Why Meteorology isn’t Really Scientific

Observation is an important PART of the scientific method, but it is not the whole thing. Meteorologists have built a whole paradigm, complete with their own somewhat idiosyncratic terminology, based on this one PART of the scientific method. Consequently much of their terminology doesn’t parse with paradigms like physics and chemistry that are based on genuine empirical methods. No chemist or physicist would base an assumption or a conclusion on lack of evidence to the contrary or on something being unseen. But in meteorology that is perfectly normal.

They’ve been able to avoid scrutiny from other disciplines using methods similar to those of climatologists–politics. In fact, climatology learned their political methods by following meteorology’s lead.

2 responses to “Why Meteorology isn’t Really Scientific”

  1. Tom OregonCity says :

    Given that the atmosphere is at least several orders of magnitude more complex than can be modeled, why is this surprising? There is no method that can perfectly predict climate — or even weather — more than a few hours in the future.

    If you think you have a solution, then prove it by creating a model that works. Otherwise, perhaps it’s not useful to throw rocks at the folks who do their best given the at-present impossible complexity of earth’s gaseous skin.

    Want a fellow that gets close? Piers Corbyn, of http://www.weatheraction.com/ . People pay for his forecasts. His “advantage” over others? He pays close attention to solar behavior.

    • solvingtornadoes says :

      Tom:
      Given that the atmosphere is at least several orders of magnitude more complex than can be modeled, why is this surprising?

      Jim:
      All of reality is complex. I don’t see physicists producing pseudo-science and using this excuse to conceal it.

      Tom:
      There is no method that can perfectly predict climate — or even weather — more than a few hours in the future.

      Jim:
      Who cares? Address something substantive or go play with Joe Postma.

      Tom:
      If you think you have a solution, then prove it by creating a model that works.

      Jim:
      http://wp.me/p4JijN-aE
      Address my thinking directly and honestly or kindly go away.

      Tom:
      Otherwise, perhaps it’s not useful to throw rocks at the folks who do their best given the at-present impossible complexity of earth’s gaseous skin.

      Jim:
      So, you came here to tell us that meteorological beliefs are sacred and shouldn’t be questioned or scrutinized? Why do you not offer AGW alarmists and Joe Postma the same courtesy? Why the double standard?

      Tom:
      Want a fellow that gets close? Piers Corbyn, of http://www.weatheraction.com/ . People pay for his forecasts. His “advantage” over others? He pays close attention to solar behavior.

      Jim:
      I asked Corbin the following questions and he refused to answer. How about you. Can you answer:

      Do you believe moist air (all other factors being the same) at ambient temps is heavier or lighter than dry air?
      How do you know? Have you ever measured it?
      Do you believe convection causes storms?

      Can you answer these questions, Tom?

      Can you explain why meteorology can’t be considered with the same level of scrutiny of that associated with other sciences?

      Refrain from whining or complaining. Answer the questions or kindly go away.

      Regards,

      Jim McGinn
      Solving Tornadoes

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: