Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Convection is fiction

100 views
Skip to first unread message

Claudius Denk

unread,
Aug 13, 2016, 12:44:21 PM8/13/16
to
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean/comment-page-8/#comment-115527

The vast majority of the moist, warm air--upwards of 95%--is within 1,000 meters of the surface. All the air above is cooler and drier. This observation is perfectly consistent with my model which says moist air is heavier than dry air and that also says convection plays no role in atmospheric flow. It blatantly contradicts the convection model with pretends moist air is lighter and pretends convection is an active element in our atmosphere.

James McGinn

unread,
Aug 13, 2016, 6:14:59 PM8/13/16
to
On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 9:44:21 AM UTC-7, Claudius Denk wrote:
> https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean/comment-page-8/#comment-115527
>
> The vast majority of the moist, warm air--upwards of 95%--is within 1,000 meters of the surface. All the air above is cooler and drier. This observation is perfectly consistent with my model which says moist air is heavier than dry air and that also says convection plays no role in atmospheric flow. It blatantly contradicts the convection model with pretends moist air is lighter and pretends convection is an active element in our atmosphere.

Yep!

Michael J. Strickland

unread,
Aug 17, 2016, 7:01:53 PM8/17/16
to
Thunderheads go to 50-60 thousand feet and they must have some
moisture. I don't think hail can form only 1000 meters up in hot
summer air.

Water vapor rises because water (H2O at 18 grams/mole) is less dense
than air which is predominately nitrogen (N2 at 28 grams/mole). When
mixed with regular air (non-moist), this brings the air's
average/overall density down and causes it to rise above non-moist
air.

---------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA
---------------------------------------------------

James McGinn

unread,
Aug 17, 2016, 7:28:26 PM8/17/16
to
On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 4:01:53 PM UTC-7, Michael Strickland wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 09:44:18 -0700 (PDT), Claudius Denk
> <claudi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean/comment-page-8/#comment-115527
> >
> >The vast majority of the moist, warm air--upwards of 95%--is within 1,000 meters of the surface. All the air above is cooler and drier. This observation is perfectly consistent with my model which says moist air is heavier than dry air and that also says convection plays no role in atmospheric flow. It blatantly contradicts the convection model with pretends moist air is lighter and pretends convection is an active element in our atmosphere.
>
> Thunderheads go to 50-60 thousand feet and they must have some
> moisture. I don't think hail can form only 1000 meters up in hot
> summer air.
>
> Water vapor rises because water (H2O at 18 grams/mole) is less dense
> than air which is predominately nitrogen (N2 at 28 grams/mole). When
> mixed with regular air (non-moist), this brings the air's
> average/overall density down and causes it to rise above non-moist
> air.

This notion is superstition. See this:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16306

James McGinn

unread,
Aug 18, 2016, 1:21:06 AM8/18/16
to
Also, see this:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16329

Take note that this was put up only on May 1st. And look how many views it's gotten. Over 2,000!!! And that is only since May 1st. I'm the champion of views in usenet (according to Google) and my best post on usenet hasn't even broken 1,000 yet. And it's been there since December.

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

unread,
Aug 21, 2016, 11:57:59 AM8/21/16
to
Michael J. Strickland wrote:

> Thunderheads go to 50-60 thousand feet and they must have some
> moisture.

Nonsense. 50'000 to 60'000 ft equal 15.24 to 18.29 km. The troposhere only
extends up to ca. 12 km altitude from sea level. The adjacent higher
atmospheric layer of Terra is the stratosphere (from ca. 12 km to ca. 50 km)
where there are occasionally clouds, but none that (could) contribute to
precipitation (directly).

> I don't think hail can form only 1000 meters up in hot summer air.

Correct. But hailstones form when upwinds push water droplets (ca. 200 µm
in diameter, too small to see individually, therefore clouds) further up the
cloud, where, due to the low temperatures, they freeze to ice pellets
(between 200 µm and 5 mm). Being too heavy to be held in suspension by
upwinds, they fall down again, where more water can condense on them, and
they are pushed up again, where that water freezes on. And so on until the
pellets are too heavy even in the lower parts of the cloud (or the upwinds
slow down due to insufficient convection), when they finally fall out of the
cloud.

While hailstones do form in cumulonimbus clouds that extend up to 12 km
altitude, you are neglecting the basic physical fact that the air does not
stay “hot” at higher altitudes: as it rises, it cools. In 3 km altitude and
above, so in the *lower* part of a cumulonimbus already, the air temperature
is already below 0 °C – low enough for water to freeze – even in summer.

<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Comparison_US_standard_atmosphere_1962.svg>

> Water vapor rises because water (H2O at 18 grams/mole) is less dense
> than air which is predominately nitrogen (N2 at 28 grams/mole). When
> mixed with regular air (non-moist), this brings the air's
> average/overall density down and causes it to rise above non-moist
> air.

Nonsense. Air contains about 1 % of water which is gaseous (water vapour)
under standard conditions. It is not the water vapour in the air alone that
rises, but warm air with water vapour in it.

When it cools, only the water in the air condenses (on condensation nuclei,
small dust particles in the air, ca. 0.2 µm in size) and freezes; more water
condenses and freezes on that, to form ice crystals and eventually ice
pellets.

It does that because the boiling and melting point of water is significantly
higher (100 °C and 0 °C under standard conditions, respectively) than that
of the other constituents of air – given the same atmospheric pressure that
is decreasing approximately exponentially with altitude within the higher
troposphere:

p ≈ p₀ exp(−g M h∕(R T₀))

where

p – atmospheric pressure
p₀ – standard atmospheric pressure at sea level (101'326 Pa)
g – Earth-surface gravitational acceleration (ca. 9.81 m∕s²)
M – molar mass of dry air (ca. 0.03 kg∕mol)
h – altitude
R – universal gas constant (ca. 8.31 J mol⁻¹ K⁻¹)
T₀ – standard temperature at sea level (288.15 K = 15 °C)

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

Poutnik

unread,
Aug 21, 2016, 12:16:15 PM8/21/16
to
Dne 21/08/2016 v 17:57 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
> Michael J. Strickland wrote:
>
>> Thunderheads go to 50-60 thousand feet and they must have some
>> moisture.
>
> Nonsense. 50'000 to 60'000 ft equal 15.24 to 18.29 km. The troposhere only
> extends up to ca. 12 km altitude from sea level.

I am sorry, this is not fully correct,
as the tropopause level is latitude dependent.

While for medium latitudes it is indeed 10-12 km,
it is below 8 km for polar areas
and above 16 km for tropics.

http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Tropopause

"The tropopause occurs at approximately 20,000 feet over the poles and
at approximately 60,000 feet above the equator. The International
Standard Atmosphere assumes that the average height of the tropopause is
36,000 feet. "

--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

unread,
Aug 21, 2016, 12:46:12 PM8/21/16
to
Poutnik wrote:

> Dne 21/08/2016 v 17:57 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>> Michael J. Strickland wrote:
>>> Thunderheads go to 50-60 thousand feet and they must have some
>>> moisture.
>> Nonsense. 50'000 to 60'000 ft equal 15.24 to 18.29 km. The troposhere
>> only extends up to ca. 12 km altitude from sea level.
>
> I am sorry, this is not fully correct,
> as the tropopause level is latitude dependent.
>
> While for medium latitudes it is indeed 10-12 km,
> it is below 8 km for polar areas
> and above 16 km for tropics.
>
> http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Tropopause
>
> "The tropopause occurs at approximately 20,000 feet over the poles and
> at approximately 60,000 feet above the equator. The International
> Standard Atmosphere assumes that the average height of the tropopause is
> 36,000 feet. "

Thank you. The figures vary. Danielson et al. say at average 20 km in the
tropics, 17 km in mid latitudes, and 7 km in polar regions *in winter*.

That explains why there are few hailstorms in the tropics.

Poutnik

unread,
Aug 21, 2016, 12:56:20 PM8/21/16
to
Dne 21/08/2016 v 18:46 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>
> Thank you. The figures vary. Danielson et al. say at average 20 km in the
> tropics, 17 km in mid latitudes, and 7 km in polar regions *in winter*.
>
> That explains why there are few hailstorms in the tropics.
>
Aside of that, Cumulonimbus has custom
to bulge the tropopause up, so it is locally higher.

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

unread,
Aug 21, 2016, 1:09:43 PM8/21/16
to
Poutnik wrote:

> Dne 21/08/2016 v 18:46 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>> Thank you. The figures vary. Danielson et al. say at average 20 km in
>> the tropics, 17 km in mid latitudes, and 7 km in polar regions *in
>> winter*.
>>
>> That explains why there are few hailstorms in the tropics.
>>
> Aside of that, Cumulonimbus has custom
> to bulge the tropopause up, so it is locally higher.

Please cite evidence.

Poutnik

unread,
Aug 21, 2016, 1:27:24 PM8/21/16
to
Dne 21/08/2016 v 19:09 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
> Poutnik wrote:
>
>> Dne 21/08/2016 v 18:46 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>>> Thank you. The figures vary. Danielson et al. say at average 20 km in
>>> the tropics, 17 km in mid latitudes, and 7 km in polar regions *in
>>> winter*.
>>>
>>> That explains why there are few hailstorms in the tropics.
>>>
>> Aside of that, Cumulonimbus has custom
>> to bulge the tropopause up, so it is locally higher.
>
> Please cite evidence.
>

Not handy. I am not an active meteorologist
routinely measuring atmopshere profiles.

It is just remaining university knowledge
and experience of an airfield meteorologist 1986-1990.

Just this note as a hint..

Peaks typically reach to as much as 40,000 ft (12,000 m), with extreme
instances as high as 70,000 ft (21,000 m).[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulonimbus_cloud
[2] http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints2/536/

James McGinn

unread,
Aug 21, 2016, 3:14:23 PM8/21/16
to
On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 8:57:59 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Michael J. Strickland wrote:
>
> > Thunderheads go to 50-60 thousand feet and they must have some
> > moisture.
>
> Nonsense. 50'000 to 60'000 ft equal 15.24 to 18.29 km. The troposhere only
> extends up to ca. 12 km altitude from sea level. The adjacent higher
> atmospheric layer of Terra is the stratosphere (from ca. 12 km to ca. 50 km)
> where there are occasionally clouds, but none that (could) contribute to
> precipitation (directly).

BTW, there is a lot of photo evidence that thunderclouds (or, more precisely, the hidden vortices and broken-off pieces of vortices therein) shoot moisture above the tropopause into the stratosphere. I suspect that this is what causes hail. (Vortices are natures perfect conduits of [heavier] moist air.)

> > I don't think hail can form only 1000 meters up in hot summer air.
>
> Correct. But hailstones form when upwinds push water droplets (ca. 200 µm
> in diameter, too small to see individually, therefore clouds) further up the
> cloud, where, due to the low temperatures, they freeze to ice pellets
> (between 200 µm and 5 mm). Being too heavy to be held in suspension by
> upwinds, they fall down again, where more water can condense on them, and
> they are pushed up again, where that water freezes on. And so on until the
> pellets are too heavy even in the lower parts of the cloud (or the upwinds
> slow down due to insufficient convection), when they finally fall out of the
> cloud.
>
> While hailstones do form in cumulonimbus clouds that extend up to 12 km
> altitude, you are neglecting the basic physical fact that the air does not
> stay “hot” at higher altitudes: as it rises, it cools. In 3 km altitude and
> above, so in the *lower* part of a cumulonimbus already, the air temperature
> is already below 0 °C – low enough for water to freeze – even in summer.
>
> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Comparison_US_standard_atmosphere_1962.svg>
>
> > Water vapor rises because water (H2O at 18 grams/mole) is less dense
> > than air which is predominately nitrogen (N2 at 28 grams/mole). When
> > mixed with regular air (non-moist), this brings the air's
> > average/overall density down and causes it to rise above non-moist
> > air.
>
> Nonsense. Air contains about 1 % of water which is gaseous (water vapour)
> under standard conditions. It is not the water vapour in the air alone that
> rises, but warm air with water vapour in it.

Nonsense. There is no gaseous H2O in the atmosphere and storms have nothing whatsoever to do with convection, given that moist air is ALWAYS heavier than dry air. Water's role in the atmosphere has to do with surface tension, which is maximized on wind shear boundaries.

> When it cools, only the water in the air condenses (on condensation nuclei,

There is no need for and, essentially, no such thing as condensation nuclei. This is a bullshit notion that meteorologists imagined into existence.



> small dust particles in the air, ca. 0.2 µm in size) and freezes; more water
> condenses and freezes on that, to form ice crystals and eventually ice
> pellets.
>
> It does that because the boiling and melting point of water is significantly
> higher (100 °C and 0 °C under standard conditions, respectively) than that
> of the other constituents of air – given the same atmospheric pressure that
> is decreasing approximately exponentially with altitude within the higher
> troposphere:
>
> p ≈ p₀ exp(−g M h∕(R T₀))

Science fiction. BP and MP of water go down with altitude, however, superchilled water plays a big role in the upper troposphere.


> where
>
> p – atmospheric pressure
> p₀ – standard atmospheric pressure at sea level (101'326 Pa)
> g – Earth-surface gravitational acceleration (ca. 9.81 m∕s²)
> M – molar mass of dry air (ca. 0.03 kg∕mol)
> h – altitude
> R – universal gas constant (ca. 8.31 J mol⁻¹ K⁻¹)
> T₀ – standard temperature at sea level (288.15 K = 15 °C)

You are a victim of a lot of the superstitious thinking that is part of the standing myth of meteorology.

James McGinn

unread,
Aug 21, 2016, 3:39:02 PM8/21/16
to
On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 9:56:20 AM UTC-7, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
> Dne 21/08/2016 v 18:46 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
> >
> > Thank you. The figures vary. Danielson et al. say at average 20 km in the
> > tropics, 17 km in mid latitudes, and 7 km in polar regions *in winter*.
> >
> > That explains why there are few hailstorms in the tropics.
> >
> Aside of that, Cumulonimbus has custom
> to bulge the tropopause up, so it is locally higher.

If convection model of storm theory was anything but cartoonishly simplistic nonsense there would be more hail and more highly energetic storms in the tropics where the vast majority of warm moist air exists and no storm activity whatsoever at the polar regions. Obviously that is not the case.

This is one of a handful of observations one can make that demonstrate that convection notions of storm theory are just a fairy tale.

Read this for more:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16329

Claudius Denk

unread,
Aug 21, 2016, 8:11:31 PM8/21/16
to
On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 12:39:02 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 9:56:20 AM UTC-7, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
> > Dne 21/08/2016 v 18:46 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
> > >
> > > Thank you. The figures vary. Danielson et al. say at average 20 km in the
> > > tropics, 17 km in mid latitudes, and 7 km in polar regions *in winter*.
> > >
> > > That explains why there are few hailstorms in the tropics.
> > >
> > Aside of that, Cumulonimbus has custom
> > to bulge the tropopause up, so it is locally higher.
>
> If convection model of storm theory was anything but cartoonishly simplistic nonsense there would be more hail and more highly energetic storms in the tropics where the vast majority of warm moist air exists and no storm activity whatsoever at the polar regions. Obviously that is not the case.

This is a really good point. I wonder why nobody noticed this before?

Claudius Denk

unread,
Aug 21, 2016, 10:31:19 PM8/21/16
to
On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 9:44:21 AM UTC-7, Claudius Denk wrote:

Michael J. Strickland

unread,
Aug 21, 2016, 10:34:23 PM8/21/16
to
On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 18:16:12 +0200, Poutnik <poutni...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Dne 21/08/2016 v 17:57 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>> Michael J. Strickland wrote:
>>
>>> Thunderheads go to 50-60 thousand feet and they must have some
>>> moisture.
>>
>> Nonsense. 50'000 to 60'000 ft equal 15.24 to 18.29 km. The troposhere only
>> extends up to ca. 12 km altitude from sea level.
...

There is nothing "magical" about the "troposphere" and clouds do
extend above your definition of it and exist above it.

James McGinn

unread,
Aug 21, 2016, 10:59:48 PM8/21/16
to
Because intellectually humans are sheep. Humans have a deep need to believe what everybody else believes. Humans look for things that confirm what everybody else believes and are blind to things that contradict it.

Poutnik

unread,
Aug 22, 2016, 12:52:30 AM8/22/16
to
Dne 22/08/2016 v 04:34 Michael J. Strickland napsal(a):
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 18:16:12 +0200, Poutnik <poutni...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dne 21/08/2016 v 17:57 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>>> Michael J. Strickland wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thunderheads go to 50-60 thousand feet and they must have some
>>>> moisture.
>>>
>>> Nonsense. 50'000 to 60'000 ft equal 15.24 to 18.29 km. The troposhere only
>>> extends up to ca. 12 km altitude from sea level.
> ...
>
> There is nothing "magical" about the "troposphere" and clouds do
> extend above your definition of it and exist above it.
>

If you do not reply to me, it is better
to delete me from the post header as well,
otherwise it may create confusion.

Poutnik

unread,
Aug 22, 2016, 1:39:33 AM8/22/16
to
Dne 21/08/2016 v 19:09 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
> Poutnik wrote:
>
>> Dne 21/08/2016 v 18:46 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>>> Thank you. The figures vary. Danielson et al. say at average 20 km in
>>> the tropics, 17 km in mid latitudes, and 7 km in polar regions *in
>>> winter*.
>>>
>>> That explains why there are few hailstorms in the tropics.
>>>
>> Aside of that, Cumulonimbus has custom
>> to bulge the tropopause up, so it is locally higher.
>
> Please cite evidence.
>

The tropopause is not a rigid shield, it is just an inversion layer.
The dynamic processes in troposphere affect its profile.

The climbing air has its inertia and does not stop immediately
when its buoyancy gets negative.

A submersed ball, when released, does not stop at its static level,
but partly jumps off the water.

Fill a bath tube with water, turn on a shower, submerse it,
point the stream upwards and observe the water level..
The underwater shower stream is obviously much stronger
in this similarity model than the convection in a Cb.
But so does is much stronger the water-air inversion density effect,
compared to the tropopause.

If there is an air inversion under the ceiling of a heated up room,
marked by cigarette smoke in pubs in winter
and if there is managed a fan air stream upwards
you could see the boundary differs from water-level-like one.
Even this inversion is much stronger then of the tropopause.

Poutnik

unread,
Aug 22, 2016, 11:17:58 AM8/22/16
to
On 08/21/2016 07:09 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Poutnik wrote:
>
>> Dne 21/08/2016 v 18:46 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>>> Thank you. The figures vary. Danielson et al. say at average 20 km in
>>> the tropics, 17 km in mid latitudes, and 7 km in polar regions *in
>>> winter*.
>>>
>>> That explains why there are few hailstorms in the tropics.
>>>
>> Aside of that, Cumulonimbus has custom
>> to bulge the tropopause up, so it is locally higher.
>
> Please cite evidence.
>

E.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropopause#Phenomena

"The tropopause is not a "hard" boundary. Vigorous thunderstorms, for
example, particularly those of tropical origin, will overshoot into the
lower stratosphere and undergo a brief (hour-order or less)
low-frequency vertical oscillation.[11] ...."

Shenk, W. E. (1974). "Cloud top height variability of strong convective
cells". Journal of Applied Meteorology. American Meteorological Society.
13: 918–922. Bibcode:1974JApMe..13..917S.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convective_overshoot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overshooting_top

"An overshooting top (or penetrating top) is a dome-like protrusion that
shoots out of the top of the anvil of a thunderstorm. When an
overshooting top is present for 10 minutes or longer, it is a strong
indication that the thunderstorm may be severe.[1]"

"When a thunderstorm forms, clouds build vertically into the atmosphere
until the storm's updraft (warm rising air) has reached an equilibrium
level (EL); the point where the surrounding air is about the same
temperature or even warmer.[2] This point of equilibrium is often marked
by the tropopause. Rather than continuing to rise into the stratosphere,
the vertical cloud growth abruptly stops, and instead clouds spread
horizontally, forming an "anvil" shape on top of the thunderstorm.[1]

An overshooting top forms when a thunderstorm's updraft, due to momentum
from rapid ascent and strength of lifting, protrudes its equilibrium
level, forming a dome-like structure on top of the anvil.[3] This can
occur with any cumulonimbus cloud when instability is high. Whereas
anvils form at the equilibrium level, overshooting tops continue to the
maximum parcel level (MPL)."





Poutnik

unread,
Aug 22, 2016, 11:45:37 AM8/22/16
to
On 08/21/2016 05:57 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> ....atmospheric pressure that
> is decreasing approximately exponentially with altitude within the higher
> troposphere:
>
> p ≈ p₀ exp(−g M h∕(R T₀))
>
> where
>
> p – atmospheric pressure
> p₀ – standard atmospheric pressure at sea level (101'326 Pa)
> g – Earth-surface gravitational acceleration (ca. 9.81 m∕s²)
> M – molar mass of dry air (ca. 0.03 kg∕mol)
> h – altitude
> R – universal gas constant (ca. 8.31 J mol⁻¹ K⁻¹)
> T₀ – standard temperature at sea level (288.15 K = 15 °C)
>

This approximation serves well for low troposhere near sea level,
but does not count with the decreasing of temperature with altitude.

The air of top troposphere has temperature about 218 K = - 55 deg C,
that leads to about 1.32 higher density and pressure gradient,
compared to 288 K.

While the vertical temperature gradient called lapse rate (*)
canvary a lot, it is well described by typical mean value
chosen for the standard atmosphere :

T=T0 - gamma.h ,
T0= 298.15K, gamma ( lapse rate ) = - dT/dh = 0.0065K/m, p0 = 101325 Pa.

ro = p.M/(R.T), M is mean air molar mass [ ro = density ]

dp = - g.ro . dh = - g . p.M/(R.(T0 - gamma.h) . dh

dp/p = -g.M/R . dh/(T0 - gamma .h)

[ln(|p|)](p0..p) = -g.M/R . (-1/b) . [ln(|T0-gamma.h|)] (0..h)

ln(p/p0) = +g.M/R/gamma . ln((T0-gamma.h)/T0)

p = p0 . [1 - gamma.h/T0)]^(g.M/R/b)

(*) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate


Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

unread,
Aug 22, 2016, 12:56:58 PM8/22/16
to
Poutnik wrote:

> On 08/21/2016 05:57 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> ....atmospheric pressure that
>> is decreasing approximately exponentially with altitude within the higher
>> troposphere:
>>
>> p ≈ p₀ exp(−g M h∕(R T₀))
>>
>> where
>>
>> p – atmospheric pressure
>> p₀ – standard atmospheric pressure at sea level (101'326 Pa)
>> g – Earth-surface gravitational acceleration (ca. 9.81 m∕s²)
>> M – molar mass of dry air (ca. 0.03 kg∕mol)
>> h – altitude
>> R – universal gas constant (ca. 8.31 J mol⁻¹ K⁻¹)
>> T₀ – standard temperature at sea level (288.15 K = 15 °C)
>>
>
> This approximation serves well for low troposhere near sea level,
> but does not count with the decreasing of temperature with altitude.
> […]

This approximation is for higher altitudes within the troposphere. Unless,
of course, you find it prudent to correct the Wikipedia article it is from:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_pressure#Altitude_variation>

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

unread,
Aug 22, 2016, 1:02:42 PM8/22/16
to
Michael J. Strickland wrote:

> […] Poutnik […] wrote:
>> Dne 21/08/2016 v 17:57 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>>> Michael J. Strickland wrote:
>>>> Thunderheads go to 50-60 thousand feet and they must have some
>>>> moisture.
>>> Nonsense. 50'000 to 60'000 ft equal 15.24 to 18.29 km. The troposhere
>>> only extends up to ca. 12 km altitude from sea level.
> ...
>
> There is nothing "magical" about the "troposphere" and clouds do
> extend above your definition of it and exist above it.

As I said and cited in the part that you snipped, stratospheric clouds
(which are seldom and few by comparison) do not contribute to precipitation
directly, and certainly have nothing to do with cumulonimbi.

If you think differently, cite evidence to support your claim.

Poutnik

unread,
Aug 22, 2016, 1:15:01 PM8/22/16
to
Why should I correct Wikipedia, when it is correct ?

If you read the page carefully, it provides my formula
and the one you have posted as an approximation.

By the higher altitude is not meant the high troposhere altitude.

It is meant just an altitude
where initial linear approximation is not applicable anymore,
and the simple exponential formula is the next one to choose.
But it has significant error for the high troposphere.

BTW, it may seem interesting that you have snipped my post,
while keeping intact your one I was responding to....


Poutnik

unread,
Aug 22, 2016, 1:17:04 PM8/22/16
to
On 08/22/2016 07:02 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>
> As I said and cited in the part that you snipped, stratospheric clouds
> (which are seldom and few by comparison) do not contribute to precipitation
> directly, and certainly have nothing to do with cumulonimbi.
>
> If you think differently, cite evidence to support your claim.
>

Well, see the recently posted references to convective overshoots.

Poutnik

unread,
Aug 22, 2016, 2:55:00 PM8/22/16
to
For a convenience, see the PNG
of the Excel chart based on both formulas :

https://s20.postimg.org/82d18bz8t/Lapse_Rate_Pressure.png



James McGinn

unread,
Aug 22, 2016, 10:59:02 PM8/22/16
to
On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:39:33 PM UTC-7, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:

> The climbing air has its inertia and does not stop immediately
> when its buoyancy gets negative.

Moist air has negative buoyancy. So you are wrong about that. Vortices--or offshoots of vortices that have spun off from the mother vortice, jetstreams--shoot it up there.

> A submersed ball, when released, does not stop at its static level,
> but partly jumps off the water.





>
> Fill a bath tube with water, turn on a shower, submerse it,
> point the stream upwards and observe the water level..
> The underwater shower stream is obviously much stronger
> in this similarity model than the convection in a Cb.
> But so does is much stronger the water-air inversion density effect,
> compared to the tropopause.
>
> If there is an air inversion under the ceiling of a heated up room,
> marked by cigarette smoke in pubs in winter
> and if there is managed a fan air stream upwards
> you could see the boundary differs from water-level-like one.
> Even this inversion is much stronger then of the tropopause.

Irrelevant analogies.

You are a silly twit. Updrafts in storms are associate with vertical vortices, tornadoes. There is no convection involved. Moist air has negative buoyancy.

James McGinn

unread,
Aug 22, 2016, 11:02:20 PM8/22/16
to
That thunderclouds often form over dry land hundreds of miles from a source of moist air is all the evidence a reasonable person would need to begin to be skeptical of the cartoonish nonsense that storms are caused by convection.

Storms are caused by downreading vortice, extensions of jet streams (and or a tributary to a jet stream.)

You are clueless.

James McGinn

unread,
Aug 22, 2016, 11:04:11 PM8/22/16
to
All the math in meteorology is phoney. It is used to create the illusion of precision. This is nonsense. You certainly can't explain it.

James McGinn

unread,
Aug 22, 2016, 11:05:11 PM8/22/16
to
Meaningless.

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

unread,
Aug 23, 2016, 7:10:45 PM8/23/16
to
Poutnik wrote:

[Fixed quotation]

> On 08/22/2016 06:56 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Poutnik wrote:
>>> On 08/21/2016 05:57 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> [...] atmospheric pressure that is decreasing approximately $
>>>> exponentially with altitude within the higher troposphere:
>>>>
>>>> p ≈ p₀ exp(−g M h∕(R T₀))
>>>>
>>>> where
>>>>
>>>> p – atmospheric pressure
>>>> p₀ – standard atmospheric pressure at sea level (101'326 Pa)
>>>> g – Earth-surface gravitational acceleration (ca. 9.81 m∕s²)
>>>> M – molar mass of dry air (ca. 0.03 kg∕mol)
>>>> h – altitude
>>>> R – universal gas constant (ca. 8.31 J mol⁻¹ K⁻¹)
>>>> T₀ – standard temperature at sea level (288.15 K = 15 °C)
>>>>
>>>
>>> This approximation serves well for low troposhere near sea level,
>>> but does not count with the decreasing of temperature with altitude.
>>> […]
>>
>> This approximation is for higher altitudes within the troposphere.
>> Unless, of course, you find it prudent to correct the Wikipedia article
>> it is from:
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_pressure#Altitude_variation>
>>
>
> Why should I correct Wikipedia, when it is correct ?
>
> If you read the page carefully, it provides my formula
> and the one you have posted as an approximation.
>
> By the higher altitude is not meant the high troposhere altitude.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> It is meant just an altitude
> where initial linear approximation is not applicable anymore,
> and the simple exponential formula is the next one to choose.
> But it has significant error for the high troposphere.

How did you get that idea? It said then, and is still saying:

| […]
| For higher altitudes within the troposphere, the following equation (the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| barometric formula) relates atmospheric pressure p to altitude h
|
| [equation] ≈ [approximation],
|
| [approximation that I posted]

> BTW, it may seem interesting that you have snipped my post,
> while keeping intact your one I was responding to....

It was irrelevant.

As for quoting, omissions are to be marked with “[…]” or “[...]”, not “...”
or “....”, to leave no ambiguity.

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

unread,
Aug 23, 2016, 7:16:34 PM8/23/16
to
Your logic is flawed. Either clouds extend above what is usually the
tropopause, pushing, as you claimed, the tropopause altitude up; then
they are not stratospheric clouds. Or, *contrary* to what you claimed,
the tropopause is _not_ defined as an inversion layer, only then
Michael Strickland’s counter-argument is valid. Tertium non datur.

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

unread,
Aug 23, 2016, 7:56:27 PM8/23/16
to
Poutnik wrote:

> For a convenience, see the PNG
> of the Excel chart based on both formulas :
>
> https://s20.postimg.org/82d18bz8t/Lapse_Rate_Pressure.png

IOW, you have disproved your gibberish claim about the atmospheric pressure
approximation pertaining to the higher troposphere that I posted, taken from
Wikipedia,

| This approximation serves well for low troposhere near sea level,
| but does not count with the decreasing of temperature with altitude.

BTW, you do not have to refer to screenshots from Excel; there are Web
applications like Google Spreadsheets now with which you can share documents
like spreadsheets (read-only for others if you want).

Poutnik

unread,
Aug 23, 2016, 11:53:12 PM8/23/16
to
Dne 24/08/2016 v 01:10 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
> Poutnik wrote:
>
>>
>> By the higher altitude is not meant the high troposhere altitude.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> It is meant just an altitude
>> where initial linear approximation is not applicable anymore,
>> and the simple exponential formula is the next one to choose.
>> But it has significant error for the high troposphere.
>
> How did you get that idea? It said then, and is still saying:
>
> | […]
> | For higher altitudes within the troposphere, the following equation (the
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> | barometric formula) relates atmospheric pressure p to altitude h
> |
> | [equation] ≈ [approximation],
> |
> | [approximation that I posted]
>

Higher is not high... :-)

Higher is where pressure does not decrease by about 1.2 kPa
for every 100 meters any more. E.g.by 1.1 kPa/100 m,
what definitely isnot high troposhere.

"At low altitudes above the sea level, the pressure decreases by about
1.2 kPa for every 100 meters. For higher altitudes within the
troposphere..."

The approximating exponential formula expects constant temperature
15 deg C in the whole troposphere, what you must know is far from
reality and differs from how the standard atmosphere is defined.

At given pressure is ratio of densities of air with temperatures +15 deg
C cand -55 deg C cca 288/218.

Ait traffic flight levels based on standard atmosphere
are quantized by 500 feet / 150 m.

The deviation of exponential formula makes about 2 flight levels
for 5000 m and 8 flight levels at 10000 m.

Poutnik

unread,
Aug 23, 2016, 11:53:53 PM8/23/16
to
Dne 24/08/2016 v 01:16 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
> Poutnik wrote:
>
>> On 08/22/2016 07:02 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> As I said and cited in the part that you snipped, stratospheric clouds
>>> (which are seldom and few by comparison) do not contribute to
>>> precipitation directly, and certainly have nothing to do with
>>> cumulonimbi.
>>>
>>> If you think differently, cite evidence to support your claim.
>>
>> Well, see the recently posted references to convective overshoots.
>
> Your logic is flawed. Either clouds extend above what is usually the
> tropopause, pushing, as you claimed, the tropopause altitude up; then
> they are not stratospheric clouds. Or, *contrary* to what you claimed,
> the tropopause is _not_ defined as an inversion layer, only then
> Michael Strickland’s counter-argument is valid. Tertium non datur.
>
I did not say they are...

Poutnik

unread,
Aug 24, 2016, 12:02:46 AM8/24/16
to
Dne 24/08/2016 v 01:56 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
> Poutnik wrote:
>
>> For a convenience, see the PNG
>> of the Excel chart based on both formulas :
>>
>> https://s20.postimg.org/82d18bz8t/Lapse_Rate_Pressure.png
>
> IOW, you have disproved your gibberish claim about the atmospheric pressure
> approximation pertaining to the higher troposphere that I posted, taken from
> Wikipedia,

>
> | This approximation serves well for low troposhere near sea level,
> | but does not count with the decreasing of temperature with altitude.

I did say Wikipedia is right.

As I have said in the other post, the deviation is
2 air control flight levels at 5000m
and 8 flight levels at 10000 m.

You may have taken incorrectly my first reply as refuting your post,
while my intention was being just a complement.

It is what scientists are suppossed to do

>
> BTW, you do not have to refer to screenshots from Excel; there are Web
> applications like Google Spreadsheets now with which you can share documents
> like spreadsheets (read-only for others if you want).
>
I am aware of it, but my usual image sharing site was just more handy
and I admit I forgot about the option at time of sending.
Perhaps because I do not like Google spreadsheets. :-)

Poutnik

unread,
Aug 24, 2016, 12:09:48 AM8/24/16
to
Dne 24/08/2016 v 01:16 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):

>
> .... Or, *contrary* to what you claimed,
> the tropopause is _not_ defined as an inversion layer, only then
> Michael Strickland’s counter-argument is valid. Tertium non datur.
>
Sure it is not, I have expresses myself not exactly.
I apologize.

It is a layer of adiabatically stable air,
covering both isothermia and inversion.
True inversion comes higher in stratosphere.

Poutnik

unread,
Aug 24, 2016, 12:14:31 AM8/24/16
to
Dne 24/08/2016 v 01:56 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
> Poutnik wrote:
>
>> For a convenience, see the PNG
>> of the Excel chart based on both formulas :
>>
>> https://s20.postimg.org/82d18bz8t/Lapse_Rate_Pressure.png
>
> IOW, you have disproved your gibberish claim about the atmospheric pressure
> approximation pertaining to the higher troposphere that I posted, taken from
> Wikipedia,
>
> | This approximation serves well for low troposhere near sea level,
> | but does not count with the decreasing of temperature with altitude.
>
I was focusing on you gibberish claim about higher atmosphere.

For low troposphere with t near 15 deg C
the exponential formula is quite fine.

I need not Wikipedia for this topic.
Deal with the simple fact
nobody has superior knowledge in all domains.

Poutnik

unread,
Aug 24, 2016, 12:31:47 AM8/24/16
to
Dne 24/08/2016 v 01:56 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
> Poutnik wrote:
>
>> For a convenience, see the PNG
>> of the Excel chart based on both formulas :
>>
>> https://s20.postimg.org/82d18bz8t/Lapse_Rate_Pressure.png
>
> IOW, you have disproved your gibberish claim about the atmospheric pressure
> approximation pertaining to the higher troposphere that I posted, taken from
> Wikipedia,

I think we can close the air pressure subtopic
with a summary like this :

1/ Near surface, the pressure decreases by rate about 1.2 hPa/100m.

2/ As the pressure decrease rate weakens with altitude,
better approxiation is the above mentioned exponential formula.

3/ As the pressure profile is affected via gas state equation
by the troposhere temperature decrease with height,
even better approximation is the power formula
derived from the international standard atmosphere definition.

Poutnik

unread,
Aug 24, 2016, 12:54:47 AM8/24/16
to
Dne 24/08/2016 v 06:31 Poutnik napsal(a):

>

>
> 3/ As the pressure profile is affected via gas state equation
> by the troposhere temperature decrease with height,
> even better approximation is the power formula
> derived from the international standard atmosphere definition.
>
P.S>:
With a note, that for real synoptic situation
is the standard pressure replaced
for air control by QNH value.

QNH is the pressure calculated for the sea level
from the station QFE pressure and the altitude
according the standard atmosphere.

For the meteorological synoptic purposes
is used QFF pressure instead,
what is QFE recalculated according
to the mean layer temperature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QFF
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QFE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QNH

Se also
http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=76273
http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Altimeter_Pressure_Settings

Poutnik

unread,
Aug 24, 2016, 1:32:20 AM8/24/16
to
Dne 24/08/2016 v 01:10 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):

>
> As for quoting, omissions are to be marked with “[…]” or “[...]”, not “...”
> or “....”, to leave no ambiguity.
>
Could you cite the reference ?

As the real Usenet quoting customs vary,
eventual standard recommendation does not matter much,
as many people can be confused
by the recommended as well as other way.

------------------------------------------

http://writingcommons.org/format/apa/676-omitting-words-apa

When a portion of a sentence (or sentences) is not included in a
quotation, three ellipsis points
should be typed in place of the omitted material.

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

unread,
Aug 24, 2016, 12:48:01 PM8/24/16
to
Poutnik wrote:

> Dne 24/08/2016 v 01:16 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>> Poutnik wrote:
>>> On 08/22/2016 07:02 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> As I said and cited in the part that you snipped, stratospheric clouds
>>>> (which are seldom and few by comparison) do not contribute to
>>>> precipitation directly, and certainly have nothing to do with
>>>> cumulonimbi.
>>>>
>>>> If you think differently, cite evidence to support your claim.
>>> Well, see the recently posted references to convective overshoots.
>> Your logic is flawed. Either clouds extend above what is usually the
>> tropopause, pushing, as you claimed, the tropopause altitude up; then
>> they are not stratospheric clouds. Or, *contrary* to what you claimed,
>> the tropopause is _not_ defined as an inversion layer, only then
>> Michael Strickland’s counter-argument is valid. Tertium non datur.
>
> I did not say they are...

If you are not saying that those clouds are stratospheric clouds, then your
comment is pointless, because that is what Michael Strickland claims.
Please read his posting again (particularly the part that you snipped from
mine), and please read more carefully before you reply.

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

unread,
Aug 24, 2016, 1:03:05 PM8/24/16
to
Poutnik wrote:

> Dne 24/08/2016 v 01:16 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>> .... Or, *contrary* to what you claimed,
>> the tropopause is _not_ defined as an inversion layer, only then
>> Michael Strickland’s counter-argument is valid. Tertium non datur.
>
> Sure it is not, I have expresses myself not exactly.
> I apologize.
>
> It is a layer of adiabatically stable air,
> covering both isothermia and inversion.
> True inversion comes higher in stratosphere.

I am increasingly getting the idea that you have no idea what you are
talking about here.

,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropopause>
|
| […]
| More formally, the tropopause is the region of the atmosphere where the
| environmental lapse rate changes from positive, as it behaves in the
| troposphere, to the stratospheric negative one. Following is the exact
| definition used by the World Meteorological Organization:
|
| The boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere, where an
| abrupt change in lapse rate usually occurs. It is defined as the lowest
| level at which the lapse rate decreases to 2 °C/km or less, provided
| that the average lapse rate between this level and all higher levels
| within 2 km does not exceed 2 °C/km.[1]

,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate>
|
| The lapse rate is defined as the rate at which atmospheric temperature
| decreases with an increase in altitude.[1][2] […]

So I understand that the tropopause is where the atmospheric temperature no
longer decreases with increasing altitude, but it increases instead.

I find further that

,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inversion_(meteorology)>
|
| In meteorology, an inversion is a deviation from the normal change of an
| atmospheric property with altitude. It almost always refers to a
| "temperature inversion", i.e. an increase in temperature with height, or
| to the layer ("inversion layer") within which such an increase occurs.[1]

According to those definitions, the tropopause *is* a (temperature)
inversion layer. And since you are now claiming that it is not, you are
wrong.

I also find it suspicious that you would now attempt to establish a “true
inversion“ to justify your change of mind with which you support Michael
Strickland’s pseudo-scientific nonsense.

See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman>

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

unread,
Aug 24, 2016, 1:07:28 PM8/24/16
to
Poutnik wrote:

> Dne 24/08/2016 v 01:56 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>> Poutnik wrote:
>>> For a convenience, see the PNG
>>> of the Excel chart based on both formulas :
>>>
>>> https://s20.postimg.org/82d18bz8t/Lapse_Rate_Pressure.png
>> IOW, you have disproved your gibberish claim about the atmospheric
>> pressure approximation pertaining to the higher troposphere that I
>> posted, taken from Wikipedia,
>>
>> | This approximation serves well for low troposhere near sea level,
>> | but does not count with the decreasing of temperature with altitude.
>>
> I was focusing on you gibberish claim about higher atmosphere.

You are not in a position to correctly determine what is gibberish.
I even doubt that you know the meaning of that word.

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

unread,
Aug 24, 2016, 1:15:22 PM8/24/16
to
Poutnik wrote:

> Dne 24/08/2016 v 01:10 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>> As for quoting, omissions are to be marked with “[…]” or “[...]”, not
>> “...” or “....”, to leave no ambiguity.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Could you cite the reference ?

/dev/common-sense

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_guide> pp.

Those are the same common-sense rules standardized in style guides that say
that one ought not write space before punctuation, like the question mark,
in English (with the em dash as an optional exception, depending on the
manual).

Sergio

unread,
Aug 24, 2016, 1:16:57 PM8/24/16
to
On 8/24/2016 12:03 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Poutnik wrote:
>
>> Dne 24/08/2016 v 01:16 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>>> .... Or, *contrary* to what you claimed,
>>> the tropopause is _not_ defined as an inversion layer, only then
>>> Michael Strickland’s counter-argument is valid. Tertium non datur.

> |
> | The lapse rate is defined as the rate at which atmospheric temperature
> | decreases with an increase in altitude.[1][2] […]
>
> So I understand that the tropopause is where the atmospheric temperature no
> longer decreases with increasing altitude, but it increases instead.
>
> I find further that
>
> ,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inversion_(meteorology)>
> |
> | In meteorology, an inversion is a deviation from the normal change of an
> | atmospheric property with altitude. It almost always refers to a
> | "temperature inversion", i.e. an increase in temperature with height, or
> | to the layer ("inversion layer") within which such an increase occurs.[1]
>
> According to those definitions, the tropopause *is* a (temperature)
> inversion layer. And since you are now claiming that it is not, you are
> wrong.


he is right, you in wrong ballpark (in scale);

"inversion" is withing a a thousand feet or much less, not miles like
tropo vs stato that is Temp profile not temp inversion.

see graph at,

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/atmosphere/q0102c.shtml


James McGinn

unread,
Aug 24, 2016, 2:11:31 PM8/24/16
to
This is just a semantic argument. They are both relatively flat boundaries that have temperature differences and, most importanly, difference in humidity, with the moist layer below (a standing contradiction to convection theory).

BTW, the reason they are called "inversion" layers has to do with the fact that the "inversion" layers that happen in the lower atmosphere are often (especially in the early morning) cooler than the air above, which is inverted from the rest of the troposphere which gets cooler with height.

Poutnik

unread,
Aug 24, 2016, 3:04:52 PM8/24/16
to
Dne 24/08/2016 v 18:47 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):

>
> If you are not saying that those clouds are stratospheric clouds, then your
> comment is pointless, because that is what Michael Strickland claims.
> Please read his posting again (particularly the part that you snipped from
> mine), and please read more carefully before you reply.
>
>
I have just posted a reference.
If that makes you offended.. what is wrong with you ?

Poutnik

unread,
Aug 24, 2016, 3:11:21 PM8/24/16
to
Dne 24/08/2016 v 19:15 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):


>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_guide> pp.
>
> Those are the same common-sense rules standardized in style guides that say
> that one ought not write space before punctuation, like the question mark,
> in English (with the em dash as an optional exception, depending on the
> manual).
>
>
Neither quot, neither omit strings found.
It seams the recommended styles are not united.

BTW, this is your favourite distraction game.

Poutnik

unread,
Aug 24, 2016, 3:15:08 PM8/24/16
to
Dne 24/08/2016 v 19:07 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
> Poutnik wrote:

>>>
>> I was focusing on you gibberish claim about higher atmosphere.
>
> You are not in a position to correctly determine what is gibberish.
> I even doubt that you know the meaning of that word.

You are not in a position to correctly determine
what is wrong with your soft skills.

If they were better, you would choose words
that the other person probably know,
avoiding the word gibberish even if it is known.

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

unread,
Aug 24, 2016, 3:26:37 PM8/24/16
to
Poutnik wrote:

> Dne 24/08/2016 v 19:15 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_guide> pp.
>>
>> Those are the same common-sense rules standardized in style guides that
>> say that one ought not write space before punctuation, like the question
>> mark, in English (with the em dash as an optional exception, depending on
>> the manual).
>
> Neither quot, neither omit strings found.

Which part of “pp.” did not you understand?

> It seams the recommended styles are not united.

_seems_

> BTW, this is your favourite distraction game.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. You asked a question,
I answered it. Like it or leave it.

Poutnik

unread,
Aug 24, 2016, 3:37:02 PM8/24/16
to
Dne 24/08/2016 v 19:03 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
You english is much better than mine.

Your knowledge of QED and GR probably as well,
what is fine, as I am not a physicist.

But your knowledge of physics of atmosphere
reminds a last minute flash reading of Wikipedia pages,
you will not tell me I do not know what I am talking about.

If you read the pages properly,
you would know that lapse rate L = -dT/dz,
therefore inversions have negative lapse rate.

L = 2 deg C/km is still mild yet negative gradient,
that makes a "holding layer" for all air climbing adiabatically.

You would do better to review
the overall temperature profile of the whole atmosphere,
and to study some baloon probe measurements of atmosphere profiles.

The approach to own mistakes is best manifested
on the approach to mistakes of others.

When you have nothing to address the objection of your statements,
you disappear, or play distraction game with English ( easy points),
formal things, or the favourite "gibberish" card.

Until to learn to deal with mistakes of others and your own,
you will stay a boy with big portion of earned knowledge,
like a second Sheldon Cooper.

I guess we both have wasted too much time in this thread,
I am not going to follow any more.

Sergio

unread,
Aug 24, 2016, 4:08:10 PM8/24/16
to
On 8/24/2016 12:15 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:


> Those are the same common-sense rules standardized in style guides that say
> that one ought not write space before punctuation, like the question mark,
> in English (with the em dash as an optional exception, depending on the
> manual).



ought => a suggestion

ascii on internet "ought" to have equations expanded with spaces for
readability

why you waste Poutnik's time with off the wall lame Englrish
suggestions, instead of being ON TOPIC ?



Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

unread,
Aug 25, 2016, 12:20:38 AM8/25/16
to
You don’t say.

> […]
> But your knowledge of physics of atmosphere
> reminds a last minute flash reading of Wikipedia pages,
> you will not tell me I do not know what I am talking about.
>
> If you read the pages properly,
> you would know that lapse rate L = -dT/dz,

I know that.

> therefore inversions have negative lapse rate.

Not at all. In temperature inversions, according to all definitions
(including the official ones *by the WMO and the AMO*), the lapse rate
*changes* from positive to negative. That is precisely what happens in the
tropopause: first the atmospheric temperature decreases with increasing
altitude (positive lapse rate, because dT∕dz _<_ 0), then it stays
approximately constant, and then it increases with altitude (zero to
negative lapse rate, because dT∕dz ≥ 0). It is therefore wrong of you to
say that this would not be a temperature inversion, and that the tropopause
would not be an inversion layer.

“True conversion” is a term that *you invented*.

> L = 2 deg C/km is still mild yet negative gradient,
> that makes a "holding layer" for all air climbing adiabatically.

That is _not_ what the definition says.

[You ought to use the degree symbol, “°”, not “deg”. It is a character
that is encodeable with US-ASCII already, so there is no excuse for not
using it, especially not in sci.ALL.]

> You would do better to review
> the overall temperature profile of the whole atmosphere,
> and to study some baloon probe measurements of atmosphere profiles.

BTDT:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_temperature#/media/File:Comparison_US_standard_atmosphere_1962.svg>

One can see there that the temperature in the stratosphere first stays
approximately constant, then rises with altitude, starting from the
tropopause. Below the tropopause it decreases with altitude. How you can
still deny that this would be a temperature inversion, and that the
tropopause would be an inversion layer is beyond me.

That the stratopause and the mesopause also are inversion layers is
*irrelevant*.

Maybe you have been out of university and out of the business for too long
already.

> I am not going to follow any more.

Your problem.

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

unread,
Aug 25, 2016, 2:14:00 AM8/25/16
to
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Poutnik wrote:
>> therefore inversions have negative lapse rate.
>
> Not at all. In temperature inversions, according to all definitions
> (including the official ones *by the WMO and the AMO*), the lapse rate
> *changes* from positive to negative. That is precisely what happens in
> the tropopause: first the atmospheric temperature decreases with
> increasing altitude (positive lapse rate, because dT∕dz _<_ 0), then it
> stays approximately constant, and then it increases with altitude (zero to
> negative lapse rate, because dT∕dz ≥ 0). It is therefore wrong of you to
> say that this would not be a temperature inversion, and that the
> tropopause would not be an inversion layer.
>
> “True conversion” is a term that *you invented*.

_inversion_, of course.

Sergio

unread,
Aug 25, 2016, 10:41:09 AM8/25/16
to
On 8/24/2016 11:20 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Poutnik wrote:
>

>>> |
>>> | In meteorology, an inversion is a deviation from the normal change of
>>> | an atmospheric property with altitude. It almost always refers to a
>>> | "temperature inversion", i.e. an increase in temperature with height,
>>> | or to the layer ("inversion layer") within which such an increase
>>> | occurs.[1]
>>>
>>> According to those definitions, the tropopause *is* a (temperature)
>>> inversion layer.

no. go look up more stuff in the wiki.


>
> One can see there that the temperature in the stratosphere first stays
> approximately constant, then rises with altitude, starting from the
> tropopause. Below the tropopause it decreases with altitude. How you can
> still deny that this would be a temperature inversion, and that the
> tropopause would be an inversion layer is beyond me.

it is not a temperature inversion.

it is beyond you because you do not understand the common terms of
meteorology, except via the wiki.

beep beep.

Claudius Denk

unread,
Feb 23, 2017, 8:37:56 PM2/23/17
to
On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 9:44:21 AM UTC-7, Claudius Denk wrote:
> https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean/comment-page-8/#comment-115527
>
> The vast majority of the moist, warm air--upwards of 95%--is within 1,000 meters of the surface. All the air above is cooler and drier. This observation is perfectly consistent with my model which says moist air is heavier than dry air and that also says convection plays no role in atmospheric flow. It blatantly contradicts the convection model with pretends moist air is lighter and pretends convection is an active element in our atmosphere.

Claudius Denk

unread,
Jul 11, 2017, 2:52:52 PM7/11/17
to

James McGinn

unread,
Mar 7, 2022, 3:07:29 PM3/7/22
to

Jim Pennino

unread,
Mar 7, 2022, 4:16:10 PM3/7/22
to
Utter nonsense.

"It's not uncommon for thunderstorms to tower tens of thousands of feet
into the atmosphere, forcing pilots to navigate around them. Mature
thunderstorms often reach 40,000 to 60,000 feet, and it is not unheard
of to see thunderstorms reach upward of 75,000 feet in the tropics."

https://weather.com/news/weather/news/thunderstorm-cruising-altitude-commercial-aircraft


"Low clouds, which include cumulus and clouds, can form anywhere from
near the surface up to 2,000 meters (6,500 feet).

Middle clouds form at altitudes of 2,000 to 4,000 meters (6,500 to
13,000 ft) above ground near the poles, 2,000 to 7,000 meters (6,500
to 23,000 ft) at mid-latitudes, and 2,000 to 2,600 meters (6,500 to
25,000 ft) at the tropics.

High clouds have base heights of 3,000 to 7,600 meters (10,000 to
25,000 ft) in polar regions, 5,000 to 12,200 meters (16,500 to
40,000 ft) in temperate regions, and 6,100 to 18,300 meters
(20,000 to 60,000 ft) in the tropical region."

https://www.thoughtco.com/how-high-in-sky-are-clouds-3443677


James McGinn

unread,
Mar 7, 2022, 7:40:47 PM3/7/22
to
On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 4:01:53 PM UTC-7, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 09:44:18 -0700 (PDT), Claudius Denk

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean/comment-page-8/#comment-115527

JMcG
The vast majority of the moist, warm air--upwards of 95%--is within 1,000 meters of the surface. All the air above is cooler and drier. This observation is perfectly consistent with my model which says moist air is heavier than dry air and that also says convection plays no role in atmospheric flow. It blatantly contradicts the convection model with pretends moist air is lighter and pretends convection is an active element in our atmosphere.

MS:
Thunderheads go to 50-60 thousand feet and they must have some
moisture. I don't think hail can form only 1000 meters up in hot
summer air.

JMcG:
Michael, I agree with what you are saying here but it doesn't change what I am saying. There is kind of an illusion involved. When droplet sizes are very small suspended water is invisible. Moreover it doesn't even feel wet when we encounter it (this is due to the fact that the high surface tension of H2O causes smaller droplets to be harder, like pellets). It looks and feels like dry air (except maybe it feels slightly thicker and is much less able to effectuate cooling). And so, if you go outside and look up on a cloudy day you may come to the conclusion that there is more moisture high above than there is below. But what is actually happening is that the droplet size is smaller in air at lower altitude because of higher pressure and higher temperature, creating the illusion.

What determines droplet size? H2O droplets are constantly combining to form larger droplets. At one and the same time, however, collisions with with air molecules are bisecting them. At higher pressures and temperatures (as found at lower altitudes) there are more collisions with air molecules and the air molecules are more energetic. Thus the rate of droplets bisecting overwhelms the rate of recombination. And so, even though there is much more H2O suspended in the air at lower altitudes it is much less visible.

MS:
Water vapor rises because water (H2O at 18 grams/mole) is less dense
than air which is predominately nitrogen (N2 at 28 grams/mole).

JMcG:
This is bullshit. H2O droplets never get smaller than 10 molecules per droplet. Thus the minimum weight of an H2O microdroplet is 180 (10 x 18) not 18.

MS:
When mixed with regular air (non-moist), this brings the air's
average/overall density down and causes it to rise above non-moist
air.

JMcG:
Nonsense. This is just a bad myth. Air moves from places of higher pressure to places of lower pressure. Vortice activity--which is especially prominent at higher altitude--creates the low pressure that causes uplift. Moisture is suspended in the air (probably due to static electricity) and just goes along for the ride.

So, moist air does rise. But it doesn't rise because of convection (convection is a myth). It rises because it is suspended in air that is moving toward low pressure that is created by vortices.

It is important to understand that water is the most misunderstood substance in all of nature and this has caused a lot of desperation for theorist. Desperation leads to cognitive dissonance and cognitive dissonance causes people to glom onto false certainty.

Convection is superstition:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16306

James McGinn / Genius

Jim Pennino

unread,
Mar 7, 2022, 8:01:12 PM3/7/22
to
James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It is important to understand that water is the most misunderstood
> substance in all of nature and this has caused a lot of desperation

Water is misunderstood only by insane crackpots and the only desperation
is that of delusional crackpots desperate to maintain their delusions.

>
> James McGinn / Insane crackpot


James McGinn

unread,
Mar 8, 2022, 12:16:29 AM3/8/22
to
On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 8:57:59 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Michael J. Strickland wrote:
>
> > Thunderheads go to 50-60 thousand feet and they must have some
> > moisture.
> Nonsense. 50'000 to 60'000 ft equal 15.24 to 18.29 km. The troposhere only
> extends up to ca. 12 km altitude from sea level. The adjacent higher
> atmospheric layer of Terra is the stratosphere (from ca. 12 km to ca. 50 km)
> where there are occasionally clouds, but none that (could) contribute to
> precipitation (directly).

The height of the top of the troposphere varies with latitude (it is lowest over the poles and highest at the equator) and by season (it is lower in winter and higher in summer). It can be as high as 20 km (12 miles or 65,000 feet) near the equator, and as low as 7 km (4 miles or 23,000 feet) over the poles in winter.

> > I don't think hail can form only 1000 meters up in hot summer air.
> Correct. But hailstones form when upwinds push water droplets (ca. 200 µm
> in diameter, too small to see individually, therefore clouds) further up the
> cloud, where, due to the low temperatures, they freeze to ice pellets
> (between 200 µm and 5 mm).

This is one theory. But it isn't a very good theory. In my expert opinion the only place the upwinds are strong enough to keep a droplet suspended long enough that it can freeze is on the inside of vortices.

Thomas, you should make an effort to not be gullible and pedantic. The reality is nobody exactly knows.



Being too heavy to be held in suspension by
> upwinds, they fall down again, where more water can condense on them, and
> they are pushed up again, where that water freezes on. And so on until the
> pellets are too heavy even in the lower parts of the cloud (or the upwinds
> slow down due to insufficient convection), when they finally fall out of the
> cloud.

There is no convection in earth's atmosphere. It is little more than an often repeated urban myth.

It's stories meteorologist tell themselves. It's not empirical science.

>
> While hailstones do form in cumulonimbus clouds that extend up to 12 km
> altitude, you are neglecting the basic physical fact that the air does not
> stay “hot” at higher altitudes: as it rises, it cools. In 3 km altitude and
> above, so in the *lower* part of a cumulonimbus already, the air temperature
> is already below 0 °C – low enough for water to freeze – even in summer.
>
> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Comparison_US_standard_atmosphere_1962.svg>
> > Water vapor rises because water (H2O at 18 grams/mole) is less dense
> > than air which is predominately nitrogen (N2 at 28 grams/mole). When
> > mixed with regular air (non-moist), this brings the air's
> > average/overall density down and causes it to rise above non-moist
> > air.
> Nonsense. Air contains about 1 % of water which is gaseous (water vapour)
> under standard conditions.

Like you have a clue. There is no gaseous H2O in the earth's atmosphere. It is far too cool to support the existence of gaseous H2O. Look at an H2O phase diagram.

> It is not the water vapour in the air alone that
> rises, but warm air with water vapour in it.
>
> When it cools, only the water in the air condenses (on condensation nuclei,
> small dust particles in the air, ca. 0.2 µm in size) and freezes; more water
> condenses and freezes on that, to form ice crystals and eventually ice
> pellets.
>
> It does that because the boiling and melting point of water is significantly
> higher (100 °C and 0 °C under standard conditions, respectively) than that
> of the other constituents of air – given the same atmospheric pressure that
> is decreasing approximately exponentially with altitude within the higher
> troposphere:

This is gibberish.

> p ≈ p₀ exp(−g M h∕(R T₀))
>
> where
>
> p – atmospheric pressure
> p₀ – standard atmospheric pressure at sea level (101'326 Pa)
> g – Earth-surface gravitational acceleration (ca. 9.81 m∕s²)
> M – molar mass of dry air (ca. 0.03 kg∕mol)
> h – altitude
> R – universal gas constant (ca. 8.31 J mol⁻¹ K⁻¹)
> T₀ – standard temperature at sea level (288.15 K = 15 °C)

Completely irrelevant.

James McGinn / Genius

James McGinn

unread,
Mar 8, 2022, 12:24:27 AM3/8/22
to
On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:39:33 PM UTC-7, poutni...@gmail.com wrote:

> The climbing air has its inertia and does not stop immediately
> when its buoyancy gets negative.

Buoyancy of air is pseudoscience. Meteorology is just a confused paradigm.

Nobody has ever detected/measured it empirically. Don't be gullible.

James McGinn / Genius

Jim Pennino

unread,
Mar 8, 2022, 11:16:11 AM3/8/22
to
James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Like you have a clue. There is no gaseous H2O in the earth's atmosphere. It is far too cool to support the existence of gaseous H2O. Look at an H2O phase diagram.

If the state of H2O is totally determined by the phase diagram of water,
how then does super heated and super chilled water, i.e. liquid water
above 100 C and below 0 C, exist?

If liquid H2O can exist outside of 0 to 100 C, why can't gaseous H2O
exist below 100 C?

How could a cloud above the freezing level not have any ice in it?

As both air and water vapor have an index of refraction of 1.0003 while
liquid water has an index of refraction of 1.4, even 2 molecules of
water is much bigger than the wave length of visible light and will
cause scattering, so how is it that you can not see nanodroplets of
water no matter how small?

Where exactly is that data that supposedly everybody uses and is in the
public domain?

Jim Pennino

unread,
Mar 8, 2022, 11:16:12 AM3/8/22
to
Have you never heard of a hot air balloon.
0 new messages