info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
What is Really Happening in a Storm
125 views
Skip to first unread message
James McGinn
Jan 13, 2016, 12:53:31 AM1/13/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
What is Really Happening in a Storm
Vortices can exist along boundary layers in our atmosphere. There are thousands of vortices in existence and growing into thousands of boundary layers in our atmosphere at all times. These vortices are extensions of jet streams which are themselves vortices that exist along the boundary layer between the dry stratosphere and the moist troposphere. Understanding how and why vortices grow along moist/dry boundaries in our atmosphere is, possibly, the most important concept in storm theory. Along these lines, it helps us resolve what would otherwise be a significant conundrum, how/why heavier moist air gets higher in our atmosphere than lighter dry air.
In a nutshell, the net effect of these thousands of vortices in our atmosphere is to lift heavier moist air higher in the atmosphere than drier air. This happens in storms. Meteorology, however, does not recognize vortices as the cause of storms but instead considers them an effect of a storm. Instead meteorology decreed that moist air is lighter than dry air and the convection of moist air through "heavier" dry air is what causes storms. Problem solved. Convection explained how moist air got higher and it explained storms. Now all they had to do was avoid testing this notion, which they achieved by making the whole subject a taboo issue. What can't be discussed can't be tested. Then it's simply a matter of systematically ignoring/alienating anybody that has the temerity to suggest that the weight of moist/dry air should be measured/tested Accordingly these political tactics insure that the notion that convection causes storms can never be tested empirically. The end-maintaining the illusion of scientific credibilty-justifies the means.
There is a gigantic price to pay for the convenience of meteorologists being able to pretend to understand what they do not understand, and this burden is bared by the public in the form of death and destruction from severe weather and economic losses as a result of drought. Accordingly, if meteorologists were not so obsessed with maintaining this taboo then research would have, naturally, lead meteorologists to be better able to recognize the importance of boundary layers in our atmosphere which would, naturally, lead to the development of methods to better predict and mitigate severe weather and avoid drought.
The time has come to make a change. The time has come that the public must make it known that meteorologists no longer have to fear retribution if they admit that they really don't understand storms. The time has come for us to inform them that pretending to understand and evading debate/discussion will no longer be tolerated. The time has come to bring them, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. And then, maybe, we can start making progress in getting a better understanding of boundary layers. Boundary layers are the true commodity of atmospheric flow, not convection.
Vortices can exist along boundary layers in our atmosphere. There are thousands of vortices in existence and growing into thousands of boundary layers in our atmosphere at all times. These vortices are extensions of jet streams which are themselves vortices that exist along the boundary layer between the dry stratosphere and the moist troposphere. Understanding how and why vortices grow along moist/dry boundaries in our atmosphere is, possibly, the most important concept in storm theory. Along these lines, it helps us resolve what would otherwise be a significant conundrum, how/why heavier moist air gets higher in our atmosphere than lighter dry air.
In a nutshell, the net effect of these thousands of vortices in our atmosphere is to lift heavier moist air higher in the atmosphere than drier air. This happens in storms. Meteorology, however, does not recognize vortices as the cause of storms but instead considers them an effect of a storm. Instead meteorology decreed that moist air is lighter than dry air and the convection of moist air through "heavier" dry air is what causes storms. Problem solved. Convection explained how moist air got higher and it explained storms. Now all they had to do was avoid testing this notion, which they achieved by making the whole subject a taboo issue. What can't be discussed can't be tested. Then it's simply a matter of systematically ignoring/alienating anybody that has the temerity to suggest that the weight of moist/dry air should be measured/tested Accordingly these political tactics insure that the notion that convection causes storms can never be tested empirically. The end-maintaining the illusion of scientific credibilty-justifies the means.
There is a gigantic price to pay for the convenience of meteorologists being able to pretend to understand what they do not understand, and this burden is bared by the public in the form of death and destruction from severe weather and economic losses as a result of drought. Accordingly, if meteorologists were not so obsessed with maintaining this taboo then research would have, naturally, lead meteorologists to be better able to recognize the importance of boundary layers in our atmosphere which would, naturally, lead to the development of methods to better predict and mitigate severe weather and avoid drought.
The time has come to make a change. The time has come that the public must make it known that meteorologists no longer have to fear retribution if they admit that they really don't understand storms. The time has come for us to inform them that pretending to understand and evading debate/discussion will no longer be tolerated. The time has come to bring them, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. And then, maybe, we can start making progress in getting a better understanding of boundary layers. Boundary layers are the true commodity of atmospheric flow, not convection.
James McGinn
Jan 14, 2016, 12:15:31 AM1/14/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Solving Tornadoes
Jan 14, 2016, 1:54:35 PM1/14/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 9:15:31 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 9:53:31 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> There is a gigantic price to pay for the convenience of meteorologists being able to pretend to understand what they do not understand,
Thousands upon thousands.
> On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 9:53:31 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> There is a gigantic price to pay for the convenience of meteorologists being able to pretend to understand what they do not understand,
James McGinn
Jan 15, 2016, 4:56:10 PM1/15/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Odd Bodkin
Jan 15, 2016, 5:15:43 PM1/15/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
I am champing at the bit for a fight, so bring it on. And if you all
don't want to take me on, then I'll just amusing myself by commenting on
my own posts, because I need to converse with SOMEONE, dammit."
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Sergio
Jan 15, 2016, 5:19:43 PM1/15/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On 1/13/2016 11:15 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 9:53:31 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> There is a gigantic price to pay for the convenience of meteorologists being able to pretend to understand what they do not understand,
>
not to worry, they pay the money to me,
> On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 9:53:31 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> There is a gigantic price to pay for the convenience of meteorologists being able to pretend to understand what they do not understand,
>
and you can too,
send funds to makem...@paypal.com
you will feel better, and you will be on the right side.
James McGinn
Jan 16, 2016, 7:06:39 PM1/16/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 2:19:43 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> you will feel better, and you will be on the right side.
Not left?
> you will feel better, and you will be on the right side.
James McGinn
Jan 19, 2016, 12:27:15 AM1/19/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Odd Bodkin
Jan 19, 2016, 10:42:47 AM1/19/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
data is opposed to your ideas, even if they are long established and
oft-measured. This is made easier by your confession that you dismiss
everyone else's comments as being made by an idiot.
But the data about the heat carried away by the process of sweating
being at least an order of magnitude higher than what could be accounted
for by liquid water and its heat capacity .... that data remains,
whether you dismiss those who bring it to your attention or not.
Silverthorn, Human Physiology, Chapters 5, 18, 20, 22, plus references
contained therein.
--
Sergio
Jan 19, 2016, 12:35:52 PM1/19/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On 1/19/2016 9:42 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
> But the data about the heat carried away by the process of sweating
> being at least an order of magnitude higher than what could be accounted
> for by liquid water and its heat capacity .... that data remains,
> whether you dismiss those who bring it to your attention or not.
evaporative cooling;
a most effecient process;
used by most all large building cooling systems in their cooling towers.
used in Aridzona for primary AC.
> On 1/18/2016 11:27 PM, Jammie-boy McGinn wrote:
>> On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 2:15:43 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 2:15:43 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 1/15/2016 3:56 PM, James the McGoon wrote:
>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>
>
> The beauty of being in your position is that you can ignore whatever
> data is opposed to your ideas, even if they are long established and
> oft-measured. This is made easier by your confession that you dismiss
> everyone else's comments as being made by an idiot.
ha! sounds like Obama.
>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>
>
> The beauty of being in your position is that you can ignore whatever
> data is opposed to your ideas, even if they are long established and
> oft-measured. This is made easier by your confession that you dismiss
> everyone else's comments as being made by an idiot.
>
> But the data about the heat carried away by the process of sweating
> being at least an order of magnitude higher than what could be accounted
> for by liquid water and its heat capacity .... that data remains,
> whether you dismiss those who bring it to your attention or not.
a most effecient process;
used by most all large building cooling systems in their cooling towers.
used in Aridzona for primary AC.
Solving Tornadoes
Jan 21, 2016, 10:26:04 PM1/21/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Sergio
Jan 21, 2016, 10:54:23 PM1/21/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
that is why you respond to your own posts,
you must be scoring it by # of views.
JSH did that but he was a master at keeping threads going, up to 130
responces on a single thread, not looks either.
James McGinn
Jan 23, 2016, 12:00:53 PM1/23/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
James McGinn
Jan 26, 2016, 3:25:56 AM1/26/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Thousands upon thousands.
Solving Tornadoes
Jan 28, 2016, 12:55:27 PM1/28/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 9:53:31 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
James McGinn
Jan 30, 2016, 11:05:55 AM1/30/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
James McGinn
Feb 4, 2016, 1:46:57 PM2/4/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 9:53:31 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
James McGinn
Feb 11, 2016, 1:58:26 AM2/11/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
James McGinn
Feb 13, 2016, 3:34:02 PM2/13/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
James McGinn
Feb 19, 2016, 2:58:07 AM2/19/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 9:53:31 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
Sam Wormley
Feb 19, 2016, 9:49:15 AM2/19/16
to
On 2/19/16 1:57 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> The time has come to make a change. The time has come that the public
> must make it known that meteorologists no longer have to fear
> retribution if they admit that they really don't understand storms.
> The time has come for us to inform them that pretending to understand
> and evading debate/discussion will no longer be tolerated. The time
> has come to bring them, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century.
> And then, maybe, we can start making progress in getting a better
> understanding of boundary layers. Boundary layers are the true
> commodity of atmospheric flow, not convection.
Basics
> The time has come to make a change. The time has come that the public
> must make it known that meteorologists no longer have to fear
> retribution if they admit that they really don't understand storms.
> The time has come for us to inform them that pretending to understand
> and evading debate/discussion will no longer be tolerated. The time
> has come to bring them, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century.
> And then, maybe, we can start making progress in getting a better
> understanding of boundary layers. Boundary layers are the true
> commodity of atmospheric flow, not convection.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmWh9jV_1ac
Tornadoes from Below and Above
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EaLJJtVHTA
Supercomputer Simulation of how Hurricanes Intensifies;
'hot tower' Phenomena
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_e8mBZaFhyg
--
sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.
James McGinn
Mar 6, 2016, 12:37:23 PM3/6/16
to
Solving Tornadoes
Mar 6, 2016, 6:50:36 PM3/6/16
to
On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 6:49:15 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
Do you know who this is, Sam?
Sam Wormley
Mar 6, 2016, 7:55:56 PM3/6/16
to
"What causes a Tornado to form? How can we foresee them? New
technologies are giving people more and more time to prepare and seek
shelter in a time of crisis, whether it be from information gathered
on the ground or spectacular visual mapping from new satellites in
space. Engineer and storm chaser Tim Samaras gives his unique
perspective and insight on the situation".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EaLJJtVHTA
Solving Tornadoes
Mar 6, 2016, 8:02:45 PM3/6/16
to
On Sunday, March 6, 2016 at 4:55:56 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 3/6/16 5:50 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> > On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 6:49:15 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >
> >> Tornadoes from Below and Above
> >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EaLJJtVHTA
> >
> > Do you know who this is, Sam?
> >
>
> Yes, I do.
>
> "What causes a Tornado to form? How can we foresee them? New
> technologies are giving people more and more time to prepare and seek
> shelter in a time of crisis, whether it be from information gathered
> on the ground or spectacular visual mapping from new satellites in
> space. Engineer and storm chaser Tim Samaras gives his unique
> perspective and insight on the situation".
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EaLJJtVHTA
Do you know how he died?
> On 3/6/16 5:50 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> > On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 6:49:15 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >
> >> Tornadoes from Below and Above
> >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EaLJJtVHTA
> >
> > Do you know who this is, Sam?
> >
>
> Yes, I do.
>
> "What causes a Tornado to form? How can we foresee them? New
> technologies are giving people more and more time to prepare and seek
> shelter in a time of crisis, whether it be from information gathered
> on the ground or spectacular visual mapping from new satellites in
> space. Engineer and storm chaser Tim Samaras gives his unique
> perspective and insight on the situation".
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EaLJJtVHTA
Sam Wormley
Mar 6, 2016, 8:21:15 PM3/6/16
to
James McGinn
Apr 18, 2016, 8:53:48 PM4/18/16
to
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 9:53:31 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> What is Really Happening in a Storm
>
>
Vortices can exist along boundary layers in our atmosphere. There are thousands of vortices in existence and growing into thousands of boundary layers in our atmosphere at all times. These vortices are extensions of jet streams which are themselves vortices that exist along the boundary layer between the dry stratosphere and the moist troposphere. Understanding how and why vortices grow along moist/dry boundaries in our atmosphere is, possibly, the most important concept in storm theory. Along these lines, it helps us resolve what would otherwise be a significant conundrum, how/why heavier moist air gets higher in our atmosphere than lighter dry air.
>
> In a nutshell, the net effect of these thousands of vortices in our atmosphere is to lift heavier moist air higher in the atmosphere than drier air. This happens in storms. Meteorology, however, does not recognize vortices as the cause of storms but instead considers them an effect of a storm. Instead meteorology decreed that moist air is lighter than dry air and the convection of moist air through "heavier" dry air is what causes storms. Problem solved. Convection explained how moist air got higher and it explained storms. Now all they had to do was avoid testing this notion, which they achieved by making the whole subject a taboo issue. What can't be discussed can't be tested. Then it's simply a matter of systematically ignoring/alienating anybody that has the temerity to suggest that the weight of moist/dry air should be measured/tested Accordingly these political tactics insure that the notion that convection causes storms can never be tested empirically. The end-maintaining the illusion of scientific credibilty-justifies the means.
>
> There is a gigantic price to pay for the convenience of meteorologists being able to pretend to understand what they do not understand, and this burden is bared by the public in the form of death and destruction from severe weather and economic losses as a result of drought. Accordingly, if meteorologists were not so obsessed with maintaining this taboo then research would have, naturally, lead meteorologists to be better able to recognize the importance of boundary layers in our atmosphere which would, naturally, lead to the development of methods to better predict and mitigate severe weather and avoid drought.
>
> What is Really Happening in a Storm
>
>
Vortices can exist along boundary layers in our atmosphere. There are thousands of vortices in existence and growing into thousands of boundary layers in our atmosphere at all times. These vortices are extensions of jet streams which are themselves vortices that exist along the boundary layer between the dry stratosphere and the moist troposphere. Understanding how and why vortices grow along moist/dry boundaries in our atmosphere is, possibly, the most important concept in storm theory. Along these lines, it helps us resolve what would otherwise be a significant conundrum, how/why heavier moist air gets higher in our atmosphere than lighter dry air.
>
> In a nutshell, the net effect of these thousands of vortices in our atmosphere is to lift heavier moist air higher in the atmosphere than drier air. This happens in storms. Meteorology, however, does not recognize vortices as the cause of storms but instead considers them an effect of a storm. Instead meteorology decreed that moist air is lighter than dry air and the convection of moist air through "heavier" dry air is what causes storms. Problem solved. Convection explained how moist air got higher and it explained storms. Now all they had to do was avoid testing this notion, which they achieved by making the whole subject a taboo issue. What can't be discussed can't be tested. Then it's simply a matter of systematically ignoring/alienating anybody that has the temerity to suggest that the weight of moist/dry air should be measured/tested Accordingly these political tactics insure that the notion that convection causes storms can never be tested empirically. The end-maintaining the illusion of scientific credibilty-justifies the means.
>
> There is a gigantic price to pay for the convenience of meteorologists being able to pretend to understand what they do not understand, and this burden is bared by the public in the form of death and destruction from severe weather and economic losses as a result of drought. Accordingly, if meteorologists were not so obsessed with maintaining this taboo then research would have, naturally, lead meteorologists to be better able to recognize the importance of boundary layers in our atmosphere which would, naturally, lead to the development of methods to better predict and mitigate severe weather and avoid drought.
>
reber g=emc^2
Apr 19, 2016, 3:51:04 PM4/19/16
to
Sergio
Apr 19, 2016, 9:35:05 PM4/19/16
to
On 4/19/2016 2:51 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 9:53:31 PM UTC-8, James McGinn
> wrote:
>> What is Really Happening in a Storm
>>
<snip crap>
> On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 9:53:31 PM UTC-8, James McGinn
> wrote:
>> What is Really Happening in a Storm
>>
>> convection.
>
> My Heavy Air Theory is well accepted Houstan,and New Orleans give it
> great proof.Trebert
>
Insane James, in a nutshell, says evil meterologists must pay, kicking
and screaming, taboo, temerity, illusion, and more stuff like that.
benj
Apr 20, 2016, 12:15:48 AM4/20/16
to
James McGinn
May 11, 2016, 8:59:43 PM5/11/16
to
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 9:53:31 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> What is Really Happening in a Storm
>
> What is Really Happening in a Storm
>
James McGinn
Jun 8, 2016, 7:02:40 PM6/8/16
to
James McGinn
Aug 7, 2016, 1:22:15 PM8/7/16
to
0 new messages