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

[jimmcginn]

Mcginn wrote... It would also seem that the greater is the temperature of air and the higher is its pressure (lower altitude) the greater is its capacity to suspend nanodroplets but the smaller and more invisible will be these suspended nanodroplets. Accordingly, the lower is its temperature and the lower is its pressure (higher altitude) the lesser is its capacity to suspend nanodroplets and the larger are the suspended nanodroplets, making them more likely to be visible. And all of this varies depending on the involvement of electrostatic forces, that are largely unknown.

In a lecture I listened to, pressure isn't much of a factor, sense it equalizes right away. Only temperature and density will have a delay.

I agree.

Temperature will affect density.

Right, but (as we've discussed many, many, many times before) higher temperature also allows for higher moisture content. And higher moisture content increases weight (because nanodroplets are heavier than air molecules). (Moreover, it is well known that the warm, moist air in tornado alley that flows up from the Gulf of Mexico HAS A HIGH WATER CONTENT!!!)

Higher temperature, less density, so if less dense than the above air mass, and upward movement of a parcel, until temperature and or density is equal to the rest of the surrounding air.
So you should maybe rethink your explanation.

No, you should think about the fact that if what you were saying were true/valid there would be a lot more storm and tornado activity at any and all places that have warm air. Think about it. The air is a lot warmer in the tropics and in deserts (*), and at all of these places there is no shortage of drier, colder air above. (* And in deserts there is less humidity to muck it up.)

But you know what is the silliest thing about this brain-dead convection religion? Even if we could look past all the things that should happen but don't happen (or not in the frequency that is predicted by the model) you still have a model THAT COMPLETE FAILS TO EXPLAIN THE STRUCTURE THAT IS PLAINLY EVIDENT IN A TORNADO! And then there's the jet streams--completely unexplained. And, as if that is not enough, there are all the other things I mentioned in my books:
https://www.amazon.com/WHAT-GOES-meteor ... +Tornadoes
https://www.amazon.com/Vortex-Phase-Dis ... +Tornadoes

Any way you cut it the convection model of storm theory is just a bad suit of a theory:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =8&t=16319

Assuming you know the average size of any suspended H2O nanodroplets (which is almost always unknown and/or immeasurable) then, theoretically, we still could use gas laws to determine the weight/buoyancy but, as stated above, that would not necessarily dictate any conclusion as to whether a body should be expected to be rising or falling.

I still don't understand what your talking about, this using nonodroplet s with the gas law...

How can you not know this? Seriously. I'm talking about Avogadro's law, as explained here:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =8&t=16306

But, Ok, nanodroplets will not affect the density of the air mass.

Do the frikin math. How many times have we been over this? Go ahead. Get a piece of paper and pencil and work it out--so that If don't have to keep explaining it to you over and over.

Meteorology's convection model of storm theory is a vague, poorly considered theory that was arrived at in desperation. And when people are desperate they avoid delineating all the observations that should be true if. In other words, they turn a blind eye to inconsistencies. They pretend not to notice. Then this behavior becomes part of the paradigm as everybody agrees to agree, generation after generation.

They really were desperate. This model was arrived at a long time ago, before the civil war. At that time they had no understanding of H2O and its underlying dynamics--like the surface tension of H2O.

James Mcginn / Solving Tornadoes

[fosborn_]

Mcginn wrote...we've discussed many, many, many times before) higher temperature also allows for higher moisture content.

Onlly if we are dealing with gas laws, not droplets in the air. Besides you said only electrostics can levetate nano droplets, so temperature can have noting to do with it.

asuming you know the average size of any suspended H2O nanodroplets (which is almost always unknown and/or immeasurable) then, theoretically, we still could use gas laws to determine the weight/buoyancy but, as stated above, that would not necessarily dictate any conclusion as to whether a body should be expected to be rising or falling.

\
This statement seems vague to me, how do you get the gas law to work with nanodroplets. Can you show any examples where that has been done?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =8&t=16306

Mcginn wrote a vapor and, therefore, It consists of microdroplets of liquid H2O suspended by
electro-static forces between air molecules.

In this thread you referenced, this is nonsensical to me. Are you saying nano droplets are a gas after all? Can you show how this is possible. I can't find any principle that would address this as possible.

Mcginn wrote All in all, there is zero evidence
that moisture in our atmosphere is mono-molecular (gaseous) and there
is a wealth of laboratory evidence that confirms that gaseous H2O can
only exist above its boiling point, which is much higher than is available
in our ambient environment.

I disagree with this conjecture. I asked about the nano droplet curvature and the internal pressures increasing with smaller size. It would be easier for me to make progress, if you address that issue. Because even if you figure out how electrostatic levitation works on nano-droplets, the weakened surface tension is providing another excellent opportunity for evaporation into a gas.

James McGinn:
The real number that should be used here is not 18. It is 18 x X, X being the
number of H2O molecules in the microdroplets. What is the correct number
for X? Well, the truth is we don't know. It is, in my opinion, most likely never
smaller than 10

Have you come up with any substantial explanation beyond your opinion why this should work this way?

[Aardwolf]

However, show me a paper measuring water content in normal air and we can discuss properly.

Anyone who operates an engine dynamometer or tunes racing engines in serious competition rigorously measures the water content to calculate and compensate for any change in local conditions.

http://www.jegs.com/c/Bracket-Racing_We ... 1/10002/-1

Are they able to tell the difference between water molecules and nano scale droplets?

Can’t we simply take the preponderance of prevalent forms and have the “quantum’ shift between mono, di and tri molecular combinations for a free “gas”, condensing to or escaping from a liquid surface, and transitioning, with catalysts of heat and temp; to one of the primary hexamer forms of H2O, ie: nano-molecular droplets of water ?
The forms fit when using hydrogen bonds and valences to boot.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pe ... P2-and.png

Sounds reasonable but doesn't escape the fact that nano-molecular droplets are 784 times more dense than the surrounding air so the mainstream requires a different theory to keep the water content of humid air suspended against gravity, and explain why, after evaporating from the surface of a body of water they don't immediately fall back in. You see, for their theories to work, water must become molecular. They have enough trouble explaining clouds/fog.

[jimmcginn]

Mcginn wrote...we've discussed many, many, many times before) higher temperature also allows for higher moisture content.

Only if we are dealing with gas laws, not droplets in the air.

Regardless of gas laws,

Besides you said only electrostatics can levitate nanodroplets,

You are delusional.

so temperature can have noting to do with it.

I'm not interested in debating your imagination.

[CharlesChandler]

Sounds reasonable but doesn't escape the fact that nano-molecular droplets are 784 times more dense than the surrounding air so the mainstream requires a different theory to keep the water content of humid air suspended against gravity, and explain why, after evaporating from the surface of a body of water they don't immediately fall back in. You see, for their theories to work, water must become molecular. They have enough trouble explaining clouds/fog.

Here's the code for calculating the terminal velocity of a spherical object with the density of frozen water (i.e., a hailstone), which isn't much different from a water droplet.

Code: Select all

function HailTerminalVelocity($rad_mm, $roundTo = 0) {
	// http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/wea00/wea00186.htm
	$g  = 980.6;       // acceleration of gravity (980.6 cm/s^2),
	$Dh = 0.917;       // density of the hail (0.917 g/cm^3 for ice),
	$Da = 0.0012923;   // density of air (approximately 0.0012923 g/cm^3),
	$d  = $rad_mm / 5; // diameter of the hailstone in cm,
	$Cd = 0.83;        // drag coefficient
	$centimetersPerSecond = sqrt((0.667 * $g * $d * $Dh) / ($Cd * $Da));
	$metersPerSecond = $centimetersPerSecond / 100;
	return round($metersPerSecond, $roundTo);
}

A sphere with a 1 mm radius will fall at 3.34 m/s. With typical speeds in updrafts being greater than 10 m/s, the air will have no problem keeping the droplets suspended, until they have condensed into larger droplets, with terminal velocities great enough to fall out. The radii of the microscopic droplets in the present conversation is, of course, much less, and therefore the terminal velocity is much less.

[jimmcginn]

A sphere with a 1 mm radius will fall at 3.34 m/s. With typical speeds in updrafts being greater than 10 m/s, the air will have no problem keeping the droplets suspended, until they have condensed into larger droplets, with terminal velocities great enough to fall out. The radii of the microscopic droplets in the present conversation is, of course, much less, and therefore the terminal velocity is much less.

I consider hail to be evidence that is only explicable by envisioning extremely moist air, starting from ground level or very close to ground level, being sucked up into a vortice-conduit and brought rapidly upward, all the way above the tropopause (into the lower stratosphere). Droplets coalesce from nano and micro droplets as it rises and are contained in the flow by the walls of the vortice-conduit. And so, it is the walls of the vortice conduit that explain how/why the droplets don't fall out of the very narrow stream of the updraft flow as the nano and micro droplets coalesce into larger, heavier droplets as they ascend.

Along these lines, I think of hail as rather obvious evidence that the convection model is incomplete at best and, most probably, completely wrong. Likewise, I also consider the vortice-conduit of tornadoes to be evidence that the convection model is incomplete at best and most probably completely wrong.

I am continually amazed by the tendency of humans to preserve the vagueness of models by way of pretending not to notice details that would reveal the model as nonsense.

Jame McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[Aardwolf]

A sphere with a 1 mm radius will fall at 3.34 m/s. With typical speeds in updrafts being greater than 10 m/s, the air will have no problem keeping the droplets suspended, until they have condensed into larger droplets, with terminal velocities great enough to fall out. The radii of the microscopic droplets in the present conversation is, of course, much less, and therefore the terminal velocity is much less.

First, I understand the argument for suspending clouds, but my point was if the water is liquid, how is that affecting the droplet immediately after leaving the surface of a body of water. Where's the uplift coming from in that case?

Also fog. Fog is liquid so no argument there, but where is the uplift holding fog likely less than millimetres above the ground?

[CharlesChandler]

First, I understand the argument for suspending clouds, but my point was if the water is liquid, how is that affecting the droplet immediately after leaving the surface of a body of water. Where's the uplift coming from in that case?

I don't know of anyone who is saying that water lofts itself high into the atmosphere. If it is, in fact, gaseous immediately on evaporating from a body of water, it IS lighter than the molecular nitrogen & oxygen in the air -- the atomic mass of H2O is 18, versus 28 for N2, and 32 for O2. So H2O has 62% the average mass of the N2/O2 mix in the air. But its terminal velocity will be effectively 0, so it isn't going to snake its way past the N2 & O2 to loft itself up into the atmosphere. And it isn't going to make the air itself much lighter. The total water vapor at 100% relative humidity is less than 1% of the air by volume. So that's 62% lighter, times 1%, equals moist air that is only 0.62% lighter than dry air. Temperature will have a more dramatic effect. And of course water evaporating into the air cools it, so the moist air has every reason to stay near the surface. It only gets lofted when the surface winds get lofted, such as when a cold front undercuts a warm, moist air mass. Then the water vapor can condense, releasing latent heat, when generates the updraft in the storm. Then the smaller water particles are hoisted to the top of the storm, while larger particles can fall out due to their higher terminal velocity.

The inverse happens in the cooling towers used for air conditioning in large commercial buildings. Water aerosols are sprayed into the air, where they evaporate, cooling the air. This air sinks to the bottom of the cooling tower, where it can be used to chill the air in recirculation throughout the building. And of course it sinks despite being 0.62% lighter than dry air. But like I said, the temperature is the bigger factor. So this stuff isn't just pie-in-the-sky theory -- it's applied science that has been thoroughly quantified.

Also fog. Fog is liquid so no argument there, but where is the uplift holding fog likely less than millimetres above the ground?

I haven't studied fog, so I can't speak to that.

[Aardwolf]

I don't know of anyone who is saying that water lofts itself high into the atmosphere.

Well the Grand Canyon can fill up with fog so that's potentially up to a mile high without any uplift. No-one has to state it just look at the pictures.

If it is, in fact, gaseous immediately on evaporating from a body of water...

That's an assumption the rest of your comment is relying on. No evidence for it though, as extensively discussed in this thread.

So this stuff isn't just pie-in-the-sky theory -- it's applied science that has been thoroughly quantified.

We may thoroughly understand via trial and error exactly how to manipulate these effects, but that tells us nothing about its nature. No-one knows what gravity is but that doesn't mean we haven't mastered it's effect in our environment. Just like magnetism or flight. I could go on but I hope you get my drift.

Also fog. Fog is liquid so no argument there, but where is the uplift holding fog likely less than millimetres above the ground?

I haven't studied fog, so I can't speak to that.

Then that is a fundamental problem because fog/clouds are the same thing. If you can't explain fog then your knowledge of clouds is deeply flawed.

[fosborn_]

CharlesChandler wrote: The inverse happens in the cooling towers used for air conditioning in large commercial buildings. Water aerosols are sprayed into the air, where they evaporate, cooling the air. This air sinks to the bottom of the cooling tower, where it can be used to chill the air in recirculation throughout the building. And of course it sinks despite being 0.62% lighter than dry air. But like I said, the temperature is the bigger factor. So this stuff isn't just pie-in-the-sky theory -- it's applied science that has been thoroughly quantified.

Funny I was playing around with this vary idea tonight.


I'm trying to work air density out, as far which has the most influence, simple warm air and cool air masses, or Warm and cool air mass with humidity included. Wondering if the simple warm air bouyancy is really affected much by humidity.

To get a sense for the magnitude of typical vapor pressures, we first note
the saturation vapor pressure at 25°C is approximately 16 mb, while the saturation
vapor pressure at 0°C is approximately 6 mb. This, therefore, gives us an upper
limit of the actual vapor pressure observed at these temperatures. Comparing these
values with the standard atmospheric pressure of 1013 mb, we see the vapor
pressure typically only accounts for less than 2% of the total atmospheric pressure.
While small, this amount of water vapor can still have a non-negligible effect on
air density and therefore aircraft performance.

http://iflycoast.com/understanding-air- ... s-effects/

So I took air density values for dry air from wki examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air

Effect of temperature on properties of air
The following table illustrates the air density–temperature relationship at 1 atm or 101.325 kPa:

Difference.. 0.010948 X10
Temperature T (°C)---Density of air ρ (kg/m3)
0----------------1.2922 ------------2% (kg/m3) 0.025844
10---------------1.2466 ------------2% (kg/m3) 0.024932
20---------------1.2041------------ 2% (kg/m3) 0.024082 , adding to 1.2041= 1.228182 still less dense than dense air at 10 deg C

Seems regardless of temperature, water content is dwarfed by difference in temperature driven driven density.

[jimmcginn]

First, I understand the argument for suspending clouds, but my point was if the water is liquid, how is that affecting the droplet immediately after leaving the surface of a body of water. Where's the uplift coming from in that case?

I don't know of anyone who is saying that water lofts itself high into the atmosphere.

I agree. You won't get any meteorologist to confirm this supposition, but you won't get any of them to deny it either. But that will never come up because you won't get any of them discuss it except to assure you that it is 'well understood'. And you certainly won't get any of them to admit that nobody really understands it.

If it is, in fact, gaseous immediately on evaporating from a body of water, it IS lighter than the molecular nitrogen & oxygen in the air -- the atomic mass of H2O is 18, versus 28 for N2, and 32 for O2. So H2O has 62% the average mass of the N2/O2 mix in the air. But its terminal velocity will be effectively 0, so it isn't going to snake its way past the N2 & O2 to loft itself up into the atmosphere. And it isn't going to make the air itself much lighter. The total water vapor at 100% relative humidity is less than 1% of the air by volume. So that's 62% lighter, times 1%, equals moist air that is only 0.62% lighter than dry air.

Yeah, so, IF it defies its known boiling temperature/pressure as determined by hundreds of years of unambiguous laboratory evidence THEN we can assume it will be 0.62% lighter than dry air.

Temperature will have a more dramatic effect.

I don't think you know that. I think you are just speculating. There are significant problems with this assertion, as discussed here:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 25#p122389

And of course water evaporating into the air cools it,

Wait, wait, wait. Yes, cool water can, upon evaporation, cool air that is warmer. But it can also, upon evaporation, warm air that is cooler. (It is simply a function of temperature [ie. thermodynamics].) What is distinctive about water is that it has a huge heat capacity. That means that it acts like a sponge for energy. And that also means it can have a huge amount of energy to provide. IOW, it both absorbsd more energy and it generally possess more energy than other substances. But whether it is storing or providing is simply a function of its relative temperature as to whether it causes cooling or heating of the atmosphere. (Generally we can think of water as having a huge capacity to balance out temperature extremes.)

so the moist air has every reason to stay near the surface. It only gets lofted when the surface winds get lofted, such as when a cold front undercuts a warm, moist air mass. Then the water vapor can condense, releasing latent heat, when generates the updraft in the storm. Then the smaller water particles are hoisted to the top of the storm, while larger particles can fall out due to their higher terminal velocity.

Usually when we think of a more entropized form of energy converting or producing a less entropized form of energy we envision some mechanism being involved, like a steam engine producing the motion of a train from the heat of external combustion. But meteorologists, it appears, can't be bothered with such contrivances and thermodynamic laws. So, even though it is impossible to conceptualize, we are to believe that never detected gaseous H2O in the atmosphere produces "latent heat" upon condensation and this magically results in the directed winds of storms. And, I suppose, if one takes care not to think too hard about it, it kinda makes sense--kinda.

The inverse happens in the cooling towers used for air conditioning in large commercial buildings. Water aerosols are sprayed into the air, where they evaporate, cooling the air. This air sinks to the bottom of the cooling tower, where it can be used to chill the air in recirculation throughout the building. And of course it sinks despite being 0.62% lighter than dry air. But like I said, the temperature is the bigger factor.

So, the fact that it sinks couldn't be due to the fact that it contains heavier nanodroplets and microdroplets?

So this stuff isn't just pie-in-the-sky theory -- it's applied science that has been thoroughly quantified.

It's a definitely eleven:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOO5S4vxi0o

Also fog. Fog is liquid so no argument there, but where is the uplift holding fog likely less than millimetres above the ground?

I haven't studied fog, so I can't speak to that.

Hmm. Maybe we can find a meteorologists to assure us that it is, 'well understood.'

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[jimmcginn]

CharlesChandler wrote: The inverse happens in the cooling towers used for air conditioning in large commercial buildings. Water aerosols are sprayed into the air, where they evaporate, cooling the air. This air sinks to the bottom of the cooling tower, where it can be used to chill the air in recirculation throughout the building. And of course it sinks despite being 0.62% lighter than dry air. But like I said, the temperature is the bigger factor. So this stuff isn't just pie-in-the-sky theory -- it's applied science that has been thoroughly quantified.

Funny I was playing around with this vary idea tonight.

I'm trying to work air density out, as far which has the most influence, simple warm air and cool air masses, or Warm and cool air mass with humidity included. Wondering if the simple warm air bouyancy is really affected much by humidity.

To get a sense for the magnitude of typical vapor pressures, we first note
the saturation vapor pressure at 25°C is approximately 16 mb, while the saturation
vapor pressure at 0°C is approximately 6 mb. This, therefore, gives us an upper
limit of the actual vapor pressure observed at these temperatures. Comparing these
values with the standard atmospheric pressure of 1013 mb, we see the vapor
pressure typically only accounts for less than 2% of the total atmospheric pressure.
While small, this amount of water vapor can still have a non-negligible effect on
air density and therefore aircraft performance.

http://iflycoast.com/understanding-air- ... s-effects/

So I took air density values for dry air from wki examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air

Effect of temperature on properties of air
The following table illustrates the air density–temperature relationship at 1 atm or 101.325 kPa:

Difference.. 0.010948 X10
Temperature T (°C)---Density of air ρ (kg/m3)
0----------------1.2922 ------------2% Vapor pressure 0.025844
10---------------1.2466 ------------2% Vapor pressure 0.024932
20---------------1.2041------------ 2% Vapor pressure 0.024082 , adding to 1.2041= 1.228182 still less dense than dense air at 10 deg C

Seems regardless of temperature, water content is dwarfed by difference in temperature driven driven density.

So, Frank, let me get this straight. You've added another layer of complexity to a problem that you/we couldn't resolve prior to adding this layer of complexity and somehow--magically--it allowed you to resolve the problem, providing you with the insight you were hoping for. And what is especially amazing about it is how you were able to achieve this without knowing any of the details--like the size of the nanodroplets--without which we were unable to solve the problem previously. This is amazing. But why stop here? Let's add more layers of complexity and maybe we will be able to solve other insoluble problems, like world hunger, nuclear proliferation, and whether or not the light really goes off when you close the refrigerator door.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[seasmith]

jimmcginn wrote:

without knowing any of the details--like the size of the nanodroplets--without which we were unable to solve the problem

James, i''ve just told you the minimum droplet size on the previous page.
Mono and di- molecular H2O clusters are most easily dislodged from a surface because that action requires the least energy.
Not until the molecules recombine, upon cooling, as one of the four primary forms of Hexamers,
do the clusters achieve the rounded shape, bond strength and surface tension to become fairly stable droplets of water, at that pressure/temperature.

Look at the shapes of those few different molecular combinations, and you will see which ones would most readily 'stick out' from a surface, recombine in a cooling atmosphere or assume the Required shape of droplets.

[fosborn_]

I'm trying to work air density out, as far which has the most influence, simple warm air and cool air masses, or Warm and cool air mass with humidity included. Wondering if the simple warm air buoyancy is really affected much by humidity.

To get a sense for the magnitude of typical vapor pressures, we first note
the saturation vapor pressure at 25°C is approximately 16 mb, while the saturation
vapor pressure at 0°C is approximately 6 mb. This, therefore, gives us an upper
limit of the actual vapor pressure observed at these temperatures. Comparing these
values with the standard atmospheric pressure of 1013 mb, we see the vapor
pressure typically only accounts for less than 2% of the total atmospheric pressure.
While small, this amount of water vapor can still have a non-negligible effect on
air density and therefore aircraft performance.

http://iflycoast.com/understanding-air- ... s-effects/[/quote]

Frank_ wrote..So I took air density values for dry air from wki examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air

Effect of temperature on properties of air
The following table illustrates the air density–temperature relationship at 1 atm or 101.325 kPa:

Difference.. 0.010948 X10
Temperature T (°C)---Density of air ρ (kg/m3)
0----------------1.2922 ------------2% (kg/m3) 0.025844
10---------------1.2466 ------------2% (kg/m3) 0.024932
20---------------1.2041------------ 2% (kg/m3) 0.024082 , adding to 1.2041= 1.228182 still less dense than dense air at 10 deg C

Seems regardless of temperature, water content is dwarfed by difference in temperature driven driven density.

As follow up on the my last post...

So I note there is plenty of colder lower density air with increasing altitude in lower the troposphere ..

925 mb is aprox 2900 ft 100mb 53000 ft

[fosborn_]

Ok that post was so screwed up...