The Roof Leaks at the Top: Conversation with Edwin Berry Phd.
Posted: Sun Feb 07, 2021 7:09 pm
The Roof Leaks at the Top
Discussion between James McGinn (genius) and Edwin Berry (meteorologist)
James McGinn:
Edwin,
Climatology has certain traditions that it adopted from its parent discipline, meteorology. One of those traditions is that their theoretical aspects are based on conversation and not empiricism. Or, I guess we could say, the connection to empiricism is suggestive and not literal.
In empirical sciences the experimental evidence comes first and the narrative follows. In conversational sciences the narrative comes first and its significance is interpreted by “experts.” No empiricism necessarily follows. And any empiricism that is externally applied is summarily dismissed if it disagrees with the “expert” opinion.
In short, with conversational sciences like meteorology and climatology, truth is determined by consensus and authority. The public is naïve, gullible, and generally unaware of this. Exposing climatology as empirically inept won’t solve the problem since the conversational tradition is rooted in meteorology and not climatology:
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php ... 10&t=16329
Edwin Berry:
James,
You write, “conversational sciences like meteorology and climatology, truth is determined by consensus and authority.” Your view is a diversion from the truth. It is a political attempt to diffuse the fact that the alarmist version of climate change is wrong. Nice try.
Those who base meteorology and climatology on consensus and authority are substituting politics for science. You are merely describing how the alarmists turn science into politics but that does not change the truth about the science.
The sciences of meteorology and climatology derive from physics, chemistry, and geology, and they are based on evidence. My post proves the alarmist version of climate change violates physics. Therefore, the alarmist version of climate change is scientifically wrong.
James McGinn:
Edwin:
You write: “Your view is a diversion from the truth. It is a political attempt to diffuse the fact that the alarmist version of climate change is wrong. Nice try.”
I am on your side. I disproved the alarmist version of climate change a long time ago, as have many others both before and after me. My disproof is generally ignored. The same will be the case for yours as the novelty wears off. Welcome to the club.
Climatology and meteorology are not beholden to empiricism. For example, the convection model of storm theory is not based on anything empirical–it has never been tested, measured or concisely defined (just like AGW). It is based on an analogy to a pot boiling on a stove. Likewise global warming is based on an analogy to a greenhouse.
Most people are incredulous that conversational sciences can possibly be as effective as I am suggesting here. I am guessing you are incredulous that you can be so easily fooled. You are wrong. And you can prove it to yourself by way of coming to grips with the fact that you never noticed that the empirical basis of the convection model of storm theory is nowhere to be found.
I discovered the empirical shortcomings of meteorology after I discovered them in climatology. My reasoning was very simple. Knowing that the origins of climatology are in meteorology, I reasoned that if AGW is as bad as it appears then meteorology must also have skeletons in its closet. So I did something that nobody has done before, I looked at the convection model of storm theory with scrutiny. I found numerous fatal flaws and I found that meteorologists have long ago established a tradition of ignoring these fatal flaws.
My point is that you/we cannot defeat a conversational science based on empiricism because conversational sciences are based on allegories that appeal to the base sensations of the public. The only way to defeat a conversational science is to reveal it as such to the public. And the best way to reveal it to the public is to start with meteorology since this is the spring from which it sprang (or is it sprung?). The conversational tradition is the problem and its roots are in meteorology, not climatology.
Starting from jet streams, vortices grow (upstream) along wind shear boundaries in the troposphere (mostly along the top of the troposphere) channeling low pressure energy, targeting moist air at lower altitude, deliver this low pressure energy to various locations on the surface of our planet, causing uplift of this moist air and what we witness as storms. This–vortice activity–is what underlies storms, not convection.
Convection of moist air does occur but its role in this theory is much more subtle than is its role under the convection model of storm theory. And, in stark contrast to the convection model, moist air has negative buoyancy (moist air is heavier than dry air). Negative buoyancy of moist air is instrumental in the formation of long, flat moist/dry wind shear boundaries that are essential for the formation of a water-based plasma that forms the sheath of vortices–a plasma that literally spins up on wind shear boundaries.
Vortices are the pressure relief valves of the atmosphere. In other words, vortices are the means by which relative thermal equilibrium is achieved on the surface of our planet:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 10&t=17125
Edwin Berry:
James,
In my view, you do not understand what you think you understand about meteorology. Somewhere, years ago perhaps, you got off on the wrong track.
So, while your comments are welcome, I am much too busy to make the necessary extensive replies it would take to show you why your views on meteorology are completely wrong. I suggest you study some good textbooks on meteorology and atmospheric physics.
James McGinn:
Edwin,
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, meteorologists dramatized latent heat as a kind of magic wand that they then wield 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–will discuss it.
What is, in my opinion, an 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
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 10&t=16613
Edwin:
James,
You have done a lot of hand waving about your theory of storms. But you have not produced any evidence to show how accepted meteorology is incorrect. Evidence means data. Yet, you have accused me and all credible meteorologists of being hypocritical.
So, to back up your claims, can you show examples where the following meteorological textbooks have made errors that conflict with data?
Hess: Introduction to Meteorology
Fleagle and Businger: An Introduction to Atmospheric Physics
Haltiner and Martin: Dynamic and Physical Meteorology
Mason: The Physics of Clouds
Salby: Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate
Khvorostyanov and Curry: Thermodynamics, Kinetics, and Microphysics of Clouds
Please be specific by referring to equations, paragraphs, and pages that disagree with your claims. When you have proven your competence, we and other visitors on this site can have a scientific discussion of your personal theories that contradict data and are therefore wrong.
Surely, if you are competent, this task will be easy for you.
James McGinn:
This is the tactic all religions employ when confronted with skeptics. “Here is a bible. Prove to me that this is not the word of God.” Sorry, but in science the burden of proof is on those that make extraordinary claims. I do not maintain that water turns gaseous at temperatures far below its known boiling temperature. You do. I do not maintain that dry air acts as a flat shield to contain upwelling moist air from below. You do. I do not maintain that latent heat somehow (magic I presume) causes the gusty winds of storms. You do.
Of course you have zero chance of substantiating any of this. But that is not my problem. You believe it. Not me. Defend what you believe. Or admit what is plainly obvious–you have not given these notions any critical thought since they were introduced to you as an undergraduate.
Edwin Berry:
James,
Your reply above to my request demonstrates that you are a fraud. You claim, without proof, that I “believe” certain things that you disagree with. Likely, you are unable to understand any parts of the standard meteorological books I listed. I gave you the opportunity and you failed. You did not find anything in the six textbooks I listed to demonstrate your claims.
You are a simply another moronic blowhard climate alarmist from San Jose, California, who does not understand science or meteorology or climate. Bye.
James McGinn:
Edwin,
I’m sorry that you found this inquiry offensive. I was only trying to understand why it is that if you accept the Meteorology's convection model of storms based on nothing but consensus you do not extend the same courtesy to climatology.
James McGinn / Genius
President of Solving Tornadoes
Discussion between James McGinn (genius) and Edwin Berry (meteorologist)
James McGinn:
Edwin,
Climatology has certain traditions that it adopted from its parent discipline, meteorology. One of those traditions is that their theoretical aspects are based on conversation and not empiricism. Or, I guess we could say, the connection to empiricism is suggestive and not literal.
In empirical sciences the experimental evidence comes first and the narrative follows. In conversational sciences the narrative comes first and its significance is interpreted by “experts.” No empiricism necessarily follows. And any empiricism that is externally applied is summarily dismissed if it disagrees with the “expert” opinion.
In short, with conversational sciences like meteorology and climatology, truth is determined by consensus and authority. The public is naïve, gullible, and generally unaware of this. Exposing climatology as empirically inept won’t solve the problem since the conversational tradition is rooted in meteorology and not climatology:
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php ... 10&t=16329
Edwin Berry:
James,
You write, “conversational sciences like meteorology and climatology, truth is determined by consensus and authority.” Your view is a diversion from the truth. It is a political attempt to diffuse the fact that the alarmist version of climate change is wrong. Nice try.
Those who base meteorology and climatology on consensus and authority are substituting politics for science. You are merely describing how the alarmists turn science into politics but that does not change the truth about the science.
The sciences of meteorology and climatology derive from physics, chemistry, and geology, and they are based on evidence. My post proves the alarmist version of climate change violates physics. Therefore, the alarmist version of climate change is scientifically wrong.
James McGinn:
Edwin:
You write: “Your view is a diversion from the truth. It is a political attempt to diffuse the fact that the alarmist version of climate change is wrong. Nice try.”
I am on your side. I disproved the alarmist version of climate change a long time ago, as have many others both before and after me. My disproof is generally ignored. The same will be the case for yours as the novelty wears off. Welcome to the club.
Climatology and meteorology are not beholden to empiricism. For example, the convection model of storm theory is not based on anything empirical–it has never been tested, measured or concisely defined (just like AGW). It is based on an analogy to a pot boiling on a stove. Likewise global warming is based on an analogy to a greenhouse.
Most people are incredulous that conversational sciences can possibly be as effective as I am suggesting here. I am guessing you are incredulous that you can be so easily fooled. You are wrong. And you can prove it to yourself by way of coming to grips with the fact that you never noticed that the empirical basis of the convection model of storm theory is nowhere to be found.
I discovered the empirical shortcomings of meteorology after I discovered them in climatology. My reasoning was very simple. Knowing that the origins of climatology are in meteorology, I reasoned that if AGW is as bad as it appears then meteorology must also have skeletons in its closet. So I did something that nobody has done before, I looked at the convection model of storm theory with scrutiny. I found numerous fatal flaws and I found that meteorologists have long ago established a tradition of ignoring these fatal flaws.
My point is that you/we cannot defeat a conversational science based on empiricism because conversational sciences are based on allegories that appeal to the base sensations of the public. The only way to defeat a conversational science is to reveal it as such to the public. And the best way to reveal it to the public is to start with meteorology since this is the spring from which it sprang (or is it sprung?). The conversational tradition is the problem and its roots are in meteorology, not climatology.
Starting from jet streams, vortices grow (upstream) along wind shear boundaries in the troposphere (mostly along the top of the troposphere) channeling low pressure energy, targeting moist air at lower altitude, deliver this low pressure energy to various locations on the surface of our planet, causing uplift of this moist air and what we witness as storms. This–vortice activity–is what underlies storms, not convection.
Convection of moist air does occur but its role in this theory is much more subtle than is its role under the convection model of storm theory. And, in stark contrast to the convection model, moist air has negative buoyancy (moist air is heavier than dry air). Negative buoyancy of moist air is instrumental in the formation of long, flat moist/dry wind shear boundaries that are essential for the formation of a water-based plasma that forms the sheath of vortices–a plasma that literally spins up on wind shear boundaries.
Vortices are the pressure relief valves of the atmosphere. In other words, vortices are the means by which relative thermal equilibrium is achieved on the surface of our planet:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 10&t=17125
Edwin Berry:
James,
In my view, you do not understand what you think you understand about meteorology. Somewhere, years ago perhaps, you got off on the wrong track.
So, while your comments are welcome, I am much too busy to make the necessary extensive replies it would take to show you why your views on meteorology are completely wrong. I suggest you study some good textbooks on meteorology and atmospheric physics.
James McGinn:
Edwin,
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, meteorologists dramatized latent heat as a kind of magic wand that they then wield 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–will discuss it.
What is, in my opinion, an 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
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 10&t=16613
Edwin:
James,
You have done a lot of hand waving about your theory of storms. But you have not produced any evidence to show how accepted meteorology is incorrect. Evidence means data. Yet, you have accused me and all credible meteorologists of being hypocritical.
So, to back up your claims, can you show examples where the following meteorological textbooks have made errors that conflict with data?
Hess: Introduction to Meteorology
Fleagle and Businger: An Introduction to Atmospheric Physics
Haltiner and Martin: Dynamic and Physical Meteorology
Mason: The Physics of Clouds
Salby: Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate
Khvorostyanov and Curry: Thermodynamics, Kinetics, and Microphysics of Clouds
Please be specific by referring to equations, paragraphs, and pages that disagree with your claims. When you have proven your competence, we and other visitors on this site can have a scientific discussion of your personal theories that contradict data and are therefore wrong.
Surely, if you are competent, this task will be easy for you.
James McGinn:
This is the tactic all religions employ when confronted with skeptics. “Here is a bible. Prove to me that this is not the word of God.” Sorry, but in science the burden of proof is on those that make extraordinary claims. I do not maintain that water turns gaseous at temperatures far below its known boiling temperature. You do. I do not maintain that dry air acts as a flat shield to contain upwelling moist air from below. You do. I do not maintain that latent heat somehow (magic I presume) causes the gusty winds of storms. You do.
Of course you have zero chance of substantiating any of this. But that is not my problem. You believe it. Not me. Defend what you believe. Or admit what is plainly obvious–you have not given these notions any critical thought since they were introduced to you as an undergraduate.
Edwin Berry:
James,
Your reply above to my request demonstrates that you are a fraud. You claim, without proof, that I “believe” certain things that you disagree with. Likely, you are unable to understand any parts of the standard meteorological books I listed. I gave you the opportunity and you failed. You did not find anything in the six textbooks I listed to demonstrate your claims.
You are a simply another moronic blowhard climate alarmist from San Jose, California, who does not understand science or meteorology or climate. Bye.
James McGinn:
Edwin,
I’m sorry that you found this inquiry offensive. I was only trying to understand why it is that if you accept the Meteorology's convection model of storms based on nothing but consensus you do not extend the same courtesy to climatology.
James McGinn / Genius
President of Solving Tornadoes
