Why the science of clouds is still cloudy

[Solving Tornadoes]

Why the science of clouds is still cloudy

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2016/03/04/why-the-science-of-clouds-is-still-cloudy/

Climatologists can't figure out climate because meteorologists can't figure out clouds.
Meteorologists can't figure out clouds because physicists can't figure out water.
Physicists can't figure out water because they can't figure out H2O polarity

BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ
https://zenodo.org/record/37224

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

Convection Versus Plasma
https://youtu.be/LwSyalcoRAk

Alternative to Spiritualistic Thinking in the Atmospheric Sciences
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dexlOvP7mPw

[Paul Aubrin]

Another reason why climatologists and meteorologists cannot figure out
clouds is because their models of the atmosphere are far too coarse to
deal with them. To directly compute weather from the basic equations of
physics (conservation of movement, moment, energy, etc.) would require a
grid so thin that those models (based only on physics), would never be
able to produce a forecast before the real event take place.

The Clay Mathematics Institute will give a one million dollars prize for
anyone who will /significantly/ improve the understanding of the
equations which rule the weather and the climate.
http://www.claymath.org/millennium-problems/navier%E2%80%93stokes-equation
"Although these equations were written down in the 19th Century, our
understanding of them remains minimal. The challenge is to make
substantial progress toward a mathematical theory which will unlock the
secrets hidden in the Navier-Stokes equations."

Official problem statement:
http://www.claymath.org/sites/default/files/navierstokes.pdf

[abu.ku...@gmail.com]

I'm on it, like waxy apple

[Solving Tornadoes]

Interesting. Thanks for this.

I suspect that if one did go through all the trouble of understanding and then improving upon this equations they would find it extremely difficult to convince anybody that they did so.

Cheers,

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

[Paul Aubrin]

Maths although not strictly a science share the experimental paradigm of
experimental sciences. If someone is able to predict the shape or some
characteristics of solutions, an experimental verification will be
possible.
An example is the case of the autodidact mathematician Ramanujan
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan]
He sent to G.H.Hardy an extremely bewildering sample of the output of his
mathematical skills. By chance Hardy took the pain to verify some of
Ramanujan formulas and discovered they were true, although he couldn't
explain how he could discover them.
The collaboration of Ramanujan and Hardy lead to a wealth of mathematical
discoveries.

[Solving Tornadoes]

Very interesting.

Considering the significance, attention to detail, and high degree of relevance of your responses to my original post, I want to, firstly, thank for that.
I also want to compliment you for the following insightful comment: "Maths although not strictly a science share the experimental paradigm of experimental sciences. If someone is able to predict the shape or some characteristics of solutions, an experimental verification will be possible."

Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions, but if you are suggesting that there might be a mathematical approach to achieve experimental verification of my theoretical thinking on the origins of vortices in the atmosphere (the underlying details of which I outlined in the two video I posted in the first post on this thread) that is something very much like to know more about.

Refuting Meteorology's convection model of storm theory is child's play. But you know how people are, unless there is something that is clearly better to replace it they tend to stay attached to traditional understandings. So if you know of some means to achieving such verification--even if only partially--that would be very interesting.

One thing that I'm not sure will be easy to incorporate into any existing equation is the fact that H2O surface tension is maximized along wind shear boundaries. (I can describe the mechanism that underlies this.) In other word, there is a significant increase in viscosity that occurs at the boundary between moist bodies of air and dry bodies of air. This increase in viscosity (think of it as a plasma) is a consequence of H2O surface tension. (We can think of it in accordance with the principle that if you maximize H2O surface area you maximize H2O surface tension.) Whether or not this is something that could be included in a Navier-Stokes equation is not something I'm qualified to speculate on.

Whatever the case, I am very much open to listening to anything else you have to say about using maths as a means to experimental verification (or some semblance thereof) of my theoretical thinking--assuming that is what you were alluding to.

Regards,

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn9 at gmail dot com

[abu.ku...@gmail.com]

I cannot say, why it is that you say that
HOH's cannot be completely dyssolved in the air, given that
the atmosphere is almost pure H2 at some heighth;
do you see, what I mean

[James McGinn]

Air dissolves H2O? Can you provide details on this?

[Paul Aubrin]

Although I don't see the relation with the initial topic, water vapour is
dissolved in the air.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-vapor-saturation-pressure-air-
d_689.html
Saturation pressure and density of water vapour diagrams for common
temperatures.

[James McGinn]

I guess I don't really have a dispute with the notion that water is dissolved in air. I have a dispute that it can be or is completely dissolved (gaseous H2O) at temperatures below its known boiling temperature/pressure. I think what confuses people is that, at higher temps, it forms into extremely small droplets--maybe even less than ten molecules per droplet/cluster--and people assume that it is gaseous when actually it is not gaseous it's just so small it can't be seen.

Many people assume that since gaseous H2O is invisible then air that is invisible must be gaseous. And I think it is not that simple. Air that invisible can also contain very small droplets of non-gaseous H2O. Unfortunately meteorologists have been feeding into this misconception, because they are trying to salvage a flawed theory.

[Paul Aubrin]

On Mon, 07 Mar 2016 15:34:26 -0800, James McGinn wrote:

> On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 2:56:37 PM UTC-8, Paul Aubrin wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Mar 2016 13:08:12 -0800, James McGinn wrote:
>>
>> > On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 12:48:25 PM UTC-8, abu.ku...@gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>> >> I cannot say, why it is that you say that HOH's cannot be completely
>> >> dyssolved in the air, given that the atmosphere is almost pure H2 at
>> >> some heighth;
>> >> do you see, what I mean
>> >
>> > Air dissolves H2O? Can you provide details on this?
>>
>> Although I don't see the relation with the initial topic, water vapour
>> is dissolved in the air.
>> http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-vapor-saturation-pressure-air-
>> d_689.html Saturation pressure and density of water vapour diagrams for
>> common temperatures.
>
> I guess I don't really have a dispute with the notion that water is
> dissolved in air. I have a dispute that it can be or is completely
> dissolved (gaseous H2O) at temperatures below its known boiling
> temperature/pressure. I think what confuses people is that, at higher
> temps, it forms into extremely small droplets--maybe even less than ten
> molecules per droplet/cluster--and people assume that it is gaseous when
> actually it is not gaseous it's just so small it can't be seen.

Quotes from Wikipedia, vapor pressure:
"Vapor pressure or equilibrium vapor pressure is defined as the pressure
exerted by a vapor in thermodynamic equilibrium with its condensed phases
(solid or liquid) at a given temperature in a closed system."

"The vapor pressure of any substance increases non-linearly with
temperature according to the Clausius–Clapeyron relation. The atmospheric
pressure boiling point of a liquid (also known as the normal boiling
point) is the temperature at which the vapor pressure equals the ambient
atmospheric pressure."

Vapour saturation pressure:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-vapor-saturation-pressure-
d_599.html

[James McGinn]

> temperature according to the Clausius-Clapeyron relation. The atmospheric

> pressure boiling point of a liquid (also known as the normal boiling
> point) is the temperature at which the vapor pressure equals the ambient
> atmospheric pressure."
>
> Vapour saturation pressure:
> http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-vapor-saturation-pressure-
> d_599.html
>
>
>
> >
> > Many people assume that since gaseous H2O is invisible then air that is
> > invisible must be gaseous. And I think it is not that simple. Air that
> > invisible can also contain very small droplets of non-gaseous H2O.
> > Unfortunately meteorologists have been feeding into this misconception,
> > because they are trying to salvage a flawed theory.

Paul,

Nothing you are stating/quoting here is disputed. Vapor (as you use the word here) is not gaseous. It is liquid microdroplets of H2O that are suspended in air by electrostatic forces. It is not gaseous H2O.

That is the distinction that you, and many, aren't making.

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

[James McGinn]

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 9:08:54 AM UTC-8, Paul Aubrin wrote:

Many people assume that since gaseous H2O is invisible then air that is invisible must be gaseous.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.global-warming/mc-qffvOdmE/a_D6JCicCAAJ

[James McGinn]

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 9:08:54 AM UTC-8, Paul Aubrin wrote:

> Quotes from Wikipedia,

This is where you lost me.

[Paul Aubrin]

There are H2O molecules in the air. The boiling point is the temperature
where the partial pressure of H2O in the air equals the pressure of the
atmosphere. Under this pressure the molecules in the liquid phase and the
molecule in the atmosphere above are in equilibrium. The molecule at the
surface of the liquid leave and are replaced by an equal amount of
molecules coming from the atmosphere. At temperatures near the boiling
point, exchanges can be very intense.

[James McGinn]

At ambient temps the H2O in the air is liquid microdroplets, not gas.