Simple Refutation of the Convection Model of Storm Theory

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Simple Refutation of the Convection Model of Storm Theory

Unread postby jimmcginn » Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:23 pm

Science is simple. But not everything that is simple is science. Consider these four facts:
1) There is a huge amount of evaporation (creation of moist air) occurring in the vicinity of the equatorial latitudes.
2) There is little evaporation (creation of moist air) in the vicinity of the polar latitudes.
3) The most violent and energetic storms rage on constantly in the vicinity of the polar latitudes.
4) The most gentle and brief storms occur in the vicinity of the equatorial latitudes.

If meteorological claims that storms are powered by the buoyancy of lighter, moist air then the most violent and energetic storms would occur along the equator and the most gentle storms would occur at the poles. Since exactly the opposite is actually observed the convection model of storm theory is--once again--refuted.

Yes, folks, it's that simple. This is how science *actually* works. Take it from me, a real scientist. You can safely ignore anybody that disputes what I am saying here. But don't worry. This probably will never happen. Pretenders never actually attempt to identify why they believe what they claim they believe.

Meteorology is a nonsense paradigm that depends greatly on pretending to understand what it does not in order to marginalize anybody that reveals to the public that they are full of fertilizer.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

Check this out:
Why the Convection Model of Storm Theory is based on Pixie Dust
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.phy ... SSeFBqEQAJ
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 350
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Simple Refutation of the Convection Model of Storm Theor

Unread postby Chickenmales » Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:53 pm

Could the storms in the polar latitudes be caused by a build up of charge coming in through the Earth's magnetic field from space? So there would be a build up of charge in the atmosphere, which would then discharge like a capacitor when the charge reaches a certain level. Could that work?
Chickenmales
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:51 pm

Re: Simple Refutation of the Convection Model of Storm Theor

Unread postby jimmcginn » Fri Mar 24, 2017 2:43 pm

Chickenmales wrote:Could that work?


No. The energy of storms has nothing to do with gravity (buoyancy, convection). And it also has nothing to do with electricity. It has to do with aerodynamics.

There is an abundant source of energy in our atmosphere--air pressure. Aerodynamics is the means by which that energy is converted into flow (wind).

A water based plasma provides the surface and structural resilience that makes aerodynamics possible, which spin up into vortices.

Vortices are the pressure relief valves of differential air pressure.

Vortices emerge on moist/dry wind-shear boundaries.

An unknown plasma phase of water underlies the plasma of vortices and it can only emerge under wind-shear conditions.

Vortices provide isolation from the friction that facilitate the high wind speeds that achieve a balance in atmospheric pressures from one region the next.

The conditions that underlie the emergence of the plasma depend greatly on the existence of long, flat, distinct boundaries between moist air and dry air.

These boundaries form most readily at freezing and subfreezing temperatures.

In a sense, the atmosphere has two problems. 1) Differential air pressure and 2) the friction of gases that prevents the differential air pressure from being alleviated. H2O plasma based vortices, which form most readily a lower temperatures, are the solution to this problem in that they provide isolation from isolation from the friction of the atmosphere.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 350
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Simple Refutation of the Convection Model of Storm Theor

Unread postby Chickenmales » Wed Mar 29, 2017 11:15 pm

OK, but electricity has to fit in somewhere because of lightning, doesn't it? And moist air would be a better conductor than dry air, so dry air would have a higher capacitance than wet air. Also some sort of water plasma, like EZ water or something, could potentially have different electrical properties than normal water. Right?
Chickenmales
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:51 pm

Re: Simple Refutation of the Convection Model of Storm Theor

Unread postby jimmcginn » Thu Mar 30, 2017 9:41 am

Chickenmales wrote:OK, but electricity has to fit in somewhere because of lightning, doesn't it?

Yes. Absolutely. It is instrumental in keeping nanodroplets suspended. I suspect (I don't know) that H2O nanodroplets have a net positive external shell. And this balances out the negative charges from the electricity that flows into the top of the atmosphere from the solar wind, causing these nanodroplets to be pulled upward with a force greater than gravity.

There is a misconception that evaporation involves steam (monomolecular H2O). That is impossible. Evaporation involves nanodroplets that make any parcel of air containing them heavier than drier air. Convection plays no role in the atmosphere. I believe the electric charges that exist between air molecules and the abundant kinetic energy in the atmosphere (air molecules are moving 700 to 900 mph!) have much more of an effect on the up/down movement of H2O in the atmosphere than gravity (convection/buoyancy).
Chickenmales wrote: And moist air would be a better conductor than dry air, so dry air would have a higher capacitance than wet air.

Yes, I believe so.

Chickenmales wrote:Also some sort of water plasma, like EZ water or something, could potentially have different electrical properties than normal water. Right?

Right. The "plasma" is actually H2O in which is surface has been maximized, thereby releasing electromagnetic forces that are more commonly associates with H2O's very high (and somewhat mysterious) surface tension. To be specific, it actually involves nanodroplets spinning as a result of wind shear (along moist/dry boundaries that form during calm conditions) and elongating into nanopolymers of H2O. I refer to it as 'surface tension on steroids'. When you see a tornado and notice the very distinction sheath of the tornado that isolates the rapid inner flow of the tornado from the rest of the atmosphere this is what you are seeing--that is the plasma.

Whether or not these plasma vortices actually act as conductors is not something I know, but It seem possible to me.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
WHAT GOES UP: Storm Theory: What meteorologists believe but won't debate, discuss, or even doubt
Now only 99 cents!!!
goo.gl/8RUjpG
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 350
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Simple Refutation of the Convection Model of Storm Theor

Unread postby Chickenmales » Mon Apr 03, 2017 2:55 am

I think it's all pretty interesting, although I've never really studied meteorology. One idea I have heard of though is the idea that tornadoes and hurricanes are created by an electric current where the electrons are coming down from the atmosphere and earthing on the surface. For some reason this is supposed to create a vortex. This plugs in with your idea of vortices being due to air pressure and water plasma... I think.

An electric current would heat up the air it travels through, creating a difference in air pressure (lower air pressure?) so there should be greater differences in air pressure in wet air. And if moist air conducts electricity better than dry air there would be more violent lightning strikes in dry air due to the atmospheric capacitor discharging.

What do you think? Is that hot or cold?
Chickenmales
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:51 pm

Re: Simple Refutation of the Convection Model of Storm Theor

Unread postby jimmcginn » Mon Apr 03, 2017 9:47 am

Chickenmales wrote:I think it's all pretty interesting, although I've never really studied meteorology. One idea I have heard of though is the idea that tornadoes and hurricanes are created by an electric current where the electrons are coming down from the atmosphere and earthing on the surface. For some reason this is supposed to create a vortex. This plugs in with your idea of vortices being due to air pressure and water plasma... I think.

An electric current would heat up the air it travels through, creating a difference in air pressure (lower air pressure?) so there should be greater differences in air pressure in wet air. And if moist air conducts electricity better than dry air there would be more violent lightning strikes in dry air due to the atmospheric capacitor discharging.

What do you think? Is that hot or cold?


Well, I suppose that if your only tool is a hammer every problem tends to look like a nail.

I don't think obsession with one aspect of reality is a good basis for any theory.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
https://www.amazon.com/WHAT-GOES-meteor ... B00KY7EGSG
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 350
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Simple Refutation of the Convection Model of Storm Theor

Unread postby fosborn_ » Mon Apr 03, 2017 9:57 am

Chickenmales wrote:I think it's all pretty interesting, although I've never really studied meteorology. One idea I have heard of though is the idea that tornadoes and hurricanes are created by an electric current where the electrons are coming down from the atmosphere and earthing on the surface. For some reason this is supposed to create a vortex. This plugs in with your idea of vortices being due to air pressure and water plasma... I think.

An electric current would heat up the air it travels through, creating a difference in air pressure (lower air pressure?) so there should be greater differences in air pressure in wet air. And if moist air conducts electricity better than dry air there would be more violent lightning strikes in dry air due to the atmospheric capacitor discharging.

What do you think? Is that hot or cold?


To get a more informed view. Read this thread please.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&hilit=Charles+chandler&start=15#p114587
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: 483
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: Simple Refutation of the Convection Model of Storm Theor

Unread postby jimmcginn » Fri Apr 07, 2017 11:07 am

fosborn_ wrote:To get a more informed view.


In this forum it is easy to believe a theory based on electricity.

When the only reason you believe something is because it is easy you know you've made a wrong turn in your thinking.

I've noticed two things about people, like Charles Chandler, who believe that tornadoes have an electric cause. 1) Extreme vagueness in their explanations/theories and 2) a stubborn resolve to avoid discussing any evidence that doesn't confirm their belief in the electric cause.

These are the same tendencies we see in any kind of religious or cult belief.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 350
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Simple Refutation of the Convection Model of Storm Theor

Unread postby Chickenmales » Sat Apr 08, 2017 5:01 pm

Well I certainly agree that it's best to keep an open mind. With the water plasma that occurs in certain types of wind shear conditions, has it been created in the lab, and if so, how did they do it?
Chickenmales
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:51 pm

Re: Simple Refutation of the Convection Model of Storm Theor

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sat Apr 08, 2017 7:22 pm

Chickenmales wrote:Well I certainly agree that it's best to keep an open mind.

That's good to hear. Thanks.
Chickenmales wrote:With the water plasma that occurs in certain types of wind shear conditions, has it been created in the lab,

No. I don't have the resources and everybody else that hears about it thinks I am crazy.

I first theorized it in February of 2012. It took me a year to get comfortable with the notion. It took me another year to state it publicly. Now, however, it seems normal. Even mundane.

A big part of the reason I am so comfortable with it now has to do with having become extremely knowledgeable about the remarkable kinetic elasticity of liquid H2O (related to its high heat capacity). Along those lines, I highly recommend reading this:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16582
I suggest you pay special attention to the part that discusses he zeroing of polarity.

Cheers,

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 350
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Simple Refutation of the Convection Model of Storm Theor

Unread postby Chickenmales » Fri Apr 14, 2017 4:42 pm

OK, I read the first 2 sections of chapter 1, I'll read the rest later, but for now I have two questions:

1) How might one go about creating the wind shear water plasma in the lab, would it be as simple as blowing dry air onto moist air?

2) Does lightning ever strike in the same storm as a tornado? This is probably an easy question to find the answer to on the internet, but I ask it anyway. :)
Chickenmales
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:51 pm

Re: Simple Refutation of the Convection Model of Storm Theor

Unread postby jimmcginn » Fri Apr 14, 2017 7:33 pm

Chickenmales wrote:OK, I read the first 2 sections of chapter 1, I'll read the rest later, but for now I have two questions:

1) How might one go about creating the wind shear water plasma in the lab, would it be as simple as blowing dry air onto moist air?

I don't think so, but there is this:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=15#p114587

2) Does lightning ever strike in the same storm as a tornado? This is probably an easy question to find the answer to on the internet, but I ask it anyway. :)


Occasionally, yes.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 350
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Simple Refutation of the Convection Model of Storm Theor

Unread postby Chickenmales » Mon Apr 24, 2017 3:10 am

Ok, so if a tornado had an electric current running through it, you might expect there not to be any lightning in tornado storms, or at least not much... Is there ever any powerful lightning strikes that touch the ground during tornados? If there is then I promise I'll move on from the electric current idea.

Could your water plasma be produced in something similar to a jet engine?

I have still to finish chapter one of bill, I'm pretty busy ATM.
Chickenmales
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:51 pm

Re: Simple Refutation of the Convection Model of Storm Theor

Unread postby jimmcginn » Tue Apr 25, 2017 9:42 am

Chickenmales wrote:Ok, so if a tornado had an electric current running through it, you might expect there not to be any lightning in tornado storms, or at least not much... Is there ever any powerful lightning strikes that touch the ground during tornados? If there is then I promise I'll move on from the electric current idea.

Could your water plasma be produced in something similar to a jet engine?


Are you serious.

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/ques ... jet-engine

Chickenmales wrote:I have still to finish chapter one of bill, I'm pretty busy ATM.


I don't think you have to move on from the electric current notions of tornadogenesis. I think you (or somebody) should attempt to nail down a more comprehensive conceptualization of what the notion is and what specific predictions follow from it. As it is now it is just a wishy-washy, vague notion; as it is now it seems to function exactly the opposite from what a scientific hypothesis is suppose to function. It's an excuse not to think.

Belief that there is an electric cause of tornadogenesis is kind of like a belief in ghosts. It's something that some people want to believe in. Every conversation I had with people who believe this vagueness has ended with them doing nothing more than asserting it. There is zero substance associated with this notion--just like ghosts.

Orthodoxy kills scienctific progress. Doctors that believe that believe in ghosts are more likely to assume that spirits cause disease and are therefore more likely to not do the research steps necessary to figure out what is the real cause of disease.

There is nothing wrong with keeping an open mind to the possibility that electricity plays a larger role in tornadogenesis. I just think you should not be obsessive about it to the exclusion of other avenues of exploration. Few people would have guessed that there is a plasma phase of H2O. Most people are incapable of thinking outside the framework of their expectations. And these expectations are narrowly defined by what they believe to be scientifically true. They tend to see scientifc knowledger as the set of all things that have been shown to be possible. This is wrong. Scientific knowledge is the set of all thing that have not been shown to be mistaken/wrong. It's stupid to think that what is know delineates all that is possible.

Nature's imagination is much greater than that of man.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 350
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Next

Return to The Future of Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests