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 » Mon Nov 27, 2017 2:32 pm

CharlesChandler wrote: it's useful when discussing the issues to clearly identify where you diverge from the consensus,

It enough of a burden on me to clearly explain my own my own thinking. I don't have the time or the energy to help you figure out yours.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 466
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:43 pm

jimmcginn wrote:So now we know why liquid H2O is so fluid despite its polarity. It really isn’t a polar molecule when it is in the liquid state because the prevalence of H bonds has neutralized its polarity.

From this we also get a sense of significant structural capabilities that emerge when the surface area of H2O is maximized, as occurs on wind shear boundaries in the atmosphere:

And how do you get bonds between your nana-droplets in the atmosphere, such that the entire air mass has a surface tension? This is where you say that it is a plasma, and all plasmas have surfaces. And because it's water plasma, and because liquid water has surface tension, and because all plasmas have surfaces, then water plasmas must have surface tension as well. But as you just described in detail, the surface tension of the water is a function of inter-molecular bonds. These don't exist in a gas, and while they exist within an aerosol, they don't exist between aerosols. So none of what you said about liquid water applies to air masses.
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: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

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

Unread postby Aardwolf » Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:58 pm

CharlesChandler wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:Yes, we all forget how infallible accepted science is.

Nobody is saying that accepted science is infallible, certainly not just because it's accepted. If you know anything at all about my work, you know that I am perfectly willing to go against accepted theories, in meteorology, geophysics, astrophysics, and in other disciplines as well. As a result, I'm considered a crackpot on the mainstream forums in all of those disciplines. But some aspects of accepted science are pretty solid, and a good theorist has to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. More to the point, it's useful when discussing the issues to clearly identify where you diverge from the consensus, and for what reasons. Challenge the consensus if you want, but if you don't know what you're challenging, and have a demonstrable reason for diverging, the reason is then just that you feel like arguing with somebody, validated only by the fact that the consensus can be wrong. But that doesn't make you right.
My comment wasn't really directed at you Charles, I appreciate that you have had your own personal battles in the past. My umbrage is with fosborn_'s genuflection toward accepted science as if it's infallible. By all means pick out flaws in the OP's arguments but to just try to arm wave his position away based on argumentum ad verecundiam, and bombarding irrelevant papers as if they refute the points doesn't warrant intellectual debate.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1299
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

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

Unread postby Aardwolf » Mon Nov 27, 2017 6:22 pm

fosborn_ wrote:
.Aardwolf wrote.. Fellows would care to interpret <snip> and explain how fog stays suspended in the absence of any updraft?It should be easy.. <snip>.

You shouldn't be skipping Charles explanation of it.
Do you mean this explanation?
CharlesChandler wrote:I haven't studied fog, so I can't speak to that.

fosborn_ wrote:gaseous water vapor gives up heat in condensing and creates its own lift.
Fog is not gas.

fosborn_ wrote:Do you know of a better idea that explains it?
Here’s one idea;
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000JaJAP..39.2876T

fosborn_ wrote:Can you refute Mosaic Dave's experiment, Mcginn couldn't, except implying he is a liar. Can you refute it ?
Nothing to refute. It’s tells us nothing about the composition of the water nor what’s driving its motion. We know water raises upwards, the question is what's driving that motion against the force of gravity when in liquid form.

fosborn_ wrote:If you insist its mercury, then explain it.
Are you even reading the posts? I suggested a thought experiment using mercury. No-ones taken it up. Do you want to try?

fosborn_ wrote:It means water obeys the gas laws
Fog is still not gas.

fosborn_ wrote:How do you take it? If evaporation works, then everything in Charles explanation of fog works too. He did lots of maths, which do you dispute?
What explanation of fog? You really need to start reading these posts. Answering some of the questions would be nice too but I guess that's not really why you're here.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1299
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Mon Nov 27, 2017 9:41 pm

CharlesChandler wrote:
jimmcginn wrote:So now we know why liquid H2O is so fluid despite its polarity. It really isn’t a polar molecule when it is in the liquid state because the prevalence of H bonds has neutralized its polarity.

From this we also get a sense of significant structural capabilities that emerge when the surface area of H2O is maximized, as occurs on wind shear boundaries in the atmosphere:

And how do you get bonds between your nana-droplets in the atmosphere, such that the entire air mass has a surface tension? This is where you say that it is a plasma, and all plasmas have surfaces. And because it's water plasma, and because liquid water has surface tension, and because all plasmas have surfaces, then water plasmas must have surface tension as well. But as you just described in detail, the surface tension of the water is a function of inter-molecular bonds.

True, but that is not to say that it does not simultaneously produce more general electromagnetic forces that are external to the nanodroplets.
These don't exist in a gas, and while they exist within an aerosol, they don't exist between aerosols. So none of what you said about liquid water applies to air masses.

You don't know this. You are just guessing. I suppose you could claim that I am just guessing too, but we are talking about electromagnetic forces. And it is hardly revolutionary to suggest that EMF produces a field of force, even if only in an extremely local sense in the immediate vicinity of the nanodroplets.

Check this out to get a sense of the magnitude of EMF that is hidden in H2O:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16885#p122212

Read this to get a better sense of how this hidden EMF is activated by wind shear:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16582#p117061

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 466
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Tue Nov 28, 2017 9:17 am

jimmcginn wrote:True, but that is not to say that it does not simultaneously produce more general electromagnetic forces that are external to the nanodroplets.
These don't exist in a gas, and while they exist within an aerosol, they don't exist between aerosols. So none of what you said about liquid water applies to air masses.

You don't know this. You are just guessing. I suppose you could claim that I am just guessing too, but we are talking about electromagnetic forces. And it is hardly revolutionary to suggest that EMF produces a field of force, even if only in an extremely local sense in the immediate vicinity of the nanodroplets.

If you are talking about dipoles, the field lines close locally. The only effect that they'll have on neighboring particles is that they can all get polarized, such that the field lines come into alignment. This can help with polymerization. I suppose that you could say that an array of such particles, with interconnecting lines of force, would constitute a sort of aggregate, with a group behavior. (Perhaps that's exactly what you're saying?) But you'd be talking about an extremely subtle force. And it isn't in a form that could be concentrated, such as in a tornado.
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: 1790
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 » Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:15 am

CharlesChandler wrote:
jimmcginn wrote:True, but that is not to say that it does not simultaneously produce more general electromagnetic forces that are external to the nanodroplets.
These don't exist in a gas, and while they exist within an aerosol, they don't exist between aerosols. So none of what you said about liquid water applies to air masses.

You don't know this. You are just guessing. I suppose you could claim that I am just guessing too, but we are talking about electromagnetic forces. And it is hardly revolutionary to suggest that EMF produces a field of force, even if only in an extremely local sense in the immediate vicinity of the nanodroplets.

If you are talking about dipoles, the field lines close locally.

So, you've been studying this for not even 24 hours, and suddenly you expect people to accept you as an expert on this subject? I've been studying it for 5 years now, and I don't have anywhere near the confidence that you represent.
The only effect that they'll have on neighboring particles is that they can all get polarized, such that the field lines come into alignment.

This assertion is based on what, exactly? Your imagination?
This can help with polymerization. I suppose that you could say that an array of such particles, with interconnecting lines of force, would constitute a sort of aggregate, with a group behavior. (Perhaps that's exactly what you're saying?)

Well, you seem to be suggesting two things, both of which I am extremely skeptical. Firstly you are suggesting that this is a subject that is generally well understood. Secondly you are suggesting that you yourself understand it. It seems to me that you have deluded yourself into pretending you understand what you don't and, frankly, couldn't possibly understand.
But you'd be talking about an extremely subtle force. And it isn't in a form that could be concentrated, such as in a tornado.

Well, the fact that you have a website on tornadoes does not mean anybody is just going to accept you as an expert on these subtleties.

In a previous post on this thread I linked you to another post that dealt with nonNewtonian fluids. The purpose of that was to give you some kind of sense of the magnitude that we might expect from H2O surface tension when it is expressed in three dimensions. I'm not saying this adds up to anything definitive. I am, however, suggesting that there is a deeper mystery that may conceal the basis of a plasma that might function as the basis of a tornado.

If you have any substantive arguments that would be interesting. Please make an effort to not pretend like you understand what you obviously don't.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 466
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby seasmith » Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:57 am

jimmcginn wrote:
If you have any substantive arguments that would be interesting. Please make an effort to not pretend like you understand what you obviously don't.
Ja



Jim, You should cut and paste that advice on your bathroom mirror, and follow it yourself, daily if you can.

You are still having trouble understanding why warm, moist air rises; so may i suggest you start over in your studies by trying to understand heat.
Heat is the most basic form of electric charge in our environment, and when you can make that connection in your hyper-imaginative mind, then you will recognize that both Earth and Sol are heat/charge sources.
That is why weather progresses in Cycles.

"Shear" btw, is a by product of that progression, not the cause.
.
seasmith
 
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Tue Nov 28, 2017 11:58 am

seasmith wrote:
jimmcginn wrote:
If you have any substantive arguments that would be interesting. Please make an effort to not pretend like you understand what you obviously don't.
Ja



Jim, You should cut and paste that advice on your bathroom mirror, and follow it yourself, daily if you can.

You are still having trouble understanding why warm, moist air rises; so may i suggest you start over in your studies by trying to understand heat.
Heat is the most basic form of electric charge in our environment, and when you can make that connection in your hyper-imaginative mind, then you will recognize that both Earth and Sol are heat/charge sources.
That is why weather progresses in Cycles.

"Shear" btw, is a by product of that progression, not the cause.
.

This subject is discussed in-depth in other threads. (See link below.) >moderator edit<

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16471#p115411

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Last edited by nick c on Tue Nov 28, 2017 3:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: moderator edit: ad hominem attack
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 466
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:58 pm

Jet streams are conduits that tunnel through the friction and general incoherence of the gases in the atmosphere to balance out what would otherwise be some extremes of heat/high pressures and cold/low pressures. Constructed from layers of spinning microdroplets of H2O with maximized surface tension, jet streams are a consequence of the principle that maximization of the surface area of H2O maximizes the tensional forces of H2O. These conduits emerge along moist dry wind shear boundaries, especially those associated with the extensive, flat boundary between the top of the troposphere and the bottom of the stratosphere, prime conditions for wind shear. The ensuing vortices of surface tension maximized spinning microdroplets provide a slick hydrophobic inner surface that channels moist air at speeds up to 300 mph.

Like rivers, jet streams have tributaries that feed into their flow. These tributaries branch off laterally and sometimes downward, delivering the low pressure energy of storms. Unlike a river, the energy and the flow that is generated by the energy move in opposite directions. The flow generally moves up and from east to west. The energy that propels the flow generally moves from the east to the west and down, and this energy comes in the form of low pressure.

If moisture always stayed suspended at the top of the troposphere then storms would never happen. Storms happen when the upper troposphere become dessicate as a result of moisture microdroplets coalescing into larger droplets and falling. Further down in the troposphere there exist an everpresent quantity of moist air. This moist air is suspended at the lower altitudes by electrostatic forces, a result of the solar wind entering the atmosphere from above and cause moisture microdroplets to be suspended. But these electrostatic forces are only able to keep moisture microdroplets suspended to a height of about a third or a half the height to the troposphere. When the upper part of the troposphere becomes dessicate the entrance ends of vortices tend to trend downward, pulling moist air up into their flow and effectively re-moisturizing the upper troposphere. From the ground this is observable as a storm. Sometimes these vortices stretch all the way to the ground, causing tornadoes.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 466
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:01 pm

jimmcginn wrote:This subject is discussed in-depth in other threads. (See link below.) >moderator edit<

:D :D :D

Yes, seasmith, why don't you take it on over to that other thread, befo' I bitch-slap you on over there.

:D :D :D

This guy's tornado theory might be half-baked, but the attitude is priceless! :D

What's that meteorological saying... there's a silver lining around every dark cloud? Well, I think that we might have found the silver lining here. :D
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: 1790
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 28, 2017 2:45 pm

My umbrage is with fosborn_'s genuflection toward accepted science as if it's infallible

Amen Charles, genuflection hand waving and all :roll:
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: 524
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

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

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:35 pm

@fosborn_: thanks. :)
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: 1790
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 28, 2017 5:34 pm

:P :oops: :)
FrankO_ you shouldn't be skipping Charles explanation of it.
Ardwolf wrote..Do you mean this explanation?

CharlesChandler wrote:I haven't studied fog, so I can't speak to that.


No this one..
CharlesChandler »..I don't know of anyone who is saying that water lofts itself high into the atmosphere. If it is, in fact, gaseous immediately on evaporating from a body of water, it IS lighter than the molecular nitrogen & oxygen in the air -- the atomic mass of H2O is 18, versus 28 for N2, and 32 for O2.So H2O has 62% the average mass of the N2/O2 mix in the air. But its terminal velocity will be effectively 0,so it isn't going to snake its way past the N2 & O2 to loft itself up into the atmosphere. And it isn't going to make the air itself much lighter. The total water vapor at 100% relative humidity is less than 1% of the air by volume.

So Mosaic Daves inverted bottles support this explanation, sense the inverted bottle trapped the lighter vapor. with an issue of electrostatics minimize by his indoor environment which Mcginn didn't dispute if, it is reproducible in another lab.
so seems just right for fog conditions, it doesn't have to travel far to condense, warming the immediate air arround the droplet or aerosol it coalesced with'
And this one..
CharlesChandler wrote.. Then thewater vapor can condense, releasing latent heat, when generates the updraft in the storm. Then the smaller water particles are hoisted to the top of the storm, while larger particles can fall out due to their higher terminal velocity. Then the water vapor can condense, releasing latent heat, when generates the updraft in the storm. Then the smaller water particles are hoisted to the top of the storm, while larger particles can fall out due to their higher terminal velocity.

So updraft isn't even a necessary component but still think the excess heat is going to do something to the immediate surrounding air. it doesn't even need to float up, simply condense in situ, and re evaporate.
.
AjrdWolf wrote...Fog is not gas.

MosaicDave wrote:
But the microdroplets don't appear to exist.

Ardwolf wrote...How do you propose that gaseous water forms fog/rain droplets? Is there no stage in between?

So you have all the pieces, If there is vapor then it obeys the gas laws. It takes energy to evaporate and losses energy to condense.

fosborn_ wrote:Do you know of a better idea that explains it?
Ardwolf wrote..Here’s one idea;[/quote]
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000JaJAP..39.2876T

Thanks for your offering wolfie, but don't be shy, explain why you consider it relevant. I showed you mine. Your turn..

fosborn_ wrote: Can you refute it ?

Wolfie...Nothing to refute. It’s tells us nothing about the composition of the water nor what’s driving its motion. We know water raises upwards, the question is what's driving that motion against the force of gravity when in liquid form.

Mosaic Dave demonstrates its not electrostatic, pick something else..

fosborn_ wrote:If you insist its mercury, then explain it.

Are you even reading the posts? I suggested a thought experiment using mercury. No-ones taken it up. Do you want to try?

I don't see any relevance, its your baby. Put up or be silent..

fosborn_ wrote:
Then we have to work with what is implicit in the papers.I don't think we are too far apart except in levels of confidence and what is relevant.

Ardwolf wrote...True, although these papers provide no basis to discuss the theory.


fosborn_ wrote:
MicroDrpEvap.png
This shrinking droplets looses surface tension, that tells you droplets will evaporate and are evaporating.

Ardwolf wrote..I don’t remember anyone here saying evaporation is impossible.

MicroDrpEvap.png
MicroDrpEvap.png (36.91 KiB) Viewed 2931 times

O by the way, the reason I have the high ground to pick Mcginns notions apart.. I'm a paying customer, I bought his books and read them. Have you?

Aardwolf wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:Yes, we all forget how infallible accepted science is.

Nobody is saying that accepted science is infallible, certainly not just because it's accepted. If you know anything at all about my work, you know that I am perfectly willing to go against accepted theories, in meteorology, geophysics, astrophysics, and in other disciplines as well. As a result, I'm considered a crackpot on the mainstream forums in all of those disciplines. But some aspects of accepted science are pretty solid, and a good theorist has to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. More to the point, it's useful when discussing the issues to clearly identify where you diverge from the consensus, and for what reasons.Challenge the consensus if you want, but if you don't know what you're challenging, and have a demonstrable reason for diverging, the reason is then just that you feel like arguing with somebody, validated only by the fact that the consensus can be wrong. But that doesn't make you right.
my highlights
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: 524
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 28, 2017 8:04 pm

CharlesChandler wrote:
jimmcginn wrote:True, but that is not to say that it does not simultaneously produce more general electromagnetic forces that are external to the nanodroplets.
These don't exist in a gas, and while they exist within an aerosol, they don't exist between aerosols. So none of what you said about liquid water applies to air masses.

You don't know this. You are just guessing. I suppose you could claim that I am just guessing too, but we are talking about electromagnetic forces. And it is hardly revolutionary to suggest that EMF produces a field of force, even if only in an extremely local sense in the immediate vicinity of the nanodroplets.

If you are talking about dipoles, the field lines close locally. The only effect that they'll have on neighboring particles is that they can all get polarized, such that the field lines come into alignment. This can help with polymerization. I suppose that you could say that an array of such particles, with interconnecting lines of force, would constitute a sort of aggregate, with a group behavior. (Perhaps that's exactly what you're saying?) But you'd be talking about an extremely subtle force. And it isn't in a form that could be concentrated, such as in a tornado.

Ardwolf asked you to address the contradiction of the fact that according to your theory fog should drop out of the sky and your response was that you haven't studied fog. And now you expect us to blindly accept you as an authority on hydrogen bonding of H2O, one of the most technical subject in all of physics and chemistry.

It's fairly obvious that you are only here to obfuscate. Why don't yourself, Fosborn, Mosaic, and Seaside give the moderator a break and go start your own thread where you can all commiserate with each other about what a terrible person I am to stray from the path of the good and righteous scientists who would never think to doubt conventional wisdom.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 466
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 3 guests