Moist Air Convection Myth

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: Moist Air Convection Myth

Unread postby jimmcginn » Mon Jan 02, 2017 4:36 pm

Maol wrote:
James McGinn wrote: The boiling temperature/pressure of H2O is common knowledge and it plainly refutes the
notion that moist air contains gaseous H2O.

How do you explain sublimation of frozen H2O?


It's comparable to evaporation, both of which produce vapor, not gaseous H2O.
Maybe this will help:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=105#p115014

Read the thread after this post.

Regards,

Jim McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Moist Air Convection Myth

Unread postby webolife » Mon Jan 02, 2017 7:01 pm

Maol,
McGinn has his own definition of water vapor, that supposes all the actions of water vapor pressure, air density and humidity attributed to gaseous water vapor are being accomplished by his water aerosol [read McGinn's link to the storm theory thread, and note in particular Charles Chandler's quote from standard language of science]. Never mind that McGinn has no experimental proof that his hydrogen bonded "droplets" at the microscopic level do not behave exactly as a gas, nor has he evidence that water vapor is not a gas below its sealevel boiling temperature of 100deg C; but do pay attention to his admission in that thread that he has no idea what size his alleged microdroplets are ["not my field of study," he says]. What ...[the rest of us]... recognize is that water has latent heat, an electrical property well known from basic meteorology and chemistry that enables water to evaporate into a gaseous [by usual language of science, not McGinn's] form from either liquid or frozen state [sublimation] under the right conditions of atmospheric pressure. Now it may be conceded that sublimation involves a transient interphase of liquid microdroplets between the frozen and gaseous phases, and I'll not argue that point. But if McGinn's alleged liquid microdroplets behave as one would expect a gas to behave [which I contend to be the case], what's the point of saying that convection theory is wrong? Whether moist air is less dense because of the electric repulsion of immeasurably tiny liquid microdroplets or conventionally understood water vapor becomes moot. Convection in fact happens! And it causes storms!
Jimmcginn, we've heard your theory and your diatribe against standard models of humidity... tell us how you know [ie. what evidence demonstrates] that the tiny corpuscles of atmospheric water in a moist parcel of air are in fact in a liquid state, and how that somehow makes those moist parcels of air more dense than dry air?
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: 2397
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Moist Air Convection Myth

Unread postby jimmcginn » Mon Jan 02, 2017 10:56 pm

webolife wrote:Maol,
McGinn has his own definition of water vapor,


Right. It's a liquid in the atmosphere. Microdroplets. It's never, ever, gaseous. And these microdroplets (often so small they are just as invisible as gas) are suspended by electrostatic forces, an implication of the solar wind. Buoyancy and convection play no roll in the atmosphere. (Actually, there is an exception to this rule. See below.)

webolife wrote: that supposes all the actions of water vapor pressure, air density and humidity attributed to gaseous water vapor are being accomplished by his water aerosol


Right. Maximization of H2O surface area (a consequence of moist/dry wind shear) maximizes its surface tension, resulting in a plasma that is the structural element in jet streams and storms. it is, normally, most directly observable as the sheath of tornadoes.

webolife wrote:[read McGinn's link to the storm theory thread,


Excellent advice.

webolife wrote: and note in particular Charles Chandler's quote from standard language of science].


Excellent advice, again.

webolife wrote:Never mind that McGinn has no experimental proof that his hydrogen bonded "droplets" at the microscopic level do not behave exactly as a gas,


H2O is not a gas at ambient temperatures. We know this because all of the laboratory evidence indicates just that and none of the laboratory evidence indicates otherwise. Consult steam tables if you don't trust me on this.

By the way, I don't completely disagree with what you are saying here. H2O vapor does behave a lot like a gas. The following was copied from the Discussion section of my "Breakthrough" paper that I put out a year ago. Here is a link to the full paper (I have to warn you, though. The second half of this short excerpt is very hard to comprehend if you have not read and studied the full paper):
https://zenodo.org/record/37224

*** Begin cut and paste ***
Some Resolution to The Strangeness of Water
Among those that study it, common parlance on the strangeness of water tends to focus on the fact that the H2O molecule is a polar molecule. These explanations don’t go far enough. To truly capture its paradoxical nature we have to take into consideration the fact that proximity to other H2O molecules is the mechanism that neutralizes its polarity. Therefore, the more molecules of water have the collective properties of a liquid (close proximity to each other) the more they have the individual properties of a gas (electromagnetic neutrality) and vice versa. Consequently, molecules of liquid H2O, unlike those of any others substance, just kind of float, banging into each other, bouncing away, producing a pendulumic conservation of energy as, with distance, the charges return that bring them back again, spreading energy through the matrix as a consequence of their high degree of connectivity. And this is just to set the stage for more strangeness that emerges in conjunction with the geometry of the H2O molecule that dictate limitations on its collective ability to neutralize its own polarity, which occurs in a highly stable form along the surface of liquid water, producing surface tension, and in a much less stable form below it’s surface, producing low-density anomalies. Additionally, we have to take into consideration the tendency of H2O molecules to collectively form a mechanical matrix that, if the temperature is low enough and the matrix is energetically unbalanced, will facilitate a cascading chain reaction that will produce a widening general interruption in their collective ability to neutralize their own polarity, producing ice; or, if the matrix is energetically balanced and mechanically synchronized (as will be the the case if cooled slowly under calm conditions) will effectuate a threshold that acts as a barrier to its ability to initiate any such cascading chain reaction, producing supercooled water. And, as has been well documented by others, all of this is just a drop in the bucket of the strangeness engendered by this seemingly simple molecule.
*** End cut and paste ***

webolife wrote: nor has he evidence that water vapor is not a gas below its sealevel boiling temperature of 100deg C;


Hmm. Well, we have the laboratory evidence (no gaseous H2O, sorry). And your statement is one more piece of a huge body of evidence that many, many, many humans have a deeply subconscious belief that H2O is a gas at ambient temperatures. And so . . . well, we can safely dismiss it as group think, or even a group delusion. That is what I'm seeing.

webolife wrote: but do pay attention to his admission in that thread that he has no idea what size his alleged microdroplets are ["not my field of study," he says].


Anybody's guess is a good as mine on that one.

What ...[the rest of us]... recognize is that water has latent heat, an electrical property

Say what? Latent heat? Like a chemical reaction? Another group delusion? Electrical property?

Actually, LIQUID H2O has a high heat capacity (not latent heat). I will be expanding on this.

webolife wrote: well known from basic meteorology and chemistry that enables water to evaporate into a gaseous [by usual language of science, not McGinn's] form from either liquid or frozen state [sublimation] under the right conditions of atmospheric pressure. Now it may be conceded that sublimation involves a transient interphase of liquid microdroplets between the frozen and gaseous phases, and I'll not argue that point. But if McGinn's alleged liquid microdroplets behave as one would expect a gas to behave [which I contend to be the case], what's the point of saying that convection theory is wrong?


Well, even though I have always considered meteorology's notion that convection of "lighter" moist air powers storms to be strained, contrived, and artificially idealized, it wasn't until i discovered the plasma phase of H2O that I considered it to be worth the trouble to stand in opposition to the spiritualistic fervor of what people want to believe about water and moist air.

webolife wrote:Whether moist air is less dense because of the electric repulsion of immeasurably tiny liquid microdroplets or conventionally understood water vapor becomes moot. Convection in fact happens! And it causes storms!


Well, storms do happen. But the energy of storms comes from jet streams, not convection. (Strangely, convection actually is involved. But not in the way you think. The negative buoyancy of moist air is instrumental in the creation of long, flat boundary layers. These boundary layers are prerequisites to the vortices that deliver the energy of storms from the jet streams.)

webolife wrote:Jimmcginn, we've heard your theory and your diatribe against standard models of humidity... tell us how you know [ie. what evidence demonstrates] that the tiny corpuscles of atmospheric water in a moist parcel of air are in fact in a liquid state, and how that somehow makes those moist parcels of air more dense than dry air?


Us humans have been lying to ourselves for the longest time about the complexity of water. We pretend its simple, and its not. A consequence of this pretense has been that science has mis-characterized its genuine nature. And, worst of all, by pretending it is simple we have forced a lot of the rest of nature to be more complicated than it need be.

I will be releasing the first chapter of my next book which will explicate ALL of this. I hope to do that before the end of January.

Happy New Year,

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Moist Air Convection Myth

Unread postby webolife » Tue Jan 03, 2017 5:16 pm

jimmcginn wrote:It's a liquid in the atmosphere. Microdroplets. It's never, ever, gaseous. And these microdroplets (often so small they are just as invisible as gas) are suspended by electrostatic forces, an implication of the solar wind. Buoyancy and convection play no roll in the atmosphere.

Ok, so you believe that moisture in the atmosphere is suspended by electricity caused by solar wind. Got it.
jimmcginn wrote:Maximization of H2O surface area (a consequence of moist/dry wind shear) maximizes its surface tension, resulting in a plasma that is the structural element in jet streams and storms. it is, normally, most directly observable as the sheath of tornadoes.

Moist/dry wind shear maximizes water droplet surface area by... what? And the "surface tension" associated with invisibly tiny water droplets becomes a plasma... how? Wouldn't it cause repulsion between the water droplets, preventing them from organizing into anything? (Surface tension in quotes because I think you may be misunderstanding it.)
jimmcginn wrote:H2O is not a gas at ambient temperatures. We know this because all of the laboratory evidence indicates just that and none of the laboratory evidence indicates otherwise. Consult steam tables if you don't trust me on this.
What evidence? I did many experiments with phase changes in water in my 37 years of science teaching, and I didn'y notice that evaporating water formed invisibly small liquid water droplets, except of course when the "gas-like" water vapor came in contact with cooler air, just as it does when atmospheric water vapor condenses into the liquid droplets we see in clouds...
jimmcginn wrote:Among those that study it, common parlance on the strangeness of water tends to focus on the fact that the H2O molecule is a polar molecule. These explanations don’t go far enough. To truly capture its paradoxical nature we have to take into consideration the fact that proximity to other H2O molecules is the mechanism that neutralizes its polarity.

Far from it. In the presence of hydrophylic surfaces/interfaces, water molecules stack tightly into hundreds of polarized layers, producing a battery of measurable voltage.
jimmcginn wrote:Consequently, molecules of liquid H2O, unlike those of any others substance, just kind of float, banging into each other, bouncing away, producing a pendulumic conservation of energy as, with distance, the charges return that bring them back again, spreading energy through the matrix as a consequence of their high degree of connectivity. And this is just to set the stage for more strangeness that emerges in conjunction with the geometry of the H2O molecule that dictate limitations on its collective ability to neutralize its own polarity, which occurs in a highly stable form along the surface of liquid water, producing surface tension, and in a much less stable form below it’s surface, producing low-density anomalies.

The last part I get, as I just said it in the reply above...
Spreading energy through the matrix as a result of their high connectivity? Charge increases with distance? Other polar molecules don't behave this way, ie. no Brownian motion in any other liquids? Where are you coming up with this? Certainly not by doing lab experiments.
jimmcginn wrote:Hmm. Well, we have the laboratory evidence (no gaseous H2O, sorry).

Wait... did I miss it? Did you just show me some lab evidence? Let me see it again!
jimmcginn wrote:many, many, many humans have a deeply subconscious belief that H2O is a gas at ambient temperatures. And so . . . well, we can safely dismiss it as group think, or even a group delusion. That is what I'm seeing.

Safely dismiss it? Because the vast preponderance of study, experimentation, and years of development of physical, chemical and weather technology disagree with your new idea? Well I can accept your premise that we have a battle of belief systems...I've been waging that battle myself for four decades.
jimmcginn wrote:WEBOLIFE "What ...[the rest of us]... recognize is that water has latent heat, an electrical property"

Say what? Latent heat? Like a chemical reaction? Another group delusion? Electrical property?
Actually, LIQUID H2O has a high heat capacity (not latent heat)

Now I think that's just double talk... Yes the property of surface tension [structured water] is electrical, as briefly described above, and the kinetic energy of water which is observed as Brownian motion, an electrical property mentioned above [I'll call that latent heat for now, you can call it high heat capacity if you like] even at low temperatures is sufficient to evaporate some of the water molecules through and away from the surface, becoming... oh-oh... un"structured" water vapor. Of course the higher the temperature of the water, the faster this process will occur... but also greater wind sheer at the surface/interface will increase the rate of evaporation even at lower temperatures, because the kinetic "pressure" [I'll call that latent heat for now, you can call it high heat capacity if you like] of the liquid water molecules "behind" the structured water boundary condition will push out water molecules into that lower pressure stream. The greater the pressure differential, the more rapid the evaporation rate.
jimmcginn wrote:Well, storms do happen. But the energy of storms comes from jet streams, not convection. (Strangely, convection actually is involved. But not in the way you think. The negative buoyancy of moist air is instrumental in the creation of long, flat boundary layers. These boundary layers are prerequisites to the vortices that deliver the energy of storms from the jet streams.)

So the solar wind is lifting the water vapor droplets upward, but at some point their "negative buoyancy" is keeping them from dissipating into space, forming a jet streamish layer, or clouds, etc. How is this novel view superior in explanatory power to standard meteorology which has buoyant moist air convectively rising until it adiabatically cools and condenses at that point into the water droplets we see as clouds, storms, etc. This standard view seems much more elegant and clear than yours... that's what I'm seeing.
jimmcginn wrote:Us humans have been lying to ourselves for the longest time about the complexity of water. We pretend its simple, and its not. A consequence of this pretense has been that science has mis-characterized its genuine nature. And, worst of all, by pretending it is simple we have forced a lot of the rest of nature to be more complicated than it need be.

Have we? As long as I can remember I have been taught and been fascinated by the complexities and exceptional qualities of water, not the least of which is the recent work of Dr. Pollack at the Univ of Washington in the applications of structured water gels. Do you think your view is simplifying nature? Of course you must say that it is, or you would realize you are wasting your time and energy trying to defend it. But you can't just come out saying that the standard model is wrong without producing evidence to support your claim. And despite your numerous repetitions of the proverb, you have yet to produce anything that shows that "laboratory evidence" disfavors the current paradigm and favors yours.
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: 2397
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Moist Air Convection Myth

Unread postby jimmcginn » Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:36 am

Moist/dry wind shear maximizes water droplet surface area by... what? And the "surface tension" associated with invisibly tiny water droplets becomes a plasma... how?

JMcG:
It's great to see you are asking the right questions. Since I am currently working on a paper that explicates this exact subject matter I am going to evade these questions right now. I promise an answer before the end of January.

JMcG (previously):
H2O is not a gas at ambient temperatures. We know this because all of the laboratory evidence indicates just that and none of the laboratory evidence indicates otherwise. Consult steam tables if you don't trust me on this.

What evidence?

JMcG:
Steam tables. The boiling temperature of H2O is much higher than anything in the atmosphere. Right? Surely you know this. Right? And surely you realize H2O is not a gas below its boiling temperature. Right? Er . . . ? No? Well, if you want to believe clear, moist air (at ambient temperatures) contains steam (gaseous H2O) that is your right. personally I believe it is impossible. And I haven't seen any evidence to contradict this claim. But I support your right to believe what you want to believe. And I'm not suggesting you don't have the right to believe whatever you want.

I did many experiments with phase changes in water in my 37 years of science teaching, and I didn't notice that evaporating water formed invisibly small liquid water droplets

JMcG:
So, let me get this straight. Your assertion is based on not seeing something that is invisible?

In the presence of hydrophylic surfaces/interfaces, water molecules stack tightly into hundreds of polarized layers, producing a battery of measurable voltage.

JMcG:
Apples and oranges. I'm talking about bonds that form between H2O molecules. You appear to be discussing some of Pollack's thinking, from what I can tell. Like you, I'm a fan of Pollack. Some people say he's crazy. I think he's not crazy enough.

Charge increases with distance?

JMcG:
You aren't going to understand what I mean by this unless and until you thoroughly study my "Breakthrough" paper. I know that's a chore, but there is nothing I could say here that would make it any easier. Sorry. (I think I dropped a link above.) (Also, I will be further explicating it in the chapter I will release soon.)

ie. no Brownian motion in any other liquids?

JMcG:
This is very different from Brownian motion. Trust me. (Or read that paper.) (Somewhere in one of my posts I dropped a link to YouTube video of Frank Wilczek. He discovered/explained a submolecular mechanism that is functionally very similar to the one I identified between H2O molecules in liquid water. I wish I could find that link.)

JMcG:
Hmm. Well, we have the laboratory evidence (no gaseous H2O, sorry).

Wait... did I miss it?

JMcG:
Everybody missed it because it doesn't exist. I also can't show you any evidence that ghosts don't exist either. But that doesn't mean that ghosts do exist. Right? The fact that a lot of people believe it exists doesn't mean its the responsibility of skeptic to prove otherwise. I'm not going to chase ghosts that only you can see.

JMcG (previously):
many, many, many humans have a deeply subconscious belief that H2O is a gas at ambient temperatures. And so . . . well, we can safely dismiss it as group think, or even a group delusion. That is what I'm seeing.

Safely dismiss it? Because the vast preponderance of study, experimentation, and years of development of physical, chemical and weather technology disagree with your new idea?

JMcG:
If that were true you should have no trouble finding something that contradicts what I am saying. Right? Go ahead.

JMcG (previously):
Say what? Latent heat? Like a chemical reaction? Another group delusion? Electrical property?
Actually, *LIQUID* H2O has a high heat capacity (not latent heat)

Now I think that's just double talk...

JMcG:
It's not doubletalk. It's pivotal. (Wait for my chapter to see why I say this.) In the meantime, take my advice, there is no "latent heat" associated with phase changes of H2O. This notion is another group delusion. This is why you won't find any laboratory evidence to substantiate this notion. It is just another of the numerous notions about H2O that people want to believe. And (for reason I won't attempt to explain now) H2O heat capacity (which, by the way, only exists in the liquid phase, it does not exist in the gaseous or solid phase of H2O) is categorically distinct from "latent heat."

Yes the property of surface tension [structured water] is electrical,

JMcG:
Electrical? (Can't it be said that all of chemistry is electrical?) A hydrogen bond is no more electrical than an ionic bond.

as briefly described above, and the kinetic energy of water which is observed as Brownian motion, an electrical property mentioned above [I'll call that latent heat for now, you can call it high heat capacity if you like] even at low temperatures is sufficient to evaporate some of the water molecules through and away from the surface, becoming... oh-oh... un"structured" water vapor.

JMcG:
Water vapor is liquid, not gas. Evaporation doesn't produce gaseous H2O. Water vapor is an aerosol--liquid.

So the solar wind is lifting the water vapor droplets upward,

JMcG:
No. Static electricity is allowing heavier-than-air microdroplets to be suspended between air molecules. The solar wind is the source of the static electricity.

but at some point their "negative buoyancy" is keeping them from dissipating into space, forming a jet streamish layer, or clouds, etc.

JMcG:
Negative buoyancy is instrumental in allowing them to form extensive, flat layers between moist air and dry air under calm conditions. These extensive flat layers are, essentially, the stuff of storms. (These extensive, flat layers are the resources of vortice growth. They are the pathway through which vortices grow down to deliver the low pressure energy of storms. [BTW, if you/we habitually destroy this pathway {ie wind farms} you/we may, according to this theory, induce drought.])

How is this novel view superior

JMcG:
Well, firstly, it contains nothing that is impossible, like gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures. In this respect alone it is superior. But my presentation of this theory is still in its infancy.

in explanatory power to standard meteorology which has buoyant moist air convectively rising

JMcG:
If you came across a doctor who believed that blood letting to cure disease had a lot of explanatory power would you allow her/him to operate on you? Of course you wouldn't. My point being that explanatory power is meaningless if it is based on false facts. Since moist air is heavier, not lighter, than any dry air in its vicinity convection is impossible. Right? In other words, since we know for a fact that moist air has negative buoyancy we can only assume that something else, some other force, must be causing moist air to get all the way up to the top of the troposphere. Right?

Do you think your view is simplifying nature?

JMcG:
It will in the long run. For the time being keep the following in mind. Water's role in atmospheric flow has to do with leverage not convection. And it is H2O's high surface tension that is instrumental in this regard.

But you can't just come out saying that the standard model is wrong without producing evidence to support your claim.

JMcG:
I don't need to. The evidence that the standard model is wrong is in the public domain. (Steam tables.) All you have to do is look.

JMcG:
It would be great if people like myself, yourself, and Pollack could find some common ground because fighting this fight on an individual basis is just about impossible.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Moist Air Convection Myth

Unread postby seasmith » Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:50 am

seasmith
 
Posts: 2616
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Moist Air Convection Myth

Unread postby webolife » Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:52 am

Ok, those were some "solid" responses. But you are making a number of extraordinary claims:
1. The solar wind is responsible for an electrostatic anti-gravitic voltage gradient in the atmosphere.
2. Gaseous water can only exist at boiling temperatures.
3. Moist air is heavier than dry air, so weather phenomena are not caused by convection.
4. Negative buoyancy creates clouds, or flat layers, and this somehow creates pathways for vortices to grow downward which produces low pressure...
5. The laboratory evidence you believe supports this [steam tables]... actually "doesn't exist."
6. Wind farms cause drought. {??}

I can see that most of your theory stands upon the premises of the first two claims, but I honestly cannot see how any of the others follow, nor how do these claims improve on the convection model for forecasting, storm alerts, etc.?

Here's where we agree, I think:
Hydrogen bonding is certainly responsible for the formation of liquid water at ambient temperatures.
Hydrogen bonding is responsible for the lower density of ice, ie. water below 4deg C.
Hydrogen bonding is responsible for the "stickiness" of many other substances.

Where we are at variance:
The kinetic energy budget of ambient air is... or is not... sufficient to "break" the hydrogen bonding that forms liquid water [droplets].
If not, the size or structure of these droplets does... or does not... cause the parcel of air that contains them to become less dense.
The other claims you make do not necessarily follow, so I await more persuasive evidence, perhaps by the end of January? ;)
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: 2397
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Moist Air Convection Myth

Unread postby Maol » Thu Jan 05, 2017 7:39 pm

Sounds to me as if he needs to study up on or perhaps has never heard of the van der Waals force.
Maol
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:40 pm

Re: Moist Air Convection Myth

Unread postby webolife » Fri Jan 06, 2017 1:00 am

Who's "he", Jim or me? :)
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: 2397
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Moist Air Convection Myth

Unread postby Maol » Fri Jan 06, 2017 3:20 am

webolife wrote:Who's "he", Jim or me? :)

Sorry, didn't mean to be vague, and as I suspect with your reference to H2O vapor you are familiar with van der Waals forces, so that leaves James McGinn and the Tornado Solvent. :?
Maol
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:40 pm

Re: Moist Air Convection Myth

Unread postby jimmcginn » Fri Jan 06, 2017 1:14 pm

Maol wrote:
webolife wrote:Who's "he", Jim or me? :)

Sorry, didn't mean to be vague, and as I suspect with your reference to H2O vapor you are familiar with van der Waals forces, so that leaves James McGinn and the Tornado Solvent. :?


You've anticipated our first product. A tornado solvent. It comes in a handy spray can. It's called TORNADO-BE-GONE! (note the all-caps). You simply spray in on the tornado and it turns into a summer breeze.

I think I understand van der Waals forces even if sometimes I can't remember how to spell it. But if you think I missed something feel free to make an argument to that effect.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Moist Air Convection Myth

Unread postby webolife » Fri Jan 06, 2017 10:56 pm

Will your solvent be ready by 2017 tornado season? I'll be traveling in tornado alley this summer. Could use a can.

There many practical analogs for atmospheric convection... convection ovens, convection heating in a home, ocean currents, a cup of coffee, mixed drinks... the convection model is well supported by much experience, experiment and data. None of these require exotic new definitions or theories to explain or apply. What advantage does your atmospheric theory have? What can you forecast that isn't more simply understood and practiced through the convection model?
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: 2397
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Moist Air Convection Myth

Unread postby Maol » Fri Jan 06, 2017 11:46 pm

He may be postulating a scenario similar to the discussion in this thread

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15049&hilit=magneto

as a source of atmospheric energy, one source, convection another. He must be ignoring the thermodynamics of the day-side/night-side heat pump. To argue H20 doesn't exist in the vapor state is making the sound of one hand clapping.

Or this thread viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15119&hilit=tornado
Maol
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:40 pm

Re: Moist Air Convection Myth

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sat Jan 07, 2017 1:08 pm

webolife wrote:1. The solar wind is responsible for an electrostatic anti-gravitic voltage gradient in the atmosphere.

I like the way you put that. I hope you don't mind if I borrow your words. It kind of reminds me of my favorite book when I was 12, Danny Dunn and the Anti-Gravity Paint.
webolife wrote:4. Negative buoyancy creates clouds, or flat layers,

Yes, during calm conditions. (Basically, this is what meteorologists refer to as "inversion" layers. [BTW, they really aren't inverted at all--but that is another argument.])
webolife wrote:and this somehow creates pathways for vortices to grow downward which produces low pressure...

Yes. And I realize that this "somehow' is a big somehow. For the time being be aware that water's role in atmospheric flow involves: 1) Structure 2) Reduction of friction, and 3) leverage. And tieing all of this together are the energy conservation properties of H2O. (And I don't want to open that can of worms here and now.)
webolife wrote:6. Wind farms cause drought. {??}

It has to do with the fact that wind turbines, unavoidably, introduce turbulence that destroys the smoothness of boundary layers. I won't attempt to explain the significance of smooth (moist/dry) boundary layers now. But, to answer your questions, Yes. I know it sounds extravagant, but I do *believe* wind turbines *may* even cause drought. Might this be mistaken or completely overdramatized in my mind? Of course it could be. And can I prove any of this? Of course not. And it may just be confirmation bias on my part when I get on the internet and compare the drought map of different regions to the wind farm map and, in my opinion, there seems to be too high a correlation to dismiss it as chance.

But, of course, I'm biased. I am trying to sell a theory of storms that relies heavily on boundary layers. I don't hate wind farms (in fact I think they are pretty cool). I'm just saying that if my theory is correct (obviously I believe it is or I wouldn't be presenting it) then this is something we may have to consider.

(BTW, boundary layers [moist/dry] are instrumental to the origins of the plasma that is the basis of the sheaths of tornadoes/jet streams. You will see more on this when I release [fairly soon I think] this first chapter of my next book. Until then, maybe think along the lines that the current paradigm of storm theory is missing one gigantic piece of the puzzle about the physics of the atmosphere. It involves the high surface tension of liquid H2O. And it involves the supposition that if situational factors maximize the surface area of liquid H2O they also maximize its surface tension.)
webolife wrote:how do these claims improve on the convection model for forecasting, storm alerts, etc.?

It's not possible to improve on something that has never been implemented. The convection model of storm theory plays no technical or functional role whatsoever in the synoptic techniques that underlie weather forecasting. It's just marketing. The fact that many, yourself included apparently, choose to assume otherwise is not anything I have any control over. As far as I'm concerned, the burden of proof on this extraordinary claim has never been met. But I recognize the rights of others--yourself included--to believe what you want to believe.

webolife wrote:Hydrogen bonding is responsible for the lower density of ice, ie. water below 4deg C.

This is a big question. Why does density (and viscosity) start to increase at 4 deg C as temperature decreases? Why does it not happen at zero degrees with the appearance of ice crystals?

It's also a clue to the mechanism underlying superchilled water in that superchilled water DOES NOT begin to increase its density (and viscosity) at 4 degrees C as the temperature goes down! (Chew on that for a while.)

I was going to address this in a later chapter of the book. But since you mention it and since I have no impulse control on these kinds of things: I think I may have, just recently, solved this particular piece of the water structure puzzle. It has to do with the fact that below 4 deg C the H2O molecule begins to flips its orientation relative to it center of mass.

I think I can describe why it does this flip--kinda. It involves the points of greatest leverage (where the two H atoms are covalently attached) and the center of mass of the H2O molecule being on the same side of the molecule. Under energetic conditions the points of greatest leverage (the H bonded ends) have the greatest influence on the orientation of the H2O molecule relative to the net sum of external attractive forces. In other words, under energetic conditions its center of mass gets inverted relative to the net sum of the Couloumb attractive forces of the surrounding H2O molecules. More simply put, it tends to stand on it oxygen end with its hydrogen end arms (its gears) in a state of suspended animation (pendulumic, actually, see my "Breakthrough" paper for details) over its head (kind of like an inflatable punching bag [actually this isn't the best analogy--maybe somebody can help]). Under lower energy conditions the center of mass itself has the greatest influence on its orientation. And so, below 4 deg C, they begin to flip. This causes the H2O molecules to, generally, fall into each other gear end to gear end. As the temperature continues to decrease they more and more clash and grind against each other gear end to gear end, increasing density as the temperature continues to drop. Eventually, as temperature goes below 0 degrees, they pry into each other, gear end to gear end. H bonds are broken (surface is created). A cascade of the same ensues. Dormant polarity is de-neutralized (activated). (It's very unlikely you will understand the previous sentence at this juncture [be patient].) Density decreases as surface is, literally, created. Maximization of surface area produces a corresponding maximization of surface tension. (This too [be patient].) Ice ensues.

And so, I believe that supercooled (superchilled) water involves situational factors (specifically, gradual cooling and calm environmental conditions) in which the H2O molecules gradually fall in against each other and, effectively, prevent or inhibit each other from flipping, simply as a consequence of their close proximity to each other. In other words, supercooled water involves situational factors by which they are, essentially, locked into a state of standing against each other on the non-gear end of the oxygen molecule. The are, essentially, locked into a liquid state. And they will remain in that state unless and until some perturbation is introduced to create enough space between them that the flipping can begin.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Moist Air Convection Myth

Unread postby webolife » Sat Jan 07, 2017 5:59 pm

Hey Jim,
If you had talked like that from the beginning of this thread, I may have gone easier on you.
Before proceeding, I get your comments about "latent heat" -- I should have said "heat capacity".
You may not get a couple of things about me:
1. I am trained in atmospheric science and taught it for many years at the secondary level. As such I am well read on the subject and am not just spouting "beliefs".
2. I have been bucking standard modeling in several areas of Earth Science [my major], for over four decades. I understand the inertial response of someone who is content with their trained "belief" system.
3. Given both #1 and 2, I tend to be hyper-critical of challenges to my training in order to attain a state of full persuasion that will enable me to rationally and intentionally change my position. I see too many people, many of whom are my "friends" here at TB, latching on to an appealing idea without seriously challenging or at least understanding the scientific underpinnings or lack thereof of the alternate theories, ie. examining their own beliefs and premises behind what are often quite dogmatic claims. Now maybe they're doing what I'm doing, and just not saying so. But I challenge dogmatism even if it agrees with my conclusions!
4. I thrive on vigorous debate for the above reasons, hence my signature statement...
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: 2397
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron