Moist Air Convection Myth

[jimmcginn]

History will look on this notion of moist air convection as an example of human
intellectual sheepishness, not unlike that that preceded the Copernican model
of planetary motion. People forget that Galileo introduced evidence that
plainly refuted the notion that the earth is the center of the universe. But
it took hundreds of years to overcome the momentum of belief. That is the same
thing with moist air convection. It's plainly nonsensical. The boiling
temperature/pressure of H2O is common knowledge and it plainly refutes the
notion that moist air contains gaseous H2O. The evidence that supports the
notion of moist air convection is anecdotal, vague, and inconsistent. The
professionals that, supposedly, maintain this notion refuse to discuss in
publicly--not unlike climatology's notion of CO2 forcing. Amateurs that do
support it won't discuss details--again, not unlike climatology's notion of CO2
forcing.

The data that, supposedly, substantiates it doesn't involve direct measurement
but derivations base on indirect data. Most everybody is fooled by this. Most
everybody thinks its data is directly measured. It's not. The derivations
include (hide) the assumption that clear, moist air contains gaseous H2O. That
is the card up the sleeve. This is the smoke and mirrors. Once you understand
this trick you understand that, in reality, moist air is heavier than dry air
at ambient temps, always (all other factors being the same). There is no gaseous H2O in our atmosphere.

The convection model has always been rather dubious speculation. It's never
been tested. It is just believed, like a passage in the bible. It is just a
story told by meteorologists. It isn't really science. It's just what they've
been trained to tell the public.

[oz93666]

Hi jim ...while I agree with the spirit of your thread .... that we need to question and be suspicious of everything main stream science tells us , I cannot agree with your main proposition ...

Water does dissolve in air , many experiments demonstrate this, every fluid does , even mercury , as demonstrated by people getting mercury poisoning when breathing air in contact with the liquid.... When water dissolves in air , it exerts a vapour pressure that effectively pushes out some of the air , and since gaseous water is less dense than air , it will make it buoyant.

[jimmcginn]

Hi jim ...while I agree with the spirit of your thread .... that we need to question and be suspicious of everything main stream science tells us , I cannot agree with your main proposition ...

Water does dissolve in air , many experiments demonstrate this, every fluid does , even mercury , as demonstrated by people getting mercury poisoning when breathing air in contact with the liquid.... When water dissolves in air , it exerts a vapour pressure that effectively pushes out some of the air , and since gaseous water is less dense than air , it will make it buoyant.

Oz, thanks for the response.

The devil is in the details of what you are or are not considering. Let me ask you this. What is the boiling temperature of H2O at the pressures generally found in the atmosphere? After you have answered this questions ask yourself whether it would be a liquid or a gas at the ambient temperatures found in the atmosphere. After you have answered this question ask yourself whether it would be lighter per volume or heavier.

I'm sure you will see what I mean.

Here is more on this subject:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16306

Regards,
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[oz93666]

Where does the water go when a puddle of water evaporates ? when clothes are hung out to dry , where does the water go ? Into the air ...this is basic science .....

[jimmcginn]

Where does the water go when a puddle of water evaporates ? when clothes are hung out to dry , where does the water go ? Into the air ...this is basic science .....

It's even more basic than you suggest. It's basic reading and following directions.

Sorry, I don't think I can help you with that.

Regards,

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

[Maol]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I guarantee, competent tuners of racing engines become very aware of the water vapor in the atmosphere because H2O vapor displaces air and so reduces the amount of Oxygen in a given volume of air, which correspondingly reduces power output and must be dealt with by adjusting fuel delivery to maintain the best power Fuel/Oxygen ratio. At the same track and same barometric pressure, a large change in humidity can affect carburetor jet size more than a barometric pressure change equivalent to 2-3000 ft. difference in altitude. Thousands of serious racers each have a weather station at their trailer and closely monitor atmospheric factors as a race day progresses, particularly from day to night, because properly adjusting an engine for a change in atmospheric conditions can be worth several thousand dollars in either direction.

The partial pressure of H2O vapor in the atmosphere is such a basic and universal phenomenon, I am baffled how anyone can be confused about it.

[jimmcginn]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

I am crying a tear for the fact that, apparently, you were never provide proper education in scientific methods. (Maybe the end of this post you can explain how it is you, somehow, failed to notice that all the evidence that you introduced here is ANECDOTAL.)

I guarantee, competent tuners of racing engines become very aware of the water vapor in the atmosphere

Right. Water vapor. Water vapor is suspended microdroplets. IT IS NOT GASEOUS H2O!!! IT IS LIQUID H2O!!! liquid H2O has a HIGH HEAT CAPACITY. This means it absorbs energy. This is the reason it reduces horsepower. (Displacement of oxygen by MICRODROPLETS [there is no gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere--that is dumb myth] might also be a factor, as you suggest.)

because H2O vapor displaces air and so reduces the amount of Oxygen in a given volume of air,

Also, I never claimed that microdroplets of H2O can't displace Oxygen. So, you are not paying attention. You are trying to put words in my mouth and suggest that I made claims that I have not made. Don't do that. That is bad form. Be honest. Be polite. And most of all quote people directly and in context. Don't be deceptive. Don't be dishonest or evasive. When people ask you a question answer it and don't do a song and dance.

Remember, all of the moisture in earth's atmosphere is liquid H2O. The atmosphere is too cool for gaseous H2O. If anybody suggests otherwise ask them to provide you the reproducible experimental evidence. They won't be able to do it--just as you were not able to.

Do you believe the moisture in clear, moist air is gaseous? Why? Do you have any non-anecdotal evidence to support this? Will you continue to believe it after you have looked for empirical evidence and fail to find it? Do you also believe in ghosts or other supernatural phenomena? (Be honest.) Do you believe in bigfoot? Space aliens?

which correspondingly reduces power output and must be dealt with by adjusting fuel delivery to maintain the best power Fuel/Oxygen ratio. At the same track and same barometric pressure, a large change in humidity can affect carburetor jet size more than a barometric pressure change equivalent to 2-3000 ft. difference in altitude. Thousands of serious racers each have a weather station at their trailer and closely monitor atmospheric factors as a race day progresses, particularly from day to night, because properly adjusting an engine for a change in atmospheric conditions can be worth several thousand dollars in either direction.

I'm baffled as to how any educated person can suggest that anecdotal observations at a race track can stand in for a controlled experiment. Do you have any education in scientific methods? Be honest. You don't, do you?

The partial pressure of H2O vapor in the atmosphere is such a basic and universal phenomenon, I am baffled how anyone can be confused about it.

LOL. How is partial pressure anything but completely peripheral to this discussion? (Answer this question also. Don't evade it. Be honest. Be forthright. Answer the question and don't hide behind some kind of group delusion that you barely understand.)

Science isn't about what you believe. Tell us what you know and how you know it. Leave anecdote, superstition, and collective delusion out of the discussion. Don't be evasive. Be honest. Be forthright. Don't be defensive.

Happy New Year

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

Why the Convection Model of Storm Theory is based on Pixie Dust
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.phy ... SSeFBqEQAJ

[kevin]

Transmutation,
As hydrogen and oxygen vacate their bindings.
http://rexresearch.com/russellcoil/russellcoil.htm
Kevin

[Maol]

OP needs to ponder the difference between anecdotal and empirical.

[jimmcginn]

Thanks. Maybe you consider a hobby that isn't so, you know, complicated.

[Maol]

Thanks. Maybe you consider a hobby that isn't so, you know, complicated.

What is it you think is complicated? Dew point? Partial pressure? What?

[jimmcginn]

Thanks. Maybe you consider a hobby that isn't so, you know, complicated.

What is it you think is complicated? Dew point? Partial pressure? What?

I wouldn't pretend to compete with your imagination.

Happy New Year,

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

Check these out:
Why the Convection Model of Storm Theory is based on Pixie Dust
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.phy ... SSeFBqEQAJ
And:
Simple Refutation of the Convection Model of Storm Theory
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.phy ... YSUQvbEgAJ

[kevin]

Dylan was wrong...the answers ain't blowin in the wind. wind is not blowin....

All in creation displaces relative to attraction.

All is electro-magnetic and electro-gravitic relative to polarity and equator.

There is no such force as called gravity, and it is the blind mice adherence to such mythical so called forces that leads to assumptions been stated as facts.
Time does not exist other than relative to the local switching occurring in the north/south field , in our case Earths.
All displaces in time.
Earthquakes are zones of mass displacing in fractionally variant time , then going to rest in the rest zone of this planet.

Weather systems and tidal variations are local consequences of the inputs and outputs ( spin) of consciousness ( aether/plasma, call it what You like)

Kevin

[jimmcginn]

Weather systems and tidal variations are local consequences of the inputs and outputs ( spin) of consciousness ( aether/plasma, call it what You like)
Kevin

Kevin,

Thanks for the response. It is especially hard to get people to consider something new. It is even more difficult when it is an alternative to something they don’t really understand that well. That was the predicament I found myself in when I originally started telling people that the convection model of storm theory was nonsense. I kept finding myself having to explain to my opponent what it is/was that they, supposedly, believed. That is when I hit upon the strategy of focusing on the boiling point of H2O. It is pivotal to their model. It is substantive. And it is definitive.

I think you should try to find something like that. As it is I can't make much sense of what you are saying.

Regards,

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[Maol]

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?