Remember me
▼ Content

Bursting the Atmosphere: what happens when rain falls up


Bursting the Atmosphere: what happens when rain falls up26-09-2015 18:25
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi,

I'm glad to being joining this forum, and I look forward to exchanging ideas.

Back in 2014, I wrote a book titled "Bursting the Atmosphere: what happens when rain falls up" (free PDF below, and available on Amazon). Using the Ideal Gas Law and thermodynamics, this book explains how climate change will progress due to the continued increase of man-made greenhouse gases, yet there will be no major increase in global temperatures: some fluctuations, but no major increases. At first (i.e. - now), the temperature will be moderated by the melting of the polar ice caps, sea ice, and other major ice formations like Greenland, glaciers and mountain range snow caps. Next, once the majority of these frozen water resources have melted, global temperature will continue to be moderated by the evaporation of planetary surface water from our oceans, seas, lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, etc., much in the same way as we sweat to stay cool when exercising. As our planet's atmosphere is not restrained by a hard outer shell, this mass-scale surface evaporation will lead to atmospheric expansion which, in turn, will raise all layers of our atmosphere above their current heights. Through this expansion, the tropopause - the highest elevation water vapor usually rises in the atmosphere before condensing and returning to the planet's surface as rain, snow, hail, etc. - will rise to levels where the sun's solar winds can knock water molecules en-masse into outer space, leading to a complete exodus of all planetary water, the total dehydration of Earth, and the extinction of all life on this planet.

While this is far from a cheery scenario, I am fascinated by the fact that for the first time in history, we can talk of "End of the Earth" in real-time scientific terms instead of biblical dogma.

I'm preparing to write the 2nd edition of this book, and I'd like to hear your thoughts. I've attached a free PDF of the book which you can share with others (BurstingTheAtmosphere_1stEdition2014.pdf).

PS - If you read the book, please let me know if you find any typos. I already know about "Steven Hawkins" (oops - sorry Steve) and that I got Mars and Venus backwards (what can I say, it's not easy juggling planets). But seriously, I highly value your input, corrections, and any additions you share. My contact info is on the second page of the PDF.
Attached file:
burstingtheatmosphere_1stedition2014.pdf
Edited on 26-09-2015 18:38
RE: No Subject26-09-2015 18:31
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
If you download the attached PDF, please note that I uploaded the finally version that was used to print the hardcopy of the book. You may notice that as you go from page to page, the side margins alternately shift from left to right. I wanted this PDF to match the hardcopy as closely as possible, so I did not fool around with re-centering all the pages uni-formally.
26-09-2015 20:37
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
trafn wrote:I'm glad to being joining this forum, and I look forward to exchanging ideas.

Are you sure? I'll give it to you straight and I don't expect you will want to hear/read it.

1) Either ditch the words "Global Warming" from your book or erase your statement that are not taking a religious perspective. Global Warming is a contemporary religion that appeals to the scientifically illiterate.

2) Define what you mean by "Climate" or remove the term from your book. "Climate" is a colloquialism. It is an English word found in the dictionary but it is not defined anywhere within the body of science. It is up to each person who uses the term "Climate" to specify exactly what he or she means by the term.

In line with this, if you want to take a scientific approach instead of a religious one, you absolutely MUST specify whether you mean "Climate" to be a completely notional concept (e.g one of statistics and averages) or if it is a tangible reality (e.g. the atmosphere, the oceans, and the biosphere). Only religions get to have it both ways.

3) "Thermodynamics" is not a buzzword. It is a scientific discipline. You need to learn it. Reading your book, it is obvious you do not understand it. You routinely confuse/conflate temperature, heat and thermal energy. You need to learn, and understand, the concept of "work." Any conclusions you draw from scientific misunderstanding will be faulty.

My main recommendation is to examine every occasion of the word "heat" in your book and notice that, in the vast majority of instances, you actually mean "thermal energy." Heat is the transfer/flow of thermal energy. There is no such thing as a "heat transfer."

4) The big one. You feel the need to use the unscientific word "traps", e.g. "the atmosphere traps heat." This is what will get your book shredded by any scientist who might read it. The word "traps" certainly exists in the dictionary but it has no rigid definition within the body of science. Those of the Global Warming religion dishonestly use the word "traps" to convey desired dogmatic imagery while affording themselves the wiggle room to always respond to critical analysis with "That's not what I meant to say."

No substance in this reality can trap heat. No substance can prevent its thermal energy from radiating away at a rate dependent upon its temperature. If I build a trap, and I were to trap a fox in my trap, the fox cannot escape until someone decides to release him. "Trap" implies a permanent state of being "trapped." If people are trapped in a room, they are not free to just leave as they wish.

Your book depends on a nonexistent "heat trapping" effect. Either change wording and discuss what you mean from a science perspective or your book will get torn to shreds in the scientific community.

5) Drawing from item #4 above, there is no such thing as a "greenhouse gas." This term does not exist in the body of science. You are going to have a very difficult time explaining how there are some gases that follow the laws of thermodynamics while, at the same time, there are specifically some gases that do not, i.e. "greenhouse gases."

Just as you did not define "Climate" you failed to define "greenhouse gas." It is insufficient to simply label CO2 and H2O as "greenhouse gases" without defining exactly what that means and why that definition matters. You'll find that you cannot.

Those are the big ticket items. If I think of anything else I'll let you know.

---


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-09-2015 23:07
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
IBdaMann wrote:
Are you sure? I'll give it to you straight and I don't expect you will want to hear/read it.


Hi IBdaMann, and yes I do appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me.

I agree with you that this book will not pass strict scientific analysis, mainly because it's not written for that purpose. If we are going to solve this problem of man-made climate change, then everyone - the scientifically literate and illiterate - must understand it as best they can. My goal with this book is to bring this version of climate change (phase change instead of global warming) to people who are not scientists: to help them understand an alternative point of view on where we're headed. Of course, I agree with your analysis, as I'd get blasted out of the water by "scientists" on my reference listings alone, since most of them come from Wikipedia. But when you understand Wikipedia, it's strengths and weaknesses, and you realize that it is an "every persons portal" to information, then for this type of book it can be a useful and educational tool (anyone interested in a particular reference has near automatic access to it and related material through the internet).

As for the phrase "global warming," I think it's a misnomer for what's actually happening today. By the time significant (i.e. - irreversible) global warming occurs, most life on this planet will already be gone, due to the drop in atmospheric oxygen concentrations caused by atmospheric expansion. If anything, we're now in the pre-global warming stage of phase changes: planetary ice melting to liquid water followed by liquid water evaporating into atmospheric water vapor (thermodynamics, right?).

As for climate change, I agree with you that, even though it is used throughout the scientific community, it is not specifically a "scientific" term, and that scientifically speaking thermal energy flows from states of higher to lower energy (it's not trapped). But terms like climate change and trapping are still useful concepts when addressing the general population, and they do have their etymology, as I'm using them, rooted in thermodynamics. In the second addition of this book, I'm expanding on the concept of heat trapping by discussing environmental heat sinks, a concept I used repeatedly in my original 2007 paper on this topic. Now, I realize that the term "heat sink" is also not, strictly speaking, a scientific term. But heat sinks do exist. If they didn't, the CPU in your computer would likely burn up.

Anyways, thank you for taking the time to review the book's first edition and giving me your feedback. Please let me know if you have any other thoughts.
Edited on 26-09-2015 23:13
27-09-2015 02:44
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
trafn wrote:
Hi IBdaMann, and yes I do appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me.

Then I am happy to share.

I did not comment on any formatting or grammar because all of that looks good. Whoever has reviewed your book for that purpose has done a good job.

trafn wrote: If we are going to solve this problem of man-made climate change, then everyone - the scientifically literate and illiterate - must understand it as best they can.

That's another thing that's missing. Let's forget, for the moment, that I cannot tell what "climate" is from reading your book. You nonetheless make it clear that you believe there is some sort of a problem involved in how the "climate" is changing. Unfortunately your book never explains how any problem you mention, e.g. disposable products, is related to "climate." You have selected an arbitrary list of social issues and basically said "See? This is why we need to get this climate thing under control." An astute reader might very well disagree, thinking that we will still have to deal with the issue of disposable products whether or not this climate thing is ever controlled by whomever ends up controlling it.

But this presumes the context in which "climate" is understood and rigidly defined. Correct me if I am mistaken but when you use the word "climate", you are not simply using it as a replacement word for "weather" nor are you using it as a replacement word for "the environment." You need to say what you mean by your use of the term and how it specifically relates to the problems you mention.

Then you need to specify how this "climate" thing is changing. How do you even know it is changing? What are "climate's" units of measure? How many of what units of measure has "climate" changed this week? How did you measure it? How can anyone measure it? If I were to go out into my back yard and look at something, how could I tell whether what I was looking at was "climate," weather or environment? For that which is "climate" how do I know if it is changing climate-wise?

If I were to play the Devil's Advocate, I would pit you against yourself. On the one hand, you don't care much for countries defending their national interests and you aren't fond of military forces. On the other hand, you believe this "climate" can be controlled by humans. I would ask you why no military has weaponized this "climate" thing and attacked an enemy with it? ...or are military weapons part of "climate"?

trafn wrote: Of course, I agree with your analysis, as I'd get blasted out of the water by "scientists" on my reference listings alone, since most of them come from Wikipedia.

Why use Wikipedia? Wikipedia is not an authoritative source and such references are normally summarily dismissed. At least if you cite a biased blog you can attribute it to a person and include it in your footnotes. I'm sorry to be blunt but every Wikipedia reference is a public announcement "I'm too lazy to research this." At a minimum you can research the references you find in Wikipedia, but you really need to go at least one level deeper.

trafn wrote: But when you understand Wikipedia, it's strengths and weaknesses, and you realize that it is an "every persons portal" to information,

Nope. When you understand Wikipedia, you realize that it is a leftist political agenda posing as an information source. It is clear that you personally reside on the left end of the political spectrum, and the Wikipedia agenda aligns with your own. On any politically controversial topic, Wikipedia presents the leftist viewpoint as the "correct" absolute while merely acknowledging the existence of the other erroneous viewpoints.

MANY years ago, I tried helping Wikipedia clean up the Global Warming wiki (as a contributor) by citing the obvious and verifiable bad physics, the completely unsupported claims and the pure religious dogma, so as to bring the wiki within Wikipedia's stated guidelines. Those who run Wikipedia were not interested whatsoever in technical or scientific accuracy. They refused to change even a single word of the religious dogmababble that remains on the page to this day.

If you are going to cite Wikipedia then you might as well cite the Communist Party of the United States. They both militantly state the same positions.

trafn wrote: As for the phrase "global warming," I think it's a misnomer for what's actually happening today.

Yes, you clearly state this in your book. The problem you face with taking this angle is that each year the levels of atmospheric CO2 increases yet there is no correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and Arctic ice extent (either minimum or maximum). Data also show no correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and California drought, and no correlation between CO2 levels and the frequency and strength of Atlantic hurricanes.

Also, you are setting yourself to take a hit when more people realize that planetary surface ice is really not decreasing. Yes, we hear about the glaciers that are melting but those reports dishonestly omit all the glaciers that are growing. If the amount of surface snow and ice is not decreasing, because CO2 cannot really trap heat, then your entire premise is going to be called out onto the plastic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-U_1WImxw0


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-09-2015 17:35
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi IBdaMann,

Thanks for your reply. And except for a few minor typos (i.e. - "Stephen Hawkins," oops, sorry Steve) and mixing up Mars and Venus (Venus is the hot one - right?), I too was pleased with the editing. One the other hand, I have to admit that this is the 9th or 10th book that I've written, and I've come to the conclusion that if there isn't a typo in it somewhere, then I probably didn't write it.

As for some good news, you have convinced me that I DO need to have a "definitions" section somewhere at the beginning of the new edition. The first edition was not a best seller, but I did give away about 500 copies to get peoples' reactions, and I was amazed at how "simple" their questions seemed after reading it. Rather than ask in-depth probing questions, they were more interested (confused?) about things that seemed very basic to me. I now think, in retrospect, that after reading your comments that I DO need to define terms which I previously assumed everyone understood to mean the same thing. I will put this as a prologue, and I'll emphasis at the beginning of the first chapter the importance of reading through the definitions so as we are all starting from the same place. For the sake of our discussion here, I define weather to be the measurable changes in atmospheric conditions (temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, etc.) which occur over several, days, weeks or months (fall, winter, summer spring). On the other hand, I define climate as the trends in these same measurable conditions over several years, decades, centuries, millennium or even eons.

An interesting note here, you asked why no country has ever "weaponized" climate. When I first got interested in this subject, I wrote a novel titled "The Dragon Option: a new world paradigm from North Korea" in which the North Koreans actually do "weaponize" climate. You can download a free PDF of this book at (I'll also attached a copy here):

www.trafn.com/drgopt_v6.1_050607.pdf

As for the argument over whether man-made climate change is even possible, I find it astounding that no one today, even pro-climate change advocates, remember the acid rain problem of the 1960's and 70's. This type of man-influenced climate can be documented back to the mid-1800's during the initial stages of the industrial revolution in England. I will include this in the 2nd edition as a historical basis for defining and understanding man-made climate change.

As to my 3 solutions - population control, recycling and solar/renewable energy - I do need to expound more upon these ideas. They really got a very cursory once-over in the first edition, because even though they really are the solution to this problem (at least in my opinion) I believe we passed the actual tipping point for saving ourselves and the planet way back in 1901 with Spindletop. Today we talk about the tipping point for this issue as being about how much CO2 is in the air, or how much ice has melted, or how high the sea levels have risen. But, important as those might be, they're not the real driving issue behind the problem of man-made climate change. The real issue is us: the way we think; the way we behave; our values, morals and ethics. And at 10:30 a.m., on the morning of January 10, 1901, our specie's values, morals and ethics were radically and indelibly altered by what happened that day in Texas. It was such a history altering event that in the 8 days following, some 50,000 people were estimated to have traveled to what was then the middle of nowhere by horse to witness this event. I am going to write about it extensively in the second edition.

Now for Wikipedia. I totally agree with you about it's many flaws. It is more like a quasi-moderated chat room than an actual place for scientific discourse. However, my undergraduate work was in science education and psychology and, in 1982, I was the first person with a bachelor's degree to ever get 5 teaching certifications at one time from New York State - chemistry, physics, biology, general science and mathematics). Since then, I've taught at all levels, from K-12, undergrad, post-graduate through doctorate level (medical school) and even at the state licensure level. The one thing I've consistently found is that you need to address your discussion to the educational level of the audience instead of your own. For that reason, given this is a book designed for the masses and not the scientific segment alone, Wikipedia is an audience appropriate reference source. My real goal here is not to convince them I'm right (that would be an encyclopedic task which I'm not prepared to undertake), but to begin them questioning their assumptions about climate change and opening up their minds to new ideas that even the proponents of global warming aren't talking about (i.e. - looking at climate change from the phase change perspective instead of the global warming perspective).

Now, as I close, you mention the "surface ice" issue, and that's a paradoxical one. It's a bit to complicated to delve into here, but I did give it a brief addressing in the first issue. All I'll say here is that as climate change progresses it will cause an overall long-term reduction in land-based ice, but a short-term increase in water-based "surface" ice (this is a very complicated issue involving oceanic saline gradients and the dilution effect from fresh water run-off). As for glaciers, about 4% of the world's glaciers have increased in size over the past decade or so due to atypical conditions that exist in their local regions, kinda like how there's often no wind or rain in the eye of a hurricane, but the remaining 96% are following the long-term trend of shrinking.

Well, again, I really appreciate you taking the time to go over all of this. You have provided very valuable concerns which I will address in the second edition, making it an even better read for its audience.

If you have any further thoughts/ideas/comments, please let me know.
Attached file:
drgopt_v6-1_050607.pdf
Edited on 27-09-2015 17:45
28-09-2015 00:26
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
trafn wrote: Hi IBdaMann, Thanks for your reply.

You are most welcome.

trafn wrote:As for some good news, you have convinced me that I DO need to have a "definitions" section somewhere at the beginning of the new edition.

Whether it's at the beginning or the end, a glossary is always a good idea. The clearer your definitions, the better.

trafn wrote: For the sake of our discussion here, I define weather to be the measurable changes in atmospheric conditions (temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, etc.) which occur over several, days, weeks or months (fall, winter, summer spring).

Weather is a collection of measurements, not of changes in measurements. You might want to go with the standard, simpler definition of "all measurable parameters of the atmosphere."

Similarly, the simpler definition of "environment" is "all the measurable parameters of a given volume of the biosphere, i.e. a volume of Panamá jungle will have differing measurable parameters as one type of environment when studying a community of jaguars, while a volume of dirt underground will have a host of different parameters while studying the environment of some earthworms, while a volume of air over some hilly terrain will have differing measurable parameters altogether for the environment of some microorganisms.

trafn wrote: On the other hand, I define climate as the trends in these same measurable conditions over several years, decades, centuries, millennium or even eons.

I see this as a huge problem. You have basically said that you will not define your time interval. You have also implicitly stated that you won't specify what "trends" you constitute to be "climate." This renders everything you write on "climate" to be completely unfalsifiable, and thus, religious dogma.

I'm sorry to be so blunt but you cannot define something by saying that there are no limits on what it can be. This is what religions do to their deity. It becomes everything. Recently, the Pope announced to a cheering audience that 'God is love." By your definition, I could semantically stretch to the conclusion "Climate is love".

It is good that you have specified that "climate" is a completely notional concept (i.e. trends, statistics, averages, etc.) and not a tangible reality. Your job at this point is to remain consistent. First you will need to specify what "trends" you are considering "climate" and then you will need to explain how, say, dumping radiator fluid into Lake Sweetwater affects those trends, i.e. how it affects "climate."

Note, keep in mind that "climate," being defined as a notional concept cannot get warmer and it cannot acquire thermal energy. Batting averages cannot increase in temperature, even if the batter is on a hot streak.

trafn wrote: An interesting note here, you asked why no country has ever "weaponized" climate.

Now that you have defined climate as completely notional, i.e. trends, this is not possible. One cannot weaponize batting averages.

trafn wrote: As for the argument over whether man-made climate change is even possible, I find it astounding that no one today, even pro-climate change advocates, remember the acid rain problem of the 1960's and 70's.

How is this "climate" per your definition? I thought "climate" was notional, not a tangible reality.

trafn wrote: I believe we passed the actual tipping point for saving ourselves and the planet way back in 1901 with Spindletop.

Will "tipping point" be defined as well, and will the term be included in your definition of "climate" so as to establish that "climate" has a "tipping point"?

trafn wrote: The one thing I've consistently found is that you need to address your discussion to the educational level of the audience instead of your own.

Sage advice. Kudos. I don't necessarily agree that citing Wikipedia misinformation is the best way to accomplish this but your end goal is admirable.

trafn wrote: For that reason, given this is a book designed for the masses and not the scientific segment alone, Wikipedia is an audience appropriate reference source.

Would you read a book that was based on certain planks of the Republican National Committee official platform, which is geared towards the masses and not specifically towards the scientific community?

trafn wrote: As for glaciers, about 4% of the world's glaciers have increased in size over the past decade or so due to atypical conditions that exist in their local regions, kinda like how there's often no wind or rain in the eye of a hurricane, but the remaining 96% are following the long-term trend of shrinking.

As a reader I might (would) dispute your figures. I would also be inclined to ask how you or anyone could possibly know if there were any net changes in global freshwater ice volume, either increase or decrease. I'll leave it to you to support your assertion and your figures and I would hope your reference is not Wikipedia.

If you have any further thoughts/ideas/comments, please let me know.[/quote]


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-09-2015 18:02
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi IBdaMann,

I think as far as the definitions page goes, these explanations should be seen as a starting point and not as a comprehensive treaties. Yes, some people will be able to argue the validity of these definitions, and that's okay as it will hopefully begin the thought provoking process for them that I'm trying to stimulate. For most people, however, even if they don't totally agree with my definitions, I think they will use them to gain better insight into the issues I'm writing about. Keep in mind that this book is not a scientific discourse, but simply a primer on this topic.

True, as you say, " One cannot weaponize batting averages." However, one can weaponize a bat and, therefore, factors which make up climate and weather can also be weaponized as the North Koreans do in my book "The Dragon Option" (see PDF copy, above).

As to the acid rain issue, it definitively proved that we can alter climate, as our energy production in the 60's and 70's altered the acidity of the planet's rain.

A tipping point, as I use it, is a point of no return beyond which a certain outcome cannot be prevented regardless of any changes enacted or interventions employed.

As to the Republican National Committee official platform, yes, I most definitively would read it if I were interested in learning about self-serving, greed-driven, averistic assholes. In my opioin, it's both the religious bible and scientific/sociological encyclopedia on that subject.

As for glacial trends, here's an article I found from a quick google search:

http://www.nps.gov/noca/learn/nature/glacial-mass-balance6.htm

This is a local study of 5 glaciers, but there are many regional and global ones as well. As it shows, yes, there can be paradoxical years when some glacial masses increase, however, the overall longer-term trend since 1901 for most glacial masses is toward reduction.

As usual, your thoughts/ideas/comments are greatly appreciated.
Edited on 29-09-2015 18:05




Join the debate Bursting the Atmosphere: what happens when rain falls up:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
SUV Submerged after days of heavy rain in Florida!415-06-2019 02:18
Alpine tundra releases long-frozen CO2 to the atmosphere, exacerbating climate warming522-03-2019 04:21
Climate change will make it harder to predict heavy rain and floods215-03-2019 23:24
Altering the Atmosphere to Combat Climate Change Might Not Kill Us All: Study114-03-2019 18:40
Altering the Atmosphere to Combat Climate Change Might Not Kill Us All: Study614-03-2019 00:33
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact