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 » Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:24 pm

https://www.amazon.com/WHAT-GOES-meteor ... merReviews

I forgot to mention, after you click on this it should bring you to Amazon. To read the first chapter for free just scroll up and click on the cover image.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 390
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby fosborn_ » Sun Dec 03, 2017 2:52 pm

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_09.html

To be precise, we must say that besides the ions made of molecules, there are also other kinds of ions. Tiny pieces of dirt, like
extremely fine bits of dust, float in the air and become charged. They are sometimes called “nuclei.” For example, when a wave
breaks in the sea, little bits of spray are thrown into the air. When one of these drops evaporates, it leaves an infinitesimal crystal of
NaCl floating in the air.
These tiny crystals can then pick up charges and become ions; they are called “large ions.”

Hmmm, heavy ions, evedence of gaseous h2o?
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: 512
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

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

Unread postby Maol » Mon Dec 04, 2017 2:02 am

If water in the atmosphere was actually in the form of micro-droplets there would be rainbows 24-7. Where are they?
Maol
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:40 pm

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

Unread postby Aardwolf » Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:59 am

Maol wrote:If water in the atmosphere was actually in the form of micro-droplets there would be rainbows 24-7. Where are they?
We're talking about sub micro-droplets which start to become invisible below the 400nm wavelength.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1156
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Mon Dec 04, 2017 1:08 pm

Aardwolf wrote:
Maol wrote:If water in the atmosphere was actually in the form of micro-droplets there would be rainbows 24-7. Where are they?


Maol, If it was a simple as you suggest we'd expect clouds to be rainbow colored. Why aren't they? (Also, how did you not notice that the boiling temperature of H2O is much higher than is available in the atmosphere? This is what I really don't get. How did so many people manage to not notice something so incredibly obvious as this? Can you explain?)
We're talking about sub micro-droplets which start to become invisible below the 400nm wavelength.

Yes, if I understand correctly, it has something to do with the diameter of a droplet being smaller than the wavelength of a photon.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 390
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby fosborn_ » Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:09 pm

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004JGRD..109.4309S
Abstract

Permeation of various gases through elastomeric O-ring seals can have important effects on the integrity of atmospheric air samples collected in flasks and measured some time later. Depending on the materials and geometry of flasks and valves and on partial pressure differences between sample and surrounding air, the concentrations of different components of air can be significantly altered during storage. The influence of permeation is discussed for O2/N2, Ar/N2, CO2, δ13C in CO2, and water vapor.Results of sample storage tests for various flask and valve types and different storage conditions are presented and are compared with theoretical calculations. Effects of permeation can be reduced by maintaining short storage times and small partial pressure differences and by using a new valve design that buffers exchange of gases with surrounding air or by using less permeable materials (such as Kel-F) as sealing material. General awareness of possible permeation effects helps to achieve more reliable measurements of atmospheric composition with flask sampling techniques.

Them pesky water vapors acting all gaseous!
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: 512
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

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

Unread postby Aardwolf » Tue Dec 05, 2017 7:41 am

fosborn_ wrote:http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_09.html

To be precise, we must say that besides the ions made of molecules, there are also other kinds of ions. Tiny pieces of dirt, like
extremely fine bits of dust, float in the air and become charged. They are sometimes called “nuclei.” For example, when a wave
breaks in the sea, little bits of spray are thrown into the air. When one of these drops evaporates, it leaves an infinitesimal crystal of
NaCl floating in the air.
These tiny crystals can then pick up charges and become ions; they are called “large ions.”

Hmmm, heavy ions, evedence of gaseous h2o?
No. Theories are never evidence. And he's talking about small salt crystals acting as ions so I don't even know what you are talking about.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1156
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

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

Unread postby Aardwolf » Tue Dec 05, 2017 8:05 am

fosborn_ wrote:http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004JGRD..109.4309S
Abstract

Permeation of various gases through elastomeric O-ring seals can have important effects on the integrity of atmospheric air samples collected in flasks and measured some time later. Depending on the materials and geometry of flasks and valves and on partial pressure differences between sample and surrounding air, the concentrations of different components of air can be significantly altered during storage. The influence of permeation is discussed for O2/N2, Ar/N2, CO2, δ13C in CO2, and water vapor.Results of sample storage tests for various flask and valve types and different storage conditions are presented and are compared with theoretical calculations. Effects of permeation can be reduced by maintaining short storage times and small partial pressure differences and by using a new valve design that buffers exchange of gases with surrounding air or by using less permeable materials (such as Kel-F) as sealing material. General awareness of possible permeation effects helps to achieve more reliable measurements of atmospheric composition with flask sampling techniques.

Them pesky water vapors acting all gaseous!
Yet again another paper that has no relevance. Why this has anything to do with the behaviour or the form of water in the air, who knows. In response, I don't see specifically why the water needs to be gaseous to pass the seal. The material is porous but I cant find any specifications down to what scale. Also, neither the glass nor the rubber surface can be manufactured down to flatness at the angstrom level, so it's likely sizeable droplets of liquid water could easily pass between them.

By the way, any luck refining your thought experiment regarding the unnecessary updraft?
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1156
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

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

Unread postby fosborn_ » Tue Dec 05, 2017 9:00 am

Aardwolf wrote:
fosborn_ wrote:http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_09.html

To be precise, we must say that besides the ions made of molecules, there are also other kinds of ions. Tiny pieces of dirt, like
extremely fine bits of dust, float in the air and become charged. They are sometimes called “nuclei.” For example, when a wave
breaks in the sea, little bits of spray are thrown into the air. When one of these drops evaporates, it leaves an infinitesimal crystal of
NaCl floating in the air.
These tiny crystals can then pick up charges and become ions; they are called “large ions.”

Hmmm, heavy ions, evedence of gaseous h2o?
No. Theories are never evidence. And he's talking about small salt crystals acting as ions so I don't even know what you are talking about.

Ok, how do you clear away the water to get the salt O wise one? Current theory can use evaporation and gas laws. What is the alternative theory? Oops , you got no theories ( until you address the gas law issue). Thats not your job. If it quacks like duck or gas, makes me consider it.
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: 512
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

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

Unread postby Aardwolf » Tue Dec 05, 2017 9:22 am

fosborn_ wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
fosborn_ wrote:http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_09.html

To be precise, we must say that besides the ions made of molecules, there are also other kinds of ions. Tiny pieces of dirt, like
extremely fine bits of dust, float in the air and become charged. They are sometimes called “nuclei.” For example, when a wave
breaks in the sea, little bits of spray are thrown into the air. When one of these drops evaporates, it leaves an infinitesimal crystal of
NaCl floating in the air.
These tiny crystals can then pick up charges and become ions; they are called “large ions.”

Hmmm, heavy ions, evedence of gaseous h2o?
No. Theories are never evidence. And he's talking about small salt crystals acting as ions so I don't even know what you are talking about.

Ok, how do you clear away the water to get the salt O wise one?
Same way off every surface. No evidence either way it's gas or small droplets though.

fosborn_ wrote:Current theory can use evaporation and gas laws. What is the alternative theory?
Electromagnetically or electrostatically. Isn't that what we have been discussing and providing papers with respect to electric fields etc? How did you miss it? <moderator edit>

fosborn_ wrote:Oops , you got no theories ( until you address the gas law issue).
No. I have a hypothesis. You don't seem to understand the difference. And also the (apparently difficult for some) ability to address other members points/questions. You should try it sometime. And why exactly do I need to address laws not relevant to my hypothesis? Are you still saying fog is gas? It that why you are struggling with your contradictory thought experiment?
Last edited by nick c on Thu Dec 07, 2017 10:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: ad hominem remark removed
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1156
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

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

Unread postby Aardwolf » Tue Dec 05, 2017 9:30 am

fosborn_ wrote:What is the alternative theory?
Here's one explanation;
Feynman wrote:If you take a small nozzle connected to a water faucet and direct it upward at a steep angle, as in Fig. 9–12, the water will come out in a fine stream that eventually breaks up into a spray of fine drops. If you now put an electric field across the stream at the nozzle (by bringing up a charged rod, for example), the form of the stream will change. With a weak electric field you will find that the stream breaks up into a smaller number of large-sized drops. But if you apply a stronger field, the stream breaks up into many, many fine drops—smaller than before.1 With a weak electric field there is a tendency to inhibit the breakup of the stream into drops. With a stronger field, however, there is an increase in the tendency to separate into drops.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1156
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Tue Dec 05, 2017 8:11 pm

RFD (Rear Flank Downdraft) explained:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16901#p122680

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 390
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Tue Dec 05, 2017 8:37 pm

RFD (Rear Flank Downdraft) explained:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16901#p122680

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 390
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby fosborn_ » Wed Dec 06, 2017 6:48 pm

Aardwolf wrote:
fosborn_ wrote:What is the alternative theory?
Here's one explanation;
Feynman wrote:.. But if you apply a stronger field, the stream breaks up into many, many fine drops—smaller than before.1 With a weak electric field there is a tendency to inhibit the breakup of the stream into drops. With a stronger field, however, there is an increase in the tendency to separate into drops.

That's a decent idea but it doesn't help at ground level, It seems a gross estimation. Why do you think it would work at the nanodroplet level and only to that level? Can you come up with something that would show how to separate the solution before nanodroplets are detached by electrical fields. And why the separation wouldn't continue to the molecular level or gas level?
GroundZero.gif
GroundZero.gif (4 KiB) Viewed 112 times

I still prefer evaporation, the solution is becoming more concentrated via sufficient kinetic energy as molecules are leaving. Your idea doesn't seem to allow that. Its seems more predictable with your method, the solution would not concentrate, but remain the same with each nanodroplet taking away its own mix.

Ardwolf wrote.. And he's talking about small salt crystals acting as ions so I don't even know what you are talking about.

Perhaps an objective observer might have a different take on it.
Ardwolf wrote.Same way off every surface no evidence, either way, it's gas or small droplets though

I'm not in your mode of direct evidence, the secondary is ok when there is nothing better at the plate. The gas laws explain vapor pressure. They explain why, if you prevent the exchange of new air the evaporation will slow and stop. Electrostatics can't explain that as far as I can reason at this point.
Ardwolf wrote...By the way, any luck refining your thought experiment regarding the unnecessary updraft?

No further observation opportunity, I'm not overly invested in electrostatic eddies, but open to the idea.

Electromagnetically or electrostatically. Isn't that what we have been discussing and providing papers with respect to electric fields etc? How did you miss it? Are you just trolling?

Didn't miss and have been addressing it. I'm involved in this thread, to find why Mcginns ideas are better than the current. And to gain an understanding of the strength and weaknesses of supporting the convection model. I see it as Wal does, as factors that are "in addition to", but to through it all out, doesn't seem reasonable at this point in my journey.

Your apparent priority in the thread seems....
Ardwolf wrote..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.

Even though I have pursued, implied and secondary evidence and a focus on what has better predictability. So as far as "trolling" goes, its vary telling you broached the subject. I got to hand it to you, that was a 10 on a scale of10, concerning offensive and inflammatory remarks for me. Your good. And its seems moderation is ok with it. If we want to moderate ourselves and ratchet down the offensive nature of the discussion, that's good too. If not, guess its all no different than google groups.
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: 512
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

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

Unread postby Aardwolf » Thu Dec 07, 2017 10:08 am

fosborn_ wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
fosborn_ wrote:What is the alternative theory?
Here's one explanation;
Feynman wrote:.. But if you apply a stronger field, the stream breaks up into many, many fine drops—smaller than before.1 With a weak electric field there is a tendency to inhibit the breakup of the stream into drops. With a stronger field, however, there is an increase in the tendency to separate into drops.

That's a decent idea but it doesn't help at ground level, It seems a gross estimation.
It wasn’t an “idea” or an “estimation”. Feynman was describing an experiment. Unless you think he was lying in his lectures.

fosborn_ wrote:Why do you think it would work at the nanodroplet level and only to that level?
When did I say it wouldn’t? I think I clearly said, on multiple occasions, this effect would apply to anything below and around the micro-level, when electrical effects take over.

fosborn_ wrote:Can you come up with something that would show how to separate the solution before nanodroplets are detached by electrical fields.
Why? Why are 2 processes necessary?

fosborn_ wrote:And why the separation wouldn't continue to the molecular level or gas level?
I have no problem with it continuing to a molecular level. However, for visible water i.e. fog, it’s quite clearly liquid that is suspended.

fosborn_ wrote:I still prefer evaporation, the solution is becoming more concentrated via sufficient kinetic energy as molecules are leaving. Your idea doesn't seem to allow that. Its seems more predictable with your method, the solution would not concentrate, but remain the same with each nanodroplet taking away its own mix.
Well I see no reason why if 1 molecule leaves, 2 or 4 or 6 couldn’t leave together whatever your mechanism. If fact I think it would be likely to be more because a single molecule needs to break 100% of its covalent bonds, while fighting gravity, whereas say a group of say 50 molecules would only be breaking about 50% of their covalent bonds. The larger the group the less bonds need to be broken therefore less energy is required to do it. And if there’s one thing I know for absolute certainty, nature doesn’t waste energy.

fosborn_ wrote:
Ardwolf wrote.. And he's talking about small salt crystals acting as ions so I don't even know what you are talking about.

Perhaps an objective observer might have a different take on it.
This is what was said;
Feynman wrote:When one of these drops evaporates, it leaves an infinitesimal crystal of NaCl floating in the air. These tiny crystals can then pick up charges and become ions; they are called “large ions.”
Please explain why for some reason you think I’m subjectively interpreting this sentence. He’s talking about salt crystals as ions. Just because you mistakenly referenced as water, you claim I’m not objective. Maybe you should just read what you link.

fosborn_ wrote:
Ardwolf wrote.Same way off every surface no evidence, either way, it's gas or small droplets though

I'm not in your mode of direct evidence, the secondary is ok when there is nothing better at the plate. The gas laws explain vapor pressure. They explain why, if you prevent the exchange of new air the evaporation will slow and stop.
Which is just theory. There’s no evidence to back up what is happening at the surface.

fosborn_ wrote: Electrostatics can't explain that as far as I can reason at this point.
But they can demonstrate that much larger and denser liquid water can be manipulated against the force of gravity. Evidence, in my book, is always better than theory and this evidence supports an electrostatic theory as opposed to your theory, which has no evidence. I suppose it depends on whether you prefer evidence based theories or what you were told by your school/university.

fosborn_ wrote:
Ardwolf wrote...By the way, any luck refining your thought experiment regarding the unnecessary updraft?

No further observation opportunity, I'm not overly invested in electrostatic eddies, but open to the idea.
I see. So you also have no explanation for the suspension of water droplets in fog. Yet you still prefer a non-evidence based theory.

fosborn_ wrote:
Electromagnetically or electrostatically. Isn't that what we have been discussing and providing papers with respect to electric fields etc? How did you miss it? Are you just trolling?

Didn't miss and have been addressing it. I'm involved in this thread, to find why Mcginns ideas are better than the current. And to gain an understanding of the strength and weaknesses of supporting the convection model. I see it as Wal does, as factors that are "in addition to", but to through it all out, doesn't seem reasonable at this point in my journey.
Well I recommend you do, the natural world will become much clearer. And I don’t think you see it anything like Wal does. I think he would happily throw it all out;
Wal Thornhil wrote:That galactic electrical power drives the weather systems on all of the planets and even the Sun.

fosborn_ wrote: Your apparent priority in the thread seems....
Ardwolf wrote..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.

Even though I have pursued, implied and secondary evidence and a focus on what has better predictability.
Yet you haven’t provided any relevant papers, and how can you offer a prediction for something that can’t be observed afterwards?

fosborn_ wrote: So as far as "trolling" goes, its vary telling you broached the subject. I got to hand it to you, that was a 10 on a scale of10, concerning offensive and inflammatory remarks for me.
I can only say it as I see it. You ask “What is the alternative theory?” On a thread all about an alternative theory. What am I supposed to think. I didn't want to make an assumption so I asked the question. If you're offended and not trolling I'll need to attribute the obtuseness to something else.

fosborn_ wrote: Your good. And its seems moderation is ok with it. If we want to moderate ourselves and ratchet down the offensive nature of the discussion, that's good too. If not, guess its all no different than google groups.
It’s your prerogative if you wish to complain. If I’ve broken any rules by asking a question I’m sure the moderators will act appropriately.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1156
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest