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 CharlesChandler » Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:14 pm

Jim,

Let us know what you think of this research. IMO, the ionization method that they're using might break down clusters of water molecules, meaning that it might not actually answer the question of whether any of it was actually molecular, or all of it was aerosols before the ionization. Still, you should have a look, because your thesis requires that you be familiar with such literature.

Charles

---

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... n_the_UTLS

Mass spectrometry for water vapor measurements in the UT/LS

Water vapor in the lower stratosphere plays a crucial role for the atmospheric radiation budget (Solomon et al., 2011). However, large uncertainties remain in measuring atmospheric water vapor mixing ratios below 10 ppmv typical for the lower stratosphere. To this end, we have developed the Atmospheric Ionization Mass Spectrometer (AIMS) for the accurate and fast detection of water vapor in the UT/LS from aircraft. In the AIMS instrument atmospheric air is directly ionized in a discharge ion source and the resulting water vapor clusters H3O+(H2O)n (n = 0..3) are detected with a linear quadrupole mass spectrometer as a direct measure of the atmospheric water vapor mixing ratio. AIMS is calibrated in-flight with a H2O calibration source using the catalytic reaction of H2 and O2 on a heated platinum surface to form gaseous H2O. This calibration set up combined with the water vapor mass spectrometry offers a powerful technical development in atmospheric hygrometry, enriching existing H2O measurement techniques by a new independent method. Here, we present AIMS water vapor measurements performed during the CONCERT2011 campaign (Contrail and Cirrus Experiment) with the DLR research aircraft Falcon. In September 2011 a deep stratospheric intrusion was probed over northern Europe with a dynamical tropopause lowered down to 6 km. We found sharp humidity gradients between tropospheric and stratospheric air at the edge of the tropopause fold, which we crossed 4 times at altitudes between 6 and 11 km. In the center of the tropopause fold, we measured water vapor mixing ratios down to 4 ppmv. The observed water vapor distribution is compared to water vapor analysis fields of the ECMWF’s Integrated Forecast System (IFS) to evaluate the representation water vapor in this specific meteorological situation.
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: 1786
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

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

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:21 pm

Jim,

Here's an explanation of how mass spectrometers work, which uses the detection of water vapor as an example:

https://www.jeolusa.com/DesktopModules/ ... &TabId=337
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: 1786
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

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

Unread postby fosborn_ » Tue Nov 21, 2017 11:07 pm

Aardwolf wrote; Which is also a subjective statement. Is also means no theory has ever been disproven..
.

But ponder this as a positive point..It s all about modeling something, enough to provide a level of predictability, if a modifications improve predictability, its an improvement. If something decreases predictability its not as useful. Probably its a tool to prevent entrenchment of dogma..
Aardwolf wrote..True, although these papers provide no basis to discuss the theory.

Ok, It seems subjective to me.. but keep reading.
Aardwolf wrote:Yet you fail to discuss any of the limitations of the papers you provided. What specifically, makes them better? It's not because of evidence.


The limits are as you say, they don't directly measure small clusters, or smaller nanodroplets.
except, again, that all the samples fell with in the limits, not showing up at low end, gives me evidence of an absence of scaling of size that I assume would be present. I can't think of why there would not be scaling size from micro to smallest nano if they were present. Can you? but instead there was limited range of the samples size with in the window of measurement. Its weak but worthy of note.

Aardwolf wrote; although I’m glad you agree such droplets possibly exist. The question is why are you subjectively assuming they don’t.

I think your confused about my position about nano droplets. I reject them in the form Mcginn envisions them and insist it is nothing but speculation. Which I think others have the same context when its stated.
With the proven gas laws, I have confidence nono droplets exist with a dynamic transient behavior. As far as clusters , I would anticipate them being extremely transient( in comparison to nano).
. Is it dogma if no valid alternative is offered, I'm open to improvements to create a more predictive model, do you know of any?
Last edited by fosborn_ on Tue Nov 21, 2017 11:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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: 522
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Tue Nov 21, 2017 11:26 pm

CharlesChandler wrote:Mass spectrometry for water vapor measurements in the UT/LS
We found sharp humidity gradients between tropospheric and stratospheric air at the edge of the tropopause fold,


Imagine an extensive layer of this "sharp humidity gradient" perfectly flat, extending for thousands of miles in all directions. It is the raw material for moist/dry wind shear--holding the potential for the dry layer to move across the moist layer (wind shear), potentially causing the microdroplets to begin to spin, potentially maximizing the surface area of the now polymerized spinning H2O nanodroplets, potentially maximizing the surface tension, potentially producing a vortice conduit and/or tributaries thereof, potentially channeling concentrated flow over thousands of miles--but this "sharp humidity gradient" is extremely fragile. Aircraft flying through it can essentially destroy any potential it has to be the raw material of atmospheric vortices.

In the 1950s they considered ways to potentially stop or steer a hurricane in order to mitigate the tremendous damage that they can do. At that time and continuing up to present day they have entertained a 'hot tower' theory of hurricanes, which itself was based on the convection model of storm theory. Accordingly, the energy of hurricanes was believed to be the result of the convection that itself was the result of the warming water in the gulf of Mexico. In desperation, they sent aircraft out with cloud seeding technology attempting to see if they could mitigate the large bodies of moist air that--according to the convection theory of storms--was the source of energetic uplift that powered the hurricane. They eventually gave up, thinking that these bodies of moist air were just too big for their efforts to have any kind of significant effect. It never occurred to them that their theory was just wrong.

The energy of storms does not come from below, it comes from above. It comes from the jet streams. Large bodies of moist air are not the source of the energy of hurricanes, rather they are the targets of vortice growth. And the vortice growth that makes the connection to the jet stream depends upon the existence of "sharp humidity gradients between tropospheric and stratospheric air at the edge of the tropopause fold." And, as mentioned above, these are very fragile. Aircraft flying through it can essentially destroy any potential it has to be the raw material of atmospheric vortices.

I believe hurricanes can be steered and even stopped. And the way to do so involves attacking them where they are most vulnerable, at the boundary layer in the tropopause that is the raw material for the vortices that deliver the energy of storms.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby Aardwolf » Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:23 am

fosborn_ wrote:
Aardwolf wrote; Which is also a subjective statement. Is also means no theory has ever been disproven..
.

But ponder this as a positive point..It s all about modeling something, enough to provide a level of predictability, if a modifications improve predictability, its an improvement. If something decreases predictability its not as useful. Probably its a tool to prevent entrenchment of dogma..
On the contrary. Saying that no theory can be disproven is far more useful for dogma. Better to accept a theory is disproven and move on.

fosborn_ wrote:
Aardwolf wrote..True, although these papers provide no basis to discuss the theory.

Ok, It seems subjective to me.. but keep reading.

Aardwolf wrote:Yet you fail to discuss any of the limitations of the papers you provided. What specifically, makes them better? It's not because of evidence.


The limits are as you say, they don't directly measure small clusters, or smaller nanodroplets.
except, again, that all the samples fell with in the limits, not showing up at low end, gives me evidence of an absence of scaling of size that I assume would be present. I can't think of why there would not be scaling size from micro to smallest nano if they were present. Can you? but instead there was limited range of the samples size with in the window of measurement. Its weak but worthy of note.
Too weak.

Firstly, both of the papers that estimated droplet size were measuring cloud/fog. That tells us nothing about whether water is gaseous or nano scale in normal humid air. In cloud fog it's expected that the droplets will be larger, they have clearly been coalesced and they are interfering with the visible light spectrum.

Secondly, it's definitely not clear from these papers that detection falls off at the lower range. This could just be a factor of the detection method. They actually contradict each other. One paper states the averages at 6.7um and falling to less than half at the 2-3um range, but the other has a average of 8% detected at the 6.7um range and nearly double the detection of 14.9% at the 3.5um range. It then immediately falls to zero below that. The lower detections at the smaller scale are a factor of its detection ability, not the actual distribution.

Thirdly, it's absurd to say the nano droplets don't exist at the low end anyway. As I've mentioned a few times now, according to you before the cloud/fog forms it must be gaseous. How does it get from the gaseous form to large micro scale droplets? Why is there no stage in between?

However, show me a paper measuring water content in normal air and we can discuss properly.

fosborn_ wrote:
Aardwolf wrote; although I’m glad you agree such droplets possibly exist. The question is why are you subjectively assuming they don’t.

I think your confused about my position about nano droplets. I reject them in the form Mcginn envisions them and insist it is nothing but speculation. Which I think others have the same context when its stated.
With the proven gas laws, I have confidence nono droplets exist with a dynamic transient behavior. As far as clusters , I would anticipate them being extremely transient( in comparison to nano).
. Is it dogma if no valid alternative is offered, I'm open to improvements to create a more predictive model, do you know of any?
And Mcginn could just as easily reject the existence of gaseous water and insist it's nothing but speculation. That doesn't get us anywhere. The fact remains neither of you have any basis to reject each other view. And it is dogma because you have rejected Mcginns view without any contravening evidence. What have you produced that determines his view is invalid?

And here's one paper that explores this idea...
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000JaJAP..39.2876T
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1255
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

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

Unread postby fosborn_ » Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:08 pm

by Aardwolf »..How does it get from the gaseous form to large micro scale droplets? Why is there no stage in between?


This is like abott and constello of whos on 1st.. :lol:
https://youtu.be/airT-m9LcoY

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=210#p122350
With the proven gas laws, I have confidence nono droplets exist with a dynamic transient behavior. As far as clusters , I would anticipate them being extremely transient( in comparison to nano).


viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=180#p122264
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=180#p122264
With a molecule, the only way to coalesce is to bump into another, if pure water and at lest 300%
saturation, or attach to an aerosol, But the temperature of the molecule needs to be low enough to condense and not re evaporate. if there is a droplet and its cold enough to freeze, it lowers its rate of evaporation and the non frozen droplets are evaporating more, than condensing on the frozen one, will grow from them..


I'm guessing there is something in these descriptions you interpret as me not thinking nano droplets exist?
If we can clarify this, I would like to make some progress in other areas. ;)
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: 522
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:43 pm

fosborn_ wrote:
by Aardwolf »..How does it get from the gaseous form to large micro scale droplets? Why is there no stage in between?

This is like abott and constello of whos on 1st.. :lol:
https://youtu.be/airT-m9LcoY


As long as you are going to be searching, maybe keep an eye out for the holy grail. I know it's not really relevant to what is being discussed here. However, unlike 'cold steam' I think there is a chance that it actually exists:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searc ... Csort:date
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby Maol » Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:34 pm

Aardwolf wrote:However, show me a paper measuring water content in normal air and we can discuss properly.


Anyone who operates an engine dynamometer or tunes racing engines in serious competition rigorously measures the water content to calculate and compensate for any change in local conditions.

http://www.jegs.com/c/Bracket-Racing_We ... 1/10002/-1
Maol
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:40 pm

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

Unread postby Aardwolf » Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:57 pm

fosborn_ wrote:
by Aardwolf »..How does it get from the gaseous form to large micro scale droplets? Why is there no stage in between?


This is like abott and constello of whos on 1st.. :lol:
https://youtu.be/airT-m9LcoY

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=210#p122350
With the proven gas laws, I have confidence nono droplets exist with a dynamic transient behavior. As far as clusters , I would anticipate them being extremely transient( in comparison to nano).


viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=180#p122264
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=180#p122264
With a molecule, the only way to coalesce is to bump into another, if pure water and at lest 300%
saturation, or attach to an aerosol, But the temperature of the molecule needs to be low enough to condense and not re evaporate. if there is a droplet and its cold enough to freeze, it lowers its rate of evaporation and the non frozen droplets are evaporating more, than condensing on the frozen one, will grow from them..


I'm guessing there is something in these descriptions you interpret as me not thinking nano droplets exist?
If we can clarify this, I would like to make some progress in other areas. ;)
No. I don't need to interpret anything. It was when you specifically stated;
fosborn_ wrote:not showing up at low end
Now, where is the paper for normal air sampling nano scale water, rather than papers researching clouds/fog where quite obviously water will be concentrated at the micro scale.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1255
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

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

Unread postby Aardwolf » Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:59 pm

Maol wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:However, show me a paper measuring water content in normal air and we can discuss properly.


Anyone who operates an engine dynamometer or tunes racing engines in serious competition rigorously measures the water content to calculate and compensate for any change in local conditions.

http://www.jegs.com/c/Bracket-Racing_We ... 1/10002/-1
Are they able to tell the difference between water molecules and nano scale droplets?
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1255
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:08 am

CharlesChandler wrote:
MosaicDave wrote:For example, your notion that somehow an aerosol of droplets will as a whole have a surface with surface tension. Which it wouldn't; each individual drop will have surface tension, tending to keep it spherical, but the bulk aerosol won't; that's not how surface tension even works.

Indeed, he's hijacking the term "surface tension" to apply to his collections of droplets, which wouldn't be "surface tension" at all, since that only applies within liquids, and for very specific reasons (e.g., Van der Waals forces, which just aren't there between separated water droplets). Whatever he's talking about, which gives his droplets a combined structure, would be something different, if it existed at all.

We all know what it's like, to see that the mainstream model of something just doesn't work, and then to start coming up with ideas in search of what they missed. This invariably involves reinterpreting existing science, which is hard for people who think that the mainstream model works just fine, but very easy for people who know that it doesn't. Still, a theorist has to pick his battles carefully -- somebody who fights everything that stands between him and his vision just might pick a fight with bedrock, and the bedrock always wins. ;) As concerns the atomic theory & laboratory confirmation related to surface tension, he's probably going to lose that one. ;)


All liquids have a surface (so do all solids and all plasmas). And so, all liquids can be said to have surface tension. But the surface tension of water is different. It is categorically distinct from that of other liquids. With most other liquids the magnitude of the tensional forces along the surface are about the same as those below the surface. In contrast, with H2O there are almost zero tensional forces below the surface but along the surface of liquid H2O the magnitude of the tensional forces is very high, in fact the surface of H2O is literally a solid. (Of course we don’t notice the high surface tension of H2O in most instances because the hard layer is so incredibly thin.) If you turn to the literature on the physics of H2O expecting to get an explanation of this phenomena, well, you would be out of luck.

You can’t understand tornadoes (and/or jet streams) unless and until you understand how the composition of the sheath of a tornado is molecularly distinct from that of the air that surrounds it and that moves up through it. And you can’t understand how the molecular composition of a sheath is distinct until you understand how the surface tension of H2O can be maximized (under moist/dry wind shear conditions). And you can’t understand how the surface tension of H2O can be maximized (under moist/dry wind shear conditions) until you understand how surface tension of H2O is categorically distinct from the surface tension of any other liquid. And you won’t have the motivation to make the effort to deal with the difficulties that are necessary to get a comprehensive understanding of how and why the surface tension of H2O is categorically distinct from the surface tension of any other liquid if you assume that conventional notions about surface tension are valid, comprehensive, and generally well considered. Because they aren’t.

So, the biggest problem for most people when it comes to understanding the nature of storms and the nature of atmospheric flow is that they think they understand certain things that they don’t understand and/or they are trusting of the conventional wisdom of certain things and that conventional wisdom is wrong.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby fosborn_ » Thu Nov 23, 2017 7:11 am

Mcginn wrote..H2O is categorically distinct from the surface tension of any other liquid if you assume that conventional notions about surface tension are valid, comprehensive, and generally well considered.


I get the impression your only referring only to the surface tension of a flat water surface. What about droplets ?

From eq. (1), the smaller the size (radius), the higher the internal pressure
Droplet radius__1 mm___0.1 mm___1 μm____10 nm
ΔP (atm)______ 0.0014__0.0144____1.436___143.6

the smaller droplets are not stable due to the higher pressure, thus tend to fuse into larger
ones, as we can see as the morning dews, which are formed from the smaller ones.

http://www.eng.utah.edu/~lzang/images/lecture-8.pdf


It is concluded that surface tension can be expected to decrease with decrease in droplet size over a wide range of circumstances. In addition, approximate figures are obtained for the rate at which such decreases may be expected.Dec 26, 2012

https://authors.library.caltech.edu/6214/

With weakened surface tension, evaporation would be more likely, it would be the same as lowering the boiling point of the liquid.


also see;
http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met13 ... _curv.html
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: 522
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Thu Nov 23, 2017 4:55 pm

antosarai wrote:
jimmcginn wrote: (If you don't verify you don't know. You are just guessing.)

Your conjecture regarding Theory of Storms posits many things. Did you ever verify some one of them, any one of them? Or are you just guessing?


I don't posit anything that has been contradicted by evidence.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby seasmith » Thu Nov 23, 2017 8:12 pm

Aardwolf wrote:
Maol wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:However, show me a paper measuring water content in normal air and we can discuss properly.


Anyone who operates an engine dynamometer or tunes racing engines in serious competition rigorously measures the water content to calculate and compensate for any change in local conditions.

http://www.jegs.com/c/Bracket-Racing_We ... 1/10002/-1
Are they able to tell the difference between water molecules and nano scale droplets?



Can’t we simply take the preponderance of prevalent forms and have the “quantum’ shift between mono, di and tri molecular combinations for a free “gas”, condensing to or escaping from a liquid surface, and transitioning, with catalysts of heat and temp; to one of the primary hexamer forms of H2O, ie: nano-molecular droplets of water ?
The forms fit when using hydrogen bonds and valences to boot.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pe ... P2-and.png
seasmith
 
Posts: 2730
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

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

Unread postby fosborn_ » Thu Nov 23, 2017 8:24 pm

Mcginn wrote... It would also seem that the greater is the temperature of air and the higher is its pressure (lower altitude) the greater is its capacity to suspend nanodroplets but the smaller and more invisible will be these suspended nanodroplets. Accordingly, the lower is its temperature and the lower is its pressure (higher altitude) the lesser is its capacity to suspend nanodroplets and the larger are the suspended nanodroplets, making them more likely to be visible. And all of this varies depending on the involvement of electrostatic forces, that are largely unknown.


In a lecture I listened to, pressure isn't much of a factor, sense it equalizes right away. Only temperature and density will have a delay. Temperature will affect density. Higher temperature, less density, so if less dense than the above air mass, and upward movement of a parcel, until temperature and or density is equal to the rest of the surrounding air.
So you should maybe rethink your explanation.

Assuming you know the average size of any suspended H2O nanodroplets (which is almost always unknown and/or immeasurable) then, theoretically, we still could use gas laws to determine the weight/buoyancy but, as stated above, that would not necessarily dictate any conclusion as to whether a body should be expected to be rising or falling.

I still don't understand what your talking about, this using nonodroplet s with the gas law...

But, Ok, nanodroplets will not affect the density of the air mass.

Image result for gas lawswww.khanacademy.org
Combined and ideal gas laws. The Combined gas law or General Gas Equation is obtained by combining Boyle's Law, Charles' Law, and Gay-Lussac's Law. ... If temperature and pressure are kept constant, [b]then the volume of the gas is directly proportional to the number of molecules of gas.
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: 522
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests