Dave Burton, a typical confused meteorologist

August 14, 2014 at 12:08 am

daveburton says:
That’s wrong, solvingtornadoes. For one thing, your claim that “moist air at ambient temperatures contains no steam” is nonsensical.

Solving Tornadoes:
LOL. It’s a wonder you meteorological geniuses don’t design an engine that runs on the “power” of evaporation. You’d make billions!

daveburton says:
Steam is just water vapor. Moist air, by definition, contains water vapor.

Solving Tornadoes:
Steam only exists above the boiling point of water. Water vapor (ie when part of moist air at ambient temps) is not monomolecular. The fact that it is invisible when clusters are very small is what is confusing you. Your only argument, therefore, is to insist that I submit to your confusion, which I will not do. If meteorology was a real science and not a cult then tests/measurements would be done to resolve the issue. If you yourself were a scientist and not a cultist then you would be suggesting the same. And I’m not interested in joining your cult.

daveburton says:
(Of course, foggy or cloudy atmosphere is another matter, because it also contains droplets of liquid water.)

Solving Tornadoes:
It’s “another matter,” only because the droplets have gotten large enough to be visible.

Your decision to base your conclusions on lack of evidence is your decision. It is not my decision. Your decision to remain confused is your decision. It is not my decision. Your decision to submit to the authority of a confused paradigm is your decision. It’s not my decision. You and the other members of your cult need to stop insisting that people accept what you have failed to demonstrate empirically.

If you have evidence that H2O is monomolecular in our atmosphere then please present it. Otherwise kindly go away.

3 responses to “Dave Burton, a typical confused meteorologist”

  1. Paul M. says :

    Gentlemen, I came across this argument while surfing. I do not know who is right or wrong but I would like to find out the truth.
    I have had no formal education in ether discipline but I do know some basic physics which probably makes me dangerous! I have been taught that all matter can be found in one of three states, solid, liquid or gas. I would say that, although visible moisture is a liquid, can be on its way to becoming a gas. Just a little more heat is all that’s needed. But what I really see with the atmosphere you are discussing is not a boiling but a dissipation or dilution, to the point that it only appears to become a gas. Steam has force but only as it expands, and that is in a contained environment.

    My second statement/question is; In the field of Hydraulics, air is considered a fluid, as it has all the properties of a liquid, save for the property of in- compressibility. As I look at the picture of the turbines in this article, I am reminded of a stream or a river, a fluid in which there is an obstruction to the normal flow. No matter how large it is, the turbulence it creates disappears very shortly after it passes the object. So how could a wind turbine cause any drought, save for the short distance past its position in the landscape? The air flow would return to its previous course in the matter of a mile or so.

    Please don’t laugh at my ignorance, i am looking to learn from you both.

    Paul M.

    • solvingtornadoes says :

      The notion that the moisture in our atmosphere (at ambient temperatures) is steam (rather than clusters of liquid) is not a notion that is based on anything empirical. It’s just group-think nonsense–like much of meteorology.

      Good question. It takes days to re-establish the smooth boundaries in the atmosphere

    • solvingtornadoes says :


      You probably don’t have the expertise and/or patience to understand my theory but you do have the expertise to realize that meteorologists are lying to the public. But you have to be tough minded, willing to put them on the spot and not take no for an answer. Phoney science always pain’ts itself as legitimate and then hides behind confusion to sell their nonsense to a gullible public.

      Ask a meteorologists to point out the evidence of cold steam. They won’t. They can’t. All they can do is evade the issue and pretend it doesn’t matter as they continue to wallow in their abject indifference to their ignorance.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: