Why Meteorology (Storm Theory) is a Cargo Cult Science

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

Why Meteorology (Storm Theory) is a Cargo Cult Science

Unread postby jimmcginn » Wed Feb 15, 2017 10:38 am

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.phy ... 2fMB8EBAAJ

James McGinn:
Whatever the case, your argument is contrived. You are mixing metaphors and being deceptive.

LipperF:
Like I said, this is the most direct example I can find of published data showing that moist air is less dense than dry air.

James McGinn:
There is zero data involving the direct measurement of the weight of moist air versus dry air. Yet meteorologists continue to maintain the BELIEF that moist air is lighter than dry air as THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT IN ALL OF METEOROLOGY'S STORM THEORY.

The fact that this fact is casually dismissed by you and by all meteorologists is all anybody needs to conclude that meteorology is not a real science like physics or chemistry.

LipperF:
Since air is a fluid, it really doesn't make sense to talk about its weight

James McGinn:
LOL. It's you meteorologists that assert that weight/buoyancy/convections is what powers all storms. So your words sound funny coming from the mouth of a meteorologist. It's like you don't know what you think from one minute to the next.

LipperF:
So if there are any publications that address your question directly (by reporting a weight rather than a mass or a density) they are not easy to locate:
http://www.imeko.org/publications/tc3-2 ... 02-038.pdf

James McGinn:
As you eluded, your reference is worthless. The details of meteorology's convection model of storm theory are IMPOSSIBLE to locate. Meteorologists don't discuss these details. It is strictly a taboo subject--literally.

You have as much chance to get a meteorologist to discuss the mathematical details of convection as you do getting a priest to discuss the details of the inquisition.

LipperF:
But since the weight of the sample is directly proportional to the density and the mass of the sample, both of which are reported in the reference(s) above, I find the publications to be thoroughly convincing.

James McGinn:
I find your claim that the sample is directly proportional to density to be absurd--plainly. And I find the fact that you find this convincing to be evidence that you are not a real scientists and, by association, meteorology is not a real science.

LipperF:
Nonsense. Meteorologists (as well as physicists, chemists, mathematicians, engineers, etc) spend a considerable amount of time and ink talking about how clouds, dust devils, thunderstorms, winter storms, supercell thunderstorms, monsoons, hurricanes, and tornadoes form. The conceptual and numerical models we use to analyze, simulate, and predict these systems are constantly analyzed for inconsistencies and improved when possible.

James McGinn:
As you just eluded, meteorology is a conversational science. It's not an empirical science. Listening to you is like listening to two clergy discussing a passage in the bible. Meteorologists make observations. They/you don't do experiments. The basic assumptions of their/your most fundamental models are mathematically absurd/inept. So they/you can't actually solve problems. It's all talk and phoney math used to create the illusion that they/you understand what they/you do not.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.phy ... 2fMB8EBAAJ

Jim McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Why Meteorology (Storm Theory) is a Cargo Cult Science

Unread postby Maol » Wed Feb 15, 2017 11:36 am

Whatever it is you think you are alluding to, you can't elude this:

If you drive a new car which has an engine management system incorporating a mass air flow sensor and oxygen sensor, the ECU in your car is performing calculations to control A/F in which it is extrapolating a direct measurement of air's weight every moment the engine is running.
Maol
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:40 pm

Re: Why Meteorology (Storm Theory) is a Cargo Cult Science

Unread postby MerLynn » Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:33 pm

Jim
Whatever it is you think you are alluding to, you can't elude this:

Storms exist because water exists

You cant prove what water is by ignoring recent quantum leaps in intelligent experiments and base your theories upon outdated experiments in which just 2 electrodes are placed in water when 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 electrodes plus neutral plates do not make H & O gases and/or make other gases raising SERIOUS questions as to what water is.

So until we get to the bottom of this electrode in water experiment you base ALL of your theories upon, your logic just doesn't hold water.

H2O is a Cargo Cult Science and all that follows is fake news

Lynn E
Australia
MerLynn
 
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 9:28 am
Location: Land of OZ

Re: Why Meteorology (Storm Theory) is a Cargo Cult Science

Unread postby jimmcginn » Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:05 am

https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physic ... ment-47520

Ivar Giaver states:
Global warming has become a new religion, because you can't discuss it. And that's not right. So, science comes in many forms: 1) real science; 2) pathological science, where one fools oneself; 3) fraudulent science, which is rare; ; 4) Junk science; 5) pseudoscience.

JMcG:
Just like global warming, meteorology's theory on storms and atmospheric flow is a religion. Because you can't discuss it. And that's not right. As you have demonstrated vividly in this thread, you (Ed Berry) cannot/will not discuss it.

So, it certainly is not #1, real science. I don't think you are being deliberately fraudulent. So that leaves 2) Pathological science, 4) Junk science, and 5) pseudoscience. I suppose we can let our audience decide which of these three is most applicable.

There are three blatantly non-scientific notions associated with meteorology's "convection model" of storms and atmospheric flow: 1) Convection, 2) Dry layer capping, and 3) Latent heat. All of these are based on notions that involve half-baked observations, cartoonishly silly analogies, and blatant speculation.

Convection: Based on an analogy to a pot boiling on a stove. It is poorly defined, immeasurable, untested and untestable. It was proposed as a conjecture by Espy, pre civil war, and was accepted by consensus despite never having been tested empirically. It's underlying theory is wrought with unverified assumptions, like the notion that H2O magically turns gaseous at temperatures far below what has ever been detected in a laboratory.

Dry layer capping: Based on observation of dry layers above flat moist layers. It explanation involves the blatantly stupid assertion that dry layers of gaseous air have structural capabilities. (Meteorologists are especially strict about maintaining the vagueness of this explanation.)

Latent heat: Based on the observation that evaporation produces cooling and the not unreasonable assertion that uplift of moist air and resulting condensation produce warming at higher altitudes. But--strangely--this notion is also harnessed to explain the cold gusty winds of storms and lateral flow ("advection). And so, in a desperate bid to explain the energy of storms, meteorologist dramatize latent heat as kind of magic wand that they then abuse to explain all of the remaining drama of storms.

Nothing about Meteorology's theory on storms doesn't maintain some degree of blatantly obvious stupidity--thus the reason none of these pretentious believers--virtually all meteorologists (except myself)--will discuss it.

What is, in my opinion, and even more glaring shortcoming of this convection model of storm theory is what it fails to explain: 1) the spinning motion witnessed in storms, 2) the lateral flow associated with jet streams, and 3) vortices.

Since the climate dopes have employed the same pseudoscientific methods that have been long championed by meteorologists, it is blatantly hypocritical for Ed Berry to be dumping on climate scientists who are doing nothing but following the example that Ed and all meteorologists have established a long time ago.

Why Meteorology (Storm Theory) is a Cargo Cult Science
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16613

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Why Meteorology (Storm Theory) is a Cargo Cult Science

Unread postby JeffreyW » Fri Sep 21, 2018 11:09 am

jimmcginn wrote:James McGinn:
There is zero data involving the direct measurement of the weight of moist air versus dry air. Yet meteorologists continue to maintain the BELIEF that moist air is lighter than dry air as THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT IN ALL OF METEOROLOGY'S STORM THEORY.



Water vapor is lighter than nitrogen gas and oxygen gas.

Water vapor has 2 hydrogens and 1 oxygen in the molecule.

Nitrogen gas has 2 nitrogens.

Oxygen gas has 2 oxygens.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1906
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: Why Meteorology (Storm Theory) is a Cargo Cult Science

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sat Sep 22, 2018 12:38 am

JeffreyW wrote:Water vapor is lighter than nitrogen gas and oxygen gas.


It's heavier, not lighter.

JeffreyW wrote:Water vapor has 2 hydrogens and 1 oxygen in the molecule. Nitrogen gas has 2 nitrogens. Oxygen gas has 2 oxygens.


Take a deep breath. Look up the boiling temperature/pressure of N2 O2 and H2O.

Now do you get it?

Brawndo Has Electrolytes
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16461

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm


Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests