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 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#593021 — Convection is fiction

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] | [next] | [standalone]

#593062

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!

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

#593598

On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 09:44:18 -0700 (PDT), Claudius Denk
<claudiusdenk@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.

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

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

#593608

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
> <claudiusdenk@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


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

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

#593639

On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 4:28:26 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> 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
> > <claudiusdenk@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
> 
> 
> > 
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> > Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
> > ---------------------------------------------------

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.

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

#594033

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.

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

#594034

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.

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

#594036

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.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#594039

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.

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

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

#594042

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.
 
-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#594049

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/


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

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

#594159

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

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

#594268

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.

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

#594175

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)."

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

#594269

On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 8:17:58 AM UTC-7, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
> 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)."

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.

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

#594072

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

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

#594124

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?

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

#594146

On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 5:11:31 PM UTC-7, Claudius Denk wrote:
> 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?

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.

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

#594142

On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 18:16:12 +0200, Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@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.

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

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

#594156

Dne 22/08/2016 v 04:34 Michael J. Strickland napsal(a):
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 18:16:12 +0200, Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@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 ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web