We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is g

[jimmcginn]

We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous

Most of us have at least enough education to realize the boiling point of water is much higher than that of our ambient environment. And most of us realize that boiling has to do with a phase change from a liquid state of matter to a gaseous state of matter. Most of us reconcile this dichotomy by just not thinking about it. Some of us come up with rationalization to explain it away. But if you are going to do science you can't fall back on these excuses. You have to see things for what they actually are.

There is no gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere.

Moist air is heavier than dry air.

Moist air convection is impossible.

Meteorology needs another way to explain the power of storms, why storms are wet, and how heavier moist air gets so high in earth's atmosphere.

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dexlOvP7mPw

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

[D_Archer]

Moist was always liquid water to me.... i am not sure what is being taught in school.. but in my schools not that moist is gas.

EU already solved liquids in air and how rainclouds can exist, water is a dipolar molecule and they are held up in the air because of charge, when a charge breakdown occurs, ie lightning the water will fall.

Regards,
Daniel

[jimmcginn]

Moist was always liquid water to me.... i am not sure what is being taught in school.. but in my schools not that moist is gas.

LOL. Really? Sorry, but I don't believe you.

Scientifically Meteorology's convection theory of storms is worthless. It provides zero predictive or descriptive power. Most meteorologists have had about an hour of discussion of this in an undergraduate environment and then never discuss the subject the rest of their careers.

They don't really want a concise, well-understood theory. They want something that is vague and arcane. They know it leaves the public confused. It's job security for them. So, if you want to predict or describe storms you need to hire a meteorologist. The meteorologist will completely ignore this theory and use synoptic methods, which do a pretty good job of predicting the weather. Thus, for meteorology, convection model of storm theory is just a means of getting a foot in the door. It's not something they take seriously. It's just marketing.

EU already solved liquids in air and how rainclouds can exist, water is a dipolar molecule and they are held up in the air because of charge, when a charge breakdown occurs, ie lightning the water will fall.

Obviously you didn't watch my videos. Its more complex than just this. You are evading the main issue. Note the issue I present at about 3:30 to 6:00. Address that issue directly; if it was as simple as you suggest then there would be no reason for the microdroplets to not continue to combine into larger and larger droplets and there would be no water in the atmosphere. Don't respond until you are ready to directly (and honestly) address this issue.

Here is an example of what happens when a meteorologist engages on this subject. Read this post and the next 7 or 8 that follow; take note of LipperF's failed atempt to be deceptive:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.phy ... pCQGisAwAJ

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

[lw1990]

I want to believe you have something to say, but if you spend most of your time saying how the mainstream is wrong, we can only be left with a hunch that you are right, but no alternative. If you have an alternative, can you write it out? It is hard to take someone talking in a video seriously, since it is harder to identify things you say as we have to listen at the pace of speaking/pause/replay, it's just a mess. Written communication is better for the receiver unless you have some detailed pictures/illustrations in your videos.

Note: even if all you are doing is saying the mainstream is wrong, that is fine, you don't have to have an alternative, but I'm curious if you do

[jimmcginn]

I want to believe you have something to say, but if you spend most of your time saying how the mainstream is wrong, we can only be left with a hunch that you are right, but no alternative. If you have an alternative, can you write it out? It is hard to take someone talking in a video seriously, since it is harder to identify things you say as we have to listen at the pace of speaking/pause/replay, it's just a mess. Written communication is better for the receiver unless you have some detailed pictures/illustrations in your videos.

Note: even if all you are doing is saying the mainstream is wrong, that is fine, you don't have to have an alternative, but I'm curious if you do

Well, in a sense, I've already laid out my alternative. It's out there to be discovered by anybody that knows how to use a search engine and is willing to make the effort. But the major obstacle is educational. If you have specific questions I can do my best to point you in the right direction in this regard. But I've found for the most part that most people don't know what they don't know. So they flounder. And so in order to get some frame of reference I start from current theory. And since this theory is wrong I point that out. What's apparent is that most people never thought much about any of this.

I am currently working on my third book. I you would like to check out my other two books you can find them by doing a search on my name in Amazon.

Cheers,

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

[lw1990]

I don't know what your alternative is but on the off chance it is similar to mine here goes

Clouds stratify from inches to miles above the ground. The Earth's atmospheric temperature (affected by solar energy and other sources) as well as oscillation frequency determines where clouds formulate. Though the Earth's atmosphere is within the Earth's gravitational field, clouds do not stratify based on gravity, but rather based on the Earth's atmospheric temperature and oscillation frequencies.

The collective water molecules in a cloud act as a single core with a shallow field; basically they act like one huge water molecule. Pure water molecules do not form into compounds, but only form a larger water molecule. Thus, a cloud is a single fluidic water molecule.

Any ambient water molecules outside a cloud but close to the clouds boundary is drawn in by the clouds oscillation frequency. Every cloud is an independent object with its own temperature. When clouds come together, their temperatures disseminate between one-another, and generate lightning.

The water molecules that compose a cloud are in constant motion transferring temperature between one another. If the cloud is heated by the sun or ambient atmospheric temperatures, the water molecules can develop enough motion to escape the cloud - evaporation.

When water molecules inside the cloud bump into each other, they can coalesce and form into a water drop or ice crystal, depending on the temperature. When a water drop or ice crystal form in a cloud, they form a field which can encompass other water molecules (a condensation response), increasing their mass and volume. Eventually this increases enough to escape the cloud, then gravity takes over, and the water drop or ice crystal fall. Either of which continue to condensate until they hit the ground.

[jimmcginn]

I don't know what your alternative is but on the off chance it is similar to mine here goes

I like it. But, actually, when I first read it I didn't like it. But I couldn't formulate in my mind why did didn't like it. Then I realized it kind of mirrors a lot of my own thinking. In fact, if somebody were to ask me about my understanding of the atmospheric flow (including storms, etc.) about 7 or 8 years ago my response would have sounded much like what you stated here--so, maybe, look a this response as an attempt to show you how you can save 7 or 8 years.

Clouds stratify from inches to miles above the ground. The Earth's atmospheric temperature (affected by solar energy and other sources) as well as oscillation frequency determines where clouds formulate. Though the Earth's atmosphere is within the Earth's gravitational field, clouds do not stratify based on gravity, but rather based on the Earth's atmospheric temperature and oscillation frequencies.

I want to assure you that, yes, you are on the right track here. H2O microdroplets are suspended in earth's atmosphere (solar wind; static electricity). (BTW, moist air has negative bouyancy. [You have to ignore meteorological superstition to make any progress at all in understanding the physics of the atmosphere.] If not for storms it would pool up in flat layers at the bottom of the troposphere [like 'inversion' layers]).

The collective water molecules in a cloud act as a single core with a shallow field; basically they act like one huge water molecule. Pure water molecules do not form into compounds, but only form a larger water molecule. Thus, a cloud is a single fluidic water molecule.

Again, I think you are on the right track. The notion that H2O acts like a larger molecule is actually true and--most importantly--amplified under high energy windshear conditions. (It gets real complicated after this.)

Any ambient water molecules outside a cloud but close to the clouds boundary is drawn in by the clouds oscillation frequency. Every cloud is an independent object with its own temperature. When clouds come together, their temperatures disseminate between one-another, and generate lightning.

The water molecules that compose a cloud are in constant motion transferring temperature between one another. If the cloud is heated by the sun or ambient atmospheric temperatures, the water molecules can develop enough motion to escape the cloud - evaporation.

Yes. H2O's huge heat capacity/conductivity plays a huge role in all of this. And it is H2O's structural properties, associated with its 'peculiar' surface tension, that allows H2O to be the basis of the vortices that continually juggle moist air up as high as the top of the troposphere. (Convection plays no role whatsoever. [Moist air has negative buoyancy. {If not for the constant input of electricity from the solar wind H2O would drop out of the sky.}])

When water molecules inside the cloud bump into each other, they can coalesce and form into a water drop or ice crystal, depending on the temperature. When a water drop or ice crystal form in a cloud, they form a field which can encompass other water molecules (a condensation response), increasing their mass and volume. Eventually this increases enough to escape the cloud, then gravity takes over, and the water drop or ice crystal fall. Either of which continue to condensate until they hit the ground.

Well, let's just say that vortices play a much greater roles in ALL storms that most people realize. They are the conduits that deliver the low pressure energy of storms. (Jet streams are the repository for the atmosphere's low pressure energy. Jet streams are vortices. Tornadoes are the tail-end of a jet stream.)

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[jimmcginn]

EU already solved liquids in air and how rainclouds can exist, water is a dipolar molecule and they are held up in the air because of charge, when a charge breakdown occurs, ie lightning the water will fall.

Regards,
Daniel

If this is true that is fantastic. But where is it. Can somebody drop a link.

It's hard to imagine that you would hold this position and not be aware of the degree it contradicts popular opinion.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[Aardwolf]

EU already solved liquids in air and how rainclouds can exist, water is a dipolar molecule and they are held up in the air because of charge, when a charge breakdown occurs, ie lightning the water will fall.

Regards,
Daniel

If this is true that is fantastic. But where is it. Can somebody drop a link.

It's hard to imagine that you would hold this position and not be aware of the degree it contradicts popular opinion.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric-weather/

[jimmcginn]

I want to believe you have something to say, but if you spend most of your time saying how the mainstream is wrong, we can only be left with a hunch that you are right, but no alternative.

First things first. Do you concede that the mainstream is wrong? Can you identify the specific points that they are wrong about? Do you think the collective momentum of hundreds of years of belief can be dismissed on a whim?

Surely you know better than that. Surely you know that it is not that simple. Surely you realize that the collective momentum of belief is the only rationale most people need to dismiss any contradictory fact.

Anybody that lives and breaths knows how fervently humans fight to maintain collective beliefs.

Also, everybody wants to believe that they alone are immune from all of this. This is hardest delusion to crack.

You may believe that you alone are immune from the allure of Meteorology's (vague, dimwitted) convection model of storm theory but until you demonstrate such, publicly, I will not believe it.

Here is your opportunity:
Do you believe them moisture in clear moist air (at ambient temperatures) is gaseous?
Do you recognize the contradiction associated with the fact that the boiling point of H2O is 212F (100C) and no part of the atmosphere is even close to this temperature?
Did you recognize this discrepancy before I pointed it out here and now?

You may want to believe that you are immune from the influence of the crowd. But actually that is the worst delusion of all. (And the more educated people are the truer this is.)

In my experience, until you are comfortable enough to publicly state what is wrong with the currently popular model your mind will not be open up to even begin to comprehend any alternative. (Especially not an alternative that is complex, as is mine.)

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[Maol]

When you paint with lacquer, are the thinner solvent fumes liquid or vapor? The boiling points of Toluene and Xylene are 231 and 282 (F).

The boiling point of diesel is above 400 F. Is the odor you smell near a diesel powered vehicle liquid or vapor?

[jimmcginn]

When you paint with lacquer, are the thinner solvent fumes liquid or vapor? The boiling points of Toluene and Xylene are 231 and 282 (F).

The boiling point of diesel is above 400 F. Is the odor you smell near a diesel powered vehicle liquid or vapor?

Excellent example. Both. The odor is both liquid and vapor (not gaseous).

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[jimmcginn]

I missed one of your questions.

When you paint with lacquer, are the thinner solvent fumes liquid or vapor?

Liquid.

One more thing:
Strangely, this is an issue people get extremely emotional about. I can't imagine anything simpler than making a distinction between two phases of matter. Many people, I have found, are unable to maintain this distinction. To these people I advise not to get involved with my theories (specifically, tornadogenesis, and H2O structure and anomalies). I say this because if you are having a hard time making this distinction you will be positively frazzled by the other things I have to say.

If you do choose to discuss this distinction beyond this point I would prefer that you directed your attention to sci.physics. Here is a link:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... -_MBHFgrkQ

[jimmcginn]

I missed one of your questions.

When you paint with lacquer, are the thinner solvent fumes liquid or vapor?

Liquid.

Wait. No . . . both!

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[seasmith]

?
Nobody confuses a vapor for a gas, do they ?
Where did they go to school anyway ?