The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

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

The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sun May 22, 2016 11:57 am

The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

We make assumptions, and believe we are right about the assumptions; then we defend our assumptions and try to make someone else wrong.
Don Miguel Ruiz, Author

Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense because they have painted themselves into a corner with their assumptions and believing in nonsense is the only option that remains to save them from appearing to be complete fools. The most stupefying myth in all of meteorology is the myth that steam can persist in our atmosphere. It is universally believed by all meteorologists yet, strangely, not one of them would claim knowledge of a test or experiment to demonstrate its validity. Stranger still, what little empirical evidence we do have decidedly indicates that the notion fails. This notion has evolved into a taboo within the disciplines that study the atmosphere, the primary champions and enforcers of this taboo being meteorologists, most of whom for which the issue is a mute point in that they exclusively work with synoptic charts (cold fronts, warm fronts and such, usually displayed on computer screens) and, therefore, the notion is never applied in the context of their daily duties. Only for a very small subset of meteorologists—those that deal with the severe weather and, even then, only those that deal with the theoretical aspects thereof—does this notion have any real significance. But for these few the effect is intellectually devastating, rendering them feckless, incapable of making any kind of real progress in the discipline. One consequence of this being that the theoretical aspects of the study of severe weather have come to epitomize academic vapidity. And there really isn’t much any of them can do about it in that belief in the concept is a prerequisite for being taken seriously by any of the various stakeholders in the discipline. But at least they don’t look like complete fools.

Meteorologists don’t refer to steam in the atmosphere they refer to convection. It is only when forced to explain the assumptions underlying convection (which involves application of Avogadro’s law) that they reluctantly reveal that they are assuming mono-molecular H2O (steam) in their models of convection. But if you attempt to get them to explain how they, supposedly, know that water can stay mono-molecular at temperatures below the boiling point of water, well, that’s when the game playing begins. Emotions run deep on this issue. So deep, in fact, that when one states facts that demonstrate the impossibility of steam playing a role (or even existing) in our atmosphere one can generally expect to be accused of being a fool and a liar. In this respect it is not unlike the concept of CO2 Forcing in climatology. It’s lack of empirical support is completely disregarded due to overwhelming political support. There is not, however, the ideological aspect to the notion that we find with the notion that CO2 causes global warming. There are not, for example, liberals telling us it is true and conservatives telling us it is false. And there is no greater agenda tied to it. Nobody believes that there are any catastrophic eventualities if anybody does or does not believe it. This too is strange in that unlike the highly speculative science associated with global warming, nobody disputes the more limited but very real catastrophic eventualities of severe weather.

Steam-based Convection Myth Fails to Predict

The story underlying the steam-based convection myth becomes stranger still when one considers how incredibly resilient this notion has been despite its failure to predict or anticipate new discoveries. Basically there have been three waves of new evidence (most of which being due to advances in aviation) that the steam-based convection model failed to predict.

The Discovery of Extreme Turbulence at the Top of Thunderstorms

The earliest of these three discoveries was the discovery of extreme turbulence at the top of thunderstorms. This was surprising because up until then it had been assumed that as water molecules within a parcel of air combined with other water molecules in the colder air at the top of the troposphere the air parcel would become more dense. And, consequently, it’s buoyancy–the assumed source of its power–would be neutralized. Additionally, when observed from the ground the tops of thunderstorms appeared to be benign, fluffy, and harmless. However, as explained in this article in Plane and Pilot Magazine, in reality there is nothing harmless about the activity at the top of thunderstorms:

Deep, moist convection, better known as thunderstorms, are the nemesis of all aircraft, big or small. Avoidance is mandatory. Many pilots, however, continue to find themselves tangled up in these giants, and very few live to tell about it.

According to Science Inside and Out:
From one that did live to tell about it, the following, entitled Science Inside and Out, involves the first hand testimony of a then new pilot, Joe Olsen, encountering thunderstorms on a solo flight in a small plane over Texas:

Entering the cloud felt like hitting a wall. Suddenly everything was white, it was raining from every direction and the wind was howling. There were massive vertical wind shears that rendered the instruments useless. The altitude, air speed, rate of climb and artificial horizon gauges were all bouncing peg to peg. “Flying by the seat of your pants” quickly becomes the over-riding instinct. You are now in vertigo and your butt thinks it knows where the Earth is. You are fooled by the changing gravity of the rapid up and down wind shear. You are surrounded by glowing white light and cannot see further than ten feet in any direction. The wings are shaking at beyond maximum design loading and the LAST thing you want is your BUTT flying the plane. The propeller is used to 110 mph wind from the nose, but is disturbed by the 200 mph up and down winds.

According to Physics Dot Org:
And from the online journal Physics Dot Org comes and excerpt from an article entitled Flying Into a Thunderstorm:

Some thunderstorms are so violent they pump air more than 60,000 feet above Earth’s surface, punching through a layer of atmosphere called the tropopause all the way into the stratosphere.

In the least one might expect that the failure of the steam-based convection model to predict the magnitude of this activity at the top of thunderclouds might have served to inspire them to open their minds to the possibility that processes other than just convection might be involved. But that appears to not be the case.

The Discovery of Discovery of Jet Streams

The second of the three waves of new evidence involved the discovery of jet streams during and after WWII.

According to Wikipedia:
Jet streams are fast flowing, narrow air currents found in the atmospheres of some planets, including Earth.[1] The main jet streams are located near the altitude of the tropopause, the transition between the troposphere and the stratosphere (where temperature increases with altitude).[2] The major jet streams on Earth are westerly winds (flowing west to east). Their paths typically have a meandering shape; jet streams may start, stop, split into two or more parts, combine into one stream, or flow in various directions including the opposite direction of most of the jet.

As with the activity observed at the top of thunderstorms, there is nothing about the discovery of the jet stream that was predicted or anticipated by the steam-based convection model of meteorology’s storm theory. Again, one might think that this failure to predict might bring meteorologists to look at the steam-based convection model of storm theory with more scrutiny. Or, even, that it might inspire them to look for alternative models. But, once again, this seems to not have happened.

The Discovery of CAT

Lastly, and once again completely unpredicted by the steam-powered convection notions, was the discovery of clear air turbulence. Clear-air turbulence, as the name suggests, is turbulence that happens without any visual cues (clouds) whatsoever. According to the website How Stuff Works:

Even though pilots are taught to avoid turbulent air by looking for cumulus clouds, turbulence can strike even in the absence of clouds. This type of turbulence—especially dangerous because of its invisibility—is known as clear-air turbulence. It accounts for most turbulence-related injuries, mainly because pilots have no time to warn passengers and flight attendants to get strapped into their seats. Nearly 7 out of 10 turbulence incidents are the result of encounters with the clear-air variety.

According to Wikipedia:
The atmospheric region most susceptible to CAT is the high troposphere at altitudes of around 7,000–12,000 metres (23,000–39,000 ft) as it meets the tropopause. Here CAT is most frequently encountered in the regions of jet streams. At lower altitudes it may also occur near mountain ranges. Thin cirrus cloud can also indicate high probability of CAT.

Lines of cirrus perpendicular to the jet stream indicate possible CAT, especially if the ends of the cirrus are dispersed in which case the direction of dispersal can indicate if the CAT is stronger at the left or at the right of the jet stream.

64% of the non-light turbulences (not only CAT) are observed less than 150 nautical miles (280 km) away from the core of a jet stream.[9]

CAT is never produced in the stratosphere.

Forced to Choose Between Wrong and Ridiculously Wrong

As with the other shortcomings of the steam-based convection model that I delineated at the beginning of this post, this failure to predict the discovery of these three meteorological phenomena is not something for which meteorologists are remotely concerned or even generally aware. All in all, they demonstrate an amazing ability to pretend not to notice the shortcomings of their theory and even to conceal it by, as I indicated, hiding the notion of steam within the less plainly absurd notion of convection. And then, of course, there is the evasiveness and name calling directed at anybody that doesn’t play along with their desire to pretend not to notice. And yet, as mentioned previously, there appears to not be any kind of larger political agenda. This leaves one scratching their head wondering what is at the root of these behaviors.

I think I can answer this question. And my answer does not in any way involve accusations that meteorologists are in collusion, lacking in intelligence, or cynical. Rather, I suggest, they are mistaken on one point of fact that has resulted in them making an omission. And in that omission they have closed themselves off to to an element in their explanations without which it is impossible to make sense of what is actually observed in the atmosphere, leaving them to choose between explanatory approaches that are wrong and ridiculously wrong. And it all has to do with how we envision water getting up high into the sky.

Here’s the thing. The pervasiveness of H2O in all parts of the troposphere (from the surface all the way up to the stratosphere) is undeniable. Likewise, the pervasiveness of H2O in all weather events is equally undeniable. Moreover, H2O is constantly falling out of the sky. Thus, the number one job of a theoretical meteorologists is to explain how water, H2O, gets up into the sky. The explanatory elements that meteorologists must use to achieve this explanation are the following: dry air (N2 and O2, and other trace inert gasses) and the three phases of water, ice, liquid water, and gaseous water (steam). Obviously ice is not viable. Ice only falls out of the sky. Liquid water water is more viable in that it is commonly observed in the form of fog or clouds, visible droplets. And, starting from evaporation, these can stay suspended in the air due to electrostatic forces, which are implications of N2 and O2. However, electrostatic forces in and of themselves can only explain, at best, how liquid droplets of water (most are so small they are invisible). what we commonly refer to as humidity, can get up to about 1,000 meters, 1,500 meters at most. It is plainly observable what does the remainder of the work to get moisture up above 7,000 meters–storms. And storms do this in a relatively rapid and dramatic manner, producing the sometimes violent updrafts that are such a hazard to aircraft. So the issue can be reduced to the question as to what powers storms? It would seem the answer must be obvious, buoyancy induced by steam, the gaseous phase of water, powers storms because there is nothing else that can possibly explain why moist air would begin to rise up through the drier surrounding air. Moreover, there is nothing else that can explain why storms themselves tend to be so wet, selectively occurring in moist air. Therefore, only steam can possibly explain how storms cause water–moist air–to rapidly get up above 7,000 meters. Right?

Actually, no. That is wrong. There is something else that can/will explain the uplift of moist air observed in storms. And it doesn’t involve steam whatsoever. In fact, the assertion that steam cannot exist in our atmosphere is, in fact, true. So the notion that steam provides the buoyancy of storms and/or the notion that buoyancy is the only force that can describe the uplift in storms and/or the notion that the only way water can provide uplift is through buoyancy are all false statements. There is another force involved. There is another way in which water can provide uplift in storms. And the three atmospheric phenomena that I mentions above, 1) the turbulence at the top of thunderstorms, 2) the jet stream, and 3) clear-air turbulence, are big clues as to this other force. In a follow-up post to this post I will demonstrate how one can start from the observation of CAT and track back through the jet stream, through to the tops of thunderclouds all the way down to the moist air (humidity) at lower altitudes and perfectly explain how this moist air begins to rapidly rise up into the upper troposphere (over 7.000 meters). And at no time will this explanation require the existence of steam or buoyancy.

Plasma in the Atmosphere

What is the mistake meteorologists have been making? What is the conceptual error. What is the omission? As explained above, meteorologists assumed three phases of H2O. They assumed ice, liquid water, and gaseous water, steam. They did not know about, and frankly, could not have known about a fourth phase of water, plasma. Nor could they have known about the structural capabilities that this plasma phase of water brings to our understanding of atmospheric processes. And, consequently, they could not have known how these structural capabilities are the key to explaining the uplift of moist air witnessed in storms. And, therefore, they could not have known that there is a way to explain the uplift witnessed in storms that doesn’t require them to surrender their dignity.

Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl-GOPq8aA0

Convection Versus Plasma
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk

Alternative to Spiritualistic Thinking in the Atmospheric Sciences
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dexlOvP7mPw

More videos at my channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcg8R1 ... GkeIEBjkMQ
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 345
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby Cargo » Mon May 23, 2016 5:50 pm

Very interesting. Thank you for posting.
Cargo
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:02 pm

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby fosborn_ » Sun Jun 19, 2016 4:01 pm

This is a customer review I submitted to Amazon for your book I purchased ;
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=dp_byline_ ... evancerank

Thanks for your review of WHAT GOES UP: Storm Theory: What meteorologists believe but won't debate, discuss, or even doubt (Solving Tornadoes: Hacking the Atmosphere Book 1) 
We're currently processing your review and we will email you at...as soon as this is complete.

"I am a average joe that likes science and have always enjoyed seeing the sciences I love finding real life applications. With NASA providing so much information how our Sun has direct electromagnetic coupling to the Earth's poles, this book is thrilling, in pointing out the obvious applications of letting the Earths saturated plasma environment help explain our weather phenomena.
The author's educational background is compatible with this task. He has pursued a cross disciplinary approach. I have read the lack thereof is a hindrance to advancements.
Plasma physics isn't as tidy as gravitational based theory. But it seems pretty handy when phenomena defies gravity.
So I find the book refreshing and outside the box using established science."
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: 479
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sat Jun 25, 2016 9:15 am

fosborn_ wrote:This is a customer review I submitted to Amazon for your book I purchased ;
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=dp_byline_ ... evancerank

Thanks for your review of WHAT GOES UP: Storm Theory: What meteorologists believe but won't debate, discuss, or even doubt (Solving Tornadoes: Hacking the Atmosphere Book 1) 
We're currently processing your review and we will email you at...as soon as this is complete.

"I am a average joe that likes science and have always enjoyed seeing the sciences I love finding real life applications. With NASA providing so much information how our Sun has direct electromagnetic coupling to the Earth's poles, this book is thrilling, in pointing out the obvious applications of letting the Earths saturated plasma environment help explain our weather phenomena.
The author's educational background is compatible with this task. He has pursued a cross disciplinary approach. I have read the lack thereof is a hindrance to advancements.
Plasma physics isn't as tidy as gravitational based theory. But it seems pretty handy when phenomena defies gravity.
So I find the book refreshing and outside the box using established science."


Thank you for the review.

I want to give recognition to Bob Johnson for introducing to me the notion that earth's atmosphere is a slight plasma. I think it sets the stage for my thinking that it becomes a slightly stronger (and heavier) plasma when H2O evaporate is included--this being a consequence of the surface tension of the included microdroplets in moist ail, a notion which itself sets the stage for the realization that the spinning of microdroplets can occur along wind shear boundaries causing the maximization of the surface area of these microdroplets. And when you maximize surface area you maximize surface tension, producing the strongest plasma in earth's atmosphere as seen in the vortice of a tornado and which underlies the dynamics of the jet streams that are the repositories of the energy of storms on this planet--as delivered to locations by these same vortices, producing storms.

I recommend that everybody watch the following video and you will see that Bob eluded to the significance of plasma to understanding the jet streams and weather:

Bob Johnson's Talk
https://archive.org/details/BJ250415/v2

Jet Stream
http://www.sis-group.org.uk/news/jet-stream.htm-0

Electromagnetism
30 Apr 2015
For those unable to attend our AGM and Spring meeting they missed a real treat. Both talks were excellent and videos of them will be uploaded in due course (after a bit of work by Chris Phillips). However, the transcript of Bob Johnson's talk is already there (go to meetings page) and has the title 'The variability of the Sun and the effects on Earth' so you can settle down later in a comfy armchair with a print-out or simply scan the piece from your computer chair. Unfortunately, I don't know for the moment how we can get around those elderly members not on the internet and who would likewise be very interested in reading what he has to say.

The presentation outlines how the Sun affects the weather on Earth - and suggests what might make the Jet Stream tick. We have all heard of the Jet Stream as the Met Office constantly tell us about its changing position - and how when overhead we get bucket fulls of rain and when we are inside or outside a loop it can either be cold, or unusually hot.

How do we get from how the Sun works to how the jet streams perform in the atmosphere of the Earth. Bob Johnson begins by saying space is not a vacuum (as once thought) but is filled with plasma. The atmosphere of the Earth is not an electrified insulator either - but a weak plasm. This is an important point as it enables the Sun to play around with our weather - which is a fundamental change in thinking. Plasma can form cells and filaments and behaves differently to other gases. It has been described as a fourth state of matter. The presentation is written in a clear and concise manner and is designed to be transparent for a popular audience and the general public at large and is free of as much jargon as possible. It explains everything about plasma (well, almost) and how it is capable of conducting electricity. It can also contain magnetic energy embedded within itself - under the right conditions. Plasma has been the subject of research for a century and scientists know a lot about it - and so on.

The solar wind plasma is deflected by the Earth's magnetic field and this induces a complex system of electric currents which input energy to the magnetosphere and the ionosphere. The input depends on the velocity of the solar wind and the presence of a plasma filled solar wind interacts with the plasma in the Earth's atmosphere (and ionosphere).

Later, when looking at jet streams, which are quite narrow bands, he says they behave somewhat like plasma - or are influenced by plasma. In addition, sea water is an insulator and it is known that El Nino events and other ENSO cycles (the movement of ocean currents around the globe) move in synchronism with solar activity. We are essentially a water planet so this point is interesting to say the least (not least the role of evaporation and the formation of clouds etc).

Bob Johnson has produced an impressive presentation and quotes a host of scientific papers by people such as Akasofu, JA Eddy, H Alfven, Thomas Gold and Fred Hoyle, Lockwood, Zhang, Feng, Svalgaard, Svensmark, Vahrenholt and Luning, Wang, and so on (being just a few names that immediately ring a bell, although some of the others will, I'm sure, ring the door bell later). A terrific piece of endeavour to bring all this together and present it in such an easily digested manner. Highly recommended even if you are non-scientific, and let's face it, we've all heard of the jet stream but not many of us know what it entails, what it does, and what makes it move around and change our weather.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 345
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby fosborn_ » Sat Jul 02, 2016 7:18 pm

2016-07-02 21.10.24.jpg
2016-07-02 21.10.24.jpg (46.47 KiB) Viewed 6375 times

was thinking about your book racing this wall cloud ( south of me , we were heading east) to my job site on a trouble call.
turned north, had vary low level wind high speed, scooting my truck sideways every now and then in the strongest down pour I ever experienced. cloud to ground lighting bolts were every side of me. maybe a few every couple of seconds. what a rush!!
I had a head wind so thought if I was next to a twister, at lest I was playing chicken in the right dirrection of avoidance. ..
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: 479
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sun Jul 10, 2016 12:31 pm

fosborn_ wrote:
2016-07-02 21.10.24.jpg

was thinking about your book racing this wall cloud ( south of me , we were heading east) to my job site on a trouble call.
turned north, had vary low level wind high speed, scooting my truck sideways every now and then in the strongest down pour I ever experienced. cloud to ground lighting bolts were every side of me. maybe a few every couple of seconds. what a rush!!
I had a head wind so thought if I was next to a twister, at lest I was playing chicken in the right dirrection of avoidance. ..


The brain-dead pseudoscience of meteorology would have the public believe such observations can be explained by convection and latent heat.

It's a religion for these science pretenders. None of them has ever actually tested any of this.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 345
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby fosborn_ » Mon Jul 11, 2016 4:35 am

https://weather.com/storms/severe/news/severe-weather-forecast-northern-plains-midwest-early-july-2016

cloud to cloud tornado

Your weather theory can make sence of this one. IMO
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: 479
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby fosborn_ » Mon Jul 11, 2016 7:16 am

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: 479
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby fosborn_ » Fri Jul 22, 2016 12:31 pm

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hurr ... index.html
NASA_Hot Towers.png
NASA_Hot Towers.png (49.67 KiB) Viewed 5646 times

would your theory work the same for hurricanes ?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... rming.html
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: 479
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Stormso

Unread postby jimmcginn » Fri Jul 22, 2016 10:09 pm

Great question. Honestly. This is a very relevant and well considered question. Moreover it puts my hypothesis on the spot presenting it with somewhat of a challenge with respect to the supposition that, according to my hypothesis, the energy of storms (all storms, including hurricanes) is delivered (in the form of low pressure coming down from above [updrafts]) by tributary vortices that are ultimately connected to a jet stream--itself a vortice.

So my hypothesis predicts the existence of some kind of system of tributaries that feed the energy of hurricanes. The exact nature (how big, how many, how extensively are they distributed) of these tributaries (assuming they exist) is not known. However, it's a fairly sure bet that they will be found along the tropopause laying between the jet stream and the hurricane.

Assuming these tributaries can be found, this suggests that we may realize that an effective method to mitigate a hurricane may be to interrupt its connection to the jet stream--stopping or hindering its ability to deliver the low pressure energy that causes the hurricane. And, possibly, this can be done using water drops by aircraft that destroy the boundary conditions of the vortices along the tropopause that are the conduits that deliver the low pressure energy to the hurricane, stopping the hurricane and/or steering the hurricane, getting it to veer away from populated areas.

I've done research on the "hot tower" theory. It was popular in the 1950s. It is a plainly flawed theory. The energy of storms does not come from warm waters below. As I've explained, the energy of storms comes from the jet streams above channeled through vortices. Warm moist air is not itself the source of this energy, instead it is instrumental as a source of the moist air that is necessary for the formation of the plasma from which the energy-channeling vortices form.

Because they are so dependent on boundary conditions it may turn out that these tributaries are very fragile and therefore hurricanes are easily mitigated for very little costs.

Here's something to think about--if we could stop a hurricane that would surely bring some attention to the EU community.

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

More stuff:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searc ... 0tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 345
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby fosborn_ » Fri Jul 22, 2016 10:44 pm

wow, Thanks for elaberating. I looked at some photos of Dust Devels and dust storms in Arizona. How much they look like Mars. the Arizona storms looked like countless dust devils. And considered your discussion of consensus parcels theory. Also how calm stable atmoshere let's the differentials or imbalances build up. Hurricanes seem to be avoided near jet streams and only develops into tropical storms. could there be a common principle between dust storms and dust devils, parcels and hurricanes? un interupted stable air reaching explosive differentials. creating thier own resilent system?
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: 479
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby fosborn_ » Sun Jul 24, 2016 12:52 pm

Charles Chandler has this paper, its seems compatible with your concepts and may be of Mutual enlightenment?

http://charles-chandler.org/Geophysics/ ... s=imperial

Also
Dr. Gerald Pollack
https://www.structuredwaterunit.com/art ... er-science
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: 479
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby jimmcginn » Mon Jul 25, 2016 9:17 pm

i've conversed with both of them. There is really not a lot over overlap between me and them. Neither of them has anything comparable to the H2O based plasma of my scenario.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 345
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby willendure » Tue Jul 26, 2016 3:37 am

H20 can be slightly ioinized by sunlight. For example, if you put water in a clear plastic bottle and leave it in the sun for a while, it can form a weak bleaching solution of hydrogen peroxide which kills bacteria.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_water_disinfection

I think if sunlight can do that, then it seems plausible that sunlight falling on wet air could ionize as well as heat it. The rising column of air would then be an electric current.

This 'missing link' is a most interesting observation.
willendure
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby jimmcginn » Tue Jul 26, 2016 8:44 pm

I should mention that the plasma of the vortices in my scenario is very different from an ion-based plasma. It's different in many ways. It occurs at ambient temperatures. It is associated with the breaking of hydrogen bonds, not the breaking of ionic bonds. The force that causes the breaking is associated with the spinning of microdroplets along wind shear boundaries. The spinning maximizes the surface area of the now polymerized spinning microdroplets. And when you maximize the surface area of water you maximize its surface tension. And so, the plasma of my scenario--the basis of the structural integrity of the conduits of flow in earth's atmosphere--is an implication of H2O's high surface tension.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 345
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Next

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest