It seemed paradoxical to me the first time I worked it out , but it is a truth that wet air is less dense than dry air. Yes, if you wet air, it gets less heavy. For anyone that has fallen in a pool of water or got drenched in the rain, we are used to wet things being much heavier, but honestly
WET AIR IS LIGHTER! Continue reading
Just some thoughts on Cosmic rays, CO2 and clouds.
Around half the heat of the sun transferred to the earth’s surface leaves as evaporation. That latent heat cannot be lost until that water is condensed in those fluffy things in the air – which is the primary transportation mechanism for around half the solar heat hitting the earth. Continue reading
Just how much cosmic rays affect cloud formation has, however, remained elusive. A team at CERN, led by Jasper Kirkby, therefore decided to recreate both the solar cycle and the atmosphere in a lab. Their “cosmic rays” are generated by one of CERN’s particle accelerators. To simulate the atmosphere, they have built a special cloud chamber of their own, with the air manufactured from scratch, using liquid nitrogen and oxygen together with precise amounts of trace compounds, including sulphuric acid and ammonia.
…Atmospheric physics is, of course, notoriously complex. And it would be foolish to start reprogramming all the models on the basis of this single result. But it does suggest that a closer look is needed into what is going on in the real atmosphere. Clearly, there is life in the old cloud chamber yet. (Economist)
Comment
I’m starting to see a pattern: climate models need to change, … or in simple language: THEY ARE WRONG.
That seems to be the consensus that is developing. Present climate models are wrong, which means that the predictions of the models are wrong. Which means that all that money has been spent…. etc.
Understandably, then, sceptics are getting pretty excited by a paper published in Nature magazine this week in which scientists at CERN, the nuclear research laboratory near Geneva, have shown that radiation from space can affect the way clouds form in our atmosphere – and in turn – perhaps – affecting temperatures on the ground (Mail)
Well I really can’t fault the article. Fair, proportionate, covering the details whilst giving the big picture. Obviously disappointing that the eco-zealots got in first – but it’s hardly the Mail’s fault they aren’t on the warmist list of propaganda outlets.
As everyone must know by now CERN have effectively confirmed the work by Henrik Svensmark and his hypothesis that there is a link between sunspots and climate with the implication that:
most of the global warming of the 20th Century can be explained by the reduction in cosmic rays due to livelier solar activity, resulting in less low cloud cover and warmer surface temperatures. (WUWT)
So, I was rather intrigued to see what the MSM said about the climate-sunspot link: not much! And they all clearly are following a very tight “message”:
Cloud formation study casts a shadow over certain climate models … The work suggests that one or more unidentified organic gases – produced either naturally or from human activities – has a significant influence on the Earth’s cloud cover. (Guardian)
The implication is clearly being repeated:
“Study does not prove cosmic rays drive climate change” (Reuters)
So is there any evidence to link sunspots and climate? Where is the last place one would imagine to look? The Biased Broadcasting Company?
The growth of British trees appears to follow a cosmic pattern, with trees growing faster when high levels of cosmic radiation arrive from space. (BBC)
How on earth did that bombshell slip past the BBC climate sensor?
Obviously the only news out so far is from those “pro-warmist” organisations (except some in physics) who have been pump primed with the “nothing to see here folks move along” message they hope will be taken up by what they must believe is a bunch of gullible morons in the rest of the press.
As someone else put it. The theory of CO2 induced positive feedbacks for their doomsday warming is totally without experimental basis. The theory for sunspot-climate link is now pretty much proven beyond reasonable doubt both from the CERN work showing the mechanism and by the empirical data showing that there is a correlation. This is like comparing apples with pears. Real science with voodoo eco-political claptrap.
There is no way on earth anyone can ever again ask: “well what else could have caused it?” The only valid question is how much of the (apparent) warming is due to CO2, how much due to sunspots, and how much due to the multitude of other influences on the climate which have been similarly denied by the nutters running science at the moment.
It was as I looked at the SUVs on the the dual carriageway in Tripoli, that I suddenly realised this could be the state of British cities within my lifetime: fairly typical cars seen on any British road, adapted with a bid of welding to carry a machine gun, anti-tank gun or rocket grenade.
I was brought up to visualise war in terms of muddy fields of tanks with planes flying overhead. This was something entirely new: warfare at 50mph with hastily prepared equipment. This wasn’t Mad Max, it wasn’t some nuclear holocaust, it is a new kind of warfare. I couldn’t help wonder what it would be like if all those Africans and Arabs who have had to put up with the hypocrisy of the West, just took it into their mind one day to modify their cars this way, get on the motorway and drive into “Europe”. Continue reading
There is a commonly heard argument that the truth must lie somewhere between the sceptic and warmist position and on that basis many intelligent people assume that there “must be something in the warmist argument even if it isn’t all correct”.
On this basis many people think the truth must lie between the 1C warming that you get when considering the warming effect of CO2 and the 6C of warming the zealots of the religion come up with.
So, what’s this got to do with FM radio. Well, … (deep breath) Continue reading
I’ve just read the so called “paper” on Extra Terrestrials and it is the worst kind of nonsense and may as well be prepared by primary school kids given the lack of any knowledge or ability to draw inferences from human history let alone any concept of what really might happen if alien lifeforms ever contacted us.
Why do civilisations make forays into the wilderness? Continue reading
Watching from afar, extraterrestrial beings might view changes in Earth’s atmosphere as symptomatic of a civilisation growing out of control – and take drastic action to keep us from becoming a more serious threat, the researchers explain.
This highly speculative scenario is one of several described by scientists at Nasa and Pennsylvania State University (Guardian)
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!
What a bunch of paranoiac twats. Come on, even if aliens did exist, even if there were actual physics that allows them to make the journey to earth, even if they bothered to make the huge journey to earth … would they seriously be bothered with a civilisation that can hardly send a couple of dozen people to its moon for a vacation let alone populate another planet let alone another star system.
This is star trek meets daffy duck!
Last week, I was wondering how long it would be before we saw the fall of global warming. I had decided that after the CERN report and running up to the “there’s no increase in extreme weather but we’ve tried to put the best spin on it IPCC report”, we would see the whole scam crumble.
But now after the recent stream of damning science I’m wondering it if will all go before I get back.
