.
.
An interesting and provocative post from a newish meteorology blog
A man goes to a tailor to try on a new custom-made suit. The first thing he notices is that the arms are too long.
“No problem,” says the tailor. “Just bend them at the elbow and hold them out in front of you. See, now it’s fine.”
“But the collar is up around my ears!”
“It’s nothing. Just hunch your back up a little… No, a little more… That’s it.”
“But I’m stepping on my cuffs!” the man cries in desperation.
“Just bend you knees a little to take up the slack. There you go. Look in the mirror–the suit fits perfectly.”
So, twisted like a pretzel, the man lurches out onto the street. Reba and Florence see him go by.
“Oh, look,” says Reba, “that poor man!”
“Yes,” says Florence, “but what a beautiful suit.”
It started with Walter James Espy, the Storm King, who, around the 1840s…
View original post 880 more words
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
‘the unseen, underlying contortions they are doing to keep their twisted suit of a theory looking presentable’
Look around and wonder whether a variety of science disciplines rest on patchwork unconvincing theory with built-in contradictions.
“Now, just look at my shiny dangling thing on a chain in front of your eyes…
Your eyes are getting heavy…
Repeat after me…
The theory is right.
The theory is right.
The theory is right…”
**
Ok, sorted, can I have my funding cheque now?
Nice find TB.
OB that bit you highlight:-
‘the unseen, underlying contortions they are doing to keep their twisted suit of a theory looking presentable’
Sounds very much like Tim Cullen’s work on much postmodern science…especially the contortion bit.
Dark matter anyone?
Hmmmmm…. be careful. That guy comes across as pretty much out there.
I looked into this a bit more. The author is a long time kook. I ran into him many years ago and he is unchanged.
Anyone who has taken engineering thermo I knows this claim is non-sense:
“It was well-known that H2O is not an ideal gas and, in fact, only becomes a gas above 212 degrees F, and the atmosphere rarely got above 100 degrees.”
If you believe it, don’t bother buying either humidifiers or dehumidifiers. As if the claim was true, neither would do anything.
The page contains other non-sense, but it’s not as blatantly obvious.
Lucia, yes, the 212F thing jumped out at me too. I don’t necessarily endorse the views I reblog, but try to stimulate discussion.
So, do you encourage us pointing out the other stupid claims? Because there are plenty!
By all means! 🙂
That low density fluids can lie below high density is well accepted, can and has been shown. One way to show it is slowly heat water (oil, air or any fluid) from below. If you heat sufficiently slowly, you’ll maintain a temperature inversion. Surface tension need not be involved. (The existrnce of surface tension can increase the range of stable inversions, but it is not at all necessary to their existence.)
There have been scads of demonstrations of this fact– generally focusing on identifying when inversions become sufficiently stable to self-destruct. Early studies involve Rayleigh Bernard convection: “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh%E2%80%93B%C3%A9nard_convection” Similar things can be shown with air– but it’s easier to do thing with water or oil in the kitchen. The stability analysis is easier too.
The field of ‘stability analysis’ is well understood and has vast applications in fluid mechanics– especially in engineering! The claim that unstable situations can exist is not singular to meterology– engineers rely on the fact they can and do exist (and sometimes exploit their existence!)
The “cap” thing is well understood and accepted. It’s one of many “continuity” effects. (And yes, it’s understood by those doing stability analysis in fluid dynamics- especially the Bernard Cell convection problem mentioned above.
I can’t find anything that guy insinuates as being a “problem” for meteorology as being any sort of ‘problem’. If they were problems, engineers working in fluid dynamics be criticizing meteorologists for those claims we don’t because we know it’s true that
(a) water vapor is less dense than air at similar Pressure and Temperature.
(b) temperature and density inversions can exist both in our kitchens and the atmosphere.
(c) inversions are unstable and when they “pop” we can see dramatic effects. (Tornadoes are a claimed ‘dramatic effect’).
That whole thing is just whacked. They only conversation worth having is “How whacked is it?”
Lucia, of course, pegs this better and more technically than just about any of us could.
I vaguely remember this guy as a real kook hung up on vortices.
I have made it easier to leave replies on my site.
Were you othe guy who was going to control hurricanes with a giant floating pipe apparatus?
See my responses on my blog. Regards,
If you believe it, don’t bother buying either humidifiers or dehumidifiers. As if the claim was true, neither would do anything.
LOL. Why don’t you geniuses put your heads together and produce a car engine that runs on the steam produced by humidifiers. You’ll become billionaires!
Solving,
I wrote my comment here. You decided to answer at your blog. I prefer to answer your answer here.
No I don’t consider acceptance to be empirical evidence. But it just so happens that in this case acceptance springs from vast amount of empirical evidence, some of which you could collect in your kitchen. The Rayleigh-Bernard cell convection experiments happen to be well documented empirical evidence that also matches theory.
I have no idea why you think the notion that one could get a pot of water, put it on the stove and observe it is “spiritualistic”. But I tend to base my ‘belief’ that this can happen on the fact that experiments have been done– often. That you might not be aware of the experiments doesn’t mean they haven’t been done.
I’m not sure why you object to the fact that I, knowing that this experiment has been done — in a vast number of different ways, and repeated by many- anticipate that if the experiment was repeated by others, the same result would happen again.
I didn’t suggest you were saying the notion of convection was disputed or refuted.
Huh? Are you asking me to explain how both the following can be true:
(a) caps exist and
(b) gases don’t have surface tension?
Of course they can both be true.
Snort…. I think everyone who does fluid mechanics can now proceed to laugh uproariously at you!
(Serious answer: continuity effects are those involving the well known “continuity equation”. Wikipedia may not be the best source, but it is handy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_equation )
Did you really just suggest that “weight per volume” is the issue but density is not?! So, what’s your point, I should says “specific weight”? Because what, someone might think we’re debating whether water vapor on mars has a lower specific weight than dry air on earth? OMG! (Rog, Sorry for the rhetorical question. But this is such nonsense.)
As for your claim that water vapor is heavier than dry air: No. Watervapor is lighter than air. I read the silly paper you have with the nebulizer spitting in nebulized droplets that were then evaporating (and shrinking and so possibly passing through a range where the droplets were ‘clusters’) or what might have been measured during rapid sustained boiling (where due to vigorous agitation aerosolized droplets were hurled into the vapor phased). Even if the measurements in that paper are correct, that hardly seems relevant to situations like my back yard where there is no nebulizer and water drops are not being hurled into the air due to rapid boiling.
In fact: we know the density of water vapor is less than that of air because it’s been measured in laboratories. Go get yourself a dang steam table– using the data in that table gives the “right” answer in engineering design problems.
Heck, even your accusation that I only see what I want to believe, I’m one up on you: no one has or can observe what you believe!
Good luck designing a dehumidifiers, or a heat engine if you don’t believe steam tables which are based on empirical evidence and which tells us water vapor is less dense than air.
Vortices in weather systems are interesting though. I’m not sure cyclonic/anticyclonic weather systems and hurricanes are started spinning by the coriolis effect, which is a pseudoforce.
Lucia: In fact: we know the density of water vapor is less than that of air because it’s been measured in laboratories. Go get yourself a dang steam table– using the data in that table gives the “right” answer in engineering design problems.
ST: My response on my blog.
ST: Copy it over here too please.
Tall Bloke: I’m not sure cyclonic/anticyclonic weather systems and hurricanes are started spinning by the coriolis effect, which is a pseudoforce.
ST: I’m not sure/convinced about coriolis effect either. But it does kind of make sense.
“H2O is not an ideal gas and, only becomes a gas above 212 degrees F”
Evaporation of seawater? Sublimation of ice?
I’m not chasing you around all over the internet.
Heh…. non-ideal gases are still gases. Vapor is a type of gas. Suggesting water vapor is not a gas is like suggesting apples are not fruit.
Lucia, apples are a fruit. But apples are not oranges.
solvingtornadoes says: July 15, 2014 at 12:07 am
Tall Bloke: I’m not sure cyclonic/anticyclonic weather systems and hurricanes are started spinning by the coriolis effect, which is a pseudoforce.
ST: I’m not sure/convinced about coriolis effect either. But it does kind of make sense.
solvingtornadoes, AKA Cladius Denk, also Jim Something is pretty good at the condensation part.
He does have that hang up of “no water monomers below 100 Celcius”, while leaves only release such. Gary Novack also, has many hangups, but is accurate as to “the complete trash that Nuevo science has become” His no E=mc^2 is likely correct. The velocity of light is a asymptote for any rest mass and raising an asymptote to any power except one results in “not a number”. Can you even think of the the speed of light as some area expansion vector? Perhaps the surface of the universe.
lucia liljegren (@lucialiljegren) says: July 15, 2014 at 3:04 am
ST: My response on my blog.
I’m not chasing you around all over the internet.
“H2O is not an ideal gas and, only becomes a gas above 212 degrees F”
Heh…. non-ideal gases are still gases. Vapor is a type of gas. Suggesting water vapor is not a gas is like suggesting apples are not fruit.
Lucia,
What happened to that neat avatar?
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana!
If there were no N2 and O2, would there be any H2O? Why or not? Water is strange in many ways!
solvingtornadoes says: July 15, 2014 at 3:54 am
Lucia, apples are a fruit. But apples are not oranges.
Jim, What is the boiling point of water at 1000 Pascals (1kPa)? both solid and H20 monomers exist there.
Perhaps dimers and trimers also, but in what state of matter? What is the density? What is the density of any part of the stratosphere? What is the density of anything in orbit? What kinds of mass can have an orbit?
TB,
You have stumbled upon a guy who makes Doug Cotton look sane by comparison.
Congratulations.
Hunter, are you an imbecile?
Janoschka: A word of advice: de-caf.
solvingtornadoes says: July 15, 2014 at 6:11 am
Janoschka: A word of advice: de-caf.
Jim, nice talkin “at” ya!
TB,
Between Will J and the tornado kook, this has become a really bizarre thread in a hurry.
Here is some of tornado guy’s other posting”
http://www.solvingtornadoes.org/antigravity
He is moderator of a blog that deal with anti-gravity. And tornadoes apparently play an important part in this anti-gravity.
Which neat avatar? I have two that appear at different places. One is the cat, the other a cartoon of me. I don’t know where Tallbloke’s blog pull avatars from so I don’t know why neither appear here.
Unbelievable debating technique from a guy who doesn’t know water is a gas below 212F:
Uhhmmm…
Well… anti-gravity could probably result in some useful inventions. Perhaps he should stop blogging or book writing, go down to his basement and get to work creating devices!
“H2O is not an ideal gas and, only becomes a gas above 212 degrees F”
Ummm, I’m just wondering about the puddle of water I saw from my window eariler today.
What happened to that puddle of water? I saw it on the tarred walkway earlier today. I didn’t run-away, nobody mopped it up, and I’ve seen no misty vapor or steam. It just vanished over time.
Yes it is warm today but not over 200ºF. How did it happen?
🙂
Lucia: Gravatar.
Hmm.. maybe gravatar doesn’t ‘know’ this is me (because I’m using my twitter log in?) I’ll have to sort that out.
BTW, I think Will Janoschka’s imitation of Tornados’s ‘debating’ technique is hilarious!
Hunter: [snip] That is a page from a forum that I had no participation.
[Mod Note] He didn’t rise to the bait the first time, so you don’t get to try it twice.
TB,
Thanks. ;^)
lucia,
And thank you for the ringing endorsement, lol :o)
solvingtornadoes,
You posted the bogus agrav site on your website with no comment. Not me.
You deleted my post where I show you in plain basic math that you are totally wrong about about density- that you do not understand the concept. But you never cleared the post and won’t let it publish.
Not only are you intellectually challenged you are a coward as well.
You are to skeptical and critical thinking what a tuna fish is to a piano: completely alien to it.
Nope, not buying it.
H2O molecule is lighter than O2 molecules or N2 molecules.
Experimental steam balloons have been flown with lift greater than hot air but less than helium.
I have also had some experience with model solar balloons. Those trying for altitude often fill with moist air. Added lift on take off, plus an extra buoyancy kick when internal dew point occurs during ascent.
I’d have to agree with Hunter on this one. It’s a bit like Dr. Zoidberg going for a scuttle –
Konrad,
Thanks.
Your Zoidberg link wasn’t working, so I offer this one instead:
The kook has a poll out to prove that meteorology is wrong. Think of the irony- he relies on a poll to give his ideas credibility while he claims that reliance on a consensus means the science is wrong.
And his poll offers literally no science, math or physics to back it up. But of course his arguments offer no science, goofy delusional science, and certainly no physics.
Tallbloke,
You have out done yourself. ‘solvingtornadoes’ is a bigger kook than Doug Cotton. Thanks for dredging this up. It is always interesting to see just how wacked a wack job can be.
Answer my question you evasive twit: Do you have any reproducible experimental evidence that H2O remains monomolecular in the atmosphere at temperatures below the boiling point of H2O?
Remember: 1) Your imagination is not evidence; 2) Opinions of your fellow AGW cultists is not evidence; 3) Opinions of so-called experts (even those that have sciency souding names, like Oppenheimer) is not evidence; 4) References to people that iived over a hundred years ago is not evidence: 5) References to documents that express the same sentiment are not evidence.
[Mod note] Please state who you are addressing (with the time/date of their comment if it wasn’t their most recent) to help us see the flow of the subthreads. – Thanks -TB
solvingtornadoes,
……and there we have it: the completely unhinged, Cotton-esque psychotwit fully self-exposed.
His “book” is a desperate cry for psychiatric intervention, His obsession with ignoring well documented science and not actually offering anything more than gibberish as an alternative speaks for itself.
Water, being the most common chemical on Earth’s surface, is fairly well studied.
http://www.all-water.org/Chemistry.html
Not one word about your “monomolecular” clap-trap. So if you have any actual facts behind your ‘monomelcular’issue, please do share. Now the fact that H2O does form some structures at low temps has nothing to do with your weirdness about the boiling point. Just as your lack of understanding about vapor pressure, where gaseous molecules of water exist at an incredibly broad range of temperatures.
But you seem to have a new science and physics….one where that you do not bother to share. That you in your deranged ignorance simply assert without proof.
So your math, your reasoning, your writing, your rational thinking, offer nothing but a sad demonstration of a confused uninformed mind.
Thanks for the entertainnment value.
Ciao,
TB,
He is addressing me.
He is upset that I took his poll and placed a few comments in the ‘other’ answer section.
He also thinks I am an AGW believer, lol.
What a maroon.
There is a lesson to be learned from all of this. Never take the word of a global warming advocate (or any other science-based groupy) on face value. Always ask them to point you to the REPRODUCIBLE EXPERIMENTAL evidence. Expect them to sidestep that request and come back with all kinds irrelevancies and attempts to divert the discussion. Stay steadfast. Don’t take the bait. Keep asking for the REPRODUCIBLE EXPERIMENTAL evidence. Expect them to blather on, making statements like, “everybody knows,” “it is well known,” “it’s long been known,” “it’s long been accepted,” etc. There are thousands of ways to divert a discussion to some kind of brain-dead consensus-based conclusion. But there is only one way to arrive at the empirical truth of an issue, and that is through reproducible experimental evidence.
On my website/blog I will soon post the experimental methods that anybody can follow to arrive at the truth on this issue. Stay tuned.
Hunter says:
Water, being the most common chemical on Earth’s surface, is fairly well studied.
http://www.all-water.org/Chemistry.html
Not one word about “monomolecular”.
Solvingtornadoes says:
I think it is interesting that your commitment to forming/maintaining conclusions based on zero evidence and deliberate avoidance of empirical methods that might challenge/dispute consensus-based conclusions is shared by many others, some of whom hold positions of high esteem in the field of tornadogenesis. Follow link below for details:
Regards,
Jim McGinn (AKA Claudius Denk)
Solving Tornadoes
PS: If you are not an AGW groupy, you should be.
For those wondering the context of “mono-molecular” tosh is from this:
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA299836
That paper describes an experiment where the researcher either:
1)Used a nebulizer to continuously create a mist and injected mist into a heated moist changer and measured properties. Guess what: If you inject a lot of mist, what some might think was a “vapor” phase has the properties of a (vapor+mist). (The “mist” is the “clusters” of H20 drops– which is to say they were not water vapor because nebulizers don’t create water vapor.) The paper also reported that if you didn’t run the nebulizer, the “vapor” phase did not have the properties of “(vapor + mist)” . It was just “vapor”.
2) or immersed a heater under water resulting in violent boiling. You know the kind where the surface is roiling and spitting drops up into the vapor? In that case, they also observe what looks like “vapor” to the eye has properties of “(vapor+mist)”
It’s all well and good to claim this is evidence that “vapor” does not consiste of monomolecular H20. But this is hardly evidence of that. It’s evidence that if you use a nebulizer or somethign that creates very small drops, then while that is operating, the vapor will be loaded with very, very small drops of water. Uhmm.. yeah.
Does this (vapor+mist) have an “effective density” that is greater than vapor? yes. That’s a well known “two phase flow” issue. But that doesn’t make the ‘mist’ ‘water vapor’ and it doesn’t tell us anything about pure water vapor. And if anything, the paper shows that under ordinary circumstances in palces like “over a field in Kansas”, water vapor is mono-molecular. Because that’s what the results without the nebulizer are consistent with.
[…] https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/07/14/did-you-hear-the-one-about-the-guy-that-goes-to-buy-a-suit… […]
lucia,
Thanks. Most gasses are monomolecular, if I recall.
You have known me for awhile- not a trained tech, but I do try to keep up. You are easily the most accessible of the technicallycapable people posting and I always get a lot out of your willingness and patience in dealing with these sorts of issues.
solvingtornadoes,
You did not get it at all: I am a strong, highly skeptical hobbyist in this issue. Your arguments offer nothing to skeptics except puzzlement: You are a goofball. Nothing you post has to do with critiquing AGW. Your writing has nothing to do with a rational discussion of any issue.
The exchange you posted with Paul Markowski only shows you missed his hints that your entire idea is kooky. You are tossing off terms and names of stuff he, an active scientist, is unfamiliar with. And you are unable to explain the terms and names of what you are using in any coherent way. Sort of your sop actually.
This has been fun, but are we done yet?
Hunter, Lucia,
Both of your most recent posts do nothing but substantiate my claims. You both confirm your status as science groupies and not as genuine skeptics. Genuine skeptics do not formulate conclusions on lack of evidence (and/or lack of evidence to the contrary).
I suggest doing some research in the field of science philosophy. Search the phrase “Black Swan.”
Regards,
Jim McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
Hunter said;
The exchange you posted with Paul Markowski only shows you missed his hints that your entire idea is kooky.
Solving Tornadoes;
Maybe we shouldn’t base scientific conclusions on hints. Maybe we should base them on reproducible experimental evidence.
hunter
Yes. Sorry if previous quote of ‘tornadoes’ came off ambiguous. I think being called an idiot by ‘tornadoes’ should be worn as a badge of honor.
solvingtornadoes
Ohhhhhh… I think I’ll just have to go cry!
Wherein Hugh Carlon’s conclusions regarding water clustering are refuted.
A flaw in the measurement of the ion content of confined water saturated air
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jap/113/17/10.1063/1.4803678
Apparently the insulators between the plates in Carlon’s experimental rig were contaminated resulting in a higher observed conductivity in the system. This yielded a 4-6 order of magnitude error in the original results. The author also reports a capacitor charging and discharging phenomenon that Carlon did not report.
@solvingtornadoes, sorry to burst your clusters.
Lucia,
Maybe you could find your way to a hobby that is more suitable to your temperment. I’ve heard pressing leaves in books can be quite satisfying.
DGH,
What’s 4-6 orders of magnitude among friends?
DGH says:
July 16, 2014 at 9:55 pm
Wherein Hugh Carlon’s conclusions regarding water clustering are refuted.
Solving Tornadoes:
LOL. This shows that you groupies don’t know how to evaluate scientific literature. This only demonstrates that Carlon’s experiment was/is inconclusive. You groupies need to leave you imagination out of your conclusions.
Jim: Maybe until a better controlled experiment is done with more definite results, more circumspection with regards to strong claims might be in order?
solvingtornadoes,
You have yet to produce one- (1) bit of science showing your ideas have any merit at all.
Your exchange with Paul Markowski only shows you trying to bum off of an accomplished guy: You did not offer him anything other than the privelege of your using his reputation for your experiment. And your experiment was completely ill-defined (like all of your “ideas”), and offered in an insulting ignorant fashion. Your pathetic attemtpt of putting down Lucia, who is an accomplished active tech/scientistis manages to be sexist, ignorant and kooky all at once.
Your posing as some sort of judge of skeptics is rather sad, like reading a case file of a delusional psych patient in a manic king-of-the-world phase. You are the one who has demonstrated an inability to read basic math operations like division and multiplication, not to mention science papers.
And if you are trying to be a troll, face it: You are not very good at that either.
lucia,
Thanks. I thoguht I understood your intent, but I thought the ambiguous part was great.
This is the most humorous fun I have had on a thread in a while. It is distracting from tough stuff at work and is actually a fun excercise. Sort of a distraction-by-clowns in an interactive setting.
Roger: Circumspection is appropriate when you are not sure about underlying physical principles. See chapter 4 of my book for details (BTW, feel free to distribute it to others–through email only please.)
However, if you need something more tangible you might consider looking into the some of the history of the steam engine. The first practical steam engine, the Newcomen atmospheric engine, actually used the atmosphere to do the work (power stroke). It used steam as a means of creating a vacuum by lowering its temperature below the boiling point (using chilled water to assist). If H2O stayed mono-molecular below boiling point of H2O it could not possibly have worked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomen_atmospheric_engine
“When the regulator valve V was opened, steam was let out of the boiler filling the space in the cylinder beneath the piston. The regulator valve was then closed and the water injection valve V’ briefly snapped open and shut sending a spray of cold water into the cylinder. This condensed the steam and created a partial vacuum under the piston. Pressure differential with the atmosphere then drove the piston down making the power stroke . . .”
Nonesense. Condensation of a mono-molecular gas to liquid will result lowered pressure (i.e. partial vacuum) just as required to run this engin.
Doesn’t that prove Jim’s point Lucia? That water vapor below 212F is actually suspended micro droplets, not gas?
Or does the answer depend on how quickly the droplets grow and drop out as liquid condensate?
At what point does a multimer become a droplet? When the surrounding gas no longer supports it?
Maybe the clue is in the name; droplets… drop.
Lucia,
The guy seems to confuse covalent bonding with hydrogen bonding. And then conflate that into something that doesn’t happen much (if ever) in the gas state (except for reactive gas mixtures).
Lucia,
The guy seems to confuse covalent bonding with hydrogen bonding. And then conflate that into something that doesn’t happen much (if ever) in the gas state (except for reactive gas mixtures).
Solving Tornadoes:
This is why I hate debating AGW alarmists. They don’t want to debate the actual evidence. They want to debate what they imagine their opponent imagines. (BTW there is no change in covalent factors associated with the liquid/gas phase change in H2O.)
@solvingtornadoes
Three questions –
Wouldn’t air conditioner manufacturers notice if their machines were collecting six orders of magnitude more water than expected? “Where’s all that water coming from? Must be magic.”
Wouldn’t humidity sensor manufacturers be surprised to find that there were six orders of magnitude more water in the air than possible according to the established properties of water? “Hey why is this thing always pegged at 100%?!”
Wouldn’t humidifier manufacturers notice if their devices required six orders of magnitude more water than expected? “Boy that house was really dry. Did you notice how much water that humidifier consumed? Yeah it’s as if it never turns to a gas.”
There are people who rely on the published properties of steam on a large scale who would notice the impact of this unknown and hidden mass of water that you suggest exists. And there are scientists who attempt to refine the published properties of steam. Nobody has found your water.
As oldbrew asks above, “Dark matter anyone?”
tallbloke says: July 17, 2014 at 12:15 am
Doesn’t that prove Jim’s point Lucia? That water vapor below 212F is actually suspended micro droplets, not gas?
Roger,
It proves nothing. The micro or drizzel drops are airborn water not a gas, drizzle drops form (huge number of molecules) 1000 times the density of the H2O monomer at STP,but a tiny sphere 0.2 micron in diameter, smaller than a particle of soot, that also can remain suspended in the troposphere. Surface fog need not collapse.
The concept of multi-mers,as a gas, has Avogadro still spinning The clumping, appears not ridged like a real molecule, colisions need not be elastic, and the clumping seems to be have a component of electrostatic attraction, perhaps only a single monomer has a charge to create a clump. Hydrogen bonding may be a factor.
Jim McGinn OTOH insists that monomer H2O as a real but not ideal gas cannot exist below 100 Celsius. This is nonsense and would “prevent” the kind of evaporation from water and leaves below 100 Celsius and no 80 W/m^2 latent heat of evaporation. Jim however is correct in that the meteorologists have never actually learned how the atmosphere actually works, and they refuse to learn.
DGH: “Nobody has found your water.”
ST: It’s not my water. You are the one that maintains the “six orders of magnitude” assumption. Not me. I have my hands full defending my own thinking. I don’t have time to also defend your imagination.
No. The paper that refutes the citations that you provide on your website finds that your source overestimates the amount of water in the test system by at least 5 to 6 orders of magnitude. That’s not my imagination. The paper is quite good and is devastating to the claims of Carlon.
The author thanked Carlon for supplying hard copies of the original papers. Therefore, I assume that Carlon is aware of the paper. He has not published a response. Nor has anyone else – including you.
So put up or…
solvingtornadoes,
Now you just troll, and you should recall you are not good at trolling.
If I meet your definition of AGW alarmist, then your inability to understand simple definitions extends not only to math, physics, chemistry, but also to the English language and reality itself. You may be dumber than the US President on climate issues, and that would take some doing..
You have yet to offer any evidence in support of your ‘theory’. You simply persist in repeating your unexplained, unsubstantiated conclusions and claim that everyone else is wrong.
Now you have simply become boring.
Bad luck with your faux book- anyone who buys it has wasted their money and is at risk of having their intelligence reduced by close contact with what passes for thoughts from you.
But I do hope you get the psychiatric and learning disability help you desperately need.
Will Janoschka: “It proves nothing. The micro or drizzel drops are air-born water not a gas, drizzle drops form (huge number of molecules) 1000 times the density of the H2O monomer at STP,but a tiny sphere 0.2 micron in diameter, smaller than a particle of soot, that also can remain suspended in the troposphere.”
ST: This is the whole freekin point.
Will Janoschka: ” . . . clumping seems to be have a component of electrostatic attraction, . . . Hydrogen bonding may be a factor.
ST: Gee, do ya think.
Will Janoschka: Jim McGinn OTOH insists that monomer H2O as a real but not ideal gas cannot exist below 100 Celsius.
ST: Right. Because individual H2O molecules are at full polarity when they are not (yet) attached to other H2O molecules. (Note: when H2O molecules become attached to other H2O molecules their polarity is neutralized.)
Will Janoschka: This is nonsense and would “prevent” the kind of evaporation from water and leaves below 100 Celsius .
ST: Wrong. It’s not like the hydrogen bond can be turned off temporarily. But it does mean that evaporation also involves clumps and not individual molecules of H2O. (Here is something to consider that will give you a sense of the quirkiness of H2O’s hydrogen bond. The amount of force associated with pulling one molecule of H2O off the surface of a body of water is something like 15 to 25 times greater than it is to pull off a clump of 10 to 20 molecules in size. Think about that for a while.)
Will Janoschka: Jim however is correct in that the meteorologists have never actually learned how the atmosphere actually works, and they refuse to learn.
ST: They are a bit stubborn, aren’t they?
Hunter:
If you (and Lucia) are not AGW alarmists I can only fret that your talent is being squandered.
Will J: The micro or drizzel drops are airborn water not a gas.
Jim would agree with that.
Surface fog need not collapse.
And that.
the clumping seems to be have a component of electrostatic attraction
And that
perhaps only a single monomer has a charge to create a clump
Wouldn’t that give us a max clump size of two molecules? A dimer?
Jim McGinn OTOH insists that monomer H2O as a real (but not ideal) gas cannot exist below 100 Celsius. This is nonsense and would “prevent” the kind of evaporation from water and leaves below 100 Celsius.
1). How do we know whether water evaporating below its boiling point is evaporating as single molecules not in dimers? Or very rapidly becoming a dimer with another nearby water molecule immediately after evaporation?
2). Doesn’t the fact that steam contracts rapidly below boiling point demonstrate that Jim is correct about water not existing as an ideal gas below boiling point?
3). In any case, a single evaporated water molecule amongst a crowd of O2 and N2 molecules is not gaseous water, it is humid air.
Please note I am only addressing this single issue. I have not had time to study Jim’s broader thesis and have no judgement of it yet.
tallbloke says: July 17, 2014 at 8:29 am
Will J: The micro or drizzel drops are airborn water not a gas.
perhaps only a single monomer has a charge to create a clump
“Wouldn’t that give us a max clump size of two molecules? A dimer?”
No a single unit of electrical charge (either polarity) has attraction to anything neutral.
The bits of paper with a comb are not charged untill they touch arc or otherwise transfer some charge. I would imagine that the forces, H bonds or electrical for a 21-mer are very weak and the 21-mer would not likely survive a single collision. Avogadro can rest easy.
Will J: Jim McGinn OTOH insists that monomer H2O as a real (but not ideal) gas cannot exist below 100 Celsius. This is nonsense and would “prevent” the kind of evaporation from water and leaves below 100 Celsius.
TB: 1). How do we know whether water evaporating below its boiling point is evaporating as single molecules not in dimers? Or very rapidly becoming a dimer with another nearby water molecule immediately after evaporation?
We do not know, but even a dimer must be less dense than CO2 or Ar. The real question is the volume/mass ratio (physical density) of a multi-mer mixed in those other gases? How stable is that density? Avogadro mumbles in his sleep! I will attempt to find out if a 2(H2O) can get out if a leaf! In the lab we know/think that H20 monomer gas can exist up to its saturation pressure (partial pressure).
TB 2). Doesn’t the fact that steam contracts rapidly below boiling point demonstrate that Jim is correct about water not existing as an ideal gas below boiling point?
H2O is never an ideal. It is likely more weird than He3, but the Earth has lots to play with, and it does certainly play with it in the atmosphere. If the cylinder “only” has steam above boiling then yes, that partial pressure is all you can have at a any lower temperature and excess turns to water.
TB 3). In any case, a single evaporated water molecule amongst a crowd of O2 and N2 molecules is not gaseous water, it is humid air.
I doubt that any chemist or engineer would agree. It all depends on the dew point. If not saturated gas can and does exist.
TB Please note I am only addressing this single issue. I have not had time to study Jim’s broader thesis and have no judgement of it yet.
I understand Many, many SWAGS of both types out there. Water is the critical component of the atmosphere. Still the Meteorologists seem to not shive a git! Just look at Anthony WUWT!
DGH: “Nobody has found your water.”
ST: It’s not my water. You are the one that maintains the “six orders of magnitude” assumption. Not me. I have my hands full defending my own thinking. I don’t have time to also defend your imagination.
DGH: No. The paper that refutes the citations that you provide on your website . . .
ST: What are you talking about. Seriously. What citations? What website?
DGH: finds that your source overestimates the amount of water in the test system by at least 5 to 6 orders of magnitude. That’s not my imagination. The paper is quite good and is devastating to the claims of Carlon.
The author thanked Carlon for supplying hard copies of the original papers. Therefore, I assume that Carlon is aware of the paper. He has not published a response. Nor has anyone else – including you.
So put up or…
ST: Who is Carlon? Is that the dimers and trimers and multimers papers from the 1980s? I never referenced any of this. In fact, I only became aware of these papers in the midst of a conversation at alt.global.warming that took place over a year ago (as I recall). Howse about providing some context so our audience knows what they hell you’re going on about.
OK this is getting a bit silly.
You tweeted, “I came to same cnclsn based on physics of H2O hydrogn bonding; learned of Carlon 6 to 12 mnths ltr”
Here you write, “Who is Carlon?…I never referenced any of this…”
And on the page at your website where you explain why humid air is heavier you provide references to two of his papers.
http://www.solvingtornadoes.org/humid-air-heavier
DGH,
Just like his a-grav stuff is linked to from his own site.
Check out his ‘thirsty jet stream’ stuff. And how tornadoes come from the jet stream. And how tehre are three types of storms. Especially the dust storm category.
tallbloke says:
July 17, 2014 at 8:29 am
Will J: The micro or drizzel drops are airborn water not a gas.
Jim would agree with that.
ST: Of course. That *is* the point.
Surface fog need not collapse.
ST: Well, there are positive and negative forces involved–as with everything. But with water the physics get real strange the more we conceptually drill down to the molecular level. I won’t attempt to explain it in any great detail here. I’ll just say that the electromagnetic forces (literally magnetism) that bring water molecules together are instantaneously neutralized with completion of a hydrogen bond with another water molecule (and each H2O molecule can share a bond with up to 4 other H2O molecules [but only one bond with each]).
And that.
the clumping seems to be have a component of electrostatic attraction
ST: Well, the “clumping” is (according to my understanding) dictated by hydrogen bonding of H2O (again, see chapter 4 for details). But there is always some residual charge–surface tension–left over for each clump. (BTW, the surface tension of water–unlike any other substance that I am aware of–goes up exponentially with increase in surface area. Things get real confusing at this point, [again, see chapter 4] but what it comes down to is that the smaller the clump the greater will be the charge to weight ratio. [and this is why there can be no monomers in astmosphere]) And this residual charge, along with electrostatic factors of air (N2, O2) are involved with how the clump/droplet is suspended in air and with how it originally becomes suspended (evaporation). (Note: a popular misconception is that evaporation involves individual molecules of H2O breaking away from a surface. Once you understand hydrogen bonding of water you will realize that this is impossible. Evaporation involves clumps being pulled [largely as a result of electrostatic forces, but also kinetic factors play a role] off the surface.)
And that
perhaps only a single monomer has a charge to create a clump
Wouldn’t that give us a max clump size of two molecules? A dimer?
ST: Actually, no. (This is an excellent question, BTW.) The reason the answer to this question is no is somewhat complicated, but it has to do with some of the things I mentioned above: “each H2O molecule can share a bond with up to 4 other H2O molecules [but only one bond with each]” The point being that there is actually an incremental aspect to the polarization neutralization that results from the hydrogen bonding and it is not until the clumps get to be about 10 molecules in size that the clumps residual EME forces are significantly neutralized. (The reason for this are, again, complicated and have to do with the geometry of how water molecules become entangled, completing hydrogen bonds, neutralizing polarity.)
Jim McGinn OTOH insists that monomer H2O as a real (but not ideal) gas cannot exist below 100 Celsius. This is nonsense and would “prevent” the kind of evaporation from water and leaves below 100 Celsius.
ST: Wrong. Evaporation can only involve clumps. (See above for details.)
1). How do we know whether water evaporating below its boiling point is evaporating as single molecules not in dimers? Or very rapidly becoming a dimer with another nearby water molecule immediately after evaporation?
ST: Not even dimers or trimers are possible. Evaporation can only involve clumps of at least 10 molecules. (See above for details.)
2). Doesn’t the fact that steam contracts rapidly below boiling point demonstrate that Jim is correct about water not existing as an ideal gas below boiling point?
ST: Yep.
3). In any case, a single evaporated water molecule amongst a crowd of O2 and N2 molecules is not gaseous water, it is humid air.
ST: The charge to weight ratio of a singular water molecule is so great that we can reasonably assume it’s lifespan to be miniscule. (See above for details.) So, we can reasonably conclude that there is zero monomolecular H2O in our atmosphere. I would go farther. I think it is unlikely that there are any cluster/droplets of H2O any smaller than 10 molecules (6 at the least).
Please note I am only addressing this single issue. I have not had time to study Jim’s broader thesis and have no judgement of it yet.
ST: You are asking the right questions.
Will Janoschka says:
July 17, 2014 at 10:31 am
tallbloke says: July 17, 2014 at 8:29 am
WJ: We do not know, but even a dimer must be less dense than CO2 or Ar.
CO2 and Argon are irrelevant. N2 = 28; O2 = 32; (dimer) 2H2O = 36 (18 + 18)
I don’t know, but my estimation is that the smallest H2O multimer in our atmosphere is 10H2O = 180.
WJ: The real question is the volume/mass ratio (physical density) of a multi-mer mixed in those other gases?
ST: Well, according to Avogadro, the volume of the particles can be ignored, for all practical purposes. (But as clumps get real big I can see how this could be a factor.)
WJ: How stable is that density? Avogadro mumbles in his sleep! I will attempt to find out if a 2(H2O) can get out if a leaf! In the lab we know/think that H20 monomer gas can exist up to its saturation pressure (partial pressure).
ST: Everybody assumes this. And therein lies the problem. It’s just a popularistic assumption with no basis in fact. Kinda like CO2 Forcing.
TB 2). Doesn’t the fact that steam contracts rapidly below boiling point demonstrate that Jim is correct about water not existing as an ideal gas below boiling point?
ST: Once again, Yep.
WJ: H2O is never an ideal.
ST: The more you understand the quirkiness of H2O’s hydrogen bonding (at the molecular level) the more you realize how completely non-ideal H2O really is.
WJ: It is likely more weird than He3, but the Earth has lots to play with, and it does certainly play with it in the atmosphere. If the cylinder “only” has steam above boiling then yes, that partial pressure is all you can have at a any lower temperature and excess turns to water.
ST: IOW, below its boiling point H2O has, essentially, no partial pressure whatsoever.
TB 3). In any case, a single evaporated water molecule amongst a crowd of O2 and N2 molecules is not gaseous water, it is humid air.
ST: It doesn’t exist.
WJ:I doubt that any chemist or engineer would agree. It all depends on the dew point. If not saturated gas can and does exist.
ST: It’s a misconception that dew point involves H2O going from monomers to multimers. Actually, dew point involves clumps becoming large/heavy enough that they can no longer be suspended by electrostatic charges.
TB Please note I am only addressing this single issue. I have not had time to study Jim’s broader thesis and have no judgement of it yet.
WJ: I understand Many, many SWAGS of both types out there. Water is the critical component of the atmosphere. Still the Meteorologists seem to not shive a git! Just look at Anthony WUWT!
Roger
I’m not sure what you are asking nor why it matters. If you are asking, how do we know whether at the brief moment when an individual molecules somehow “jumps” from liquid to vapor, it’s not a dimer or that dimers don’t form in the gas phase, well…. maybe we don’t. Even in the ‘simplest’ theoretical case, the question is always “thermodynamic equilibrium”, and the question is how many of these things exist at “thermodynamic equilibrium”. To determine that empirically, physical experiments using largish numbers of molecules are done– so generally at table-top size. We can’t see individual molecules– but we do know that properties like pressure, temperature, density, entropy and enthalpy are consistent with “water vapor” on the ‘vapor side’ or the ‘saturation dome’ of on any thermodynamic diagram consisting almost exclusively of ‘mono-molecular’ H20. We also know that “water vapor” acts as an ideal gas as we move away from the “saturation dome”. Could there be tiny fraction of “dimers” present? Maybe. But there is no evidence of any significant fraction of said objects at thermodynamic equilibrium.
If, one wants to discuss things that happen away from thermodynamic equilibrium, or how far one can get, we can do that. But in that case, we would need to talk about what you can do to sustain non-equilibrium and whether those factors are remotely close to what one would expect for “water vapor in a parcel of air resting over a field in Kansas, where Dorothy first encountered her the Tornado that transported her to Oz”.
No. Especially not if he defines ‘the boiling point’ as 212F. The specific volume of all gases– whether ideal or not– contract dramatically during phase change– provided you are below the critical point. The critical point of water is near 374 °C; 705 °F.
If that doesn’t answer your question, I’m not sure how to do a better job and the problem is the question itself. You are asking this as a question posed in the negative, but you have advance absolutely no suggestion why anyone would think rapid contraction of a gas during condensation suggests it is not an ideal gas below the boiling point (or possibly what you mean by that.) I also don’t know if you mean “below 212F– which appears to be what Jim claimed– or if you mean below saturation temperature. If you mean below saturation temperature for the existing perssure. Of course water is not an idea gas below the saturation temperature (at a specified pressure): it is a liquid. So: water at 211F and atmospheric pressure is liquid. But at 0.1 atmospheres it is a gas– and it’s behavior is close enough to ideal for us to use the ideal gas law in many situations. (Bear in mind: Taken literally, nothing is really, truly an ideal gas. )
If you mean “below 212F”, I can’t answer it until you suggest a reason why it suggests Jim is correct. Because otherwise, it merely reads like you are asking something like “Doesn’t the fact that birds eat worms suggest Joe is correct when he says they can’t fly?” Yes. Birds eat worms. They can fly. I have no idea why the questioner thinks “worm eating” implies “can’t fly” — and so I can’t begin to explain ‘why’ worm eating tells us nothing about “can or can’t fly”. Consequently, such a question cannot be answered because I have to imagine all the possible hypothetical reasons why the questioner thinks one implies the other, and either rebutt them all, or read you rmind and rebutt the one the questioner actually has in mind.
Yes. A mixture of H2O+O2+N2+a few trace gasses all in vapor phase is humid air.
I notice how he treats 212o as an implied constant, and not simply the boiling point of water at mean sea level.
It is puzzling to watch how ne obsesses over whether H2O molecules might clump together in vapor phase while skipping over the math and physics basics that keeps so much water in all three phases suspended in the atmosphere.
DGH says:
July 17, 2014 at 1:08 pm
on the page at your website where you explain why humid air is heavier you provide references to two of his papers.
http://www.solvingtornadoes.org/humid-air-heavier
Okay, I’d forgotten I’d copied that there. And if you go to alt.global.warming you can see the origins of that. You can do a search using dimers, trimers. or something to that effect. I think Wally was the name of the guy that brought that into the conversation. But my thinking doesn’t depend on Carlon. I believe Carlon was attempting to use refraction of light to determine size of H2O multimers. And, as you pointed out, it was inconclusive, which is why I don’t make reference to it anymore. But it is interesting.
sovlingtornadoes
Oh? Perhaps you should update your post (http://www.solvingtornadoes.org/humid-air-heavier) to remove the reference? Or to indicate that you are aware the measurements were off by 4-6 orders of magnitude? Otherwise, people will consider you to be still claiming what your page actually does claim which is:
As that post displays no date, many readers would assume it describes your current theory and that contrary to your current claim you are referencing the paper you reference on that page. Else wise, if you’ve changed your mind about the paper, you would update that web page to reflect your view that the paper does not [prove] the premise that humid air is heavier than dry air.
As for any other “thinking” on that page, your thoughts as indicated there amount to:
1) Posting a question.
2) Proposing an experiment you do not undertake to do.
3) A lamentation about your view of the scientific midset.
4) The reference to the paper you now say you do not reference and which you say does not contribute to your thinking.
5) A claim that the operation of the steam engine proves your theory.
6) I list of molecular weights of ‘things’.
You know tell us (4) doesn’t contribute to your thinking (which is good because it’s just a flat out screwed up experiment. But it didn’t give good support anyway, for reasons we need not go into.)
None of these things are “support” for your claim about either (a) non-mono-molecular water or (b) water vapor being denser than air.
As for (5) that claim is bunk. The ‘ “atmospheric-engine” of 1712’ described is entirely consistent with water vapor being less dense than air. Other than providing a post discussing the design, you don’t even explain what aspect of the design would suggest water vapor is denser than air. So, obviously, one can’t specifically ‘refute’ the unrevealed notion you might have in your head because one doesn’t know what it is.
lucia liljegren (@lucialiljegren) says:
July 17, 2014 at 2:42 pm
Roger
1). How do we know whether water evaporating below its boiling point is evaporating as single molecules not in dimers? Or very rapidly becoming a dimer with another nearby water molecule immediately after evaporation?
Lucia: . . . well…. maybe we don’t (know).
ST: This is the right answer. Ultimately we don’t know.
Lucia: To determine that empirically, physical experiments using largish numbers of molecules are done– so generally at table-top size.
ST: Herein lies the problem. If you are ignorant of the H2O’s hydrogen bonding and its implications to neutralization of polarity you are going to draw conclusions based on “largish” numbers and extrapolated down to “smallish” numbers. This kind of reasoning works fine for molecules whose bonds are dictated by covalent factors, let’s say silica for example. But it is very different when hydrogen bonding and polarity neutraization is involved. In largish numbers the H2O molecules EME forces are almost completely neutralized. In smallish numbers the H2O molecules EME force are, essentially, activated. Consequently, for a singular (unattached) H2O molecule the charge to weight ratio is very high, almost as high as that in some solids (ie. silica) but once hydrogen bonds are completed (as H2O molecules become entangled) the polarity that underlies this charges is neutralized. (Note: this explains why water gets more fluid [and not more solid] as it becomes more dense, more entangled.) And so, what does this all mean? It means that with H2O you can’t extrapolate from “largish” to “smallish” because the properties of H2O change dramatically (and exponentially) the more “smallish” it becomes.
Lucia: We can’t see individual molecules– but we do know that properties like pressure, temperature, density, entropy and enthalpy are consistent with “water vapor” on the ‘vapor side’
ST: That is exactly wrong. We know that they are NOT consistent the more the molecules are disengaged from each other.
Lucia: or the ‘saturation dome’ of on any thermodynamic diagram consisting almost exclusively of ‘mono-molecular’ H20. We also know that “water vapor” acts as an ideal gas as we move away from the “saturation dome”. Could there be tiny fraction of “dimers” present? Maybe. But there is no evidence of any significant fraction of said objects at thermodynamic equilibrium.
ST: Now you are just pretending you know something you don’t. You can extrapolate from “largish” to “smallish” with most molecules and do fairly well. But with H2O you can’t. You said it best above. You don’t know. You are just assuming. And your assumptions are erroneous due to your ignorance of H2O’s hydrogen bonding and polarity neutralization.
2). Doesn’t the fact that steam contracts rapidly below boiling point demonstrate that Jim is correct about water not existing as an ideal gas below boiling point?
Lucia: No. Especially not if he defines ‘the boiling point’ as 212F.
ST: Irrelevant, dogmatic, argumentative. Everybody knows boiling point varies with pressure. It’s these kind of argumentive tactics that brings me to dismiss you as an AGW groupy.
Lucia: The specific volume of all gases– whether ideal or not– contract dramatically during phase change– provided you are below the critical point. The critical point of water is near 374 °C; 705 °F.
ST: Who cares.
lucia liljegren (@lucialiljegren) says:
July 17, 2014 at 3:46 pm
sovlingtornadoes
ST: . . . why I don’t make reference to it anymore. But it is interesting.
Lucia: Oh? Perhaps you should update your post (http://www.solvingtornadoes.org/humid-air-heavier) to remove the reference? Or to indicate that you are aware the measurements were off by 4-6 orders of magnitude?
ST: Are you dense? I didn’t bring that into the conversation you loon. Contact the author if you want to dispute it.
Lucia: As for (5) that claim is bunk. The ‘ “atmospheric-engine” of 1712′ described is entirely consistent with water vapor being less dense than air.
ST: Wrong. It proves that monomolecular H2O cannot exist (at ambient temperatures) in our atmosphere. There is no other way to interpret this evidence.
“Here is something to consider that will give you a sense of the quirkiness of H2O’s hydrogen bond. The amount of force associated with pulling one molecule of H2O off the surface of a body of water is something like 15 to 25 times greater than it is to pull off a clump of 10 to 20 molecules in size. Think about that for a while.”
OK I get what you’re saying. The fewer bonds that must be broken the easier it is for that clump to escape. Can you provide a reference (other than Conlan) that observes water evaporating in clumps?
Your blog post at (http://www.solvingtornadoes.org/humid-air-heavier) was written by you. You’re including the reference would be you bringing it into the conversation.
Other than that, going forward, I’m only going to address your bald unsupported claims about physics or chemistry if someone else asks me to do so. I’m reasonably confident that no one here is taking your bald claims as representing anything correct about physics or chemistry. I’m happy to answer Roger’s (or others) questions if they actually ask. But I’m going to ignore yours. Obviously, I could tell you who cares that the specific volume of gases contracts when they undergo phase change. But I’ll spare the skin-cells in my finger tips for now.
But if other’s treat your wild claims by deeming it perfectly acceptable to ignore bald claims, or people what t know the answers to question who might care that the specific volume of gases contract during condensation, I’m happy to do so provided they ask. My only motive in commenting is to inform others who might wonder whether there is any merit in your claims and I’ll engage them if they ask, but I intend to ignore you.
ST: Wrong. It proves that monomolecular H2O cannot exist (at ambient temperatures) in our atmosphere. There is no other way to interpret this evidence.
Your monomolecular ranting is just an element in the plasma of your gobbledygook.
Dimers in the atmosphere
Click to access science20030710.pdf
Page 17
http://books.google.com/books?id=aN3cOFojwS4C&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=water+the+forgotten+biological+molecule+dimer&source=bl&ots=xcNAbYxJJe&sig=yiXF7NWaUTCOaTvSfZOkE9nYj8s&hl=en&sa=X&ei=y_LHU9_iBJC9oQSd3oDwCQ&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=dimer&f=false
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01010077
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/113/16/10.1063/1.1310601
WillJ at 10:31
Thanks Will. That and the links just posted by DGH have cleared up some of my questions. I’m going to let you all run with it while I firefight my greenhouse threads. Play nice please.
DGH says:
July 17, 2014 at 4:29 pm
ST: “Here is something to consider that will give you a sense of the quirkiness of H2O’s hydrogen bond. The amount of force associated with pulling one molecule of H2O off the surface of a body of water is something like 15 to 25 times greater than it is to pull off a clump of 10 to 20 molecules in size. Think about that for a while.”
DGH: OK I get what you’re saying. The fewer bonds that must be broken the easier it is for that clump to escape.
ST: No. You aren’t getting it at all. That’s exactly what is not happening. The only way a water molecule can maintain EMF neutrality is to maintain connection with other water molecules. And the only way they could achieve evaporation (separation) is if they maintain EMF neutrality. Consequently the only way evaporation could take place is if relatively EMF neutral clumps break free from other relatively neutral EMF clumps and/or surfaces. (Note: EMF stands for Electro Magnetic Force)
DGH: Can you provide a reference (other than Conlan) that observes water evaporating in clumps?
ST: No. Can you provide a reference that observes water evaporating in monomers?
And of course this connects to insane theories about the jet stream and a nonsense way to define storms exactly not at all.
And notice the the way that the ignorance of the troll expands like oil on water to help the troll conflate his non-sense non-theory kooky spew as somehow speaking to AGW.
Yet the entire blog he links to ( that he does not even know what is on it, and disavows what he posts) does not even discuss AGW or how his pile of crap posing as a theory connects to climate. the troll simply makes some assertions, offers no evidence, calls names, and then repeats. As Lucia has described more fully.
get some help, troll. Seriously.
I’m done here, also. I will put a synopsis on my website.
tallbloke,
It’s also worth being aware that with respect to ‘tornado genesis’, violent arguments about “dimers” is something of a red herring. Whether or not dimers exist, density of water vapor, moist air and dry air are the specific issues that matter to the ‘tornadogenesis’ claim. The density of all water vapor, most air and dry air are well known based on empirical data. That is: experiments.
The debate over dimers may matter in the debate over radiative properties of water in the atmosphere, but it just isn’t important to our understanding of density of water vapor.
Sure in principle if the concentration of dimers was very, very large, then the density of water vapor might be very large. But it is a fact that we happen to know all of the density of water better than we know the specific configuration of molecules. The density is measureable without ever imagining the existence of a dimer, and without knowing the molecular form of water in water vapor.
However many dimers or clusters exist or how the exist, ultimately, the density of water vapor, moist are and dry air at the ‘continuum mechanics’ level are what they are and these have been measured. Lots of data was taken around the time Watt and Carnot were young pups. More refined measurements were taken later– but we do know the density of water as vapor, liquid or ice. Novel theories about molecular composition of water as vapor need to be consistent with the long known and easily measurable densities of liquid water and water vapor. We don’t need to feel the slightest doubt about the density of water merely because someone dreams up some theory about ‘dimers’ of water.
Lucia: Thanks, and I agree with that. Empirical measurements of bulk properties are valid and useful in regard to understanding the relative buoyancy of gases. The radiative question is interesting too however, and a spinoff thread on the uncertainty in models has just been posted:
lucia liljegren (@lucialiljegren) says:
July 17, 2014 at 7:33 pm
tallbloke,
It’s also worth being aware . . .
My response on my website:
http://www.solvingtornadoes.com
See comments for post entitled: Continued Comments From Roger Tall Bloke’s Blog
The nearly interesting thing is how he obsesses on his demand that there be “reproducible results” yet offers no, zip nada experimental results. And his instructions for experiments he would like others to perform are vague at best. I posted a link to water research. He dismissed but offered no evidence to counter.
He finds the existance of H2O “clumps” in vapor form to be of great import, again confusing covalent bonds of O2 and N2 with the weak bonding between H2O molecules. He rejects the fact of well dosumented research on water vapor/condensate in air, but offers nothing factual of his own. He writes to some poor professor inviting (demanding) the professor to put his name and reputation on the line for his poorly designed vaguely articulated experiment.
Good luck and farewell solvingtornadoes. Science was not worthy of such a great mind.
@solvingtornadoes
Your brand of hocus pocus seems to rely on complicating very simple things and hoping that the people of Oz will buy the story.
The latent heat of vaporization describes the energy required to break the bonds between liquid water molecules and free them from the surface individually according to conventional model. In your unconventional model clumps of water escape implying that the fewer, weaker bonds must be broken. This would require less energy than required to release individual molecules if it was true.
Then it follows that those clumps persist undetected in the atmosphere and ultimately impact the formation of tornadoes.
But you can’t provide a single reference that suggests that any of this is true. At least you could have provided a link to your tweet,
“My guess: monomers = 0, dimers = 0, 3mers = 0, 4mers = 0 . . . . . . . 9mers =0, 10mers = ?”
Hmmm … am I a persona non grata after all? (prev comment gone and nary an explanation) … 73 and good luck in the contest.
Sorry, Roger, after reviewing STs correspondence with noted researcher Clark ‘Charles’ Doswell III I’ve got to still conclude Jim McGinn is a high-order crank who continues to misunderstand, misconstrue and misapply physics and any and all technical terms he encounters.
I expect this post to disappear as the last one did where I labelled him a ‘crank’, but so be it. Failure to realize there is an element out and about in the population who truly don’t have any idea what they are on about is to fall ‘victim’ to their heresy (for lack of a better word for it at the moment) or maybe that would should be ‘fantasy’. Dunning-Kruger, when they did their work on below-average people imagining in their own minds a greater-than-average handle on things had Jim McGinn in mind.
McGinn, for all he has written on tornadoes, has never storm-chased, never witnessed a wall cloud, nor observed even one pop-up summer thunderstorm YET asserts he has the ultimate answer to tornadic thunderstorm genesis. I can’t imagine the disservice he does to novices in this field who will read his nonsense and become devotees to a cult which has no serious underpinnings, let alone being anywhere close to ‘good science’.
Delete this post as it is your prerogative, but know I felt highly compelled to write it.
Regards, _Jim
.
Jim,
Well said.
However, I think Jim’s writing falls apart as it is read. His cult is likely to consist mostly of himself.
But the interesting thing about how H2O molecules behave in the atmosphere, and how that may explain the spectra is interesting and we would not know about that except for Jim’s amazing rants.
Jim, excuse me. I am operating on 3 hours sleep after along day at work.
Please substitute “ST” where appropriate…… :^(
“However, I think ST’s writing falls apart as it is read. His cult is likely to consist mostly of himself.
But the interesting thing about how H2O molecules behave in the atmosphere, and how that may explain the spectra is interesting and we would not know about that except for ST’s amazing rants.
_Jim says:
July 18, 2014 at 10:41 pm
Jim:
Dunning-Kruger, when they did their work on below-average people imagining in their own minds a greater-than-average handle on things had Jim McGinn in mind.
Jim McGinn:
In my opinion, when people refer to the Dunning-Kruger Effect without referring to evidence thereof they are, ironically, providing evidence thereof.
I think both Jim and hunter have the right take on the pseudo-science of ST. It falls apart quite promptly when read by anyone with an element of clarity to their thinking. And while I agree that the journey into the strange world of ST’s take on water vapor did bring some interesting research on absorption spectra to the table, I’m not convinced the good outweighs the bad here. I’m not terribly concerned about novice scientists, though. Scientists should be willing to at least think about this, even as they dismiss the messenger, because it can bring interesting new ideas to the table. But I have real concerns that the oxygen given here to ST’s message could help it find its way to media outlets, who might bite hard on sentiments like:
“So, Chuck, how do you think this boy’s father would feel if he was told that the convection assumptions of Meteorology’s storm theory had never been tested/measured?”
and
“Should our children’s safety be at the mercy of self-aggrandizing pseudo-scientists?”
The science discussion is worthwhile, even if the messenger is misguided. But that sort of rhetoric is truly toxic.
…..so sez the poster boy of d-k.
Waiting on your experimental data.
pippinj says:
July 19, 2014 at 5:30 am
It’s scientists responsibility–one for which they are well compensated–to do whatever is reasonable to make sure they understand the phenomena that they’ve been slated to understand.
Let’s consider a different scenario. Suppose a dam had broken and, as a result, a hundred homes and fifty lives were lost. And let’s say that the cause of the dam break was a type of cement that should not have been used in a dam, but nobody knows this yet. And let’s say the engineer of the dam was asked why he used this type of cement. And let’s say that his response was, “Well, according to theory that cement should have worked.” And let’s say that he is, in actuality, correct on this point, according to theory the cement should not have failed. But then let’s say that somebody else comes along, a messenger–a nobody, like me–and this messenger starts making a fuss along the lines that a $200 experiment would have revealed that that cement would fail. And let’s say that upon hearing of this the engineer contacts the media and starts to impugn the reputation of the messenger–somebody he doesn’t even know–and continues to insure all that the theory is correct, the experiment need not and should not be done, and anybody that disputes it is a crackpot who should be ignored.
Would you side with the engineer in this dispute? If you had lost a home or a family member in the dam break do you think you might have a different perspective?
hunter says:
July 19, 2014 at 5:56 am
…..so sez the poster boy of d-k.
Waiting on your experimental data.
Jim McGinn:
Keep waiting.
July 19, 2014 at 5:30 am
pippinj says:
I think both Jim and hunter have the right take on the pseudo-science of ST. It falls apart quite promptly when read by anyone with an element of clarity to their thinking.
Jim McGinn:
Could you be so kind as to point out how/where my thinking, “falls apart” so that the rest of us can be enlightened by your “clarity?”
pippinj says:
I’m not convinced the good outweighs the bad here.
Jim McGinn:
Could you be so kind as to point out what specifically you have found in my thinking that is, “bad.” Keep in mind, the internet does not provide us access to your imagination.
pippinj says:
I’m not terribly concerned about novice scientists, though. Scientists should be willing to at least think about this, . . .
Jim McGinn:
I’m sure scientists everywhere are relieved that you’ve given them permission to start to think about all of this.
pippinj says:
I have real concerns that the oxygen given here to ST’s message could help it find its way to media outlets, who might bite hard
Jim McGinn:
You needn’t worry. I’m sure they will wait patiently for your approval before they start to think about any of this.
pippinj says:
The science discussion is worthwhile, even if the messenger is misguided. But that sort of rhetoric is truly toxic.
Jim McGinn:
And I’m just getting started.
ST said: “But then let’s say that somebody else comes along, a messenger–a nobody, like me–and this messenger starts making a fuss along the lines that a $200 experiment would have revealed that that cement would fail.”
This perfectly illustrates my point. Anyone can make that claim. But of the “somebody” is a known crank, exhibits no knowledge of the phenomena in question, no apparent aptitude for scientific reasoning, no willingness to accept results established by years of repeatable experimentation, and a tendency for ad hominem attacks on anyone who raises these issues in conversation, then it is completely correct to ignore him or her. Scientists should be counted on to come to this conclusion, as should reasonably technical people who read with their brains engaged. But media who are trying to sell papers/clicks/whatever have no such filters, and grieving families might be even more likely to buy into it.
There are ways to challenge established science that are not toxic to the process. It can (and should) be done in a manner that does not undermine those who rely on a certain amount of trust for individuals to take the right precautions when there is strong evidence that lives are threatened. I submit that ST’s methodology does not meet those criteria.
pippinj says:
July 19, 2014 at 7:26 pm
ST said: “But then let’s say that somebody else comes along, a messenger–a nobody, like me–and this messenger starts making a fuss along the lines that a $200 experiment would have revealed that that cement would fail.”
This perfectly illustrates my point.
ST:
So, you are opposed to doing experiments? You think scientific truth should be decided based on the reputation of the person that speaks/maintains it? Right?
Anyone can make that claim.
ST:
And anybody can dispute it. Right? Well . . . ? Present your dispute or kindly go away.
results established by years of repeatable experimentation,
ST:
Such as? Did nobody take notes of your alleged experiments? Keep in mind the internet doesn’t provide us access to your imagination.
and a tendency for ad hominem attacks
ST:
You haven’t seen anything yet. Wait until I start making Youtube videos. I’m going to be on the scene, interviewing people that have just lost their homes/relatives and ask them how they feel about meteorology’s stubborn resistance to empiricism and general complacency.
then it is completely correct to ignore him or her.
ST:
You are doing a really bad job of ignoring me at this moment.
media who are trying to sell papers/clicks/whatever have no such filters, and grieving families might be even more likely to buy into it.
ST:
Exactly!
There are ways to challenge established science that are not toxic to the process.
ST:
I’m sure that is what the pope said to Galileo when he sentenced him to prison for daring to look through a telescope.
It can (and should) be done in a manner that does not undermine those who rely on a certain amount of trust for individuals to take the right precautions when there is strong evidence that lives are threatened. I submit that ST’s methodology does not meet those criteria.
ST:
Who are you addressing? The rest of your brain-dead, science groupies? People like you are inconsequential because you are emotionally incapable of distinguishing between your self-righteous indignation and empirical methods. If you have a dispute with anything I’m saying then go ahead a present it.
ST/Jim,
You answer my request for the experimental results you claim are so important with that sort of lame-o answer?
You refuse to show results to support your work, insult us for asking, and then demand people show *their* results to disprove your undocumented, unsupported claims.
I promised our host not to use the names generally used for people when they act like you.
So instead I will invite you to either dig deeper or show us why we should disregard documented experimental results repeated many, many times in favor of your evidence-free story.
And going to disaster scenes to prey on the victims and blame people for weather events is pretty disgusting. I suspect you will get treated the way Buzz Aldrin treated that guy who got in his face claiming he was a liar about the moon landings.
By the way, since you seem to imply it:
Have we missed your track record of accurately predicting tornadoes? And do you have a way to stop them?
hunter says:
July 20, 2014 at 2:14 am
Hunter:
If you think it’s everybody else’s obligation to spell it all out for you, well, maybe you should consider a different hobby.
Have we missed your track record of accurately predicting tornadoes?
No.
And do you have a way to stop them?
Thank you for asking. Yes, I do:
ST,
All this and we see you are trolling not only “issues” but money.
How could we have failed to see this coming?
But back to your traditional trolling:
You answer my clear, polite (repeated) request for documentation of your claims with a rather interesting answer:
“If you think it’s everybody else’s obligation to spell it all out for you, well, maybe you should consider a different hobby.”
Which is sort of typical for you when confronted with questions to produce support or evidence for your position.
I don’t think it is anyone’s *obligation* to spell out anything for me.
I think if someone wants to considered as a crank, kook, liar, troll, con-artist, pathetic twit unable to make a point that anyone believes, then they can avoid answering questions as much as they want.
By the way your book does not indicate in its title that it offers a solution to stopping tornadoes. It only offers to solve the mystery of the vortex.
Strictly from a marketing perspective, you are not doing yourself any favors.
So:
No data you are willing to give.
No track record showing that your mystery solution actually solves anything
No experimental results
No clear answers to questions
No demonstrated understanding of physical concepts
Are you possibly a climate scientist working for a major university?
July 20, 2014 at 6:25 am
ST,
hunter says:
All this and we see you are trolling not only “issues” but money.
How could we have failed to see this coming?
ST:
I don’t know.
hunter says:
But back to your traditional trolling:
You answer my clear, polite (repeated) request for documentation of your claims with a rather interesting answer:
“If you think it’s everybody else’s obligation to spell it all out for you, well, maybe you should consider a different hobby.”
Which is sort of typical for you when confronted with questions to produce support or evidence for your position.
I don’t think it is anyone’s *obligation* to spell out anything for me.
ST:
Well, that’s how you come off. You can barely put together two sentences to make an argument and you, somehow, think that that obligates me to make your argument for you. Typical.
hunter says:
I think if someone wants to considered as a crank, kook, liar, troll, con-artist, pathetic twit unable to make a point that anyone believes,
ST:
If you don’t have the ability/practice of conceptualizing processes in the atmosphere there is nothing in my book that is going to change that.
hunter says:
then they can avoid answering questions as much as they want.
By the way your book does not indicate in its title that it offers a solution to stopping tornadoes. It only offers to solve the mystery of the vortex.
Strictly from a marketing perspective, you are not doing yourself any favors.
ST:
Well, I will take that into consideration. Thank you for the feedback.
hunter says:
So:
No data you are willing to give.
No track record showing that your mystery solution actually solves anything
No experimental results
No clear answers to questions
No demonstrated understanding of physical concepts
ST:
If you read the first chapter, most of which is available on Amazon for free, you will see that the purpose of the book is to establish an alternative theory to the convection model of storm theory. It’s a competing theory, one that can be used to compare and contrast the convection model. If the convection model is as sound as its adherents would have us believe it is then they certainly shouldn’t fear a competing model, should they?
hunter says:
Are you possibly a climate scientist
ST:
Yes.
hunter says:
working for a major university?
ST:
No.
solvingtornadoes says : July 17, 2014 at 12:44 pm Edit
Response to Lucia
Comment #95 (or thereabouts)
lucia liljegren (@lucialiljegren) says:
July 17, 2014 at 7:33 pm
Lucia:
It’s also worth being aware that with respect to ‘tornado genesis’, violent arguments about “dimers” is something of a red herring.
Jim McGinn:
Well, no. It’s not a red herring at all. The assumptions is that lighter, moist air is what powers storms. It is, IMO, a really dumb assumption. And there are a whole host of observational contradictions to this notion (dust storms being the most obvious) but that is what Meteorologists believe–even though most of them probably hardly ever give it much thought.
Lucia:
Whether or not dimers exist, density of water vapor, moist air and dry air are the specific issues that matter to the ‘tornadogenesis’ claim. The density of all water vapor, most air and dry air are well known based on empirical data. That is: experiments.
Jim McGinn:
The issue is weight (not relative density) of moist air vs. dry air. Relative weight between moist/dry air has never been measured. So the notion that storms are powered by buoyancy (of moist air) is but a theoretical construct. There is zero empirical data on this question.
The heart of the confusion, it seems is that when they refer to “density” they are actually referring to RELATIVE density of H2O in a volume of air. Don’t be confused by this obscurantism. And, if you think you have empirical/measured data that resolves the issue then, by all means, present it. Nobody (especially not me) is interested in debating your imagination.
Lucia:
The debate over dimers may matter in the debate over radiative properties of water in the atmosphere, but it just isn’t important to our understanding of density of water vapor.
Jim McGinn:
You obviously haven’t a clue what you are talking about. Buoyancy is a central concept to storm theory. Do some research before you respond, or if you know something the rest of the world has yet to figure out, please tell us your special secret.
Lucia:
Sure in principle if the concentration of dimers was very, very large, then the density of water vapor might be very large. But it is a fact that we happen to know all of the density of water better than we know the specific configuration of molecules.
Jim McGinn
Knowing the RELATIVE density doesn’t translate into knowing the weight of different bodies of air.
Lucia:
The density is measureable without ever imagining the existence of a dimer, and without knowing the molecular form of water in water vapor.
Jim McGinn:
Yes, RELATIVE density has been widely and frequently measured. But that certainly isn’t the issue when it comes to the issue of whether or not convection (the untested/unmeasured belief that moist air is lighter than dry air) is true/valid.
Lucia:
However many dimers or clusters exist or how the exist, ultimately, the density of water vapor, moist are and dry air at the ‘continuum mechanics’ level are what they are and these have been measured. Lots of data was taken around the time Watt and Carnot were young pups.
Jim McGinn:
And none of that data is relevant to this issue. Try to follow.
Lucia:
More refined measurements were taken later– but we do know the density of water as vapor,
Jim McGinn:
You/we know the RELATIVE DENSITY. You/we do not know the relative weight/volume of dry air to moist air. THESE ARE TWO VERY DIFFERENT THINGS/ISSUES.
Lucia
liquid or ice. Novel theories about molecular composition of water as vapor need to be consistent with the long known and easily measurable densities of liquid water and water vapor. We don’t need to feel the slightest doubt about the density of water merely because someone dreams up some theory about ‘dimers’ of water.
Jim McGinn:
Repeating the same misconception over and over again doesn’t make it more true/valid. It doesn’t matter how many times you babble about RELATIVE density it doesn’t tell us what we need to know in regards to the convection hypothesis. And the fact that there are generation after generation of meteorologists that made the same conceptual error that you are making here, also, doesn’t get us any closer to knowing the validity of the convection assumption.
Like many before you, you have transposed the concepts of density/mass with the concept of relative density. And, thusly, you are slipping on the same conceptual banana peel that people have been slipping on for over a hundred years now. If you have empirical data that indicates moist air is lighter than dry air–which you obviously do not have–then please enlighten us!
As I told Chuck Doswell: Stop telling us what you know, like a priest, and start telling us how you know it, like a scientist.
solvingtornadoes July 20, 2014 at 12:22 pm
As I told Chuck Doswell: Stop telling us what you know, like a priest, and start telling us how you know it, like a scientist.
I think he has, all his adult life. Just because you are unable to read and comprehend his material (and the material of others who went before him that he references and cites in his work) is not HIS problem.
Take for instance his work here:
SEVERE CONVECTIVE STORMS — AN OVERVIEW
Chapter 1 in Severe Convective Storms
A Meteorological Monograph To be published by: The American Meteorological Society
CHARLES A. DOSWELL III
National Severe Storms Laboratory
Norman, Oklahoma 73069
Click to access Overview_Chapter.pdf
It begins thusly:
1. Basic concepts of convection
. . A What is convection?
In general, convection refers to the transport of some property by fluid movement, most often with reference to heat transport. As such, it is one of the three main processes by which heat is transported: radiation, conduction, and convection. Meteorologists typically use the term convection to refer to heat transport by the vertical component of the flow associated with buoyancy. Transport of heat (or any other property) by the nonbuoyant part of the atmospheric flow is usually called advection by meteorologists; advection can be either horizontal or vertical.
– – – – – – –
.
Re-submitted after cutting post size down.
Hmmm … simple test post …
Try this …
ST, One thing you will have to shed though is this notion that water vapor does not exist. How do you think plants ‘transpirate’ and lose water (even house plants need continual watering – where do you think that water goes anyway?)
Plants – Transpiration – The Water Cycle
What is transpiration?
Transpiration is the process by which moisture is carried through plants from roots to small pores on the underside of leaves, where it changes to vapor and is released to the atmosphere.
Transpiration is essentially evaporation of water from plant leaves. Transpiration also includes a process called guttation, which is the loss of water in liquid form from the uninjured leaf or stem of the plant, principally through water stomata.
Jim says:
July 20, 2014 at 4:18 pm
solvingtornadoes July 20, 2014 at 12:22 pm
ST:
As I told Chuck Doswell: Stop telling us what you know, like a priest, and start telling us how you know it, like a scientist.
Jim says:
I think he has, all his adult life.
ST:
When I asked him how he knew H2O was/is mono-molecular at ambient temperatures he went crazy. He couldn’t/wouldn’t answer the question. He doesn’t know the answer and he knows that if, in actuality, it is not monomolecular his whole life’s work, and that of many others, is folly. This is how paradigms work. They are like religious belief systems. They don’t die easy. They fight bitterly to avoid knowling/admitting that what they assumed to be true isn’t. Even after the experiment is done they will just ignore the evidence and continue on as if nothing has changed. This is all well documented by Kuhn.
Transpiration is well known, and not disputed. Nobody is denying existence of water vapor. If you have evidence that H2O is monomolecular let us know.
solvingtornadoes says:
July 19, 2014 at 7:18 pm
Jim McGinn:
Could you be so kind as to point out how/where my thinking, “falls apart” so that the rest of us can be enlightened by your “clarity?”
JM:
Pippinj: No response. How useful is your “clarity” if it is but a talking point to dodge substantive issues?
pippinj says:
I’m not convinced the good outweighs the bad here.
JM:
Why would you think your fact-free opinion means anything to this discussion?
This perfectly illustrates my point. Anyone can make that claim. But of the “somebody” is a known crank, exhibits no knowledge of the phenomena in question,
JM:
So, if you got it all figured out, why not tell it to the rest of us. Is it a secret?
no apparent aptitude for scientific reasoning, no willingness to accept results established by years of repeatable experimentation,
JM:
Did you do secret experiments that you are not revealing to us? Why the secrecy?
grieving families might be even more likely to buy into it.
JM:
It would appear that grieving families are but a distraction to you. You don’t care about them. You care only that the pretentiousness of your pretend science isn’t exposed.
ST said: “But then let’s say that somebody else comes along, a messenger–a nobody, like me–and this messenger starts making a fuss along the lines that a $200 experiment would have revealed that that cement would fail.”
This perfectly illustrates my point.
ST:
So, you are opposed to doing experiments? You think scientific truth should be decided based on the reputation of the person that speaks/maintains it? Right?
Jim McGinn:
Answer the question you self-righteous twerp. Are you for or against doing experiments that will reveal that Meteorology is, in actuality, a comedy of contradictions when it comes to storm theory?
I’m with Lucia: there is no benefit to engaging McGinn/ST directly and I have no intention of doing so.
pippinj, agreed. Thinking back to a line from Forest Gump:
pippinj says:
July 20, 2014 at 7:19 pm
I’m with Lucia: there is no benefit to engaging McGinn/ST directly and I have no intention of doing so.
ST:
No reasonable person is going to view the fact that you dodged my question about a $200 experiment as not being evidence of self-righteous, self-aggrandizing, self-serving, pseudo-scientific paradigm. It’s not the fact that you believe the experiment is unnecessary that is the problem. Like the engineer in my story, it’s the fact that you don’t know, you know you don’t know, and you aren’t doing everything you can to find out that is the problem. $200 is a small price to pay to be sure. And it’s the job of meteorologists to be sure.
_Jim says:
July 20, 2014 at 8:08 pm
pippinj, agreed. Thinking back to a line from Forest Gump:
ST:
When believers see evidence their minds filter out the evidence that is inconsistent with what they believe. For example, the cone or vortex of a tornado–completely unexplained by meteorology. Another explanatory shortcoming: the energy of large tornadoes. Meteorologists are stumped by how/why so much energy arrives on the scene so quickly. Another one: Low pressure of storms. Why is low pressure associated with convection? Is there anything about convection that would suggest the emergence of low pressure? They have no answer to this questions. And then there is rotation. What initiates rotation. They don’t know. They are just guessing. Also, why are storms so cold? If they are initiated by warm air rising where does the cold, windy air come from. And, another thing, if storms are powered by convection then why do they often take place hundreds of miles from the source of convection. If you ask meteorologists these questions mostly they will shrug their shoulders and respond: because that is what is in the books, or, because that is what we were taught, or, because that is what everybody believes, or, because that is what is. Believers only see the things that confirm what they have already chosen to believe.
Meteorology is a belief system, not a science. If it was a science the things that they can’t explain would be foremost on their minds. Instead the things they can’t explain are literally not in their minds at all.
lol.
Thanks for the great run, ST.
Been interesting, to say the least.
Ciao,
If anyone is seriously interested in this subject, versus the hyperventilating and “Oh woe is me” laments of the supposed ‘oppressed’ posting in this thread then this might perhaps be of interest:
. . Tornadoes and Tornadic Storms: A Review of Conceptual Models
. . http://mesoscale.ou.edu/~doswell/TSIII/TSIII_concept.html
A survey of the various vortex-forming storms is made, from cold-air funnels to water spouts and land-spouts (yes, “land” as in dry land spouts even) and gust-nadoes as well.
I’ve had the ‘fortune’ to have seen a few of these ‘types’ of vortexes myself, and can testify to the accuracy of Doswell and Burgess work on the subject (not that that means a whole lot, but what the hey!) and the conditions under which they form.
This a LOT more than the other ‘fella’ on the thread can claim, and I hope we can put this subject to rest (at least among the rational and technically literate anyway, a category *most* of the posters in this thread fit easily.)
.
_Jim,
Thanks. A breath of fresh rational air is always appreciated.
_Jim says:
July 20, 2014 at 9:28 pm
If anyone is seriously interested in this subject, versus the hyperventilating and “Oh woe is me” laments of the supposed ‘oppressed’ posting in this thread then this might perhaps be of interest:
. . Tornadoes and Tornadic Storms: A Review of Conceptual Models
. . http://mesoscale.ou.edu/~doswell/TSIII/TSIII_concept.html
A survey of the various vortex-forming storms is made, from cold-air funnels to water spouts and land-spouts (yes, “land” as in dry land spouts even) and gust-nadoes as well.
I’ve had the ‘fortune’ to have seen a few of these ‘types’ of vortexes myself, and can testify to the accuracy of Doswell and Burgess work on the subject (not that that means a whole lot, but what the hey!) and the conditions under which they form.
Jim McGinn:
Well, this is pretty much all you have. All you have is observation and labeling. It pretty much adds up to a great big, “so what.” There is zero insight and/or discussion of the very distinctive (and highly observable) cone or vortex of tornadoes. Everybody has seen it. Everybody knows exactly what I’m talking about. Yet there is nothing on it here nor anywhere.
Or, at least, not until now:
http://www.solvingtornadoes.com
Follow this link to my website where you will find a link to my book: Solving Tornadoes: Mastering the Mystery of the Vortex
For the first time you will find a scientific discussion of the molecular dynamics of what is really going on in the cone or vortex of a tornado.
Have you ever wondered why it is that tornadoes are associated wind shear between two bodies of air moving at cross angles? Or, to be more specific, have you every wondered why it is that tornadoes are associated with wind shear in which one of the bodies of air is moist and the other is dry? Well, wonder no more. That mystery is solved.
Lucia is right. “Solvingtornadoes” is badly confused.
In comments on his site he wrote that “moist air at ambient temperatures contains no steam.” That is nonsensical. Steam is just water vapor. Moist air, by definition, is air which contains water vapor.
He also wrote that, “water vapor is heavier (not lighter) than dry air,” and “Moist air, therefore, is HEAVIER, than dry air,” and similar things elsewhere.
That’s wrong, too. Moist air is lighter than dry air at the same temperature and pressure.
It is easy to calculate how much lighter moist air is than dry air, by first calculating how much lighter water molecules are than average atmospheric molecules:
One molecule of H2O has molecular weight of 1+1+16 = 18.
By volume, dry air is 78% N2, 21% O2, and 1% Ar (and trace amounts of various other gases).
One molecule of N2 has molecular weight of 14+14 = 28. One molecule of O2 has molecular weight of 16 + 16 = 32. One molecule of Ar has atomic weight = its molecular weight = 40.
So dry air has an average molecular weight of (0.78 x 28) + (0.21 x 32) + (0.01 x 40) = 28.96, compared to just 18 for H2O. Since 28.96 / 18 ≅ 1.61, on average a molecule of dry air is 61% heavier than a molecule of water.
18 / 28.96 ≅ 0.62, so, for a given temperature & pressure (or partial-pressure) at which all are gaseous, water vapor is just 62% as dense as dry air.
(Note: Solvingtornadoes cites a couple of old papers by Hugh R. Carlon which suggest that as much as 0.1% of the H2O molecules in humid air may be in the form of dimers, trimers, and larger clusters of water molecules, which would increase the density of the water vapor component of humid air by up to 0.1%, which is nearly negligible.)
That means humid air must be correspondingly less dense than dry air, according to the proportion of air molecules which are H20, if temperature and pressure are equal. For example, if a particular humid atmosphere consists of 2% H2O vapor and 98% dry air, then the atmosphere’s density will be (0.98 + (0.62 x 0.02)) = 99.24% of the density of dry air at the same temperature and pressure.
That’s a small difference, compared to the differences in density which result from changes in temperature and pressure with altitude. But it is nevertheless a fact that, at a given temperature and pressure, humid air is lighter than dry air.
(Of course, foggy or cloudy atmosphere is another matter, because it also contains droplets of liquid water.)