Why the Convection Model of Storm Theory is based on Pixie Dust

136 views
Skip to first unread message

James McGinn

unread,
Dec 26, 2016, 10:32:06 PM12/26/16
to
One simple observation that proves I'm right and the convection model is wrong:
Storms and low pressure are correlated.

Conversely, there is zero reliable, non-anecdotal evidence of expansiveness
and buoyancy playing a role in storms. Or, I should say, the observational
data that does exist can best be described as being much more frequent than
but equally as anecdotal as that associated with big foot sightings.

More simply put, if the convection model was correct then storms would be
correlated with high pressure. They aren't.

(Deal with it, you church ladies.)

The belief that it does has nothing to do with science and everything to do
with group delusion.

And so, in a sense, atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled. Jet
streams are the source of the concentrated and directed low pressure that
pulls the rest of the atmosphere along. The properties (poorly understood)
of water under wind shear conditions are instrumental to the emergence of
the plasma (plainly viewable as the sheath of a tornado) that provides the
leverage (structural) that facilitates all of the above, through vortices
that provide their fast moving contents (air flowing, sometimes, at speeds
upwards of 300 mph) isolation from the friction of the atmosphere and, at
one and the same time, provide the upper troposphere the means by which it,
essentially maintains its grip on the lower troposphere and, simultaneously,
stays hydrated. (Fortunately for ourselves and all other land based animals,
it ["it" being, essentially, the jet stream{s}] is a sloppy drinker.)

Convection plays no role what-so-ever!!!

The convection model is a cartoon based on fictional physical principles
the underlying basis of which is pixie dust.

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

See my books on Amazon
Search: James McGinn Solving Tornadoes

pnal...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 26, 2016, 10:39:44 PM12/26/16
to
So many words, so much babble... but no proof at all.

Here we go again, Jim, all this bluster and absolutely NO PROOF!

I know, I know, you are now going to ask ME to disprove your position, but you would be wrong! YOU are making these claims, therefore it is up to YOU to provide the observations and experiments that show you to be correct.

Of course, you can't do it because there is no proof, no observations, and no experiments that you have performed to prop you up.

Just another McGinn rant with no teeth. As always, you've got NOTHING!

Yuri Kreaton

unread,
Dec 26, 2016, 10:58:24 PM12/26/16
to
On 12/26/2016 9:39 PM, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, December 26, 2016 at 7:32:06 PM UTC-8, James McGinn
> wrote:
>> One simple observation that proves I'm right and the convection
>> model is wrong: Storms and low pressure are correlated.

you are wrong.

>>
>> Conversely, there is zero reliable, non-anecdotal evidence of
>> expansiveness and buoyancy playing a role in storms. Or, I should
>> say, the observational data that does exist can best be described
>> as being much more frequent than but equally as anecdotal as that
>> associated with big foot sightings.

James, what a delightful intellect you have, like a carrot pulled from
the ground.

>>
>> More simply put, if the convection model was correct then storms
>> would be correlated with high pressure. They aren't.

your assumptions are bogus, like preconceived vapidity vapors.

>>
>> (Deal with it, you church ladies.)

so, you are trying to get even with your old professors that tried their
best to teach you, but crossed you off the smart list, and put you on
the dumb shit list.

>>
>> The belief that it does has nothing to do with science and
>> everything to do with group delusion.

there you go, you have delusion on no water vapor. (google delusion)


>> And so, in a sense, atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled.

like a fart ? pushed or pulled ?


>> Jet streams are the source of the concentrated and directed low
>> pressure
that
>> pulls the rest of the atmosphere along.

you watch the weather on TV ?, they show you the jet stream on a map ?
most watch the weather girl instead.


>> The properties (poorly understood) of water under wind shear
>> conditions are instrumental to the emergence of the plasma

wrong, not a plasma

>> (plainly viewable as the sheath of a tornado)

no, that is water vapor, or cold steam.


>> that provides the leverage (structural) that facilitates all of the
>> above, through vortices that provide their fast moving contents
>> (air flowing, sometimes, at speeds upwards of 300 mph) isolation
>> from the friction of the atmosphere and, at one and the same time,
>> provide the upper troposphere the means by which it, essentially
>> maintains its grip on the lower troposphere and, simultaneously,
>> stays hydrated. (Fortunately for ourselves and all other land based
>> animals, it ["it" being, essentially, the jet stream{s}] is a
>> sloppy drinker.)
>>
>> Convection plays no role what-so-ever!!!

wrong again, your delusion keeps you deluded, self reinforcing.

>>
>> The convection model is a cartoon based on fictional physical
>> principles the underlying basis of which is pixie dust.

how much "pixie dust" you snort an hour ?


>>
>> James McGinn Solving Tornadoes
>>
>> See my books on Amazon Search: James McGinn Solving Tornadoes

you sold only 2 books, and both of them hated it so badly, they wrote
bad reviews


James McGinn

unread,
Dec 26, 2016, 11:11:22 PM12/26/16
to
I wouldn't pretend to compete with your imagination.

Don't ever let anybody tell you that being second best isn't good enough:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/3-6MH4umrU0/qAF-9AWyDQAJ

Thank you for your participation.

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
See My Books on Amazon

James McGinn

unread,
Dec 26, 2016, 11:14:15 PM12/26/16
to
Thank you for your participation. And remember, don't let anybody tell you that second best isn't good enough:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/3-6MH4umrU0/qAF-9AWyDQAJ

James McGinn

unread,
Dec 27, 2016, 10:51:22 AM12/27/16
to
On Monday, December 26, 2016 at 7:58:24 PM UTC-8, Yuri Kreaton wrote:
> On 12/26/2016 9:39 PM, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, December 26, 2016 at 7:32:06 PM UTC-8, James McGinn
> > wrote:
> >> One simple observation that proves I'm right and the convection
> >> model is wrong: Storms and low pressure are correlated.
>
> you are wrong.
>
> >>
> >> Conversely, there is zero reliable, non-anecdotal evidence of
> >> expansiveness and buoyancy playing a role in storms. Or, I should
> >> say, the observational data that does exist can best be described
> >> as being much more frequent than but equally as anecdotal as that
> >> associated with big foot sightings.
>
> James, what a delightful intellect you have

Have you ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger Effect?

James McGinn

unread,
Dec 28, 2016, 10:33:02 AM12/28/16
to
On Monday, December 26, 2016 at 7:39:44 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
You can't dispute my position. And you are embarrassed to confront the
inconsistencies that I exposed in your model.

I think this ends the discussion. Once again, you got nothing!!!

> YOU are making these claims, therefore it is up to YOU to provide the
> observations and experiments that show you to be correct.

LOL. Why would I bother? You've essentially conceded the argument.

> Of course, you can't do it because there is no proof, no observations, and no
experiments that you have performed to prop you up.
>
> Just another McGinn rant with no teeth. As always, you've got NOTHING!

So, essentially, your argument is structurally identical to somebody that saw a ghost and thinks its everybody else's duty to prove they didn't.

Here are the facts that you failed to contradict:

1) There is zero reliable, non-anecdotal evidence of expansiveness
and buoyancy playing a role in storms. (The observational
data that does exist can best be described as being much more
frequent than but equally as anecdotal as that associated with big
foot sightings.)

2) In stark contradiction to what the (now discredited) convection
model of storm theory predicts, storms are correlated with low
pressure not high pressure. (The belief that it predicts low
pressure despite the obvious fact that it does not appears to be
a part of a larger group delusion or cult-based notion.)

3) Atmospheric flow is not pushed by high pressure but can more
accurately be described as being pulled by low pressure stemming
from the jet streams. (And so, in a sense, atmospheric flow
isn't pushed, it is pulled. Jet streams are the source of the
concentrated and directed low pressure that pulls the rest of the
atmosphere along.)

4) The properties (poorly understood) of water (suspended
microdroplets) under wind shear conditions are instrumental to the
emergence of the plasma (plainly viewable as the sheath of a
tornado) that provides the leverage (structural) that facilitates
all of the above, through vortices that provide their fast moving
contents (air flowing, sometimes, at speeds upwards of 300 mph)
isolation from the friction of the atmosphere and, at one and the
same time, provide the upper troposphere the means by which it,
essentially, maintains its grip on the lower troposphere and,
simultaneously, stays hydrated. (Fortunately for ourselves and all
other land based animals, it ["it" being, essentially, the jet
stream{s}] is a sloppy drinker.)

5) Convection plays no role what-so-ever!!! The convection model is
a cartoon based on fictional physical principles the underlying
basis of which is pixie dust. (There is actually an exception to
this rule that is beyond the scope of this examination.) And the
people that believe it does are, like, fairies, very nice people
and very simple, but not scientist. They are best ignored, or
shooed off to flutter away.


Claudius Denk

unread,
Dec 29, 2016, 11:34:56 AM12/29/16
to
On Monday, December 26, 2016 at 7:39:44 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
Such a weak-ass argument. Why don't you just wave a white flag.

Claudius Denk

unread,
Dec 29, 2016, 11:35:52 AM12/29/16
to
On Monday, December 26, 2016 at 7:58:24 PM UTC-8, Yuri Kreaton wrote:
Are you retarded? Where is your argument, you imbecile?

James McGinn

unread,
Dec 29, 2016, 1:25:30 PM12/29/16
to
On Monday, December 26, 2016 at 7:58:24 PM UTC-8, Yuri Kreaton wrote:
> On 12/26/2016 9:39 PM, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, December 26, 2016 at 7:32:06 PM UTC-8, James McGinn
> > wrote:
> >> One simple observation that proves I'm right and the convection
> >> model is wrong: Storms and low pressure are correlated.
>
> you are wrong.

Is this your argument?

James McGinn

unread,
Dec 29, 2016, 1:26:56 PM12/29/16
to
Yuri,

This is where you are too dumb to realize how dumb you are.

Fits you perfectly, don't it?

LOL.

Solving Tornadoes

unread,
Mar 24, 2017, 12:45:12 PM3/24/17
to
On Monday, December 26, 2016 at 7:32:06 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
kjlij

James McGinn

unread,
Apr 1, 2017, 5:25:27 PM4/1/17
to
On Monday, December 26, 2016 at 7:32:06 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

Solving Tornadoes

unread,
Apr 10, 2017, 11:03:18 PM4/10/17
to

Paco

unread,
Apr 13, 2017, 12:27:43 PM4/13/17
to
Wow! I see why Mcginn went nuts over the study of turbulence and jet streams. But this guy seems to have a handle on it.

Brian F. Farrell. Robert P. Burden Professor of Meteorology.
 
Climate Week: Climate Science Breakfast with Brian F. Farrell

https://vimeo.com/125907095


 http://brian-f-farrell.fas.harvard.edu

Serg io

unread,
Apr 13, 2017, 1:12:49 PM4/13/17
to
he seems to be looking at the right areas, stability of dynamic systems

James McGinn

unread,
Apr 13, 2017, 1:48:06 PM4/13/17
to
He speaks of a positive feedback being necessary for the jets to exist. But then he tries to dodge the issue by suggesting, Nature provides it, which is meaningless.

The positive feedback is formation of plasma along wind shear boundaries. Higher wind speed equates to more energy for the spinning of the microdroplets and that enables stronger plasma, enabling higher wind speeds, stronger plasma, ad infinitum. That is the positive feedback.

This guy is a lot smarter than most on this subject. But he will find himself forever frustrated by the fact that he is missing one element without which he can never resolve the understanding--H2O plasma of spinning microdroplets.

Paco

unread,
Apr 13, 2017, 6:48:25 PM4/13/17
to


> > Brian F. Farrell. Robert P. Burden Professor of Meteorology.
> >  
> > Climate Week: Climate Science Breakfast with Brian F. Farrell
> >
> > https://vimeo.com/125907095
> >
> >
> >  http://brian-f-farrell.fas.harvard.edu
>

On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 1:48:06 PM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote:
> He speaks of a positive feedback being necessary for the jets to exist. But then he tries to dodge the issue by suggesting, Nature provides it, which is meaningless.
>
> The positive feedback is formation of plasma along wind shear boundaries. Higher wind speed equates to more energy for the spinning of the microdroplets and that enables stronger plasma, enabling higher wind speeds, stronger plasma, ad infinitum. That is the positive feedback.
>
> This guy is a lot smarter than most on this subject. But he will find himself forever frustrated by the fact that he is missing one element without which he can never resolve the understanding--H2O plasma of spinning microdroplets.


I think he will never be frustrated about spinning microdroplets, only those who read your post....

James McGinn

unread,
Apr 13, 2017, 7:10:01 PM4/13/17
to
Do you realize the significance of this Paco?

My hypothesis on tornadogenesis has been confirmed:
https://vimeo.com/125907095#t=683s

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

Paco

unread,
Apr 13, 2017, 9:41:54 PM4/13/17
to
one thing I noted was he didn't have any friction issues by using a linier equations. coriolis seemed adiquate to initiate the turbulence and cyclones to dampen or act as speed goveners. his model still utilizes convection. He wisely doesnt try to re-invent the wheel. I have been listening to him on the run alot today and I have to listen to it several more times. That guy is a great instructer! Vary facinating material.

Serg io

unread,
Apr 13, 2017, 10:27:36 PM4/13/17
to
On 4/13/2017 5:48 PM, Paco wrote:
>
>
>>> Brian F. Farrell. Robert P. Burden Professor of Meteorology.
>>>
>>> Climate Week: Climate Science Breakfast with Brian F. Farrell
>>>
>>> https://vimeo.com/125907095
>>>
>>>
>>> http://brian-f-farrell.fas.harvard.edu
>>
>
> On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 1:48:06 PM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote:
>> He speaks of a positive feedback being necessary for the jets to
>> exist.

obviously that is true.

>> But then he tries to dodge the issue by suggesting, Nature
>> provides it,

obviously true too.

>> which is meaningless.

most real things are meaningless to James McGinn.

>>
>> The positive feedback is formation of plasma along wind shear
>> boundaries.

Prove it. your "plasma" doesn't exist except in your imagination.

>> Higher wind speed equates to more energy for the
>> spinning of the microdroplets

wrong, on several levels.

>> and that enables stronger plasma,

your magical "plasma", sky goop ?

>> enabling higher wind speeds, stronger plasma, ad infinitum. That
>> is the positive feedback.

that is silly

>>
>> This guy is a lot smarter than most on this subject. But he will
>> find himself forever frustrated by the fact that he is missing one
>> element without which he can never resolve the understanding--H2O
>> plasma of spinning microdroplets.
>

spinning drops are not "plasma". go look in wiki, idiot.

Serg io

unread,
Apr 13, 2017, 10:30:24 PM4/13/17
to
On 4/13/2017 8:41 PM, Paco wrote:
> one thing I noted was he didn't have any friction issues by using a
> linier equations.

friction and LE are seperate items.


> coriolis seemed adiquate to initiate the turbulence
> and cyclones to dampen or act as speed goveners.

nope, too simple to conclude that.

> his model still
> utilizes convection.

obviously.

> He wisely doesnt try to re-invent the wheel.

nothing new with that comment, one builds on proven knowledge

pnal...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 13, 2017, 11:12:23 PM4/13/17
to
On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 7:27:36 PM UTC-7, Serg io wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 1:48:06 PM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote:

> >> The positive feedback is formation of plasma along wind shear
> >> boundaries.
>
> Prove it. your "plasma" doesn't exist except in your imagination.

Jim doesn't have to provide proof of anything because he is a 'theorist', and they never need to bother with things like observations or experiments. Just ask him, he'll tell you...

Poutnik

unread,
Apr 14, 2017, 3:08:20 AM4/14/17
to
Dne 14/04/2017 v 03:41 Paco napsal(a):
> one thing I noted was he didn't have any friction issues by using a linier equations. coriolis seemed adiquate to initiate the turbulence and cyclones to dampen or act as speed goveners. his model still utilizes convection. He wisely doesnt try to re-invent the wheel. I have been listening to him on the run alot today and I have to listen to it several more times. That guy is a great instructer! Vary facinating material.
>
This "great instructor"
has near no knowledge about basics of physics,
but I grant him great skills
in social engineering and personal attacks.

Time is too worthy to waste it on him.

--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

Paco

unread,
Apr 14, 2017, 8:57:42 PM4/14/17
to
What would you Fault him on?

Serg io

unread,
Apr 14, 2017, 9:19:35 PM4/14/17
to
On 4/14/2017 7:57 PM, Paco wrote:
> What would you Fault him on?
>

mcginn is the "Ad hominem" guy,
and the "no math ever" guy,
and the "I cant look it up on the internet" guy.

pnal...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 14, 2017, 9:22:55 PM4/14/17
to
On Friday, April 14, 2017 at 5:57:42 PM UTC-7, Paco wrote:
> What would you Fault him on?

I think you guys are speaking of 2 different people. Poutnik is speaking of McGinn...

James McGinn

unread,
Apr 15, 2017, 9:41:24 AM4/15/17
to
I can't even imagine how frustrating it must be to be so sure you are right and so completely unable to say how or why.

James McGinn

unread,
Apr 15, 2017, 11:01:27 AM4/15/17
to
On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 6:41:54 PM UTC-7, Paco wrote:
> one thing I noted was he didn't have any friction issues by using a linier equations.


I don't know what you are talking about. Friction is what prevents the atmosphere from achieving equillibrium. The sheath of vortices (made from a water-based plasma) is what provides isolation from this friction to thereby achieve some semblance of eqilibrium. This is true regardless of the type of equation you use.

coriolis seemed adiquate to initiate the turbulence and cyclones to dampen or act as speed goveners.


Meaningless. Coriolis doesn't do these things.


his model still utilizes convection. He wisely doesnt try to re-invent the wheel.

If this is true he has no chance of making any progress. Convection is just wrong. It is a stupid thing to believe.

I have been listening to him on the run alot today and I have to listen to it several more times. That guy is a great instructer! Vary facinating material.

He correctly understands the significance of barometric pressure as the engine of jet stream flow. He mentions a guy named G.I Taylor, and Taylor stated that the Navier Stokes equation must be wrong. Specifically Taylor said their is a missing increase in viscosity. He then goes on to state, "Well, we know better than that now." He then get lost in mathematical triviality.

Taylor was correct. The plasma phase of H2O is what is missing. This is how structure is able to persist in the atmosphere.

Farrel then goes on talking about perturbations--this is just nonsense.

Through the rest of the video Farrel is just fumbling around with mathematical triviality.

James McGinn

unread,
Apr 15, 2017, 11:03:50 AM4/15/17
to
On Friday, April 14, 2017 at 6:19:35 PM UTC-7, Serg io wrote:
The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.

James McGinn

unread,
Apr 15, 2017, 1:40:29 PM4/15/17
to
On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 6:41:54 PM UTC-7, Paco wrote:
> one thing I noted was he didn't have any friction issues by using a linier equations. coriolis seemed adiquate to initiate the turbulence and cyclones to dampen or act as speed goveners. his model still utilizes convection. He wisely doesnt try to re-invent the wheel. I have been listening to him on the run alot today and I have to listen to it several more times. That guy is a great instructer! Vary facinating material.

Did you notice that Tokomac involved plasma?

Paco

unread,
Apr 15, 2017, 2:27:05 PM4/15/17
to
Lol..

"I think you guys are speaking of 2 different people. Poutnik is speaking of McGinn..."

Your right. Thanks

Paco

unread,
Apr 15, 2017, 2:31:35 PM4/15/17
to
Mcginn wrote:
" Did you notice that Tokomac involved plasma? "

It was an analogy. The plasma transition to greater confinement.
The climate systems temperature gradient has a simular fluid dynamic of creating jets. Lest that's what I understood he was saying.

James McGinn

unread,
Apr 15, 2017, 2:32:34 PM4/15/17
to
Trolls never actually read anything.

Trolls are just trolls.

James McGinn

unread,
Apr 15, 2017, 2:38:56 PM4/15/17
to
I don't know exactly what he was referring to, but it is interesting that jets formed naturally in this plasma and these jets achieved thermodynamic equillibrium, just like the jets in the atmosphere. It's not just and analogy.

The jets that form naturally in the atmosphere are structural. It's impossible for structure to form if all of the elements have the same viscosity. The professor is trying to theorize with one arm tied behind his back. Jets cannot exist in the atmosphere if there is no plasma.

pnal...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 15, 2017, 2:43:32 PM4/15/17
to
And Jim McGinn is the biggest troll ever... which undoubtedly is also his biggest goal in life!

Congratulations, Jim, you have finally succeeded at something!!

James McGinn

unread,
Apr 15, 2017, 2:47:32 PM4/15/17
to
Trolls don't actually have thoughts of their own.

Paco

unread,
Apr 15, 2017, 2:51:02 PM4/15/17
to
Mcginn wrote:
" I don't know exactly what he was referring to, but it is interesting that jets formed naturally in this plasma and these jets achieved thermodynamic equillibrium, just like the jets in the atmosphere. It's not just and analogy.

The jets that form naturally in the atmosphere are structural. It's impossible for structure to form if all of the elements have the same viscosity. The professor is trying to theorize with one arm tied behind his back. Jets cannot exist in the atmosphere if there is no plasma "

I watched it several times. In his structure of things he could explain the jets with his conventional methology , his inovation was using LE and using the sub system non linear maths to explain feed back.
Plasma physics with all its instability would put him in the same place he tried to get out of.
PleASE watch again. Instead of devils advocate walk a mile in his shoes.

James McGinn

unread,
Apr 15, 2017, 3:09:46 PM4/15/17
to
I watched it a few times. Math is great to descibe things that are already known to exist. He goes off the tracks of sound theory though when his math starts being and end in and of itself. The fact is that vortices are structural entities. This is plainly observable. Throwing a bunch of imaginative math at it isn't going to change that.

Math is a great way to create the illusion that you understand things better than you do. Note how often trolls refer to math as if it is a panacea.

Serg io

unread,
Apr 15, 2017, 7:30:51 PM4/15/17
to
On 4/15/2017 1:31 PM, Paco wrote:
> Mcginn wrote: " Did you notice that Tokomac involved plasma? "

what is plasma ? an ionized state of matter similar to a gas.


> The
> climate systems temperature gradient has a simular fluid dynamic of
> creating jets.

total poop from his imagination.




> Lest that's what I understood he was saying.

no need to try to understand him, he is raving loon.


Serg io

unread,
Apr 15, 2017, 8:36:19 PM4/15/17
to
*Plasma does not exist* in the atmosphere, except for lightning.

Everybody knows this.

James McGinn

unread,
Apr 15, 2017, 8:49:28 PM4/15/17
to
Maybe you wouldn't be so frustrated all the time if you endeavored to leave science to scientists.
Message has been deleted

pnal...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 15, 2017, 9:13:13 PM4/15/17
to
It seems to me that it is *you* who is constantly frustrated, Jim. After all, you have all these theories and you blather your tripe all over the internet, and yet you do not have a single proponent in your corner (you know, the one you painted yourself into a long time ago). NOT A SINGLE PROPONENT, HERE OR ANYWHERE!

You are not a scientist, Jim, you are just another wannabe pretender trying to slog your way through multiple venues with virtually no success.

Serg io

unread,
Apr 15, 2017, 9:26:33 PM4/15/17
to
On 4/15/2017 8:02 PM, Paco wrote:
> me:
>> The
>> climate systems temperature gradient has a simular fluid dynamic of
>> creating jets.
>
>> Lest that's what I understood he was saying.
>
> Serg io
>
> "no need to try to understand him, he is raving loon. "
>
> o dam....
>
>
> I was excited to see this chart,
> in that the Water vapor seemed to displace the Oxygen levels.
> But why does the Nitrogen increase?

you misinterpert the chart, the ratio of all three gas are reduced by
the percentage water vapor equally.

N2 => 78.084% * (1-.04) = 74.95 %

etc...





> http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/atmos/atmos_intro.html
> Chemical makeup of the atmosphere including water vapor
> Water Vapor Nitrogen Oxygen Argon
> 0% 78.084% 20.947% 0.934%
> 1% 77.30% 20.70% 0.92%
> 2% 76.52% 20.53% 0.91%
> 3% 75.74% 20.32% 0.90%
> 4% 74.96% 20.11% 0.89%
>

Water vapor (water in a 'gas' state) is nearly always present up to
about 4% of the total volume.

In the Earth's desert regions (30°N/S) when dry winds are blowing, the
water vapor contribution to the composition of the atmosphere will be
near zero.

Water vapor contribution climbs to near 3% on extremely hot/humid days.
The upper limit, approaching 4%, is found in tropical climates. The
table (left) shows the changes in atmospheric composition with the
inclusion of different amounts of water vapor.

James McGinn

unread,
Apr 15, 2017, 11:41:11 PM4/15/17
to
When the only thing that is distinctive about your posts is a complete lack of substance maybe you should consider another hobby.

pnal...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 16, 2017, 12:29:40 AM4/16/17
to
Lack of substance? Bwaaahaaa! Look who's talking! You are the ultimate dumbfuck, Jim, a guy who babbles and babbles and never has a lick of proof to offer for his fantasies. Amazing...

Serg io

unread,
Apr 16, 2017, 12:54:43 AM4/16/17
to
one of about 20 canned insults he has.
That is it. nothing else.
zip, zoo-la,

goofball mcginn still has nothinn

James McGinn

unread,
Apr 16, 2017, 1:35:40 PM4/16/17
to
I know it must be frustrating to be so sure the evidence is out there and be unable to find it. Maybe it would make you feel better to explain all the efforts you've made to find it. Have you tried posting it to different boards on the internet? What else have you tried? Tell us what you've tried and maybe somebody has some ideas to help you.

Or, maybe it would be best to leave science to scientists.

James McGinn

unread,
Apr 16, 2017, 1:36:15 PM4/16/17
to
Maybe you should leave science to scientists.

James McGinn

unread,
Apr 16, 2017, 1:47:10 PM4/16/17
to
On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 4:10:01 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 3:48:25 PM UTC-7, Paco wrote:
> > > > Brian F. Farrell. Robert P. Burden Professor of Meteorology.
> > > >  
> > > > Climate Week: Climate Science Breakfast with Brian F. Farrell
> > > >
> > > > https://vimeo.com/125907095
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  http://brian-f-farrell.fas.harvard.edu
> > >
> >
> > On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 1:48:06 PM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote:
> > > He speaks of a positive feedback being necessary for the jets to exist. But then he tries to dodge the issue by suggesting, Nature provides it, which is meaningless.
> > >
> > > The positive feedback is formation of plasma along wind shear boundaries. Higher wind speed equates to more energy for the spinning of the microdroplets and that enables stronger plasma, enabling higher wind speeds, stronger plasma, ad infinitum. That is the positive feedback.
> > >
> > > This guy is a lot smarter than most on this subject. But he will find himself forever frustrated by the fact that he is missing one element without which he can never resolve the understanding--H2O plasma of spinning microdroplets.
> >
> >
> > I think he will never be frustrated about spinning microdroplets, only those who read your post....
>
> Do you realize the significance of this Paco?
>
> My hypothesis on tornadogenesis has been confirmed:
> https://vimeo.com/125907095#t=683s
>
> James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

Another thing too, the professor basically admitted that storms are the result of the jet stream. He is the first meteorologist who I have seen admit that. Most of the rest of them say that storms are caused by convection and that they are pushed along in the flow of the jet stream.

Maybe this science is starting to come out of the middle ages.

pnal...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 16, 2017, 2:08:45 PM4/16/17
to
I *do* leave science to scientists, Jim, and so should you. I've studied science all my life, but throughout the years I have remained skeptical of most new theories, as do all actual researchers, until observations and/or experiments tend to validate them over time. That's how science works, Jim, and you would know this if you had even half a brain in your noggin.

Take your own advise, Jim, and leave science to scientists. You are not a scientist, you don't know the first thing about it.

James McGinn

unread,
Apr 16, 2017, 5:01:57 PM4/16/17
to
I *do* leave science to scientists, Jim, and so should you. I've studied science all my life, but throughout the years I have remained skeptical of most new theories, as do all actual researchers, until observations and/or experiments tend to validate them over time. That's how science works, Jim, and you would know this if you had even half a brain in your noggin.

Your going to blow a gasket if you don't settle down. Maybe redirect your energy to finding your purported evidence, then your argument won't depend so much on self-righteous indignation.

James McGinn

unread,
Apr 17, 2017, 3:41:14 PM4/17/17
to
On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 10:12:49 AM UTC-7, Serg io wrote:
> On 4/13/2017 11:27 AM, Paco wrote:
> > Wow! I see why Mcginn went nuts over the study of turbulence and jet streams. But this guy seems to have a handle on it.
> >
> > Brian F. Farrell. Robert P. Burden Professor of Meteorology.
> >
> > Climate Week: Climate Science Breakfast with Brian F. Farrell
> >
> > https://vimeo.com/125907095
> >
> >
> > http://brian-f-farrell.fas.harvard.edu
> >
>
> he seems to be looking at the right areas, stability of dynamic systems

LOL. Like you have a clue.

pnal...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 17, 2017, 3:50:08 PM4/17/17
to

Serg io

unread,
Apr 17, 2017, 4:10:17 PM4/17/17
to
HEY MCGINN !!!

down load free weather software and have fun, instead of trying to
edukate these physicisists to your "Vater Wapor nada" theory....

you will learn more and have fun with these models, then you can have
your own model built, that follows your theories

Question: How is McGinn going to overcome all these accurate computer
models ?


there is free Weather Softwhere already out there;

http://download.cnet.com/Weather-Model-Viewer/3000-2054_4-10913954.html

http://wxsim.com/

http://www.atmograph.com/

http://download.cnet.com/Weather-Model/3000-2054_4-10523914.html

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/im/softb.htm
http://www.wrf-model.org/index.phphttp://www.weather.gov/rnk/models


Serg io

unread,
May 8, 2017, 6:02:35 PM5/8/17
to
On 4/13/2017 11:27 AM, Paco wrote:
> Wow! I see why Mcginn went nuts over the study of turbulence and jet
> streams. But this guy seems to have a handle on it.

> Brian F. Farrell. Robert P. Burden Professor of Meteorology.

> Climate Week: Climate Science Breakfast with Brian F. Farrell
>
> https://vimeo.com/125907095
>
>
> http://brian-f-farrell.fas.harvard.edu
>

IS PACO = JAMES MCGINN ? HELL YES

James McGinn

unread,
Feb 18, 2018, 12:24:04 AM2/18/18
to
On Monday, December 26, 2016 at 7:32:06 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> One simple observation that proves I'm right and the convection model is wrong:
> Storms and low pressure are correlated.
>
> Conversely, there is zero reliable, non-anecdotal evidence of expansiveness
> and buoyancy playing a role in storms. Or, I should say, the observational
> data that does exist can best be described as being much more frequent than
> but equally as anecdotal as that associated with big foot sightings.
>
> More simply put, if the convection model was correct then storms would be
> correlated with high pressure. They aren't.
>
> (Deal with it, you church ladies.)
>
> The belief that it does has nothing to do with science and everything to do
> with group delusion.
>
> And so, in a sense, atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled. Jet
> streams are the source of the concentrated and directed low pressure that
> pulls the rest of the atmosphere along. The properties (poorly understood)
> of water under wind shear conditions are instrumental to the emergence of
> the plasma (plainly viewable as the sheath of a tornado) that provides the
> leverage (structural) that facilitates all of the above, through vortices
> that provide their fast moving contents (air flowing, sometimes, at speeds
> upwards of 300 mph) isolation from the friction of the atmosphere and, at
> one and the same time, provide the upper troposphere the means by which it,
> essentially maintains its grip on the lower troposphere and, simultaneously,
> stays hydrated. (Fortunately for ourselves and all other land based animals,
> it ["it" being, essentially, the jet stream{s}] is a sloppy drinker.)
>
> Convection plays no role what-so-ever!!!
>
> The convection model is a cartoon based on fictional physical principles
> the underlying basis of which is pixie dust.
>
> James McGinn
> Solving Tornadoes
>
> See my books on Amazon
> Search: James McGinn Solving Tornadoes

pnal...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 18, 2018, 12:36:03 AM2/18/18
to
On Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 9:24:04 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

> > See my books on Amazon
> > Search: James McGinn Solving Tornadoes

You mean the books that got these reviews? Hahahahaha...

1.0 out of 5 stars
insane rambling
By K. Parker on July 3, 2014
Format: Kindle Edition|Verified Purchase
The author believes that elementary concepts, which have been taught to and understood by first year Chemistry and Physics students for many decades, are some kind of meteorological conspiracy. The author also does not understand the very basic physics that drive convective updrafts (the positive buoyancy due to warm temperature anomalies that result from latent heat release). Instead, apparently based largely on reading websites, he proposes a mechanism that makes no physical sense and is totally unobserved and unobservable. This text violates even basic tenets of logic. Totally without merit.

1.0 out of 5 stars
Waste of time, a non-funny joke
By hunter on July 16, 2014
Format: Kindle Edition
This book misleads the reader on basic physical concepts like density, the basics of weather dynamics, and offers a silly idea that confuses metaphors about how the jet stream operates with reality. It solves nothing but does offer a way to waste time and money buying and reading it. This book is an example of the risks posed in the age of inexpensive self publishing.

James McGinn

unread,
Feb 18, 2018, 12:16:53 PM2/18/18
to
You are like a cowardly little boy calling people names out the window.

You got nothing!!!

pnal...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 18, 2018, 1:13:52 PM2/18/18
to
Like the reviewer said... "insane ramblings..."

James McGinn

unread,
Feb 18, 2018, 1:43:51 PM2/18/18
to
On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 10:13:52 AM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> Like the reviewer said... "insane ramblings..."

LOL. Cowards always say that about things they have failed to dispute.

You got nothing!!!!

pnal...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 18, 2018, 8:07:31 PM2/18/18
to
Well, I don't have 'books' with bad reviews, that's for sure...

Serg io

unread,
Feb 18, 2018, 8:31:24 PM2/18/18
to