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 Aug 28, 2016 7:10 am

Lloyd wrote:Charles already proved that tornadoes are not due to surface tension of water.


Lloyd,
It's regrettable the internet doesn't allow you to drop a link to your imagination so that the rest of us could see what it is you thought you saw.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sun Aug 28, 2016 7:30 am

CharlesChandler wrote:And here's another one...

Image

If the greater velocity of the jet stream is because of its lower viscosity,


You mean lower friction, not lower viscosity. These are not interchangeable concepts.

CharlesChandler wrote: and if that's because of its electric charge, then the next question is: how does it get charged? If the jet stream occurs at the boundary between cool & warm air masses, that's where the thunderstorms occur. And where there are thunderstorms, there are electric charges.

Our atmosphere is constantly and continually charged by the solar wind. So there is no reason to speculate about wind shear causing electric charges. Specifically, the tops of the storms are positively charged. And positively charged air has a lower viscosity, because the repulsion of like charges prevents the particle collision that instantiate friction within the fluid (i.e., viscosity).


So, how does any of this explain the highly focused flow of the jet streams? You jump between concepts like electricity, ionization, viscosity, friction and fail to explain anything.

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sun Aug 28, 2016 7:47 am

CharlesChandler wrote:No, vortexes don't need "sheaths" made of different stuff.


Nonsense. This is science, not science fiction. A vortice without a sheath isn't a vortice. It's just spinning air that quickly is overwhelmed by chaos and ensuing friction. Without a sheath you have no isolation between the fast-moving air going up the vortice tube and the vortice tube itself. And the sheath had better have a surface (ie. plasma) and internal coherence (ability to maintain a form) or the sheath and the fast-moving air will mix producing chaos and not the highly ordered structure that is plainly observable in a tornado vortice.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sun Aug 28, 2016 8:02 am

Charles, you have parts and pieces of a better understanding. For example, you mention laminar flow. Laminar flow is, IMO, a very important part of the explanation of the origins of high wind speeds. Specifically, laminar flow plus isolation from friction (as we see in a tube [vortice]) plus constant acceleration (as we see can explain as an artifact of differential air pressure over long distances) can explain the high wind speeds we see in the jet streams. (It's both pushed and pulled.)

Strangely, however, you seem to not have grasped the notion that to have laminar flow you have to have a smooth surface. It's incomprehensible to me how something so obvious is beyond you. And this shortcoming is compounded by the fact that you, somehow, failed to recognize that plasmas have a surface. So you are missing pieces of the puzzle without which you have no chance of solving the mystery of tornadoes.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Sun Aug 28, 2016 3:07 pm

In one of your previous posts, the following quote is attributed to me, but the two sentences in bold didn't come from me. I don't know where they came from, but they don't appear anywhere on this thread.

CharlesChandler wrote: and if that's because of its electric charge, then the next question is: how does it get charged? If the jet stream occurs at the boundary between cool & warm air masses, that's where the thunderstorms occur. And where there are thunderstorms, there are electric charges.

Our atmosphere is constantly and continually charged by the solar wind. So there is no reason to speculate about wind shear causing electric charges. Specifically, the tops of the storms are positively charged. And positively charged air has a lower viscosity, because the repulsion of like charges prevents the particle collision that instantiate friction within the fluid (i.e., viscosity).

Here's what I actually said:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16329&p=114760#p114760

CharlesChandler wrote:If the greater velocity of the jet stream is because of its lower viscosity, and if that's because of its electric charge, then the next question is: how does it get charged? If the jet stream occurs at the boundary between cool & warm air masses, that's where the thunderstorms occur. And where there are thunderstorms, there are electric charges. Specifically, the tops of the storms are positively charged. And positively charged air has a lower viscosity, because the repulsion of like charges prevents the particle collision that instantiate friction within the fluid (i.e., viscosity).

You can't keep straight who said what, to the point that now, you're just arguing against yourself. And when you argue against yourself, you can't win, because you'll never let you.
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: 1792
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 Aug 28, 2016 8:58 pm

CharlesChandler wrote:If the greater velocity of the jet stream is because of its lower viscosity,


This is a nonsense statement. Kind of like something you'd read in a children's book. So, you make a nonsense statement, using sciencey sounding words, then you change the subject. You jump from velocity to viscosity, then mention electric charge, then, abracadabra, reduced friction. It's like you are doing poetry, or writing a song. It's like these words have no real meaning other than the fact that if you use them they leave your audience just confused enough that they won't be able to dispute you because the words don't have literal meaning anyways.

CharlesChandler wrote:and if that's because of its electric charge, then the next question is: how does it get charged? If the jet stream occurs at the boundary between cool & warm air masses, that's where the thunderstorms occur. And where there are thunderstorms, there are electric charges.


Like charges, positive to positive or negative to negative repel. As I see it that is more likely to be a factor in the stratosphere with the abundance of negatively charges associated with the solar wind coming in from above. And so, maybe what you are saying here would be additive to explaining the qualities of the components of the stratosphere.

But it is dishonest for you to insinuate that this addresses the larger isssue of why the jet stream get such high velocity and such a focused flow, stretching for thousands of miles.

I suppose you think that since everybody else in science lies that it's okay for you to do so also.

CharlesChandler wrote:Specifically, the tops of the storms are positively charged. And positively charged air has a lower viscosity, because the repulsion of like charges prevents the particle collision that instantiate friction within the fluid (i.e., viscosity).


This is nonsense. It's that simple. Lower viscosity doesn't have anything to do with increased reduced friction or increased velocity. This isn't science, it's just poor english usage.

Meteorologists lie constantly about what they understand about the atmosphere--don't add to it.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby fosborn_ » Mon Aug 29, 2016 5:55 pm

I would like to note. James in his book used an experiment to prove moist air is heaver than dry air, using differential scales. With further enquiry, James admitts he never preformed this experiment, he simply has faith it will work. I think a lot of his theory is based on the premise that h2o as a gas can't exist at a normal atmosphere and temperature range.
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: 526
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

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

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Mon Aug 29, 2016 7:43 pm

fosborn_ wrote:I would like to note. James in his book used an experiment to prove moist air is heaver than dry air, using differential scales. With further enquiry, James admitts he never preformed this experiment, he simply has faith it will work.

High-humidity air is actually lighter, because the H2O molecule is lighter than the other constituents of air (N2 and O2). The effect is predictable, given the masses of the molecules, and measurements of the mass of various mixtures of these molecules confirm it. Water is the best-studied molecule in all of the sciences, so there is no shortage of laboratory data.

I agree with James that there is a lot of BS in the modern discipline of meteorology. But the problem isn't that the physics isn't there. The problem is that meteorologists don't use it. Meteorology is no longer a branch of physics -- it is now a branch of statistics. They try to make it sound physical, but really, they're working entirely with statistical engines. Then they use physics jargon to make it sound like proven physical science, when really, they never looked at the physical forces at play.

It's easy to understand how someone like James could see the dichotomies in the material being produced by NWS, realize that there are fundamental problems, and then go searching for the mistakes. I went through the same thing -- I assumed that meteorologists were doing physics, but misinterpreted something. So I started challenging some very basic notions in the atmospheric sciences, such as how electric fields are measured, and what constitutes an electric current. But in the end, you have to know the difference between a theory that is open to interpretation, versus laboratory data that simply are what they are. Otherwise, you could end up spending a lifetime retracing the steps of a couple hundreds years of legitimate science, and not live long enough to find the mistake in modern tornado theory. ;)

fosborn_ wrote:I think a lot of his theory is based on the premise that h2o as a gas can't exist at a normal atmosphere and temperature range.

So what happens when he boils water?
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: 1792
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 » Mon Aug 29, 2016 10:12 pm

fosborn_ wrote:I would like to note. James in his book used an experiment to prove moist air is heaver than dry air, using differential scales.


I don't know what you are talking about. Maybe my creative reading skills aren't as well developed as are yours.

fosborn_ wrote: With further enquiry, James admitts he never preformed this experiment, he simply has faith it will work. I think a lot of his theory is based on the premise that h2o as a gas can't exist at a normal atmosphere and temperature range.


Hmm. Well, I do have faith that the people that constructed steam tables knew what they were doing.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby fosborn_ » Mon Aug 29, 2016 10:25 pm

In Google groups physics, James wrote;
- show quoted text -
I haven't done the experiment, if that is what you are asking. Do you have access to a scale (mass comparator) in your current job?

Do you want to do the experiment? It's a very simple experiment. The only major complications are that you have to start from a very dry and windless environment and you need to have an extremely sensitive scale. Other than that you just have to be careful not to contaminate the results. That's what the "thingies" are about. You could improvise that.


Hmm.. you didn't dispute it there...
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: 526
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Mon Aug 29, 2016 11:47 pm

I would like to note. James in his book used an experiment to prove moist air is heaver than dry air, using differential scales.

I eluded to a theoretical experiment.

With further enquiry, James admits he never preformed this experiment, he simply has faith it will work.

I have faith that the people that constructed the steam tables knew what they were doing. Apparently, you doubt their expertise. Yet you have only anecdote to dispute them.

High-humidity air is actually lighter, because the H2O molecule is lighter than the other constituents of air (N2 and O2).

LOL. Look up the boiling temperature of N2 and O2 then look up the boiling temperature of H2O. Now do you get it? Moist air is about 7 to 10 percent heavier than dry air. This is why most of it stays close to the surface and why the air above is so dry. Did you never notice this?

The effect is predictable,

LOL. You haven't established that it is an effect. Anecdote is also predictable. Amateurs often lack the ability to distinguish between what is an effect and what is imagined to be an effect. Do some research on the scientific method.

given the masses of the molecules, and measurements of the mass of various mixtures of these molecules confirm it.

Then you should have no trouble finding your proof. Right? Well, go ahead, present it. (In reality, no such proof exists. Charles is out of his element in a real scientific discussion.)

Water is the best-studied molecule in all of the sciences, so there is no shortage of laboratory data.

Water has been systematically misunderstood. At best our understanding is in its infancy.

I agree with James that there is a lot of BS in the modern discipline of meteorology. But the problem isn't that the physics isn't there.

In meteorology's storm theory the physics have been fictionalized to fit preconceptions. It's a blatantly absurd paradigm populated with pretender that lack the ability to distinguish between what is an effect and what is imagined to be an effect, not unlike yourself.

The problem is that meteorologists don't use it.

You do nothing but talk in vague generalities.

Meteorology is no longer a branch of physics

It never was. Right from the outset it was based on anecdote.

-- it is now a branch of statistics. They try to make it sound physical, but really, they're working entirely with statistical engines.

Well, let's just say you have to differentiate between synoptics (statistical mapping), which is based on sound principles, and storm theory which is blatant science fiction.

Then they use physics jargon to make it sound like proven physical science, when really, they never looked at the physical forces at play.

Yes, they use jargon that creates the illusion of sound science. The also use a lot of phoney math in storm theory. And they are plainly delusional about H2O (but that is not completely their fault since H2O is so poorly understood by physics and chemistry).

It's easy to understand how someone like James could see the dichotomies in the material being produced by NWS, realize that there are fundamental problems, and then go searching for the mistakes. I went through the same thing

You weren't thorough enough. You are too gullible.

I assumed that meteorologists were doing physics, but misinterpreted something. So I started challenging some very basic notions in the atmospheric sciences, such as how electric fields are measured,

You made the mistake of assuming water is simple. You never had a chance after that. You use electricity like it is a magic wand. And you appear to be deliberately ignorant of fluid dynamics.

and what constitutes an electric current. But in the end, you have to know the difference between a theory that is open to interpretation, versus laboratory data that simply are what they are. Otherwise, you could end up spending a lifetime retracing the steps of a couple hundreds years of legitimate science, and not live long enough to find the mistake in modern tornado theory. ;)

You do nothing but talk in vague generalities and make speculative comments about electricity. That is meaningless. You have no specific predictions that are testable.

I think a lot of his theory is based on the premise that h2o as a gas can't exist at a normal atmosphere and temperature range.

So what happens when he boils water?

You don't realize gaseous H2O has to be contained (as in a steam engine) to remain gaseous. That is just ignorant.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby fosborn_ » Tue Aug 30, 2016 7:09 am

CharlesChandler wrote:
fosborn_ wrote:I would like to note. James in his book used an experiment to prove moist air is heaver than dry air, using differential scales. With further enquiry, James admitts he never preformed this experiment, he simply has faith it will work.

Charles wrote; High-humidity air is actually lighter, because the H2O molecule is lighter than the other constituents of air (N2 and O2). The effect is predictable, given the masses of the molecules, and measurements of the mass of various mixtures of these molecules confirm it. Water is the best-studied molecule in all of the sciences, so there is no shortage of laboratory data.

I don't think this will gain traction with James, I think he believes only electrostatics can overcome surface tension to create water clusters and microdroplets. He doesn't believe in evaporation.

Charhles wrote;. Then they use physics jargon to make it sound like proven physical science, when really, they never looked at the physical forces at play.

I'm starting to think James plays the same game. This reminds me of another thread I have participated in over the years.
Such is why I have complained this shouldn't be in a science thread but in NIMI ..
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: 526
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

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

Unread postby MosaicDave » Tue Aug 30, 2016 7:18 am

jimmcginn wrote:You don't realize gaseous H2O has to be contained (as in a steam engine) to remain gaseous. That is just ignorant.

Well in the summer it can get really humid here in Pennsylvania, so I keep a dehumidifier running in my lab space here. It removes several liters of water from the air in this room each day. Before dehumidifier does his work, this water is dissolved in the mixture of gases comprising the air. There aren't "microdroplets", even though the temperature here is well below the boiling point of water.

jimmcginn wrote:LOL. Look up the boiling temperature of N2 and O2 then look up the boiling temperature of H2O. Now do you get it? Moist air is about 7 to 10 percent heavier than dry air.

It's easy to calculate what the mass will be of a certain volume of air, containing certain percentages of N2, O2, H2O, CO2, &c, and at a certain pressure. There is the equation PV=nRT, I think it's called the Ideal Gas Law; it's basic high school chemistry or physics, probably there's a wikipedia article explaining it. Air containing more CO2 will be heavier, since CO2 is a heavier molecule. The air going into my dehumidifier, at an equal temperature, will be a little less dense than the air coming out: Because the air going in contains proportionally more H2O and less of the other components, and H2O is a lighter molecule.
MosaicDave
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 7:56 am
Location: Pennsylvania

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

Unread postby The Great Dog » Tue Aug 30, 2016 11:15 am

Such is why I have complained this shouldn't be in a science thread but in NIMI ..


Agree completely, especially after the last few posts. Is this now the troll feeding forum?
There are no other dogs but The Great Dog
User avatar
The Great Dog
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 4:58 pm

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Tue Aug 30, 2016 11:27 am

Mosaic:
There aren't "microdroplets", even though the temperature here is well below the boiling point of water.

Solving Tornadoes:
What method did you employ to determine that the moisture was not microdroplets?

Ghosts have a reputation for being quiet during the daytime. Do you think if you went to a “haunted house” and it was quiet that this would be evidence that it is haunted?

Do you think the invisibility of clear, moist air is evidence that the moisture therein is Gaseous?

Did you know that microdroplets that have a diameter smaller than a photon are just as invisible as steam?

Do you believe in ghosts? Why not? Your logic for believing in sub-boiling gaseous H2O is the same as that for ghosts?

jimmcginn wrote:
LOL. Look up the boiling temperature of N2 and O2 then look up the boiling temperature of H2O. Now do you get it? Moist air is about 7 to 10 percent heavier than dry air.


Mosaic:
It's easy to calculate what the mass will be of a certain volume of air, containing certain percentages of N2, O2, H2O, CO2, &c, and at a certain pressure. There is the equation PV=nRT, I think it's called the Ideal Gas Law; it's basic high school chemistry or physics, probably there's a wikipedia article explaining it. Air containing more CO2 will be heavier, since CO2 is a heavier molecule. The air going into my dehumidifier, at an equal temperature, will be a little less dense than the air coming out: Because the air going in contains proportionally more H2O and less of the other components, and: H2O is a lighter molecule.

Solving Tornadoes:
I think Avogadro’s Law is the phrase you are looking for, Here is an article that will clarify it all for you:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16306

Apparently the misconception that yourself and many others maintain started with some dude named Isaac Newton.

Cheers,

James McGinn
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 473
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