comingfrom wrote:Water doesn't have to be at boiling temperature to evaporate (e-vapor-ate, or, to become vapor).
In fact, the air will strip the water off you, as you know if you have ever come out from a swim on a windy day.
Paul, we aren't bargaining to buy a used car here. Truth isn't negotiable.
Water dissolves in air. Just like gases dissolve in water.
There are similarities, but so what? That is not a good excuse for just imagining them being exactly the same. Vapor is liquid. Gas is gaseous. We cannot just pretend that a vapor is a liquid so that we can pretend that meterology's notion of storms seems to make sense. Truth isn't negotiable.
There isn't more water inside a cloud, than there is outside the cloud.
Clouds are clouds of ions, which attract water molecules, and we can then see the water because the molecules become structured around the ions and refract the sunlight to our eyes.
I don't agree that it is in any way reasonable to refer to H2O as being ionic.
Excuse the abrupt introduction, but whether water in the air is a vapor or a gas seems to me to be splitting hairs,
It seems as such to everybody. That is the problem. Our intuition misleads us. Meteorology's storm theory panders to this intuition providing us a false understanding of atmospheric flow, which is a huge political obstacle to the acceptance of advanced thinking, like mine.
comingfrom wrote: or a matter of semantics. The fact is, we know there is water in the air, and we know how it gets there. Lakes dams and oceans aren't boiling, yet water evaporates from them into the air.
And since we know evaporate is liquid and, therefore, moist air is heavier than dry air we thereby know that evaporate can only have negative buoyancy and, therefore, the force that causes evaporation must be something not well understood. I believe electricity, as a result of the solar wind, may play a significant role. More recently I came across this:
http://principia-scientific.org/new-met ... y-objects/
I wasn't ever satisfied with the explanations of cloud formation given to me in school. They didn't explain my own simple observations for me, and I have pursued a better explanation all my life. So I'm interested in what you have to say, and agree with most of what I have read so far. I agree that "mainstream" has got things all wrong (and not just in Meteorology).
Anyhow, this is where I am up to.
Many people get to the point you are at and they become overwhelmed and they fall back on the simple certainty of meteorology's model. It is very difficult to defeat your own intuition. (It has become even more difficult as a result of the fact that all of academia is in collusion to pander to our collective intuitions for fiscal [funding] reasons.)
The Earth is part of the Solar circuit.
The solar wind delivers particles, electrons, protons and cations, which the Earth's magnetic field draws some in (causing the Northern and Southern Auroras). Since electrons are approximately 1/1,800th the size of a proton, most or many of them manage the passage through the atmosphere without striking a molecule, and the Earth acts as a semiconductor soaking them up, but the protons and cations get caught by colliding with molecules in the atmosphere (hence the glow). All these positively charged particles accumulate and spread around the globe in a layer we call the ionosphere. The charge of the ionosphere is maintained by a double layer, however the charge difference to the ground (negatively charged Earth) is very great,
Interesting. It sound like you know a lot about the upper atmosphere.
comingfrom wrote: and the double layer breaks here and there from time to time discharging some cations into the lower atmosphere, where there are water molecules. Water molecules have two Hydrogen atoms at one end of an Oxygen atom causing them to be slightly more positive one end, and negative at the other.
This is true, but . . . well, let's just say that water is a lot more complex than people give it credit for being. See this:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 97#p117256
comingfrom wrote: In the vicinity of a cation the water molecule will "magnetize" itself to that cation. When many water molecules have oriented themselves and clung to the ion they are lined up like a crystal formation, and sometimes form into snowflakes by this means. And like crystals the water droplets refract sunlight and send little flashes to our eye, the end result is that we see clouds. Water outside of clouds are randomly oriented and so don't exhibit this effect.
So, clouds are clouds of ions, and the ions effect the water in the air in the cloud.
Thornhill assumes this also. I think it is mistaken to refer to H2O as being ionic, as I explain in the link above.
Unless and until you/everbody understand(s) water you will always be confused about cloud formation. And, once again, academia is the major obstacle.
comingfrom wrote:A cloud is also a double layer, which separates a region of positively charged atmosphere from the ambient relatively negative air around the cloud. The double layer contains the ions within the cloud and gives the cloud it's distinctive boundary. Or sometimes the cloud's double layer breaks, and you can watch it sometimes when a stream jets out the side of a cloud.
Excellent comment. Not many people realize that "stream jets" can be seen tracking between puffy clouds. They are actually much more plainly observable than most people realize.
The protons and ions ultimately want to discharge themselves to Earth, but are fighting multiple electric forces in the atmosphere before they are able to. Eventually they always do. They discharge as rain, as well as lightning. Each raindrop having a proton or a cation at it's center, just waiting to recapture an electron when it reaches the ground.
I don't know if I have explained very well, I have assumed a bit of background knowledge, such as on double layers.
Or if it is helpful to you in any way.
It is helpful. It is complimentary from what I can tell. It is a step in the right direction. I disagree that ions are involved. But your model (which seems similar to Thornhill's model) is closer to reality than is the meteorology's convection fairy tale.
This explained for me how clouds can "pop out of nowhere" in the middle of the desert on a bright sunny day, a long way away from any evaporating water bodies.
It explained for me why gardens grow so much better with rain, than on town water. Plants make good use of charged free protons, for making hydrocarbons.
It also implies that this is how the Earth is (and probably all the planets are) gradually growing in size. Material blown off from the Sun is steadily raining down on Earth. Literally.
The clouds teach me EU theory
I think you are on the right track, but you aren't there yet. The key is to get a better understanding of H2O. It is much more complicated and categorically distinct from other chemical elements and, consequently, extremely counterintuitive. Unfortunately, once again, academia amplifies the problem by shielding us from the complexity by way of propping up models that appeal to our intuition.
When you have a comprehensive understanding of water then and only then will you have all the pieces of the puzzle from which a correct (more correct) understanding of atmospheric flow can be constructed.
I keep telling people that the key is in understanding water. They take a few steps in the right direction, and then they become confused, frustrated, and they fall back into the comfort of the simple certainty of academia's simple models.