Government Tornado Researchers: what they don’t want you to know about what they don’t know
1) Their whole conceptualization and modeling of tornadoes is dependent on the assumption that the buoyancy of moist air is what powers storms. Alternatives that don’t maintain this assumption are taboo, not to be discussed. Yet, they have never tested or measured the assumption that buoyancy of moist air is even possible (turns out its not, moist air is heavier, not lighter than dry air). Discussions of such testing are deliberately and aggressively ignored by any and all Meteorologists.
2) They are unable to explain cone or vortex of a tornado. In fact, they have completely failed to describe existence of structure in the atmosphere altogether preferring, it seems, to minimize its significance and simply pretend it doesn’t exist.
3) Their most prominent theory, parcel theory, is fraught with circular reasoning, half truths, logical inconsistencies, immeasurable (untestable) causes, and blatant tautologies.
4) Most of the math they present is phoney (untested and untestable), useless, and put there for the purpose of creating the illusion of scientific viability.
5) Their most prominent leaders are politically allied with consensus seekers found in the phoniest part of climate science.
6) Meteorologists are not real scientists and typically graduate from programs where they are never exposed to hard sciences or math. They do not invite input from people from hard sciences and, instead, are more likely to dismiss hard sciences and practices thereof as being inconsequential to their agenda. But what they won’t tell you is that their true agenda is, first and foremost, to create the illusion that they are genuine, credible scientists.
7) They can’t explain the uplift that is witnessed in thunderstorms.
8) They can’t explain the rotation that is witnessed in thunderstorms.
9) They can’t explain why some tornadoes have such huge magnitude; they can’t explain origins of energy in atmosphere ie, they have no mechanism for transfer of energy over long distances (kinetic energy).
10) They can’t explain origins of high wind speed, including that in the jet stream
11) They can’t explain inconsistencies of CAPE.
12) They can’t explain why severe weather, especially tornadoes, involves “clash of dry winds with moist winds.” (Why does it matter than one body of air must be dry and the other must be moist to cause tornadoes? [why are there no tornadoes when both are dry or both are moist?] Might this be a clue to something yet undiscovered?)
13) They can’t explain formation of cirrus clouds
14) They can’t explain CAT Clear Air Turbulence
15) They can’t explain turbulence found at top of thunderstorms and sides of jet streams
16) They can’t explain origins of energy found in hurricanes
Ultimately what it comes down to is this: government-paid tornado researchers don’t know much of anything about the specific factors underlying tornadoes. Beyond that, they appear to be obsessed with putting the square peg of convection into the round hole of reality–making sure the public doesn’t catch on to the absurdity of cold steam. Consequently, all possibilities of making scientific progress in this discipline have been abandoned. The study of severe weather, therefore, has become a cargo-cult science of the worst kind, not unlike that found in Al Gore’s climate science.