Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #719845 > unrolled thread

Re: Meteorology is an arrogantly stupid paradigm that appeals to the lowest common denominator of brain dead science consumer

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Meteorology is an arrogantly stupid paradigm that appeals to the lowest common denominator of brain dead science consumer James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 19:54 -0800
    Re: Meteorology is an arrogantly stupid paradigm that appeals to the lowest common denominator of brain dead science consumer pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-20 21:55 -0800
      Re: Meteorology is an arrogantly stupid paradigm that appeals to the lowest common denominator of brain dead science consumer James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-21 03:45 -0800
        Re: Meteorology is an arrogantly stupid paradigm that appeals to the lowest common denominator of brain dead science consumer moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-21 12:57 +0000
          Re: Meteorology is an arrogantly stupid paradigm that appeals to the lowest common denominator of brain dead science consumer Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2018-12-21 05:13 -0800
            Re: Meteorology is an arrogantly stupid paradigm that appeals to the lowest common denominator of brain dead science consumer James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-21 13:46 -0800
              Re: Meteorology is an arrogantly stupid paradigm that appeals to the lowest common denominator of brain dead science consumer pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-21 14:20 -0800
                Re: Meteorology is an arrogantly stupid paradigm that appeals to the lowest common denominator of brain dead science consumer James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-21 17:31 -0800
                  Re: Meteorology is an arrogantly stupid paradigm that appeals to the lowest common denominator of brain dead science consumer pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-21 21:58 -0800
                    Re: Meteorology is an arrogantly stupid paradigm that appeals to the lowest common denominator of brain dead science consumer James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-21 22:26 -0800
                      Re: Meteorology is an arrogantly stupid paradigm that appeals to the lowest common denominator of brain dead science consumer pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-21 22:38 -0800
                  Re: Meteorology is an arrogantly stupid paradigm that appeals to the lowest common denominator of brain dead science consumer James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 19:31 -0800
                Re: Meteorology is an arrogantly stupid paradigm that appeals to the lowest common denominator of brain dead science consumer James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 15:29 -0800
              Re: Meteorology is an arrogantly stupid paradigm that appeals to the lowest common denominator of brain dead science consumer James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-23 20:46 -0800
                Re: Meteorology is an arrogantly stupid paradigm that appeals to the lowest common denominator of brain dead science consumer pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-23 21:07 -0800
                  Re: Meteorology is an arrogantly stupid paradigm that appeals to the lowest common denominator of brain dead science consumer James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-23 23:32 -0800
                    Re: Meteorology is an arrogantly stupid paradigm that appeals to the lowest common denominator of brain dead science consumer pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-23 23:41 -0800
                      Re: Meteorology is an arrogantly stupid paradigm that appeals to the lowest common denominator of brain dead science consumer Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-04 20:16 -0600
                        Re: Meteorology is an arrogantly stupid paradigm that appeals to the lowest common denominator of brain dead science consumer Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2019-01-09 12:18 -0800
                          Re: Meteorology is an arrogantly stupid paradigm that appeals to the lowest common denominator of brain dead science consumer pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-09 20:12 -0800
                            Re: Meteorology is an arrogantly stupid paradigm that appeals to the lowest common denominator of brain dead science consumer James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-01-09 21:40 -0800
                              Re: Meteorology is an arrogantly stupid paradigm that appeals to the lowest common denominator of brain dead science consumer Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2019-01-10 01:01 -0500
                                Re: Meteorology is an arrogantly stupid paradigm that appeals to the lowest common denominator of brain dead science consumer pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-09 22:10 -0800
                    Re: Meteorology is an arrogantly stupid paradigm that appeals to the lowest common denominator of brain dead science consumer Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2019-01-09 12:33 -0800
        Re: Meteorology is an arrogantly stupid paradigm that appeals to the lowest common denominator of brain dead science consumer pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-21 07:52 -0800
      Re: Meteorology is an arrogantly stupid paradigm that appeals to the lowest common denominator of brain dead science consumer Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-21 10:36 -0600
        Re: Meteorology is an arrogantly stupid paradigm that appeals to the lowest common denominator of brain dead science consumer benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-21 13:09 -0500
      Re: Meteorology is an arrogantly stupid paradigm that appeals to the lowest common denominator of brain dead science consumer Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-21 16:29 -0600
    Re: Meteorology is an arrogantly stupid paradigm that appeals to the lowest common denominator of brain dead science consumer Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-21 18:39 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#719845 — Re: Meteorology is an arrogantly stupid paradigm that appeals to the lowest common denominator of brain dead science consumer

A big part of how they have been able to conceal and obscure this 
contradiction has to do with terminology.  They use the terms for 
gaseous H2O9(g) and vaporous H2O(l) interchangeably.  There are any 
number of words that they can use to obscure the issue: steam, vapor, evaporate, moist air, condensate etc. So there are any number of 
different methods with which they can leave their audience confused. 
They realize that when it comes to job security it is better to keep 
the public confused thinking the subject is so complex that only an 
expert can understand it than it is to educate them and risk revealing 
that they really don't understand the mechanics of storms. 

James McGinn

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#719854

On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 7:54:24 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

> A big part of how they have been able to conceal and obscure this 
> contradiction has to do with terminology.  They use the terms for 
> gaseous H2O9(g) and vaporous H2O(l) interchangeably.  There are any 
> number of words that they can use to obscure the issue: steam, vapor, evaporate, moist air, condensate etc. So there are any number of 
> different methods with which they can leave their audience confused. 
> They realize that when it comes to job security it is better to keep 
> the public confused thinking the subject is so complex that only an 
> expert can understand it than it is to educate them and risk revealing 
> that they really don't understand the mechanics of storms. 

Jim, you are obviously getting rather desperate here, now claiming the scientists are trying to rig the game by confusing the public by using confusing terms that they cannot understand. Really? Do you really think that scientists, across all disciplines, have conspired to have their own "secret code" when it comes to the definitions of the words they use? What the fu¢k are you thinking? You never should have written this post because it exposes who you really are, a quack and a crank who is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of regular folk everywhere... which, of course, is folly when educated people walk the halls here.

It is pretty funny that you make this assertion about scientists saying "that when it comes to job security it is better to keep the public confused thinking the subject is so complex that only an expert can understand it' since *you* claim to be a physicist! If this new claim of your was true, then *you* would already know the "secret code"! But since you don't, I guess you aren't...

The meaning of ALL those words can be found in dictionaries, of course. You didn't know this? What do you think dictionaries are for? Sure, every one of these words has multiple entries in all dictionaries, because they have slightly different denotations and connotations, and sometimes the differences are subtle...

When using these words in a scientific situation you are advised that a scientific dictionary should be your first choice to inquire about definitions. Nothing wrong with using the world's major dictionaries, but some of their definitions "can" be misleading, at least in a scientific scenario, no doubt about it, so it is better to use a more correct scientific dictionary. Try this, for example...

https://dictionary.babylon-software.com

... and let's enter 'vapor'... where we get the following.

VAPOR (from NRC Nuclear Energy Glossary)
The gaseous state of a substance which under ordinary conditions exists as a liquid or solid. 

VAPOR (from Moxie International's Glossary of Concrete Terms)
When a liquid changes to a gaseous form. 

VAPOR (from Technical English by wpv)
A gas, particularly one near to equilibrium with the liquid phase of the substance

VAPOR (from Rubber Glossary)
The gaseous state of a fluid that normally exists as a liquid under atmospheric conditions, i.e. a gas whose temperature is below its critical temperature.

So, as anyone with even half a brain can see, in the world of science, and as per scientific dictionaries, the words  "gaseous" and "vaporous" ARE interchangeable, no matter how much you want to whine about it. You can scream to the hills that the vaporous form of water is actually made if dimers (which. by the way, you incorrectly call nanodroplets) but it will never be true... especially since I have recently linked you to a webpage that shows that those dimers (your nanodroplets) are outnumbered by single molecules of water in the air by a ratio of 1000 to 1. There is no question in modern science that the gaseous form of water exists in plain old air. Get over it. Deal with it. The only person who is confused about the meaning of these words is you... and you lose.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#719870

Meteorologists won't discuss the fact that moist air doesn't contain gaseous H2O. (Earth's atmosphere doesn't contain H2O[g]. It is far too cool for that.  It contains H2O[l], small clusters/droplets of H2O.) Their models of storms are built around the assumption that moist air is lighter than dry air. And the math on this only works if gaseous H2O is assumed. Accordingly, this allows them to pretend that this explains why moist air rises, causing storms.  And this pretense saves them from having to worry about losing their jobs when the public figures out that they really don't understand what causes storms.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#719875

James McGinn writes:

>Meteorologists won't discuss the fact that moist air doesn't contain 
>gaseous H2O. (Earth's atmosphere doesn't contain H2O[g].

So just why is this a fact, James? Because you said so, end of discussion?
Even though you wrote: "Nobody is saying you are not allowed to believe 
whatever you want to believer.  Just don't call it science and everything 
will be fine."

So continue to believe your foolish belief if you wish, just don't claim 
it is science (or factual).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#719879

When confronted with mystery the public turns to experts and pays them to resolve it.  When confronted with irresolvable contradictions an expert can either conceal and obscure the contradiction, pretending to have resolved the mystery or they can reveal the contradiction and notify the public that the mystery remains.  If they do the latter there is a good chance the public will fire them and look to hire a new expert. But if they sweep the contradiction under the rug then the public remains ignorant and the experts can keep their jobs. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#719994

The fact is there is no detailed model of storms held by established science. There is just a vague narrative, put forth by meteorologists, that is commonly agreed upon, and a meandering conversation--continuing for many years--based on observation and little or no experimentation.

It is a fairy tale for children. 

James McGinn

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#719998

On Friday, December 21, 2018 at 1:46:42 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

> The fact is there is no detailed model of storms held by established science. There is just a vague narrative, put forth by meteorologists, that is commonly agreed upon, and a meandering conversation--continuing for many years--based on observation and little or no experimentation.
> 
> It is a fairy tale for children.

This claim of yours is not exactly correct. I found this page to be interesting, and it fully admits that there are weaknesses in making weather predictions, but it also shows that improvements are constantly being made...

https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/models.asp

... and modern forecasting is not anywhere as near to being a 'fairy tale' as you claim it is. Sure, everyone likes to blame "the weatherman" when his predictions are wrong and ruin the picnic, but having those predictions is sure a lot better than having none at all.

But what does predicting the weather have to do with the gaseous form of water being an integral part of air at STP?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#720050

Pnal:
But what does predicting the weather have to do with the gaseous form of water being an integral part of air at STP? 

JMcG:
Apples and oranges
Storm theory currently plays no role in prediction. 
Look up synoptics. 
I dont dispute synoptics
Ive explained this about five times now. 

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#720098

On Friday, December 21, 2018 at 5:31:36 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> Pnal:
> But what does predicting the weather have to do with the gaseous form of water being an integral part of air at STP? 
> 
> JMcG:
> Apples and oranges
> Storm theory currently plays no role in prediction. 
> Look up synoptics. 
> I dont dispute synoptics
> Ive explained this about five times now. 
> 
> James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

Jim, you are just deflecting again. Go back to the Dec. 20th posts and start again. Don't get sidetracked this time...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#720104

Nothing.  . .

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#720109

On Friday, December 21, 2018 at 10:26:33 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

> Nothing.  . .

... in your head...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#722181

Pnal: 
But what does predicting the weather have to do with the gaseous form of water being an integral part of air at STP? 

JMcG: 
Apples and oranges 
Storm theory currently plays no role in prediction. 
Look up synoptics. 
I dont dispute synoptics 
Ive explained this about five times now. 

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#722235

This claim of yours is not exactly correct. I found this page to be interesting, and it fully admits that there are weaknesses in making weather predictions, 

I'm discussing storm theory, not synoptics. I've tokd you this about five times now. Howse about frikin paying frikin attention. 



but it also shows that improvements are constantly being made... 

https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/models.asp 

... and modern forecasting is not anywhere as near to being a 'fairy tale' as you claim it is. 

Which is just one Pnals many bald-faced lies.

Forecasting is synoptics (statistics on a map). I have never disputed the value of synoptics. 

Pnal is a slandering piece of shit. 


Pnal:
But what does predicting the weather have to do with the gaseous form of water being an integral part of air at STP? 

Weather prediction is not the topic being discussed here (read upthread). Stay on topic. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#720518

The fact is there is no detailed model of storms held by established science. There is just a vague narrative, put forth by meteorologists, that is commonly agreed upon, and a meandering conversation--continuing for many years--based on observation and little or no experimentation. 

It is a fairy tale for children. 

James McGinn

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#720521

On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 8:46:16 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> The fact is there is no detailed model of storms held by established science. There is just a vague narrative, put forth by meteorologists, that is commonly agreed upon, and a meandering conversation--continuing for many years--based on observation and little or no experimentation. 
> 
> It is a fairy tale for children. 
> 
> James McGinn

"The way our business works is that one who argues that a given model is incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an experimental test that can clearly evidence the claims." - Dr. Richard Saykally

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#720532

Cowardly. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#720534

On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 11:32:35 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> Cowardly.

"The way our business works is that one who argues that a given model is incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an experimental test that can clearly evidence the claims." - Dr. Richard Saykally 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#722246

On 12/24/2018 1:41 AM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 11:32:35 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
>> Cowardly.
> 
> "The way our business works is that one who argues that a given model is incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an experimental test that can clearly evidence the claims." - Dr. Richard Saykally 
> 


the orgional post is 1.5 years old !

McGinn is dreading up the past crap because all he has is poop.


David (Kronos Prime) Fuller says;

https://i.imgflip.com/1rvsfg.jpg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#722807

On Friday, January 4, 2019 at 6:16:18 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> On 12/24/2018 1:41 AM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 11:32:35 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> >> Cowardly.
> > 
> > "The way our business works is that one who argues that a given model is incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an experimental test that can clearly evidence the claims." - Dr. Richard Saykally 
> > 
> 
> 
> the orgional post is 1.5 years old !
> 
> McGinn is dreading up the past crap because all he has is poop.
> 
> 
> David (Kronos Prime) Fuller says;
> 
> https://i.imgflip.com/1rvsfg.jpg

Uh . . . ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#722892

On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 12:18:24 PM UTC-8, Claudius Denk wrote:

> Uh . . . ?

Smartest thing you have said, like... EVER!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web