If there really are more molecules of H2O in the atmosphere than there used to be, that would mean that the total weight of the atmosphere is greater than it used to be – even if the density is lower. More total weight means higher average atmospheric pressure.
I have been doing some investigation of this and have found no evidence so far to support an increase in atmospheric pressure. Is anyone aware of any studies on this subject?
Last August I was contacted by a person who wanted to create a commercial site. I agreed to do this and this person set up real-science dot com and I started posting there. The site was plagued by down time (within the first three days and on more than 30 subsequent occasions) slowness, broken functionality, broken links, broken images, plugin generated garbled html, a spam e-mail sent to commenters, frequent difficulty posting – and was generating little ad revenue (a few hundred dollars total) and sporadically.
After seven months of frustration and on a morning where I was having difficulty getting the “new post” window to come up, I reached my limit of patience and made a post stating that there were server issues, and that I would be posting at http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com until they were fixed. An hour or so later my post had been taken down, I was locked out of the site, and a post was up announcing my death. People attempting to post comments with the correct information were censored.
Marc Morano and Anthony Watts quickly made posts with the correct information – thank you Marc and Anthony. This person then sent out several E-mails claiming to be a “Sarah Goddard” and that I really was dead.
The next day I convinced this person that their behaviour was looney, and got control of the site back. This person promised to “remain quiet on the climate scene.” I warned this person that they needed to quit doing stupid things and that I could only protect them if they quit doing stupid things. A few days later I even offered to possibly give this person a second chance, as I am a strong believer in redemption.
Sadly, minutes later it came to my attention that a series of bogus comments had been made on this site – using real commenters IDs and e-mail addresses and made with fake IP addresses (like those from hide-my-IP) and soliciting the relative virtues of real science dot com. Those bogus comments could only have come from someone with admin privileges at real science dot com, because that was the only way they could have that information. This person denied any responsibility for those comments and offered to investigate.
At that point my trust was irreversibly broken.
Then came the fake Richard Garwin post – which I later convinced them to remove libelous references, and now an anonymous post about 50 billion people and claims of ownership of the content on the site.
The value of what I do is in staying current with the latest BS coming from the climate alarmism world. There is no money to be made being a climate skeptic. All the money is on the alarmist side. I have no interest in extending this controversy or in taking any further action at this time. My fight is with bad science.
Norsex shows ice extent about one million km² higher than 2007, and NSIDC shows about half of that gap. Apparently ice is a very tricky thing to measure.
“Connecting the Dots” Between Extreme Weather and Climate Change
Over the last year, millions of people around the world have felt first-hand the impacts of the growing climate crisis. From devastating flooding in Thailand to historic drought in Texas, global warming has moved from an abstraction to a dangerous new reality. Here in the United States, 82 percent of Americans say that they’ve experienced a natural disaster or extreme weather event first-hand.
Jamie Henn: “Connecting the Dots” Between Extreme Weather and Climate Change
Unless you are over 52 years old, you could not have possibly have experienced a record drought in Texas. Precipitation has been increasing and the 1950s was by far the driest decade.
Jeff Masters considers unusually pleasant March weather to be “extreme weather.”
Yet, despite a few notable exceptions, the mainstream media has failed to connect the dots between this string of extreme weather events and global warming. Instead, coverage of climate change has dropped precipitously. A recent report by Media Matters for America found out that nightly news coverage on the major networks decreased 72 percent between 2009 and 2011. The Sunday shows, traditionally seen as forums for discussing the “important issues” of the day, have all spent more time covering Donald Trump than they have climate change.
There is an old story which explains this phenomenon. “The little boy who cried wolf”
I am not a climate change scientist, but I have come to understand that I am a climate change victim. Our daughter took the lead investigating destructive lightning in Maine. She found that the NASA Goddard Institute estimates a 5-6% change in global lightning frequencies for every 1 degree Celsius global warming. The Earth has already warmed .8 degrees Celsius since 1802 and is expected to warm another 1.1-6.4 degrees by the end of the century. Maine’s temperatures rose 1.9 degrees Celsius in the last century and another 2.24 degree rise is projected by 2104.
Complete BS. Temperatures in Maine haven’t warmed at all, and 1913 was by far the hottest year in Maine history.
I learned from our insurance company that while the typical thunderstorm produces around 100 lightning strikes, there were 217 strikes around our house that night.
Amazing. She is a distinguished professor at Harvard and doesn’t know anything about statistics or normal distributions.
I was shocked to discover that when it comes to increased lightning frequency and destructiveness, a NASA study concluded that eastern areas of North America like Maine are especially vulnerable. Scientists confirm a 10% increase in the incidence of extreme weather events in our region since 1949.
More like a 100% increase in extreme stupidity events. All weather is local, and Maine hasn’t warmed at all. Lightning happens.
16 Jun 1942 – BASEBALL STAR’S SON KILLED BY LIGHTNING NEW YORK…
1921 was the warmest year in Illinois history, but it wasn’t just the US that was hot.
20 Jul 1921 – DROUGHT IN BRITAIN. Unparalleled Heat Wave. LOND…
Is Chelsea better off without Terry on the pitch?
World famous atmospheric scientist Mikey Mann thinks that water vapor makes the air more dense. So why does water vapor rise, and nitrogen vapor migrate horizontally?
One might expect that an atmospheric scientist would understand the simplest fundamentals of the physics of the atmosphere. Severe storms often form when cold dry air wedges under a mass of warm moist air. The warm, moist air is less dense and gets forced rapidly upwards.
I worked in a geochemistry lab as an undergraduate at ASU. One day we had a safety inspection and “Mad Hank” poured a flask of liquid nitrogen into a sink full of water, a few seconds before the inspectors arrived.
The Soviet press recognized that capitalism was evil, and was compliant with the government in keeping it at bay. I have a friend who was jailed at age 16 in the Soviet Union for selling a pair of Levis which his father had brought back from the US on a Soviet ship.
Similarly, many leading US newspapers have also decided that capitalism is evil and destroying the planet, and have adopted the same techniques used in the Soviet Union.
It is difficult to defeat communist scum, because they keep morphing their strategy. Now they pretend they are protecting Polar Bears and Penguins.
The NYT Puts the Hit On
The New York Times has an article today ostensibly about clouds but which is really an extended hit piece on Richard Lindzen, a professor at MIT, member of the US National Academy of Sciences and well known climate skeptic.
Below I have excerpted a laundry list of phrases in the article used to describe Lindzen:
- Leading proponent of the view that clouds will save the day
- Has drawn withering criticism
- Errors in his papers
- Proof is lacking
- Obliged [politicians] by assuring them that they are running no risks by refusing to enact emissions limits
- Contrarian scientist
- Gone beyond any reasonable reading of the evidence to provide a dangerous alibi for inaction
- Wrong science
- [Not] intellectually honest at all
- Contrarian scientist
- Methods he had used to analyze data were flawed
- His theory made assumptions that were inconsistent with known facts
- Most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzen’s theory discredited
- He routinely misrepresents the work of other researchers
- Dr. Lindzen offers little hint of how thin the published science supporting his position is
- He makes what many colleagues see as an unwarranted leap of logic
- Deeply unprofessional and irresponsible
This is “advocacy journalism” — it is not reporting, as there is absolutely no news in the piece.
Roger Pielke Jr.’s Blog: The NYT Puts the Hit On
