The Roof Leaks at the Top: Conversation with Edwin Berry Phd.

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? If you have a personal favorite theory, that is in someway related to the Electric Universe, this is where it can be posted.
jimmcginn
Posts: 521
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 1:43 am

The Roof Leaks at the Top: Conversation with Edwin Berry Phd.

Unread post by jimmcginn » 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

crawler
Posts: 823
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: The Roof Leaks at the Top: Conversation with Edwin Berry Phd.

Unread post by crawler » Sun Feb 07, 2021 11:03 pm

The main worry is that global warming due to CO2 might be true. Hence we need to act fast to limit CO2.

Weather is due mainly to electric forces.
But simple heating too causes thermals etc.
Hurricanes are due to what happens (evaporation etc) at the surface of the oceans.
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
The present Einsteinian Dark Age of science will soon end – for the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return – it never left.

crawler
Posts: 823
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: The Roof Leaks at the Top: Conversation with Edwin Berry Phd.

Unread post by crawler » Sun Feb 07, 2021 11:13 pm

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.

Wikileaks...................................................................................................................................................................
The expression junk science is used to describe scientific data, research, or analysis considered by the person using the phrase to be spurious or fraudulent. The concept is often invoked in political and legal contexts where facts and scientific results have a great amount of weight in making a determination. It usually conveys a pejorative connotation that the research has been untowardly driven by political, ideological, financial, or otherwise unscientific motives.

Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.[1][Note 1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; absence of systematic practices when developing hypotheses; and continued adherence long after the pseudoscientific hypotheses have been experimentally discredited.[2]

Pathological science is an area of research where "people are tricked into false results ... by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions."[1][2] The term was first[3] used by Irving Langmuir, Nobel Prize-winning chemist, during a 1953 colloquium at the Knolls Research Laboratory. Langmuir said a pathological science is an area of research that simply will not "go away" — long after it was given up on as "false" by the majority of scientists in the field. He called pathological science "the science of things that aren't so."[4][5]
Bart Simon lists it among practices pretending to be science: "categories ... such as ... pseudoscience, amateur science, deviant or fraudulent science, bad science, junk science, and popular science ... pathological science, cargo-cult science, and voodoo science."[6] Examples of pathological science include Martian canals, N-rays, polywater, and cold fusion. The theories and conclusions behind all of these examples are currently rejected or disregarded by the majority of scientists.

Scientific misconduct is the violation of the standard codes of scholarly conduct and ethical behavior in the publication of professional scientific research. A Lancet review on Handling of Scientific Misconduct in Scandinavian countries provides the following sample definitions,[1] reproduced in The COPE report 1999:[2]
• Danish definition: "Intention or gross negligence leading to fabrication of the scientific message or a false credit or emphasis given to a scientist"
• Swedish definition: "Intention[al] distortion of the research process by fabrication of data, text, hypothesis, or methods from another researcher's manuscript form or publication; or distortion of the research process in other ways."
The consequences of scientific misconduct can be damaging for perpetrators and journal audience[3][4] and for any individual who exposes it.[5] In addition there are public health implications attached to the promotion of medical or other interventions based on false or fabricated research findings.
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
The present Einsteinian Dark Age of science will soon end – for the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return – it never left.

jimmcginn
Posts: 521
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 1:43 am

Re: The Roof Leaks at the Top: Conversation with Edwin Berry Phd.

Unread post by jimmcginn » Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:48 am

crawler wrote: Sun Feb 07, 2021 11:03 pm The main worry is that global warming due to CO2 might be true. Hence we need to act fast to limit CO2.

Weather is due mainly to electric forces.
But simple heating too causes thermals etc.
Hurricanes are due to what happens (evaporation etc) at the surface of the oceans.
Sorry, but you are wrong about all of this. (Read the links in the top post to get a better understanding of why.) Updrafts of any kind (ie. "thermals" or hurricanes) are due to vortices higher up. Vortices initiate in the jet stream and funnel fast moving air into the jet stream. This explains how the jet stream maintains its momentum--it is constantly being pushed by the air that funnels up through vortices. Once initiated, vortices grow along wind shear boundaries, generally trending down toward bodies of moist air--moist air being a source of the nanodroplets that it requires to spin up the H2O based plasma that forms the sheaths of vortices, giving them the structural properties they need to isolate the flow of air going up them, this flow being instrumental as the source of kinetic energy for the emergence of the plasma. Although electric forces are involved, as is the case with all matter, it is vortice activity that causes all storms. There really is no such thing as convection (or "thermals") in earth's atmosphere. The convection model of storm theory reveals itself to be desperately dumb when one attempts to flesh out its non-existent details.

Global warming serves a social function. For many it serves the same function that traditional religion used to serve. Scientifically it is complete nonsense.

Thanks for the response.

James McGinn / Genius
Solving Tornadoes

crawler
Posts: 823
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: The Roof Leaks at the Top: Conversation with Edwin Berry Phd.

Unread post by crawler » Mon Feb 08, 2021 7:29 am

jimmcginn wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:48 am
crawler wrote: Sun Feb 07, 2021 11:03 pm The main worry is that global warming due to CO2 might be true. Hence we need to act fast to limit CO2.

Weather is due mainly to electric forces.
But simple heating too causes thermals etc.
Hurricanes are due to what happens (evaporation etc) at the surface of the oceans.
Sorry, but you are wrong about all of this. (Read the links in the top post to get a better understanding of why.) Updrafts of any kind (ie. "thermals" or hurricanes) are due to vortices higher up. Vortices initiate in the jet stream and funnel fast moving air into the jet stream. This explains how the jet stream maintains its momentum--it is constantly being pushed by the air that funnels up through vortices. Once initiated, vortices grow along wind shear boundaries, generally trending down toward bodies of moist air--moist air being a source of the nanodroplets that it requires to spin up the H2O based plasma that forms the sheaths of vortices, giving them the structural properties they need to isolate the flow of air going up them, this flow being instrumental as the source of kinetic energy for the emergence of the plasma. Although electric forces are involved, as is the case with all matter, it is vortice activity that causes all storms. There really is no such thing as convection (or "thermals") in earth's atmosphere. The convection model of storm theory reveals itself to be desperately dumb when one attempts to flesh out its non-existent details.
Global warming serves a social function. For many it serves the same function that traditional religion used to serve. Scientifically it is complete nonsense. Thanks for the response.
James McGinn / GeniusSolving Tornadoes
Nope. Vortexes are how air moves from one place to another (tautology alert). Vortexes are not understood. Vortexes are natural, it is almost impossible to move air & not have a vortex. It doesnt matter whether the driving force is due to heat (ie density)(ie ordinary convection), or to plasma, or to charge (Pollack), they all need a vortex, indeed they cant avoid a vortex (usually). And i have done gliding & hang-gliding. Plowed paddocks, & burnt paddocks, create thermals, especially if protected by a treed wind break.

AGW is not nonsense. But once again u dont understand what i say, i say that if there is a possibility that AGW re CO2 is true then we need to act fast. It is u that is displaying a lack of logic.
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
The present Einsteinian Dark Age of science will soon end – for the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return – it never left.

jimmcginn
Posts: 521
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 1:43 am

Re: The Roof Leaks at the Top: Conversation with Edwin Berry Phd.

Unread post by jimmcginn » Mon Feb 08, 2021 7:24 pm

crawler wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 7:29 am Nope. Vortexes are how air moves from one place to another (tautology alert).
Nonsense. Air is also constantly moving simply due to pressure differentials--no vortices are involved at all. However, this movement is very slow (and unfocused). It is so slow, in fact, that it has been predicted (by Lorentz) that if this was the only process moving air that the surface of our planet would experience extreme high pressures and Low pressures, possibly making the planet unlivable for us. It is the structural capabilities of vortices to isolate the flow therein from the friction that it would normally experience that allows this flow to accelerate to achieve high wind speeds. This allows vortices to act as a pressure relief valves. A vortice is a container. A container can only contain if its composition possesses greater structural capabilities than that which it contains. So, the fact that vortices exist is direct evidence that the sheath of vortices/tornadoes have structural properties that are greater than normal air. The source of these structural properties is the problem that needs to be solved. (Actually, It has already been solved--by me. These structural capabilities are due the surface tension properties of water that spin up on wind shear boundaries. I am currently working on a video that will revolutionize our model of water, allowing us to recognize the structural capabilities that water brings to the atmosphere that enable the concentration of flow that cause vortices.)
Vortexes are not understood. Vortexes are natural, it is almost impossible to move air & not have a vortex. It doesn't matter whether the driving force is due to heat (ie density)(ie ordinary convection), or to plasma, or to charge (Pollack), they all need a vortex, indeed they cant avoid a vortex (usually).
There is always a natural spin on air due to the Coriolis effect. But the spin can only be concentrated if the flow is concentrated. And to do that you need an entity to do the concentrating. It is the structural properties of vortices that achieve this. Electricity is involved in all matter, so stating that electricity is involved is meaningless unless you can specify its role, in this case, in the structural abilities--as I have done in my model of the origin of vortices.
And i have done gliding & hang-gliding.
Me too (Missoula, MT). Well then you must realize that one of the things that you have to be careful about with "thermals" is to not get too high. And as you get higher in a thermal they actually begin to accelerate, getting stronger and/or more focused. This is proof that the source of the energy of a "thermal" isn't the buoyancy of warm air. The source of the energy is the jet stream and a vortice is the means of delivering the low pressure. Warm, moist air is the target of vortice growth. The energy that causes the uplift comes from above. (Warm moist air actually has negative buoyancy, due to the fact that the nanodroplets therein make moist air heavier than drier air.)
Plowed paddocks, & burnt paddocks, create thermals, especially if protected by a treed wind break.
What you are expressing here is a common delusion that based on mutually observed anecdote. Part of the confusion is the misconception that more common is observation of anecdote that the more scientifically valid becomes the explanation thereof.
AGW is not nonsense. But once again u don't understand what I say, I say that if there is a possibility that AGW re CO2 is true then we need to act fast. It is u that is displaying a lack of logic.
It's a religion. Any attempt to discuss its details is instantly met with accusations that one is heretical about science in general.
Thanks for the response.
James McGinn / Genius
President of Solving Tornadoes.

jackokie
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2020 1:10 am

Re: The Roof Leaks at the Top: Conversation with Edwin Berry Phd.

Unread post by jackokie » Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:11 pm

cargo,

There are certainly many people who are concerned about AGW, and that is to their credit, but there are numerous issues that must be addressed before we can determine if the threat is really credible, and if so, the best course of action. The word “science” is bandied about throughout today’s discourse, so it’s important that I tell you that my firm understanding of just what science is and how it works is contained in these two videos of Richard Feynman:

Feynman on the scientific method
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KmimDq4cSU

Feynman CalTech commencement 1974 - cargo-cult science
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvfAtIJbatg

There is also a refusal in some quarters these days to refuse to review any evidence if it comes from “tainted” sources. Often this is political, and ultimately the heckler’s veto, and not at all in the spirit of scientific inquiry. I may include a link or two that explains an important point, and I hope it will be evaluated on the merits of the content and not where it came from.

Issues:

1. Measurements of Current Temperature

Station Siting - Urban Island Effect
Many temperature recording stations are sited in locations that produce excess heat, for example an airport that grew up and around the thermometer, or an air conditioning unit blowing its hot air on the thermometer from a few feet away. Several years ago there was an effort to check the sites of the surface stations in the United States in order to eliminate the problematic locations and reevaluate the remaining temperature record. This post is a good place to start because it shows how NCDC handles reported problems: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/05/ ... ions-org/T

2. Temperature Measurement around the Earth

There are areas, particularly over the oceans, lacking a consistent means to measure the temperature. The solution for IPCC and others is to assume the temperatures in that area are basically the same as the temperatures around it. But there are many examples of locations near each other that have significantly different temperatures, so the homogenization of the temperatures seems questionable.

3. Mann’s Hockey Stick – Paleoclimatology

Michael Mann’s famous hockey stick graph and other activities are discussed in this IBD article:

https://www.investors.com/politics/edit ... s-lawsuit/

The article contains some harsh words for Mann, but it is not unfactual. Basically, Mann cherry-picked 12 trees on the Yamal peninsula whose tree-rings supposedly showed the effects of warming, but didn’t include 32 trees that showed none of those effects . The idea here is that tree-rings can act as a proxy for temperature. The flaw is that foresters will tell you that the growth of trees is more affected by rainfall and damage by animals that by temperature.

4. "Climate-gate"

From the Climate-gate email dump (no it was not hacked), we find this email from Dr. Phil Jones, then Director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia to Warwick Hughes: “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. ” If you can show me any statement more antithetical to science and the scientific method I'd like to see it.

Climate science is awash with the same unscientific practices as standard model cosmology. Although several years old, the following article is a good overview of where AGW and climate science are:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/06/ ... g-contest/
Time is what prevents everything from happening all at once.

jimmcginn
Posts: 521
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 1:43 am

Re: The Roof Leaks at the Top: Conversation with Edwin Berry Phd.

Unread post by jimmcginn » Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:57 pm

jackokie wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:11 pm
Climate science is awash with the same unscientific practices as standard model cosmology. Although several years old, the following article is a good overview of where AGW and climate science are:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/06/ ... g-contest/
Thanks for the response.

I no longer debate with climate whackos or any other religious fanatics. But at one time I did. Here is a post from alt.global.warming

BTW, "Claudius Denk" is my "sock-puppet". (That's internet lingo for "alias.")

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics ... hOaiPwCgAJ
Meteorologists Don't Debate For a Reason -- (just like climate scientists)
On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 6:20:48 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

Interesting finding: it’s freezing inside a Tornado
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/17/ ... a-tornado/

James McGinn:
This is not an interesting finding. Its a mundane, obvious finding. Watt's in
a meteorologists and he finds this obvious fact interesting. That demonstrates
how poorly meteorology understands the true mechanics of the atmosphere. Watt's
is a frickin idiot--all meteorologists are. Obviously tornadoes deliver low
pressure. An interesting question--which I have already solved--is where does
the low pressure come from and how is it delivered to the lower altitudes. What
they found here is only interesting if you are completely clueless from the
outset.

CD:
What's interesting is how this evidence starkly contradicts the vague
convection model of storm theory. If meteorology was a real science rather
than a vague belief system, what McGinn calls *marketing*, an observation like
this would be a crisis. Vigorous debate would ensue.

The reality is that meteorologists don't debate/discuss theory. It's strictly
a taboo subject.

So it is just a passing curiosity to somebody like Anthony Watts who is so
thoroughly ensconced in the overwhelming vagueness of dimwitted convection
model of storm theory. You know, the theory that tell us that cold, windy
storms are caused by warm air that magically rises through drier air above
despite the fact is is laden with moisture that make it heavier, as McGinn has
proven.

CD

jackokie
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2020 1:10 am

Re: The Roof Leaks at the Top: Conversation with Edwin Berry Phd.

Unread post by jackokie » Mon Feb 08, 2021 10:02 pm

jimmcginn,

I ran into the heresy prohibition the other day looking at joining some site's forum (phys.org, space.com - don't remember) where their forum rules basically said "we don't accept science deniers" (and "science deniers" were the words they used).

As a pilot in Oklahoma, I have many times during summer flown at 3 or 4 thousand feet above farmland, where fields often alternate between plowed ground and grass or green crops. On entering the airspace over the plowed ground, there is always the need to lower the nose (because the airplane starts ascending), and the air is more turbulent. Also, having worked for a while in the Rio Grande Valley, I have seen many air-mass thunderstorms form and dissipate. Could you expound on your assertions about vortices with these two phenomena in mind? Thanks.

I see from your signature you have a positive self-image. Do you by any chance get your equipment from Acme? :)
Time is what prevents everything from happening all at once.

jimmcginn
Posts: 521
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 1:43 am

Re: The Roof Leaks at the Top: Conversation with Edwin Berry Phd.

Unread post by jimmcginn » Tue Feb 09, 2021 1:47 am

jackokie wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 10:02 pm I ran into the heresy prohibition the other day looking at joining some site's forum (phys.org, space.com - don't remember) where their forum rules basically said "we don't accept science deniers" (and "science deniers" were the words they used).
Might it be Physics Stack Exchange?
As a pilot in Oklahoma, I have many times during summer flown at 3 or 4 thousand feet above farmland, where fields often alternate between plowed ground and grass or green crops. On entering the airspace over the plowed ground, there is always the need to lower the nose (because the airplane starts ascending), and the air is more turbulent.
There are a number of factors you should take into account before you jump to the conclusion that these observations support or substantiate convection
1) Warmer air (ie. from plowed ground) has a dramatically greater capacity to absorb moisture than does cooler air.
2) Vortice growth targets moist air more than dry air.
3) Vortices are much more common and much more invisible than people generally assume (the commonly observed gustiness of winds, for example, is caused by vortices, not convection--convection can't cause gustiness).

Also, if we assume that turbulence is caused by warm air rising there really is no reason to expect it to produce the joltiness that is experienced in aircraft when they encounter it. It is the H2O-based plasma that sheaths the flow of vortices that does, in my opinion, explain the sharpness or joltiness of CAT.
Also, having worked for a while in the Rio Grande Valley, I have seen many air-mass thunderstorms form and dissipate.
Could you expound on your assertions about vortices with these two phenomena in mind? Thanks.
Here are some titles you can search for in this forum. Given your question and your background you would probably be especially interested in the first two here:
The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms
The Real Reason Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift
What You Never Suspected About Water in the Atmosphere
Moist Air Convection Myth
Accounting For Lorenz’s Missing Lubrication in the Atmospher
What Drives The Jet Streams?
Why Do Jet Streams Exist?
Isaac Newton was a human being
Did you hear the one about the guy that goes to buy a suit?
It's Not What You Know That Will Hurt You . . .
How do tornadoes form? By Skip Talbot (storm chaser)
We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is g
Vortices are the Pressure Relief Valves of the Atmosphere
How do you Debate a Greenhouse Gas Theory ‘Expert’?
What You Don't get about science and truth
Why Meteorology (Storm Theory) is a Cargo Cult Science
Pecos Hank: SCIENCE INSIDE A TORNADO - Decoding the EF5
Millions of Tons of Water Suspended Kilometres Above
Concerning the drying of wet shoes.
Disputing The Existence of 'Cold Steam' in the Atmosphere
Why Are Storms Wet?
Simple Refutation of the Convection Model of Storm Theory
I see from your signature you have a positive self-image. Do you by any chance get your equipment from Acme? :)
No. And dust devils are not caused by small animals from Tasmania.
Thanks for the response
James McGinn / Genius, That's G-E-N-IUS
President of Solving Tornadoes

jackokie
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2020 1:10 am

Re: The Roof Leaks at the Top: Conversation with Edwin Berry Phd.

Unread post by jackokie » Tue Feb 09, 2021 6:15 pm

jimmcginn:

Thanks for the links. I'll check them out.
Time is what prevents everything from happening all at once.

jimmcginn
Posts: 521
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 1:43 am

Re: The Roof Leaks at the Top: Conversation with Edwin Berry Phd.

Unread post by jimmcginn » Tue Feb 09, 2021 7:22 pm

jackokie wrote: Tue Feb 09, 2021 6:15 pm jimmcginn:

Thanks for the links. I'll check them out.
This should make it easier:

The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php ... 10&t=16329
The Real Reason Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php ... 10&t=16652
What You Never Suspected About Water in the Atmosphere
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php ... 10&t=16615
Moist Air Convection Myth
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php ... 10&t=16462
Accounting For Lorenz’s Missing Lubrication in the Atmospher
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php ... 10&t=16430
What Drives The Jet Streams?
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php ... 10&t=16460
Why Do Jet Streams Exist?
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php ... 10&t=16432
Isaac Newton was a human being
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php ... =8&t=16306
Did you hear the one about the guy that goes to buy a suit?
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php ... =8&t=16319
It's Not What You Know That Will Hurt You . . .
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php ... =8&t=16318
How do tornadoes form? By Skip Talbot (storm chaser)
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php ... 10&t=17415
We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is g
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php ... 10&t=16471
Vortices are the Pressure Relief Valves of the Atmosphere
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php ... 10&t=17125
How do you Debate a Greenhouse Gas Theory ‘Expert’?
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php ... 10&t=17169
What You Don't get about science and truth
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php ... 10&t=17161
Why Meteorology (Storm Theory) is a Cargo Cult Science
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php ... 10&t=16613
Pecos Hank: SCIENCE INSIDE A TORNADO - Decoding the EF5
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php ... 10&t=16901
Millions of Tons of Water Suspended Kilometres Above
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php ... 10&t=16597
Concerning the drying of wet shoes.
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php ... 10&t=16647
Disputing The Existence of 'Cold Steam' in the Atmosphere
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php ... 10&t=16851
Why Are Storms Wet?
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php ... 10&t=16841
Simple Refutation of the Convection Model of Storm Theory
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php ... 10&t=16661

jackokie
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2020 1:10 am

Re: The Roof Leaks at the Top: Conversation with Edwin Berry Phd.

Unread post by jackokie » Thu Feb 11, 2021 3:17 pm

crawler:

I encourage you to read this article:

https://issuesinsights.com/2021/02/10/g ... sks-slips/

It might change your perspective on AGW.
Time is what prevents everything from happening all at once.

jimmcginn
Posts: 521
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 1:43 am

Re: The Roof Leaks at the Top: Conversation with Edwin Berry Phd.

Unread post by jimmcginn » Thu Feb 11, 2021 4:59 pm

jackokie wrote: Thu Feb 11, 2021 3:17 pm crawler:

I encourage you to read this article:

https://issuesinsights.com/2021/02/10/g ... sks-slips/

It might change your perspective on AGW.
Obviously you are being tongue in cheek here:

Concluding comment from the article:
"We hope the West, if not the world, soon sees the alarmists for what they are: Charlatans and hacks who cover up their pursuit of political and personal agendas with an ornamental layer of environmentalism. It’s no overstatement to say they pose a danger to us all."

Big thumbs up from me!

James McGinn / Genius

crawler
Posts: 823
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: The Roof Leaks at the Top: Conversation with Edwin Berry Phd.

Unread post by crawler » Fri Feb 12, 2021 11:41 am

jackokie wrote: Thu Feb 11, 2021 3:17 pm crawler:

I encourage you to read this article:

https://issuesinsights.com/2021/02/10/g ... sks-slips/

It might change your perspective on AGW.
Green policies are good. The science is good. Your logic is bad. Good logic says that if there is any possibility that the AGW science is good then we must act fast.
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
The present Einsteinian Dark Age of science will soon end – for the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return – it never left.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests