Discussion:
Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense
(too old to reply)
James McGinn
2016-07-03 17:13:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense because they have painted themselves into a corner with their assumptions and believing in nonsense is the only option that remains to save them from appearing to be complete fools. The most stupefying myth in all of meteorology is the myth that steam can persist in our atmosphere. It is universally believed by all meteorologists yet, strangely, not one of them would claim knowledge of a test or experiment to demonstrate its validity. Stranger still, what little empirical evidence we do have decidedly indicates that the notion fails. This notion has evolved into a taboo within the disciplines that study the atmosphere, the primary champions and enforcers of this taboo being meteorologists, most of whom for which the issue is a mute point in that they exclusively work with synoptic charts (cold fronts, warm fronts and such, usually displayed on computer screens) and, therefore, the notion is never applied in the context of their daily duties. Only for a very small subset of meteorologists—those that deal with the severe weather and, even then, only those that deal with the theoretical aspects thereof—does this notion have any real significance. But for these few the effect is intellectually devastating, rendering them feckless, incapable of making any kind of real progress in the discipline. One consequence of this being that the theoretical aspects of the study of severe weather have come to epitomize academic vapidity. And there really isn’t much any of them can do about it in that belief in the concept is a prerequisite for being taken seriously by any of the various stakeholders in the discipline. But at least they don’t look like complete fools.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16329
Michael J. Strickland
2016-07-06 05:33:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 10:13:32 -0700 (PDT), James McGinn
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

...
>The most stupefying myth in all of meteorology is the myth that steam can persist in our atmosphere.

Steam is water vapor above air saturation density. The steam coming
out of a kettle is opaque because it is well over saturation density
(>> 100% humidity) and pushes the air aside as it exits. Technically,
its not persisting in the atmosphere since it has purged the
atmosphere from its vicinity. As it spreads out, colliding and mixing
with the heavier air molecules, it loses kinetic energy (cools) due to
the work it does against atmospheric pressure. By the time it reaches
saturation density (100% humidity) it has become translucent (almost
transparent) instead of opaque. If its density increases beyond
saturation due to a pressure pulse for instance or further cooling, it
forms water droplets (clouds).

As water vapor (much lighter than air) rises and cools, it condenses
into water droplets (clouds). As water vapor condenses into a cloud,
the volume reduction (vapor to liquid) reduces the outward positive
pressure of the cloud and allows more moisture laden air to flow into
the cloud. This effect causes the cloud to grow in all directions.

Droplets at the top of the cloud (coldest) fall downward with a very
small terminal velocity and usually evaporate from air frictional
heating before falling very far. The resultant vapor rises upward
again to the top of the cloud and condenses again to repeat the cycle.
The energy required to vaporize a droplet increases with the mass of
the droplet (cube of the droplet radius ) but the energy acquired from
falling friction increases only as the square of the droplet radius.
Thus the larger the droplet, the farther it falls before evaporating
again.

As the cloud grows upward and the temperature at the top drops, colder
and larger drops form. They are larger because the vapor molecules are
moving slower and more nucleate (stick together) per second. These
larger, colder droplets eventually survive the trip falling through
the cloud and (and air below the cloud) without vaporizing. They hit
the ground as rain drops.

Mike
---------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA
---------------------------------------------------
James McGinn
2016-07-06 06:03:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 10:34:02 PM UTC-7, Michael Strickland wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 10:13:32 -0700 (PDT), James McGinn
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ...
> >The most stupefying myth in all of meteorology is the myth that steam can persist in our atmosphere.
>
> Steam is water vapor above air saturation density. The steam coming
> out of a kettle is opaque because it is well over saturation density
> (>> 100% humidity) and pushes the air aside as it exits. Technically,
> its not persisting in the atmosphere since it has purged the
> atmosphere from its vicinity. As it spreads out, colliding and mixing
> with the heavier air molecules, it loses kinetic energy (cools) due to
> the work it does against atmospheric pressure. By the time it reaches
> saturation density (100% humidity) it has become translucent (almost
> transparent) instead of opaque. If its density increases beyond
> saturation due to a pressure pulse for instance or further cooling, it
> forms water droplets (clouds).
>
> As water vapor (much lighter than air) rises and cools, it condenses
> into water droplets (clouds). As water vapor condenses into a cloud,
> the volume reduction (vapor to liquid) reduces the outward positive
> pressure of the cloud and allows more moisture laden air to flow into
> the cloud. This effect causes the cloud to grow in all directions.
>
> Droplets at the top of the cloud (coldest) fall downward with a very
> small terminal velocity and usually evaporate from air frictional
> heating before falling very far. The resultant vapor rises upward
> again to the top of the cloud and condenses again to repeat the cycle.
> The energy required to vaporize a droplet increases with the mass of
> the droplet (cube of the droplet radius ) but the energy acquired from
> falling friction increases only as the square of the droplet radius.
> Thus the larger the droplet, the farther it falls before evaporating
> again.
>
> As the cloud grows upward and the temperature at the top drops, colder
> and larger drops form. They are larger because the vapor molecules are
> moving slower and more nucleate (stick together) per second. These
> larger, colder droplets eventually survive the trip falling through
> the cloud and (and air below the cloud) without vaporizing. They hit
> the ground as rain drops.
>
> Mike
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA
> ---------------------------------------------------


This is a perfectly stupid explanation.
James McGinn
2016-07-06 16:59:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 10:34:02 PM UTC-7, Michael Strickland wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 10:13:32 -0700 (PDT), James McGinn
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ...
> >The most stupefying myth in all of meteorology is the myth that steam can persist in our atmosphere.
>
> Steam is water vapor above air saturation density.

Steam is monomolecular H2O.



The steam coming
> out of a kettle is opaque because it is well over saturation density

Absurd. You are a clueless pretender. Typical


> (>> 100% humidity) and pushes the air aside as it exits.Technically,
> its not persisting in the atmosphere since it has purged the
> atmosphere from its vicinity. As it spreads out,

Plainly a dumb assertions.



colliding and mixing
> with the heavier air molecules, it loses kinetic energy (cools) due to
> the work it does against atmospheric pressure. By the time it reaches
> saturation density (100% humidity) it has become translucent (almost
> transparent) instead of opaque.

It's not steam ambient temps It's water suspended in air, which surrounds us all the time.


If its density increases beyond
> saturation due to a pressure pulse for instance or further cooling, it
> forms water droplets (clouds).
>
> As water vapor (much lighter than air)

Water vapor is always heavier than air, all other factors being the same.



rises and cools, it condenses
> into water droplets (clouds). As water vapor condenses into a cloud,
> the volume reduction (vapor to liquid) reduces the outward positive
> pressure of the cloud and allows more moisture laden air to flow into
> the cloud. This effect causes the cloud to grow in all directions.


cloud grows?

>
> Droplets at the top of the cloud (coldest) fall downward with a very
> small terminal velocity and usually evaporate from air frictional
> heating before falling very far. The resultant vapor rises upward
> again to the top of the cloud and condenses again to repeat the cycle.
> The energy required to vaporize a droplet increases with the mass of
> the droplet (cube of the droplet radius ) but the energy acquired from
> falling friction increases only as the square of the droplet radius.
> Thus the larger the droplet, the farther it falls before evaporating
> again.

You barely even have a coherent point.


>
> As the cloud grows upward and the temperature at the top drops, colder
> and larger drops form. They are larger because the vapor molecules are
> moving slower and more nucleate (stick together) per second. These
> larger, colder droplets eventually survive the trip falling through
> the cloud and (and air below the cloud) without vaporizing. They hit
> the ground as rain drops.
>
> Mike
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA
> ---------------------------------------------------
noTthaTguY
2016-07-06 18:15:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
of course, a single HOH is a lot lighter than OO, NN etc. ur argon

> is the myth that steam can persist in our atmosphere.
>
> Steam is water vapor above air saturation density. The steam coming
> out of a kettle is opaque because it is well over saturation density
> (>> 100% humidity) and pushes the air aside as it exits. Technically,
> its not persisting in the atmosphere since it has purged the
> atmosphere from its vicinity. As it spreads out, colliding and mixing
> with the heavier air molecules, it loses kinetic energy (cools) due to
> the work it does against atmospheric pressure. By the time it reaches
> saturation density (100% humidity) it has become translucent (almost
> transparent) instead of opaque. If its density increases beyond
> saturation due to a pressure pulse for instance or further cooling, it
> forms water droplets (clouds).
>
> As water vapor (much lighter than air) rises and cools, it condenses
James McGinn
2016-07-07 01:33:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
38% lighter
18/29

So it's more than half

2 or more in a droplet/cluster most likely never less than ten molecules per
p***@volcanomail.com
2016-07-06 19:02:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 10:34:02 PM UTC-7, Michael Strickland wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 10:13:32 -0700 (PDT), James McGinn
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ...
> >The most stupefying myth in all of meteorology is the myth that steam can persist in our atmosphere.
>
> Steam is water vapor above air saturation density. The steam coming
> out of a kettle is opaque because it is well over saturation density
> (>> 100% humidity) and pushes the air aside as it exits.

Steam in clear, not opaque.
noTthaTguY
2016-07-06 21:25:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
known as "lensing e.g;
it would be interesgting to develop the lensing property
of 2HOH, to see how it is different
from that of a HOH

> > out of a kettle is opaque because it is well over saturation density
> > (>> 100% humidity) and pushes the air aside as it exits.
>
> Steam in clear, not opaque.
Sergio
2016-07-06 19:40:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 7/6/2016 12:33 AM, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 10:13:32 -0700 (PDT), James McGinn
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>> The most stupefying myth in all of meteorology is the myth that steam can persist in our atmosphere.

> Steam is water vapor above air saturation density. The steam coming
> out of a kettle is opaque because it is well over saturation density
> (>> 100% humidity) and pushes the air aside as it exits. Technically,
> its not persisting in the atmosphere since it has purged the
> atmosphere from its vicinity. As it spreads out, colliding and mixing
> with the heavier air molecules, it loses kinetic energy (cools) due to
> the work it does against atmospheric pressure. By the time it reaches
> saturation density (100% humidity) it has become translucent (almost
> transparent) instead of opaque. If its density increases beyond
> saturation due to a pressure pulse for instance or further cooling, it
> forms water droplets (clouds).

> As water vapor (much lighter than air) rises and cools, it condenses
> into water droplets (clouds). As water vapor condenses into a cloud,
> the volume reduction (vapor to liquid) reduces the outward positive
> pressure of the cloud and allows more moisture laden air to flow into
> the cloud. This effect causes the cloud to grow in all directions.
>
> Droplets at the top of the cloud (coldest) fall downward with a very
> small terminal velocity and usually evaporate from air frictional
> heating before falling very far. The resultant vapor rises upward
> again to the top of the cloud and condenses again to repeat the cycle.
> The energy required to vaporize a droplet increases with the mass of
> the droplet (cube of the droplet radius ) but the energy acquired from
> falling friction increases only as the square of the droplet radius.
> Thus the larger the droplet, the farther it falls before evaporating
> again.

> As the cloud grows upward and the temperature at the top drops, colder
> and larger drops form. They are larger because the vapor molecules are
> moving slower and more nucleate (stick together) per second. These
> larger, colder droplets eventually survive the trip falling through
> the cloud and (and air below the cloud) without vaporizing. They hit
> the ground as rain drops.
>
> Mike
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA
> ---------------------------------------------------
>

Those sound like facts.

James McGinn (McFly) does not deal with facts, he is lost deep within
his imagination, and can't get out.
James McGinn
2016-07-07 12:51:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
So, uh, what is boiling temp of H2O?
noTthaTguY
2016-07-08 17:51:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
it may be possible to seek the method
by whci steamtables were generated, say,
in the sauna

> So, uh, what is boiling temp of H2O?
noTthaTguY
2016-07-08 23:07:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
or the steampower association boilerrOOm

> in the sauna
>
> > So, uh, what is boiling temp of H2O?
James McGinn
2016-07-07 18:22:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 12:40:14 PM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
> On 7/6/2016 12:33 AM, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
> > On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 10:13:32 -0700 (PDT), James McGinn
> > <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >> The most stupefying myth in all of meteorology is the myth that steam can persist in our atmosphere.
>
> > Steam is water vapor above air saturation density. The steam coming
> > out of a kettle is opaque because it is well over saturation density
> > (>> 100% humidity) and pushes the air aside as it exits. Technically,
> > its not persisting in the atmosphere since it has purged the
> > atmosphere from its vicinity. As it spreads out, colliding and mixing
> > with the heavier air molecules, it loses kinetic energy (cools) due to
> > the work it does against atmospheric pressure. By the time it reaches
> > saturation density (100% humidity) it has become translucent (almost
> > transparent) instead of opaque. If its density increases beyond
> > saturation due to a pressure pulse for instance or further cooling, it
> > forms water droplets (clouds).
>
> > As water vapor (much lighter than air) rises and cools, it condenses
> > into water droplets (clouds). As water vapor condenses into a cloud,
> > the volume reduction (vapor to liquid) reduces the outward positive
> > pressure of the cloud and allows more moisture laden air to flow into
> > the cloud. This effect causes the cloud to grow in all directions.
> >
> > Droplets at the top of the cloud (coldest) fall downward with a very
> > small terminal velocity and usually evaporate from air frictional
> > heating before falling very far. The resultant vapor rises upward
> > again to the top of the cloud and condenses again to repeat the cycle.
> > The energy required to vaporize a droplet increases with the mass of
> > the droplet (cube of the droplet radius ) but the energy acquired from
> > falling friction increases only as the square of the droplet radius.
> > Thus the larger the droplet, the farther it falls before evaporating
> > again.
>
> > As the cloud grows upward and the temperature at the top drops, colder
> > and larger drops form. They are larger because the vapor molecules are
> > moving slower and more nucleate (stick together) per second. These
> > larger, colder droplets eventually survive the trip falling through
> > the cloud and (and air below the cloud) without vaporizing. They hit
> > the ground as rain drops.
> >
> > Mike
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> > Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> >
>
> Those sound like facts.
>
> James McGinn (McFly) does not deal with facts, he is lost deep within
> his imagination, and can't get out.

Sergio, you're so dumb, why do you even come here?
p***@gmail.com
2016-07-08 01:20:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 11:22:38 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:

> Sergio, you're so dumb, why do you even come here?

I was going to ask you that same thing. After all, I have a mud fence out back that is smarter than you are...
Sergio
2016-07-08 18:51:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 7/7/2016 8:20 PM, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 11:22:38 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
>
>> Sergio, you're so dumb, why do you even come here?
>
> I was going to ask you that same thing. After all, I have a mud fence out back that is smarter than you are...
>

Poor James, he suffers from "Desiccated Brain Syndrome", DBS, may be
caused by lack of sufficient water vapor.

DBS is also know as "Brain Fog".

He shouldn't try to fool Mother Nature.

http://www.sheknows.com/health-and-wellness/articles/810340/what-you-need-to-know-about-brain-fog
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2016-07-19 17:45:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Sergio wrote:

> Those sound like facts.

Sound: yes; are: for the most part, no.

> James McGinn (McFly) does not deal with facts, he is lost deep within
> his imagination, and can't get out.

Apparently he is not the only one.

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
James McGinn
2016-12-23 18:43:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 12:40:14 PM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
> On 7/6/2016 12:33 AM, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
> > On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 10:13:32 -0700 (PDT), James McGinn
> > <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >> The most stupefying myth in all of meteorology is the myth that steam can persist in our atmosphere.
>
> > Steam is water vapor above air saturation density. The steam coming
> > out of a kettle is opaque because it is well over saturation density
> > (>> 100% humidity) and pushes the air aside as it exits. Technically,
> > its not persisting in the atmosphere since it has purged the
> > atmosphere from its vicinity. As it spreads out, colliding and mixing
> > with the heavier air molecules, it loses kinetic energy (cools) due to
> > the work it does against atmospheric pressure. By the time it reaches
> > saturation density (100% humidity) it has become translucent (almost
> > transparent) instead of opaque. If its density increases beyond
> > saturation due to a pressure pulse for instance or further cooling, it
> > forms water droplets (clouds).
>
> > As water vapor (much lighter than air) rises and cools, it condenses
> > into water droplets (clouds). As water vapor condenses into a cloud,
> > the volume reduction (vapor to liquid) reduces the outward positive
> > pressure of the cloud and allows more moisture laden air to flow into
> > the cloud. This effect causes the cloud to grow in all directions.
> >
> > Droplets at the top of the cloud (coldest) fall downward with a very
> > small terminal velocity and usually evaporate from air frictional
> > heating before falling very far. The resultant vapor rises upward
> > again to the top of the cloud and condenses again to repeat the cycle.
> > The energy required to vaporize a droplet increases with the mass of
> > the droplet (cube of the droplet radius ) but the energy acquired from
> > falling friction increases only as the square of the droplet radius.
> > Thus the larger the droplet, the farther it falls before evaporating
> > again.
>
> > As the cloud grows upward and the temperature at the top drops, colder
> > and larger drops form. They are larger because the vapor molecules are
> > moving slower and more nucleate (stick together) per second. These
> > larger, colder droplets eventually survive the trip falling through
> > the cloud and (and air below the cloud) without vaporizing. They hit
> > the ground as rain drops.
> >
> > Mike
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> > Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> >
>
> Those sound like facts.
>
> James McGinn (McFly) does not deal with facts, he is lost deep within
> his imagination, and can't get out.

Anything remotely credible that matches what a church lady want to believe is believed.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2016-07-19 17:43:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Michael J. Strickland wrote:

> On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 10:13:32 -0700 (PDT), James McGinn
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>>The most stupefying myth in all of meteorology is the myth that steam can
>>persist in our atmosphere.
>
> Steam is water vapor above air saturation density. The steam coming
> out of a kettle is opaque because it is well over saturation density
> (>> 100% humidity) and pushes the air aside as it exits.

Partially true. It is not the steam that is over 100 % humidity, but the
*air* is (i.e., there is more water in the air that it can hold; the warmer
the air, the more water it can hold), *therefore* there is steam.

> Technically, its not persisting in the atmosphere since it has purged the
> atmosphere from its vicinity.

Nonsense.

> As it spreads out, colliding and mixing with the heavier air molecules, it
> loses kinetic energy (cools) due to the work it does against atmospheric
> pressure. By the time it reaches saturation density (100% humidity) it has
> become translucent (almost transparent) instead of opaque. If its density
> increases beyond saturation due to a pressure pulse for instance or
> further cooling, it forms water droplets (clouds).

I am not sure that is a completely correct description either.

> As water vapor (much lighter than air) rises and cools, it condenses
> into water droplets (clouds).

You have omitted the most important part of the story. For a gas to
condense to drops that results in clouds, it does not suffice that its
temperature is reduced; there has to be something *solid* that it can
*condense on*. Condensation of water vapor to clouds is possible because
the air in our atmosphere is not clean: small dust particles (e.g., carried
away from deserts and ground soil, and from air pollution caused by humans),
which in this context are called *condensation nuclei*, are intermixed with
it, and the water vapor condenses *on them* (just like it condenses on a
pane of window glass; the scientific term of that is *phase boundary*).

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rain>

> As water vapor condenses into a cloud, the volume reduction (vapor to
> liquid) reduces the outward positive pressure of the cloud and allows
> more moisture laden air to flow into the cloud. This effect causes the
> cloud to grow in all directions.

How did you get that idea?

> Droplets at the top of the cloud (coldest) fall downward with a very
> small terminal velocity and usually evaporate from air frictional
> heating before falling very far.

Instead, those "droplets" at the top of a cloud are actually condensation
nuclei surrounded by then-*frozen* *solid* water *ice*. They fall down
eventually because there comes a point when their mass becomes to great for
any upwardly directed airstream (as warm air rises, and the planet’s crust
is continuously warmed by its main star) to hold in suspense. Depending on
the temperature in and below the cloud they *melt* or even evaporate in the
process. [AFAIK, it is _not_ any “frictional heating” that determines what
kind of precipitation, if any, can be expected from falling out of a cloud,
but temperature and wind conditions in the lower part and below the cloud
(technically, there is snow/hail from *every* cloud; you can see that in
winter or in polar areas when and where the temperature of the air below the
cloud is not high enough to melt the snowflakes/ice pellets). When the
temperature below the cloud is just high enough for the falling
pellets/drops to evaporate before they reach the ground, you can see
/virga/, “falling streaks”, below the cloud. The friction between falling
and rising particles in the cloud, however, allows for a separation of
electrical charges and the cloud to be statically electrically charged,
which leads to lightnings as the form of resulting electric discharge inside
a large cloud, between clouds, or clouds and the ground.]

In weather modification, there is “cloud seeding”: clouds are seeded from
airplanes with drops of silver iodide as artificial condensation nuclei;
either to form clouds that can rain of where there would have been little to
none naturally (i.e., over arid regions and deserts), or to have existing
clouds rain off before they become to large (you want enough rain, but not
100 % cloud coverage for your plants; and you want rain, not a hailstorm,
down on your crops – as cumulus clouds grow *upwards* to develop towards
cumulonimbuses, they become more likely to be a source of a hailstorm due to
the much lower temperatures in the upper atmosphere).

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding>

> As the cloud grows upward and the temperature at the top drops, colder
> and larger drops form.

Not drops, but pellets of *water ice* frozen on dust particles. They are
not drops of (dirty) water until shortly before, or after they leave the
cloud. The temperature and air pressure are much too low there for liquid
water to exist (down to ca. 220 K/−53.15 °C and 0.5 bar/500 hPa near the
tropopause, according to the 1962 US Standard Atmosphere Graph; cf. NIST
standard conditions: 293.15 K/20 °C and 1.01325 bar/1013.25 hPa).

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_temperature>
<http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=water+phase+diagram&dataset=>

> They are larger because the vapor molecules are moving slower and more
> nucleate (stick together) per second.

No, they can get larger because as the water *freezes* on the condensation
nuclei, more *water* can *freeze* on the resulting ice pellets. It is the
same that happens when your tongue, wet with the water of the saliva, can
get stuck on a really cold and wet piece of soft-ice cream, or your hands,
wet with water of the skin, are stuck when touching the inside of a freezer
[you can get severe injuries this way; kids, do not try that at home, and
always wear thick insulating gloves when you are experimenting with dry ice
(solid carbon dioxide)].

I strongly recommend that you read the chapters on thermodynamics of the
Feynman Lectures on Physics, and introductory material on meteorology (such
as what I just gave to you) to clarify some of your misconceptions about
(water) vapor and clouds.

<http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/>

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2016-07-19 17:58:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> In weather modification, there is “cloud seeding”: clouds are seeded from
> airplanes with drops of silver iodide as artificial condensation nuclei;
> either to form clouds that can rain of where there would have been little
^^
_off_

> to none naturally (i.e., over arid regions and deserts), or to have
> existing clouds rain off before they become to large (you want enough
^^
_too_

> rain, but not 100 % cloud coverage for your plants; and you want rain, not
> a hailstorm, down on your crops – as cumulus clouds grow *upwards* to
> develop towards cumulonimbuses, they become more likely to be a source of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Also possible: “cumulonimbi”, according to the Oxford Dictionary of British
& World English, which is the form closer to the Latin original.

<http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/nimbus>
<http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/cumulonimbus>
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nimbus#Latin>

> a hailstorm due to the much lower temperatures in the upper atmosphere).
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding>

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
Poutnik
2016-07-19 19:48:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Dne 19/07/2016 v 19:43 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
> Michael J. Strickland wrote:
>

>>
>> Steam is water vapor above air saturation density. The steam coming
>> out of a kettle is opaque because it is well over saturation density
>> (>> 100% humidity) and pushes the air aside as it exits.
>
> Partially true. It is not the steam that is over 100 % humidity, but the
> *air* is (i.e., there is more water in the air that it can hold; the warmer
> the air, the more water it can hold), *therefore* there is steam.

In fact, it does not have much to do with air.
Air does not hold it, it can be vacuum as well.

Air just marginally modifies the vapour fugacity*),
compared to the pure vapour.

*) equivalent pressure of ideal gas with the same chemical potential

--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2016-07-19 20:29:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Poutnik wrote:

> Dne 19/07/2016 v 19:43 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>> Michael J. Strickland wrote:
>>> Steam is water vapor above air saturation density. The steam coming
>>> out of a kettle is opaque because it is well over saturation density
>>> (>> 100% humidity) and pushes the air aside as it exits.
>>
>> Partially true. It is not the steam that is over 100 % humidity, but the
>> *air* is (i.e., there is more water in the air that it can hold; the
>> warmer the air, the more water it can hold), *therefore* there is steam.
>
> In fact, it does not have much to do with air.
> Air does not hold it, it can be vacuum as well.

Incorrect. Air *contains* water vapour because it mainly consists of other
gases that water molecules can diffuse into.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_chemistry>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor>

> Air just marginally modifies the vapour fugacity*),
> compared to the pure vapour.
>
> *) equivalent pressure of ideal gas with the same chemical potential

How did you get that idea?

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
Odd Bodkin
2016-07-19 20:33:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 7/19/2016 3:29 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Incorrect. Air *contains* water vapour because it mainly consists of other
> gases that water molecules can diffuse into.

What? Are you saying that water vapor cannot exist in an airless region
of space?

Are you sure about that?
Have you looked at your own link below?

> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor>


--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2016-07-19 20:40:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 7/19/2016 3:29 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Incorrect. Air *contains* water vapour because it mainly consists of
>> other gases that water molecules can diffuse into.
>
> What? Are you saying that water vapor cannot exist in an airless region
> of space?

No.

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
Poutnik
2016-07-19 21:24:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Dne 19/07/2016 v 22:40 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> On 7/19/2016 3:29 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Incorrect. Air *contains* water vapour because it mainly consists of
>>> other gases that water molecules can diffuse into.
>>
>> What? Are you saying that water vapor cannot exist in an airless region
>> of space?
>
> No.
>
Correct.

The saturated water vapour pressure over liquid water or ice
is practical the same for given temperature in gases and in vacuum,
supposing not too high gas pressure and inert non polar gas.

The curves are different for liquid water and ice
and intersect at the triple point, being steeper for ice.

--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
Poutnik
2016-07-19 21:15:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Dne 19/07/2016 v 22:29 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
> Poutnik wrote:
>
>> Dne 19/07/2016 v 19:43 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>>> Michael J. Strickland wrote:
>>>> Steam is water vapor above air saturation density. The steam coming
>>>> out of a kettle is opaque because it is well over saturation density
>>>> (>> 100% humidity) and pushes the air aside as it exits.
>>>
>>> Partially true. It is not the steam that is over 100 % humidity, but the
>>> *air* is (i.e., there is more water in the air that it can hold; the
>>> warmer the air, the more water it can hold), *therefore* there is steam.
>>
>> In fact, it does not have much to do with air.
>> Air does not hold it, it can be vacuum as well.
>
> Incorrect. Air *contains* water vapour because it mainly consists of other
> gases that water molecules can diffuse into.

Sure, it contains it. So does vacuum would.
( But it would not be vacuum any more, of course )

Using vapour being hold may mislead some person
to think like if it was hold by air molecules in vapour state
and it would condensate without air.

How much water vapour can be contained in air volume
at given temperature is not attribute of air,
but of water itself. A saturated vapour pressure
depends on temperature, but not on presence of other gases,
with the fugacity note.
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_chemistry>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor>

I need not study these facts from Wikipedia,
neither you would from your area of expertise
that I do not deny you have.
>
>> Air just marginally modifies the vapour fugacity*),
>> compared to the pure vapour.
>>
>> *) equivalent pressure of ideal gas with the same chemical potential
>
> How did you get that idea?

Every chemistry graduate should get that idea.

I have studied analytical and physical chemistry,
and during that time physics of atmosphere and airfield meteorology
for that time mandatory army service.

--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
Claudius Denk
2016-12-31 23:07:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 12:48:29 PM UTC-7, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
> Dne 19/07/2016 v 19:43 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
> > Michael J. Strickland wrote:
> >
>
> >>
> >> Steam is water vapor above air saturation density. The steam coming
> >> out of a kettle is opaque because it is well over saturation density
> >> (>> 100% humidity) and pushes the air aside as it exits.
> >
> > Partially true. It is not the steam that is over 100 % humidity, but the
> > *air* is (i.e., there is more water in the air that it can hold; the warmer
> > the air, the more water it can hold), *therefore* there is steam.
>
> In fact, it does not have much to do with air.
> Air does not hold it, it can be vacuum as well.

Surreal. Vacuum is zero air pressure. Look at a steam table every once in a while.
James McGinn
2016-07-20 16:08:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 10:43:32 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Michael J. Strickland wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 10:13:32 -0700 (PDT), James McGinn
> > <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >>The most stupefying myth in all of meteorology is the myth that steam can
> >>persist in our atmosphere.
> >
> > Steam is water vapor above air saturation density. The steam coming
> > out of a kettle is opaque because it is well over saturation density
> > (>> 100% humidity) and pushes the air aside as it exits.
>
> Partially true. It is not the steam that is over 100 % humidity, but the
> *air* is (i.e., there is more water in the air that it can hold; the warmer
> the air, the more water it can hold), *therefore* there is steam.
>
> > Technically, its not persisting in the atmosphere since it has purged the
> > atmosphere from its vicinity.
>
> Nonsense.

Right.

> > As it spreads out, colliding and mixing with the heavier air molecules, it
> > loses kinetic energy (cools) due to the work it does against atmospheric
> > pressure. By the time it reaches saturation density (100% humidity) it has
> > become translucent (almost transparent) instead of opaque. If its density
> > increases beyond saturation due to a pressure pulse for instance or
> > further cooling, it forms water droplets (clouds).
>
> I am not sure that is a completely correct description either.
>
> > As water vapor (much lighter than air) rises and cools, it condenses
> > into water droplets (clouds).
>
> You have omitted the most important part of the story. For a gas to
> condense to drops that results in clouds, it does not suffice that its
> temperature is reduced; there has to be something *solid* that it can
> *condense on*. Condensation of water vapor to clouds is possible because
> the air in our atmosphere is not clean: small dust particles (e.g., carried
> away from deserts and ground soil, and from air pollution caused by humans),
> which in this context are called *condensation nuclei*, are intermixed with
> it, and the water vapor condenses *on them* (just like it condenses on a
> pane of window glass; the scientific term of that is *phase boundary*).
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rain>

Actually, this is just superstition. The notion is just another untested conjecture that has accepted without proper consideration.



>
> > As water vapor condenses into a cloud, the volume reduction (vapor to
> > liquid) reduces the outward positive pressure of the cloud and allows
> > more moisture laden air to flow into the cloud. This effect causes the
> > cloud to grow in all directions.
>
> How did you get that idea?
>
> > Droplets at the top of the cloud (coldest) fall downward with a very
> > small terminal velocity and usually evaporate from air frictional
> > heating before falling very far.
>
> Instead, those "droplets" at the top of a cloud are actually condensation
> nuclei surrounded by then-*frozen* *solid* water *ice*. They fall down
> eventually because there comes a point when their mass becomes to great for
> any upwardly directed airstream (as warm air rises, and the planet’s crust
> is continuously warmed by its main star) to hold in suspense. Depending on
> the temperature in and below the cloud they *melt* or even evaporate in the
> process. [AFAIK, it is _not_ any “frictional heating” that determines what
> kind of precipitation, if any, can be expected from falling out of a cloud,
> but temperature and wind conditions in the lower part and below the cloud
> (technically, there is snow/hail from *every* cloud; you can see that in
> winter or in polar areas when and where the temperature of the air below the
> cloud is not high enough to melt the snowflakes/ice pellets). When the
> temperature below the cloud is just high enough for the falling
> pellets/drops to evaporate before they reach the ground, you can see
> /virga/, “falling streaks”, below the cloud. The friction between falling
> and rising particles in the cloud, however, allows for a separation of
> electrical charges and the cloud to be statically electrically charged,
> which leads to lightnings as the form of resulting electric discharge inside
> a large cloud, between clouds, or clouds and the ground.]
>
> In weather modification, there is “cloud seeding”: clouds are seeded from
> airplanes with drops of silver iodide as artificial condensation nuclei;
> either to form clouds that can rain of where there would have been little to
> none naturally (i.e., over arid regions and deserts), or to have existing
> clouds rain off before they become to large (you want enough rain, but not
> 100 % cloud coverage for your plants; and you want rain, not a hailstorm,
> down on your crops – as cumulus clouds grow *upwards* to develop towards
> cumulonimbuses, they become more likely to be a source of a hailstorm due to
> the much lower temperatures in the upper atmosphere).
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding>
>
> > As the cloud grows upward and the temperature at the top drops, colder
> > and larger drops form.
>
> Not drops, but pellets of *water ice* frozen on dust particles. They are
> not drops of (dirty) water until shortly before, or after they leave the
> cloud. The temperature and air pressure are much too low there for liquid
> water to exist (down to ca. 220 K/−53.15 °C and 0.5 bar/500 hPa near the
> tropopause, according to the 1962 US Standard Atmosphere Graph; cf. NIST
> standard conditions: 293.15 K/20 °C and 1.01325 bar/1013.25 hPa).
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_temperature>
> <http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=water+phase+diagram&dataset=>
>
> > They are larger because the vapor molecules are moving slower and more
> > nucleate (stick together) per second.
>
> No, they can get larger because as the water *freezes* on the condensation
> nuclei, more *water* can *freeze* on the resulting ice pellets. It is the
> same that happens when your tongue, wet with the water of the saliva, can
> get stuck on a really cold and wet piece of soft-ice cream, or your hands,
> wet with water of the skin, are stuck when touching the inside of a freezer
> [you can get severe injuries this way; kids, do not try that at home, and
> always wear thick insulating gloves when you are experimenting with dry ice
> (solid carbon dioxide)].
>
> I strongly recommend that you read the chapters on thermodynamics of the
> Feynman Lectures on Physics, and introductory material on meteorology (such
> as what I just gave to you) to clarify some of your misconceptions about
> (water) vapor and clouds.
>
> <http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/>
>
> --
> PointedEars
>
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2016-07-21 01:27:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
James McGinn wrote:

> On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 10:43:32 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> wrote:

Attribution _line_, *not* attribution novel.

>> Michael J. Strickland wrote:
>> > As water vapor (much lighter than air) rises and cools, it condenses
>> > into water droplets (clouds).
>>
>> You have omitted the most important part of the story. For a gas to
>> condense to drops that results in clouds, it does not suffice that its
>> temperature is reduced; there has to be something *solid* that it can
>> *condense on*. Condensation of water vapor to clouds is possible because
>> the air in our atmosphere is not clean: small dust particles (e.g.,
>> carried away from deserts and ground soil, and from air pollution caused
>> by humans), which in this context are called *condensation nuclei*, are
>> intermixed with it, and the water vapor condenses *on them* (just like it
>> condenses on a pane of window glass; the scientific term of that is
>> *phase boundary*).
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rain>
>
> Actually, this is just superstition. The notion is just another untested
> conjecture that has accepted without proper consideration.

You are wrong. This mechanism is well-researched since at least the 1930s:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wegener%E2%80%93Bergeron%E2%80%93Findeisen_process>

Cloud seeding, based on it, works. Read what I referred to now and until
now, and follow the references therein.

Please trim your quotes to the relevant parts. It is inappropriate behavior
in Usenet to quote all of a long posting just to post a short statement.

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
James McGinn
2016-07-23 03:58:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
This mechanism is well-researched since at least the 1930s:

James McGinn:
Who cares? The same is true for paranormal phenomena.

Do you have any reproducible experimental evidence? Obviously you don't, right?
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2016-07-23 05:55:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
James McGinn wrote:

[Fixed quotation style]

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>> This mechanism is well-researched since at least the 1930s:
>
> Who cares? The same is true for paranormal phenomena.

By “well-researched” I mean theories *confirmed by independent experiments*.

Learn to quote.

> Do you have any reproducible experimental evidence?

Yes, and I have posted it. You are ignoring it, so that you can keep
arguing from ignorance.

> Obviously you don't, right?

Obviously there is no evidence that you would accept.

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
James McGinn
2016-07-23 16:21:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 10:55:46 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> James McGinn wrote:
>
> [Fixed quotation style]
>
> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> >> This mechanism is well-researched since at least the 1930s:
> >
> > Who cares? The same is true for paranormal phenomena.
>
> By “well-researched” I mean theories *confirmed by independent experiments*.
>
> Learn to quote.
>
> > Do you have any reproducible experimental evidence?
>
> Yes, and I have posted it. You are ignoring it, so that you can keep
> arguing from ignorance.
>
> > Obviously you don't, right?
>
> Obviously there is no evidence that you would accept.
>
> --
> PointedEars
>
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

Your imagination isn't evidence.
James McGinn
2016-07-20 19:19:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 10:43:32 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> You have omitted the most important part of the story. For a gas to
> condense to drops that results in clouds, it does not suffice that its
> temperature is reduced; there has to be something *solid* that it can
> *condense on*.

Actually, this supposition has never been thoroughly tested. So it is just a conjecture or superstition.

There is no gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere. This notion is just superstition.




Condensation of water vapor to clouds is possible because
> the air in our atmosphere is not clean: small dust particles (e.g., carried
> away from deserts and ground soil, and from air pollution caused by humans),
> which in this context are called *condensation nuclei*, are intermixed with
> it, and the water vapor condenses *on them* (just like it condenses on a
> pane of window glass; the scientific term of that is *phase boundary*).
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rain>


Wikipedia is nonsense. But so is most meteorology.


>
> > As water vapor condenses into a cloud, the volume reduction (vapor to
> > liquid) reduces the outward positive pressure of the cloud and allows
> > more moisture laden air to flow into the cloud. This effect causes the
> > cloud to grow in all directions.
>
> How did you get that idea?
>
> > Droplets at the top of the cloud (coldest) fall downward with a very
> > small terminal velocity and usually evaporate from air frictional
> > heating before falling very far.
>
> Instead, those "droplets" at the top of a cloud are actually condensation
> nuclei surrounded by then-*frozen* *solid* water *ice*.

No, they are droplets. Nuclei is not necessary.



They fall down
> eventually because there comes a point when their mass becomes to great for
> any upwardly directed airstream (as warm air rises, and the planet’s crust
> is continuously warmed by its main star) to hold in suspense. Depending on
> the temperature in and below the cloud they *melt* or even evaporate in the
> process. [AFAIK, it is _not_ any “frictional heating” that determines what
> kind of precipitation, if any, can be expected from falling out of a cloud,
> but temperature and wind conditions in the lower part and below the cloud
> (technically, there is snow/hail from *every* cloud; you can see that in
> winter or in polar areas when and where the temperature of the air below the
> cloud is not high enough to melt the snowflakes/ice pellets). When the
> temperature below the cloud is just high enough for the falling
> pellets/drops to evaporate before they reach the ground, you can see
> /virga/, “falling streaks”, below the cloud. The friction between falling
> and rising particles in the cloud, however, allows for a separation of
> electrical charges and the cloud to be statically electrically charged,
> which leads to lightnings as the form of resulting electric discharge inside
> a large cloud, between clouds, or clouds and the ground.]
>
> In weather modification, there is “cloud seeding”: clouds are seeded from
> airplanes with drops of silver iodide as artificial condensation nuclei;
> either to form clouds that can rain of where there would have been little to
> none naturally (i.e., over arid regions and deserts), or to have existing
> clouds rain off before they become to large (you want enough rain, but not
> 100 % cloud coverage for your plants; and you want rain, not a hailstorm,
> down on your crops – as cumulus clouds grow *upwards* to develop towards
> cumulonimbuses, they become more likely to be a source of a hailstorm due to
> the much lower temperatures in the upper atmosphere).
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding>
>
> > As the cloud grows upward and the temperature at the top drops, colder
> > and larger drops form.
>
> Not drops, but pellets of *water ice* frozen on dust particles. They are
> not drops of (dirty) water until shortly before, or after they leave the
> cloud. The temperature and air pressure are much too low there for liquid
> water to exist (down to ca. 220 K/−53.15 °C and 0.5 bar/500 hPa near the
> tropopause, according to the 1962 US Standard Atmosphere Graph; cf. NIST
> standard conditions: 293.15 K/20 °C and 1.01325 bar/1013.25 hPa).
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_temperature>
> <http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=water+phase+diagram&dataset=>
>
> > They are larger because the vapor molecules are moving slower and more
> > nucleate (stick together) per second.
>
> No, they can get larger because as the water *freezes* on the condensation
> nuclei, more *water* can *freeze* on the resulting ice pellets. It is the
> same that happens when your tongue, wet with the water of the saliva, can
> get stuck on a really cold and wet piece of soft-ice cream, or your hands,
> wet with water of the skin, are stuck when touching the inside of a freezer
> [you can get severe injuries this way; kids, do not try that at home, and
> always wear thick insulating gloves when you are experimenting with dry ice
> (solid carbon dioxide)].
>
> I strongly recommend that you read the chapters on thermodynamics of the
> Feynman Lectures on Physics, and introductory material on meteorology (such
> as what I just gave to you) to clarify some of your misconceptions about
> (water) vapor and clouds.
>
> <http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/>
>
> --
> PointedEars
>
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2016-07-21 02:58:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
James McGinn wrote:

> On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 10:43:32 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> wrote:
>> You have omitted the most important part of the story. For a gas to
>> condense to drops that results in clouds, it does not suffice that its
>> temperature is reduced; there has to be something *solid* that it can
>> *condense on*.
>
> Actually, this supposition has never been thoroughly tested.

You are wrong.

,-
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wegener%E2%80%93Bergeron%E2%80%93Findeisen_process>
|
| […]
| In the late 1930s, German meteorologist Walter Findeisen extended and
| refined Bergeron's work through both theoretical and experimental work.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It is tested and confirmed every time cloud seeding works.

> So it is just a conjecture or superstition.

Ex falso quodlibet.

> There is no gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere. This notion is just
> superstition.

If so, where do the forms of precipitation (e.g., rain, hail, snow, dew;
commonly known as being the result of condensation/freezing of atmospheric
water) come from?

If so, where do frostings in winter (commonly known as being the result of
resublimation of atmospheric water) come from?

If so, where does the liquid water of lakes and puddles go to on warm days
(commonly known as the result of evaporation of water)?

If so, why are there *always* more clouds over regions with rivers and
forests, over lakes, seas and oceans than over dry land, in particular over
deserts?

(More practical:) If so, where does the additional ice in the freezer come
from if you leave it open for too long (commonly known as being the result
of resublimation of atmospheric water)?


You can do a simple experiment to test your assumption:

Build an aquarium (any container which, provably, was dry and when closed up
does let any phase of water pass, suffices), fill it with warm air from the
atmosphere (in the nothern hemisphere it is summer now, so this is easy to
do), and close it up. Bring it into a cooler place, for example put it into
a fridge (that is the fastest way to test). Observe what happens.

I predict that the longer you wait and the lower the temperature, the more
droplets of liquid you will observe on the *inside* of whatever adequate
container you chose. As you examine the liquid, you will find that has all
the properties of water. As you have ascertained before that the container
did not let any phase of water pass, where does the liquid water on the
inside come from?

Answer: It MUST have come from the *air* that you let in before.
Conclusion: There is gaseous water, water vapour, in the air.

Surely you will accept as an axiom that Earth’s atmosphere consists of air.

Corollary: There *is* gaseous water in Earth’s atmosphere. Which disproves
your claim. ∎

>> > Droplets at the top of the cloud (coldest) fall downward with a very
>> > small terminal velocity and usually evaporate from air frictional
>> > heating before falling very far.
>>
>> Instead, those "droplets" at the top of a cloud are actually condensation
>> nuclei surrounded by then-*frozen* *solid* water *ice*.
>
> No, they are droplets. Nuclei is not necessary.

This statement is inconsistent with your claim above.

Either there *is* gaseous water in the atmosphere, only then it can condense
to droplets, freeze to ice (which they have to: we *know* how cold it is
above as we *measured* it numerous times with weather balloons – it is below
the melting point of water, below 0 °C), on which more water can freeze and
so on.

Or there is *no* gaseous water in the atmosphere, then it does not matter if
condensation nuclei are dust particles or ice because where there is no
water, nothing can condense. For we *know* that the temperatures where
there are clouds are at minimum −57 °C, not low enough, and that the
pressures are at maximum 232 mbar, not high enough, for the other main gases
in the atmosphere to condensate:

<http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=troposphere+vs.+tropopause+vs.
+stratosphere>

<http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=nitrogen+phase+diagram>
[as an example to show that the conditions are best for condensation at high
pressure and low temperature. so let us test the phase of the three main
atmospheric gases there:]

<http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?dataset=&i=atmosphere+composition>

<http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?dataset=&i=nitrogen+phase+at+-57+%C2%B0C+and+232+mbar>
<http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?dataset=&i=oxygen+phase+at+-57+%C2%B0C+and+232+mbar>
<http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?dataset=&i=water+phase+at+-57+%C2%B0C+and+232+mbar>)

Again, please trim your quotes.

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2016-07-21 03:12:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Build an aquarium (any container which, provably, was dry and when closed
> up does let any phase of water pass, suffices), […]

does _not_

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
Poutnik
2016-07-21 05:22:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Dne 21/07/2016 v 04:58 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
> James McGinn wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 10:43:32 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
>> wrote:
>>> You have omitted the most important part of the story. For a gas to
>>> condense to drops that results in clouds, it does not suffice that its
>>> temperature is reduced; there has to be something *solid* that it can
>>> *condense on*.
>>
>> Actually, this supposition has never been thoroughly tested.
>
> You are wrong.
>

Thomas, I wish you good luck with James, really.
As fighting stupidity can rarely be won.

--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
James McGinn
2016-07-21 21:00:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 7:58:11 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> James McGinn wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 10:43:32 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> > wrote:
> >> You have omitted the most important part of the story. For a gas to
> >> condense to drops that results in clouds, it does not suffice that its
> >> temperature is reduced; there has to be something *solid* that it can
> >> *condense on*.
> >
> > Actually, this supposition has never been thoroughly tested.
>
> You are wrong.

I am right. You failed to present any reproducible experimental evidence.


>
> ,-
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wegener%E2%80%93Bergeron%E2%80%93Findeisen_process>
> |
> | […]
> | In the late 1930s, German meteorologist Walter Findeisen extended and
> | refined Bergeron's work through both theoretical and experimental work.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> It is tested and confirmed every time cloud seeding works.


Anecdotal evidence is worthless/misleading. You don't have proof. You just have more consensus-based propaganda.


>
> > So it is just a conjecture or superstition.
>
> Ex falso quodlibet.

Proof?


>
> > There is no gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere. This notion is just
> > superstition.
>
> If so, where do the forms of precipitation (e.g., rain, hail, snow, dew;
> commonly known as being the result of condensation/freezing of atmospheric
> water) come from?

Obviously they come from water droplets that are too small to be seen. Right?

How was this not obvious?



>
> If so, where do frostings in winter (commonly known as being the result of
> resublimation of atmospheric water) come from?

Ditto.


>
> If so, where does the liquid water of lakes and puddles go to on warm days
> (commonly known as the result of evaporation of water)?

evaporate (which is liquid suspended in air)

This is obvious stuff.
p***@gmail.com
2016-07-22 00:46:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 2:00:39 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 7:58:11 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> > You are wrong.
>
> I am right. You failed to present any reproducible experimental evidence.

Look who's talking! Jim, it is YOU who has always failed to present any reproducible experimental evidence, not a single shred!
James McGinn
2016-07-22 15:10:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
R U brainless?

Don't U think your evidence would have shown up by now, dumbass?
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2016-07-23 05:32:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
James McGinn wrote:

> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> James McGinn wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 10:43:32 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars'
>> > Lahn wrote:
>> >> You have omitted the most important part of the story. For a gas to
>> >> condense to drops that results in clouds, it does not suffice that its
>> >> temperature is reduced; there has to be something *solid* that it can
>> >> *condense on*.
>> >
>> > Actually, this supposition has never been thoroughly tested.
>>
>> You are wrong.
>
> I am right. You failed to present any reproducible experimental evidence.

First of all, you have made the claim above, so it is up to you to
substantiate it.

Second, a quick search at <http://scholar.google.com/> lists several papers
that present that kind of evidence:

<https://scholar.google.ch/scholar?q=%22condensation+nucleus%22%7C%22condensation+nuclei%22&btnG=&hl=de&as_sdt=0%2C5>

One of the most cited of them is

Petters, M. D., & Kreidenweis, S. M. (2007). A single parameter
representation of hygroscopic growth and cloud condensation nucleus
activity. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 7(8), 1961-1971.

which has the virtue of being available for free at

<http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/7/1961/2007/acp-7-1961-2007.pdf>

If you read it, you will realize that cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) are a
part of the basic knowledge in meteorology/physics by now *because*
Findeisen et al. *did* those experiments.

>>
>> ,-
>>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wegener%E2%80%93Bergeron%E2%80%93Findeisen_process>
>> |
>> | […]
>> | In the late 1930s, German meteorologist Walter Findeisen extended and
>> | refined Bergeron's work through both theoretical and experimental work.
>>
>> It is tested and confirmed every time cloud seeding works.
>
> Anecdotal evidence is worthless/misleading.

Findeisen was just the first of many to do experimental work on it in the
last 80 years. To doubt CCNs is therefore akin to doubting the
applicability of Newton’s laws to the non-relativistic case.

But it should be easy to find out. Catch raindrops and let them evaporate
in a clean, isolated Petri dish. If there is anything solid left besides
the Petri dish, then those are the dust particles commonly called CCNs.

> You don't have proof.

Yes, I have.

> You just have more consensus-based propaganda.

If you cared to read what is being presented to you, you would be forced to
acknowledge that your misconceptions are just that.

>> > So it is just a conjecture or superstition.
>> Ex falso quodlibet.
>
> Proof?

Are you asking me to prove the correctness of “ex falso quodlibet”?

>> > There is no gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere. This notion is just
>> > superstition.
>> If so, where do the forms of precipitation (e.g., rain, hail, snow, dew;
>> commonly known as being the result of condensation/freezing of
>> atmospheric water) come from?
>
> Obviously they come from water droplets that are too small to be seen.
> Right?

No, for water droplets, i.e. liquid water, to exist, water has to have a
temperature above the melting point of water.

> How was this not obvious?

Even small droplets of water have to observe the laws of nature. AISB, at
the temperatures and pressures *measured* in clouds, water is no longer
liquid.

Naturally, as wet warm air rises and cools, first droplets of water form (2)
which freeze, on which more water can freeze, and so on. So you have first
droplets (which is more likely on dust particles), then ice pellets and
bullets with frozen-on droplets [(3) to (5)], or snowflakes, if the
conditions are right (6):

time ------------------------------------------------------------------>

(1) . . . (2) . . . (3) . . . (4) . . . (5) o . o (6) * . *
. . . . . . . . . o o . . * * . . * * . . * * .
. . . . . . . o . . . o * o . . * * * . o * * * o * * * * *
. . . . . . . . . o o . . * * . . * * . . * * .
. . . . . . . . . . . o . o * . *

. – gaseous water (water vapor; diffused into other gases of air)
o – liquid water
* – solid water (water ice)
__
|PE

States (2) to (6) can change back to states (1) to (5) as the particles’
masses become too great for them to be held in suspension by the rising air,
and they fall down. AISB, as for clouds, what kind of precipitation, if
any, reaches the ground depends on the temperature of the air below the
cloud, i.e. how (much) the particle is melting/evaporating. (2) will be
rain, (3) and (4) can be ice pellets or hail, (5) can be graupel, and (6)
will be snow. On the ground, (2) will be dew, and (6) could evolve to
diamond dust.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precipitation>

>> If so, where do frostings in winter (commonly known as being the result
>> of resublimation of atmospheric water) come from?
>
> Ditto.

“Water droplets that are too small to be seen” could be an explanation for
frostings. However, for water to be liquid instead of gaseous, there have
to be several water molecules bound by hydrogen bonds:

H H
\ /
O ---- H H ---- O
/ \ / \
H O H
:
:
H
\
H H O ---- H H
\ / / \ /
O ---- H O ---- ...

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_bond>

We have the ability to observe hydrogen atoms with microscopes now (since
the scanning tunneling microscope, IBM Research, 1981 [1]), and we *know*
from such observations that resublimation, the instantaneous change from the
gaseous to the solid phase, takes place instead.
_____
[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanning_tunneling_microscope>

>> If so, where does the liquid water of lakes and puddles go to on warm
>> days (commonly known as the result of evaporation of water)?
>
> evaporate (which is liquid suspended in air)

Instead, evaporation is the partial and gradual change of a substance, on
its edges only, from its liquid to its gaseous phase below its boiling
point:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_point>
<http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_01.html#Ch1-S2>

> This is obvious stuff.

What you are claiming is obviously *wrong*.

Have you done yet the experiments that I suggested? If not, why not?

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
James McGinn
2016-07-23 15:33:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 10:32:35 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> James McGinn wrote:
>
> > […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> James McGinn wrote:
> >> > On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 10:43:32 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> >> > Lahn wrote:
> >> >> You have omitted the most important part of the story. For a gas to
> >> >> condense to drops that results in clouds, it does not suffice that its
> >> >> temperature is reduced; there has to be something *solid* that it can
> >> >> *condense on*.
> >> >
> >> > Actually, this supposition has never been thoroughly tested.
> >>
> >> You are wrong.
> >
> > I am right. You failed to present any reproducible experimental evidence.
>
> First of all, you have made the claim above, so it is up to you to
> substantiate it.

Wrong. The burden is on the shoulders of those that make extraordinary claims. The claim that gaseous H2O can exist at temperatures below the well-known (and thoroughly measured/tested) boiling point of H2O is an extraordinary claim. You bozos haven't met that burden.


>
> Second, a quick search at <http://scholar.google.com/> lists several papers
> that present that kind of evidence:
>
> <https://scholar.google.ch/scholar?q=%22condensation+nucleus%22%7C%22condensation+nuclei%22&btnG=&hl=de&as_sdt=0%2C5>
>
> One of the most cited of them is
>
> Petters, M. D., & Kreidenweis, S. M. (2007). A single parameter
> representation of hygroscopic growth and cloud condensation nucleus
> activity. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 7(8), 1961-1971.
>
> which has the virtue of being available for free at
>
> <http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/7/1961/2007/acp-7-1961-2007.pdf>
>
> If you read it, you will realize that cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) are a
> part of the basic knowledge in meteorology/physics by now *because*
> Findeisen et al. *did* those experiments.

I read it. Apparently my creative reading skills are not as well developed as are yours. I could find nothing to substantiate the supposition that H2O can remain gaseous at ambient temperatures. Nothing at all!

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wegener%E2%80%93Bergeron%E2%80%93Findeisen_process>
> >> |
> >> | […]
> >> | In the late 1930s, German meteorologist Walter Findeisen extended and
> >> | refined Bergeron's work through both theoretical and experimental work.
> >>
> >> It is tested and confirmed every time cloud seeding works.
> >
> > Anecdotal evidence is worthless/misleading.
>
> Findeisen was just the first of many to do experimental work on it in the
> last 80 years. To doubt CCNs is therefore akin to doubting the
> applicability of Newton’s laws to the non-relativistic case.

All you have is your imagination. You were unable to make an specific quotes from your sources. This suggests you lack the ability to distinguish your imagination from fact.


>
> But it should be easy to find out.

LOL. If you can't find it what makes you think it will be any different for me?


> Catch raindrops and let them evaporate
> in a clean, isolated Petri dish. If there is anything solid left besides
> the Petri dish, then those are the dust particles commonly called CCNs.

Desperation. Obviously the presence of dust doesn't prove that dust particles function as condensation nuclei and even if it's true that they do serve such a function that doesn't mean we have to assume that the starting point is gaseous H2O.

>
> > You don't have proof.
>
> Yes, I have.
>
> > You just have more consensus-based propaganda.
>
> If you cared to read what is being presented to you, you would be forced to
> acknowledge that your misconceptions are just that.

It's regrettable that the internet does not allow you to drop a link to your imagination so that I could get some sense of what it is you think you see?

>
> >> > So it is just a conjecture or superstition.
> >> Ex falso quodlibet.
> >
> > Proof?
>
> Are you asking me to prove the correctness of “ex falso quodlibet”?

I'm asking you to distinguish between your imagination and evidence.


>
> >> > There is no gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere. This notion is just
> >> > superstition.
> >> If so, where do the forms of precipitation (e.g., rain, hail, snow, dew;
> >> commonly known as being the result of condensation/freezing of
> >> atmospheric water) come from?
> >
> > Obviously they come from water droplets that are too small to be seen.
> > Right?
>
> No, for water droplets, i.e. liquid water, to exist, water has to have a
> temperature above the melting point of water.

Yeah, so? What's your point?


>
> > How was this not obvious?
>
> Even small droplets of water have to observe the laws of nature. AISB, at
> the temperatures and pressures *measured* in clouds, water is no longer
> liquid.

Look into the steam tables and stop talking like a goof.

>
> Naturally, as wet warm air rises and cools, first droplets of water form (2)
> which freeze, on which more water can freeze, and so on. So you have first
> droplets (which is more likely on dust particles), then ice pellets and
> bullets with frozen-on droplets [(3) to (5)], or snowflakes, if the
> conditions are right (6):
>
> time ------------------------------------------------------------------>
>
> (1) . . . (2) . . . (3) . . . (4) . . . (5) o . o (6) * . *
> . . . . . . . . . o o . . * * . . * * . . * * .
> . . . . . . . o . . . o * o . . * * * . o * * * o * * * * *
> . . . . . . . . . o o . . * * . . * * . . * * .
> . . . . . . . . . . . o . o * . *
>
> . – gaseous water (water vapor; diffused into other gases of air)
> o – liquid water
> * – solid water (water ice)
> __
> |PE
>
> States (2) to (6) can change back to states (1) to (5) as the particles’
> masses become too great for them to be held in suspension by the rising air,
> and they fall down. AISB, as for clouds, what kind of precipitation, if
> any, reaches the ground depends on the temperature of the air below the
> cloud, i.e. how (much) the particle is melting/evaporating. (2) will be
> rain, (3) and (4) can be ice pellets or hail, (5) can be graupel, and (6)
> will be snow. On the ground, (2) will be dew, and (6) could evolve to
> diamond dust.
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precipitation>

No duh. Now address the issue, you evasive jackass. Tell us why you assume the starting point must be gaseous H2O. Go ahead. Answer that question and stop playing games.

>
> >> If so, where do frostings in winter (commonly known as being the result
> >> of resublimation of atmospheric water) come from?
> >
> > Ditto.
>
> “Water droplets that are too small to be seen” could be an explanation for
> frostings. However, for water to be liquid instead of gaseous, there have
> to be several water molecules bound by hydrogen bonds:

No duh. Now address the issue, you evasive jackass. Tell us why you assume the starting point must be gaseous H2O. Go ahead. Answer that question and stop playing games.



>
> H H
> \ /
> O ---- H H ---- O
> / \ / \
> H O H
> :
> :
> H
> \
> H H O ---- H H
> \ / / \ /
> O ---- H O ---- ...
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_bond>
>
> We have the ability to observe hydrogen atoms with microscopes now (since
> the scanning tunneling microscope, IBM Research, 1981 [1]), and we *know*
> from such observations that resublimation, the instantaneous change from the
> gaseous to the solid phase, takes place instead.
> _____
> [1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanning_tunneling_microscope>
>
> >> If so, where does the liquid water of lakes and puddles go to on warm
> >> days (commonly known as the result of evaporation of water)?
> >
> > evaporate (which is liquid suspended in air)
>
> Instead, evaporation is the partial and gradual change of a substance, on
> its edges only, from its liquid to its gaseous phase below its boiling
> point:

LOL. So, like the typical dimwitted science groupy, your whole point pivots off a definition--a definition created by somebody that mirrors your own tenous grasp of reality on this subject.

There is no gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere. It far too cool for that.



>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_point>
> <http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_01.html#Ch1-S2>
>
> > This is obvious stuff.
>
> What you are claiming is obviously *wrong*.

It's too bad your imagination isn't evidence, huh?

>
> Have you done yet the experiments that I suggested? If not, why not?

Obviously it's inconclusive.

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16329#p114492
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2016-07-23 19:25:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
James McGinn wrote:

> On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 10:32:35 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> wrote:
>> James McGinn wrote:
>> > […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> >> James McGinn wrote:
>> >> > On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 10:43:32 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars'
>> >> > Lahn wrote:
>> >> >> [condenation nuclei are required for clouds]
>> >> > Actually, this supposition has never been thoroughly tested.
>> >> You are wrong.
>> > I am right. You failed to present any reproducible experimental
>> > evidence.
>> First of all, you have made the claim above, so it is up to you to
>> substantiate it.
>
> Wrong.

No, you have made the claim.

> The burden is on the shoulders of those that make extraordinary
> claims

Yes – so where is *your* evidence substantiating *your* claim?

> The claim that gaseous H2O can exist at temperatures below the
> well-known (and thoroughly measured/tested) boiling point of H2O is an
> extraordinary claim.

No, as I already explained to you at least twice now, the well-understood
process of evaporation is what makes it possible. This process is not
limited to water (which, JFYI, is correctly written “H₂O”).

One of your many problems is that not only you do not understand
evaporation, you have an unsubstantiated, wrong /idée fixe/ of it.

> [tl;dr]

--
PointedEars
James McGinn
2016-07-23 19:38:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 12:25:29 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> James McGinn wrote:
>
> > On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 10:32:35 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> > wrote:
> >> James McGinn wrote:
> >> > […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> >> James McGinn wrote:
> >> >> > On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 10:43:32 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> >> >> > Lahn wrote:
> >> >> >> [condenation nuclei are required for clouds]
> >> >> > Actually, this supposition has never been thoroughly tested.
> >> >> You are wrong.
> >> > I am right. You failed to present any reproducible experimental
> >> > evidence.
> >> First of all, you have made the claim above, so it is up to you to
> >> substantiate it.
> >
> > Wrong.
>
> No, you have made the claim.
>
> > The burden is on the shoulders of those that make extraordinary
> > claims
>
> Yes – so where is *your* evidence substantiating *your* claim?

My claim is that the steam tables are accurate.

>
> > The claim that gaseous H2O can exist at temperatures below the
> > well-known (and thoroughly measured/tested) boiling point of H2O is an
> > extraordinary claim.
>
> No, as I already explained to you at least twice now, the well-understood
> process of evaporation

Too bad your imagination isn't evidence, huh?
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2016-07-23 20:01:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
James McGinn wrote:

> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn […] wrote:
>> James McGinn wrote:
>> > […] Thomas 'PointedEars' […] Lahn wrote:
>> >> James McGinn wrote:
>> >> > […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> >> >> James McGinn wrote:
>> >> >> > On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 10:43:32 AM UTC-7, Thomas
>> >> >> > 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> >> >> >> [condensation nuclei are required for clouds]
>> >> >> > Actually, this supposition has never been thoroughly tested.
>> >> >> You are wrong.
>> >> > I am right. You failed to present any reproducible experimental
>> >> > evidence.
>> >> First of all, you have made the claim above, so it is up to you to
>> >> substantiate it.
>> > Wrong.
>> No, you have made the claim.
>>
>> > The burden is on the shoulders of those that make extraordinary
>> > claims
>> Yes – so where is *your* evidence substantiating *your* claim?
>
> My claim is that the steam tables are accurate.

No, your claim was: “[The] supposition [that ‘condensation nuclei are
required for clouds’] has never been thoroughly tested.”

Put your money where your mouth is.

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
James McGinn
2016-07-24 01:09:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 1:01:34 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> James McGinn wrote:
>
> > […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn […] wrote:
> >> James McGinn wrote:
> >> > […] Thomas 'PointedEars' […] Lahn wrote:
> >> >> James McGinn wrote:
> >> >> > […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> >> >> James McGinn wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 10:43:32 AM UTC-7, Thomas
> >> >> >> > 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> >> >> >> [condensation nuclei are required for clouds]
> >> >> >> > Actually, this supposition has never been thoroughly tested.
> >> >> >> You are wrong.
> >> >> > I am right. You failed to present any reproducible experimental
> >> >> > evidence.
> >> >> First of all, you have made the claim above, so it is up to you to
> >> >> substantiate it.
> >> > Wrong.
> >> No, you have made the claim.
> >>
> >> > The burden is on the shoulders of those that make extraordinary
> >> > claims
> >> Yes – so where is *your* evidence substantiating *your* claim?
> >
> > My claim is that the steam tables are accurate.
>
> No, your claim was: “[The] supposition [that ‘condensation nuclei are
> required for clouds’] has never been thoroughly tested.”

Yes. And you are my evidence.

Anymore questions?
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2016-07-24 01:53:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
James McGinn wrote:

> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> James McGinn wrote:
>> > My claim is that the steam tables are accurate.
>> No, your claim was: “[The] supposition [that ‘condensation nuclei are
>> required for clouds’] has never been thoroughly tested.”
>
> Yes. And you are my evidence.
>
> Anymore questions?

No.

*PLONK*
James McGinn
2016-07-24 13:17:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 6:53:52 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> James McGinn wrote:
>
> > […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> James McGinn wrote:
> >> > My claim is that the steam tables are accurate.
> >> No, your claim was: “[The] supposition [that ‘condensation nuclei are
> >> required for clouds’] has never been thoroughly tested.”
> >
> > Yes. And you are my evidence.
> >
> > Anymore questions?
>
> No.
>
> *PLONK*

you got nothing.
Sergio
2016-07-24 03:41:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 7/23/2016 3:01 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> James McGinn wrote:
>
>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn […] wrote:
>>> James McGinn wrote:
>>>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' […] Lahn wrote:
>>>>> James McGinn wrote:

>>
>> My claim is that the steam tables are accurate.
>

James learn the words "steam tables" from sci.physics about 5 months
ago, but James does not know the meaning of the words "steam tables",
nor where to find them.

James has the intelligence of a lobotomized clam.



> No, your claim was: “[The] supposition [that ‘condensation nuclei are
> required for clouds’] has never been thoroughly tested.”
>
> Put your money where your mouth is.
>
James McGinn
2016-07-24 16:14:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 1:01:34 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> >> > The burden is on the shoulders of those that make extraordinary
> >> > claims
> >> Yes – so where is *your* evidence substantiating *your* claim?
> >
> > My claim is that the steam tables are accurate.
>
> No, your claim was: “[The] supposition [that ‘condensation nuclei are
> required for clouds’] has never been thoroughly tested.”
>
> Put your money where your mouth is.

LOL. Listen you simpleton, the fact that there is dust in rain doesn't prove that the dust initiated nucleation.
James McGinn
2016-07-22 15:21:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Obviously condensation does not require gaseous H2O to proceed. Right? Only an idiot would suggest such.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2016-07-23 05:33:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
James McGinn wrote:

> Obviously condensation does not require gaseous H2O to proceed. Right?

Wrong.

> Only an idiot would suggest such.

Straw man.

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
James McGinn
2016-07-23 15:35:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 10:33:17 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> James McGinn wrote:
>
> > Obviously condensation does not require gaseous H2O to proceed. Right?
>
> Wrong.

If you can't support your claim then maybe you should make a retraction.
James McGinn
2016-07-22 19:16:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 7:58:11 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> James McGinn wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 10:43:32 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> > wrote:
> >> You have omitted the most important part of the story. For a gas to
> >> condense to drops that results in clouds, it does not suffice that its
> >> temperature is reduced; there has to be something *solid* that it can
> >> *condense on*.
> >
> > Actually, this supposition has never been thoroughly tested.
>
> You are wrong.
>
> ,-
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wegener%E2%80%93Bergeron%E2%80%93Findeisen_process>
> |
> | […]
> | In the late 1930s, German meteorologist Walter Findeisen extended and
> | refined Bergeron's work through both theoretical and experimental work.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> It is tested and confirmed every time cloud seeding works.


Cloud seeding doesn't work. Never has.


>
> > So it is just a conjecture or superstition.
>
> Ex falso quodlibet.
>
> > There is no gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere. This notion is just
> > superstition.
>
> If so, where do the forms of precipitation (e.g., rain, hail, snow, dew;
> commonly known as being the result of condensation/freezing of atmospheric
> water) come from?

They don't come from gas.



>
> If so, where do frostings in winter (commonly known as being the result of
> resublimation of atmospheric water) come from?

Dumb question.

>
> If so, where does the liquid water of lakes and puddles go to on warm days
> (commonly known as the result of evaporation of water)?

Uh, it evaporates, dumbass.


>
> If so, why are there *always* more clouds over regions with rivers and
> forests, over lakes, seas and oceans than over dry land, in particular over
> deserts?

Say what?


>
> (More practical:) If so, where does the additional ice in the freezer come
> from if you leave it open for too long (commonly knIown as being the result
> of resublimation of atmospheric water)?

It doesn't turn to gas.

>
>
> You can do a simple experiment to test your assumption:
>
> Build an aquarium (any container which, provably, was dry and when closed up
> does let any phase of water pass, suffices), fill it with warm air from the
> atmosphere (in the nothern hemisphere it is summer now, so this is easy to
> do), and close it up. Bring it into a cooler place, for example put it into
> a fridge (that is the fastest way to test). Observe what happens.
>
> I predict that the longer you wait and the lower the temperature, the more
> droplets of liquid you will observe on the *inside* of whatever adequate
> container you chose. As you examine the liquid, you will find that has all
> the properties of water. As you have ascertained before that the container
> did not let any phase of water pass, where does the liquid water on the
> inside come from?

Your experiment is meaningless.



>
> Answer: It MUST have come from the *air* that you let in before.
> Conclusion: There is gaseous water, water vapour, in the air.
>
> Surely you will accept as an axiom that Earth’s atmosphere consists of air.
>
> Corollary: There *is* gaseous water in Earth’s atmosphere. Which disproves
> your claim. ∎

You are just dumb.

>
> >> > Droplets at the top of the cloud (coldest) fall downward with a very
> >> > small terminal velocity and usually evaporate from air frictional
> >> > heating before falling very far.
> >>
> >> Instead, those "droplets" at the top of a cloud are actually condensation
> >> nuclei surrounded by then-*frozen* *solid* water *ice*.
> >
> > No, they are droplets. Nuclei is not necessary.
>
> This statement is inconsistent with your claim above.
>
> Either there *is* gaseous water in the atmosphere, only then it can condense
> to droplets, freeze to ice (which they have to: we *know* how cold it is
> above as we *measured* it numerous times with weather balloons – it is below
> the melting point of water, below 0 °C), on which more water can freeze and
> so on.o

Only dumb people base arguments on definitions.




>
> Or there is *no* gaseous water in the atmosphere, then it does not matter if
> condensation nuclei are dust particles or ice because where there is no
> water, nothing can condense. For we *know* that the temperatures where
> there are clouds are at minimum −57 °C, not low enough, and that the
> pressures are at maximum 232 mbar, not high enough, for the other main gases
> in the atmosphere to condensate:
>
> <http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=troposphere+vs.+tropopause+vs.
> +stratosphere>
>
> <http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=nitrogen+phase+diagram>
> [as an example to show that the conditions are best for condensation at high
> pressure and low temperature. so let us test the phase of the three main
> atmospheric gases there:]
>
> <http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?dataset=&i=atmosphere+composition>
>
> <http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?dataset=&i=nitrogen+phase+at+-57+%C2%B0C+and+232+mbar>
> <http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?dataset=&i=oxygen+phase+at+-57+%C2%B0C+and+232+mbar>
> <http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?dataset=&i=water+phase+at+-57+%C2%B0C+and+232+mbar>)
>
> Again, please trim your quotes.
>
> --
> PointedEars
>
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

These are incredibly weak and nonsensical arguments.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2016-07-23 05:52:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
James McGinn wrote:

> On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 7:58:11 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> wrote:

Which part of “attribution line” did you not understand?

>> James McGinn wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 10:43:32 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars'
>> > Lahn wrote:
>> >> [Cloud condensation nuclei]
>> > Actually, this supposition has never been thoroughly tested.
>> You are wrong.
>>
>> ,-
>>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wegener%E2%80%93Bergeron%E2%80%93Findeisen_process>
>> |
>> | […]
>> | In the late 1930s, German meteorologist Walter Findeisen extended and
>> | refined Bergeron's work through both theoretical and experimental work.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> It is tested and confirmed every time cloud seeding works.
>
> Cloud seeding doesn't work. Never has.

Cite evidence.

>> > So it is just a conjecture or superstition.
>> Ex falso quodlibet.
>>
>> > There is no gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere. This notion is just
>> > superstition.
>> If so, where do the forms of precipitation (e.g., rain, hail, snow, dew;
>> commonly known as being the result of condensation/freezing of
>> atmospheric water) come from?
>
> They don't come from gas.

Cite evidence.

>> If so, where do frostings in winter (commonly known as being the result
>> of resublimation of atmospheric water) come from?
>
> Dumb question.

Why have you answered it in your other posting, then?

>> If so, where does the liquid water of lakes and puddles go to on warm
>> days (commonly known as the result of evaporation of water)?
>
> Uh, it evaporates,

Correct. It evaporates *into Earth’s atmosphere*, i.e. single water
molecules diffuse into the mix of other molecules of the gases of air. When
there single molecules of a substance are floating around, the corresponding
substance is in the *gaseous* phase. The gaseous phase of water is called
“water vapour”. Therefore, there is water vapour in Earth’s atmosphere.

> dumbass.

You have no good arguments, so you are throwing insults.

>> If so, why are there *always* more clouds over regions with rivers and
>> forests, over lakes, seas and oceans than over dry land, in particular
>> over deserts?
>
> Say what?

Did you not understand the question? If yes, which part(s) of it did you
not understand?

>> (More practical:) If so, where does the additional ice in the freezer
>> come from if you leave it open for too long (commonly knIown as being the
>> result of resublimation of atmospheric water)?
>
> It doesn't turn to gas.

Correct (you did not read the question carefully, yes?). The water vapour
in the inflowing air turns into ice instead; therefore, the thicker ice
layer in the freezer, and the reason why fridges and freezers have to be
defrosted regularly for maximum efficiency even if not carelessly left open
for too long.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refrigerator#Energy_efficiency>

>> You can do a simple experiment to test your assumption:
>>
>> Build an aquarium (any container which, provably, was dry and when closed
>> up does let any phase of water pass, suffices), fill it with warm air
>> from the atmosphere (in the nothern hemisphere it is summer now, so this
>> is easy to do), and close it up. Bring it into a cooler place, for
>> example put it into a fridge (that is the fastest way to test). Observe
>> what happens.
>>
>> I predict that the longer you wait and the lower the temperature, the
>> more droplets of liquid you will observe on the *inside* of whatever
>> adequate container you chose. As you examine the liquid, you will find
>> that has all the properties of water. As you have ascertained before
>> that the container did not let any phase of water pass, where does the
>> liquid water on the inside come from?
>
> Your experiment is meaningless.

How so? And have you done it?

>> Answer: It MUST have come from the *air* that you let in before.
>> Conclusion: There is gaseous water, water vapour, in the air.
>>
>> Surely you will accept as an axiom that Earth’s atmosphere consists of
>> air.
>>
>> Corollary: There *is* gaseous water in Earth’s atmosphere. Which
>> disproves your claim. ∎
>
> You are just dumb.

No, you are ignorant.

>> >> > Droplets at the top of the cloud (coldest) fall downward with a very
>> >> > small terminal velocity and usually evaporate from air frictional
>> >> > heating before falling very far.
>> >>
>> >> Instead, those "droplets" at the top of a cloud are actually
>> >> condensation nuclei surrounded by then-*frozen* *solid* water *ice*.
>> >
>> > No, they are droplets. Nuclei is not necessary.
>> This statement is inconsistent with your claim above.
>>
>> Either there *is* gaseous water in the atmosphere, only then it can
>> condense to droplets, freeze to ice (which they have to: we *know* how
>> cold it is above as we *measured* it numerous times with weather balloons
>> – it is below the melting point of water, below 0 °C), on which more
>> water can freeze and so on.o
>
> Only dumb people base arguments on definitions.

I am describing observable facts. Your denial of reality does not make it
go away; it just makes you look stupid.

>> Again, please trim your quotes.

Which part of that did you not understand?

> These are incredibly weak and nonsensical arguments.

You are not in a position to make that assessment, having *no* (*good*)
arguments and *no* evidence in your favor *at all*.

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
James McGinn
2016-07-23 16:20:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 10:52:40 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> > Cloud seeding doesn't work. Never has.
>
> Cite evidence.



>
> >> > So it is just a conjecture or superstition.
> >> Ex falso quodlibet.
> >>
> >> > There is no gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere. This notion is just
> >> > superstition.
> >> If so, where do the forms of precipitation (e.g., rain, hail, snow, dew;
> >> commonly known as being the result of condensation/freezing of
> >> atmospheric water) come from?
> >
> > They don't come from gas.
>
> Cite evidence.
>
> >> If so, where do frostings in winter (commonly known as being the result
> >> of resublimation of atmospheric water) come from?
> >
> > Dumb question.
>
> Why have you answered it in your other posting, then?
>
> >> If so, where does the liquid water of lakes and puddles go to on warm
> >> days (commonly known as the result of evaporation of water)?
> >
> > Uh, it evaporates,
>
> Correct. It evaporates *into Earth’s atmosphere*, i.e. single water
> molecules diffuse into the mix of other molecules of the gases of air. When
> there single molecules of a substance are floating around, the corresponding
> substance is in the *gaseous* phase. The gaseous phase of water is called
> “water vapour”. Therefore, there is water vapour in Earth’s atmosphere.

This is a plainly stupid argument. Obviously gaseous H2O cannot be defined into existence.


>
> > dumbass.
>
> You have no good arguments, so you are throwing insults.

When people become delusional insults are the slap in the face they need to snap out of it. Wakeup dumbass! Gaseous H2O can't be defined into existence.

>
> >> If so, why are there *always* more clouds over regions with rivers and
> >> forests, over lakes, seas and oceans than over dry land, in particular
> >> over deserts?
> >
> > Say what?
>
> Did you not understand the question? If yes, which part(s) of it did you
> not understand?

If you can't figure out what you point is don't expect me to do it for you.

>
> >> (More practical:) If so, where does the additional ice in the freezer
> >> come from if you leave it open for too long (commonly knIown as being the
> >> result of resublimation of atmospheric water)?
> >
> > It doesn't turn to gas.
>
> Correct (you did not read the question carefully, yes?). The water vapour
> in the inflowing air turns into ice instead; therefore, the thicker ice
> layer in the freezer, and the reason why fridges and freezers have to be
> defrosted regularly for maximum efficiency even if not carelessly left open
> for too long.

Yeah, so? What is your point? I'm not a mind reader.


>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refrigerator#Energy_efficiency>
>
> >> You can do a simple experiment to test your assumption:
> >>
> >> Build an aquarium (any container which, provably, was dry and when closed
> >> up does let any phase of water pass, suffices), fill it with warm air
> >> from the atmosphere (in the nothern hemisphere it is summer now, so this
> >> is easy to do), and close it up. Bring it into a cooler place, for
> >> example put it into a fridge (that is the fastest way to test). Observe
> >> what happens.
> >>
> >> I predict that the longer you wait and the lower the temperature, the
> >> more droplets of liquid you will observe on the *inside* of whatever
> >> adequate container you chose. As you examine the liquid, you will find
> >> that has all the properties of water. As you have ascertained before
> >> that the container did not let any phase of water pass, where does the
> >> liquid water on the inside come from?
> >
> > Your experiment is meaningless.
>
> How so? And have you done it?

You seem to not have a point. Be explicit. What does your experiment prove? I'm not a mind reader.



>
> >> Answer: It MUST have come from the *air* that you let in before.
> >> Conclusion: There is gaseous water, water vapour, in the air.
> >>
> >> Surely you will accept as an axiom that Earth’s atmosphere consists of
> >> air.
> >>
> >> Corollary: There *is* gaseous water in Earth’s atmosphere. Which
> >> disproves your claim. ∎
> >
> > You are just dumb.
>
> No, you are ignorant.

So, your dumbass solution is to just assume gaseous H2O. Right?

>
> >> >> > Droplets at the top of the cloud (coldest) fall downward with a very
> >> >> > small terminal velocity and usually evaporate from air frictional
> >> >> > heating before falling very far.
> >> >>
> >> >> Instead, those "droplets" at the top of a cloud are actually
> >> >> condensation nuclei surrounded by then-*frozen* *solid* water *ice*.
> >> >
> >> > No, they are droplets. Nuclei is not necessary.
> >> This statement is inconsistent with your claim above.
> >>
> >> Either there *is* gaseous water in the atmosphere, only then it can
> >> condense to droplets, freeze to ice (which they have to: we *know* how
> >> cold it is above as we *measured* it numerous times with weather balloons
> >> – it is below the melting point of water, below 0 °C), on which more
> >> water can freeze and so on.o
> >
> > Only dumb people base arguments on definitions.
>
> I am describing observable facts.

Then fucking explain how you verify that H2O is gaseous you freekin imbecile.


Your denial of reality does not make it
> go away; it just makes you look stupid.
>
> >> Again, please trim your quotes.
>
> Which part of that did you not understand?
>
> > These are incredibly weak and nonsensical arguments.
>
> You are not in a position to make that assessment, having *no* (*good*)
> arguments and *no* evidence in your favor *at all*.

You got nothing.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2016-07-23 19:45:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
James McGinn wrote:

> Then [invective] explain how you verify that H2O is gaseous you [insult]

AISB: Reduce the temperature or pressure of the air it is supposed to be
contained in. See it condense as water drop(let)s, or resublimate as water
ice *only then*. As a bonus, all phase changes include the exchange of
specific amounts of heat which can be measured.

<http://www.weatherquestions.com/What_is_condensation.htm>

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
James McGinn
2016-07-24 01:06:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 12:45:40 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> James McGinn wrote:
>
> > Then [invective] explain how you verify that H2O is gaseous you [insult]
>
> AISB: Reduce the temperature or pressure of the air it is supposed to be
> contained in. See it condense as water drop(let)s, or resublimate as water
> ice *only then*. As a bonus, all phase changes include the exchange of
> specific amounts of heat which can be measured.
>
> <http://www.weatherquestions.com/What_is_condensation.htm>
>
> --
> PointedEars
>
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

LOL. A birdbrain without a point.
James McGinn
2016-07-24 18:10:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 7:58:11 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Either there *is* gaseous water in the atmosphere, only then it can condense
> to droplets,

This is obvious BS. Why can't microdroplets come together? Explain this.


freeze to ice (which they have to: we *know* how cold it is
> above as we *measured* it numerous times with weather balloons – it is below
> the melting point of water, below 0 °C), on which more water can freeze and
> so on.
>
> Or there is *no* gaseous water in the atmosphere, then it does not matter if
> condensation nuclei are dust particles or ice because where there is no
> water, nothing can condense.

Now you just sound stupid. Why can't microdroplets come together? Are you an idiot?



For we *know* that the temperatures where
> there are clouds are at minimum −57 °C, not low enough, and that the
> pressures are at maximum 232 mbar, not high enough, for the other main gases
> in the atmosphere to condensate:

What are you babbling about?


>
> <http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=troposphere+vs.+tropopause+vs.
> +stratosphere>
>
> <http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=nitrogen+phase+diagram>
> [as an example to show that the conditions are best for condensation at high
> pressure and low temperature. so let us test the phase of the three main
> atmospheric gases there:]
>
> <http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?dataset=&i=atmosphere+composition>
>
> <http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?dataset=&i=nitrogen+phase+at+-57+%C2%B0C+and+232+mbar>
> <http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?dataset=&i=oxygen+phase+at+-57+%C2%B0C+and+232+mbar>
> <http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?dataset=&i=water+phase+at+-57+%C2%B0C+and+232+mbar>)
>

What is your frikin point?
Sergio
2016-07-19 23:05:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 7/6/2016 12:33 AM, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 10:13:32 -0700 (PDT), James McGinn
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>> The most stupefying myth in all of meteorology is the myth that steam can persist in our atmosphere.

> Steam is water vapor above air saturation density. The steam coming
> out of a kettle is opaque because it is well over saturation density
> (>> 100% humidity) and pushes the air aside as it exits. Technically,
> its not persisting in the atmosphere since it has purged the
> atmosphere from its vicinity. As it spreads out, colliding and mixing
> with the heavier air molecules, it loses kinetic energy (cools) due to
> the work it does against atmospheric pressure. By the time it reaches
> saturation density (100% humidity) it has become translucent (almost
> transparent) instead of opaque. If its density increases beyond
> saturation due to a pressure pulse for instance or further cooling, it
> forms water droplets (clouds).

> As water vapor (much lighter than air) rises and cools, it condenses
> into water droplets (clouds). As water vapor condenses into a cloud,
> the volume reduction (vapor to liquid) reduces the outward positive
> pressure of the cloud and allows more moisture laden air to flow into
> the cloud. This effect causes the cloud to grow in all directions.

> Droplets at the top of the cloud (coldest) fall downward with a very
> small terminal velocity and usually evaporate from air frictional
> heating before falling very far. The resultant vapor rises upward
> again to the top of the cloud and condenses again to repeat the cycle.
> The energy required to vaporize a droplet increases with the mass of
> the droplet (cube of the droplet radius ) but the energy acquired from
> falling friction increases only as the square of the droplet radius.
> Thus the larger the droplet, the farther it falls before evaporating
> again.

> As the cloud grows upward and the temperature at the top drops, colder
> and larger drops form. They are larger because the vapor molecules are
> moving slower and more nucleate (stick together) per second. These
> larger, colder droplets eventually survive the trip falling through
> the cloud and (and air below the cloud) without vaporizing. They hit
> the ground as rain drops.
>
> Mike
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA
> ---------------------------------------------------
>

good explination, and shows the complex process of going from opaque
steam to invisable gas.
James McGinn
2016-07-20 18:58:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 4:05:26 PM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
> On 7/6/2016 12:33 AM, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
> > On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 10:13:32 -0700 (PDT), James McGinn
> > <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >> The most stupefying myth in all of meteorology is the myth that steam can persist in our atmosphere.
>
> > Steam is water vapor above air saturation density. The steam coming
> > out of a kettle is opaque because it is well over saturation density
> > (>> 100% humidity) and pushes the air aside as it exits. Technically,
> > its not persisting in the atmosphere since it has purged the
> > atmosphere from its vicinity. As it spreads out, colliding and mixing
> > with the heavier air molecules, it loses kinetic energy (cools) due to
> > the work it does against atmospheric pressure. By the time it reaches
> > saturation density (100% humidity) it has become translucent (almost
> > transparent) instead of opaque. If its density increases beyond
> > saturation due to a pressure pulse for instance or further cooling, it
> > forms water droplets (clouds).
>
> > As water vapor (much lighter than air) rises and cools, it condenses
> > into water droplets (clouds). As water vapor condenses into a cloud,
> > the volume reduction (vapor to liquid) reduces the outward positive
> > pressure of the cloud and allows more moisture laden air to flow into
> > the cloud. This effect causes the cloud to grow in all directions.
>
> > Droplets at the top of the cloud (coldest) fall downward with a very
> > small terminal velocity and usually evaporate from air frictional
> > heating before falling very far. The resultant vapor rises upward
> > again to the top of the cloud and condenses again to repeat the cycle.
> > The energy required to vaporize a droplet increases with the mass of
> > the droplet (cube of the droplet radius ) but the energy acquired from
> > falling friction increases only as the square of the droplet radius.
> > Thus the larger the droplet, the farther it falls before evaporating
> > again.
>
> > As the cloud grows upward and the temperature at the top drops, colder
> > and larger drops form. They are larger because the vapor molecules are
> > moving slower and more nucleate (stick together) per second. These
> > larger, colder droplets eventually survive the trip falling through
> > the cloud and (and air below the cloud) without vaporizing. They hit
> > the ground as rain drops.
> >
> > Mike
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> > Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> >
>
> good explination, and shows the complex process of going from opaque
> steam to invisable gas.

Sergio, you are so dumb. The explanation was wrong.
noTthaTguY
2016-07-20 22:13:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
it was easy to find th partial pressures
for all kind of liquid *but water ...
which has its own table, of course

> Sergio, you are so dumb. The explanation was wrong.
Sergio
2016-07-20 23:12:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 7/20/2016 5:13 PM, noTthaTguY wrote:
> it was easy to find th partial pressures
> for all kind of liquid *but water ...
> which has its own table, of course
>
>> Sergio, you are so dumb. The explanation was wrong.
>

McGinn must be recycling his old junk posts, I have him PLONKED, throw
him out with the garbage.
noTthaTguY
2016-12-22 18:29:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
cloudseeding is not really so operative, since
it was pioneered, howsoever much it was used, mainly because
of exhaust from jets, and other effects of jetpower

> > it was easy to find th partial pressures
> > for all kind of liquid *but water ...
> > which has its own table, of course

> him out with the garbage.

so, I will not reply directly to any of his mysdirectyvs;
he cannot believe that his **** doesn't have odeur
James McGinn
2017-01-02 02:52:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 10:34:02 PM UTC-7, Michael Strickland wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 10:13:32 -0700 (PDT), James McGinn
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ...
> >The most stupefying myth in all of meteorology is the myth that steam can persist in our atmosphere.
>
> Steam is water vapor above air saturation density.

Steam is gaseous H2O. It will not persist for more than a fraction of a second at ambient temps.


The steam coming
> out of a kettle is opaque because it is well over saturation density
> (>> 100% humidity) and pushes the air aside as it exits.

Thats absurd. It is invisible because it is a gas.


Technically,
> its not persisting in the atmosphere since it has purged the
> atmosphere from its vicinity.

Silly statement
James McGinn
2016-08-31 14:14:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 10:13:37 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense because they have painted themselves into a corner with their assumptions and believing in nonsense is the only option that remains to save them from appearing to be complete fools. The most stupefying myth in all of meteorology is the myth that steam can persist in our atmosphere. It is universally believed by all meteorologists yet, strangely, not one of them would claim knowledge of a test or experiment to demonstrate its validity. Stranger still, what little empirical evidence we do have decidedly indicates that the notion fails. This notion has evolved into a taboo within the disciplines that study the atmosphere, the primary champions and enforcers of this taboo being meteorologists, most of whom for which the issue is a mute point in that they exclusively work with synoptic charts (cold fronts, warm fronts and such, usually displayed on computer screens) and, therefore, the notion is never applied in the context of their daily duties. Only for a very small subset of meteorologists—those that deal with the severe weather and, even then, only those that deal with the theoretical aspects thereof—does this notion have any real significance. But for these few the effect is intellectually devastating, rendering them feckless, incapable of making any kind of real progress in the discipline. One consequence of this being that the theoretical aspects of the study of severe weather have come to epitomize academic vapidity. And there really isn’t much any of them can do about it in that belief in the concept is a prerequisite for being taken seriously by any of the various stakeholders in the discipline. But at least they don’t look like complete fools.
> http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16329
James McGinn
2016-09-01 22:29:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 10:13:37 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense because they have painted themselves into a corner with their assumptions and believing in nonsense is the only option that remains to save them from appearing to be complete fools. The most stupefying myth in all of meteorology is the myth that steam can persist in our atmosphere. It is universally believed by all meteorologists yet, strangely, not one of them would claim knowledge of a test or experiment to demonstrate its validity. Stranger still, what little empirical evidence we do have decidedly indicates that the notion fails. This notion has evolved into a taboo within the disciplines that study the atmosphere, the primary champions and enforcers of this taboo being meteorologists, most of whom for which the issue is a mute point in that they exclusively work with synoptic charts (cold fronts, warm fronts and such, usually displayed on computer screens) and, therefore, the notion is never applied in the context of their daily duties. Only for a very small subset of meteorologists—those that deal with the severe weather and, even then, only those that deal with the theoretical aspects thereof—does this notion have any real significance. But for these few the effect is intellectually devastating, rendering them feckless, incapable of making any kind of real progress in the discipline. One consequence of this being that the theoretical aspects of the study of severe weather have come to epitomize academic vapidity. And there really isn’t much any of them can do about it in that belief in the concept is a prerequisite for being taken seriously by any of the various stakeholders in the discipline. But at least they don’t look like complete fools.
> http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16329
James McGinn
2016-12-21 22:52:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 10:13:37 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense because they have painted themselves into a corner with their assumptions and believing in nonsense is the only option that remains to save them from appearing to be complete fools. The most stupefying myth in all of meteorology is the myth that steam can persist in our atmosphere. It is universally believed by all meteorologists yet, strangely, not one of them would claim knowledge of a test or experiment to demonstrate its validity. Stranger still, what little empirical evidence we do have decidedly indicates that the notion fails. This notion has evolved into a taboo within the disciplines that study the atmosphere, the primary champions and enforcers of this taboo being meteorologists, most of whom for which the issue is a mute point in that they exclusively work with synoptic charts (cold fronts, warm fronts and such, usually displayed on computer screens) and, therefore, the notion is never applied in the context of their daily duties. Only for a very small subset of meteorologists—those that deal with the severe weather and, even then, only those that deal with the theoretical aspects thereof—does this notion have any real significance. But for these few the effect is intellectually devastating, rendering them feckless, incapable of making any kind of real progress in the discipline. One consequence of this being that the theoretical aspects of the study of severe weather have come to epitomize academic vapidity. And there really isn’t much any of them can do about it in that belief in the concept is a prerequisite for being taken seriously by any of the various stakeholders in the discipline. But at least they don’t look like complete fools.
> http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16329
James McGinn
2016-12-29 02:27:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 10:13:37 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense because they have painted themselves into a corner with their assumptions and believing in nonsense is the only option that remains to save them from appearing to be complete fools. The most stupefying myth in all of meteorology is the myth that steam can persist in our atmosphere. It is universally believed by all meteorologists yet, strangely, not one of them would claim knowledge of a test or experiment to demonstrate its validity. Stranger still, what little empirical evidence we do have decidedly indicates that the notion fails. This notion has evolved into a taboo within the disciplines that study the atmosphere, the primary champions and enforcers of this taboo being meteorologists, most of whom for which the issue is a mute point in that they exclusively work with synoptic charts (cold fronts, warm fronts and such, usually displayed on computer screens) and, therefore, the notion is never applied in the context of their daily duties. Only for a very small subset of meteorologists—those that deal with the severe weather and, even then, only those that deal with the theoretical aspects thereof—does this notion have any real significance. But for these few the effect is intellectually devastating, rendering them feckless, incapable of making any kind of real progress in the discipline. One consequence of this being that the theoretical aspects of the study of severe weather have come to epitomize academic vapidity. And there really isn’t much any of them can do about it in that belief in the concept is a prerequisite for being taken seriously by any of the various stakeholders in the discipline. But at least they don’t look like complete fools.
> http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16329
James McGinn
2017-05-25 03:34:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 10:13:37 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense because they have painted themselves into a corner with their assumptions and believing in nonsense is the only option that remains to save them from appearing to be complete fools. The most stupefying myth in all of meteorology is the myth that steam can persist in our atmosphere. It is universally believed by all meteorologists yet, strangely, not one of them would claim knowledge of a test or experiment to demonstrate its validity. Stranger still, what little empirical evidence we do have decidedly indicates that the notion fails. This notion has evolved into a taboo within the disciplines that study the atmosphere, the primary champions and enforcers of this taboo being meteorologists, most of whom for which the issue is a mute point in that they exclusively work with synoptic charts (cold fronts, warm fronts and such, usually displayed on computer screens) and, therefore, the notion is never applied in the context of their daily duties. Only for a very small subset of meteorologists—those that deal with the severe weather and, even then, only those that deal with the theoretical aspects thereof—does this notion have any real significance. But for these few the effect is intellectually devastating, rendering them feckless, incapable of making any kind of real progress in the discipline. One consequence of this being that the theoretical aspects of the study of severe weather have come to epitomize academic vapidity. And there really isn’t much any of them can do about it in that belief in the concept is a prerequisite for being taken seriously by any of the various stakeholders in the discipline. But at least they don’t look like complete fools.
> http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16329
James McGinn
2018-02-12 15:20:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 10:13:37 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense because they have painted themselves into a corner with their assumptions and believing in nonsense is the only option that remains to save them from appearing to be complete fools. The most stupefying myth in all of meteorology is the myth that steam can persist in our atmosphere. It is universally believed by all meteorologists yet, strangely, not one of them would claim knowledge of a test or experiment to demonstrate its validity. Stranger still, what little empirical evidence we do have decidedly indicates that the notion fails. This notion has evolved into a taboo within the disciplines that study the atmosphere, the primary champions and enforcers of this taboo being meteorologists, most of whom for which the issue is a mute point in that they exclusively work with synoptic charts (cold fronts, warm fronts and such, usually displayed on computer screens) and, therefore, the notion is never applied in the context of their daily duties. Only for a very small subset of meteorologists—those that deal with the severe weather and, even then, only those that deal with the theoretical aspects thereof—does this notion have any real significance. But for these few the effect is intellectually devastating, rendering them feckless, incapable of making any kind of real progress in the discipline. One consequence of this being that the theoretical aspects of the study of severe weather have come to epitomize academic vapidity. And there really isn’t much any of them can do about it in that belief in the concept is a prerequisite for being taken seriously by any of the various stakeholders in the discipline. But at least they don’t look like complete fools.
> http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16329
James McGinn
2018-03-21 23:42:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 10:13:37 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense because they have painted themselves into a corner with their assumptions and believing in nonsense is the only option that remains to save them from appearing to be complete fools. The most stupefying myth in all of meteorology is the myth that steam can persist in our atmosphere. It is universally believed by all meteorologists yet, strangely, not one of them would claim knowledge of a test or experiment to demonstrate its validity. Stranger still, what little empirical evidence we do have decidedly indicates that the notion fails. This notion has evolved into a taboo within the disciplines that study the atmosphere, the primary champions and enforcers of this taboo being meteorologists, most of whom for which the issue is a mute point in that they exclusively work with synoptic charts (cold fronts, warm fronts and such, usually displayed on computer screens) and, therefore, the notion is never applied in the context of their daily duties. Only for a very small subset of meteorologists—those that deal with the severe weather and, even then, only those that deal with the theoretical aspects thereof—does this notion have any real significance. But for these few the effect is intellectually devastating, rendering them feckless, incapable of making any kind of real progress in the discipline. One consequence of this being that the theoretical aspects of the study of severe weather have come to epitomize academic vapidity. And there really isn’t much any of them can do about it in that belief in the concept is a prerequisite for being taken seriously by any of the various stakeholders in the discipline. But at least they don’t look like complete fools.
> http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16329
Loading...