The Jet Stream: Separating Scientific Reality from Climate Alarmism
The jet stream, a powerful ribbon of air high in the atmosphere, whips around the globe like a celestial river.
This swift current, clocking in at speeds of up to 400 kilometers per hour, plays a crucial role in shaping weather patterns and influencing everything from the warmth of your summer days to the chill of winter blizzards.
So, what drives this invisible river in the sky? Two main forces are at play:
1. Temperature Differences: Earth’s uneven heating by the sun creates a temperature gradient between the equator and the poles. Warm air at the equator expands and rises, while cool air near the poles sinks and spreads out.
This difference in pressure sets the jet stream in motion, guiding it eastward along a meandering path.
2. The Coriolis Force: This “twirling” force, due to Earth’s rotation, deflects moving air to the right in the Northern Hemisphere and the left in the Southern Hemisphere.
It acts like an invisible hand, constantly pushing the jet stream northward and southward, creating its characteristic waves and meanders.
These two forces, working in tandem, orchestrate the jet stream’s dance, influencing the path of weather systems and determining everything from rainy seasons to heat waves. Understanding these driving forces is crucial for predicting weather patterns.
Recently, the specter of a hyper-wavy jet stream, whipping the globe into weather chaos, has become a prominent trope in ‘climate change’ circles.
Yet, beneath the sensationalism and apocalyptic forecasts, does the science truly support a narrative of weather gone wild due to an erratic jet stream? Is this narrative rooted in reality and science or merely propaganda from the climate-industrial complex?
While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) acknowledges a potential increase in jet stream waviness due to global warming, the evidence paints a far more nuanced picture.
In fact, a closer look reveals several cracks in the “super-wavy jet stream” theory.
Firstly, observations defy the dire predictions.
Despite warming temperatures, no statistically significant long-term trend in jet stream waviness has been observed.
A 2020 study published in Science Advances examined 40 years of data and found no evidence of a sustained increase in wave amplitude. This finding challenges the narrative of a future dominated by extreme weather events driven by an ever-more serpentine jet stream.
Secondly, attributing specific weather events to amplified waviness is a dubious exercise. Numerous factors, including natural variability and regional atmospheric dynamics, influence weather patterns.
Isolating the jet stream’s specific impact is notoriously difficult. The act of pinning the blame for specific weather events on an unruly jet stream is akin to attributing the tides to a single mischievous moonbeam.
This is not to downplay the potential consequences of changes in jet stream behavior. While a direct link to increased extreme weather frequency remains elusive, the potential for shifts in weather patterns and regional climate disruptions must be acknowledged.
However, the focus should be on understanding the complexities of these changes rather than succumbing to sensationalized narratives.
Instead of chasing the ghost of a super-wavy jet stream, let us embrace the scientific process. Rigorous research, open communication, and a critical lens toward alarmist claims are essential in navigating our climate’s uncertainties.
Only through such an approach can we effectively prepare for the challenges ahead and foster a productive dialogue about our planet’s future.
In conclusion, the jet stream’s role in shaping our weather patterns is undeniable.
Driven by temperature differences and the Coriolis force, this celestial river plays a vital part in the global climate system.
However, the narrative of a hyper-wavy jet stream causing weather chaos due to ‘climate change’ is not supported by the current scientific evidence.
See more here substack.com
Header image: National Oceanography Centre
Some bold emphasis added
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Koen Vogel
| #
Well the polar vortex comes and goes. It’s driven by accumulated heat at the mid-latitudes. It’s Mother Earth’s way of trying to stay a constant temperature. I don’t think anybody can be for or against a force of nature.
Reply
JaKo
| #
Hi Koen,
You said: “I don’t think anybody can be for or against a force of nature.”
Yet, they’ve been, and they still are!
The commies used to say: “We will command the wind and rain!” And now, commies gone (I wonder where did they go), we have this CAGW hysteria which claims the human created catastrophic climate change, and this could be un-done only by elimination of all the useless eaters (aka depopulation) — which, in effect, means we commanded the nature to our ruin and we will command it back with our very limited numbers, and further, by the coinciding “reset,” we’ll be owning nothing and be happy…
Does that make any sense??? (I wonder #2, what are they smoking? Or is it a new soma??)
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
Macha
| #
The southern polar vortex doesn’t come and go. Pretty much closed loop all year due to being surrounded by nothing but ocean. Northern hemisphere is broken by land masses containing moutains.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
The main problem in understanding meteorology is in the belief that the surface of the Earth is heating the atmosphere, not the sun. The N2 and O2 in the atmosphere are converting UV energy into kinetic energy resulting in the molecules at the top of the atmosphere having more kinetic energy than molecules lower in the atmosphere (the layer of oxygen atoms shows this is the case.) The molecules with greater energy collide with the molecules at lower altitudes adding energy to them and losing energy. This energy is then added to the molecules on the surface adding to the energy from visible light. The energy then flows downhill (the diameter of the Earth is 22km greater at the equator than at the poles) towards the poles expanding as the energy of the molecules above contain less energy from the UV radiation. The jet streams is where the energy expands into the upper atmosphere and its 400 km/hr velocity represents a decrease from the 1000 mi/hr velocity at the equator. Follow the flow of energy.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
This is my area of expertise. I’m literally the world’s number one expert on the physics of jet streams, physics of storms, and their interrelationship.
Meteorologists refuse to discuss this subject in any detail because they are extremely confused and don’t want the public to know they are confused.
AW:
So, what drives this invisible river in the sky? Two main forces are at play: Temperature Differences; and The Coriolis Force. These two forces, working in tandem, orchestrate the jet stream’s dance,
JMcG:
Neither of these can cause streaming. Moreover, these are both very weak. They do NOT describe the origin of 300 mph winds!
The correct answer is that vortices exhaust their flow into the jet stream as they simultaneously siphon energetic low pressure, which they channel from the jet streams and deliver to the location of the storm.
Vortices originate in the vicinity of jet streams and over the course of their lifespan (which may only be minutes) the exhaust their flow into the flow of the jets streams, thus explaining how the jet stream maintains momentum.
At any moment in time there will be hundreds to thousands of vortices drawing low pressure energy from the flow of the jet stream and delivering it to the location of a storm.
James McGinn / Genius / CEO of Solving Tornadoes
http://www.solvingtornadoes.com
Reply
Koen Vogel
| #
Thanks for your insights on polar vortices. The mainstream media use Polar Vortex as a shorthand for the cold weather system – a polar vortex – that descends every now and then over the U, e.g. brought the recent freezing temperatures to deep in the south. This was caused by warm Atlantic air pushing the jet stream to the north, in effect destabilizing the jetstream trajectory, making it more “wobbly”. I agree with Dr Wielicki that Dr Campbell’s explanation doesn’t make sense. Which was actually the main thrust of the article: climate alarmists misrepresenting a fairly common occurrence – a cold polar vortex over the US – as something unusual and caused by Climate Change. As the number one expert on jet streams, what’s your opinion?
Reply
James McGinn
| #
I’m not concerned with which is more wrong. It’s just stupid to think that something as generalistic as Coriolis effect can result in streaming, as we see in jet streams. It’s really not less dumb than calling a weather front a vortex.
Moreover, it’s dishonest for Wielicki to fail bring to his audience’s attention the fact that there is zero empirical evidence supporting his nonsensical just-so story.
If you can’t be honest about what you don’t know, don’t understand, and what doesn’t quite make sense then you have zero chance of making any progress.
James McGinn / Genius
Listen to my podcast entitled, Paradigms Often Involve Deliberate Stupidity
https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/james-mcginn/episodes/Paradigms-Often-Involve-Deliberate-Stupidity-e2e2af9/a-aaqgeou
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
Your overt self-promotion actually generates skepticism because it naturally creates a backlash to it.
Better to make your scientific case instead while leaving out your pomposity about your supposed credentials.
Debate works better when you focus on the evidence instead.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers and Commenters,
Not one commenter asks the question: Who is Dr Wielicki? From his home page I read: “Earth science professor-in-exile. Formerly an assistant professor in the Department of Geological Sciences at the University of Alabama and a post-doctoral research scientist in the Department of Earth, Planetary, and Space Sciences and the Institute for Planets and Exoplanets at the University of California, Los Angeles.”
Some known history of geologists is that Lewis Agassiz had to point out to them that large boulders lying on, or near, the earth’s land surface where there of no evident source of these boulders, forced the conclusion that these boulders had be carried where they laid by glaciers.
When a meteorologist (I cannot remember his name) saw that the west coast of Africa fit the east coast of South America you should be aware of what the geological community did with the idea of ”continental drift.
And even if I don’t really know what James McGinn’s theory (or theories) of meteorological storms are, I am aware that the seldom mentioned jet streams exist and are now observed in derail and James’ comments are the only comments of those of the other 5 comment authors. And I know we need to discuss James’ ideas in detail.
Have a good day
Have a ‘
Reply
Howdy
| #
“we need to discuss James’ ideas in detail.”
Surely you jest, Jerry. Everybody else but McGinn, are by his own words, ‘delusional’.
You can’t discuss anything under such conditions because nobody else can ever be right, nor, as has been demonstrated, their views/ knowledge even worth considering, no matter the subject. So the discussion, as allways, descends into a comedy of name calling.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
That humans are delusional is given. Especially group delusion. Like religion.
If you aren’t comfortable with the fact that humans are delusional you should avoid science.
A major theme of this website is that a majority faction of the populace is delusional about a perfectly harmless and otherwise beneficial molecule, CO2.
Meteorology is thick with the kind of dimwitted delusion not unlike a religious cult. Why are you here? To provide us bible passages?
Reply
Howdy
| #
“That humans are delusional is given”
I see your statement includes all. Thanks for straightening that out.
Your second paragraph reinforces the first. Meaning you too, are included. Thanks again.
“Why are you here? To provide us bible passages?”
Turned it around again to make the opposition wrong haven’t you. Any of the science stuff I’ve written about, you don’t mention, because you can’t attack that.
As stated, and shown by you, yet again, you can’t take criticism.
End of.
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Howdy. Good on you for standing up.
Now could you please convince that Sunsettommy to beg LOL Kooks to return to the site.
Have a nice day.
James Bernard McGinn
| #
Only if you realize that humans are deeply delusional do you have any chance of breaking through that delusion.
James McGinn / Genius
Howdy
| #
I have no influence Matt.
Kooks needs to email the Admin and do a bit of pleading I think. Be a good boy.
sunsettommy
| #
I am the ADMINISTRATOR who knows what is going on better than anyone else here.
He was banned after several warnings and publicly debating me over it since he has been banned the thread bombing, name calling vanished from threads even others who were doing some name calling on their own stopped when KOOK vanished which shows that he was the dominant cause of the problem thus my decision was correct.
I know that some of you will never agree but I am here to defend the blog and the integrity of the threads.
James McGinn
| #
Because of Google, Wikipedia, Chat GPT, and cut-and-paste it is really easy for low self-esteem pretenders, like Kkooks, to appear smart, especially when the audience is gullible, dullwitted, and complacent.
All humans consider themselves seekers and finders of truth. We fool ourselves. It is only people that are keenly aware of the fact that humans are prone to delusion that have any chance of breaking free from the influence of models that have been dumbed down to fit what you want to believe.
James McGinn / Genius
Howdy
| #
I thought you were quite reserved Sunsettommy, more than fair.
“It is only people that are keenly aware of the fact that humans are prone to delusion that have any chance of breaking free”
But how do you know awareness is not an illusion, Mr McGinn?
What about other areas of life, away from ‘models’? Do you not accept there are gifted individuals who are beyond the claims you make? Those who know without needing ‘keen awareness’ that things are not as they appear?
Herb Rose
| #
LOL was smart and knowledgeable but his ego could not accept the possibility that he cold be wrong. All it takes to disprove a law is one instance so if you agree that when a car with less kinetic energy hits a concrete block moving in the same direction and transfers energy to it, you should accept that the law is wrong instead of continuing to accept it.
His contention that molecules in the air with the same velocity but different masses had the same kinetic energy (kinetic temperature) yet those molecules were distributed in a kinetic energy bell curve was too ridiculous even for a physicist.
MattH
| #
Hi That Sunsettommy.
In any hearing or arbitration process there should be natural justice and even handedness. (good for goose and gander)
So If LOL KOOKs is banned how is it James McGinn can continue to put the boot into Kooks without Kooks having a right of reply.
James is a serial abuser of others on this site and recently claimed to be an Atmospheric Physicist.
Has Mr McGinn provided evidence of his Qualifications or will there be a public retraction.
If Kooks is banned, so should McGinn.
I do not believe either should be banned but the moderation of moderation requires evolution.
That Sunsettommy did give Kooks fair warning and the removal of a thread, after warning, is reasonable, compared to a ban.
Lol Kooks also challenged Herb Rose. Herb consistently states the atmosphere warms the Earth, rather than the earth warming the atmosphere.
A week ago in New Zealand people were treated for burns from walking on iron sand at West coast beaches. 80 degrees C.
If the atmosphere was heating the earth surface, rather than the other way around, much life on earth could not have evolved, let alone survived.
I do not support the banning of Herb, or Kooks. I do support moderation of absolute garbage, such as flat earthers, Jew abusers, or the repeated and ongoing promotion of garbage under the false flag of science.
We are all currently witness to pharmaceutical mass murder, global energy manipulation mass murder, and most of us have become comfortably numb, as people did with Hitler.
People like Kooks are essential to shake the cage of complacency. Kooks claimed to be battling for the credibility of PSI, science, and the big picture.
The warning Sunsettommy gave to Kooks was good moderation in that it gave all readers I casual guide to abuse thresholds.
Removal or blockage of threads is, after a warning, good moderation, but a ban is dumbing all of us down to a lower common denominator, and our combined credibility with it.
That Sunsettommy is progressing acquiring the wisdom of Solomon.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt,
I do not say that the atmosphere is the exclusive source of heat for the surface. The surface absorbs visible light, the atmosphere absorbs UV )95%). Since there are far fewer molecules in the atmosphere their equilibrium temperature is far greater than the molecules on the surface. When gas molecules strike the surface during daylight they add energy to those molecules, at night they absorb energy from those molecules.
It takes almost 500,000 joules/mole to split oxygen molecules into oxygen atoms. How can the surface provide that energy to the oxygen molecules in the stratosphere to create the ozone layer without adding more energy to the oxygen molecules in the troposphere?
Herb
Howdy
| #
Hello Matt,
With the best intentions, I believe your words would be more appropriate via the ‘contact us’ form.
The Admin have allready expressed the sentiment that open discussion of such matters are not for public debate. All is explained in the notice, including other people.
sunsettommy
| #
He was Alfred Wegener who also had the gall to suggest continents drifted over time to which Geologists sneered at him, but Alfred idea was vindicated in the early 1960’s alas he died in 1930.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Sunsettommy,
Thank you for reminding me.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Sunsettommy,
Do you know how Alfred died? He died trying to save a couple of meteorologists whom he had assigned the task of establishing a weather stataine at the top of Greenland.
People forget (ignore) the courage of the early scientists. From the beginning both Copernicus and Galileo knew the danger involved in refuting (questioning) the Pope’s idea that the Earth stood still.
Have a good day
Reply
James McGinn
| #
I had forgotten how he died–a genuine scientific hero indeed.
Many don’t realize that Wegener was not a geologists but a meteorologist. As Kuhn points out, the people that make breakthroughs in a particular scientific discipline almost always come from outside the discipline. (Undoubtedly this is due to the fact that those from outside the discipline are less indoctrinated than those on the inside.)
He may have been unaware of the ferocity of the dispute between the catastrophism and gradualism. (I’m guessing.)
Science snobs like to point out that Wegener didn’t provide a mechanism for continental drift, which we now refer to as plate tectonics. At the time, geology was still choking on realization of the breadth of time, which kept getting longer and longer. There was no shortage of sneering coming from the bible thumpers (catastrophists) directed at those that incorporated Darwin’s thinking (gradualists).
There is a (scientifically) evil phrase that generally gets thrown at people (like myself, Wegener, and Galileo) who make ground-breaking discoveries. The phase is, “The burden of proof is on those that make extraordinary claims.” I consider this phase evil because it presumes that what is extraordinary is plainly evident when actually it is arbitrary. The notion that a mountain could erode down to a flat plane over time would seem extraordinary to someone that assumed the earth was only 3.500 years old (catastrophism) or even 30,000 years old (gradualism).
James McGinn / Genius
Listen to my latest podcast: January 2024
https://spotifyanchor-web.app.link/e/iMWckWmUHGb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
. . . molecules in the atmosphere their equilibrium temperature . . .
JMcG:
Herb, I think you are mis-using the concept of temperature here. For your example, the energy/mass is higher for the molecules in the atmosphere but this doesn’t mean their temperature can’t be the same or similar. You seem to be using energy/mass and temperature interchangeably, which is nonsensical.
James McGinn / CEO of Solving Tornadoes
Paradigms Often Involve Deliberate Stupidity
https://spotifyanchor-web.app.link/e/MK2HdZlLHGb
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
The concentration of molecules at 80 km is .00005 kg/m^3. If the energy from the sun is E then at equilibrium the energy each of molecules will be E/.00005. At sea level the concentration of molecules is 1.2 kg/m^3. If no energy is lost because of increased distance or transfer to other molecules at equilibrium each molecule will have energy of E/1.2. This means the temperature (kinetic energy) of nitrogen molecules at an altitude of 80 km will be 60,000 times the temperature (kinetic energy) of the nitrogen molecules at sea level. According to the law of conservation of momentum when the nitrogen molecule strike a water molecule it will transfer energy to it which will then will be distributed to 1000 other water molecules.
I am using temperature as kinetic energy of a single molecule, not as the temperature of the atmosphere as a whole.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
MattH:
A week ago in New Zealand people were treated for burns from walking on iron sand at West coast beaches. 80 degrees C. If the atmosphere was heating the earth surface, rather than the other way around, much life on earth could not have evolved, let alone survived.
JMcG:
If it isn’t obvious to you that there is, always, a two way exchange of energy going on between the atmosphere and the earth’s surface then you really have no business in a scientific discussion.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
Have you lost touch with reality? I checked and you did write: “A week ago in New Zealand people were treated for burns from walking on iron sand at.West coast beaches. 80 degrees C.” I am sure, based upon my experiences that the temperature intended was 80 F
James McGinn is almost the only one here at PSI. there is an attraction between water molecules termed hydrogen bonding which cannot be ignored when explaining the observed physical properties of water liquid, and solid. at the first approximation all gas have similar properties . (Ideal Gas Law).
Have a good day
Reply
Howdy
| #
It would appear Matt is correct:
“The black sand is 83 percent magnetite, a type of iron oxide, but it also contains 8 percent titanium. ”
“It holds far more heat than white sand.
“The latent heat within a black sand beach is incredible and people just underestimate that,” said Gary Payinda, medical director at Surf Life Saving NZ.
In fact, temperatures at Piha have been brushing 80C.”
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2024/01/tips-to-avoid-burns-after-multiple-people-scorched-by-black-sand-on-auckland-s-beaches.html
Reply
MattH
| #
Thank you Howdy. There have been times I lose touch with reality but I do not drink alcohol very often now. The recovery times a too bigger price to pay. 🙂
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Reader,
“latent heat” is related to a phase transition of the matter involved.. And I doubt Gary Payinda, medical director, has used his IR-thermometer to measure the sand’s surface temperature. I admit the thermal conductivity of this black sand is significant so to step on even a 50C surface would be quite painful just as stepping on black surface road during a clear afternoon would be.
Howdy, do you know that 80C is 176F?
Have a good day
Reply
Howdy
| #
I guess the use of latent is meaning the available value of in this instance
“At 22 months old he didn’t have the reflexes to hop off the hot tiles. He just stood there and screamed until I could get to him and scoop him up.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mums-warning-baby-boys-skin-24583994
In a kitchen, on tiles, during a heatwave.
https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/184z2l0/burnt_my_feet_on_the_beach_today/?rdt=63035
I use centigrade Jerry. If I need to know the equivalent centigrade to a Fahrenheit figure, I’ll convert it.
Reply
MattH
| #
The jet streams appear to act like a pressure release valve, at least in a significant part.
What drives the jet streams is the bellows pump effect of the atmospheric cells, Hadley Cells, Ferrel Cells, Polar Cells, heating and expanding by daytime, cooling and deflating by night.
There. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. Comments welcome.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt,
High pressure areas rotate clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere and counter clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere but in both hemispheres the jet streams flow east. Why?
When the sun heats the atmosphere at the equator the energy flows towards the poles on the surface (the air above contains more energy (hotter) so it doesn’t rise). As it flows it is swept eastward giving the rotation to high pressure areas. When the air above becomes cooler the energy rises creating the jet streams with their eastward flow.
Herb
Reply
James Bernard McGinn
| #
This is the right question.
It’s because the sun passes over from east to west, causing a pressure wave (that encircles the planet every 24 hours) which produces a slant in lateral boundary layers between moist air and and drier air which causes flow (from west to east) of the drier layers over the more stable moist layers below allowing for a flow to compound over time.
The flow on the front of the pressure wave does not compound because it is overtaken by the pressure wave itself.
Note, all of this happen independent of any vortice activity which are instrumental to producing the more focused flow associated with jet streams.
James McGinn
This subject is discussed extensively on my podcast. Here is a link:
https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/james-mcginn
Reply
James Bernard McGinn
| #
Wow. I wasn’t expecting this! Matt, this is literally the most insightful comment I have ever gotten in regard to my storm theory thinking. (And I’m not being facetious.)
MattH:
The jet streams appear to act like a pressure release valves,
JMcG:
Yes. Or, to be more precise, vortices act like pressure relief valves and the jet stream acts like the flow that would result when multiples (tens, hundreds, or thousands) of these “pressure release valves” exhaust their flow pointing in the same direction at the same location.
MattH:
What drives the jet streams is the bellows pump effect of the atmospheric cells, Hadley Cells, Ferrel Cells, Polar Cells, heating and expanding by daytime, cooling and deflating by night.
JMcG:
Yes! Bellow pump effect. Excellent analogy. And it allows us to identify the walls of the cells that contains the pressure–the leather of the bellows. In my model, the walls are the tendency of gasses to disperse, preventing streaming. In other words, since gasses don’t stream there is no mechanism for the flow to bridge distances, allowing pressure differentials to build up over time.
Vortices are the mechanism of bridging flow over long distances, however they require special conditions in order to eventually emerge. Specifically they require long, wide, extensive and smooth boundaries between moist air and dry air–these being the prerequisites of wind shear. Fortunately there is a natural tendency for moist air and drier air to become more stratified under calm conditions, causing the emergence of the long flat, extensive wind shear boundaries.
As pressures build it causes a slant in these wind shear boundaries and drier air tends to slide over the top of the more stable (more internally coherent) moist air, initiating wind shear. Wind shear causes the amplification of H2O surface tension creating a kind of plasma of spinning H2O nanodroplets with highly amplified surface tension properties, creating a slick surface and partial isolation from the friction of dispersion, allowing the flow to begin to accelerate.
As the flow continues to accelerate it eventually causes a siphon effect and the boundary layers get pulled into the flow, spinning (partially as a result of Coriolis effect) and the spinning becomes amplified causing the emergence of vortices in which the wind shear is conserved along its inner surface where the sheath of the vortice and the flow contained within continue to interact, creating more plasma, more conservation of energetic flow, and the ability to these vortices to lengthen along wind shear boundaries.
Tornadoes are the result of boundary layers intersecting the ground, which is rare and mostly only occurs on the leeward side of mountain ranges, which act like rocks in a stream, disrupting bulk flow and sometimes causing boundary layers to intersect the ground.
Here is a link to where I discussed this subject previously (five years ago):
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=17125
James McGinn / CEO of Solving Tornadoes
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Guys,
let’s get back to James McGill and the Jet Stream
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James and Guys,
James and some others know that I like quotes. Some people consider Einstein to have been a Genius. But Einstein stated”. “It’s not that I’m so smart, it’s just that I stay with problems longer.” I know that James has stayed with the problems of storms before 1917, and I don’t how long before that. However, Einstein also stated: “The only source of knowledge is experience.” And I know nothing about Jame’s experiences with storms. An I have lived several different location and have personally experienced their storms. I have observed a tornado that touched down about about 2 miles distance and observed the farm equipment it moved around.
Only since 1985 have we had excess to hourly, or even shorter period fundamental radiation and other common meteorological measurements. So I finish this comment with a quote of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, author of Sherlock Holmes mysteries. “The temptation to form premature theories upon insufficient data is the bane of our profession.” Do you consider we might have a problem if we don’t consider the data that has been measured from 1985 to today?
Have a good day
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry, the current theory is untested, untestable, and even plainly wrong. More data will only cause more confusion.
James McGinn
Reply