Reflection on Daniel Eltons Dissertation on Water

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: Reflection on Daniel Eltons Dissertation on Water

Unread postby jimmcginn » Fri Feb 17, 2017 9:45 am

webolife wrote:By the way, what is absurd about a 300 mph differential in relative wind speed [ie. the average speed of the jet stream with respect to the earth's surface from which it is gauged] due to the sphericity of the earth's surface?

It's surreal how gratuitously you misquote me.

webolife wrote:For a reader's reminder, the equatorial earth surface rotates eastward at 1600+ kph, while the mid to upper latitudes rotate eastward at around in the ranges of 700 - 1100 kph, a difference middling around 700 kph to a stationary observer at those latitudes. So a polarward moving parcel of air originating near the equator will start out at a high eastward speed and "overtake" the slower rotating earth as it moves toward the poles, ie. moving eastward at a faster rate than the rotating earth at the higher latitudes. Likewise winds originating in the higher latitudes lag behind the earth's rotation as they head toward the equator. This is a basic description of the Coriolis effect, commonly stated thus: Currents [wind and water] in the Northern Hemisphere veer to the right [and to the left in the Southern Hemisphere]. This is an almost entirely exigent consequence of simple inertia, oh... and simple convection. It explains the anticyclonic movement in air masses [ie. clockwise in the N Hem}, as well as the cyclonic movement at low pressure frontal systems as considered in the context of convection.

What I am seeing here is an intellectual disconnect with reality. You didn't explain how a 300 mph wind is sustained along the tropopause or why it exists there. You brought up a few facts that are tangential to the issue. Yes the earth spins. Yes, there is a Coriolis effect. Yes, cyclonic movement is opposite in different hemisphere. Everybody knows all of this.

Even though I am sure it is inadvertent, by all appearances you are attempting to obfuscate the issue. All you are doing is stringing together observations that are related. You don't have a relevant point or an honest argument as far as I can tell.

The real issue here involves the question/mystery as to how this 300 mph flow maintains its coherence. Why/how does it avoid the friction that normally would spread this energy and reduce the flow to chaos?

Submission to Reader Comment Section of Ideas and Discoveries Magazine

Discover Something New
Ideas and Discoveries Magazine

My submission to Reader Comment Section:
(Published April, 2015)

A river that has no banks is not a river, it is a flood. Might the same be true for jet streams? If so, might this suggest an undiscovered plasma that facilitates the structural integrity that, like the banks of a river, makes the focused flow of jet streams possible? Your article on jet streams, entitled How Sick is the Jet Stream? February 2015, goes a long way to opening people's mind to the possibility that there is more to the atmosphere than just wind and water. On my own website,, I attempt to breath some life into these questions by drawing parallels between jet streams and tornadoes, even going so far as to suggest that the plainly observable cone or vortex of a tornado is evidence that substantiates the existence of this theoretical plasma. In my book entitled, Vortex Phase: The Discovery of the Spin That Underlies the Twist, I take it even further suggesting a simple solution to large, violent tornadoes. Thank you for providing graphic evidence that jet streams play a much greater role in our everyday lives than previously was even imagined.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Posts: 459
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Reflection on Daniel Eltons Dissertation on Water

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sat Feb 18, 2017 8:14 am

webolife wrote:The only thing that frustrates me in this conversation is your continuing rant that the established science is "superstition".

Surreal. If convection was "established" then you would have no reason to evade my analysis.

The real reason water is involved with storms isn't simple. Convection is one of those notions that people want to believe because it seems simple. It's actually impossible. And there are no simple alternatives.

Understanding water's *correct* role in the atmosphere is the most important concept for understanding storms and atmospheric flow, including jet streams. Water's role in the atmosphere has to do with its surface tension, not convection.
webolife wrote:Kuhn would not approve.

LOL. You remind me of those AGW nitwits that claim that anybody that doesn't believe what they believe must be a scientific heretic.
webolife wrote:You're welcome to believe that of course, but others who study the standard model and find it to [occasionally or often] be satisfactory for making predictions are still trying to do good science, and your ad hominem epithets do little to advance the science you are claiming to be trying to address.

More whining. More hiding behind the mantle of science. More pretending to understand what you only believe.
webolife wrote:I'm trying very hard to appreciate, understand and apply your work on gaseous water vapor vs. liquid microdroplets, and to visualize what appears to be quite a conceptual leap to your conclusion that moist air is heavier than dry air, buoyed up by solar wind driven plasma currents. If I wasn't patient with you, I'd have given up for good long ago. As it is, I'm thinking you may someday appreciate me being on your side.

People fight to maintain belief in an impossible explanation as long as it seems plausible. The real reason H2O is involved in storms and atmospheric flow seems implausible. Surface tension is not a simple concept.

The spinning of microdroplets along wind shear boundaries is what maximizes the surface area of H2O in the atmosphere. This only occurs when one body of air is moist and the other is dry, when they are moving in different directions, and when the boundary is relatively flat and distinct. And it only occurs just along this boundary.

When you eliminate what is impossible your mind opens to consider what is implausible. When you maximize the surface area of H2O you maximize the surface tension. The ensuing plasma-like qualities that form are what comprise the the vortices that entail and inner slick surface that isolates and accelerates the moist air that flows up through them, causing storms.

All storms involve vortices that are themselves connected to the jet stream, itself a vortice and itself located along a moist/dry wind shear boundary, the tropopause. Normally these vortices are unseen. Sometimes, however, when conditions dictate (tornado alley), boundary layers extend all the way to the ground (this is a consequence of turbulence of air moving over the rockies). When they do vortices can extend all the way to the ground, observable as a tornado.

People want to believe what is simple. When simple beliefs are shown to be false people experience cognitive dissonance. That makes them act like children who need their diapers changed.

Stop acting like a child and directly address the substance of my argument. Stop whining and get rigorous.

Water's role in the atmosphere has to do with its surface tension, not convection. This explains why storms are wet. And it explains why people that believe in convection are so desperate to politically ostracize anybody exposes this pseudo scientific notion.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Posts: 459
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm


Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests