Is the Hurricane Causing the Rain or is the Rain Causing the Hurricane?

So, here is the video, I have slowed it down and cleaned it up quite a bit and I stop and start through it just to show you what I think is happening. The key thing that I suggest is that much of the power is being released in the clouds as water vapor converts to water. But it is being in such a way that it speeds up the "action" by acting as a very effective "cloud pump". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwGzAwOyla4

I do not know where you are from.

20 years tormenting experience on THE island of the Caribbean with most hurricanes counts shows me that:

A hurricane is a massive water system that spins and sucks hot ocean water up high, brings the turbulent cloud continuously in saturation with everything it can pick up:

be it water, dust of any sort.

I've had the chance to see hurricanes passing and having been in the middle of the spin.

Here in our hemisphere, hurricanes spin counter clockwise, and depending on how they pass through you can have the stormy winds pounding from N, E, S, or West.

The progressing speed depends on how the pressure zones, apart of the hurricane system are build up, and situated to impact the direction (path) of the hurricane.

Most of the time a hurricane passes in less than 6 hours, only Frances managed to remain here at the spot for 36 hours. Our swimming pool has been emptied by her in less than 15 minutes, and filled up again somewhat later in less than 30 minutes.

A few times in a row.

Frances had a #4 strength.

Everything in her path here had a grey color afterwards:- trees and in general all the painted and exposed wood. The gusting rains were very salty, so guess where a hurricane gets her liquids?

While, my friend, hurricanes here only are born, or grow more dangerous over warm oceans and seas, and the water temperature is related with the energy exposed from the sun, and is amplified by the lack of refreshing rains.

We always say: it is rain and clouds, or otherwise sun and hurricanes during the hurricane season.

This goes for the Atlantic basin.(most of the hurricanes come from South- West Africa)

To answer your question:

The rain is not causing the hurricane. (it is a by-product)

The road and all the related conditions, water, temperature, winds, rotation of the earth,(speed is the highest where hurricanes apply)

Thank you. I should have phrased it differently. If I phrased it like this. "Can rainclouds actually "pull" weather systems forward? would it work better? If it didn't rain, would the hurricane even happen? Possible if you "overseeded" the air with too many condensation nuclei, the clouds would form but you would not get so many raindrops, and instead of hurricanes, you would get cloudy areas over the whole ocean area, cooler oceans and gentle drizzle. If you look at the video, the hurricanes build up to pop moisture into the upper atmosphere, then die down for a while and once more build up again. It is not a continuous thing. If rainclouds are able to pull the weather systems along, a wee bit, it explains how the hurricanes get into such tight spirals. Why do the clouds over Cuba, Florida and parts of Mexico form cumulus thunder clouds nearly every day around 4 or 5 pm in the time lapse? Or more precisely, why does this not happen over the ocean? If it did, the energy for the hurricane would never build up in the first place.

"If it didn't rain, would the hurricane even happen?" doesn't make sense, at least to me.

I can't answer that question, and I don't think anyone else on this forum can either.

I've bee around for a while, and while I've experienced rain without a hurricane, I 've never experienced a hurricane without rain.

The question makes sense to me. As I understand it, he's asking if rising moist air, condensing and releasing rain and heat, causes a positive feedback loop that is a necessary part of the formation of a hurricane.

I can't answer that question but it makes sense to me to ask it. If you've never experienced a hurricane without rain, maybe that suggests the answer. Formation of rain may actually release the energy needed to turn a tropical depression into a hurricane. Of course, all that energy comes from the sun originally.

Cumulous clouds form from rising warm moist air. It's really very simple.

The ground or water is heated by the sun in some places better than others. For example, dark vegetation will release more heat than a patch of white sand or even light colored vegetation.

Warm air holds more moisture than cold air, so rising moist air condenses as it rises above a temperature threshold forming billowing clouds with flat bottoms.

The more heat and moisture, the more intense the cloud formation.

The bottom of the cloud is the point where the atmospheric temperature is low enough for the given amount of humidity in the rising air to condense about condensation nuclei forming visible clouds.

That's the explanation for cumulous cloud formation.

I think you are citing the biotic pump of atmospheric moisture as the driver for this formation and for one thing, the theory is still highly contested and unproven. For another, the mechanism I described above is simply how it works and sailplane pilots know thermals and their origins very well.

What contribution the biotic pump actually makes is unclear. From my understanding of the theory its doesn't explain cloud formation. You need rising warm air to start the process and as long as the land or water continues to radiate sufficient heat the process will continue.

The biotic pump theory was developed before scientists knew how rainforests make condensation nuclei, but the theorists anticipated that there was something. In the last couple of years, this process has been identified and described. It is more or less a 3 stage process. Some fungi use a mechanism that squirts out potassium salts as they eject spores into the atmosphere. (on rainforest trees 30 meters or more high above the forest floor which makes quite a difference). This happens late at night, as the sun starts to shine tree leaves release turpenes and isoprenes. These sublime on the potassium salt kernel under the influence of the sun and this forms "perfect" condensation nuclei. Up until then it was always a mystery how there could be so much rainfall in the rainforest. (Every heavy shower washes the condensation nuclei out of the air and it is the cleanest air in the world, but rain has to form on little particles). Until the discovery of the potassium salt-isoprene-sunlight process, they had no idea what the raindrops was forming on!

Thank goodness you've got away from using NASA as a point of reference. I'm sure many members of this forum have previously worked for NASA at some time or another, but they don't use NASA as their fall-back position in any debate, or as a weather authority for that matter...

How have you been? Good to hear from you. This past summer sort of put a damper on the rain/sun theory. Very dry, no storms. The visibility has been poor most days. And the dirt, horrendous. I have to clean the screens monthly and the A/C filters every other week. The same with the air filters on the cars. The visibility is still bad, no Culebra, and only 2/3 of Vieques 17 and 13 miles respectively. I've only been able to see Crown Mountain on St Thomas at most a dozen times. I have heard the theory there is so much Sahara dust, there is insufficient moisture to permit rain, though in the past 4 months, I've only had to water a few times and the reservoirs are now full. The water temp is a bit low 73 on the north shore. I've had to turn on the water heater around Thanksgiving, normally that takes place the end of January for about 6 weeks.

https://www.google.com/search?q=chicken+and+egg+cartoon+which+came+first&biw=1181&bih=654&tbm=isch&imgil=SvAZAfvR5QVMJM%253A%253BEjhuHjMKkMfe6M%253Bhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.pinterest.com%25252Fpin%25252F18366310953404890%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=SvAZAfvR5QVMJM%253A%252CEjhuHjMKkMfe6M%252C_&usg=__tBUKxmBfY0LLu-qs_PsnhPrg8pg%3D&ved=0ahUKEwiPvcPzo43KAhUOyWMKHb7cDA4QyjcIJw&ei=TuOIVo_eL46SjwO-ubNw#imgrc=SvAZAfvR5QVMJM%3A&usg=__tBUKxmBfY0LLu-qs_PsnhPrg8pg%3D

I doubt that you can separate them into chicken and egg. Don't they feed each other?

Even more difficult when the egg is scrambled.

Have you an explanation for the air above the hurricane circling clockwise? And the air in the "tail" above it heading south as the hurricane moves north? (The Wrong direction!) I was hoping that people would look at the diagram and look at the video before making comments. It is a very big picture that you cannot see from Florida. And you cannot see it when you recite a book you learned from 20 years ago either. "The cloud formation is driven by solar power. Heat radiated off the surface of the Earth causes updrafts". (More in the Sahara than in Florida. And incidental, the Sahara (hot place!) is dominated by downdrafts). In Florida most of the initial updrafts are caused by evaporated or transpired water vapor. Moist air is lighter than dry air and it rises faster. Please go back to the diagram and look at it. The air does not simply circulate in the cloud, some goes up above into the next layer of the atmosphere. We can clearly see that in the satellite time-lapse. Because the air above the hurricane and above the cumulus clouds now contains significant water vapor that condenses into ice at that height, and the satellite time-lapse picks that up and displays the air movement as tell tail wisps that are going counter to the surface winds. So, while there is definitely local circulation, the condensation within the clouds is driving some air up into the next atmosphere level where it is whipped away by the faster winds up there. Perhaps people can look at this like a steam engine? A small cloud releases lots of energy as it condenses, but that energy has nowhere to radiate to. It is stuck there within the cloud where it causes vertical air movements. I will briefly explain that. A cloud droplet forms, releasing energy to the surrounding air and water vapor, it falls at about a cm per second, as it falls, it absorbs energy (from other droplets forming) and re-evaporates a few minutes later slightly lower in the atmosphere, rises again as water vapor and reforms as a cloud droplet again, to release energy slightly lower in the atmosphere. This, happening millions of times a second throughout the cloud is what is driving the general air movement up. At each forming and evaporation event in this almost closed system, a little energy is lost and the dry air portion of the air molecules is sent a little higher. So there you have the vertical air movement explained. This is an efficient air pump. But because some of that air and vapor is lost, it is causing some lateral movement too. And that contributes to the forward movements of the wind.

Do you have a position paper for your hypothesis?

I started to watch the video, but I would rather have something that is written out and with references.

I am not a meteorologist, but if you really have something that stands up to formal peer review, I would be interested in reading it.

If you don't, then you should create one and submit it to a scholarly publication before dropping it on some informal forum. That's the way science works and you should, too.

If you hang around here long enough you will see a number of ad hoc claims by new members from perpetual motion to free energy. None of them have any scientific basis for their claims and no one treats them seriously - as you are probably beginning to realize now.

The video contains the evidence. (Comes from NASA. Have you heard of them?) I'm not sure why you think the rain and wind is driven by perpetual motion. . The biotic pump theory passed peer review several years ago. I'm just putting it in language that you and I can understand. Most of the meteorological community don't believe the theory is correct but they don't have the physics, mathematics (or evidence) to dispute it. "Well actually clouds are associated with high pressure", said Professor Pinocchio (argumentative meteorologist). Funny, in all my years watching the weather and weather forecast, I though the exact opposite. Its a bit like years ago when red shift galaxies were discovered, they are kind of clinging on to traditional views. Weird thing to me is that everybody thinks the dried air stops going up at the top of the cloud. If you look at the NASA video, it is pretty clear that it goes right up into the next layer of the atmosphere. It took me a couple of years to get to the diagram. It is not perfect but is is way more correct than the idea that the air all just goes up and comes back down again cold and with rain.

I have followed this thread for awhile now, as I have others of yours.

They are, "interesting".

In your biography you state, "Unfortunately nobody takes any of this seriously and so far none of the above things has been independently tested."

Perhaps there is a reason for this, if this is the only forum you use to display your research.

Rain is predicted for my location all of this week. I will wait for that evidence to manifest itself before making any predictions.

Your statement that, "Most of the meteorological community don't believe the theory is correct but they don't have the physics, mathematics (or evidence) to dispute it" is without a doubt, arrogant, if not misinformed.

Please don't be too offended. I was not speaking for me. I cannot do the math, that is the whole point of the diagram and video. The meteorological community has become so fixated with models that they have lost the agility to do physics math. The model invents the math to fill gaps in knowledge. This is wonderful and clueless. The Russian Nuclear Physicists who put forward the biotic pump theory have retained that ability to do math. http://www.bioticregulation.ru/pump/pump5.php One of the arguments against the biotic pump theory was "clouds actually cause high pressure not low pressure". Seriously. And given that clouds are associated with hurricanes and tornadoes, (the lowest pressure natural systems on earth), you really got to be impressed with that statement, don't you?

What do you suppose my biography has to do with any of this? Why not concentrate on the questions I have asked and the proposals I have written down and the evidence I show in video? "Look over there!" is not useful. "I don't know what he is talking about so he must be flakey" is one answer. But there is another more personally humbling one. How about, no more cheap shots? I post here because you guys are smart and capable and occasionally capable of corrective thinking.

Picking up on your last paragraph, I've read that meteorologists (weather persons) are usually the highest paid members of broadcast teams.

your crackpot theory is fundamentally flawed

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/flowing-from-hot-to-cold-the-second-law-of-thermod.html

Thanks so much Fredski. Are you familiar with equilibrium conditions? In the clouds there are millions of droplets and lots of water vapor. They are in a kind of equilibrium. But the water vapor is rising (because it is light and the droplets are falling because they are heavy. Meanwhile, the dry air molecules are just sitting there being warmed or cooled depending on how the 2 phases interact. Simply stated, the water vapor (lighter than air) is rising and condensing and releasing energy when it condenses, while the droplets (heavier than air) are falling and evaporating (absorbing energy) as they fall... So, within the cloud you have a coupled system. You have droplets falling at about 1 cm per second coupled with moist air rising at (average) 1 cm per second. What are the dry air molecules doing as all this happens? They are rising too. They are being propelled by the condensation/evaporation events that are happening all around them. This is all quite thermodynamically legal. The cloud contains heat acceptors and heat donors and the fact that they form and reform at slightly different heights causes it to pump air.

It's the heat in the ocean that is causing that, literally from the sun and from geothermal somewhere down there.

Some says, it's from Alaska.

"Cloud is moving in this direction. Perhaps it is moving slightly faster than the wind?"

No. A cloud is not an object and it can't move with respect to the air. It is just air which is made visible due to the water droplets in it.

When the water vapor condenses to form droplets, it releases heat of vaporization, which heats the surrounding air causing it to become less dense (lighter), causing it to rise. When the water droplets coalesce and become large enough that the surrounding air cannot support them, they begin to fall as rain. As they fall, they drag the surrounding air with them causing a downdraft. The combination of falling rain and rising condensing vapor form the convection cell of a thundercloud.

The rising air will cause wind at ground level to blow toward the storm to replace it. The downdraft from the rain will cause the wind at ground level to flow away from the storm. The cloud itself will be stationary with respect to the air mass, so if there is a prevailing wind aloft, the cloud will move with it.

"No. A cloud is not an object and it can't move with respect to the air. It is just air which is made visible due to the water droplets in it." You need to rethink this, a cloud is an area of phase transition. As such it is similar to ice on water or on a windowpane. Just as the ice front moves while the water melts or freezes, the cloud will move too without any water movement. You have this clearly when planes break the sound barrier or when a volcano erupts, The shock wave from some volcanoes is an expanding thin dome of cloud that materializes and disappears almost as quick as it was produced. And if you look at my diagram, the air has to move to replace the air pumped up by the cloud. In this case, the cloud (condensation and evaporation events coupled together) is causing this new air movement.

It might be helpful to think of a cloud as a process, like a candle flame. Everything in the flame is moving upward, but the flame stays in one place.

I have seen clouds parked over a mountain near my home. The winds keep blowing up the side of the mountain, and down the other side but the cloud stays over the mountain. The reason is that the water vapor condenses as the air rises, and is carried over the mountain as droplets, and then they evaporate again when they come back down to a lower altitude. That is, everything in the cloud is moving over the mountain, but the cloud remains in one place.

So it is possible that a cloud is not moving at the same speed as the wind.

Interesting observation. Do you suppose the cloud helps or hinders the wind as it goes over the mountain? I think they generally drop at least some rain some of the time as they do this. Is the dropping of moisture (Slight loss of volume and mass) combined with warming of the rest of the cloud (expansion and density reduction) enough to help the air "over the hump"? The air having lost energy by the time it reaches the top of the mountain before tumbling down and getting warmer as it does so. Thanks Brian.

I expect that in the rising air, the condensation results in a release of heat that expands the air, on one hand, and a contraction of the volume of the air due to the lower volume of the water on the other hand. My understanding is that the latter is much less of a factor than the former, so you should have a positive feedback system that helps the air rise.

Then as the air descends, the effect should kick into reverse with the droplets evaporating and cooling the air, aiding the air to sink, as long as the droplets are tiny and don't start raining out of the cloud.

You may also have seen those small clouds that form over small hills and rises in an otherwise level plain. Seen from afar, you would never realize that they are located above a geological feature. I can't remember the name for them.

Whether any rain is dropped depends on the size of the droplets, vertical wind speed, height of the mountain, etc. It all depends on the conditions.

"I can't remember the name for them."

They are called clouds.

:lenticular

Thanks Tornado. I didn't see your answer before I posted.

Thanks Lyn. I knew I could count on you.

Took me a little search but The Google Knows All: They're called lenticular clouds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenticular_cloud

They are called far away clouds. Pay attention!

I called them "seen from afar" which I think is close enough. Wherever Afar is.

Not to dispute your comment, I think you summed up the situation in your last sentence, "It all depends on the conditions".

The simplest example of this is, despite all of the information gathered, the exact path of a hurricane cannot be predicted.

But the air is still moving through the cloud. It is just that the conditions for the droplets to form is given at this mountain but even the vapour will move on and new droplets will form unless the cloud is building up and gets bigger, which is why it rains on mountains, right?

Judging by the wind at the top of this mountain, the velocity of the wind is probably too fast for the droplets to actually fall down, in this case. So yes, the vapor will move on, and new droplets will form.

In this case, not much actual rain falls on this mountain when it is covered by a cloud. At the top it feels like a moderately fast wind filled with fog, so things get damp, but usually not much rain unless there is an actual rainstorm passing through. If this were a higher mountain, then you would get a lot of rain on the windward side, like in the Sierras.

Yes!!

Although the attached image is that of a sandstorm blowing west off Africa, the mechanism for hurricanes is quite similar.

Warm dry air from Africa blows westward over the ocean where it picks up moisture from the ocean, and if conditions are right forms a tropical depression.

Once again if conditions are right the depression picks up more energy, begins to to form that "pinwheel" shape due to the rotation of the Earth.

If the system continues to pick up energy, and moisture, it MAY reach the parameters which define a hurricane.

I've simplified a complex process with many variables, some of which we may not even be aware of.

No doubt it is a complex process. Do you have satellite timelapse of it so we can see the lower and upper layer effects? The hurricane process in my video clearly shows the hurricane sucking water up high enough so that it gets blown away in the next atmospheric layer. People will say, NO! the upper air is sucking the cloud up, but there is a problem. Where is the power source? Clouds have an easily identified power source, condensation. It is massive and the energy is released pretty suddenly, right up there in the sky.

I do not get what you want to achieve here.

The egg was first, the rain is there also without hurricane. End of story.

I watched the feed and stopped half way in between. Too long, not to the point.

What do you want to achieve? Want to throw over the understanding of clouds, rain and storms?

If you want to prove a point make it short and decisive.

Why do I have the feeling that after you "prove" the mechanics of a hurricane you want to come up with an idea to avoid it, use it or change it.

But who can stop the rain?

And then I would never come to the point to think that clouds have a mind of themselves and actively do something like you suggest.

Well, you at least got half way. I'm not sure why you feel entitled to comment when you only have half the information. "If you want to prove a point make it short and decisive" said the student to the teacher. Why does the student presume they can pass the course if they only look at half the material? The subject matter is somewhat complicated and I think you are damn lucky that I got it that compressed. I point out things that happen during hurricanes, during the video. I point out why I think they happen that way. Feel free to suggest other causes for the effects I show, if you like.

Lets just say I made an effort and come to the point where you say that a cubic meter of air weights about a kilogram. This is where I stopped again.

You better have your facts right if you want to be taken serious.

If the density is important for what you are trying to say you might want to review this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air

I said density at 10,000 ft, as far as I remember. Its pretty close to spot on.

See screen shot below somewhere. No mention of 10000 ft. Don't want to be pedantic but you should write what you do say.

I still do not understand where you are going with this. Clouds have no active sense of direction, they are not conscious, they are clouds.

So what do you want to get across as a message? That the current understanding is incomplete?

Rain is not causing a hurricane but a hurricane comes with rain.

Your explanation seems not to be able to explain the spinning of the air. You only explain the up and downs.

Are you working on a hurricane avoidance system? I hear the mangroves need a good storm to spread and create offspring.

Interesting thread. part of the problem in the analysis is taking the term "observation" too literally; i.e., things that we can see vs things that take place, as in we can see the clouds forming. Unfortunately that is only one measure, there are also changes in barometric pressure, temperature, relative humidity, even electric charge, heating from the sun, etc. that require instrumentation to observe and record. Relying strictly upon our vision's limited spectrum of observability severely curtails our ability to analyze what is happening.

Your disdain for modelers is short-sighted, people who produce the models are driven by the desire to mimic nature as closely as possibly, and that only happens with a totally in depth understanding of the physics and processes of the phenomena. Where the problem occurs is when sophisticated codes are manipulated by by users who do not fully understand their underlying basis. For example I could use a simulation for kidney transplant surgery, but I can assure you the outcome would not particularly successful; it's the old GIGO problem that plagues any uneducated application of an algorithm whose use requires a strong analytic basis.

I haven't read the whole thread so I apologise if someone else has already pointed this out.

I only got this far through the video:-

This is so clearly wrong that it invalidates anything else you say.

Think about the volume of the half gram of water droplets: what volume of air needs to rise to allow this volume of water to descend?

Not sure what you think is wrong, a mole of air is 22.4 liters. Weighs almost 30 grams. 30/22.4 = 1.33grams per liter. Multiply by a thousand for a cubic meter. (And take off a few hundred grams for elevation). About a kilo Now, you have a problem with with the other concept? How can you get droplets falling at 1 cm per second to appear stationary? How about air rising at the same speed? Yeah, that might work. Please do tell? What have I done that is so clearly wrong?

So in the screenshot where does it say at 10000 ft?

OK I get it now: when you say FALLiNG at 1cm per second: you mean moving down relative to the air at 1 cm per second, but, in fact remaining at the same height relative to sea level.

If it is not moving how does it pump the air up then?

Something does not make sense here.

Maybe its oscillating .....?

Been thinking!

I am pretty sure if we consider that the up stream of air keeps the drops in position then the drops cannot create a pumping effect by falling down.

I think that pumping scheme is falling flat on its belly. Give that wind is driven by a pressure difference I think this is the main force behind it all.

Air is passing through clouds or clouds run with the air stream as it sees fit.

Hurricane comes with rain.

Hi, I did explain this part a bit wrong. I hope this clarifies. Condensation occurs, energy is released. Expansion occurs up there in the atmosphere. Everyone agrees (pretty much). The role of the droplets falling down is to enhance the up and down motions of the cloud. If they were in a gravity free environment, the expansion would be in all directions. But, because they are falling more generally down, and absorbing energy as they fall AND re-evaporating below as more light water vapor, (molecular weight 18), they continue to make the cloud rise. Think of the falling (evaporating) droplets as energy acceptors, whereas the air and water vapor particles are accepting energy and simply rising because of it, the droplets are absorbing energy (from all around them) and taking it in the other direction. Once the droplet re-evaporates entirely, it might have only fallen down for a meter or 2 but it has also changed the density of that air, just a meter or 2 down, and made it lighter. This water vaporvladen air can now rise again and help lift the cloud up further and will condense again as it rises. So the water vapor has been recycled but it has lifted the surrounding air up higher as the recycling happened. There is this little duality all through the cloud, condensation is happening (on average) just a little bit higher up than evaporation, all the way from bottom to top. This holds in much of the energy of condensation and converts it to motion to "lift" air up through the cloud. And it can be powerful enough to "punch" a hole up into the next layer of the atmosphere. (Very apparent in the NASA video, over Florida, part of Mexico, and over Cuba late in the day and over the Hurricane) This kind of powerful "pumping" cannot happen in dry air. For one thing, the ground heats up straight away, and radiates much of the energy off into the sky (no cloud). Only a tiny portion is left for convection, which will be weak and generalized over a wide area, there is no "punch" to it. The convection ends pretty much at sundown, and this dry air sends its energy away (as radiation again) really quick, contracts and falls back down. So, clouds are make or break for atmospheric dynamics. The little thing I described might be the "evaporative force" that Gorshkov & Makarieva speak of and describe mathematically in their peer reviewed biotic pump papers. The big problem for G & M is that almost nobody else in the field understands the math.

There have been lots of interesting replies and what I have to say is probably buried amongst them, but it could help if i filled in a few gaps - and using round figures to aid mental arithmetic.

Start with the molecular weight of air which is 29, and the molecular weight of water which is 19 - yes! much lighter then air (that I have found counter-intuitive amongst most people).

Molecules of air and water vapour will mix, with a molecular weight somewhere between 19 and 29, to fill the volume available depending on the temperature and pressure (it is a complex calculation that weather forecast offices with multi-million pound computers get wrong).

In this instance we start with the pressure of the atmosphere at ground level - and temperature - which is usually the earth or water surface temperature.

Now consider a unit volume of air over the desert - it will be dry and weigh a little less than 29 units. Compare this to a unit volume of air over the ocean that will weigh a lot less than 29.

The wet ocean air being much lighter (especially if much warmer) will rise above adjacent heavier dry air - seen on an isobar map as low pressure - and having risen - will drag in dry air to replace it.

In rising, the wet air expands due to decreasing pressure (the effect of gravity on the whole atmosphere) - where the bulk of the energy to expand comes from the latent heat of water vapour that is released when vapour condenses, accompanied by a drop in temperature to become liquid, that appears as mist or fog (as clouds) or falling to ground as rain, hail, sleet and snow.

Meanwhile at ground level, because the atmosphere moves with the earth at the same speed, such that on a calm day, the air at the equator will have a peripheral speed of 1,000 mph through space, where due to momentum, it will still be moving at 1,000 mph and try to 'overtake' the earth when it moves north, in the northern hemisphere, appearing as a wind to the east.

Similarly air from the north pole, with a peripheral speed of 'zero', will get left behind by the earth as it moves south, and appears as wind to the west.

This sets up an anticlockwise spinning motion in the low pressure area in the northern hemisphere - and add to the warm winds at ground level rushing in violently to the fed the huge low pressure funnel as in a hurricane.

To recap, it happens because water molecules are lighter than air molecules.

They will rise, lose heat due to expansion, condense and fall as rain. Setting up a vertical rotary motion. A supply of warm wet air provides the energy. And the speed of the earth provides momentum to feed the horizontal motion.

Your drawing and theory is a bit flawed.

The reason that the top of some cloud formations lead the bottom structure is due to the upper atmosphere wind pulling and pushing the lighter, drier top(s) of the clouds in the direction of wind flow while the heavier, moisture laden bottom(s) of the clouds suffer from drag induced by the close proximity to the earth's surface.

Ever notice how clouds get "stuck" on the top of high elevation mountain peaks?

Ever notice how much harder/faster the wind blows on the plains than it does across uneven and mountainous terrain?

In my opinion the new storm cloud theory being pushed is an argument that closely resemble the electron "hole" flow theory verses conduction band electron flow theory.

Both theories can be used to explain an electrical current flow event however one theory is based on movement of the vacancy (hole with a value of "zero") that is left by the movement of a tangible, moving object rather than to stick with measuring the actual quantity of tangible moving electrons that do all work accomplished by/in a circuit.

It is just an new arbitrary, argumentative, self-serving method adopted by those that decided to disrupt acceptance of a proven way used to teach or explain a scientific phenomenon.

It does not improve on the solution nor does it reveal new knowledge rather it is just a new way of performing an analysis or explaining an existing phenomonon.

There is large quantity of information on this subject that has been gathered by tornado and hurricane storm chasers.

So far all DATA gathered on weather events facilitates reactive, not proactive or preventative measures because just like gravity, we as humans do not yet have the intelligence or knowledge to fully understand exactly what is happening much less what is controlling the forces at play.

It is not in mankind's best interest to ever give up on studying and questioning scientific methods.

However; I believe we waste way too much valuable time and money developing new theories and different ways to execute measurements that do not improve anything and instead are just driven by someone's egotistical need to come up with a new way to do or explain the same old thing.

We can have clouds without rain or precipitation but we cannot have rain or other precipitation without clouds.

Are the forces within the storm event reactive with each other? Of course otherwise when an event starts it could/would never end.

My opinion and $1.00 will buy a cup of coffee in some restaurants.

"It is just an new arbitrary, argumentative, self-serving method adopted by those that decided to disrupt acceptance of a proven way used to teach or explain a scientific phenomenon". It is not self serving for me. Look at all the stick I am getting here! Agreed that the current method explains a scientific phenomenon. But I am concerned that the stuff they left out (that air that goes into the next layer of the atmosphere) is extremely important. I think it is crucial to understanding why hurricanes end up spinning so fast with such crazy power. And that whole thing about the water droplets evaporating as they fall, to keep the updraft going, is extremely important. If anyone looks at the video, I show that the cumulus clouds over Cuba, Mexico and Forida send air up into the next layer. So vertical movement of air from high pressure to lower pressure, with phase transition of water increasing the flow. In a spinning hurricane, that "vertical movement" from high to low is tipped to the side, Fairly high pressure moist air is passing through the clouds into the low pressure band, being stripped of its water as it does so going with the air movement at something like a 45 degree angle up and towards the center and because of the spinning the air is spiraling up and the pressure is lower. The lower pressure in some of the bands , and the winds making waves high enough for salt spray means that the rain will not stop. The chief problem in a hurricane is that even with too many condensation nuclei, (too many nuclei usually produce too many droplets and they cannot grow to raindrop size) the winds are so strong that they cause even too tiny droplets to hit each other and produce raindrops. As long as it continues to produce raindrops, the conveyor belt of evaporation and rainfall continues, and pulls the spiral of the hurricane tighter.

If you want to prove your thesis or theory then you must welcome all feedback not just that which agrees with your opinion.

The only way one discovers they are wrong and improves their knowledge is by listening to criticism (good or bad) then re-examining the points brought up for validity and correctness.

Failing to follow this method yields self-serving opinions rather than valuable knowledge that benefits everyone involved in the argument.

If your hypothesis will not stand up to intense criticism then it must have flaws.

"And that whole thing about the water droplets evaporating as they fall, to keep the updraft going, is extremely important."

My WAG on this is:

Water droplets evaporate due to heat and lack of moisture in the surrounding updraft air flow.

If the updraft air flow is already saturated with moisture the falling droplets from the clouds are not evaporated and instead fall to the ground or water surface.

Rotation occurs due to "wind shear" caused by two or more moving air masses colliding.

The rotational speed is determined by/defined by the difference in pressure between the colliding air masses which in turn is directly related to the difference in temperature between air masses.

This is no different than with tornadoes and waterspouts.

Once the rotation starts in motion it feeds off whatever heat energy and air movement is available from the immediate area it occupies.

The more heat energy available at the bottom of the cloud formation(s), the more intense the storm rotation.

As the storm moves it absorbs the available energy in it's path.

Low energy => Mild storm

High energy => Severe storm.

Ever notice that the energy in a hurricane usually dissipates quickly when the storm center moves inland? Ever wonder why?

We have made great strides in understanding storm mechanisms but we are a long way from fully understanding everything involved that affects intensity, direction, wind speed, and footprint size.

I will stick with Einstein's opinion in that we as humans do not yet have the intellect to understand all the forces at play in our universe.

Whatever you do please do not get frustrated or discouraged when questioned or challenged.

Instead accept the information/opinion for what it is, carefully reconsider the topic in question/disagreement, test your hypothesis against known, proven standards, then re-evaluate your position and adjust accordingly then restate your argument noting the corrections.

Solutions to our world issues will come from those such as yourself questioning the "status quo" theories so keep up the good work.

Thank you for your patience with me and for your excellent effort in explaining your theory.

It rained here today. There was no hurricane.

What's wrong?

If gaiatechnician is right, then rain is necessary but not sufficient for a hurricane.

Thanks for all the comments, consensus seems to be that it is not something to pursue further and people are happy enough with the prevailing wisdom and at least slightly annoyed at this way of thinking about it. I did have it on google plus science too and people gave many pluses to a couple of posts about the idea. Seems to have been a kind of follow the crowd copy cat thing, felt good for a while, but behind all that, there was zero real interest. (I gave up being on Care2 because people awarded me points for posts without ever watching the links, total herd instinct, it was just such fake "feel good" crap). Anyway, thanks for the hard nosed approach. It is probably too "multi discipline" for people to appreciate. The cloud on the mountain is perhaps the gem here. Will have to think about if the cloud helps the wind get over the hump or if it slows it down. Maybe there is dry day/humid day wind speed info that shows the difference. Dry day, no cloud versus humid day cloud day. I just find this an interesting problem. The diagram from the first post is a little bit similar to the "donut airship analogy" from earlier, but just turned on its side. Bet in the end, that I am at least partly right. Hopefully, I will be around to see the proof, years into the future. Thanks Brian.

I think the problem is that if you want any credibility for your work you must present it to a credible audience.

Not that the people here are scum, but there are established processes for presenting scientific work that have existed for centuries.

Your work needs to be well executed and presented to a scholarly journal such as Nature before you can expect anyone to take it seriously.

If you lack the scientific credentials to do that, then you need to partner with someone that does have those credentials. An accredited university is the place to start.

If you do anything else you might just as well beat your head against a stone wall. I might argue that the wall would be the more humane thing.

OP probably HAS banged his head against a stone wall.

He's a stone mason.

And your occupation? Job...... Snob? You have not exactly contributed anything to this thread. Just insults. And now we find out that climate models routinely leave the effects of clouds out of their calculations altogether. That is mindbogglingly stupid. So it looks like your climate gods know as much about cloud dynamics as I do. And all you smart people. Here is a question, if the genius climate modelers cannot do the math, with huge amounts of computer time, what makes you think I can? But I can look at the diagrams they put up on the net in university climate teaching courses and say. "Hang on, that diagram of a cloud has left a heck of a lot out!" From what I did, the modelers could actually make a primitive input to their models based on reality, (fits in with the NASA timelapse). Nobody sane would leave out inputs as important as clouds. You have to go with something. But even with nothing at all to represent the clouds in their models, not even the invisible man, you guys still look up to the climate modelers and meteorologists like they are gods. This is science as a monolithic religion. It is all about faith. Not likely to change. I bet you can all think, but only if you drop that religion. The stuff you believe is nonsense, the priests of your cult even say so, but you still believe! Faith sickness. http://phys.org/news/2016-01-clouds-impact-el-nino-thought.html

You don't need a consensus from people who are in the habit of tearing apart anything presented here. That's just the culture of this site. If nobody has said anything that actually disproves your ideas, I think you should keep pursuing it, and offhand I did not see any comments that affect them much. If you are able to help expand the understanding of what is happening in a storm or hurricane, that is valuable knowledge. It could be like adding the concept of current to the concept of voltage.

One problem for anyone working outside a field as an amateur is that you may not have access to the latest research and can't really discuss your ideas with the experts. I don't have a solution for that, because without you being really current in the field most experts will not want to spend time bringing you up to speed. Maybe you could contact a meteorologist who specializes in water vapor dynamics to get a list of books and recent research for you to find out what the current state of the art is, and then study up on what exactly is known and unknown about what you are proposing. Warning: There will be math!

It may be that what you are proposing has already been thoroughly debunked, or it is already well known but is only an insignificant part of the dynamics of storms, or it has never been thought of. With luck, you are the first to have realized how some part of this process works. If so, then maybe you can try to get someone who models storms in a computer to include your proposals to see if they improve the models.

I think the cloud on the mountain is likely just an extreme form of a lenticular cloud. A cloud that remains stationary over a feature that causes wind to ascend or causes turbulence might be exactly the phenomenon you are talking about. The energy is released by condensation and then almost immediately reabsorbed by evaporation. There must be lots of research on that. On the other hand, I would expect that meteorologists already account for where the energy in hurricanes is coming from, and it seems unlikely that they have neglected the heat of condensation released when the water vapor condenses.

I think I have learned a lot about this topic because of the discussion. I don't really understand the bit about a storm ejecting cool air at the base of the storm and behind it, but maybe that's why the air feels so wonderful after a summer storm has passed. It is almost like the reverse of a forest fire. The fuel is all the warm moist air in front of it (instead of dry wood), it goes through a process of triggering the release of energy (by condensing water vapor into droplets) which feeds the process, and it leaves behind the used-up fuel in the form of rain (instead of ash and smoke). Once the rain hits the ground it leaves the process and will not be available to evaporate and reabsorb the energy it previously released. And maybe, as I think you say, the storm moves forward the same way a forest fire moves, not by being carried by the wind, but by triggering an energy release (condensation/fire) in the adjacent fuel (moist air/dry wood). (Is that what you said?) But I'm no meteorologist, so maybe that is all just "Introduction to the Summer Storm 101."

However, you need to redo that video. It is hard to listen to, and way too long for the amount of information you're trying to get across. Use the old formula, "Tell them what you are about to tell them, tell them, and then tell them what you told them." Use better graphics and explain them better. Explain what is already known and what parts are your innovation. If you can, try showing it to a child or teen to see if they can follow it and don't get bored or confused.

Good luck. I'd like to hear more about what you do with this. I hope you post your progress here in the future.

"You don't need a consensus from people who are in the habit of tearing apart anything presented here."

I would argue differently. You do need consensus and poking holes in a theory or hypothesis is exactly what engineers and scientists do. It's called the scientific method.

His argument rests on the biotic pump theory, which is highly contested and not accepted by mainstream science.

The usual response to that is that mainstream science must be wrong. While it is possible the the majority of learned individuals are wrong, the probability is more likely they are not.

Still, the presenter is left with doing their homework, or more specifically, research. It's little different than preparing a thesis for a PhD. All the T's need to be crossed and the I's dotted, which also means a full set of references should be presented.

This presentation is nowhere near that state.

You're absolutely right that picking holes is what engineers and scientists do, and that is the scientific method. But you don't expect consensus right away, in the beginning of the research, and you may not ever get unanimity. Some people go to their graves never admitting that a new discovery, like evolution, the heliocentric solar system, relativity (or global warming) is valid. Consensus comes later, if ever.

The book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Kuhn says that often the acceptance of a new theory, no matter how valid, may depend on the defenders of the old theory dying off.

Gaiatechnician should not expect consensus now, and if all the comments here don't succeed in demolishing it, then that is a very positive step all by itself.

The rest of what you say is right on. He has to do his homework, prove it, persuade others, and his presentation is nowhere near that state.

Consensus is simply a general agreement, which is not an absolute agreement. If 9 out of 10 doctors agree on something you can pretty well say have a consensus.

Gaiatechnician hasn't presented his thesis in a disciplined way. How would you expect anyone to take it seriously if otherwise? Junior High School science class wouldn't accept that presentation. You need to show due diligence in your efforts to make a compelling argument.

Gaiatechnician may feel like he has been beaten on and he should. However, if his convictions are strong enough he can use this beating as a lesson and learn from it.

You're right, and your last sentence is exactly what I am getting at. If he is right and his convictions are strong, then even if he has been beaten on here he can use it as a lesson and go on. Finding agreement here is not necessary, as long as nobody has actually disproven his ideas. Presenting an idea here is more like running a gauntlet than persuading everyone to come to agreement. If the idea survives, he wins.

Hello Anonymous H. Nappy New Year to you and everybody else who reads this.

I might be a bit OT but I have picked up on a point you made that relates to a bone of contention with me for a few years on a committee driven by consensus building decisions. Where consensus has been interpreted to mean a majority which then is used as a means to ignore the minority.

You say.... "Consensus is simply a general agreement, which is not an absolute agreement. If 9 out of 10 doctors agree on something you can pretty well say have a consensus.".

I would not argue with your general view, other than to say consensus implies full agreement - not necessarily 100% on the point in question, but on a unanimous collective decision that all agree with on a point of making progress.

For this reason, I would like to add a little proviso to your statement.

...but real consensus will only be achieved if all the concerns of the dissenting voice are taken into account when making a decision.

In your example say, 9 doctors agree on surgical treatment with the 10th saying no, but nevertheless allowing the decision to pass without dissent, then going ahead with an operation could be construed as a consensus decision.

If however, the dissenting doctored registered a protest, but 9 doctors agreed to go ahead with surgery anyway, then a consensus decision would not have been achieved because all 10 did not agree to that course of treatment.

It's the black and white thing. 9 out of 10 say black - 1 says white. So it's black! but that is not consensus just because the majority agree. To achieve consensus, every effort must be made to find a decision that all agree with. Hence dark grey might receive 10 votes.

As disappointing as it may have seemed, I think you should consider all of the comments offered in this forum as helpful, even if at times it seemed as if your theory was being dismissed.

The most important thing to remember is that even the dismissive comments (some of mine included) were meant in a constructive attitude.

While some of your premise was questioned, nobody and showed downright disdain for your hypothesis.

"Whatever you do please do not get frustrated or discouraged when questioned or challenged."

Come back with more comprehensive data and better presentation, and you may be thankful that you've presented it here.

I've come to consider CR4 to be more educational than a graduate program at any of the most prestigious college or university, and in many fields!

Hi, all, I was going to leave you guys to discuss my failings but this popped up today. For a second, I thought that April fools day had come early. But no, this is real. The team suggested that cloud data be used in climate models. What a novel idea! Who knew (that it isn't being included)? Are you still so sure those modelers can be trusted? What else are they leaving out? No wonder the models are unreliable.
The team describes the differences they found when they input cloud data into computer models that simulated weather patterns associated with El Niño' events and why they now believe that all such models should include such data going forward.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-01-clouds-impact-el-nino-thought.html#jCp

To better understand the impact of cloud formations on ENOS weather events, the researchers input cloud data into standard climate models and compared the results with models running under the same conditions without cloud data. They report that they were surprised to find that the cloud formation data caused large changes to atmospheric circulation patterns and accounted for more than half of the strength of ENOS events. They suggest their findings indicate that all future climate models include cloud data so that they can offer a better representation of real events, and thus, give better predictions.

Well, slowly but surely reality is trickling in!

With your interest you should have expected that!

I referred to the effect of the earth's rotation in my previous post #32. I could have just said 'Coriolis Effect' and saved writing half dozen paragraphs.

With the latter in mind, and a coffee-break challenge, consider a hurricane centred over the Atlantic Ocean 500 miles north of the Equator, and it moves due south at 200mph. How long will it take to reach a point centred 500 miles south of the Equator?

Hurricanes moving at 200 mph?

Wait, if hurricane leaves Boston at 9:15 AM for NYC at 50 mph and another Hurricane leaves NYC at 8:55 at 35 mph, where will they meet?

In the spirit of the occasion, please use any speed you are happy with in my question.

In answer to your question (tongue in cheek) if yours are heading towards each other on a 215 mile journey (Boston to NYC), I guess they 'connect' near Icut at 11:38am.

But if both are heading the same direction, roughly SW, then somewhere just after midnight at 12:20am. Watch out Winston Salem ....!

Except if leaving NYC at 8:55 means pm, then they meet at NYC at 14:33pm - perhaps under the Grand Central Station clock - assuming the NYC hurricane is already there waiting to depart.