Prediction of ‘Megadrought’ across the western United States
The megadrought that has almost the entire western half of the country in a death grip is starting to become extremely painful. In some areas, irrigation water is being totally cut off for farmers, and that is going to result in a totally lost year for many of them.
Without water, you simply cannot grow crops, and irrigation water is the difference between success and failure for multitudes of western farmers. Scientists are also warning that this upcoming wildfire season could be even worse than last year due to the bone dry conditions. For me, it is difficult to imagine a wildfire season that is any worse than what we experienced in 2021. But this is what they are telling us. This megadrought has already been going on for many years, and experts are giving us very little hope that things will improve any time in the foreseeable future.
In fact, CBS News is reporting that this current drought is in danger of evolving into a “permanent drought”…
Extreme drought across the Western U.S. has become as reliable as a summer afternoon thunderstorm in Florida. And news headlines about drought in the West can seem a bit like a broken record, with some scientists saying the region is on the precipice of permanent drought.
Even during the “Dust Bowl” of the 1930s, there was always hope that the drought would end and normal conditions would return.
But now we are being told that this is the new normal.
The western half of the country desperately needed a healthy level of precipitation during last winter’s “wet season”, but instead conditions were much drier than usual…
Consequently, this past winter’s wet season was not very wet at all. In fact, it just added insult to injury, with only 25 to 50% of normal rainfall falling across much of the Southwest and California. This followed one of the driest and hottest summers in modern times, with two historic heat waves, a summer monsoon cycle that simply did not even show up and the worst fire season in modern times.
Now we are moving into “the dry season”, and there simply is not enough water for everyone.
Along the California-Oregon border, things just went from bad to worse. Farmers in the region already knew that they would be getting much less water this year, but now federal officials have decided to completely shut the water off for most farmers…
The water crisis along the California-Oregon border went from dire to catastrophic this week as federal regulators shut off irrigation water to farmers from a critical reservoir and said they would not send extra water to dying salmon downstream or to a half-dozen wildlife refuges that harbor millions of migrating birds each year.
In what is shaping up to be the worst water crisis in generations, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation said it will not release water this season into the main canal that feeds the bulk of the massive Klamath Reclamation Project, marking a first for the 114-year-old irrigation system. The agency announced last month that hundreds of irrigators would get dramatically less water than usual, but a worsening drought picture means water will be completely shut off instead.
Needless to say, for many of them no water will mean no crops.
Oregon Governor Kate Brown has already declared a drought emergency.
So has California Governor Gavin Newsom.
The state of California grows more of our vegetables than anyone else does, and this growing water crisis is forcing many farmers in the state to make some heartbreaking decisions…
With the uncertainty of water, some Central Valley farmers are destroying their crops ahead of the summer season in order to survive. It’s impacting jobs and soon possibly the grocery shelves.
In many instances, farmers are destroying some of their crops in order to give other crops half a chance of making it.
For example, farmer Joe Del Bosque just destroyed all of the asparagus he was growing in order to use water elsewhere…
“There’s been a blade that’s cut underneath and these here, they are green still but they are going to die,” explained Del Bosque. The loss of asparagus means 50-60 farmworkers are out of a job next year. If more crops are lost, jobs will follow.
This is already a major national crisis, and it is getting worse with each passing month.
According to the NOAA, the soil moisture content in our southwestern states is now the lowest it has been “in at least 120 years”…
Kelsey Satalino, the Digital Communications Coordinator from NOAA’s National Integrated Drought Information System, says that during the past few months, several states including Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and Utah experienced their most intense period of drought since the Drought Monitor began back in 2000. As a result, soil moisture content is at its lowest levels in at least 120 years.
That means that things weren’t even this bad during the Dust Bowl days of the 1930s.
As I have discussed in previous articles, colossal dust storms are now regularly happening in the western half of the country.
In fact, some of them are so large you can see them from space.
In addition to being extremely unpleasant, these dust storms can also spread fungal spores that cause Valley fever. The following comes from NASA…
Valley fever is a dangerous threat to human health – and cases are on the rise in the arid southwestern United States, as wind from increasing dust storms can transport the fungal spores that cause the disease. Valley fever is caused by the Coccidioides fungus, which grows in dirt and fields and can cause fever, rash and coughing. Using NASA research and satellite data, the World Meteorological Organization is refining its Sand and Dust Storm Warning Advisory and Assessment System to help forecast where dust risk is greatest.
In my most recent book, I warned that “record drought” was coming, and now it is here.
Sadly, extremely dry conditions create an ideal environment for wildfires.
Last year’s wildfire season was a complete and utter nightmare, but now officials are warning that 2021 could be even worse.
Could that be possible?
It is hard to imagine anything worse than what we witnessed in California last year, but it appears that things are off to an even earlier start this year.
At this moment, an absolutely massive fire is burning out of control in Los Angeles County…
Los Angeles County authorities looked Sunday for a potential arsonist who might have set off a brush fire that forced the mandatory evacuation of about 1,000 people in the exclusive Pacific Palisades area near Topanga Canyon.
Cool and wet conditions overnight helped prevent the Palisades Fire from spreading beyond the 750 acres it had reached Saturday, but the LA Fire Department said in an update Sunday morning that warming weather and afternoon winds may push the blaze northwest – threatening homes – as it rips through dense mountain vegetation that “is very dry and has not burned in 50+ years.’’
It almost seems like the west coast is under some sort of a curse.
Whenever it seems like things couldn’t get any worse, somehow they do.
Scientists tell us that another very dry summer is looming, and that is extremely bad news for the entire region.
Dust Bowl conditions have returned, and it appears that they will be with us for a long time to come.
See more here: theeconomiccollapseblog.com
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.
James McGinn
| #
https://solvingtornadoesdotcom.wordpress.com/2015/03/21/why-wind-farms-cause-drought/
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
Wisenox
| #
Shat if the wind devices were eye shaped? Wind would pass around them, perhaps causing less turbulence. No spinning blades. Just a few a air intakes along the sides. It could swivel to always face the wind, and side to side stability would be simple engineering using a cross shaped counterbalance.
The air intakes could drive smaller rotors inside, which in turn, use gears to rotate a cam shaft to produce electricity.
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi James McGinn. Take a look at the movie referenced by Val on the sun climate change comment. It explains most of climate clearly. If you come across that Jerry dude tell him to take a look also.
Val
May 18, 2021 at 3:46 am | #
What Is the Sun’s Role in Climate Change? The complete picture and so much more can be found on YouTube at the SuspiciousObservers page.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTiL1q9YbrVam5nP2xzFTWQ
“Climate Forcing” Made Easy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tul07hx8V8w
The Full Film | “CLIMATE FORCING”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEWoPzaDmOA
Scenario #4 | Real Climate Science
https://youtu.be/bl4cQKKudjM
Reply
James McGinn
| #
MattH:
Hi James McGinn. Take a look at the movie referenced by Val on the sun climate change comment. It explains most of climate clearly.
James McGinn:
Hi Matt.
Why do gusty winds exist? It is an important question because without gusty winds we have no way to explain how the planet achieves the thermodynamic equilibrium that makes this planet livable. You could stare at the sun all day and go blind and then you can pretend not to see this question . Or you could actually address the question and eventually you will come to the realization that there must be tubes in the atmosphere that provide a low friction passage that enables the achievement of thermodynamic equilibrium simultaneously causing gusty winds. Proceeding along the next step of logical inquiry you eventually come to the conclusion that for these tubes to exist they must be made of something–something that has a higher degree of structural integrity than the gases they transport:
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi James. Just a courtesy call. May be a day or two before I get back to you. I expended my energy on Dr Krause’s premeditations.
Cheers Matt
Reply
James McGinn
| #
I’ll save you the trouble. First explain that anybody, including Svenmark, has established that the moisture in clear moist air is genuinely gaseous. When you have failed at this–at let me assure you that you will fail–you can then attempt to convince me of the significance of Svenmarks very limited hypothesis. The electric universe crowd is never going to do anything but bring their own flavor of confusion to the discussion. As with the conventional morons (ie. Krause) you will never get them to be specific about their own confusion because they don’t have the intellectual courage to confront it.
James McGinn / Genius
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH and hopefully PSI Readers,
At 7:54 into the 60 minute movie relative to the list of energy from the sun I read: Waves: x-ray, UV, Visible and that’s all folks!!!
I am not going to waste my time watching anything more. The problem is no IR. The dominate energy component of solar radiation (waves) is the visible and the IR bands (about 50% each). Look at the solar wave spectrum and the area under the curve. And if you do not accept this DATA, I cannot help you. You must accept something like this is fact.
Read about the Ultraviolet Catastrophe of Blackbody Emission Spectrum at Wikipedia.
Perhaps that is why the Producers of the Movie didn’t study the fundamental physics of the 20th Century and concluded that the energy content of the IR portion was insignificant.
The movie seems to be a teachable moment and hopefully you have learned something from it. It is hard to imagine the omission of the IR was an error.
You know so much because you can practically READ CLOUDS because of your experiences.
Trust Einstein who wrote: “The only source of knowledge is experience.”
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry.
I.R. energy from the sun has been calculated inside out and done to death. Of course it is a part of the energy budget in the movie.
What the movie is dealing with is the energy that is not I.R. energy from the sun which is falsely attributed to anthropogenic global warming as well as the suns effect on galactic cosmic rays and the earth’s own energy including when the Van Ellen belt is forced into Earth’s atmosphere by solar outbursts.
A Van Allen radiation belt is a zone of energetic charged particles, most of which originate from the solar wind, that are captured by and held around a planet by that planet’s magnetosphere. Earth has two such belts, and sometimes others may be temporarily created. (this paragraph wikipedia )
As for me reading clouds. Do you know what a squall is Jerry? When you have a reasonable patch of atmospheric transparency (blue sky ) heading your way you know you are not about to be battling a squall.
squall
/skwɔːl/
noun
1.
a sudden violent gust of wind or localized storm, especially one bringing rain, snow, or sleet.
“low clouds and squalls of driving rain”
Of course the science is to assess why wind increases with a patch of cold precipitation. It is similar to tornados. Electrical charge is part of the equation.
Anyway, there have been approximately 600 peer reviewed papers in relation to and expanding on the 20 year old Svensmark hypothesis and the IPCC can no longer completely ignore such a weight of scientific evidence which is why, according to the movie, next years IPCC climate report acknowledges some of the amazing energy in and around planet earth which gives some or near complete vindication to the Svensmark hypothesis.
Feynman and Einstein would be fascinated and enthralled by the movie and how much their concepts have been vindicated or at variance with new understanding.
There are those who prefer belief systems over knowledge.
Have a reflective day. Matt
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH and hopefully PSI Readers,
You concluded: “Feynman and Einstein would be fascinated and enthralled by the movie and how much their concepts have been vindicated or at variance with new understanding.”
List Feynman’s and Einstein’s concepts which are variance with ‘new understanding’!!! List their concepts which you claim have been vindicated!!! Feynman wrote (lectured) about Einstein’s concepts to which I doubt you and your new understanding commonly refer. And let us not ignore that Galileo and Newton wrote books which you and the new understanders maybe have not read. For you claim so much knowledge can be condensed to a hour long movie which begins (evidently) with one of my frequently errors.
I ask you to read a modern book (North Dakota’s Geologic Legacy) by John P. Bluemle about a part of the world with which I am quite familiar and doubt if you and many of those scientists who have produced this new knowledge with which these other modern scientist claim to be invariance with Einstein’s and Feynman’s knowledge.
When you focus on these two Scientists you seem to forget their supporting cast of other great Scientists of the past two centuries. Especially that of the 20th Century.
Read and critique Bluemle’s book as it seems the new scientists enjoy doing (rewriting OLD SCIENCE. And James can tell you about his experiences in North Dakota.
And study the claimed data of the Fluid Earth Viewer which has only been available for the past several years. I believe it because I know it accurately describes the surface temperatures and winds which anyone who lives on this planet have experienced day by day and 6 hour by 6 hour).
It seems too many seem to forget that SCIENCE is based on observations and not upon what people reason.
Have a good day, Jerry
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH, James, and hopefully PSI Readers,
“In March 1905, Einstein—still a lowly patent clerk in Switzerland—published a paper explaining the photoelectric effect. Five years earlier, Max Planck had solved the problem of black body radiation by showing that each atom making up the walls of the cavity could only absorb or emit radiation in discrete “quanta” such that the energy of each quantum is an integer multiple of its frequency times a new fundamental constant. Planck thought his concept of quanta was just a mathematical “trick” to get theory to match experiment. But Einstein extended Planck’s quanta to light itself. (Planck had assumed that just the vibrations of the atoms were quantized.) Light, Einstein said, is a beam of particles whose energies are related to their frequencies according to Planck’s formula. When that beam is directed at a metal, the photons collide with the atoms. If a photon’s frequency is sufficient to knock off an electron, the collision produces the photoelectric effect. As a particle, light carries energy proportional to the frequency of the wave; as a wave it has a frequency determined by the particle’s energy. Einstein won the 1921 Nobel Prize in physics for this work.” (https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200501/history.cfm)
Why is the photo electric effect not considered an observed (experimental) results??? “Planck thought his concept of quanta was just a mathematical “trick” to get theory to match experiment.” Why was Planck’s concept of quanta not an observed fact of an experiment’s results??? At least until some other concepts would also explain the experimental results!!!
James, I read that Einstein stated: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong.” When have I ever read that you have admitted that you could be wrong. And I have yet to read that you have directed our attention to a specific experiment’s results as Planck, and then Einstein did. And you claim to be a genius; while I read that Einstein stated: “It’s not that I’m so smart; it’s just that I stay with problems longer.”
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry, as you have demonstrated vividly, humility is too often used as a crutch to evade the perception that they themselves (you yourself) are confused. I have no use for humility because I also have no use for being anything but specific and explicit about what I do or do not understand. For you whether or not you possess an accurate understanding of fundamentals is a secondary consideration. This is because you are unable to separate what you believe from what other people will think about what you believe.
The world is full of morons that maintain beliefs the basis of which is the fact that there are many other morons that share these beliefs. For example, many believe that the phase of the moisture in clear moist air is gaseous. When confronted with the mountain of laboratory evidence that this is impossible they just grit their teeth, maintain their humility, and champion on like Christian soldiers. As a genius of the highest intellectual calibre, I have no use for this kind of moronosity.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James and hopefully other PSI Readers,
James: “When confronted with the mountain of laboratory evidence that this is impossible they just grit their teeth,”
In stead of referring to a “mountain of laboratory evidence”. why do you not first refer to one of these seeming common experimental results??? For I admit; I am clueless what one of the mountain might be.
Planck and Einstein referred to specific experimental results which most physicists of that time were well aware. And I believe these results had been obtained by experiments done by physicists other than themselves. And I am not aware the Einstein ever did any actual physics experiments. His was a lowly patent clerk when he explained the photoelectric effect for which he won his Nobel Prize for his concept of the photoelectric effect.
Have a good day, Jerry
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
No Jerry, I’m not playing your moronic ‘flat-earther’ game. Provide evidence of your delusional belief that clear moist air contains gaseous H2O or piss off.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
Jerry only believes evidence that supports his existing beliefs, so there in no way to get him to accept evidence or reason that he doesn’t agree with. The only way he will change his beliefs is if you can show a conflict with something he believes more. I suggest you use the Bible and point out that water was created on the first day while the atmosphere was created on the second day so water cannot be a gas and part of the atmosphere.
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Yes, the key word is BELIEVE. For I BELIEVE SCIENCE cannot prover anything to be TRUE. But believe SCIENCE can prove WRONG SCIENTIFIC IDEAS to be ABSOLUTELY WRONG.
Beginning with the idea that the EARTH STANDS STILL. For which proof Galileo had to lie to save his life so he could write another book about his experiences.
But relative to the Holy Bible and water, I have to ask: From what translation of it are you reading?
For in my NIV translation I read: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.” (Genesis 1:1,2)
Then in verse 6 and 7, I read: “And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it.”
Hence, I know of nothing in the Holy Bible which remotely suggests that the Creator God created WATER.
Have a good day, Jerry
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
Jerry only believes evidence that supports his existing beliefs,
James:
Jerry is one of multiple billions of people that maintain belief in this nonsensical notion–a notion that stands as a major obstacle to the realization of invalidity of current storm theory. I think the only chance to expose this stupidity is to enact a class action lawsuit that forces NOAA to test this notion and publicize the results.
James McGinn / Genius
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
There you have it from James McGinn–Genius
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
Is your point that that nothing is real (actual)???
The some of the data to which I almost daily refer is being measured locally. Therefore I am actually observing the real environment of my location and the reported data ‘FITS’ what I actually observe. And I take my IR thermometer outside and measure to SKY temperature straight up and the temperatures of the Earth’s surfaces. For from the beginning a fundamental ARGUMENT of the founders of PSI is that my measurement of the ‘downwelling’ radiation is meaningless; it is not and it is real (actual). And the temperature of the cloud bottoms I measure is real (actual).
No doubt, what one sees on many videos is manufactured by someone and therefore a figment of someone’s imagination. So, why should anyone watch a video which is not being ‘filmed’ live???
Yes, NASA and NOAA scientists can be observed to have an agenda when they remove the previously reported data from their figures. But for the most part there is too much data being measured by their instruments at many sites which are real (actual).
The BIG PROBLEM are those who comment and comment without referring to any actual data. And if one chooses to ignore that the the average temperature of a day is meaningless (not actual data), that is a BIG PROBLEM over which I and you have no control.
In my recent scanning of Feynman’s lectures I discovered that he referred to the fact on a cloudless day during the summer, a very shallow layer of air forms over the very hot surface of the ground which causes an observed mirage to be seen from a distance. Now a fact is he lectured this in 1962. I call attention to this fact because I do find that many appreciate the details the GREAT SCIENTISTS consider in producing the PRODUCT of their SCHOLARSHIP!!!
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry.
My point is that having watched the “full movie” three times i will be looking at the movie at least another three times and stopping the movie at times to study some of the flow chart diagrams.
It does not surprise me that people will have to be dragged crying and screaming to open the door to the expansion of knowledge.
I will progress with James tonight, my time. I was out hand hauling nets yesterday in predicted 35 knots of winds. I could tell by the cloud patterns\formations when the wind would drop to 15 to 20 knots so it allowed it to be physically possible to haul in a 90 meter net in a little “Carolina Dory”. The worst wind struck with the hail storm. I only had to haul in four nets, dragging the boat against the wind and current. Without being able to read the clouds I would have not been able to predict the between gusts periods and do the hauling.
Have a nice day Jerry. Matt.
Reply
Chris
| #
This is nonsense. The last several winters have been wetter than normal and the summers have been cooler. This is just to give a cover story for the man made food shortage that is coming. Biden said while campaigning that that everyone will need to grow their own food.
It’s simple he said, just put a seed in the ground and you get food. Global depopulation programs are in effect. Mass vaccination poisonings was only one of theirs tools. They have others.
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
In order to bring the livestock under total control the fake virus will not be enough. The Zionists will need to disrupt the food supply under the disguise of another crisis related to “climate change.” They want to remove the states last protections under the 10th amendment so that the central government (elite) can institute martial law whenever they desire. The puppet actor presidency has been under control since 1913. The fake Rep. and fake Dem. socialist Zionist congress is in the bag as well as most of the governors.
War has always been the tool of choice in order to herd the cattle in the right direction as the government aggrandizes more power. The need to always have an external enemy is moving forward with both China and Russia. The ultimate goal is to destroy all property rights. Indeed the fake vaccine fraud is a direct attack against our most basic property right over our own body. Once property rights are gone as was the first plank of Marx Communist manifesto, all rights will soon be gone.
Reply
Doug Harrison
| #
“In my most recent book, I warned that “record drought” was coming, and now it is here.”
Who the Hell are you..As is so often the case on this site there is no name where the authors name should be. I don’t have time to research every organisation that posts here. If I had a name it would be much easier to rubbish the nonsense that is in this article. When will they learn that nobody can predict the future? The sin of extrapolation is very evident here.
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
…..”CBS News reports that it is in danger of becoming a permanent drought”……..anything CBS News says is suspect….nothing on the surface of the earth is permanent…..a new Ice Age is probably imminent based on this dribble.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
My fundamental purpose in writing many of my comments is to inform some scientists and most non-scientists about this thing which Galileo by sharing his experiences founded. Which fundamental factor of SCIENCE is that OBWERVATIONS (measurements) can never PROVE anything to be the TRUTH. Howerver, OBSERVATIONS (measurements) can prove that ideas, which are not the TRUTH, to be ABSOLUTELY FALSE (WRONG).
Therefore, as I reviewed previous comments I discovered I missed a golden opportunity to do this again when James McGinn (5/19,2021 at 7:44pm) wrote: “No Jerry, I’m not playing your moronic ‘flat-earther’ game. Provide evidence of your delusional belief that clear moist air contains gaseous H2O or piss off.
James McGinn / Genius”
The issue is what James referred to as the ‘flat-earther game’. For some year we owned a property at the end of a small lake were I could clearly see rocks, at the water level, on the far shore a little less than a mile distant when I was standing on our shore. Then one hot day I was cooling off in the water with my nose and eyes just above the water level. And I could not see these rocks at the far shore. And as I stood up I could see these rocks. Hence, I, believing, that light travels in a straight line, had to conclude that the water surface was not flat.
But there was one more observation which I concluded was very significant. The water of the lake was very clear so one could see the bottom at more than 10ft deep ljust as one could see the bottom at 10in deep.
However, our beach was not a beautiful classic sand beach. It was at the South end of the lake and when there was a south wind the sand would be covered by a black silt. But when there was a north wind there was no black silt on the sand. I pondered this for some time to convince myself that a south wind, which only produced small waves in the middle of the lake, sloped the lake’s surface so the water at the north end was deeper than the water at our end. With the result a current of water somewhere below the surface flowed toward our south end and carried the silt on the bottom to cover the sand right to our shoreline.
The lesson I learned was that a very subtle NATURAL factors can haves observable consequence. Hence, one cannot (should not) dismiss any NATURAL FACTOR because its possible influence seems too insignificant.
So James, THANK YOU for making your comment!!!
For the NATURAL TROPICAL TRADE WINDS which usually consistently blow from EAST to WEST across the Tropical Pacific to greatly slope ITS SURFACE so there results a NATURAL SUBSURFACE CURRENT which flows WEST to EAST to the West Coast of South America.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
My fundamental purpose in writing many of my comments is to inform some scientists and most non-scientists about this thing which Galileo by sharing his experiences founded. Which fundamental factor of SCIENCE is that OBWERVATIONS (measurements) can never PROVE anything to be the TRUTH. Howerver, OBSERVATIONS (measurements) can prove that ideas, which are not the TRUTH, to be ABSOLUTELY FALSE (WRONG).
Therefore, as I reviewed previous comments I discovered I missed a golden opportunity to do this again when James McGinn (5/19,2021 at 7:44pm) wrote: “No Jerry, I’m not playing your moronic ‘flat-earther’ game. Provide evidence of your delusional belief that clear moist air contains gaseous H2O or piss off.
James McGinn / Genius”
The issue is what James referred to as the ‘flat-earther game’. For some year we owned a property at the end of a small lake were I could clearly see rocks, at the water level, on the far shore a little less than a mile distant when I was standing on our shore. Then one hot day I was cooling off in the water with my nose and eyes just above the water level. And I could not see these rocks at the far shore. And as I stood up I could see these rocks. Hence, I, believing, that light travels in a straight line, had to conclude that the water surface was not flat.
But there was one more observation which I concluded was very significant. The water of the lake was very clear so one could see the bottom at more than 10ft deep ljust as one could see the bottom at 10in deep.
However, our beach was not a beautiful classic sand beach. It was at the South end of the lake and when there was a south wind the sand would be covered by a black silt. But when there was a north wind there was no black silt on the sand. I pondered this for some time to convince myself that a south wind, which only produced small waves in the middle of the lake, sloped the lake’s surface so the water at the north end was deeper than the water at our end. With the result a current of water somewhere below the surface flowed toward our south end and carried the silt on the bottom to cover the sand right to our shoreline.
The lesson I learned was that a very subtle NATURAL factors can haves observable consequence. Hence, one cannot (should not) dismiss any NATURAL FACTOR because its possible influence seems too insignificant.
So James, THANK YOU for making your comment!!!
For the NATURAL TROPICAL TRADE WINDS which usually consistently blow from EAST to WEST across the Tropical Pacific to greatly slope ITS SURFACE so there results a NATURAL SUBSURFACE CURRENT which flows WEST to EAST to the West Coast of South America.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry Krause. James McGinn states that water is not in a gaseous form in the atmosphere but is micro droplets so I reviewed a common experiment.
When we drive our car wearing a long sleeved tea shirt on a rainy day with the drivers window down with our elbow resting on the window sill the sleeve of the tee shirt gets wet.
When we do the same on a foggy day the tee shirt sleeve gets wet.
When we do the same on a day without rain or fog but it is a day of high humidity the tee shirt sleeve remains dry. If we change our tee shirt to one manufactured of micro cloth, drive for five hours at seventy miles an hour to captured a goodly mass of these micro water droplets the sleeve remains dry.
What is the flaw in my experiment our is the high humidity atmosphere in fact suspended water in the form of a gas?
Moron?
Cheers Jerry and cool dude readers.
Matt
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
Your experiment is okay but as I have read and frequently write that the Troposphere contains tiny particles (liquid or solid) of condensed matter which prevents the air becoming super-saturated with water molecules. As the water molecules condense of the surfaces of these tiny particles of condensed matter. So, if we accept the condensation nuclei, you experiment proves these liquid particles (at high humidities and temperatur do not cause your shelve to get wet and therefore cannot disprove Jame’s idea.
But if there are no water molecules in the air, there can be no latent heat of condensation or of evaporation. So I read how easy it is to measure the latent heat of evaporation by boiling a given mass of water in a tea kettle until all the water is gone. This is a simple, reproducible experiment which always gives the same result at the limit of experimental errors. Which in the case of Jame’s explanation of how liquid water on a table top disappears by what we term evaporation. Rather than having water molecules to escape from the water surface, James proposes that his nano droplets escape from the liquid water’s surface. Which requires that every nano droplets have consistent mass (number of water molecules) to produce a reproducible latent heat.
Sometimes I consider Einstein confused the idea that SCIENCE is totally based upon observation and not upon reasons with his famous thought experiment. But sometimes we (I) forget that his thought is purely based upon two observation we can easily imagine the differences between these two observation which are accurately defined and the assumptions which Einstein also clearly defined as making. And the result of this imagined, but accurately defined, experiments was that energy equals the mass of the imagined object dropped times the speed of light squared. Which prediction is supported (not contradicted) by numerous experimental results.
So, Einstein did not cause a problem with his reasoning because of its accurate definition of the word: SUPPORT.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Hi Matt,
Matt:
What is the flaw in my experiment . . . ?
James:
The flaw is that the equipment that you are using to detect the results of your experiment are maybe even less reliable than using your eyes to “see” it with sunlight.
In Thunderbolts forum a respondent, Mosaic Dave, proposed another method/experiment to demonstrate the validity of the popular superstition that H2O (magically, I suppose) defies it’s known boiling/condensing temperature/pressure to become gaseous in the relatively cool temperatures of earth’s atmosphere. As you can read, ultimately he fails. But what is interesting is that for quite some time they (him and other respondents) believed they were successful. Also what is interesting is that it did, in my opinion, successfully demonstrate that nanodroplets in the atmosphere (despite being indisputably heavier than the air molecules in their vicinity) do generally rise or levitate in the lower parts of the troposphere.
The flaw in the experiment was in the assumptions of Mosaic Dave that the only force that could cause H2O molecules to levitate (when there is no upward-moving flow or wind) is buoyancy. As you can read, I pointed out this flaw early in the discussion: “So this experiment doesn’t distinguish between the respective positions/hypotheses. Meteorology maintains that it rises due to buoyancy (gravity). I say it rises due to electrostatic charges which I assume (I don’t actually know) are prevalent in our atmosphere.”
What is funny, as you read the thread, is that despite me having pointed out this flaw they continued on for quite some time believing they had something definitive against my premise when actually all they had was bad logic. I did, however, give Dave credit for helping us gain a better understanding of another mystery of the atmosphere. This being the observation that clouds (which contain droplets that are denser than the surrounding air) float.
Concerning the drying of wet shoes
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16647
James McGinn / Super Genius
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry.
Thank you for your reply although I have not time to read and ponder it right now.
The little I did read refers to higher atmospheric particles ( I think ) where I was referring to surface level atmosphere with an ambient temperature of around 15 to 25 degrees celcius. I.E. Driving with the car window down on a mild, warm, or sultry day. (high humidity )
Gotta go. Matt
Reply