric carbon dioxide measurements, Keeling Curve.[13]
David W. Keith, Canadian, Geoengineering and CO2 capture and storage research, University Professor at SEAS and Harvard Kennedy School
Kurt Lambeck, Australian, cryosphere-hydrosphere-lithosphere interactions, and sea level rise and its impact on human populations.[14]
Mojib Latif (born 1954), German, meteorology and oceanography, climate modelling
Richard Lindzen (1940- ), American, dynamic meteorology, especially planetary waves.[15]
Edward Norton Lorenz (1917–2008), American, discovery of the strange attractor notion and coined the term butterfly effect.[16]
James Lovelock (1919- ), British, Gaia hypothesis and biotic feedbacks.[17]
Syukuro Manabe (1931- ), Japanese, pioneered the use of computers to simulate global climate change and natural climate variations.[18]
Gordon Manley (1902–1980), English, Central England temperature (CET) series.
Michael E. Mann (1965- ), American, paleoclimate reconstructions.[19]
Gerald Meehl (1951-), American climatologist at NCAR.[20]
Patrick Michaels (1950- ), American climatologist.[21][22]
Gordon McBean, Canadian, boundary layer research, hydrometeorology and environmental impact research, and weather forecasting.[23]
Milutin Milanković (1879–1958), Serbian, Milankovitch cycles.[24]
John F. B. Mitchell, British, climate modelling and detection and attribution of climate change
Mario J. Molina (1943- ), Mexican, atmospheric chemistry and ozone depletion.[25]
Richard A. Muller (1944- ), American physicist, head of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, formerly an outspoken critic of current climate change science.
Abraham H Oort
David E. Parker, British, surface temperature trend.
William Richard Peltier (1943- ), Canadian, global geodynamic modeling and ice sheet reconstructions; atmospheric and oceanic waves and turbulence.
Roger A. Pielke, Sr. (1946-), American, climate change, environmental vulnerability, numerical modeling, and atmospheric dynamics.
Raymond Pierrehumbert, idealized climate modeling, Faint young sun paradox.
Vicky Pope, British, Head of the Climate Prediction Programme at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research.
Stefan Rahmstorf (1960- ), German, the role of ocean currents in climate change.[26]
Veerabhadran Ramanathan, Indian, general circulation models, atmospheric chemistry, and radiative transfer.[27]
Roger Revelle (1909–1991), American, global warming and chemical oceanography.[28]
Joseph J. Romm (born June 27, 1960) is an American author, blogger, physicist[29] and climate expert.[30]
William Ruddiman, American, palaeoclimatologist, Early Anthropogenic Hypothesis
Ben Santer (1955-), climatologist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Hans Joachim Schellnhuber (1950 – ), German climatologist, was an author for the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Gavin A. Schmidt, American climatologist and climate modeler at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).
Stephen H. Schneider (1945–2010), American, Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University.
Stephen E. Schwartz (1941 – ), American, chemistry of air pollutants, radiative forcing of aerosols on climate.
Julia Slingo (1950 – ), Chief Scientist at the Met Office since 2009 and former Director of Climate Research in NERC’s National Centre for Atmospheric Science, at the University of Reading
Richard C. J. Somerville (1941 – ), American, theoretical meteorology and atmospheric physics.
Susan Solomon (1956 – ), American, chlorofluorocarbons and ozone depletion.[31]
Thomas Stocker, Swiss, climate dynamics and paleoclimate modeling and reconstruction.
Hans von Storch (born 1949), German, meteorology – Director of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Research Centre, Geesthacht, Germany
Peter A. Stott, British, climate scientist [2].
Hans E. Suess (1909–1993), Austrian, radiocarbon dating, Suess effect.[32]
Henrik Svensmark, Professor in the Division of Solar System Physics at the Danish National Space Institute (DTU Space) in Copenhagen.[33]
Simon Tett, British, detection and attribution of climate change, model initialization, and validation.
Peter Thejll (1956- ), Danish, Northern Hemisphere land air temperature, solar variation and greenhouse effect.
Lonnie Thompson (1948- ), American, paleoclimatology, ice cores.
Micha Tomkiewicz (1939- ), American, democratizing climate change, facilitating required energy transition, professor at Brooklyn College, City University of New York.
Kevin E. Trenberth, decadal variability, El Niño-Southern Oscillation.
David Vaughan – ice sheets, British Antarctic Survey.
Peter Wadhams ScD (born 14 May 1948), is professor of Ocean Physics, and Head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge. He is best known for his work on sea ice.
John Michael Wallace, North Atlantic oscillation, Arctic oscillation, El Niño-Southern Oscillation.
Andrew Watson (1952-), British, marine and atmospheric sciences.
Andrew J. Weaver, Canadian, climate modeling and analysis.[34]
Penny Whetton, Australian, regional climate change projections for Australia. A lead author of the IPCC third and fourth Assessment Report on Climate Change.
Carl Wunsch (1941- ), Physical oceanography and ocean acoustic tomography.[35]
Chewer
Any of the obviously esteemed list you have provided that work on the principle that trace CO2 concentrations DO significantly warm the atmosphere are not following true scientific method.
That is merely a hypothesis with no real world validation at this point in time.
Indeed, it is referred to as a “Working Hypothesis” and AGW has been a one of biggest money makers of all time, and courtesy of your and my dollars!
A few of those listed should demand that Google remove their association with the criminals…
Yes, our tax dollars are paying for the speculative ‘science’ but that’s not the biggest problem. Politicians use that same working hypothesis science for social engineering. Try living with a carbon tax derived from ‘science’, or city planners densifying to reduce carbon footprint…..
Maybe you already do, who knows.
Those in political power take our wealth and spend it on what increases their power and wealth.
According to our administration, AGW is no longer a “Working Hypothesis”, it is “Settled Science”.
You lost me when you included Michael Mann in the list.
It’s a list mainly of members of the Cause-a Nostra, Piltdown Mann belongs on the list.
And many of them are not. The intent of the original comment is difficult, at least for me, to understand.
I like the list. Try researching some of the people, from the adverse reactions. Some will be vilified because of quality of the work, research methods and behavior outside of climatology. A separate group will be vilified for their lack of belief or failure to conform.
This should be a fertile ground for sociological studies. Indeed, comparing and contrasting the different sides might get some people believing it is a subject worth studying.
You overlooked David Archer.
I’ve just been leafing through his book “Global Warming – Understanding the Forecast”.
Gems:
“Objects that emit the highest frequency of light are considered radioactive.”
“The exponential function was invented by bankers to calculate compound interest for bank accounts.”
“Joule (sic) a unit of energy, equal to 4.18 cal (sic) where a cal is the amount of energy it takes to warm 1 g of water by 1 °C.”
[My physics teacher maintained it was 4.18 joules per calorie.]
Thanks, Tony aka Steven, for your own heroic actions.
http://ketchemandfleezem.wordpress.com/2014/05/19/scientists-respond-to-the-obama-administrations-national-climate-assessment/ I posted this once before. As you can see Joe D’Aleo was one of the authors.
as is Gray and Easterbrook
You had me at Bill Gray… 😉
In all seriousness, I am completely in agreement here.
I’d put Steve McIntyre on the list. He is a be true to the data kinda guy.
And Donna LaFramboise for dissecting the fraud that is the IPCC.
Pielke Sr. is very reasonable, helpful, resourceful and serous, …and if someone would switch the decaf with double-espresso when Christie & Lindzen speak at government hearings I think we might see the makings of a roadshow.
I’ll add your name to your list, since you won’t. Good, honest men are what’s lacking in America, about any issue, don’t we think? And please forgive me for those few posts that I wrote in anger, ignorance, and stupidity. You, sir, are someone to be listened to. Thanks for your site. ~Louie
AMEN.
Absolutely!
Dr Tim Ball
http://drtimball.com/2012/co2-is-not-a-greenhouse-gas-that-raises-global-temperature-period/
John Daley for me was very m,uch in the Tony mould, ehe would stand no nonsense.
He was there as the internet opened and spread world wide, he was there way before climate gate in fact he died before climategate but John was a true tenacious fighter against warming bull shit with his pioneering blog
‘Still waiting fop the greenhouse’
He was there as the whole bandwagon started to rumble forward as it was hijacked by the left.
In my book like a certain person he stood alone against what seemed to be in the early days a tsunami of evidence of proof of warming.
He was a special bloke IMHO just like Tony.
I agree. John Daley was far ahead of his time.
Several good scientists vanished after making major discoveries. E.g., an Hungarian astronomer Peter Toth after reporting evidence the Sun is a pulsar in 1977.
Before that, in the 1960s, a scientist named Jose suggested that shifts in the center-of-mass of the solar system caused the solar cycle of sunspots.
I will try to locate a better reference.
1. P. D. Jose, “Sun’s motion and sunspots,” Astron. J. 70, 193-200 (1965)
2. Peter Toth, “Is the Sun a pulsar,” Nature 270, 159-160 (1977)
I second that and add Ross McKitrick and Steven McIntyre–the slayers of Mann’s hockey stick graph
Ed Krug’s book is worth a read as well.
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/environment-betrayed-edward-c-krug/1111426716?ean=9781475911268
Keep up the good fight Tony.
Truth always comes out, and it will with this situation as well.
All I can say is………
THANK YOU ALL !!! 🙂
The real heroes are the bloggers and commenters that have kept the candle of common sense and reason alight so that now the kindling of evidence is abundant, we can set light to it and watch the global warming scam burn.
Joe the Bastard, as I personally call him as a joke with myself, is cool. The rest do their jobs well. But they all give credence to the AGW’s by accepting their premise and then they try to dismiss their theories with fact. It doesn’t work with Libs. When one tries to fight the untrue with a stream of facts, they just dismiss it and continue their chosen mantra. We need to call a lie, “a lie” and do what Ayn Rand said in her prophetic book “Atlas Shrugged”. Don’t fight your enemy on their terms, let them show themselves for what they are. If our society,which is filled with illegal mexicans can’t show strength and unity, then maybe Galts Gulch is the only way to go.
Blimey no one remember John Daly ?
English born but became a real Tasmanian Devil after immigrating
http://www.john-daly.com/
John was the first person to document the NASA data tampering.
HH Lamb.
Historical meteologist who understood that the patterns of today’s weather were cast in the patterns of the climate past. Affable and erudite, he was the very model of scientific skeptic.
http://enthusiasmscepticismscience.wordpress.com/h-h-lamb/
I will add Nigel Calder who documented the Global Cooling scare of the seventies that the warmist have tried to rewrite and Shackleton’s work on the Milankovitch Cycles. He just passed this last week at age 82.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/06/27/sad-news-nigel-calder-1931-2014/
There were more comments over at Bishop hill,
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/6/28/nigel-calder.html#comments
and there is an obituary in the Independent.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/nigel-calder-prolific-journalist-and-author-who-did-much-to-educate-the-public-in-the-understanding-of-science-9569398.html
Absolutely Gail. I forgot about poor Nigel who died last week. I did post about it on UK Sci Weather
but you know what only one person added their sentiments saying they still had his book the weather machine. The reason why there was no response I believe was because it was me and more importantly that Nigel a great science writer in the day when New scientist was about science ; actually came out against the theory of climate change based purely on human co2. I thought he must have been unwell as he hasn’t updated his blog for over a year. He stood firmly and resolutely behind Svensmarks cosmic ray theory.
Yes another hero who stood for decades against the AGW tsunami of madness.
I have named my little goat, a beautiful silver with a lively intelligent personality, after Nigel since he was born the day Nigel Calder died.
I hope there are other little boys named after this very fine man.
Good selection.
What about Dr. Timothy Ball?
Keep up the good fight, men and women!! The truth will out!
Hey Steve,
I think your heroes are heroic up to a point. Ask them to go to my website: http://www.solvingtornadoes.com and answer some of the questions in the polls that follow the posts therein. I’ve dealt with two of your heroes already. The evasiveness they displayed when challenged to address some of the misthinking in meteorology (not climatology) was comparable to that of the worst global warming pretenders. I think it’s great that you are exposing climatology’s cult of climate change. But a more insidious cult has been with as all along, and that is meteorology’s cult of convection.
You are going to have to be more explicit, because I have no idea what you are getting at.
Try reading it real slow.
Steve, this nitwit appears to be the individual behind the ‘wall’ concept to stop tornadoes .. or maybe someone who supports the nitwit who made that proposal.
Either way, this individual appears to be a nitwit.
.
LOL
http://www.solvingtornadoes.com
You don’t come off very rational on your website. I’ve not read your book, but you are off to a bad start given what you have on your website. Just saying …
Further, this ‘solvingtornadoes’ guy has a book by the same title:
http://www.amazon.com/Solving-Tornadoes-Mastering-Mystery-Atmosphere-ebook/dp/B00KY7EGSG
– – – – – –
Charles Dowell III has a write-up on this topic here:
http://cadiiitalk.blogspot.com/2014/06/a-logical-dilemma-for-scientist.html
In which he writes:
Another recent example is found here [book ref above], where the person clearly doesn’t understand the physics of atmospheric gases. He questions fundamental physical laws but provides no meaningful basis for his lack of belief in them. There’s no basis for his wild claims about the relative densities of moist versus dry air, inter alia. Thinking “outside the box” is one thing – making counterscientific claims with no substantial evidence is quite another.
.
Well, IMO, stating that generations of meteorologists failed to measure/test one of their basic assumptions isn’t a “counterscientific claim.” And drawing attention to the half-baked theory underlying this assumption isn’t a “wild claim.”
BTW, after I revealed Doswell’s half-baked approach to science (storm theory, tornadogenesis) he refused to allow my response on his website (sound familiar?). You can see my responses to his quackery in the comments (box on left) of a post on my website entitled: A Response To Chuck’s Strangely Vacuous Chatter. http://www.solvingtornadoes.com
Don’t forget to provide responses to the many polls on my website.
Regards,
Jim McGinn
Before there was global warming there was meteorology
Dowell answered your question. Your failure to understand something pilots work with everyday (takeoff or landing field pressure-density effective ‘altitude’ as a function of local atmospheric pressure, temperature AND relative humidity) reflects on you, not him.
Test this for yourself; note that for higher dew points and the *same* air temperature, this calculates out to a HIGHER (less dense) ‘effective’ elevation for the same ‘fixed’ elevation value (normally this is the air field elevation):
Density Altitude Calculator
http://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_da.htm
.
I have one question for solvingtornadoes, have you ever been out west and witnessed the plethora of ‘dust devils’ that kick up in the afternoon? Any place in flat, hot, arid Nevada during the summer for instance.
.
Thanks for the question.
Yes, dust devils are very benign. There is a very small amount of energy associated with them–as we’d expect with convection. And there’s no structure, no tubular cone or vortex (no conduit for energy transfer), as can be clearly seen in many tornadoes.
It’s unfortunate that meteorologists draw conclusions about tornadoes based on vague analogies to dust devils and such. (Is that your point?) Drawing conclusions based on analogies is the realm of pseudo-science (ie. global warming).
The revelation that the assumption that moist-air is lighter than dry air had never been tested/measured (see my website for details) should have been seen as a call to action among meteorologists. (Could you imagine the fervor among physicists if, let’s say, it was revealed that the speed of light had never been measured?) But, like climatology, there is very little depth of thought–especially when it involves storm theory or tornadogenesis. Like climatology, the meteorological approach to storm theory is more of a religion than a science. (The don’t do experiments. They don’t debate/discuss.)
If you try to have a conversation with a meteorologist about storm theory or tornadogenesis most of the time will be spent helping them remember what they were taught way back when. The rest of the time will be spent with them tell you they are sure they are right. (The typical name calling soon follows.) Exactly zero percent of the time will be spent discussing anything remotely resembling reproducible experimental evidence.
Regards,
Jim McGinn
http://www.solvingtornadoes.com
@solvingtornadoe
Let’s take it one step further now … can you imagine an energy transfer involving the latent heat of evaporation of water vapor which is entrained in that air mass rising as it does during convection in a cumulus just one step ahead of becoming a cumulonimbus (rain producing) cloud or complex as the combined air mass transits the ‘condensation level’ at some altitude above ground … are you with me so far?
.
Well, lots of people believe this, or something along these lines, but there is more to science than stating (and restating) one’s beliefs.
If you don’t grasp this simple concept, you can forget the rest. You do understand this is how ‘rain’ forms (the first requisite step anyway)?
Yes or no?
It is simple, I’ll grant you that. But there’s more to science than just that.
Further more, you do understand that thunderstorms are ‘thermodynamic engines’ – have you ever heard that term before?
So, what and where are the thermodynamic ‘energy transfers’ taking place that you propose in a thunderstorm?
I note at one point you allude to some sort of process involving hydrogen – so how does the separation of H2 and O in H2O occur, and what are the energy transfers and where is this energy sourced?
.
I agree that it’s simple.
Failure to address specific points raised, such as the H2O decomposition you assert takes place somehow. You’re on ‘stage’ now, bub. Future book sales ‘ride’ on an answer …
No. Thunderstorms are not ‘thermodynamic engines’ whatever you think that means. (But that’s not to say that thermodynamics are not involved.) It just so happens I’m an expert on thermodynamics/fluid dynamics. It can be confusing. Most people know enough to get themselves in trouble but not enough to get out of the mess they’ve created. It’s probably not the kind of thing you want to discuss on a blog. I try to clear up some of the misconceptions in my book–briefly. But most applications of thermodynamics to storm theory are overwrought, IMO (except at much larger scale, jet stream for example).
I don’t refer to hydrogen. I refer to hydrogen bonding, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the covalent bonds between the Hs and the O of H2O. Hydrogen bonding of water is a function of the polarity of the water molecule and it involves connections between water molecules. It’s a very interesting subject. (Very counterintuitive.) Very relevant to storm theory. And it’s completely unknown to meteorologists. I encourage you to look into it further.
Regards,
Jim McGinn
The Alfred Wegener of Storm Theory
re: solvingtornadoes July 4, 2014 at 8:23 pm
No. Thunderstorms are not ‘thermodynamic engines’ …
And so we have it ladies and gentleman. We are FINALLY getting somewhere. This gentleman is going to give us an altered interpretation (his interpretation) or view of thermodynamic reality. Or get ‘roasted’ royally in the process … let the games begin.
We should recommend him to Appell or Rabit run or the Hot Whopper Blog while I’m at it.
.
Hydrogen bonding – water is a polar molecule on account of the way H ‘sits’ around the periphery of Oxygen (the exact reason why is a bit deeper) and exhibits ‘surface tension’ as a liquid … you just discovered this? You are aware this is also the property that make H2O EM active (literally: has a response in the electromagnetic spectrum).
LOL. It’s amazing that geniuses like you don’t go out and build an engine that runs on the “power” of evaporation. Just think of all the money you’d make!!!
Non sequitur; I thought you were here to plug a book or just rabble rouse … which is it?
BTW, you’re the one plugging ‘zany’ extra-science (literally: ‘outside of science’) theories and the like. Maybe you need a link to the energetic forum where you can practice harmless, but nonetheless ‘quack’ [quote]science[unquote], like building Rosemary Ainslie circuits …
.
Hey, don’t feel bad. Your thinking on this subject is conceptually intertwined with that of Chuck Doswell’s (and many other consensus-seeking meteorologists) as is evident in one of his responses to one of my posts:
*** Begin ***
Chuck Doswell stated:
Finally, a large mixing ratio for water vapor in air is about 10 g per kg of dry air. If all the water vapor in a given volume were to condense to liquid water, the mass of the water in the volume would not change. However, because the water is now in its much denser liquid form, it could then fall out of that volume, leaving behind only dry air. The weight of the remaining air would be reduced by about 1%.
In the process of condensing, the water would release latent heat – water has a latent heat of 2260 kJ per kg. For a mixing ratio of 10 g per kg, that would amount to 22.6 kJ of latent heat per kg of dry air. The release of that latent heat within that volume would warm the remaining dry air.
To determine the amount of warming, we need the specific heat of dry air, which is 1.0 kJ per kg per deg C. Thus, the release of latent heat by the complete condensation of 10 g of water vapor per kg of dry air would raise the temperature of the air by 22.6 deg C!
It is this large release of latent heat from condensing water vapor that powers thunderstorms.
*** End ***
Maybe you two geniuses can put your heads together and develop some reproducible experimental procedures to test/substantiate the (numerous) unsubstantiated claims/assumptions in this narrative.
Or, even better, write a letter to Al Gore and see if he will include you on the list of Nobel prize recipients.
Remember, never let facts get in the way of a perfectly good consensus.
Yet remaining: Your lab work demonstrating something different …
Your big beef with Dowell was concerning the DECREASED density (and decreased weight, BTW) of a fixed volume ‘parcel of air’ which had only an INCREASED relative humidity value.
You lose on that point by (implicitly) asserting that a higher RH in a fixed volume air mass makes it DENSER (and HEAVIER too).
A practical implementation of this is calculating the pressure density altitude given field elevation, temperature and relative humidity. A calculator such as the one below is one such practical implementation:
http://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_da.htm
.
Jim:
“Your lab work demonstrating something different …”
Different than what? Something you’ve yet to establish/test? (Something different from your imagination?) Don’t you think it would be more professional to admit/acknowledge that you unaware of any empirical support for this assertion?
“Your big beef with Doswell was concerning the DECREASED density (and decreased weight, BTW) of a fixed volume ‘parcel of air’ which had only an INCREASED relative humidity value.”
Right. Specifically my “beef” was along the following lines:
1) If you don’t test/measure you don’t know.
2) If the theoretical thinking that underlies your conclusion is half-baked then so will be your conclusion
3) Doswell’s excuse is abject ignorance of H2Os hydrogen bond (thus rendering his thinking and his conclusion half-baked). But you, apparently, don’t have that excuse.
What good is it to have an advanced understanding of water’s hydrogen bond (and I hope you believe me when I say that I am genuinely impressed by this) if you don’t apply it toward practical ends?
Let me test you:
Which of the following phases of water has the highest and lowest surface tension (and why)? 1) Steam 2) liquid water 3) Ice?
Bonus question: Of the different phases of matter which one is not indicated in the above question?
Not so ‘easy’ out here in the real world, is it McGinn? You thought this topic or subject of yours would be a push-over didn’t you?
That’s a good point. People that think they have it all figured out really make it difficult for those of us that do.
re: solvingtornadoes July 4, 2014 at 8:23 pm
No. Thunderstorms are not ‘thermodynamic engines’ whatever you think that means. (But that’s not to say that thermodynamics are not involved.) It just so happens I’m an expert on …
…
Jim McGinn …
– – – –
If it’s not ‘thermodynamics’ that is majorly responsible for the action in and around a thunderstorm, what is?
Are you not aware of the classic ‘shape’ of a fully-active cumulonimbus, possessing warm, moist air inflow, a ‘latent heat’ extraction cycle or process in the ‘tower’, along with a means to ‘discard’ the exhaust components, such as the rain which falls and the ‘warmed air’ which is ejected downsteam via upper level winds (which some ppl call the jet stream)?
Seems you have not even studied thunderstorm ‘operation’ at this very elementary level, because what I just described above was very clearly a thermodynamic engine.
.
” . . . what I just described above was very clearly a thermodynamic engine.”
Well, if you think you got it all figured out then you should write a detailed book on the subject.
Regards,
Jim McGinn
Idiot, that’s not what was claimed. BTW, the term thermo-engine is not mine. Geesh. You are highly unknowledgeable in this field. The term idiot, incidentally, is not handed-out without reason, you have earned it. Every bit of it.
Now, your posts on this subject will stand forever, your dancing and prancing-around ‘answers’ as well as your name, your book title will all be Google-able for any and all interested parties to see.
Thanks for playing.
.
Address the issue, you pinhead. Repeating half-baked theoretical assertions doesn’t make them more valid.
Jim says:
Hydrogen bonding – water is a polar molecule on account of the way H ‘sits’ around the periphery of Oxygen (the exact reason why is a bit deeper) and exhibits ‘surface tension’ as a liquid … you just discovered this?
SolvingTornadoes:
LOL. Uh, er, uh . . . er . . . uh, I’m the one that introduced the topic into this conversation.
Jim says:
You are aware this is also the property that make H2O EM active (literally: has a response in the electromagnetic spectrum).
SolvingTornadoes:
Wow! i’m genuinely impressed that you know that (H2O being EM active). (And I’m not being sarcastic–really.) (And the fact that you put the word, “literally” in your response makes me think that you didn’t just look this up.) Very impressive.
I’m speechless. I can only recommend that you read my book.
Regards,
Jim McGinn
Jim:
“Doswell answered your question. Your failure to understand something pilots work with everyday (takeoff or landing field pressure-density effective ‘altitude’ as a function of local atmospheric pressure, temperature AND relative humidity) reflects on you, not him.
Test this for yourself; note that for higher dew points and the *same* air temperature, this calculates out to a HIGHER (less dense) ‘effective’ elevation for the same ‘fixed’ elevation value (normally this is the air field elevation):
Density Altitude Calculator
http://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_da.htm”
Solvingtornadoes:
Doswell sidestepped the issue, just as you are doing here. None of the things you mention here are in dispute or directly relevant to the issue at hand. You claim an advanced understanding of water’s hydrogen bonding. You need to pull your head out of your ass and apply it to obtain a better conceptualization of the behavior of atmospheric H2O at ambient (below 100 degrees celsius) temperatures. (Let me give you a hint. There is no steam in our atmosphere.) It doesn’t do you any good if you just refer to webpages constructed by people that suffer the same delusion.
The larger lesson from all of this is one that, unfortunately, is relearned over and over again by scientists in many disciplines: If you don’t measure/test you don’t know.
(Also, if you base conclusions on theoretical thinking make sure that theory is comprehensive.)
Jim McGinn
http://www.solvingtornadoes.com
Are you suggesting I take Doswell’s word on any of this? Read this before you respond:
http://cadiiitalk.blogspot.com/2011/07/announcement-and-one-more-thing-about.html
Jim:
Failure to address specific points raised, such as the H2O decomposition you assert takes place somehow. You’re on ‘stage’ now, bub. Future book sales ‘ride’ on an answer …
Solvingtornadoes:
I don’t even know what you mean by this. What is “H2O decomposition”?
Jim:
You’re on ‘stage’ now, bub. Future book sales ‘ride’ on an answer …
Solvingtornadoes:
I wouldn’t pretend to compete with your imagination.
Jim:
“All of the questions you pose have already been answered; why do you persist in asking the same question over and over again, as in a rational world the answer does not change?”
Solvingtornadoes:
LOL. Tell us how you and the other members of your cult know that H2O is (or even can be) monomolecular (at ambient temperatures) in the atmosphere or kindly go away.
After you’ve obtained empirical verification of your response you can then come back and tell us about what does and does not change in a rational world.
Fair enough?
Jim McGinn
http://www.solvingtornadoes.com