webolife wrote:Once again McGinn, you have refused to deal with any of the observations and information I have presented, and have chosen to dismiss every challenge with hand waving and ad hominems: "superstition", "anecdote", "absurd", "vague", "contrived", "magical", "mystical", "lowest common denominator", "cargo cultist"...
I have tried to engage you with questions and challenges so that you can show with demonstrative evidence [triple redundancy for emphasis] that your hypothesis has merit. I'd really like to see you succeed, but when it comes to the bottom line, all you have to say is that you aren't finished yet... well, as I said before, I look forward to the full presentation.
I do genuinely value your feedback.
webolife wrote:
By the way, what is absurd about a 300 mph differential in relative wind speed [ie. the average speed of the jet stream with respect to the earth's surface from which it is gauged]
Nothing. Its a highlight of my model. In my model, the jet streams are the repositories of the energy that causes storms. Jet streams and their tributaries deliver this energy (upstream) as low pressure, producing uplift witnessed in storms. (Sometimes the delivery system overshoots producing tornadoes.) My model has no need for this mystical notion that moist air is lighter than dry air.>
webolife wrote:
due to the sphericity of the earth's surface? For a reader's reminder, the equatorial earth surface rotates eastward at 1600+ kph, while the mid to upper latitudes rotate eastward at around in the ranges of 700 - 1100 kph, a difference middling around 700 kph to a stationary observer at those latitudes. So a polarward moving parcel of air originating near the equator will start out at a high eastward speed and "overtake" the slower rotating earth as it moves toward the poles, ie. moving eastward at a faster rate than the rotating earth at the higher latitudes. Likewise winds originating in the higher latitudes lag behind the earth's rotation as they head toward the equator. This is a basic description of the Coriolis effect, commonly stated thus: Currents [wind and water] in the Northern Hemisphere veer to the right [and to the left in the Southern Hemisphere]. This is an almost entirely exigent consequence of simple inertia, oh... and simple convection. It explains the anticyclonic movement in air masses [ie. clockwise in the N Hem}, as well as the cyclonic movement at low pressure frontal systems as considered in the context of convection.
You are not answering the question. How does this explain 300 mph jet streams in tropopause? Why/how does the air go so fast? Why tropopause? Why/how does a jet stream maintain its coherence. (This is the subject I was discussing.)
Also, if I'm reading you right, you are (inadvertently) admitting that, essentially, you just assumed convection is true. And beyond that you have a series of anecdote that you claim would not be true if convection is not true. But You don't actually have a concise argument for why we know the upward moving air in storms is powered by convection. It's really just an assumption. Have I correctly characterized your position?
webolife wrote:
As I've repeated before, I am very interested in your work on the nature of water's hydrogen bond and will be following your ongoing presentations, although I have to say it gets quite tiring to have honest challenges and questions met mostly with ridicule and dismissal.
I've provided you with all the intellectual tools you need to make a concise argument for your belief in "cold steam" but, like all believers, you don't use them. You don't want to look through the Galileo's telescope of my refutation of the moist air convection myth. Instead you wish only to draw attention to all of the anecdotal evidence--all of which my model explains as well or better.
webolife wrote:
I will therefore step back out of this discussion for a while. Maybe you will find it within yourself to answer other folks with a little more courtesy, and might I suggest the humble tentativity that characterizes honest scientific discourse? You show this from time to time, and almost win me over when you do. But when a sincere challenge or question is offered, out come those gloves!
If I understand correctly, you are a teacher. That is great. I have a different focus. I have a different specialty: science theory. I have learned that if you want to make progress you have to be very careful you don't fall for simple notions just because they seem to make sense.
Here is why Meteorology's Convection Model of Storm Theory Fails
'Cold Steam' Controversy: six things to recognize
1) Recognize that the properties of H2O don't change just because it is suspended in the atmosphere/air.
2) Recognize a clear distinction between liquid, vaporous H2O and genuine steam, monomolecular, gaseous H2O.
3) Recognize that nowhere in the atmosphere is temperature/pressure high/low enough to support the existence of gaseous H2O, according to any and all reproducible experimental evidence.
4) Recognize that there is zero reproducible experimental evidence that the moisture in clear moist air, at ambient temperatures/pressures, is monomolecular, (gaseous) H2O.
5) Along the same lines, recognize that there is zero reproducible experimental evidence that contradicts this moisture in clear moist air at ambient temperatures/pressures being multimolecular, vaporous (liquid) H2O.
6) Recognize that the implications of these five facts is devastating to meteorology's prevailing model of storms, the convection model of storm theory, which is completely dependent upon the notion that moist air is lighter than dry air.
If you want to understand how the atmosphere actually works/operates you must get rid of all the superstition. If you can't/won't do that there is no reason to continue, because you'll just end up frustrated all the time.
Let's not talk about convection in this thread anymore after this. Okay?
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
