Doswellian Lunacy Prevails in the Cult of Meteorology/Tornadogenesis

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2759913671101666257&postID=2584192578645379647

Chuck Doswell said…

Finally, a large mixing ratio for water vapor in air is about 10 g per kg of dry air. If all the water vapor in a given volume were to condense to liquid water, the mass of the water in the volume would not change. However, because the water is now in its much denser liquid form, it could then fall out of that volume, leaving behind only dry air. The weight of the remaining air would be reduced by about 1%.

In the process of condensing, the water would release latent heat – water has a latent heat of 2260 kJ per kg. For a mixing ratio of 10 g per kg, that would amount to 22.6 kJ of latent heat per kg of dry air. The release of that latent heat within that volume would warm the remaining dry air.

To determine the amount of warming, we need the specific heat of dry air, which is 1.0 kJ per kg per deg C. Thus, the release of latent heat by the complete condensation of 10 g of water vapor per kg of dry air would raise the temperature of the air by 22.6 deg C!

It is this large release of latent heat from condensing water vapor that powers thunderstorms.

July 1, 2014 at 12:33 PM


Jim McGinn:
There is no steam (gaseous H2O) in Earth’s atmosphere.  “Cold steam” is nothing but an urban legend created to sell text books to gullible students. There is no phase change and, therefore, no source of the “latent heat.”  All of the laboratory evidence clearly indicates that the gaseous phase of H2O occurs only at temperatures above its known boiling point.  It is lunacy to suggest otherwise.  The H2O droplets/clusters that are suspended in moist air DO NOT release any latent heat as the miniature (invisible) droplets therein condense into larger (visible) droplets, regardless of whether they then become large enough to be visible by the naked eye (dew point) or large enough to fall out of the atmosphere (precipitation).  So everything stated above is lunacy put forth by pseudoscientists.  Doswell refuses to substantiate any of this.  He hides.  He throws stones at anybody that draws attention to his dishonesty. But he won’t actually debate any of this.  Just like climatologists (phoney environmental activists) who would have us believe the ice caps are melting, severe weather phoneys never debate.

Strangely, this kind of cultish lunacy persists in the disciplines of meteorology/tornadogenesis.  As shown here, Doswell and his ilk continue to profess blatant pseudoscience unopposed by any kind of greater authority within the cult of meteorology/tornadogenesis.

And its a damn shame!

Jim McGinn

 

 

Tags:

10 responses to “Doswellian Lunacy Prevails in the Cult of Meteorology/Tornadogenesis”

  1. Anonymous says :

    Do you also claim that the reverse process is nonexistent below 100 C? When liquid water evaporates at say 20 C, does cooling occur?

    • solvingtornadoes says :

      Let’s stick with this subject. Do you defend Doswell? (Do you even understand the issue?)

      • Anonymous says :

        Sure. And it is the same subject. Energy is released/absorbed when water condenses/evaporates at (say) 20 C. That is what Dosell says powers convection. Not differences in density between moist and dry air, but the latent heat released during the change in phase. If you deny that heat is released when water condenses, that also means you must deny that heat is absorbed when water evaporates, does it not?

        • solvingtornadoes says :

          Stick to the subject. Doswell made specific, quantitative claims and then failed to support them. You failed to support them also.

          My claim: latent heat from water vapor DOES NOT “power thunderstorms.”

          Do you dispute? Address the issue or kindly go away. (This is your last chance.)

          • Anonymous says :

            The magnitude of latent heat release during condensation is established by laboratory experiments. The updraft (power, for the sake of this discussion) in a thunderstorm is consistent with buoyancy generated by latent heat release from the amount of water that changes phase in a convective cloud. So yes, I agree with Doswell and dispute your claim that water vapor does not power thunderstorms.

            The claim that meteorologists think differences in density between moist and dry air power thunderstorms is counterfactual. Doswell expresses very clearly what meteorologists understand to power thunderstorms. To dispute this claim, one needs to establish where the observed latent heat release comes from if not from a phase change. Can you do that? Or do you dispute that any heat is released (or absorbed) during a phase change at 20 C?

        • solvingtornadoes says :

          ST:
          Let’s stick with the subject . . .

          Anonymous:
          Energy is released/absorbed when water condenses/evaporates at (say) 20 C.

          ST:
          As I suspected, you are not paying attention. Doswell’s claim is that LATENT heat is, to use your words, “released/absorbed when water condenses/evaporates at (say) 20 C.” Did you not see that? Do you know the distinction between LATENT heat and heating in general? That there is heating/cooling associated with evaporation/condensation is common knowledge. It is also common knowledge that this heating and cooling is very moderate. Does the condensate that forms on a glass of ice water (on a warm, humid day) cause the water in the glass to come to a boil? That is what this bird brain Doswell is trying to suggest with his reference to “latent” heat.

          Bad science often pivots off the inclusion/exclusion of words that are subtle. The word latent (look it up) has no business in the context of the evaporation/condensation that happens at ambient temperatures in our atmosphere. Latent heat refers to energy that is bound up and, subsequently, released in a phase change or chemical process. It has no relevance to the processes involved with condensation/evaporation which involves SENSIBLE heat exclusively.

  2. solvingtornadoes says :

    Anonymous says: September 2, 2014 at 6:50 am Edit

    Anonymous says:
    The magnitude of latent heat release during condensation is established by laboratory experiments.

    Jim McGinn:
    What laboratory experiments? Provide a direct reference.

    Anonymous says:
    The updraft (power, for the sake of this discussion) in a thunderstorm is consistent with buoyancy generated by latent heat release from the amount of water that changes phase in a convective cloud.

    Jim McGinn:
    Obviously, you are just repeating Doswell’s claim using different words which, obviously, is just a propaganda tactic.

    Anonymous says:
    So yes, I agree with Doswell and dispute your claim that water vapor does not power thunderstorms.

    Jim McGinn:
    I bet this is the first time in your life anybody has challenged your propaganda.

    Anonymous says:
    The claim that meteorologists think differences in density between moist and dry air power thunderstorms is counterfactual.

    Jim McGinn:
    Really. So you’re saying that they’ve been lying to us all this time? Or, more likely, now that the absurdity of convection has been exposed you’re trying to shift the narrative? Pretending to speak for all meteorologists you are ANONYMOUSLY telling us that now you all have a new story. A new story based on new evidence that nobody can find.

    Anonymous says:
    Doswell expresses very clearly what meteorologists understand to power thunderstorms.

    Jim McGinn:
    LOL. Obviousy if Doswell had expressed himself clearly you and I would not be having this little chat, you dishonest twerp.

    Anonymous says:
    To dispute this claim, one needs to establish where the observed latent heat release comes from if not from a phase change.

    Jim McGinn:
    It’s impossible to dispute what exists only in your imagination.

    Anonymous says:
    Can you do that?

    Jim McGinn:
    No. Likewise if you claimed you saw bigfoot I could not dispute that either.

    Anonymous says:
    Or do you dispute that any heat is released (or absorbed) during a phase change at 20 C?

    Jim McGinn:
    There is no phase change at 20 C. Only meteorologists are dumb enough to believe in such nonsense. The phase changes of H2O take place at 0 and 100 C.

  3. solvingtornadoes says :

    These loons never have a real argument. Because this isn’t a real science. There is no measurment, no testing. It’s all based on some imaginary principles that were created for the purpose of selling text books. They would have us believe that some laboratory did something somewhere. We’ll never know. It only ever existed in their imagination anyways. Nobody cares in this phoney discipline anyway. They just go through the motions of pretending they understand what they don’t.

  4. solvingtornadoes says :

    Anonymous says:
    The magnitude of latent heat release during condensation is established by laboratory experiments.

    Jim McGinn:
    What laboratory experiments? Provide a direct reference.

    Jim McGinn:
    No response.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: