I agree.fosborn_ wrote: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.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.
Right, but (as we've discussed many, many, many times before) higher temperature also allows for higher moisture content. And higher moisture content increases weight (because nanodroplets are heavier than air molecules). (Moreover, it is well known that the warm, moist air in tornado alley that flows up from the Gulf of Mexico HAS A HIGH WATER CONTENT!!!)Temperature will affect density.
No, you should think about the fact that if what you were saying were true/valid there would be a lot more storm and tornado activity at any and all places that have warm air. Think about it. The air is a lot warmer in the tropics and in deserts (*), and at all of these places there is no shortage of drier, colder air above. (* And in deserts there is less humidity to muck it up.)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.
But you know what is the silliest thing about this brain-dead convection religion? Even if we could look past all the things that should happen but don't happen (or not in the frequency that is predicted by the model) you still have a model THAT COMPLETE FAILS TO EXPLAIN THE STRUCTURE THAT IS PLAINLY EVIDENT IN A TORNADO! And then there's the jet streams--completely unexplained. And, as if that is not enough, there are all the other things I mentioned in my books:
https://www.amazon.com/WHAT-GOES-meteor ... +Tornadoes
https://www.amazon.com/Vortex-Phase-Dis ... +Tornadoes
Any way you cut it the convection model of storm theory is just a bad suit of a theory:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =8&t=16319
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...
How can you not know this? Seriously. I'm talking about Avogadro's law, as explained here:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =8&t=16306
But, Ok, nanodroplets will not affect the density of the air mass.
Do the frikin math. How many times have we been over this? Go ahead. Get a piece of paper and pencil and work it out--so that If don't have to keep explaining it to you over and over.
Meteorology's convection model of storm theory is a vague, poorly considered theory that was arrived at in desperation. And when people are desperate they avoid delineating all the observations that should be true if. In other words, they turn a blind eye to inconsistencies. They pretend not to notice. Then this behavior becomes part of the paradigm as everybody agrees to agree, generation after generation.
They really were desperate. This model was arrived at a long time ago, before the civil war. At that time they had no understanding of H2O and its underlying dynamics--like the surface tension of H2O.
James Mcginn / Solving Tornadoes