The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sun Sep 04, 2016 11:33 am

fosborn_ wrote:Gas Exchange in Plants
http://www.biology-pages.info/G/GasExchange.html
This a good example of trospheric h2o gas production


Actually, it indicates H2O vapor, not gaseous H2O.

Sorry. (But keep trying.)

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 345
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby fosborn_ » Sun Sep 04, 2016 1:06 pm

http://passel.unl.edu/pages/informationmodule.php?idinformationmodule=1092853841&topicorder=3

Transpiration - What and Why?
In actively growing plants, water is continuously evaporating from the surface of leaf cells exposed to air. This water is replaced by additional absorption of water from the soil. Liquid water extends through the plant from the soil water to the leaf surface where it is converted from a liquid into a gas through the process of evaporation. Thecohesive properties of water (hydrogen bonding between adjacent water molecules) allow the column of water to be ‘pulled’ up through the plant as water molecules are evaporating at the surfaces of leaf cells. This process has been termed the Cohesion Theory of Sap Ascent in plants.


Hope this clears up any confusion.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov
fosborn_
 
Posts: 479
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sun Sep 04, 2016 2:30 pm

fosborn_ wrote:. . . it is converted from a liquid into a gas . . .


Hmm. Maybe they just forgot to publish the procedures they used to make this determination. Pity that.

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 345
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Sun Sep 04, 2016 4:04 pm

jimmcginn wrote:Actually, it indicates H2O vapor, not gaseous H2O.

What's the difference between H2O vapor and gaseous H2O?
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sun Sep 04, 2016 4:32 pm

CharlesChandler wrote:
jimmcginn wrote:Actually, it indicates H2O vapor, not gaseous H2O.

What's the difference between H2O vapor and gaseous H2O?


One is liquid, the other is gaseous. (Also they will have different temperatures and/or pressures, see Steam Tables for details.)
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 345
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Sun Sep 04, 2016 5:11 pm

jimmcginn wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote:What's the difference between H2O vapor and gaseous H2O?

One is liquid, the other is gaseous. (Also they will have different temperatures and/or pressures, see Steam Tables for details.)

So you disagree with this definition:
Wikipedia wrote:In physics a vapor (American English spelling) or vapour (British) is a substance in the gas phase at a temperature lower than its critical temperature, which means that the vapor can be condensed to a liquid by increasing the pressure on it without reducing the temperature. A vapor is different from an aerosol. An aerosol is a suspension of tiny particles of liquid, solid, or both within a gas.

I don't consider Wikipedia to be the ultimate arbiter on theoretical issues, but the dictionary definitions of words are achieved by consensus, and this is something that Wikipedia is good at.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sun Sep 04, 2016 6:47 pm

CharlesChandler wrote:So you disagree with this definition:
Wikipedia wrote:In physics a vapor (American English spelling) or vapour (British) is a substance in the gas phase at a temperature lower than its critical temperature, which means that the vapor can be condensed to a liquid by increasing the pressure on it without reducing the temperature. A vapor is different from an aerosol. An aerosol is a suspension of tiny particles of liquid, solid, or both within a gas.


Of course I disagree. Who makes up this nonsense?

CharlesChandler wrote:I don't consider Wikipedia to be the ultimate arbiter on theoretical issues, but the dictionary definitions of words are achieved by consensus, and this is something that Wikipedia is good at.


Consensus is not a scientific method.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 345
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Sun Sep 04, 2016 6:56 pm

jimmcginn wrote:Consensus is not a scientific method.

Of course not, but it is very definitely the nature of language. In order to communicate, we have to agree on the meanings of the words. So why use the word "vapor" to refer to what the rest of the literature calls an "aerosol"? This isn't a theoretical issue -- it's just a choice of phonemes.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sun Sep 04, 2016 7:26 pm

CharlesChandler wrote:
jimmcginn wrote:Consensus is not a scientific method.

Of course not, but it is very definitely the nature of language. In order to communicate, we have to agree on the meanings of the words. So why use the word "vapor" to refer to what the rest of the literature calls an "aerosol"? This isn't a theoretical issue -- it's just a choice of phonemes.


So, you concede that consensus is not a valid scientific method yet you are again making plea based on consensus?
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 345
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby MosaicDave » Sun Sep 04, 2016 8:21 pm

Hi jimmcginn--

I am just wondering now: Do all liquids evaporating below their boiling points form tiny drops? Or is it only water that does this.

--dc
MosaicDave
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 7:56 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sun Sep 04, 2016 8:58 pm

MosaicDave wrote:Hi jimmcginn--

I am just wondering now: Do all liquids evaporating below their boiling points form tiny drops? Or is it only water that does this.

--dc


I don't know about all liquids, but the microdroplets of H2O can be incredibly small. Water is peculiar. The distinction has to do with the nature of the hydrogen bonds which are very different in comparison to the bonds associated with most liquids. See the following paper for more details:

BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity
https://zenodo.org/record/37224

You may not find this paper an easy read, but if you can understand what is being said you will have the basis of a very profound understanding of H2O.

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 345
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby MosaicDave » Sun Sep 04, 2016 9:49 pm

jimmcginn wrote:I don't know about all liquids, but the microdroplets of H2O can be incredibly small.

Are there any other liquids that you do know about? Or are you only sure about water.

How big do you say the microdroplets are?
MosaicDave
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 7:56 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sun Sep 04, 2016 10:38 pm

I don't know about all liquids, but the microdroplets of H2O can be incredibly small.

Are there any other liquids that you do know about?

I suppose, why?

Or are you only sure about water.

I'm mostly sure about human intellectual sheepishness.

How big do you say the microdroplets are?

Not my area of expertise. Try doing a google search.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 345
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby willendure » Mon Sep 05, 2016 2:10 am

My reading of this thread is that nobody quite knows the nature of water in air (not saying I do either).

Are microdroplets not a gas? Is water vapour a gas? How much of the water suspended in air at a given humidity/temperature/pressure is in gaseous form and how much exists in droplet form?

Does the presence of water in air make ir more or less dense than equivalent air at the same temperature and pressure?

If we could get definitive answers to these questions, perhaps the conversation could continue with less confusion. Are the answers to these questions to be found in steam tables?

Image
willendure
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby jimmcginn » Mon Sep 05, 2016 7:22 am

My reading of this thread is that nobody quite knows the nature of water in air (not saying I do either).

I do know. Study this carefully and you can know too:
BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity
https://zenodo.org/record/37224

Are microdroplets not a gas? Is water vapour a gas? How much of the water suspended in air at a given humidity/temperature/pressure is in gaseous form and how much exists in droplet form?

Below the boiling point temperature/pressure it is ALL liquid. It's that simple. Steam tables are all you need to determine whether the moisture in moist air is a gas or a liquid. (At ambient temps it is always liquid.)

Does the presence of water in air make ir more or less dense than equivalent air at the same temperature and pressure?

More dense. See Avogadro's law.

If we could get definitive answers to these questions, perhaps the conversation could continue with less confusion.

We've always had definitive answers to these questions. Unfortunately people want to believe their intuition. Also people want to believe water is simple, and it's not. The paper linked above explains the incredibly counterintuitive mechanism associated with hydrogen bonding in water. It is the basis for understanding all of H2O's quirkiness. Unfortunately people are lazy and don't read it.

Are the answers to these questions to be found in steam tables?

Yes.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 345
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests