Maori science beats woke myths
Every community has those who are designated wise — sometimes able to anticipate imminent catastrophe.
For example, back in the 1500s, some in rural England and France would suspend dead birds — specifically kingfishers — from silken threads that purportedly acted as natural weathercocks. It was thought that the dead kingfisher was able to anticipate approaching storms and turn its breast into the wind. This is an unfortunate example, though, because Thomas Browne showed it to be nonsense.
He suspended two dead kingfishers, side by side, and they pointed in different directions, thus demolishing the myth. I can’t imagine that all the wise ones took their dead birds down immediately, but Browne’s book Pseudodoxia Epidemica of 1646 championed a new kind of evidence-based science that relied on simple experiment.
For a period of some few hundred years, science came to replace superstition and key zoological texts including, for example, Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, were penned by the curious who tried hard to sort fact from fiction through observation. Browne and Darwin’s works followed Nicolaus Copernicus’ book On the Revolution of the Heavenly Spheres, published in 1543, that explained humankind was not at the centre of the universe.
Before evidence-based science, natural historians and even astronomers, relied on the work of Aristotle who thought mankind was at the centre of the universe. In the twelfth century, Aristotle was a major source of information for the medieval encyclopaedias of animals, known as Bestiaries, with moral biblical lessons added.
We have somehow returned to this practice where natural history is once again interwoven with moralising. Worse, many of those designated as wise are full of hubris and carry on as though humankind can affect the weather and climate.
This extends to projects at universities, where, even in zoology departments the ‘research’ must lament the trace gas carbon dioxide and its perceived impact on the distribution and abundance of species.
Even in The Spectator Australia, James Allan in ‘Decline and Fall of New Zealand’ (11 December) remonstrates about how woke our universities have become but then lauds the superiority of Western science relative to Maori mythology. But is woke science superior to Maori myths?
Arguably the most significant climate event since satellites began measuring global temperatures in 1979, was the very strong El Niño of 2015/16. It caused global temperatures to spike in February 2016, corals to bleach, and so on.
This hottest period – according to the UAH satellite record – was forecast some years earlier by long range weather forecaster Ken Ring relying on Maori mythology. It was not forecast by Western meteorological bureaus that run simulation models on super computers.
In 1974, Ring, then a high school mathematics teacher ‘dropped out’ to home school his children. He moved his family to the remote East Coast of the North Island of New Zealand and over a period of six years befriended local Maori fishermen. He returned to ‘civilization’ six years later with what he has described as ‘the rudiments of a weather prediction system’ based on traditional Maori knowledge.
Sometime later he began publishing weather almanacs for Australia, New Zealand and Ireland with rain, frost and snow maps including fishing calendars and gardening guides.
I’ve no doubt that the forecasts in those almanacs could be vastly improved, including through the mining of historical weather data using artificial neural networks, a form of machine learning that uses artificial intelligence.
John Abbot and I showed its application to monthly rainfall forecasting in a series of research papers published from 2012 to 2017, including in the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ Advances in Atmospheric Sciences (Abbot J. & Marohasy J., 2012. Vol. 29, No. 4, Pgs. 717-730).
What has made Ken Ring’s long-range forecasts often more accurate than those from our bureaus of meteorology is their reliance on lunar cycles, uncorrupted by simulation modelling that misguidedly insists atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide are relevant to weather and climate forecasting.
It is possible to forecast El Niño and other key weather events years in advance because the passage of the Moon overhead is regular and cyclical. A 2019 technical paper by Jialin Lin and Taotao Qian entitled ‘Switch Between El Niño and La Niña is Caused by Subsurface Ocean Waves Likely Driven by Lunar Tidal Forcing’ explains the underlying physical mechanisms in terms of Newtonian physics.
In fact, observations of the Moon’s changing trajectory were a main test of the theories detailed in Isaac Newton’s The Principia, published in 1687 and recognised as a highlight of the Scientific Revolution in the 17th century.
If we open our eyes to the evidence – as Thomas Browne implored a few hundred years ago – we would notice that the very hot year globally of 2016 immediately followed a year of minimum lunar declination, as did the super El Niño exactly 18 years earlier, in 1998, that also caused mass coral bleaching.
It is now well understood, beyond Maori mythology, that there is an 18.6-year lunar declination cycle. But this is wilfully ignored by mainstream meteorologists lest such extra-terrestrial influences on weather and climate detract from the moralising about humankind’s influence.
More than ever, Westerners who claim to respect science —could benefit from a return to simple observation as practiced by Maori fishermen who see the weather patterns created by the passage of the Moon and its changing declination.
Browne’s contemporary, John Ray wrote, ‘Let us not suffice to be book-learned, to read what others have written and to take on trust more falsehood than truth, but let us ourselves examine things as we have the opportunity, and converse with Nature as well as with books …’
In meteorological bureaus, simulation modelling has replaced observation and Heads of state are urged to sign international treaties absurdly pledging to stop climate change. The true nature of this woke western climate forecasting would be better appreciated if it was evaluated against other methods.
Forecasts from different systems could be placed next to each other, in much the same way that Thomas Browne strung up dead kingfishers – side by side.
See more here: spectator.com.au
Header image: Falkirk Storytelling Festival
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI READERS,
Darwin’s Idea (Evolution) About The Origin Of Life Is A Wrong Scientific Idea
-By Jerry L Krause 2018
The objective of this essay is to establish, by a video
about the nesting bald eagles in Smith Rock State Park (2017) by George Lepp, that Dawin’s evolutionary idea about the origin of life is wrong.
However, to do this I must first convince a reader that wrong scientific ideas can be proven to be wrong.
An example: Albert Einstein theoretically concluded an idea that gravity could bend the path of light. To check the possible validity of this idea astronomers positioned themselves in the path of the next total solar eclipse to observe if the light of star passing near the sun at that time would be bent from the path they could calculate from measurements made at times when its light did not past near the sun. And based upon these observations made at different times and their basic understanding of astronomy they concluded that his idea seemed to be valid because the light of the star was bent that amount that Einstein’s theory predicted it should.
However, a quote of Albert Einstein was and still is: “No amount of experimentations can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Hence, the observations of the astronomers did not prove his idea to be right; but they certainly did not prove it to be wrong. In other words, to establish this point, the astronomers, who rushed to the total solar eclipse’s path to observe this star, only did so to test if his theory was wrong.
But, until I did some literature search for this essay, I had not read that Darwin, himself, had specifically defined what observation would simply prove his theory (idea) to be wrong. At (https://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/) Darwin wrote: “…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps.” [1] Thus, Darwin conceded that, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” [2]
Footnotes:
Charles Darwin, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” 1859, p. 162.
Ibid. p. 158.”
If you have not yet viewed the video, you must do so now!!!
Surely an eagle pair (male and female) are a ‘complex organ’. A common question which commonly leads to an endless debate is: Which came first: the chicken or the egg? As you viewed the video and observed the extreme care with which this eagle pair incubated their eggs, the answer should be obvious and seemingly undebatable. Do I need to ask: Could have eagles ever reproduced themselves if they did not intuitively know how to incubate the eggs? Do I need to ask: Who programmed these eagle parents to intuitively incubate the eggs before they actually became parents? Do I need to ask: Is Darwin’s idea about the origin of life, according to his own test criteria, wrong? Based upon simple observation the answer must be YES!!!
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
“Did you know that you can actually see the Sun a few minutes before it rises and a few minutes after it sets? This is because of refraction.” (What Is Refraction of Light? By Konstantin Bikos and Aparna Kher. https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/refraction.html)
In the previous comment I referred the Einstein’s theory that gravity could (might) bend light. An alternative to his theory is the observations that refraction by the Earth’s atmosphere does bend light. Does the Sun have an atmosphere???
During a total solar eclipse, when the moon totally blocks the Sun’s direct light, we see luminous flares which extend far beyond the Sun’s surface. And I accept that even beyond these visible flares is an invisible atmosphere which extends far out into space. So I assume that the Sun has an atmosphere which could retract (bend) the light of a distant star.
That the Sun’s atmosphere should, based upon the observation that the Earth’s atmosphere, does refract the light of of the rising and setting Sun, does not refute Einstein’s idea that the Sun’s gravity might bend the light of the distant star which was observed to have been bent. For a combination of both factors could have caused that which had been observed.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Joseph Olson
| #
Wiki/Earth_tide > in addition to ocean tides, lunar gravity lifts and drops the land masses an average of 18″ everyday. The thin, cooled crust floats on a plastic mass of molten rock. The Earthtide opens rift zones, releasing heat energy contributing to the Thermohaline cycle.
“Corollation of Seismic Activity and Recent Global Warming” by Dr Arthur Viterito at PSI
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Joseph,
I have read this and thanks for reminding me and other PSI readers of this. Will try to find Dr Arthur Viterito’s scholarship at PSI and read what he wrote.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
Any of you who have been critical of Principlia Scientific International for not living up to its SCIENTIFIC TITLE has not followed the LEADS like that which Joseph just drew to our attentions. I used the PSI search engine to search: Dr Arthur Viterito. And found X# because I have to go back and count. Some led to articles by John O’Sullivan which examined, in detail, articles published in the BETTER journals of the established SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. This at the same time he publishes articles which would never be accepted for publication in these ‘accepted’ journals. And if one has never looked at (in) one of these accepted Journals, one may not know that one cannot make a public comment about what one reads in one of its articles.
And yes, I have not publicly written this before because “The OBVIOUS is MOST DIFFICULT TO SEE! (JLK).
Have a good day, Jerry Krause
Reply
MattH
| #
As a proponent of the moon being the most likely driver of El Nino I have previously been skeptical of the minimum lunar standstill because it was one year early for the 2016 El Nino.
Minimum declination ( degrees ) Maximum declination ( degrees )
2014 Jan 27 16:31 -19.396 Jan 13 08:14 19.501
2015 Jan 18 06:17 -18.577 Jan 3 17:53 18.650
2016 Dec 29 03:30 -18.958 Dec 14 21:43 18.937
I am happy to be open to the idea of a year either side of lunar stand still. The cause would have to be the effect on the Sub Antarctic Current through Drakes passage, the effect on the Cromwell Current, or direct effects on the dispersal of the hot water pool around the Coral Sea area.
Some other suppositions in the article are inaccurate although there is some statistical support for Ken Ring’s propositions, not mentioned in the article, that lunar gravity has an influence on earthquake events.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt,
If El Nino was triggered by moon cycles wouldn’t it be called El Lunatic instead of being named in reference to Christmas, which is about when the sun crosses the equator into the Southern Hemisphere?
Herb
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Herb
I agree the sun is part of it but the sun crosses the equator, so to speak, every year without an El Nino so there needs to be an extra trigger for the loaded gun.
I am awaiting for Purple People Eater to get back because he stopped playing rock’n’roll music for a bit and he has radioed me saying the moon is in fact a hole in the sky. Apparently the full moon is when the dead can get to heaven but if you die on the new moon you end up in hell.
He was saying the half and quarter moons are a battle between good and evil.
Hard to believe.
Cheers. Matt
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt,
I think it was Bobarane who thought the moon couldba hole in the sky and the Earth was flat, not purplepeopleeater.
Herb
Reply
MattH
| #
Yes but Herb suggested purple should fly up and check it out.
Artelia
| #
The infant child.
And a child shall lead them.
That God can be born as a baby to come to us, born of a woman
shows His love so accept that love and know it in the next life for eternity.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt,
As you might imagine, I really did not read to the end of this article before I made the two previous comments. For like the saying: When opportunity knocks, open the door!
And now I read that opportunity has knocked again!!! “It is now well understood, beyond Maori mythology, that there is an 18.6-year lunar declination cycle.” For I know that there is 18.6-year lunar cycle which is not near as subtle as the claimed lunar declination cycle. While maybe the subtle data you cite is related to this other 18.6-year lunar cycle which had been observed by the ancients who dug 56 regularly spaced holes in a fairly precise circle at Stonehenge.
https://principia-scientific.com/ancestors-tracing-history-scientific-method/
https://principia-scientific.com/history-erratic-boulders-and-science/
It seems apparent these ancient peoples observed where the moon rose over an eastern horizon during its lunar cycle just as where the Sun rose over the same eastern horizon during its yearly cycle. And they saw, because the plane of the moon’s orbit was inclined about 5 degrees to the plane of the Earth’s orbit, that, during a 18.6-year cycle, the moon rose about 5 degrees north of where the Sun rose during the Summer Solstice and during the previous, or following, Winter Solstice, that the moon rose about 5 degrees south of where the Sun rose. Then about 9 years later the moon rose 5 degrees south of where the Sun rose during the Summer Solstice and during the Winter Solstice the moon rose 5 degrees north of where the Sun rose.
There is no reason that the Maori could not have observed this same 18.6-year cycle. Now ponder how tides might be effected by where the moon is rising relative to where the Sun is rising.
And do not fail to consider the fact that the solstices do not not occur on the same (near) day of the year. So there is a seasonal factor involved and there is a 3 times 18.6 years, 54-year cycle, involved.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt,
As you might imagine, I really did not read to the end of this article before I made the two previous comments. For like the saying: When opportunity knocks, open the door!
And now I read that opportunity has knocked again!!! “It is now well understood, beyond Maori mythology, that there is an 18.6-year lunar declination cycle.” For I know that there is 18.6-year lunar cycle which is not near as subtle as the claimed lunar declination cycle. While maybe the subtle data you cite is related to this other 18.6-year lunar cycle which had been observed by the ancients who dug 56 regularly spaced holes in a fairly precise circle at Stonehenge.
https://principia-scientific.com/ancestors-tracing-history-scientific-method/
https://principia-scientific.com/history-erratic-boulders-and-science/
It seems apparent these ancient peoples observed where the moon rose over an eastern horizon during its lunar cycle just as where the Sun rose over the same eastern horizon during its yearly cycle. And they saw, because the plane of the moon’s orbit was inclined about 5 degrees to the plane of the Earth’s orbit, that, during a 18.6-year cycle, the moon rose about 5 degrees north of where the Sun rose during the Summer Solstice and during the previous, or following, Winter Solstice, that the moon rose about 5 degrees south of where the Sun rose. Then about 9 years later the moon rose 5 degrees south of where the Sun rose during the Summer Solstice and during the Winter Solstice the moon rose 5 degrees north of where the Sun rose.
There is no reason that the Maori could not have observed this same 18.6-year cycle. Now ponder how tides might be effected by where the moon is rising relative to where the Sun is rising.
And do not fail to consider the fact that the solstices do not not occur on the same (near) day of the year. So there is a seasonal factor involved and there is a 3 times 18.6 years, 54-year cycle, involved.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
And I now see that some I have managed to double post another comment. Clearly I have these strangle powers.
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry.
Those dates I have included are either side of the 18.6 lunar standstill minimum declination copied and pasted from this. http://www.astropixels.com/ephemeris/moon/lunarstandstill2001year.html
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt,
I looked up declination but cannot find anything related to standstill. Is this when the moon is at its daily maximum declination? Plus, want to keep a recent comment relative to this article. But did look in two astronomy textbooks.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry.
A lunar standstill or lunistice is when the moon reaches its furthest north or furthest south point during the course of a month (specifically a draconic month of about 27.2 days). The declination (a celestial coordinate measured as the angle from the celestial equator, analogous to latitude) at lunar standstill varies in a cycle 18.6 years long between 18.134° (north or south) and 28.725° (north or south), due to lunar precession. These extremes are called the minor and major lunar standstills.
The below reference explains how the 18.6 year lunar cycle affects tide sizes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_standstill
It is like a cyclic ferris wheel for coccolithophores. 🙂
Cheers Matt
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt and PSI Readers,
First, even though I don’t like short lines I put this comment here because you reminded me of where where you get your information. Which is a good, convenient place (Wikipedia).
Where I read: “The term lunar standstill was apparently first used by engineer Alexander Thom in his 1971 book Megalithic Lunar Observatories.” But we are reminded by Jennifer Marohasy that ‘Maori Scientists’ had used their observations of major lunar and minor standstills for practical purposes. About which I do not read in the wikipedia article that Alexander Thom had yet recognized.
In the book ‘Louis Agassiz As A Teacher’ (1917) by Lane Cooper (a professor of the English language) I read “Facts are stupid things,’ he [Agassiz] would say, ‘until brought into connection with some general law.’ “.(‘In the Laboratory with Agassiz ,’by Samuel H. Scudder from ‘Every Saturday’ (April 4, 1874) 16, 369-370)
Which is what the Maori Scientists had done so long ago.
But I question if Thom really understand what this ‘general law’ actually is. It is merely a summary of the apparent fact that the Maori Scientists had seen there was a relationship between the lunar standstills and rare weather events???, rate fishing events???, certain algae blooms??? certain tides???. which had some practical PREDICTIVE value.
And most important is that the Maori Scientists did not need to explain how it was that the lunar standstills has some practical predictive value. They only had to learn, based upon their everyday experiences, that it did.
And my Einstein quote is: “The only source of knowledge is experience.”
Thank you for our conversations!!!
Have a good day, Jerry
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry and readers.
I note that wiki and this sight give http://www.astropixels.com/ephemeris/moon/lunarstandstill2001year.html give the date and time of the 18.6 year minimum lunar standstill at differing days and year4s so it is possible I challenged the accuracy of this aspect of this article when they may have been correct.
Time for an audit.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt,
I conclude there may a reason why I can not find the term STANDSTILL in my two introductory Astronomy textbooks. The reason being at the most elementary level the subject is not elementary. That is unless the astronomer observes the sun and moon whenever it is visible and maybe plots the end of a shadow of the sunlight and the shadow of the moonlight on the moonlight on something and label the local time of each point. That basically what is done with tides which be measured when night or day, clear skies or cloudy skies. At the same time we note the positions of the sun and moon. And even if Newton did explain the influence of the sun’s and the moon’s gravity upon semidiurnal tidal cycles, we know that are places and times when there is only a diurnal tide cycle. And this is because there are incidental factors which at the first, second, and maybe third approximation are ignored. I suspect that Michael Clarke, if he is feeling up to it, maybe could shed some light of my problem of two bodies orbiting in two planes when one is rotating on an axis creating day and night as it orbits the sun and the moon orbit their center of gravites. Etc. Etc.
I would first begin with the model of the sun and moon standing still as the Earth rotates west to east and image where their shadows would be each hour of the 24 hour day. For each day of a 28 day lunar cycle. Haven’t done it and I don’t know if I will. What about you? For to mention I would begin the all three bodies on (in) the same plane. Not even going to try to proof what I have written.
Have a good day, Jerry
\
Reply
Protestant
| #
Yes, Ethnic European Men , who really invented nothing at all, have been falsely credited with designing and building all the marvellous inventions that have made life so much easier for all of humanity.
Those European Men (= white men) were wrong to wipe out all the wise cannibal cultures everywhere they went, in New Zealand, North America, South America, and the Indian Subcontinent, for example, where they wrongly stopped Thuggee Gangs from murdering male travellers, cutting out their hearts as human sacrifices to the Moon Spider Kali-Allah, and enslaving the women & children as temple prostitutes in the Moon Spider’s temples.
Everything bad in the world is the fault of European Men, who are luckily now repenting their ways to adopt more cannibal culture, even doing Cannibal War Dances as part of their sporting teams in New Zealand.
Sarcasm off.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
This comment is to illustrate “The MOST OBVIOUS is the MOST DIFFICULT to SEE” (JLK)
My favorite METEOROLOGIST (R.C. Sutcliffe, ‘Weather and Climate’ (1966) wrote”. “Meteorology is not a fundamental physical science, that is to say it is not concerned to develop the basic laws of nature.” (Page 13)
Then: “A completely cloudy day may be close and humid but never exceptionally hot, whereas during a cloudy night the temperature may hardly fall from its day-time value.” (Page 34)
Then: “It is an interesting calculation which leads to the rather surprising result that persistent trails cannot occur unless the air temperature is a long way below freezing-point.” (Page 42)
Then: “We generally say that the air can hold no more than a definite maximum amount of invisible gaseous water, more or less according as the temperature is high or low.” (Page 46)
Then: “The natural atmosphere, how ever clean it may appear to be, is always supplied with a sufficient number of minute particles of salts, acids or other substances which serve just as well as liquid water in capturing water molecules from the vapor.” (Page 48)
Then: “As a matter of fact, there are many observations of clouds in air whose relative humidity is considerably below 100 per cent, evidence of nuclei which are hydroscopic.” (Page 48)
Need I go on to convince you, a reader, that Sutcliffe had no idea what a BASIC LAW OF NATURE might be???
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
I have emailed Jennifer Marohasy informing her that PSI has posted her article. This is what she wrote relative to this: “You’ve written various comments at a site that never sought my permission to republish an article from the Spectator.” About my comments to her she wrote: “I’m not sure where to start with all your comments that seem to take very literal translation of my popular article for a popular magazine.”
Now, she has just informed me that she, with other co-authors, has written SCIENTIFIC articles about the use of AI to better understand weather & climate. Which articles I will try to access, but this willl require special effort, to find what she (they) wrote for SCIENTISTS in unpopular (maybe seldom read) scientific journals. For 4 such SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES, based upon my experimental results, have been published in SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS and I suspect that they have not been read by many other SCIENTISTS.
In my nest email I will invite her to visit PSI to read all the comments her article has generated and to explain to us what is wrong with a “very literal translation of my [her] popular article for a popular magazine.” Which visit (https://principia-scientific.com/maori-science-beats-woke-myths/) should not require near the effort which I will have to expend to read her SCIENCE articles intended for a SCIENTIFIC READER.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers and hopefully Jennifer Marohasy,
Jennifer wrote: “but Browne’s book Pseudodoxia Epidemica of 1646 championed a new kind of evidence-based science that relied on simple experiment.”
“For a period of some few hundred years, science came to replace superstition and key zoological texts including, for example, Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, were penned by the curious who tried hard to sort fact from fiction through observation. Browne and Darwin’s works followed Nicolaus Copernicus’ book On the Revolution of the Heavenly Spheres, published in 1543, that explained humankind was not at the centre of the universe.” I repeat what she wrote so there can be no confusion about that I am referring.
I have a question for Jennifer: Why did you skip over Galileo’s book published in 1638 as you reviewed some of SCIENCE’S HISTORY? For Brown’s book was about the Pseudodoxia Epidemica of 1646 and 1646 was only 8 years after the publication of Galileo’s book.
And Jennifer, if you are reading this, a great error is “that explained humankind was not at the centre of the universe”.of your ‘popular’ writing style for Copernicus’s book was not a philosophic book about humankind; it was a book about the possible orbiting of planets about the Sun.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
Just read at WildfiresToday.com Hunga Tonga volcano triggered nearly 400,000 lightning strikes. Opportunity knocks, so I open the door.
To review: Sutcliffe (Weather & Climate) wrote: “The nature atmosphere, however clean it may appear to be, is always supplied with a sufficient number of minute particle of salts, acids or there substances which serve just as well as liquid water in capturing water molecules from the vapor. … As a matter of fact, there are many observations of clouds in air whose relative humidity is considerably below 100 per cent, evidence of nuclei which are hygroscopic.”
The hydroscopic droplets are clearly due to acid molecules. Relative to the lighting strikes we know that oxygen and nitrogen molecules are dissociated to very reactive oxygen and nitrogen atoms which combine with oxygen and nitrogen molecules to form oxygen-nitrogen molecules (compounds) or ozone (O3) which one can smell after a thunder storm. The oxygen-nitrogen molecules ultimately react with water molecules to form the nitrous acid molecules and nitric acid molecules which are very soluble in water droplets causing the droplet to have a vapor pressure less than that of a pure water droplet. Hence, clouds with relative humidities less than 100% Hence, more cloudy skies until these acidic droplets fall to the ground as ‘acid rain’. Which is naturally not acidic enough to significantly dissolve limestone.
Almost forgot the possibility of sulfur gases as part of the volcanic eruption which could end up as sulfurous and sulfuric acid molecules and more natural acid rain.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply