Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #593021 > unrolled thread

Convection is fiction

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Convection is fiction Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 09:44 -0700
    Re: Convection is fiction James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 15:14 -0700
    Re: Convection is fiction Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-17 19:01 -0400
      Re: Convection is fiction James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-08-17 16:28 -0700
        Re: Convection is fiction James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-08-17 22:20 -0700
      Re: Convection is fiction Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-21 17:57 +0200
        Re: Convection is fiction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 18:16 +0200
          Re: Convection is fiction Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-21 18:46 +0200
            Re: Convection is fiction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 18:56 +0200
              Re: Convection is fiction Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-21 19:09 +0200
                Re: Convection is fiction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 19:27 +0200
                Re: Convection is fiction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 07:39 +0200
                  Re: Convection is fiction James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 19:58 -0700
                Re: Convection is fiction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 17:17 +0200
                  Re: Convection is fiction James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 20:02 -0700
              Re: Convection is fiction James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 12:38 -0700
                Re: Convection is fiction Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 17:11 -0700
                  Re: Convection is fiction James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 19:59 -0700
          Re: Re: Convection is fiction Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-21 22:34 -0400
            Re: Convection is fiction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 06:52 +0200
            Re: Re: Convection is fiction Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-22 19:02 +0200
              Re: Convection is fiction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 19:17 +0200
                Re: Convection is fiction James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 20:05 -0700
                Re: Convection is fiction Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-24 01:16 +0200
                  Re: Convection is fiction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 05:53 +0200
                    Re: Convection is fiction Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-24 18:47 +0200
                      Re: Convection is fiction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 21:04 +0200
                  Re: Convection is fiction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 06:09 +0200
                    Re: Convection is fiction Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-24 19:03 +0200
                      Re: Convection is fiction Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-08-24 12:16 -0500
                        Re: Convection is fiction James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 11:11 -0700
                      Re: Convection is fiction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 21:36 +0200
                        Re: Convection is fiction Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-25 06:20 +0200
                          Re: Convection is fiction Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-25 08:13 +0200
                          Re: Convection is fiction Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-08-25 09:40 -0500
        Re: Convection is fiction James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 12:14 -0700
        Re: Convection is fiction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 17:45 +0200
          Re: Convection is fiction Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-22 18:56 +0200
            Re: Convection is fiction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 19:14 +0200
              Re: Convection is fiction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 20:54 +0200
                Re: Convection is fiction Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-24 01:56 +0200
                  Re: Convection is fiction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 06:02 +0200
                  Re: Convection is fiction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 06:14 +0200
                    Re: Convection is fiction Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-24 19:07 +0200
                      Re: Convection is fiction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 21:15 +0200
                  Re: Convection is fiction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 06:31 +0200
                    Re: Convection is fiction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 06:54 +0200
              Re: Convection is fiction Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-24 01:10 +0200
                Re: Convection is fiction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 05:53 +0200
                Re: Convection is fiction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 07:32 +0200
                  Re: Convection is fiction Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-24 19:15 +0200
                    Re: Convection is fiction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 21:11 +0200
                      Re: Convection is fiction Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-24 21:26 +0200
                    Re: Convection is fiction Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-08-24 15:07 -0500
          Re: Convection is fiction James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 20:04 -0700
    Re: Convection is fiction Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 19:31 -0700

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#594390

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).

-- 
PointedEars

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594415

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594420

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594500

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.
 
-- 
PointedEars

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594527

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.


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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594424

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594431

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594384

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.

-- 
PointedEars

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594411

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594434

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.


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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594502

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).
 
-- 
PointedEars

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594525

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594532

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.
 
-- 
PointedEars

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594546

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 ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594270

On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 8:45:37 AM UTC-7, Poutnik Fornntp 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.
> 
> 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

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594140

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web