fAQ Page

From what we’ve read so far, we know that warmer air has more kinetic energy available to do more evaporation work than cooler air… with this in mind:

Let E = 1 unit of energy

Warm Air Parcel = EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Cold Air Parcel = EEEEEEEEEE

30% of the warm air parcel’s energy = EEEEEEEEEEEE

whereas, 30% of the cool air parcel’s energy = EEE

So even though both have a RH of 30%, that 30% doesn’t represent the same number of energy units (calories or BTUs).

Another way to put it:

If a WARM AIR PARCEL = 100 calories of energy
And if a COOL AIR PARCEL = 20 calories of energy
Then, 30% of the warm air parcel’s energy = 30 calories of energy
And, 30% of the cool air parcel’s energy = 6 calories of energy

 From longest to shortest you have the following: Radio waves, Microwaves, Infrared, Visible light 
(Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, Violet), Ultraviolet, X-Ray, and Gamma Ray. 
Ultraviolet to Gamma are considered to be ionizing radiation, which is another way of saying BIOHAZARDOUS WAVELENGTHS! Some folks may lump microwaves in with radio waves, 
or they'll lump indigo and violet together as just violet. The wavelengths are the same, just the names include more of the spectrum. So if your friend says her favorite color is blue, then you'll know she really likes a high-frequency green.

Water vapor and carbon dioxide absorb IR (Infrared) wavelengths, and an abundance of these two gases are found right here in the troposphere. IR wavelengths are what we associate with heat -- heat is actually 
mechanical energy at the molecular level (motion) -- the atmosphere is 
consequently heated from the ground up. If there is more water vapor and carbon dioxide present, then more IR can be absorbed resulting in Earth being heated from the lower troposphere. A large portion of Earth's heating occurs from our own atmosphere rather than directly from the Sun.

The more solar radiation received, the more Earth has to convert to IR. And the more IR and 
greenhouse gases present, the more potential for heat we have.

Much of the UV radiation from the Sun is absorbed by ozone molecules in the stratosphere. The rest of the solar radiation (some UV included but mostly visible light) continues into the troposphere where approximately 20% is reflected and scattered by clouds, 6% is reflected and scattered by 
atmospheric molecules, and 4% is reflected and scattered by Earth's surface (mainly oceans, 
and snow covered areas), and .00000000000000000000001% is reflected by bald guys with shiny domes 
(just kidding about the bald guy part). Another 19% is absorbed by the atmosphere and clouds, and the remaining 51% is absorbed by Earth's surface. **These percentages are averages** 

Key Point: The energy absorbed by Earth is NOT re-radiated, or trapped by 
greenhouse gases that act as "blankets" causing Earth to overheat!

When our atmosphere emits radiation, it is not the same radiation -- which ceased to exist upon being absorbed by our atmosphere -- as it received. The radiation absorbed and the radiation emitted do not have the same spectrum, nor do they have the same photons.  The radiation absorbed ceases to exist by definition, thus making the term reradiate a nonsense term that some dictionaries don't bother to define for obvious reasons, and 
those that do are, I believe, at fault. Ignore Bif Sundance the weather dude on TV when he tries to mystify you with the "blanket" in the sky that "rereradiates" heat energy causing global warming... His physics are rusty at best!

The greenhouse effect is actually energy being absorbed by "greenhouse" gases, converted, emitted at longer wavelengths (IR which we associate with heat) and being absorbed again. This natural process keeps our planet from freezing over and putting the penguins back in power.

With each conversion, energy is lost. If it weren't we'd have a perfectly 
efficient system; an impossibility as demonstrated by my car. It would defy the laws of thermodynamics, and if possible would probably be termed re-radiation or something ridiculous like that! The temperature we feel is the 
result of a combination of emitted radiation, absorption, conversion, and emitted radiation at 
longer IR wavelengths. It is NOT the result of trapped and reradiated heat energy.

Furthermore, the comparison of our atmosphere to a greenhouse is misleading too. Once you've 
shut the door on an actual greenhouse it becomes a closed system that ultimately suppresses 
convection. Warm air just stagnates. Good for whatever you've got growing in there, but bad if you decided to live in there.

On the other hand, our atmosphere facilitates convection, and in fact, we wouldn't enjoy much 
weather if it lacked the ability to be convective. Without convection life would hate life. Convection 
allows for cooler air to come in, and warmer air to move out so that Earth doesn't get stagnant systems 
and overheat. Precipitation would no longer occur, clouds would not form, and meteorologists would be unemployed without convection!

There is no correlation between a greenhouse and our planet. The processes involved in each do not parallel each other. For simplicity the greenhouse effect is explained with terms like "trap", "reradiate", "blanket", and... well, "greenhouse". A point gets across but it misses its target. So when you hear analogous terms and descriptions trying to explain something in weather, get suspicious immediately! :)

"It is like trying to reduce the fraction, 19 / 95, by imagining that you can cancel the 9s. The right 
answer ensues, but for the wrong reason." 
-Alistair B. Fraser

Well, because everyone knows distance conversions using the U.S. Customary System! It's really, 
really easy... 12 inches makes a foot, 3 feet to a yard, which is the distance from King Henry I's 
nose tip to the end of his fat thumb, 5.5 yards to a rod, and 320 rods to a mile, unless of course it's 
a nautical mile in which case there are 368.32 rods which isn't the same as a statute mile. If we 
know this, then we also know that volume is just as easy to remember! You know, 12 cubic inches 
to a cubic foot, 27 cubic feet to a cubic yard, blah, blah, blah... But wait! That was too easy, so we 
have more for our learning pleasure! There is a half quart in a pint, 2 pints in a quart, 8 quarts in a 
peck, and 4 pecks in a bushel. And as we know, we can only use pecks and bushels when 
measuring a non-liquid volume. And since we know that, we probably know that a half quart or a 
pint of sand is 33.6 cubic inches, but a half quart or pint of water is 28.875 cubic inches. To keep 
things simple, we'll just apply gallons and barrels to liquid volumes only, in which case there are 4 
quarts in a gallon, and 31 gallons to a barrel. Of course (as we know) a barrel could be anywhere between 31 and 42 gallons depending on usage and local laws. And this is why we leave gallons 
and barrels to liquid volume measures only, because a 37-gallon barrel of flour would be 398.6 
cubic inches more volume than a 37-gallon barrel of lemonade... duh! Don't forget that there are 3 teaspoons in a tablespoon, and 16 tablespoons to a cup, and 2 cups to a pint. Well, 2 cups in a pint 
of vinegar, but 2.33 cups in a pint of sugar, not to be confused with a cup used in football, but that's 
all common knowledge. Converting volumes in the U.S. Customary System is a cinch, so we have 
a bunch of cool, efficient, easy to remember units for weight too! We all know that there are 16 
ounces in a pound and 2,000 pound to a ton. Well, unless your talking about a long ton in which 
case there are 2,240 pounds which isn't the same as a short ton. And come to think of it, there are 
only 16 ounces in a pound as long as that pound isn't a weight value of a medicine, because if it is, 
then there are actually only 13.168 ounces in a pound. But it's easier to simply remember that there 
are 5,760 grains in a an apothecary pound, and a smooth 7,000 grains in an avoirdupois pound. 
And everyone knows there are 60 grains in a dram, unless of course its an avoirdupois dram in 
which case it would have only 27.344 grains. Now remember, this isn't much more than a scruple, 
which, as we know, is 20 grains in apothecary weight! And then there is acre-feet, not to be 
confused with an acre, which is 43,560 square feet. And since we're on the subject of area, we 
might as well note that there are 320 square rods in 1 square mile which means that there are 2 
acres for every square rod. But we knew that. And don't forget the temperature scale! Remember, 
212 degrees Fahrenheit is boiling point of fresh water at sea level, and 32 degrees Fahrenheit is 
freezing point. Nice even numbers that are easy to remember. This efficient system has withstood 
the test of time. So the next time someone mentions the number, 368.32, the first thing that will 
come to your mind is, "hey, that's how many rods are in a nautical mile!"... What a coincidence eh? You can exhale now.

Here's the MUCH MORE DIFFICULT to learn metric system: Use meters for 
distance, liters for volume, and grams for weight. Add the following prefixes to the unit your using accordingly:
Yotta- (10²⁴)
 Zetta- (10²¹)
Exa- (10¹⁸)
Peta- (10¹⁵)
Tera- (10¹²)
Giga- (10⁹)
Mega- (10⁶), 
kilo- (10³)
hecto- (10²)
deca- (10¹)
- -  UNIT (1) - - (meter, liter, gram)
deci- (10^-1)
centi- (10^-2)
milli- (10^-3)
micro- (10^-6)
nano- (10^-9)
pico- (10^-12)
femto- (10^-15)
atto- (10^-18)
zepto- (10^-21)
yocto- (10^-24)

*The answer to this question has been dipped in sarcasm to add to the delicious flavor of irony.

However, when we see this scale used on the news, it has been converted to percentages. 0.6 is 
the same as 60%, 0.45 is 45% and so on. . . So what exactly does it mean when they say there is 
a 60% chance of rain? First of all, it must be understood that this percentage refers to a specific 
forecast area. i.e.) San Fernando Valley. Second, this percentage is valid only within a specific time 
frame; usually within a 12-hour time frame. Third, it is a percentage that says that AT LEAST 0.01" 
of ppt. will fall at ANY POINT within the specific area within the next 12 hours (or whatever the 
time frame is.) Anything less than .01" of ppt is considered trace ppt, and does not fall into the 
measurable ppt category.

These two circulations meet at the equator where they both go in the same direction from east to 
west. This section of the two gyres is commonly called the Equatorial Current. At the equator,
the sun strikes Earth at a right angle twice a year. At that angle the solar radiation needs only to 
pass through one atmosphere, so there's a lot of energy input at the equator. Water is heated and is carried along eastward and is slowed against massive continental shelves of Australia and Asia's Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, etc.) 

The warm water continues to collect in the western Pacific because those big chunks of granite keep the warm waters from outflowing into the Indian Ocean with any efficiency (it's really just one ocean with several names). Warm water collects over there holding more energy in it relative to the eastern Pacific. It's like a spring being recoiled. Water in the western Pacific actually ends up becoming 20-50 cm higher than the eastern Pacific which is a sure sign of an energy imbalance.

E=mc² so we know that anything with mass has energy and with conditions outlined above, there is definitely more mass building up in the western Pacific (near Australia) than there is in the eastern Pacific (near here.) In other words, there is more energy over there than here. That energy continues to build as the equatorial current continues to provide more warm water into the western Pacific. "Energy goes from where it is to where it isn't"; Eventually the energy account in the western Pacific overpowers the energy in the Equatorial 
Current and the net result is an equatorial counter current. The energy (warm water) goes the other way! This affects winds, semi-permanent pressure systems (Southern Oscillation -- ENSO), jet streams, and overall weather patterns all over the planet due to the interconnectivity of energy.

Eventually the energy disperses to the point that the Equatorial Current resumes its normal east-to-west flow along the meeting point of the two massive ocean gyres in the northern and southern sections of the Pacific. Then the process starts all over again.

That's basically how it works; minus a ton of details. The important thing is that the process can now be conceptualized in simple terms. It all boils down to energy inevitably going from where it is to where it 
isn't in the direction of least resistance! Yes, this means your Splitfire sparkplugs only send a spark 
across only one of those two forks!

Ions are simply atoms that have either a positive or negative charge. Remember the proton(s) and neutron(s) in the nucleus and the electron running around them. The proton has a positive charge and the electron has a negative charge, the neutron has a neutral charge (because it is a proton and electron combined; a free neutron decays with a half-life of about 10.3 min, into a proton, and an electron... oh yea, and this little thingy called an antineutrino). When either a proton or electron is lost the neutrally charged status of the atom is lost and it becomes an ion. Generally, positive ions result from beta decay (positive ions are called cations), and negative ions result from alpha decay (negative ions are called anions not to be confused with onions that make you cry when you cut them). Remember, in beta decay an electron is lost. In alpha decay 2 protons and 2 neutrons are lost. Once it flies solo, a neutron has a half-life of 10.3 minutes, then you have more free electrons when the electron and proton break away. Oh, and by the way, you bottled water drinkers... distilled water leaches the ions out of your body which isn't a good thing. Stick with filtered water only!

In plasma you have tons of ions! Plasma is the fourth state of matter, with much higher temperatures than any gas. In fact the temperatures are so high that the electrons are excited enough to slam into other atoms and be ejected from their orbits! Atomic collisions are violent and electrons end up roaming around without a nucleus around which to swing... the result is positively charged ions (cations). Lightning is an example of a plasma here on Earth. Plasma makes up 99% of all matter in the universe!

The electromagnetic spectrum... from highest energy and shortest frequency to the lowest energy and longest frequency you have: Gamma rays, X rays, Ultra Violet (UV), [Violet, Indigo, Blue, Green, Yellow, Orange, Red]<--Visible light, Infrared (IR), Microwaves, and Radio waves. UV, X, and Gamma are referred to as ionizing radiation. Remember an ion? This radiation is energetic enough to make an ion out of a neutral atom. Now some people don't particularly care for the Indigo/Violet delineation of colors because they look the same. Since the electromagnetic spectrum is a continuum, it's often hard to say when a color becomes another color just by watching it... when is a yellow no longer yellow but orange? I bet if the color changed gradually and a classroom full of students were watching it, everyone would have a different opinion about where the color actually changed! I like to play it safe. My favorite color is a long yellow/orange/short red with a dab of hot sauce.

Electric currents and magnetic fields: It's simple. Pass electricity through a conductor and it creates a magnetic field. Move a magnetic field and it creates electricity. Pass a conductor through a magnetic field and it creates electricity. We tend to use copper as a conductor, and Earth uses Iron and Nickel, located in its core (although there are a few geophysicists who believe the core is actually a 5-mile diameter ball of uranium). Magnetic fields are measured in gauss. Earth's gauss strength is 0.5 and changes over time. In fact it reverses over time from north tight to nothing to south tight and back again in what are known as magnetic epochs. For comparisons, a typical refrigerator magnet has a gauss of about 5, and a MRI has a wopping 20,000 gauss! Simply, the rate at which electrically charged particles move determine the strength of the magnetic field they create. Faster = Stronger Gauss and vice versa. All atoms have a magnetic field because they all have spinning electrons! Electric current is directly proportional to gauss level. And now the ionosphere:

The following was taken from the HAARP official website (http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/ion1.html)

What is the Ionosphere?

Earth's atmosphere varies in density and composition as the altitude increases above the surface. The lowest part of the atmosphere is called the troposphere (the light blue shaded region in the figure to the left) and it extends from the surface up to about 10 km (6 miles). The gases in this region are predominantly molecular Oxygen ( $O$₂) and molecular Nitrogen ($N$₂ ). All weather is confined to this lower region and it contains 90% of the Earth's atmosphere and 99% of the water vapor. The highest mountains are still within the troposphere and all of our normal day-to-day activities occur here. The high altitude jet stream is found near the tropopause at the the upper end of this region.

The atmosphere above 10 km is called the stratosphere. The gas is still dense enough that hot air balloons can ascend to altitudes of 15 - 20 km and Helium balloons to nearly 35 km, but the air thins rapidly and the gas composition changes slightly as the altitude increases. Within the stratosphere, incoming solar radiation at wavelengths below 240 nm. is able to break up (or dissociate) molecular Oxygen ($O$₂) into individual Oxygen atoms, each of which, in turn, may combine with an Oxygen molecule ( $O$₂), to form ozone, a molecule of Oxygen consisting of three Oxygen atoms ($O$₃). This gas reaches a peak density of a few parts per million at an altitude of about 25 km (16 miles). The ozone layer is shown by the yellow shaded region in the figure to the left.

The gas becomes increasingly rarefied at higher altitudes. At heights of 80 km (50 miles), the gas is so thin that free electrons can exist for short periods of time before they are captured by a nearby positive ion. The existence of charged particles at this altitude and above, signals the beginning of the ionosphere a region having the properties of a gas and of a plasma. The ionosphere is indicated by the light green shading in the figure to the left.

How is the Ionosphere Formed?

At the outer reaches of the Earth's environment, solar radiation strikes the atmosphere with a power density of 1370 Watts per $meter2$ or 0.137 Watts per $cm2$, a value known as the "solar constant." This intense level of radiation is spread over a broad spectrum ranging from radio frequencies through infrared (IR) radiation and visible light to X-rays. Solar radiation at ultraviolet (UV) and shorter wavelengths is considered to be "ionizing" since photons of energy at these frequencies are capable of dislodging an electron from a neutral gas atom or molecule during a collision. The conceptual drawing below is a simplified explanation of this process.

Incoming solar radiation is incident on a gas atom (or molecule). In the process, part of this radiation is absorbed by the atom and a free electron and a positively charged ion are produced. (Cosmic rays and solar wind particles also play a role in this process but their effect is minor compared with that due to the sun's electromagnetic radiation.)

At the highest levels of the Earth's outer atmosphere, solar radiation is very strong but there are few atoms to interact with, so ionization is small. As the altitude decreases, more gas atoms are present so the ionization process increases. At the same time, however, an opposing process called recombination begins to take place in which a free electron is "captured" by a positive ion if it moves close enough to it. As the gas density increases at lower altitudes, the recombination process accelerates since the gas molecules and ions are closer together. The point of balance between these two processes determines the degree of "ionization" present at any given time.

At still lower altitudes, the number of gas atoms (and molecules) increases further and there is more opportunity for absorption of energy from a photon of UV solar radiation. However, the intensity of this radiation is smaller at these lower altitudes because some of it was absorbed at the higher levels. A point is reached, therefore, where lower radiation, greater gas density and greater recombination rates balance out and the ionization rate begins to decrease with decreasing altitude. This leads to the formation of ionization peaks or layers (also called "Heaviside" layers after the scientist who first proposed their existence).

Because the composition of the atmosphere changes with height, the ion production rate also changes and this leads to the formation of several distinct ionization peaks, the "D," "E," "F1," and "F2" layers.

Electricity; where does it come from. Well, we can take it back pretty far, but reasonably, we need only to trace it back to a power plant. The power plant generates the electricity, but we can't convert energy without losing most of it to heat (2nd law of thermodynamics). So we have our power plant, let's say a hydroelectric plant. 65% of the energy drawn is lost to heat right off the bat, so the power plant is only 35% efficient by definition of thermodynamics. But now they have to get that energy to us folks who have our plugs ready to charge our electric cars. The energy from the power plant is sent on its way through power lines.

But energy is lost in that transfer process which is calculable in a formula that uses proportions of distance and energy loss. On average, about 10% of the original 35% of energy is lost to heat during this initial transfer. Well, the energy eventually makes it to what are called distribution power centers. You've probably seen them all over the city, they're the big ugly power plant-lookin' things with all the wires and stuff. Anyhoo, these distribution centers are necessary to properly... you guessed it... distribute the energy.

Guess what! Another 10% of the energy is lost to heat here. So now the energy is transferred again. The 90% of the 90% of the 35% of the original 100% makes its way to us in 220 form. Too much for our sockets, since most of our appliances can only accept 110. So this energy has to be converted again by being split into two 110 lines. Guess what! You get about 25% of that energy! The result? (0.35)(0.90)(0.90)(.25) =  7% 

Efficiency is conversely proportional to pollution. Don't forget that the electric car has to store and convert this electricity too... to mechanical power! Chemical processes are taking place in the batteries too! So even more energy is being lost to heat in your efficient little car! The end result is an efficiency of less than 5% (dare I say less than 2%) of the original 100% initially brought in by the power plants.

Not very efficient if you ask me, and not environmentally friendly. Imagine millions of Angelinos driving around in there electric cars... can you imagine the incredible demand for electricity? California can't even supply itself now, much less handle a bigger load! So if you ask me, electric cars are a nice thought but not practical or efficient.
To cut back on atmospheric pollution successfully we must consider the following...

Here is a breakdown of efficiency and its relation to transport type:
Airplanes use ~40,000 btu per ton per mile traveled. Big rigs require ~3,000 btu per ton per mile traveled. Ships spend ~750 btu per ton per mile traveled, and trains use ~700 btu per ton per mile traveled. On a ton per year basis, planes constitute ~3.8% of transport, trucks; ~56%. Ships (including rivers) account for ~5.5% of total annual transport, and rails account for ~24%*.  Pollution is proportionate to btu usage, so why is it that we use the least of the most efficient modes of transport and the most of the least efficient modes of transport?

Psychological block? The United States has one of the most expansive rail systems in the world which could be used more frequently. We should also promote small cars with small engines and multi-person capacities. Decrease the weight, decrease the size, and streamline the cars. Force of fluid friction is reduced by the square of the surface area, so what's an SUV? It is a demonstration of inefficiency. It's like spending money at the tanning salon, and those new Hummers aren't going to hold anymore groceries than a small compact. It's been proven that SUVs aren't any safer than a compact. It would be beneficial to promote comfortable, affordable rapid transit like they do in Europe. And I don't mean a subway in Los Angeles!

We have far too expansive a city for that, not to mention we live in earthquake land! Hello?! We could increase the number of buses here, make them more comfortable, air conditioned, and let them have all the plushness of a grand limousine. This will encourage their use. Increase the security on buses so passengers feel safe. AC and more buses will NOT increase the pollution if they are used in place of single passenger cars (like 4 door 2 ton dually trucks with one person and a bed that's never used). Instead of removing our carpool lanes to reduce congestion, we should ADD a carpool lane to encourage carpooling!

We ought to stop adding lanes to freeways and roads as this only encourages increased usage, and before you know it, we'll have to add another lane again. Of course, home construction into the foothills like Porter Ranch and the proposed Ahmanson's Ranch should be shelved to relieve stress on water supply and traffic. The list goes on. We have the tools necessary to improve transport efficiency, and at the same time improve air quality. There's no need to rely on a new technology to solve the problem. Just some policy changes will help. (in my opinion).

First, a word on the capitalized omega... In mathematics, capital omega (Ω) is used to represent ohms (units of electrical resistance). I use the lower case omega (ω) for the above equation, however I always see it written with an upper case omega. Mathematicians I've spoken to generally prefer to write the above equation like this:

ω = 7.292116 * 10-5 radians/second

Considering all this, we can now go back to the original question. Yes, we can definitely estimate the distance of a lightning strike if we count the number of seconds it takes for the sound of thunder to arrive from the time the lighting struck...

We will assume standard atmospheric pressure (1013.25mb), as well as standard carbon dioxide content (~0.033% or 330 ppm) of Earth's atmosphere. First we'll look at varying temperatures at a constant humidity, then at varying humidity, at a constant temperature and their relationships to the rate at which sound travels.

If air temperature is 10ºC and relative humidity is at 90%, the speed of sound would be about 338.05 m/sec. At 20ºC and relative humidity of 90%, the speed of sound would be about 344.5 m/sec. At 30ºC and relative humidity of 90%, the speed of sound would be about 351.25 m/sec. Note that the speed of sound increases with increasing temperature of the medium through which it travels! The speed of sound in a gas (air) is proportional to the Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity distribution function; therefore it varies as the square root of the temperature of the gas (its medium). Sound travels faster in warmer air because the molecular velocity is greater. The higher the temperature is, the greater the force with which molecules will strike, and will therefore increase the pressure that the gas (air) exerts outward.

If relative humidity is 25% and air temperature is 25ºC, the speed of sound would be about 346.71 m/sec. If relative humidity is 50% and air temperature is 25ºC, the speed of sound would be about 347.13 m/sec. If relative humidity is 100% and air temperature is 25ºC, the speed of sound would be about 347.99 m/sec. Not that the speed of sound increases slightly with increasing humidity since water molecules are actually increasing the density of the air.

Let's say the average thunderstorm is witnessed in conditions where the relative humidity is about 90%, and air temperature is about 25ºC, then the speed at which the sound of thunder will travel should be about 347.82 m/sec. There are 1609.344 meters in 1 mile, therefore it takes sound about 4 1/2 seconds to travel 1 mile. So you can guestimate the distance of a lightning strike by counting the seconds it takes for the sound of its thunder to reach your ears. When you get to "4 Mississippi..." you've just figured about a mile! So the next time you count to 4, don't feel comfortable that the lightning is 4 miles away! It's actually only a mile, and as far as I'm concerned, if you can see it, it can strike you!