The author believes that elementary concepts, which have been taught to and understood by first year Chemistry and Physics students for many decades, are some kind of meteorological conspiracy. The author also does not understand the very basic physics that drive convective updrafts (the positive buoyancy due to warm temperature anomalies that result from latent heat release). Instead, apparently based largely on reading websites, he proposes a mechanism that makes no physical sense and is totally unobserved and unobservable. This text violates even basic tenets of logic. Totally without merit.
I’m not concerned with what is, “elementary,” or what has been taught, I’m concerned with what is correct. People that make arguments to the effect that one must submit to group think do nothing but advertise the fact that they don’t understand science. Scientific methods were developed to avoid being just another of the sheep that follow along with what everybody else believes.
Buoyancy is a simple concept. Moist air is not lighter than dry air. It is heavier. In order for it to be lighter we would have to delude ourselves into believing that steam can persist at temperatures below the boiling point of water. This is but a popularistic delusion. Group delusions don’t require a conspiracy.
As with all Meteorologists, K. Parker believes in the existence of cold steam. Without the notion of cold steam the whole paradigm of meteorology is reduced to nonsense–or, at least, the aspects of meteorology that are associated with their conceptualization of storms and storm dynamics is reduced to nonsense. When believers have the rug of their beliefs ripped out from underneath them they become real emotional and want to lash out at the people that informed them of the truth.
I assure you that K. Parker does not have, and never will have, an actual argument.
For more: http://wp.me/p4JijN-5A