Vortices are the Pressure Relief Valves of the Atmosphere

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Vortices are the Pressure Relief Valves of the Atmosphere

Unread postby jimmcginn » Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:14 pm

Vortices are the Pressure Relief Valves of the Atmosphere
by James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

Source:
https://principia-scientific.org/does-g ... ment-20478
See comments below

Alan Thorpe:
Is this really correct? Winds are determined by pressure and they go from high pressure to low pressure. Warm air rises causing low pressure, so winds go from cold to hot.

JMcG:
You ask a good question and I’m the right person to answer it. I am the #1 expert in the world on the question surrounding atmospheric flow and storms.

In general this article by Floor Anthoni (is this a real name?) is highly accurate. For example the points entitled “Important Points” is spot on! The high heat capacity of the liquid water in the oceans, on land, and in the air (note: all of the H2O in the atmosphere is liquid vapor H2O, not gaseous H2O) provides the temperature moderation function on our planet.

But the author also harbors many of the misconceptions that have been promoted by the pseudoscientific institution of meteorology. (Meteorology is a conversational science that evolved along the lines of telling the public stories that fit anecdotal observations. It is not an empirical science.)

Are winds determined by pressure differentials. Well, yes and no. Obviously its not simply a matter of pressure differential causing winds. Because if it was this simple there would be no gusty winds and no highly focused streams, like jet streams. Instead there would be only droll, constant winds. So, what causes the gusty, focused winds? The answer is vortices.

Vortices are the pressure relief valves of the atmosphere. You see, without vortices differences of pressure would be much greater on this planet due to the fact that gases alone cannot stream. Streaming requires structure to isolate the flow of the stream from the natural friction and dispersion associated with the gases. Sheaths of vortices literally spin up on wind shear boundaries in the atmosphere. In other words, when you see a tornado you are seeing something that is more than just N2, O2, H2O and trace elements. The “more” you are seeing is a consequence of H2O nanodroplets spinning up on wind shear boundaries. Specifically, the surface tension of the H2O is maximized under wind shear conditions to produce a plasma of surface-tension-maximized H2O. And it is this plasma that forms the sheaths of vortices, including tornadoes. This plasma isolates the flow and provides a slick inner surface, allowing winds to accelerate up to 300 mph.

Meteorology is replete with all kinds of pseudoscientific notions intended to placate the public by appealing to the lowest common denominator of our anecdotal perceptions. It is a conversation. It is not real science. The diatribe of conversational BS that emanates from their collective orifices should be ignored. They are not seeking empirical truth they are seeking a consensus to drown out the observations that they have systematically failed to explain.

Vortices are not simple or obvious. Us humans usually only notice vortices when they are in their last stage of existence, under low pressure conditions of a storm. At this stage it is the residual momentum of the greater vortices that is causing the storm and gusty, low pressure winds. It is this momentum of vortices that throws off our perception. Anecdotally it seems as if vortices are a residual consequence of what ever is the larger cause of storms. But, in actuality, vortices are the cause of storms and their low pressure gusty winds.

Alan:
“Warm air rises causing low pressure, so winds go from cold to hot.”

JMcG:
No. This is nonsense. Convection is meteorological pseudoscience. Warmer air is usually wetter air. And wetter air is ALWAYS heavier (not lighter) than drier air. (So, the only place warm air rises is in deserts.) (This is because wetter air contains more nanodroplets of liquid H2O. There is zero gaseous H2O in earth’s atmosphere. Only idiots believe this propaganda.)

Vortices high in the troposphere produce 99 percent of the uplift that is witnessed on this planet and in storms. Convection is almost completely nonoperational in earth’s atmosphere. Ignore meteorologists. They are brain-dead propagandists–scientifically incompetent.

Trust me, I am the #1 expert on atmospheric flow and storms. Meteorologists are just pretenders whose only goal is to overwhelm you with vague, meaningless rhetoric.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

What You Never Suspected About Water in the Atmosphere
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16615

jerry krause:
Alan, what you overlook is that the vertical convection of a thunderstorm creates a high pressure region at high altitude over the low pressure region at the surface of the tropics. And that the colder surfaces at the higher latitudes create high pressure regions at the earth’s land surface, so there is the generally surface atmospheric flow from the high pressure regions at higher latitudes toward the tropics. So at high altitude the atmospheric flow is from high pressure regions to low pressure regions and the same is true for the surface atmosphere flow.
What commonly overlooked is that above low pressure at the surface is high pressure near the top of the troposphere or vice versa.

So, Floor’s post alerts us to “climate often works contrary to intuition” if we do not observe everything which we should.

James McGinn
Jerry, your explanaion is nonsense. The uplift in thunderstorms is caused by the low pressure that is being introduced by vortices above that are channeling the low pressure energy of the jet stream. Convection does not (and cannot) cause low pressure at lower altitudes. This is a desperately silly thing to believe. You are just spreading the propaganda produced by the meteorology lobby.

Jerry:
What commonly overlooked is that above low pressure at the surface is high pressure near the top of the troposphere or vice versa.

JMcG:
Surreal. You are just making this up. You have no clue, Jerry.

Jerry:
So, Floor’s post alerts us to “climate often works contrary to intuition” if we do not observe everything which we should.

JMcG:
No, Jerry. You are just demonstrating that you are gullible and foolish. Storms are counterintuitive because we don’t understand the full lifecycle of a vortices and, therefore, we don’t realize that we only observe the final stage of a vortices existence, which often occurs closer to the ground.

Convective notions of storms are cartoons, the basis of which is an analogy to a pot boiling on a stove. Science involves empirical facts not unrestrained imagination and convenient analogies.

Why Storms are Wet.
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16841

Alan Thorpe:
What about the theory of a cold front? This is warm air rising over cold air and the moisture in the warm air condensing as it rises, bringing rain.

JMcG:
LOL. This isn’t a theory. Meteorologists don’t do theory. They just make conversational conjectures based on vague notions that they’ve never measured or tested.

Remember, meteorology is not a real science. It is not empirical. It is conversational. They are story tellers, artists. They are not scientists. They don’t measure or test any of this.

My model explains the physics of HEAVIER warm, moist air rising, cooling (due to lower pressure) and causing rain. I already explained this to you in the previous post. Read it again. Vortices connected to the greater jet stream cause low pressure above and this causes uplift of HEAVIER moist air to rise and cool as its pressure drops.

Vortices grow into flat boundaries between moist air and dry air. Sometimes, when the boundary extends all the way to the ground the vortices will grow down along the boundary to the ground, causing a tornado.

Convection is a dull-witted model that fails to explain the existence of vortices. Convection models of storms and atmospheric flow appeal to the lowest common denominator of brain-dead science consumers. People believe it because people are generally stupid and gullible and will believe anything that doesn’t make them think.

Besides, one has to about be retarded to believe that warm air rising will cause the high energy, gusty cold winds of storms. The fact that this absurd notion is so widely believed shows how plainly gullible and dumb is the public.

It’s Not What You Know That Will Hurt You . . .
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16318
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 459
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Vortices are the Pressure Relief Valves of the Atmospher

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sun Feb 10, 2019 11:07 am

Brett Keane
Jerry, yes, from a skilled pilot friend who rode many a thermal and knew of the dangers. Brett

James McGinn
February 9, 2019 at 12:00 am | #

Thermal’s are misunderstood as being the result of warm, moist air. Actually the upward movement in the atmosphere has to do with vortices, not thermals.

Jerry Krause
Hi James,
“Thermal’s are misunderstood as being the result of warm, moist air. Actually the upward movement in the atmosphere has to do with vortices, not thermals.”

I agree that the moisture of the atmosphere plays no role in the upwelling parcel of atmosphere which ultimately cools as it rises and the water vapor in the rising parcel begins to condense to form the commonly observed cloud. I agree that ‘dust devils’ are observed evidence of the vortices to which you refer.

Can we agree that the density of the parcel, which is rising as a vortex through the environmental atmosphere, which has little vertical motion, is less than the environmental atmosphere which surrounds the vortex? In other words, the parcel is rising because of the principle of buoyancy.

I will close here and wait to see if we have this agreement before I begin to consider the role of temperature which makes this rising, rotating, parcel of atmosphere a thermal. I agree that ‘warm, moist air’, as we generally understand these three words, is not a necessary condition. For most might agree that ‘cold air’ is not moist even if the cold air does contain water vapor (molecules). And yes, if you must continue to insist that the atmosphere does not contain ‘water molecules’, do not bother to respond because I will immediately not respond to anything you write.

Have a good day, Jerry

James McGinn
Jerry:
Can we agree that the density of the parcel, which is rising as a vortex through the environmental atmosphere, which has little vertical motion, is less than the environmental atmosphere which surrounds the vortex? In other words, the parcel is rising because of the principle of buoyancy.

James:
Sorry, but no. We cannot agree. Your model starts with the assumption of buoyancy and then becomes convoluted very quickly (which you stubbornly refuse to admit). My model assumes a kind of siphon effect as a result of naturally occurring tubes in the atmosphere that themselves are a result of a water based plasma that spins up on wind shear boundaries.

My model requires a sophisticated understanding of H2O to understand how and why it is capable of a plasma phase under wind shear conditions. Your model starts from the assumption that water is simple and well understood. This requires you to feign ignorance of over 70 observations (sometimes referred to as the anomalies of H2O) that your model fails to explain.

Jerry:
. . . if you must continue to insist that the atmosphere does not contain ‘water molecules’,

James:
Quote me directly you strawbaiting nitwit. I never stated there is no water in the atmosphere. I stated that it cannot possibly be gaseous but is liquid nanodroplets (vapor). Thus it makes any parcel containing it heavier, not lighter.

This notion that storms are caused by convection of upwelling lighter moist air is a silly notion based on nothing more than an analogy to a pot boiling on a stove. Meteorology’s notion of storms is blatant pseudoscience. Storms and atmospheric flow in general have nothing whatsover to do with convection or buoyancy.

Vortices are the Pressure Relief Valves of the Atmosphere
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=17125

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 459
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Vortices are the Pressure Relief Valves of the Atmospher

Unread postby crawler » Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:22 pm

Some interesting stuff here. I am coming around to believing that water always has a very special chemical structure at a solid surface & at a gas surface, i think it is a hex planar structure parallel (but offset a little) to a similar structure (etc etc etc etc). The structure might be say 100,000 molecules thick, & gives us surface tension, a tremendously strong effect. Hencely we tend to get liquid water in the air, not gaseous water. Hencely wet air is heavier than dry air (all else being equal).

And i have always believed that standard science has little or no idea re vortices, & how they originate.

However re tornadoes i think that the key is not that the incoming air is slippery, it is the reverse, it is stickier. In any case even if not stickier it is the stickyness that is the key to a tornado harnessing the energy from a great area & concentrating it in a tornadic vortex (but i wont explain here).

And i disagree re air rising, i reckon that a bubble of less dense air will rise, vortex or not.
crawler
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: Vortices are the Pressure Relief Valves of the Atmospher

Unread postby kevin » Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:11 am

The answers my friends are not blowin in the wind.


All atmospheric occurances are consequences of how the consciousness of universe is fluctuating relative to the transfer between stars /planets and moons.


Water reacts in the same way, with consciousness creating the electric/magnetic variations along spiral (Birkeland)

currents of consciousness often called plasma.


Kevin
kevin
 
Posts: 1140
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:17 am

Re: Vortices are the Pressure Relief Valves of the Atmospher

Unread postby jimmcginn » Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:48 pm

Crawler:
Some interesting stuff here. I am coming around to believing that water always has a very special chemical structure at a solid surface & at a gas surface, i think it is a hex planar structure parallel (but offset a little) to a similar structure (etc etc etc etc). The structure might be say 100,000 molecules thick, & gives us surface tension, a tremendously strong effect. Hencely we tend to get liquid water in the air, not gaseous water. Hencely wet air is heavier than dry air (all else being equal).

JMcG:
Everybody makes the same blunder when attempting to make sense of the anomalous and unexplained observations associated with what has been labelled the anomalies of H2O, surface tension being one of many. And this blunder is to assume that the electromagnetic details of H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding are simple and well understood. And this blunder mostly involves ignorance of the fact that H2O polarity is not static but highly variable and ignorance of the fact that this variability is caused by hydrogen bonds themselves.

Numerous times I've tried to express to people that they need to have a comprehensive understanding of the variability of H2O polarity and an in-depth understanding of how hydrogen bonds themselves are the mechanism thereof, but they just ignore me and champion on to provide perfectly worthless explanations.

If you want to really understand surface tension of H2O (which, BTW, only goes one or two molecules in depths along the surface of liquid water) you have to first study the two videos that I post below.

Crawler:
And i have always believed that standard science has little or no idea re vortices, & how they originate.

JMcG:
You are right about this. Meteorologists are completely perplexed by this phenomena and are very careful to keep the public from fully realizing how completely perplexed they really are. (Nobody in academia ever draws attention to what they don't understand.)

Crawler:
However re tornadoes i think that the key is not that the incoming air is slippery, it is the reverse, it is stickier. In any case even if not stickier it is the stickyness that is the key to a tornado harnessing the energy from a great area & concentrating it in a tornadic vortex (but i wont explain here).

JMcG:
Meteorogists have a brain-dead belief that the energy of storms comes from the surrounding environment and somehow becomes concentrated to produce storms and, sometimes, tornadoes. Since they believe this very deeply the fact that they don't have any kind of good explanation of how this energy becomes concentrated and somehow produces low pressure and swirling gusty winds seems like nothing to be concerned about to them.

They have the cart before the horse. In reality the energy of storms comes from the jet stream and it comes in the form of low pressure delivered by vortices. This explains why storms are cold and gusty--details meteorogists tend to gloss over since these details show that their model is nonsense.

Crawler:
However re tornadoes i think that the key is not that the incoming air is slippery, it is the reverse, it is stickier. In any case even if not stickier it is the stickyness that is the key to a tornado harnessing the energy from a great area & concentrating it in a tornadic vortex (but i wont explain here).

JMcG:
Well, a plasma involves the molecules thereof being more sticky with one another than are the molecules in a gas. And it is this stickiness that allows a plasma to have structural properties that allow it to isolate the stream flow from friction with the rest of the gasses outside of the vortice.

Here are the videos that I suggest you study if you really want to understand the tricky logic of hydrogen bonding in H2O:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfNuWJDJvRw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIQSubWJeNg

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

And i disagree re air rising, i reckon that a bubble of less dense air will rise, vortex or not.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 459
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Vortices are the Pressure Relief Valves of the Atmospher

Unread postby crawler » Thu Feb 14, 2019 8:05 pm

What do u think of Pollack's stuff re EZ water, & Robitaille's stuff (however this is mainly about microwaves).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnwAUVNhU0s&t=1498s
Gerald Pollack – Weather and EZ water – July 29 2018 -- 1:01:03..

Gerald Pollack – Electrically Structured Water – Part 1 & 2.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnGCMQ8TJ_g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqHWueBp23c

Dr P M Robitaille – The structure of water.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3uZjdyrYeU
crawler
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: Vortices are the Pressure Relief Valves of the Atmospher

Unread postby jimmcginn » Thu Feb 14, 2019 10:05 pm

Crawler:
What do u think of Pollack's stuff re EZ water, & Robitaille's stuff

JMcG:
Well, in my opinion, they aren't making any progress. They are stuck.

One must be extremely reductive and extremely rigorous to untangle the mess of misthinking that itself is the result of person after person failing to be rigorously reductive when approaching the subject of H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding. Consequently it is a paradigm ensconced in confusion. Neither of them are rigorously reductive enough to do anything but contribute to the confusion. So, to be honest, I think they are stuck with zero chance of making any progress.

The breakthrough (my breakthrough, "incidental symmetry") involves the realization that H2O polarity is variable and not static, in stark contrast to what has long been assumed. I expose the error off logic that underlies this misthinking.

This realization that H2O polarity is variable and h bonds are the mechanism thereof will allow us to, eventually, find resolution to all of the unexplained or poorly explained anomalies of H2O.

Since Pollack and Robitaille have not made this breakthrough it is impossible for them to make any progress. They are stuck and will be forever stuck if they don't realize that they and the rest of their paradigm have blundered by blindly assuming H2O polarity is static when it really is variable.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 459
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm


Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests