Willis Eschenbach's atmospheric heat engine confusion

[jimmcginn]

Willis Eschenbach's atmospheric heat engine confusion


https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/01/29/ ... nt-3442462

All of meteorology maintains this notion that there is some kind of "heat-engine" in the sky. IMO (and, yes, I am an expert) it is a notion for which there *is* some confirmational evidence. Specifically energetic flow in the atmosphere--especially around storms--has the appearance of being focused or funneled in a manner that is consistent with structure of some kind. And it is this observed evidence of structure that brings people (like Willis) to (out of desperation) arrive at this notion that there is a "heat-engine" in the sky.

So, if we start from the assumptions that there really is no such thing as a heat engine in the sky we have to acknowledge that there is evidence of some kind of structural entity or process. But what is it?

There is no heat engine in the sky. (Sorry Willis, thermodynamics is the wrong paradigm.) Coming in many different sizes and all interconnected, vortices are the closest thing to an engine in the sky. Vortices are the source of the structure and the flow that appears structural. And the source of the structure itself is the surface tension properties of H2O being amplified by wind shear.

My advice to all of your is to stop chasing your own tails and stop wasting time with your failed paradigm and get onboard with my advanced understanding that will inevitably replace the poorly considered 'heat-engine" model.

Don't waste your time with bad thinking. There are engines in the atmosphere. But they have nothing to do with heat or thermodynamics. It has to do with flow and the ability of H2O to facilitate, isolate, and focus this flow over long distances.

The Momentum of the Jetstream is Maintained by Vortices
https://youtu.be/N36vjLK8Ggc

James McGinn / Genius