Water Vapour Schizophrenia Is The Essence Of Climate Science

From Elsewhere:

 

Has anyone ever walked through a fog, or walked up a tall mountain through a cloud and seen these micro-droplets that the cloud is made out of? I think most of you have. And I have. And I’ve watched these micro-drops very closely. The great poet said “I’ve looked at clouds from both sides now. From up and down. But still somehow….”

I’ve walked through these clouds. The little drops don’t rub up against each-other if its static electricity we want. I’ve seen them. They keep their distance as if repelled by an “unknown” (ho ho) force. But the other thing is to be a greenhouse gas you want to capture that thermal energy and force it to drop lower

What greenhouse substance would be better than micronised water droplets to actually create warming? If no secondary force is acting upon them they ought to release their enthalpy and drop. Hot tiny droplets reversing the commonplace understanding that heat rises and in doing so acting like a greenhouse gas ought ot.

That would make micronised liquid water the ideal greenhouse substance. If the water vapour could release its energy of evaporation or itsenthalpy and the micro-water could drop down down down down only to evaporate before it hit the ground. Then that would be an idealised greenhouse gas because it would capture the thermal joules and pull them downward.

But thats not what we see is it? And if we don’t see that and the droplets suspend, could it be that they are in non-cloud form accepting electrical energy in an inbetween way? Neither as an insulator, thus creating stormy winds, nor as a fantastic conductor, thus solving the problem without drama. What if a column saturated air, without a cloud in sight, is leading to that sort of electrical conduction that creates heat.

But further to this, this is one of these special situations where I do in fact agree with greenhouse. For complicated reasons. I agree with water vapour causing greenhouse warming in the tropics because in the tropics a new parcel of saturated air doesn’t necessarily go straight up. But Cycles presented me with a situation of an whole column of saturated air that was akin to my model of the tropics. So the same assumptions would apply and we could pay some level of greenhouse effect in that situation if we aren’t being bloodyminded.

Why do the micro-drops suspend? See the whole situation we need to think far more deeply about. When I have to backpeddle, by my own admission, 70% I’m not saying that Cycles is 100% right and I’m 100% wrong. I’m saying that I was being blinkered and we need to think far more deeply about this situation.

We have to say that the water is suspended (if the droplets are indeed suspended) by electrical means. In every last case. But it can be particularly obvious in big black clouds with these huge juicy drops that they are suspended by electrical energy. Because after the first lightning and the thunderclap, often thats when gravity takes over and the suspended anti-gravity water falls down on our heads.

If airborne micro-drops of water actually fell in accordance with gravity, and yet caught enough energy to evaporate before they got to the ground then airborne micro-drops would seem to be the ideal greenhouse substance. They could drift down even though they were warmer than the air surrounding them. Are there even smaller droplets than those in the fog that act this way and toggle between water and water vapour? I don’t think anyone is looking. Tiny water droplets don’t seem to fall even on average. They defy gravity. White clouds defy gravity. If there wasn’t electrical energy involved the droplets in the white clouds would have to fall. Just on average and even if very slowly. They seem to be suspended by the earths electric field. Which means they must be ionised or aligned in some way on the molecular level, which means they could conduct.

I had always thought that evaporation was the ultimate air conditioner. Say for example if we spent a thousand years hydrating the continent. And we had trees around the water features and grasses throughout the inland. We would never get a heatwave. Because that hot wind blowing in from the north-west would pick up all this transpired water from the plants and there would be a cooling effect so that the temperature would likely never break 38 degrees. So in this situation the water vapour is a cooler. Definitely during the day it is a cooler. We must remember that the Siddons moon information tells us that we don’t have a heat anomaly that greenhouse is needed to fill. My step-daugters grandfather built a restaurant near Chiang Mai and towering above this restaurant is shade-cloth where water runs down but evaporates before it hits the ground. The refrigerant effect of this is astonishing. Its almost unbelievable. Like practicing witchcraft.

So the situation is that where a parcel of water vapour-laced air has special buoyancy the water vapour is a cooling factor. A refrigeration factor. But consider the tropics or somewhere that the air is already reliably full of water vapour? Then that parcel of air doesn’t necessarily rise. Or if it does another one just like it falls. Lets say we can break the ecological niches down to about 14 separate niches. My understanding is that the paleo record is telling us that when the planet heats up its as though the equatorial tropical zone is expanding and pushing the other 13 niches north and south, and up the mountains. Its as though everything is being driven by the tropical zones expanding and shrinking. If a parcel of water vapour does not head upwards its no longer acting like a refrigerant.

Cycles has talked about the idea of a whole column of saturated air but with no clouds as being this powerful heating situation which he says is all about greenhouse. If I’m interpreting right. Well you’d have to admit that if the whole column of air, and lets imagine it goes almost all the way up to the top of the troposphere …. well then the refrigeration effect of evaporation is going to be nullified just like my thinking of the tropics. So I think when this happens you get rapid buildup of joules. I don’t think its just about greenhouse. I think better conduction of electrical energy from the stratosphere will be a part of the story.

But there is this thing about temperature. Temperature tells us the direction of thermal energy transfer, and how much more energy that parcel of air can absorb. So that 36 degree air in the tropics probably has more thermal energy imbedded than 50 degree air in the Sahara. I say this because of the latent heat of evaporation. But the tropics can keep absorbing energy because of the lower apparent temperature than in the desert. And the desert heat will be lost quickly overnight.

I think its this schizophrenic function of water vapour that is driving everything. Notice that when the planet is warmer the severity of storms is less severe. I think thats the water vapour helping conduction of electrical energy so that the voltage difference between the ionosphere and the deep earth isn’t working itself out as much in terms of kinetic energy. So what I’m saying is that water vapour is usually a net cooler. But its bipolar. Its a bipolar situation and any runaway global warming could only be about expanding the tropics. As powerful as the joule buildup would be we are talking about a situation where even more of the planet is unlikely to break 38 degrees. Because thats how the tropics works. Thats how water vapour works. When the planet heats up the tropics don’t heat up. They just expand.

Understanding how the climate works both currently and historically means coming to grips with the schizophrenic role of water vapour. That would be my take-home story. If we are not getting this idea we are not really understanding the situation.

17 thoughts on “Water Vapour Schizophrenia Is The Essence Of Climate Science

  1. Jim Morrison aka Rush Limbaugh has lung cancer. Cancer generally is not hard to beat if you know how. Lung Cancer may be a bit tougher. I’ve been advising a lady who is doing fantastically well. She has or had breast cancer. But she didn’t have a budget to work with. If I was advising Rush Limbaugh he would beat the lung cancer very easily. Because he can afford everything he needs at the snap of his fingers.

    Like

  2. A Yang Presidency has to be seen as a bit incomplete if he gets his monthly income plan through. Because having this plan would behoove you to charge about getting rid of all Graebar’s BS jobs and other wasted spending. But to have this income in place would make the trashing of wasteful spending so much easier. And there are so many ways to trash it.

    Wikipedia lists the American GDP at 21.439 trillion in size. I heard medicine and health care is 18% of that. Government spending is about 43%.

    “Modern economies depend on a thriving financial sector, and the U.S. finance, insurance and real estate (FIRE) sector now accounts for 20 percent of GDP — compared with only 10 percent in 1947.”

    Check out all the fucking fat? Finance under 100% backing, growth-deflation would fall every quarter. From 20% to as low as 4% in all likelihood. Medicine should fall down to 10% plus that extra money coming out of the monthly allowance. But if you are pronounced seriously sick you should be on the social security level allowing you to fund your own health, so long as the health sector is massively re-regulated.

    So much fat. Of course it would be hard to cut all that fat in the first year. But cutting the fat would become humane. It would be a beautiful thing really, even if it was not Yang who dug deep enough into the cutting process.

    Trillions and trillions of dollars saved. And you only really have to find about 5 trillion. Headline cost of the program is only 2.5-3 trillion. Just get Andrew in, get it done quickly, and then everyone call themselves “Mack The Knife” and start slashing all bullshit jobs and wasteful spending. Get it done and then we can get straight to pig heaven slashing all these useless bigshot jobs.

    Like

  3. He’s a deep state gimp. He used to trash American companies for a living. He’s no good and he’s never been any good. Yeah exactly. Useless Malcolm Turnbull quisling. Chosen for his capacity to lose. The real contender was Ron Paul who could fill huge venues with super-enthusiastic followers but the Deep State chose this loser and his outdoor speaking engagements were of that sort where you can hear nature, such was the lack of enthusiasm. He’s such a fucking loser. And he’s wrong. He cannot be right. Thats just straight logic failure that you two old cunts get into every fucking day.

    If you are that fucking brain challenged its time for the glue factory. Useless eaters.

    Like

  4. If the road you followed brought you to this, of what use was the road?

    Listening to Tim Kelly. If liberal democracy lead to zionist domination, mass slaughter of muslims, rampant infanticide and the worst policy development we’ve seen in history, do we need to go back and change the system?

    Like

  5. 1950’s and 1960’s democracy in Canada, Australia and New Zealand lead to kinder gentler government, inclusiveness, and growing living standards. Though before the end of this period New Zealand labour productivity was already flattening out. Something went wrong in the 70’s and there is no sign that its coming right anytime soon.

    Like

  6. Yeah you are dead right. For example the Jew closed down facebook for repairs and brought it up at the exact right time to stage the bullshit video that went with the Christchurch false flag attack. A simultaneous mass murder conducted in two different Mosques, not congruent with the bullshit video. The terrorist Jew who runs facebook was on board with that.

    Finally Steve, I see you are coming around.

    Like

  7. From Elsewhere:

    My Nanna’s family was mostly wiped out. She had to be adopted by the Yorks who treated her as a kind of house servant, though I should be grateful to them. She was a Macquarie and descended from a brother of the Governor. I don’t know if she would have been well to do if her family wasn’t basically taken clean out except for maybe one her sisters. This flu actually all but disappeared from the public memory until the 80′s or so. Then people started talking about it again. But my grandfather talked about it. I don’t think we took notice of what he was saying or even fully believed him. Until the 80′s then I made the connection of what he had been talking about. What he described was shockingly akin to the Monty Python Holy Grail “Bring Out Your Dead” scenario. He was about 9 years old and somehow he was part of the team going around, where people were loading bodies onto carts. Not a great many combustion engines in the very Far North of New Zealand at that time. Just to show that he wasn’t completely full of it, he also claimed that the depression started in the early 20′s. My Mum said that was all wrong and everyone knew it started in 1929 after the stock market crash. But the old man’s memories were quite correct, being as for the Empire, people who were on the pound sterling, felt a depression as soon as the complete criminal and clown Churchill had put the pound back on gold at the pre-war exchange rate vis a vis the Americans.

    Yeah Tdef the Spanish Flu definitely came from America. Neither Spanish nor just only Flu. I have noticed lately that they have been blaming it on one individual infected American but thats just a plea bargain. How did it get called “Spanish” in the first place if we can clearly trace it to America? A load of nonsense. To finally acknowledge the source country but blame it on an individual is just distracting from the biowarfare operation.

    Like

  8. Soil development after the ubiquitous creation of water retention landscapes, is the way to deal with floods, droughts and fires, all at the same time. Dark rich soils retain water. Whether we can statistically show that fires are not any worse or that floods are not any worse, can be a little besides the point (thought its a good thing to do) when the left has this meme out there that higher CO2 is causing both droughts and floods. Doesn’t matter that what they are saying makes no logical sense. Well it matters quite a lot but its not decisive when they own all the drummers and the drumbeat.

    Water retention landscapes are their own reward. But here we have an opponent who cannot be reasoned with, who has a propaganda budget we cannot match. So we have to get out front of it with the water retention landscapes idea. No more droughts or floods. With lots of burning now and lots of grazing later, no more gigantic fires either. We don’t have the luxury this time of waiting many decades for the results of libertarian piety to kick in. This is business, and sometimes you have to get out in front.

    Like

  9. Yeah exactly. Thats the point I’m trying to make. I’ve hung out with these leftists under many different handles. They have all bases covered.

    If it floods its climate change. If there are droughts its getting hotter. If we have horrifying fireballs rolling across the countryside, well thats because of fossil fuels. A cold snap is global weirding. If you find children smoking strange cigarettes in the trees, with tea cosies on their heads, then this is due to high CO2 levels. If the waves start rolling out backwards at Cronulla, thats the oceans acidifying.

    And if an old woman runs naked down the street screaming, the leftists all nod wisely because they know its global warming.

    Like

  10. Here is another of my quora alter egos.

    Are there any conspiracy theories regarding Frank Zappa’s death?

    Clifton Holden

    There ought to be. Frank was part of the Laurel Canyon operation. There was a wider CIA-Tavistock plot to start and control the hippy movement. Part of it was to do with controlled opposition to the war. The Laurel Canyon project involved kids, whose parents were mostly from naval intelligence: Turning them into rock stars. Frank’s dad was into chemical weapons. The Laurel Canyon operation also took in the Manson murders and that quisling Vincent B.

    Unlike most of the others Frank was no fake musician. Developing into a musical genius, he was also different from the others insofar as being conservative in temperament. But the reality is that he knew way too much. He wound up as a consultant to the briefly liberated former Soviet satellites. Seeing that he was not only a culture icon, but a serious intellectual, focused on liberty, and consulting to eminent statesmen, would change his whole risk profile, to the Jewish banking oligarchy.

    It can be dangerous to move from out of the fringe, if you are smarter than everyone else.

    Like

  11. Here is another alter ego. But then I was being obsessive about Jewish influence. It is possible to overstate these things. I wouldn’t recommend all of Peter Xu’s posts. But this is the one that people liked the most:

    Ancient Warfare: Why were Roman armies so formidable?

    Peter Xu

    Answered May 22, 2015

    Originally Answered: Why were Roman armies so formidable?

    Part of the answer to their success may have come from their wider statecraft. Livy thought that the early Republic was successful because it made its wars BIG AND SHORT (Here I rely on Codevilla). If you lash out big time and come home quickly then you have geared up your whoop-ass level. But the big bag of whoop-ass is held in reserve most of the time. Which helps to inform all diplomatic negotiations in your favour. Contrast this to the behaviour of the current clowns in Washington.

    One thing that impressed me about the Roman tradition is with Romans on the march. They would do a lot of digging. They would stop marching early and dig in for the night. Finding a good defensive position and erecting fortifications was a daily ritual for these guys. And sleeping on your watch could get you executed. I may be only glancing on the question. But I think this idea of pulling out the spades on a daily basis hints at a wider seriousness about war, and an attention to details.

    Like

  12. “The question that needs to be answered is, what is the mechanism that causes the stratosphere to become buoyant for a few decades, then to sink once more? ”

    The answer is there for all to see. Buoyancy cannot mean anything else but repulsion. Too much charge to be absorbed lower down. What else can it possibly mean? I would like to have 5 hypotheses to compare in parallel but I can only generate one. But a second one could be that buoyancy means that the air somehow loses its mass, then regains it. Or gravity skips a region, and then mysteriously becomes less some ways above the clouds. So in keeping with good science there is three hypotheses right there. It would be good to have more.

    But if we focus on what stratospheric buoyancy can even possibly mean, the answer fair hits you between the eyes. If buoyancy doesn’t mean charged repulsion what could it possibly mean?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s