Robert Brown opinion

[Reality is the thing you perceive, that conforms to known ways to test if it is real, or in Robert Brown’s learned and much better  words]

For the general public that does not have an objective scientific bend, how do you tell virtual reality from the real thing?

That’s a serious problem, actually. Hell, I have an objective scientific bend and I have plenty of trouble with it.

Ultimately, the stock answer is: We should believe the most what we can doubt the least, when we try to doubt very hard, using a mix of experience and consistent reason based on a network of experience-supported best (so far) beliefs.

That’s not very hopeful, but it is accurate. We believe Classical Non-Relativistic Mechanics after Newton invents it, not because it is true but because it works fairly consistently to describe Kepler’s purely observational laws, and (as it is tested) works damn well to describe a lot of quotidian experience as well on a scale less grand than planetary orbits. We encounter trouble with classical mechanics a few hundred years later when it fails to consistently describe blackbody radiation, the photoelectric effect (the one thing Einstein actually got the Nobel Prize for), the spectra of atoms, given Maxwell’s enormously successful addition to the equations of electricity and magnetism and the realization that light is an electromagnetic wave. (more…)

Filed under: In other online forums,Natural Processes,Supporting Research — by Richard Holle @ 8:29 pm on March 1, 2012

2012 spring tornado forecast

Once again the Lunar declinational tidal effect is responsible but goes unmentioned, The moon was maximum North declination on the 1st of March, the solar declination seasonal tide is incoming from the South adding to the effect and making the resultant tropical air mass surge two days sooner than the usual, peak production on the day of Maximum North lunar declination and three days after.

I have had daily forecast maps for this expected precipitation posted for 51 months now;

Details on how it works are posted on the site, in the blog/research section.

You can watch the incoming lunar tidal bulge sweep in from the Southwest in their short movie, and the back side more polar air mass brings in the negative static/ionic charges that gave added power to the temperature front to drive the condensation high enough to generate the tornadoes.

Over the next three days as the fetch of moisture slides East across Texas into the Gulf states, and the moon starts to head South again, Just as we are having a heliocentric conjunction with Mars on the 3rd, this is very likely to bring on another round of tornadoes.(they got that part right anyway) see my maps for these days as well.

Last year the big outbreak was enhanced by the heliocentric conjunction with Saturn, on the 3rd of April, which will be occurring on the 15th of April this year, so you can expect more outbreaks to occur from the 4-10-2012 Maximum South lunar declination and four day after window, another much larger 2 or 3 day burst as the moon crosses the equator on 4-17-2012. Then the heavy action through the end of the month of April, ending in last hurrah of big snows into the first week of May. Appalachian Ice storm seems to be on the 3rd through 5th of May, buy your replacement power poles early.

[This is the first post in a string of ongoing comments at the inquiry of _Jim for further information. Click this link to see more of the thread]

Filed under: In other online forums,Severe Weather,Supporting Research,Tornadoes — by Richard Holle @ 6:47 pm on

Nowrad Movie of the past 14 years

Found this, would like to be able to view this one frame at a time and manual progress along with my forecast maps to check how well this cycle is repeating the past four.

Or better yet side by side for the same days, I have a lot of movie making to do it seems, still looking for the right software to bring it all together.

Filed under: In other online forums,Natural Processes,Supporting Research — by Richard Holle @ 4:43 am on February 10, 2012

Robert Brown on Ken Caldeira resigns = respect

Clear insights into the resignation of IPCC lead author Ken Caldeira as enlightenment to reality becomes a true scientist’s real growth in understanding, as his awareness, viewpoints and actions  change as the weight of empirical evidence increases. Best part of the comment by Robert Brown saved here is toward the end, read it all. Link is in regard to the video  further up thread, of Ken’s presentation and Julia Pongratz: on their relevant findings on evaporation cooling on both local and global scale effects.

Maybe his German (she sounds like that) Postdoc explained the hydrological cycle to him.

A very interesting post. I wonder if Caldiera is changing his stance because he suddenly realized that his own research has just proven that the climate sensitivity is much smaller than has been claimed by e.g. Hansen et al.

She speaks of “irrigation” or “reforestation” as mechanisms that keep (relatively small) areas of the land wet. Water is then evaporated from this wet land (or from the pores of trees during respiration) and yes, it carries away at least the latent heat of vaporization as it does so, locally cooling the surfaces.

This water vapor — water containing heat that was picked up from the ground — then is transported up. H_2O molecules are lighter than O_2, N_2 and CO_2 molecules and — unlike CO_2 that tends to blanket the ground because it is literally “heavier (more dense) than air” — diffuses generally upward, especially when it is warmer than the ambient air, which, at least initially, it is.

Air in the lower atmosphere cools fairly predictably with height. As the water vapor transfers some of its surplus heat to the surrounding air (heating it), pressure instabilities are created that cause updrafts that carry the warmer wetter air up not through diffusion, but via active transport that rather quickly lifts it up to much cooler air. Water is a polar molecule and strongly interacts with just about everything, and as it encounters ever cooler air (and constantly transfers some of the heat it picked up on the ground to it) it locally adsorbs to e.g. neutral air molecules, creating a more dense (if short lived) complex that gradually experiences no net lift. Air molecules continue to carry the heat on up, however, warming air that is ever less dense very slightly. (more…)

Filed under: In other online forums,Supporting Research — by Richard Holle @ 8:55 am on December 22, 2011

Basil Copeland and Anthony Watts

[found this question by one of the authors of the post;]
Basil says:


I’m not ignoring you. I’m wrestling with the concept of how we would “prove” (or falsify) that the decadal or bidecadal cycles in global temperature are “caused” by ocean current cycles which are themselves likely driven by the same exogenous sources we’re attributing the temperature cycles to. For example, in the post I did on the PDO, I recall both a bidecadal and even a pentadecadal cycle in the PDO and NPI. Does that mean these are “causing” the cycles we’re seeing in global temperature? Or is it not more likely that these are just different manifestations of a common external (or exogenous) driver (or drivers)?

Or, suppose we could definitely link the decadal signal in global temperature trends to ENSO. So? What is driving ENSO? I’m sure we can cross-correlate cyclical variation global temperature with a variety of different climate variables. But you understand as well as I do that this doesn’t “prove” causation. It merely establishes association, possibly driven by common forces.

What are those common forces? Besides lunar and solar, what other candidates are there for the ultimate cause?

[My answer would be the lunar declinational tides being synchronized to the rotation of the magnetic poles of the sun.]

Filed under: In other online forums,Long-term Lunar Effects,Supporting Research — by Richard Holle @ 9:51 am on November 16, 2011