Solving Tornadoes: Woke Meteorology

Paradigm of Confusion

Why Everybody is Confused About Water

The Subtle Error That Has Everybody Perplexed About H2O

Why I Am World's Number One Expert On Physics of Water, Storms, and Atmospheric Flow

Comparing Tornadoes to Hurricanes

How Solving Tornadoes is able to sidestep the tangled confusion that is the current paradigm on storm theory.

Why Part of Meteorology is Delusional and How Anyone Can Determine This For Themselves

There is No Such Thing as a Science Denier

Nonsensicality and Other Features of Modern Meteorology

More on Pollack and Methods of Truth

You Could Have Noticed

You Have Been Mis-educated on H2O

My thoughts on Gerald Pollack's Water Theory

December 21st 2022

Slipperiness in the Atmosphere

One of Seven September 2022

Solving Tornadoes

James McGinn

Six of Seven September 2022

Solving Tornadoes

James McGinn

Five of Seven September 2022

Solving Tornadoes

James McGinn

Four of Seven September 2022

Solving Tornadoes

James McGinn

Three of Seven September 2022

One of Seven September 2022

Solving Tornadoes

James McGinn

Two of Seven September 2022  Solving Tornadoes  James McGinn

One of Seven September 2022

Solving Tornadoes

James McGinn

WDSK

BVP

Why meteorology is phoney science.

Heat engine in the Sky

Four Thousand Years and a Shop Vacuum

Reverse Engineering Human Rationality

Traditional meteorology tells us that the role of water in the atmosphere is that it provides the energy for flow.  This is mistaken.  As is explained here, the proper role of water in the atmosphere is as the basis for the structure that focusses the flow to achieve streaming.

A simple way to test veracity of convection.

The Momentum of the Jet Stream is Maintained by Vortice Activity

Sympathy to those who are incredulous of the Spinning Nanodroplets of Vortice Plasma

I  do understand how people can  be incredulous when the first encounter the notion of spinning polymers of H2O on wind shear boundaries

Meteorology's Blatant Dishonesty is Unknown to the Public

Another thing Meteorology doesn't want the public to realize

Water is the source of the structure of the atmosphere.

We have to understand water first.  When we do understand water its role in storms will become clear.

Why Water Science is a Goat Road

The Water Taboo

H2O polarity is variable and not constant.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=360#p125466

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.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=360#p125466

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.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=60#p114924

For example, do you concur with the notion that moist air contains gaseous H2O? Yes? No? Do you dispute my assertion that this notion is nonsense? Yes? No? Undoubtedly we will never know because, like all science pretenders, you are determined to ride the fence, play it safe. And that is too bad. Science isn’t about looking or even being right. It’s about being specific so that if you are wrong you can realize you are wrong when you are wrong. Because realizing you are wrong when you are wrong is the hardest part of any scientific endeavor. More than anything else, science is about defeating your minds desire to take the easy path and just believe.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=60#p114924

For example, do you concur with the notion that moist air contains gaseous H2O? Yes? No? Do you dispute my assertion that this notion is nonsense? Yes? No? Undoubtedly we will never know because, like all science pretenders, you are determined to ride the fence, play it safe. And that is too bad. Science isn’t about looking or even being right. It’s about being specific so that if you are wrong you can realize you are wrong when you are wrong. Because realizing you are wrong when you are wrong is the hardest part of any scientific endeavor. More than anything else, science is about defeating your minds desire to take the easy path and just believe.