Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Simple Refutation of the Convection Model of Storm Theory / by James McGinn of Solving Toradoes

82 views
Skip to first unread message

James McGinn

unread,
Dec 31, 2016, 3:09:09 PM12/31/16
to

Simple Refutation of the Convection Model of Storm Theory
by James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

Science is simple. Meteorology is simple.

But not everything that is simple is science.

Consider these four facts:
1) There is a huge amount of evaporation (creation of moist air) occurring
along the equator constantly.
2) There is little evaporation (creation of moist air) at the poles.
3) The most gentle and brief storms occur along the equator.
4) The most violent and energetic storms rage on constantly at the north and
south poles.

If meteorological claims that storms are powered by the buoyancy of lighter,
moist air then the most violent and energetic storms would occur along the equator and the most gentle storms would occur at the poles. Since this--
obviously--is not the case the convection model of storm theory is a
science-based fairy tale. It is refuted. It is nonsense.

Yes, folks, it's that simple. This is how science *actually* works. Take it
from me, a real scientist. You can safely ignore anybody that disputes what
I am saying here. But don't worry. This probably will never happen.
Nitwits never actually attempt to identify why they believe what they claim
they believe. If you get any push-back at all just repeat one through four
above and sit-back and laugh as they stumble all over themselves trying to
convince you that they understand what they actually only believe.

And the fact that there are so many brain-dead, church-lady, nitwits willing
to blindly accept anything stated by anybody that wears the badge of science
doesn't alter the fundamental sensibility of what is being stated here.

Meteorology is a bullshit paradigm that depends greatly on pretending to
understand what it does not in order to marginalize anybody that reveals to
the public that they are full of fertilizer.

Once again, a beautiful theory falls to an ugly fact.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
See my books on Amazon; Search for me by James McGinn Solving Tornadoes

Check this out:
Why the Convection Model of Storm Theory is based on Pixie Dust
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/hvjZgCI8CX0/otSSeFBqEQAJ

James McGinn

unread,
Jan 2, 2017, 8:02:56 PM1/2/17
to

James McGinn

unread,
Jan 5, 2017, 10:50:05 AM1/5/17
to
On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 12:09:09 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

James McGinn

unread,
Jan 10, 2017, 12:39:44 AM1/10/17
to
On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 12:09:09 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

James McGinn

unread,
Jan 12, 2017, 12:24:10 AM1/12/17
to
On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 12:09:09 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

James McGinn

unread,
Jan 13, 2017, 2:41:32 AM1/13/17
to
On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 12:09:09 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

thugst...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 13, 2017, 12:41:05 PM1/13/17
to
snowfall at the poles is really quite small, but
snow is thicker than water -- and it melts every year
at the northern pole, perhaps due to aurorae borealae

> 4) The most violent and energetic storms rage on constantly at the north and
> south poles.
>
> If meteorological claims that storms are powered by the buoyancy of lighter,
> moist air then the most violent and energetic storms would occur along the equator and the most gentle storms would occur at the poles. Since this--
> obviously--is not the case the convection model of storm theory is a
> science-based fairy tale. It is refuted. It is nonsense.
you are the Reverend of snowchurch, reV

Kuri Yretin

unread,
Jan 13, 2017, 4:48:17 PM1/13/17
to
On 1/13/2017 11:41 AM, thugst...@gmail.com wrote:
> snowfall at the poles is really quite small, but snow is thicker than
> water -- and it melts every year at the northern pole, perhaps due to
> aurorae borealae
>
>> 4) The most violent and energetic storms rage on constantly at the
>> north and south poles.

no so.

>>
>> If meteorological claims that storms are powered by the buoyancy of
>> lighter, moist air then the most violent and energetic storms would
>> occur along the equator and the most gentle storms would occur at
>> the poles.

Mcginn is always wrong, that is a given.

>> Since this-- obviously--is not the case the convection
>> model of storm theory is a science-based fairy tale. It is refuted.
>> It is nonsense.
> you are the Reverend of snowchurch, reV

Reverent of the WVD, WaterVaporDeniers, everybody should have VD

>
>> And the fact that there are so many brain-dead, church-lady,
>> nitwits willing to blindly accept anything stated by anybody that
>> wears the badge of science doesn't alter the fundamental
>> sensibility of what is being stated here.

McGinn can only insult, never has any evidence or equations, nor
references.


thugst...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 13, 2017, 9:18:10 PM1/13/17
to
so, could be an actor;
ShakespearE is c00l

James McGinn

unread,
Jan 13, 2017, 9:52:40 PM1/13/17
to
On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 1:48:17 PM UTC-8, Kuri Yretin wrote:
> On 1/13/2017 11:41 AM, thugst...@gmail.com wrote:
> > snowfall at the poles is really quite small, but snow is thicker than
> > water -- and it melts every year at the northern pole, perhaps due to
> > aurorae borealae
> >
> >> 4) The most violent and energetic storms rage on constantly at the
> >> north and south poles.
>
> no so.

Uh . . . ?

>
> >>
> >> If meteorological claims that storms are powered by the buoyancy of
> >> lighter, moist air then the most violent and energetic storms would
> >> occur along the equator and the most gentle storms would occur at
> >> the poles.
>
> Mcginn is always wrong, that is a given.

Uh . . . er, uh. Hmm.

Kuri Yretin

unread,
Jan 13, 2017, 11:49:57 PM1/13/17
to
Klaus Kinski
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iuie740BAa8

Claudius Denk

unread,
Jan 16, 2017, 6:03:43 PM1/16/17
to
On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 12:09:09 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

James McGinn

unread,
Jan 17, 2017, 9:39:03 PM1/17/17
to
On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 12:09:09 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

Claudius Denk

unread,
Jan 18, 2017, 11:50:12 AM1/18/17
to
On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 12:09:09 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:


> Once again, a beautiful theory falls to an ugly fact.

Yep.

Claudius Denk

unread,
Jan 23, 2017, 12:44:10 AM1/23/17
to
On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 12:09:09 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

James McGinn

unread,
Jan 28, 2017, 10:36:14 AM1/28/17
to
On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 12:09:09 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

James McGinn

unread,
Feb 22, 2017, 10:22:37 AM2/22/17
to

James McGinn

unread,
May 3, 2017, 11:37:18 PM5/3/17
to
On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 12:09:09 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

James McGinn

unread,
Feb 18, 2018, 12:24:37 AM2/18/18
to
On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 12:09:09 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

James McGinn

unread,
Feb 27, 2018, 5:38:27 PM2/27/18
to
0 new messages