Cracking the Code of Thunderstorms
At the heart thunderstorms are powered by the interplay between the thermodynamics of the air and the electrodynamics of the charges in our atmosphere.
Today we will unravel the story of how ground temperatures, layers of air stability, and the release of latent heat contribute to the orchestration of thunderstorm formation.
Simultaneously, the electrodynamics of thunderstorms invite us into the realm of charged particles, ionization, and the mysterious mechanisms that lead to the awe-inspiring lightning and thunder.
See more here youtube.com
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Joseph Olson
| #
“Science Goes Over/Under, Inside/Out” at principia-scientific > as a student pilot in 1976, I accidentally flew solo through 5,000 ft of cumulus clouds, in a Cessna 150. Each cloud contained multiple, up and down, vertical wind shear streams.
The Latent Heat change from liquid to solid creates the greatest electron releases. This is the principle behind the 1970s Stormscope by Paul Ryan.
https://www.aviationconsumer.com/avionics/strike-finder-stormscope-flyoff/
Reply
James McGinn
| #
JO:
“Science Goes Over/Under, Inside/Out” at principia-scientific > as a student pilot in 1976, I accidentally flew solo through 5,000 ft of cumulus clouds, in a Cessna 150. Each cloud contained multiple, up and down, vertical wind shear streams.
JMcG:
Anecdotal nonsense.
JO:
The Latent Heat change from liquid to solid creates the greatest electron releases.
JMcG:
Why is there no laboratory evidence that confirms this speculation? In reality, there is no such thing as latent heat. It’s like CO2 forcing. It’s just talk. Meaningless.
JO:
This is the principle behind the 1970s Stormscope by Paul Ryan.
LOL. So now it’s a principle? Surreal.
James McGinn / Genius
Here is a link to my website that provides an alternate hypothesis to Olson’s speculation:
http://www.solvingtornadoes.com
Reply
Joseph Olson
| #
Maybe you should take a refrigeration course sometime
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Is that where you got this latent heat nonsense?
Here are the facts. “latent heat of condensation is superstition, not unlike CO2 Forcing. Water never becomes gaseous in earths atmosphere. The invisibility of clear, moist air is not evidence of gaseous H2O therein. There is no phase change from gas to liquid in earth’s atmosphere–ever! If there was such a phase change the effect would be the opposite of what you predict, it would produce cooling, not heating (this is due to the fact that the heat capacity of H2O is low as a gas and high as a liquid).
Water’s role in the atmosphere is due to the surface tension properties of H2O which enable the emergence of vortices which are the conduits of flow in earth’s atmosphere.
Over the course of their existence vortices exhaust into the flow of the jet streams. This explains how jet streams maintain their momentum (explaining something your model just avoids) and it also explains how vortices are the mechanism that delivers the low pressure energy to the location of storms.
Just like a climate alarmist, you won’t discuss/debate the details of your beliefs because you are concealing your confusion.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Note how strongly conservatives maintain their superstition, all the while criticizing liberals for the same.
James McGinn
| #
JO:
Maybe you should take a refrigeration course sometime
JMcG:
Vague nitwit.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Joseph,
Years ago I read your described of you adventure which seems to be generally explained in the video. I went to your link but didn’t find anything related to the information of the video. While the purpose of this comment is to see if you can direct me to its source
Have a good day
Reply
Joseph Olson
| #
I was at 7,000 ft with 50% broken cumulus, ceiling at 2,000 ft. The clouds were about a mile thick and impossible to circle around. I hit the first one, lost all visual reference, like in a bowl of milk. The next cloud was darker, raindrops larger and vertical windshear more pronounced. A minute of marble sized rain from above, followed by a minute of marble sized rain from below. When I exited the bottom, I could see the drops hovering on the bottom of the clouds, then lifting back inside. The solar facing side had visible evaporation constantly.
I’ve looked at clouds from both sides now. It’s clouds illusions you recall, until you’ve been alone inside a series of clouds
Reply
James McGinn
| #
JO:
until you’ve been alone inside a series of clouds
JMcG:
Why do you keep posting this same anecdote over and over? What is your point? We are not mind readers. Thousands of other pilots have had similar anecdotes. Do you think your experience is unique, special? Explain why.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
How did they get so much bad information into such a short video?
Reply
James McGinn
| #
This is what happens when everybody is confused. Pseudo-experts start generating speculation. Over time assertions evolve into pseudo-principles. Half-baked models more and more come to resemble scientific truth. Certainty is manufactured. Uncertainty is discarded as inconvenient.
People who think global warming hysteria was unprecedented are unaware of Meteorology’s storm theory propaganda.
Numerous statements in this video are expressed as certainty but they actually are not certain, they are just popular. Amateurs are unable to distinguish between what is popular from what is certain.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Chris*
| #
Lightning, smashes diatomic molecules O2 and N to form NOx’s. These are bought to the earth via rain to add nitrogen to the soil. NOx’s also reflect blue light. The sky is always a cleaner blue colour after a good thunderstorm.
Reply
MattH
| #
To what ratio does lightning smash O2 into ozone compared to NO (nitrous oxide) molecule formation?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt,
NO and O3 are created when an oxygen atom collides with a N2 or O2 molecule so the ratio is 4 parts NO to 1 part O3, same as the ratio of N2 to O2.
Also NOs do not reflect blue light, they are transparent to visible light. Rain (not just thunderstorms) remove particles and CO2 (fresh smell) from the atmosphere> The blue color of the sky is a result of N2 and O2 (there is very little NO in the troposphere) absorbing UV light and emitting it at a longer wavelength (violet not blue). The fact that the sky is bluer after rain debunks the contention that the blue color is a result of scattering by particles.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James and Herb,
You two consistently claim most others, including Nobel Prize Winners, are totally wrong about the scientific ideas they have concluded because of their scholarship in addition to the scholarship of other respected scientists. How is it that it seems you both don’t report here at PSI your, or that of others, experimental results which form the foundation of your unique reasonings?
Have a good day
Reply
James Bernard McGinn
| #
Jerry,
You don’t have cogent arguments. You dilly dally around with half-baked assertions and flowery rhetoric using text book writers as your authority. I don’t have the time or energy to teach you how to think like a scientists.
James McGinn
Reply