Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!news.mb-net.net!open-news-network.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Re: Convection is fiction Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 01:16:30 +0200 Organization: PointedEars Software (PES) Lines: 23 Message-ID: <4201218.GXAFRqVoOG@PointedEars.de> References: <23764527.rf7BzDKH0Z@PointedEars.de> <16752210.eqIcH4nDp4@PointedEars.de> Reply-To: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn NNTP-Posting-Host: 29.233.197.178.dynamic.wless.lssmb00p-cgnat.res.cust.swisscom.ch Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit X-Trace: gwaiyur.mb-net.net 1471994192 1950 178.197.233.29 (23 Aug 2016 23:16:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@open-news-network.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 23:16:32 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: KNode/4.14.2 Xref: csiph.com sci.physics:594386 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. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.