(CNSNews.com) – Senate Republicans gave notice Tuesday evening of their intention to force a reading of all 1,924 pages of a $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill laden with more than 6,000 earmarks, a development anti-pork critics described as “shameful” and “outrageous.” In a stinging speech on the Senate floor, Sen. John McCain said Senate Democrats had clearly not learned the lesson of the midterm election.
CERN confirms that cloud formation by GCRs can happen Lubos Motl (Discussed at WUWT)
[...] But the result may be simply that the clouds get created 50 meters lower or 50 meters higher than they would be created without the cosmic rays; the overall percentage of the cloudy skies may be determined by something like “wind going up” and “wind going down”, if you allow me to use a layperson’s language and the percentage of both is 50%. The actual cloudiness is not 50% but you may imagine that a more complicated mechanism of this sort is at work and it makes the cloudiness pretty much constant.
[...] These comments are just meant to convey the obvious message that a lab experiment doesn’t settle all questions about the global climate, especially not in the long term. However, it’s clear that the potential of the cosmic rays as a climate driver will be established by showing this local effect that will be as real as the infrared absorption by the greenhouse gases. Much more is needed to decide which of these effects actually matter for the weather and the climate in the real world, outside the lab.
http://www.politics.ie/environment/121628-cloud-mystery.html has an interesting vid.
Me. I still have doubts as to the influence of the direct cloud forming effect that is by the formation of particles of sufficient size to allow water vapour condensation. Consider the volume of particles released in the annual Asian stubble burn, particles from vehicle exhausts, the unregulated and increasing emissions from China’s use of coal, the biofuel contribution from forest burning, the cloud machines such as illustrated on the wrapper of Al Gore’s sci-fi horror, An Inconvenient Lie, and natural particles of such as salt from sea spray and dust from deserts. I think there are a number of consequences from GCR variation at work and it is the sum of the influences that produces climate variation.
The way GCRs form particles is by causing ionization. A high energy GCR particle is predominantly a positive charge proton less likely a negative charge electron or a neutral neutron. The impact of a GCR causes e.g N2 (nitrogen) or O2 (oxygen) to split into single atoms by disrupting the energy that binds them (changing the proton/electron/neutron ration). A cluster of such ions clump to form a particle. This has been demonstrated in experiments. A denser flow of GCRs undoubtedly increases particle formation. The significance of this action is still a matter for conjecture so I am not bound by established limits in my ideas.
Coming from space the GCRs encounter the stratosphere, the home of the ozone layer before reaching the stratosphere. A notable action of GCRs is their production of single O molecules from O2 that leads to O3 formation. However this is more than offset by the greater impact on O3 as it is less stable than O2, and the formation of N ions that take up free O and take individual O atoms from O3. N2 is the most abundant molecule. So GCRs cause O3 depletion. That O3 volume is not correlated to GCR incursion implies that GCRs enhance depletion caused by other actors. Hydrogen ions are my favourite for the job. Their source is predominantly water vapour (H2O) and to a lesser degree methane (CH4), both of which are broken down by high energy solar UV radiation and to a far lesser degree by GCRs and occasional strong solar proton emission events such as in solar storms.
Piers Corbyn has demonstrated by his interpretation of “weather” in the solar atmosphere to make accurate weather predictions that solar emissions have a strong effect on our atmosphere. Solar storms occur as a result of events such as solar flares and coronal mass ejections. These events release a high speed flow (normal flow of 400-800 km per second) of charged particles that impact the Earth’s magnetic field in hours, if the eruption is towards Earth. The EMF flows from the equator to the poles and conveys normal solar emissions to the poles. Disruption of the EMF allows solar proton/electron/neutron incursion deeper into the atmosphere (and greater GCR penetration). Such incursions of sufficient magnitude can cause significant ozone loss that is maintained for a few weeks mainly due to N ion creation, less significantly due to WV and CH4 breakdown whose importance depends on the WV volume.
The density of O3, WV and CH4 must play a role in limiting GCR incursion to the lower layers. GCR flow density must also be a factor in water vapour volume in that the particle (condensation surface) forming action must also happen in the stratosphere. As mentioned in a previous post UV reaching the surface correlates strongly with O3 volume. UV is very likely the fine tuner of evaporation from oceans. O3 depletion leads to higher evaporation by UV and so higher cloud formation.
Some things that need to be considered.
Could enhanced WV condensation in the stratosphere leading to crystal formation leading to enhanced migration downwards be an additional factor in cloud formation by GCRs?
Can droplet formation happen without a condensation surface?
Is the close correlation seen in proxies between GCRs and cloud indicative of O3 v WV levels in the stratosphere?
*An ion is a charged atom or molecule that is attracted to other atoms. It is charged because the number of electrons do not equal the number of protons in the atom or molecule. An atom can acquire a positive charge or a negative charge depending on whether the number of electrons in an atom is greater or less then the number of protons in the atom. When an atom is attracted to another atom because it has an unequal number of electrons and protons, the atom is called an ION. If the atom has more electrons than protons, it is a negative ion, or ANION. If it has more protons than electrons,it is a positive ion.
**Solar wind consists (approx.) of atoms (ions) of Hydrogen (95%) Helium (4%), also Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Neon, Magnesium, Silicon and Iron (~1%)
US and Israel use sabotage and assassinations to thwart Iran’s nuclear program
Last week’s talks between Teheran and the P5 + 1 (representatives of the UN Security Council’s five permanent members, plus Germany and the European Union) began with the Iranian delegation condemning the recent assassination of a prominent Iranian nuclear scientist—part of a widening covert campaign targeting the country’s nuclear program.
“A week ago on this day terrorists targeted two Iranian scientists and one of them was martyred,” reportedly said Saeed Jalili, the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council and its chief negotiator at the Geneva talks.
Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and other top Iranian officials had previously charged the US, Israel and other Western powers with orchestrating the assassination of Dr. Majid Shahriari. “These wicked people,” said Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of Iran’s nuclear program, “wanted to show their hideous side, which demonstrates their carrot-and-stick policy in the run-up to the nuclear talks.”
Carbon burial scheme goes under
The UK’s first commercial scale CCS facility – a plant at a colliery in Yorkshire that would capture carbon and then pump it for burial in old gas-wells under the North Sea – has itself gone under after failing to raise the £635 million needed to fund its construction.
[...] seemed to hit pay dirt last year with a life-saving £164 million in EU funding.
[...] The EU rescue was designed to carry the concern until it qualified for subsidies from the UK or elsewhere. The enterprise is now under administration, a form of bankruptcy, in the hopes that a buyer can be found.
Whilst checking out the new AGU board member, Chris Mooney, according to WUWT, a journalist and author of Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future (co-authored by Sheril Kirshenbaum) and “Do Scientists Understand the Public?” a report of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He co-writes a blog with Kirshenbaum called “The Intersection” at Discover magazine which covers science’s interactions with politics and other realms. [Whatever next, Monbigot on the RS board?] I came across this:
On the CBC Halifax program Maritime Noon today there was an interview with Scott Vaughan, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. It scared me. It indicates that Canadian government policy is being formulated on the basis of full belief in the IPCC. As anyone who
reads independently knows, the IPCC 's reports are not reliable for anything that involves reality and money.
I googled "Scott Vaughan" and got the following hit (among many others):
From that website I note that his expertise comes from:
"Mr. Vaughan has post-graduate degrees from the London School of Economics and Political Science, the University of Edinburgh, and Dalhousie University as well as an undergraduate degree from Mount Allison University. He is published in the following fields: environment and trade, payment for ecosystem services, and international freshwater management."
"Demarketing Alberta," Full story here: Financial Post
From the The Financial Post ..."In the guise of environmentalism, U.S. foundations [and charities] are spending millions to stop oil tankers along the B.C. coast...." To continue reading, please click here.
"This op-ed was based on my testimony to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources which I gave in Ottawa on 7 December 2010." For CityCaucus's reporting on that [plus comments], please click here.