Accounting For Lorenz’s Missing Lubrication in the Atmospher

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

Accounting For Lorenz’s Missing Lubrication in the Atmospher

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sun Sep 04, 2016 10:18 am

Accounting for Lorenz’s missing lubrication in the atmosphere

We have always known from whence comes the energy that powers the winds: differential air pressure due to the differential heating/cooling from the sun/night, exacerbated by friction from surface features (mountains, valleys, etc.). But what has been perplexing is how and why the flow that ensues from this energy becomes concentrated, producing the high wind speeds we see in jet streams and storms. Generally things in nature don’t reverse entropy (going from less organized [scattered] to more organizes [directed]) unless there is a physical reason for them to do so. A river channels into a stream due to the hills and valleys of a landscape. Where are the hills and valley of the atmosphere and what is the substance, apparently invisible, of which these hills and valleys are comprised and why is evidence of it so fleeting?

This is actually three questions. Here are my answers:

1) The hills and valleys of the atmosphere occur along wind shear boundaries, especially those found in the upper troposphere and the tropopause, where the boundary conditions for moist/dry wind shear are most abundant and along inversion layers in the lower atmosphere.

2) The substance is a water based plasma that emerges along these wind shear boundaries, itself an implication of H2O's surface tension and the fact that spinning microdroplets (the spinning sustained by the wind shear of the flow itself) maximizes surface area of H2O, the principle being that if the the surface area of H2O is maximized its surface tension too is maximized.

3) The reason evidence of all of this is so fleeting is because it only occurs under high energy conditions which are relatively rare on the surface (tornadoes and hurricanes) and which are relatively hidden along the tropopause due to clouds that are associated with such activity at these higher altitudes.

And so, the jet streams and their tributaries are vortices that are perfectly suited to transporting (heavier) moist air over long distances, as seen in jet streams, and upwards, as seen in storms. The jet streams are, therefore, both the mechanism of uplift and the mechanism of distribution of moist air. Starting as sheets along wind shear boundaries (between moist and dry bodies of air) that twist up and around the predominant flow as a consequence of the bernoulli effect (and coriolis effect). Jet streams are tubes of this plasma of spinning, surface maximized, microdroplets. Being heavier and more viscous, the plasma encircles and forms a sheath that channels the flow of high speed air like like a conduit, providing isolation from atmospheric friction. This isolation from friction is what enables the high wind speeds of the jet streams. And since H2O surface tension is itself hydrophobic this further facilitates the reduction of friction of the heaviest contents of the flow, the additional (and non-spinning) microdroplets contained in the predominant flow.

In 1967 Edward D. Lorenz did some calculations and came to the conclusion that there should be a lot more friction in the atmosphere than there appeared to actually be. He made statements to the effect that there is lubrication in the atmosphere that we have not yet accounted for. Well, I think I have found it. It is the jet streams and their far-reaching and often down-reaching tributaries. Or, more specifically, it is the friction free environment that itself is a consequence of the H2O based plasma, the stuff that forms the sheath of vortices, allowing the energy of the flow to be conserved.

This explanation also allows us to understand why the jet streams are located on the boundary between the moist troposphere and the dry stratosphere. Because in order for the spinning that underlies the plasma to emerge and be sustained the moisture droplets must be predominantly in one layer and not both, otherwise they cancel each other’s spin. Consequently, the boundary must be moist on one side (troposphere) and dry on the other (stratosphere) in order to sustain the spinning of the microdroplets that produces the maximization of H2O surface tension, that produces the plasma that spins up into the vortices that are the jet streams and other related tubular atmospheric phenomena, like tornadoes and hurricanes, which themselves are the wildly whipping tails of a much larger and more benign dog, the jet streams.

For more click here: https://goo.gl/KvEPOv

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

Re: Accounting For Lorenz’s Missing Lubrication in the Atmos

Unread postby webolife » Thu Sep 22, 2016 7:18 pm

You seem to be skirting the question of what causes the "concentration" of the winds in the jet streams, by saying that they occur in "wind shear boundaries" in "high energy conditions" for which "evidence is... fleeting", where "water-based plasma emerges" -- without actually saying why the water-based plasmas would emerge in just those places, and why conditions like this differ from place to place.

In your intro paragraph where you were summarizing "what we have always known" about wind production, you omitted three obvious and essential elements, which if included are elegantly sufficient to explain the wind patterning and the jet streams without any of your other more exotic explanations:
1. Convection caused by differential heating of the earth's surface, especially the oceanic surface, modified by the...
2. Coriolis effect, a simple inertial motion model that is exigent due to the...
3. Rotation of a spherical earth.

The other effects you listed may or may not be present [as you said, there is little evidence for it], but they are simply not needed. This is another case where despite your protestations to the contrary the "standard model" does not fail to predict and explain the atmospheric findings you mentioned.

Rising moist warm air at the relatively rapid rotating equatorial region moves air up then away from that region, due to the falling of relatively colder air at about 30 degrees latitude [N,S] moving near the surface into the low pressure zone left by the rising equatorial air. The coldest air at the poles, due to the lower angle of sunlight incidence, falls and moves away from the poles while relatively warmer rising air near about 30 degrees away from the poles [60th latitudes N,S] moves back toward the polar region at a higher altitude. This alternate rising and falling of air in the middle latitude region is the primary reason for greater turbulence and wind shear conditions due to the Coriolis effect [winds veering to the right relative to the surface in the northern hemisphere, and to the left in the southern, due to the rotating spherical earth], which causes the polar easterlies and mid-latitude westerlies to clash. This is also the direct cause of the jet streams as reinforcement of wind movement along the relatively frictionless tropopause, causes the winds to weave eastward through the mid latitudes. The jet streams are driven by and then drive a general atmospheric engine, modified by otherwise somewhat chaotic behavior of air as a gas mixture, modified by surface topography and ocean currents, resulting in weather.

This explanation not only specifies why and where the jet streams form, but also why their waving currents are actually somewhat difficult to predict beyond about three to five day window.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Accounting For Lorenz’s Missing Lubrication in the Atmos

Unread postby seasmith » Fri Sep 23, 2016 5:40 pm

Hi Webo,
As the jet streams are drug along by the "rotation of a spherical earth" (while at same time being deflected with the Coriolis effect),
why do they accelerate Beyond the rotational speed of the earth's surface and actually advance past the surface at ≠300mph ?
thanks,s
seasmith
 
Posts: 2643
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Accounting For Lorenz’s Missing Lubrication in the Atmos

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sun Sep 25, 2016 9:28 am

webolife wrote:You seem to be skirting the question of what causes the "concentration" of the winds in the jet streams, by saying that they occur in "wind shear boundaries" in "high energy conditions" for which "evidence is... fleeting", where "water-based plasma emerges" -- without actually saying why the water-based plasmas would emerge in just those places, and why conditions like this differ from place to place.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dexlOvP7mPw

webolife wrote:In your intro paragraph where you were summarizing "what we have always known" about wind production, you omitted three obvious and essential elements, which if included are elegantly sufficient to explain the wind patterning and the jet streams without any of your other more exotic explanations:
1. Convection caused by differential heating of the earth's surface, especially the oceanic surface, modified by the...

Moist air is heavier than dry air. So, if storms are caused by convection then they would be dry. But they are wet. The fact that there are a bunch of loons that imagine moist air to be lighter doesn't mean it is true.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but science involves facts, not imagination.

webolife wrote:2. Coriolis effect, a simple inertial motion model that is exigent due to the...
3. Rotation of a spherical earth.

The other effects you listed may or may not be present [as you said, there is little evidence for it], but they are simply not needed.



It's amusing that you base your argument on necessity rather than accuracy.

webolife wrote:This is another case where despite your protestations to the contrary the "standard model" does not fail to predict and explain the atmospheric findings you mentioned.

Rising moist warm air at the relatively rapid rotating equatorial region moves air up then away from that region, due to the falling of relatively colder air at about 30 degrees latitude [N,S] moving near the surface into the low pressure zone left by the rising equatorial air. The coldest air at the poles, due to the lower angle of sunlight incidence, falls and moves away from the poles while relatively warmer rising air near about 30 degrees away from the poles [60th latitudes N,S] moves back toward the polar region at a higher altitude. This alternate rising and falling of air in the middle latitude region is the primary reason for greater turbulence and wind shear conditions due to the Coriolis effect [winds veering to the right relative to the surface in the northern hemisphere, and to the left in the southern, due to the rotating spherical earth], which causes the polar easterlies and mid-latitude westerlies to clash. This is also the direct cause of the jet streams as reinforcement of wind movement along the relatively frictionless tropopause, causes the winds to weave eastward through the mid latitudes. The jet streams are driven by and then drive a general atmospheric engine, modified by otherwise somewhat chaotic behavior of air as a gas mixture, modified by surface topography and ocean currents, resulting in weather.

This explanation not only specifies why and where the jet streams form, but also why their waving currents are actually somewhat difficult to predict beyond about three to five day window.


To me your explanation seems vague and speculative. It's laughable that you would present this as comprehensive while you have, thus far, failed to substantiate even it's most basic assumptions.

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

Re: Accounting For Lorenz’s Missing Lubrication in the Atmos

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sun Sep 25, 2016 10:16 am

seasmith wrote:Hi Webo,
As the jet streams are drug along by the "rotation of a spherical earth" (while at same time being deflected with the Coriolis effect),
why do they accelerate Beyond the rotational speed of the earth's surface and actually advance past the surface at ≠300mph ?
thanks,s


Pretending not to notice the incredible inconsistencies of the convection model of storms and atmospheric flow is the only tactic that its adherents have left. Webo will not answer your question. Because he knows that if he did it would only further expose the lunacy of his model, a lunacy that stays hidden in his own mind as long as he doesn't think about it.

Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dexlOvP7mPw

You might also want to watch this video, which is kind of a precursor to the above video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk

This is relevant too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl-GOPq8aA0

The biggest obstacle to scientific progress are vague nitwits that stubbornly refuse to consider details that dispute the blind certainty that consensus beliefs are sound. They believe because their own personal comfort is more important to them than scientific progress.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 390
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Accounting For Lorenz’s Missing Lubrication in the Atmos

Unread postby seasmith » Mon Sep 26, 2016 12:03 pm

The biggest obstacle to scientific progress are vague nitwits ...
James, What happened with your agreement to be polite ?


seasmith wrote:
Hi Webo,
As the jet streams are drug along by the "rotation of a spherical earth" (while at same time being deflected with the Coriolis effect),
why do they accelerate ...



Webo,
This thread has already begun to deteriorate, so i've moved the question to here:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=563&p=115221#p115221

thanks
seasmith
 
Posts: 2643
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Accounting For Lorenz’s Missing Lubrication in the Atmos

Unread postby webolife » Wed Sep 28, 2016 12:02 pm

Yes, the negativity is a bit suffocating here. I've rejoined you over there.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Accounting For Lorenz’s Missing Lubrication in the Atmos

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sun Jan 15, 2017 10:27 pm

You seem to be skirting the question of what causes the "concentration" of the winds in the jet streams,

The answer is complicated.

by saying that they occur in "wind shear boundaries" in "high energy conditions" for which "evidence is... fleeting", where "water-based plasma emerges" -- without actually saying why the water-based plasmas would emerge in just those places, and why conditions like this differ from place to place.

If you want simple answers avoid the atmosphere. It is very complex. Meteorology will provide you with cartoonishly simple answers. But the are all wrong answers.

The truth is complicated. As explained in Bill, the truth involves spinning microdroplets. And that is just the beginning of the complexity.

In your intro paragraph where you were summarizing "what we have always known" about wind production, you omitted three obvious and essential elements, which if included are elegantly sufficient to explain the wind patterning and the jet streams without any of your other more exotic explanations:
1. Convection caused by differential heating of the earth's surface, especially the oceanic surface, modified by the...
2. Coriolis effect, a simple inertial motion model that is exigent due to the...
3. Rotation of a spherical earth.

Vague, evasive, worthless. Convection plays (almost) no role in the atmosphere. Water's role has to do with structure (plasma), not convection. Coriollis is a minor force.

How does any of this explain jet streams? (It doesn't.)

The other effects you listed may or may not be present [as you said, there is little evidence for it],

I said evidence is fleeting. That means its not obvious. That does not mean it does not exist.

but they are simply not needed.

All you have is vague, evasive, worthless speculation.

This is another case where despite your protestations to the contrary the "standard model" does not fail to predict and explain the atmospheric findings you mentioned.

The standar model is but vague rhetoric. It's worthless.

Rising moist warm air

Tell us what is causing it to rise, since we know that moist air is heavier than dry air.


due to the rotating spherical earth], which causes the polar easterlies and mid-latitude westerlies to clash. This is also the direct cause of the jet streams as reinforcement of wind movement along the relatively frictionless tropopause,

This is an absurd claim. The tropopause is not frictionless. The inside of a vortice (jet stream) is, however.


causes the winds to weave eastward through the mid latitudes. The jet streams are driven by and then drive a general atmospheric engine, modified by otherwise somewhat chaotic behavior of air as a gas mixture, modified by surface topography and ocean currents, resulting in weather.

This reads like wishy washy propaganda. What the frick is a "atmospheric engine?" This is meaningless rhetoric.

This explanation not only specifies why and where the jet streams form, but also why their waving currents are actually somewhat difficult to predict beyond about three to five day window.

Webo, I know you didn't mean it, but it is insulting the way you completely ignored my argument and then went on to repeat the vague, meaningless rhetoric of the current meteorological paradigm. You didn't even bother acknowledge that many of the basic assumptions of this propaganda have never been substantiated--and that was after it was pointed out to you multiple times.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 390
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Accounting For Lorenz’s Missing Lubrication in the Atmos

Unread postby Maol » Mon Jan 16, 2017 11:29 am

jimmcginn wrote:This reads like wishy washy propaganda. What the frick is a "atmospheric engine?" This is meaningless rhetoric.

The heat engine you described in the first sentence in your first post?
Maol
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:40 pm


Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests