The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby jimmcginn » Tue Aug 30, 2016 11:29 am

The Great Dog wrote:
Such is why I have complained this shouldn't be in a science thread but in NIMI ..


Agree completely, especially after the last few posts. Is this now the troll feeding forum?


Maybe you should find a hobby that doesn't involve complex things, like facts.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Tue Aug 30, 2016 12:01 pm

@James: you have a lot of crazy ideas. No worries -- perhaps imagination is more important than knowledge after all, at least as a starting point. You also have a lot of anger. This does not benefit you or anyone else here, and it's better addressed with a good counselor than with venting on the Internet. But OK -- anybody here who takes it personally has his own problem. ;) But the biggest issue here is that you're not making an effort to keep track of who said what. Either you don't use the forum's quoting mechanism to make it clear who said what, or when you do, you sometimes (perhaps accidentally?) include your own statements in the quote, making it look like the person said something that he actually did not. And you forget what you yourself have said, here and elsewhere. I don't see how you would get anything worthwhile out of a discussion when you neither know nor care about who said what.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby jimmcginn » Tue Aug 30, 2016 4:00 pm

Charles Chandler:
I agree with James that there is a lot of BS in the modern discipline of meteorology. But the problem isn't that the physics isn't there. The problem is that meteorologists don't use it. Meteorology is no longer a branch of physics -- it is now a branch of statistics. They try to make it sound physical, but really, they're working entirely with statistical engines. Then they use physics jargon to make it sound like proven physical science, when really, they never looked at the physical forces at play.

James McGinn
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16319
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby jimmcginn » Wed Aug 31, 2016 12:13 pm

Charles Chandler:
@James: you have a lot of crazy ideas. No worries -- perhaps imagination is more important than knowledge after all, at least as a starting point. You also have a lot of anger.

James McGinn:
If you want to be a successful science theorist niceness is a personality flaw. You are not skeptical enough. I am extremely skeptical--cynical--of what other people believe. It never occurred to you to verify whether or not meteorological notions like moist-air convection or H2O latent heat theories are valid. It never occurred to me to not verify these notions. It turns out these are nonsense notions (there exists zero reproducible evidence to confirm either of these notions--all of the “evidence” is anecdotal) that were assumed because they reflect what people generally believe.

The truth of what is actually happening in storms is highly implausible and therefore difficult to figure out. And so, you first have to clear the nonsense (the things that “everybody knows is true”) from your model before you can begin to address the difficulties. And so, your niceness and gullibility prevented you from making progress. I didn’t have that problem. And that is why I began looking for other qualities of H2O that can be involved in atmospheric flow.

Charles Chandler:
I don't see how you would get anything worthwhile out of a discussion when you neither know nor care about who said what.

James McGinn:
We’ve already discussed it. You don’t have anything to say. Your “theory” consists of vague allusions to words like viscosity, velocity, ionization, electricity, laminar flow. That’s all you got dude. Don’t waste your time trying to pretend you have some deep understanding, because you aren’t going to fool anybody worth fooling.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby fosborn_ » Wed Aug 31, 2016 12:47 pm

jimmcginn wrote:Charles Chandler:
@James: you have a lot of crazy ideas. No worries -- perhaps imagination is more important than knowledge after all, at least as a starting point. You also have a lot of anger.

James McGinn:
We’ve already discussed it. You don’t have anything to say. Your “theory” consists of vague allusions to words like viscosity, velocity, ionization, electricity, laminar flow. That’s all you got dude. Don’t waste your time trying to pretend you have some deep understanding, because you aren’t going to fool anybody worth fooling.


As an investigator Charles is topnotch, competent and trust worthy and humble. He is a gracious teacher and a tremendous asset to this forum. As a theorist of those I have had exposure to, he has transparent and compentent methods. He has wisdom and a disiplined open mindedness to analyze others ideas as he has done yours in a generous spirit. If there was an eagle scout badge for this Charles could easily be a text book example to emulate.
You on the other hand are an anarchist, having no flexibility to lay out your case to honest criticism and learn anything new form it. As an investigator I find you untrustworthy. As a theorist, you are exactly what you accuse others of. IMO..
what a waste of such potential...
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov
fosborn_
 
Posts: 480
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Wed Aug 31, 2016 2:47 pm

@fosborn_: thanks.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby nick c » Wed Aug 31, 2016 5:47 pm

Moderator note:

Let this be a preemptive warning. It is directed to all who participate in this thread and not to anyone in particular.
Remember the forum guideline concerning ad hominem forms of argument...attack the idea not the person.

example:
Instead of writing "that is a crazy idea" or "only an idiot would say that" simply present the evidence that shows the idea to be incorrect or otherwise logically flawed.

If an idea is "crazy" then it should be an easy task to expose its' flaw without the use of insults.
I hope that the discussion can proceed in a civil and respectful manner.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2241
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby jimmcginn » Thu Sep 01, 2016 8:02 pm

nick c wrote:Moderator note:

Let this be a preemptive warning. It is directed to all who participate in this thread and not to anyone in particular.
Remember the forum guideline concerning ad hominem forms of argument...attack the idea not the person.

example:
Instead of writing "that is a crazy idea" or "only an idiot would say that" simply present the evidence that shows the idea to be incorrect or otherwise logically flawed.

If an idea is "crazy" then it should be an easy task to expose its' flaw without the use of insults.
I hope that the discussion can proceed in a civil and respectful manner.


Well stated.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searc ... :relevance
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:36 am

fosborn_ wrote:In Google groups physics, James wrote;
- show quoted text -
I haven't done the experiment, if that is what you are asking. Do you have access to a scale (mass comparator) in your current job?

Do you want to do the experiment? It's a very simple experiment. The only major complications are that you have to start from a very dry and windless environment and you need to have an extremely sensitive scale. Other than that you just have to be careful not to contaminate the results. That's what the "thingies" are about. You could improvise that.


Hmm.. you didn't dispute it there...


You didn't answer my question, Frank. Do you want to do the experiment? Yes or No? Or wouldn't you, in the least, be interested in the results of said experiment?

Remember Frank, science is about facts as verified through experiments. It's not about what you can or cannot imagine or believe.

Remember, many of the things that we currently accept as scientific truth were unimaginable to the vast majority of people in previous generations.

Answer the question or go find another hobby.

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

To get to my books do a search on Amazon: McGinn Solving Tornadoes

https://www.amazon.com/WHAT-GOES-meteor ... B00KY7EGSG

https://www.amazon.com/Vortex-Phase-Dis ... B00QRQ5DGW
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:43 am

The Great Dog wrote:
Such is why I have complained this shouldn't be in a science thread but in NIMI ..


Agree completely, especially after the last few posts. Is this now the troll feeding forum?


Put up or shut up.

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/03/ ... nt-2062775
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby fosborn_ » Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:55 am

jimmcginn wrote:
fosborn_ wrote:In Google groups physics, James wrote;
-
Do you want to do the experiment? It's a very simple experiment. The only major complications are that you have to start from a very dry and windless environment and you need to have an extremely sensitive scale. .


You didn't answer my question, Frank. Do you want to do the experiment? Yes or No?


See, the elephant in the room is the incredible sensitivity of such a scale. I dont think it can be done or one exist. The lab personel I talked to didn't have a clue what you are refering to. Do you know a manufacturer and or model number? Or what the specs have to be to achieve it?
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov
fosborn_
 
Posts: 480
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sat Sep 03, 2016 10:02 am

fosborn_ wrote:I don't think this will gain traction with James, I think he believes only electrostatics can overcome surface tension to create water clusters and microdroplets. He doesn't believe in evaporation.


Be careful not to misrepresent other people's thoughts/statements. I said evaporation doesn't produce steam (steam being, in this instance, gaseous H2O). In fact I think the supposition that evaporation produces steam (gaseous H2O) to be plainly and obviously absurd given the wealth of laboratory evidence that clearly and unambiguously indicates that the boiling temperature of water is 100 C at sea level.

I also said that heavier H2O microdroplets (heavier than N2 or O2 molecules) can be pulled upward and suspended due to the abundance of electrostatic forces that constantly enter earth's atmosphere from above as the solar wind.

All in all, your inability to control your imagination isn't evidence. Beyond that, I can only suggest that you make an effort to quote people directly and in context.

Frank, you need to make more of a deliberate effort to clearly delineate between what you believe or assume from what you actually know. Failure to make this distinction is what differentiates a scientist from a non scientist.

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sat Sep 03, 2016 10:19 am

fosborn_ wrote:
jimmcginn wrote:Charles Chandler:
@James: you have a lot of crazy ideas. No worries -- perhaps imagination is more important than knowledge after all, at least as a starting point. You also have a lot of anger.

James McGinn:
We’ve already discussed it. You don’t have anything to say. Your “theory” consists of vague allusions to words like viscosity, velocity, ionization, electricity, laminar flow. That’s all you got dude. Don’t waste your time trying to pretend you have some deep understanding, because you aren’t going to fool anybody worth fooling.


As an investigator Charles is topnotch, competent and trust worthy and humble. He is a gracious teacher and a tremendous asset to this forum. As a theorist of those I have had exposure to, he has transparent and compentent methods. He has wisdom and a disiplined open mindedness to analyze others ideas as he has done yours in a generous spirit. If there was an eagle scout badge for this Charles could easily be a text book example to emulate.
You on the other hand are an anarchist, having no flexibility to lay out your case to honest criticism and learn anything new form it. As an investigator I find you untrustworthy. As a theorist, you are exactly what you accuse others of. IMO..
what a waste of such potential...


I'm sure Charles is a great guy. I never intended to suggest otherwise. I'm just saying that the tendency to hide your theory behind vagueness is a flaw. As a genuine science theorist, physicist, and atmospheric scientists I think I have a right to comment on such. That is not to say that Charles is not also genuine in some way, shape or form. I'm just saying that from the perspective of an expert science theorist anything that stops you from considering the possibility that your theory or some aspect thereof is wrong is something that should be avoided or ignored.

To be successful as a science theorists you have to aggressively and continually distinguish between what you know and what you think you know but only believe. And in that regard the biggest obstacle isn't other people it is yourself.

James McGinn

Vortex Phase
https://www.amazon.com/Vortex-Phase-Dis ... B00QRQ5DGW

What Goes Up
https://www.amazon.com/WHAT-GOES-meteor ... B00KY7EGSG
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sat Sep 03, 2016 11:10 am

fosborn_ wrote:
jimmcginn wrote:
fosborn_ wrote:In Google groups physics, James wrote;
-
Do you want to do the experiment? It's a very simple experiment. The only major complications are that you have to start from a very dry and windless environment and you need to have an extremely sensitive scale. .


You didn't answer my question, Frank. Do you want to do the experiment? Yes or No?


See, the elephant in the room is the incredible sensitivity of such a scale. I don't think it can be done or one exist. The lab personnel I talked to didn't have a clue what you are referring to. Do you know a manufacturer and or model number? Or what the specs have to be to achieve it?


If a mason jar is less than 111 grams (I don't know) this might be sufficient:
https://www.sartorius.us/us/product/pro ... il/mcm106/
Cubis® Manual Mass Comparator MCM106
Max Capacity: 111 g
Readability: 1 µg
Manual Cubis® MCM mass comparators combine metrological expertise and integrated OIML R 111-1 workflows.

But I think it's the kind of thing that until you try you won't know.

Jim McGinn
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby fosborn_ » Sun Sep 04, 2016 11:14 am

Gas Exchange in Plants
http://www.biology-pages.info/G/GasExchange.html
This a good example of trospheric h2o gas production with out dry steam.

I'm just saying that from the perspective of an expert science theorist

Lol, the only person in this thread to make that call is Charles. IMO..
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov
fosborn_
 
Posts: 480
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests