Solving Tornadoes: Woke Meteorology

Solving Tornadoes: Woke Meteorology

By James McGinn
Exposing the incompetence of the current meteorological paradigm on storm theory and introducing a new, scientifically competent theory of storms and atmospheric flow.
Where to listen
Breaker Logo
Google Podcasts Logo
Overcast Logo
Pocket Casts Logo
RadioPublic Logo
Spotify Logo
Ask Any Meteorologist
Gfd
22:42
March 25, 2020
Kobe Died Because of Hubris
How Kobe Bryant and Linus Pauling Are Connected By Tragedy
32:22
February 20, 2020
Response to Brendon regarding greenhouse effect, convection model of storms, and Postma
Response to Brendon Regarding greenhouse effect, convection model of storms, and Joe Postma of Climate Of Sophistry
22:12
February 9, 2020
What Causes Streaming in the Atmosphere
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=255#p122459 Jet streams are conduits that tunnel through the friction and general incoherence of the gases in the atmosphere to balance out what would otherwise be some extremes of heat/high pressures and cold/low pressures. Constructed from layers of spinning microdroplets of H2O with maximized surface tension, jet streams are a consequence of the principle that maximization of the surface area of H2O maximizes the tensional forces of H2O. These conduits emerge along moist dry wind shear boundaries, especially those associated with the extensive, flat boundary between the top of the troposphere and the bottom of the stratosphere, prime conditions for wind shear. The ensuing vortices of surface tension maximized spinning microdroplets provide a slick hydrophobic inner surface that channels moist air at speeds up to 300 mph.
05:13
January 31, 2020
The Public Believes Plainly Dumb Things About the Atmosphere
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=270#p122469 One can only imagine how you envision the consensus. Academia is mostly concerned with the politics of keeping the flow of funding flowing. Scientific theories (models) are just a means to that end. And that often means that scientific institutions adopt a model and employ all kinds of political tactics to evade scrutiny of their model. It can also mean that they will dumb down their model so that it appeals to the lowest common denominator of the voting public. For example. The following is an attempt by professional meteorologists to admonish journalists for using the phrase "clash of air masses," in regard to journalists' attempts to explain the origins of tornadoes to the public: 
12:32
January 24, 2020
Simple Experiment Proves Moist Air is Heavier (not lighter) Than Dry Air
We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16471 Most of us have at least enough education to realize the boiling point of water is much higher than that of our ambient environment. And most of us realize that boiling has to do with a phase change from a liquid state of matter to a gaseous state of matter. Most of us reconcile this dichotomy by just not thinking about it. Some of us come up with rationalization to explain it away. But if you are going to do science you can't fall back on these excuses. You have to see things for what they actually are. There is no gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere. Moist air is heavier than dry air. Moist air convection is impossible. Meteorology needs another way to explain the power of storms, why storms are wet, and how heavier moist air gets so high in earth's atmosphere. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dexlOvP7mPw James McGinn Solving Tornadoes
06:26
January 22, 2020
Wells vs Rancourt on Greenhouse Thermodynamics
Video/Book: Confessions Of A Climate Change Denier https://principia-scientific.org/video-book-confessions-of-a-climate-change-denier/ If you want to be entertained as well as educated on what ‘Slayer’ science is all about when it comes to debunking the greenhouse gas theory, then check out the work of Stephen Wells. A Brit now living in Australia, Wells has emerged into the spotlight with a marvelous new book and lively video debate with a top lukewarmer professor.
12:44
January 22, 2020
Ignorance About Water Begets Ignorance About Storms
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=150#p119465 Humans are delusional about H2O. And this delusion results in the following: 1) humans generally believe that H2O is simple and obvious and, 2) humans believe that our understanding of H2O is comprehensive and accurate, both in science and in general. The reality is that neither of these are true. Neither of these is remotely true. H2O is extremely complex and poorly understood by science. Currently there exists over 70 anomalies of H2O. That is 70 different observations about H2O (under various conditions) that are inconsistent with or completely unpredicted by theory. However, human delusion runs so deep that the meaning of anomaly has been altered in the context of H2O to essentially serve as an excuse for why theories of H2O fail to explain what is actually observed.
37:36
January 12, 2020
Meteorology's Theory On Storms is Worthless, Propagandistic, Dishonest
Meteorology is propaganda, not science.
20:43
January 6, 2020
How We Know Meteorology is Pretending To Understand Storms
Superstition and half-baked theory dominate the atmospheric sciences. Currently meteorological theories on atmospheric flow and storms maintain three superstitious and half-baked notions: 1) Convection. This is the superstition that evaporation makes air buoyant enough to power strong updrafts in the atmosphere (included in this is the strange belief that H2O in the atmosphere becomes gaseous at temperatures/pressures that have never been detected in a laboratory); 2) Dry layer capping. This is a superstition that imagines dry layers having structural properties that explain the how/why convection does not constantly produce storms and uplift; 3) Latent heat.  This is the superstition that phase changes from a gaseous phase of H2O (which are purported to exist despite never having been detected and being inconsistent with what is indicated in the H2O phase table) to a liquid phase releases "latent heat" which itself has never been confirmed/verified. This was recorded 11/16/2019, or thereabouts.
18:13
December 31, 2019
Meteorology has failed to understand storms
Superstition and half-baked theory dominate the atmospheric sciences. Currently meteorological theories on atmospheric flow and storms maintain three superstitious and half-baked notions: 1) Convection. This is the superstition that evaporation makes air buoyant enough to power strong updrafts in the atmosphere (included in this is the strange belief that H2O in the atmosphere becomes gaseous at temperatures/pressures that have never been detected in a laboratory); 2) Dry layer capping. This is a superstition that imagines dry layers having structural properties that explain the how/why convection does not constantly produce storms and uplift; 3) Latent heat.  This is the superstition that phase changes from a gaseous phase of H2O (which are purported to exist despite never having been detected and being inconsistent with what is indicated in the H2O phase table) to a liquid phase releases "latent heat" which itself has never been confirmed/verified.  In accordance with which, the current meteorological paradigm assumes hurricanes are caused by warm water. Actually the energy of hurricanes and all storms comes from jet streams and is delivered through vortices in the form of low pressure. Wind shear at low altitudes is the most important predictor of severe weather. This is because wind shear is the mechanism underlying growth of the vortices that are the transport mechanism of the low pressure energy. Warm moist air/water is not the source of the energy of storms, it's the target of vortice growth. The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329 James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
22:33
December 30, 2019
Nobody Knows Nothing
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=270#p122469 One can only imagine how you envision the consensus. Academia is mostly concerned with the politics of keeping the flow of funding flowing. Scientific theories (models) are just a means to that end. And that often means that scientific institutions adopt a model and employ all kinds of political tactics to evade scrutiny of their model. It can also mean that they will dumb down their model so that it appeals to the lowest common denominator of the voting public.
09:45
December 23, 2019
Correcting Common Misconceptions About Energy in the Atmosphere
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=165#p122167 The 'plasma' of my model is novel, unfamiliar and, therefore, hard to accept. But that is the case for any scientific discovery. Alfred Wegener proposed continental drift in 1912. It took geologists 50 years to warm up to the idea. Now, however, when you look at a map of the southern Atlantic ocean the congruence of the eastern and western shorelines jumps out at you. When it came to deducing the molecular composition of atmospheric vortices and arriving at the conjecture that they contained wind shear generated, rapidly spinning polymers of H2O, I feel that I had a huge advantage that allowed me to avoid a common misassumption that traps others. I knew that the sheath of the tornado must involve some kind of molecular distinction. 
18:32
December 21, 2019
Nobody Wants to Have to Rewrite the Textbooks on H2O
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=150#p119465 Humans are delusional about H2O. And this delusion results in the following: 1) humans generally believe that H2O is simple and obvious and, 2) humans believe that our understanding of H2O is comprehensive and accurate, both in science and in general. The reality is that neither of these are true. Neither of these is remotely true. H2O is extremely complex and poorly understood by science. Currently there exists over 70 anomalies of H2O. That is 70 different observations about H2O (under various conditions) that are inconsistent with or completely unpredicted by theory. However, human delusion runs so deep that the meaning of anomaly has been altered in the context of H2O to essentially serve as an excuse for why theories of H2O fail to explain what is actually observed.
07:51
December 19, 2019
Elasticity of Hydrogen Bonds Underlies Spinning of Polymerized H2O Molecules On Wind Sheer Boundaries Which Underlies Emergence of Vortice Plasma
Title: Elasticity of Hydrogen Bonds Underlies Spinning of Polymerized H2O Molecules On Wind Sheer Boundaries Which Underlies Emergence of Vortice Plasma http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=360#p123034 The sheath of a tornado is a form of surface tension. It is a plasma of spinning, churning H2O molecules. It has structural strength and a surface—common characteristics of plasmas. But the origin of this strength doesn’t involve the forces associated with ionic bonds, as is the case with most plasmas. Instead this is a kind of plasma that involves the forces associated with hydrogen bonds. I thought of it as surface tension that is expressed in three dimensions—surface tension on steroids! I conjectured that hydrogen bonds must be distinctive from covalent or ionic bonds in that with hydrogen bonds the force that creates the bond must be deactivated by the bond itself. And so, whereas with a covalent bond or an ionic bond the force that brings them together remains, with hydrogen bonds the force that brings them together is deactivated--neutralized. Accordingly, the fewer bonds that an H2O molecule shares with other H2O molecules the stronger are these bonds. Conversely, the greater were the number of bonds an H2O molecule shared with other H2O molecules the weaker were these bonds—all the way down to having zero strength when fully bonded.
05:49
December 18, 2019
I'm Neither Arrogant Nor Wrong
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=165#p122133 the plasma in this article is very different from the plasma in my model. The plasma in my model is, actually, a combination of air and nanodroplets of H2O. Or, I should say, that is how it starts out; also, in my model these H2O nanodroplets are spinning very rapidly. The spinning is a consequence of wind shear. (Did you ever wonder why tornadoes are associated with wind shear in the lower troposphere? Well, keep reading.) 
05:40
December 17, 2019
Soon We Will Stop Hurricanes
Public http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=210#p122351 In the 1950s they considered ways to potentially stop or steer a hurricane . . .  I believe hurricanes can be steered and even stopped. And the way to do so involves attacking them where they are most vulnerable, at the boundary layer in the tropopause that is the raw material for the vortices that deliver the energy of storms.
23:03
December 12, 2019
What is a vortice and how do they maintain structural integrity
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=360#p123034 The sheath of a tornado is a form of surface tension. It is a plasma of spinning, churning H2O molecules. It has structural strength and a surface—common characteristics of plasmas. But the origin of this strength doesn’t involve the forces associated with ionic bonds, as is the case with most plasmas. Instead this is a kind of plasma that involves the forces associated with hydrogen bonds. I thought of it as surface tension that is expressed in three dimensions—surface tension on steroids!  conjectured that hydrogen bonds must be distinctive from covalent or ionic bonds in that with hydrogen bonds the force that creates the bond must be deactivated by the bond itself. And so, whereas with a covalent bond or an ionic bond the force that brings them together remains, with hydrogen bonds the force that brings them together is deactivated--neutralized. Accordingly, the fewer bonds that an H2O molecule shares with other H2O molecules the stronger are these bonds. Conversely, the greater were the number of bonds an H2O molecule shared with other H2O molecules the weaker were these bonds—all the way down to having zero strength when fully bonded.
34:29
December 6, 2019
Much of Science Involves Models That Have Been Dumbed-Down to Pander to the Public
Here is what you don't get about science and truth. Humans have a deep-seated emotional need to believe they understand their world and there is a lot of money to be made fulfilling that need. And since most science consumers don't have the time or the education to put much effort into it, the most money can be made giving these science consumers excuses for why they don't actually have to literally understand it. And so--for reasons of fiscal necessity--many scientific disciplines have dumbed down their models to go with the flow of what people want to believe. It is for this reason that there are certain concepts in every scientific discipline that are sacred. Their validity is beyond dispute and cannot be contradicted without the person being shunned by the larger discipline. Or, more simply put, certain subjects are taboo. The anomalies of H2O are a severe embarrassment to all of the scientific disciplines in which water plays a central role. And, obviously, this includes all of the natural sciences but also physics and chemistry. The misconceptions associated with these anomalies are central to all of the various disciplines in the natural sciences. This results in a consensus of obnoxious dunces in the natural sciences. These nitwits dismiss and evade contradictions that conflict with these artificially simplistic models. Like martyrs to a religious cause, they are willing to sacrifice their own reputation in order to preserve the perceived sanctity of their science-based beliefs. Stupidity lies at the heart of most traditional notions in the natural sciences.
20:43
December 5, 2019
How We Know Water Has Been Systematically Misunderstood By Science
Correction to The Current Model of Hydrogen Bonding in Water http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=17448 Understanding the intrinsic elasticity of hydrogen bonds between H2O molecules in liquid water involves three insights: 1) Firstly one must comprehend that the force that brings H2O molecules together (polarity) is a result of the asymmetry (lopsidedness) of the H2O molecule's electromagnetic signature. 2) Secondly one must comprehend that hydrogen bonds between water molecules reverse this electromagnetic asymmetry achieving electromagnetic symmetry (balance) thereby neutralizing some fraction (see below) of the magnitude of this force. 3) Lastly one must comprehend how this neutralization is relative (according to proximity) and fractional, a maximum of 25% per bond as each H2O molecule can form a hydrogen bond with up to four other H2O molecules in its vicinity, potentially neutralizing up to 100% (4 x 25%) of each other's polarity. In short, the magnitude of polarity of H2O molecules in liquid water is inversely related to their interconnectedness. The more interconnected they are (the more comprehensively they are hydrogen bonded to one another) the lower is their polarity. And since polarity determines the magnitude of the force that attracts them to one another, the more interconnected they are the less is the magnitude of the force that keeps them together. Through this understanding most of the anomalies of H2O are easily resolved. And from this we can understand where conventional theorists failed when it comes to understanding water. It is very simple. They understood #1 and they understood the parts of #3 that are not effected by #2 but they completely dropped the ball when it comes to comprehend #2. Simply put, they failed to comprehend that hydrogen bonds bring electrical gradients that oppose and, thereby, cancel out the electrical gradients that cause the H2O molecule's polarity.
34:59
December 5, 2019
Fifth Episode: Why Meteorologists Will Not Discuss or Debate Their Convection Model of Storm Theory
Superstition and half-baked theory dominate the atmospheric sciences. Currently meteorological theories on atmospheric flow and storms maintain three superstitious and half-baked notions: 1) Convection. This is the superstition that evaporation makes air buoyant enough to power strong updrafts in the atmosphere (included in this is the strange belief that H2O in the atmosphere becomes gaseous at temperatures/pressures that have never been detected in a laboratory); 2) Dry layer capping. This is a superstition that imagines dry layers having structural properties that explain the how/why convection does not constantly produce storms and uplift; 3) Latent heat.  This is the superstition that phase changes from a gaseous phase of H2O (which are purported to exist despite never having been detected and being inconsistent with what is indicated in the H2O phase table) to a liquid phase releases "latent heat" which itself has never been confirmed/verified.  In accordance with which, the current meteorological paradigm assumes hurricanes are caused by warm water. Actually the energy of hurricanes and all storms comes from jet streams and is delivered through vortices in the form of low pressure. Wind shear at low altitudes is the most important predictor of severe weather. This is because wind shear is the mechanism underlying growth of the vortices that are the transport mechanism of the low pressure energy. Warm moist air/water is not the source of the energy of storms, it's the target of vortice growth. The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329 James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
47:03
December 2, 2019