Discussion:
How does heavier H2O get to the top of the troposphere
Add Reply
James McGinn
2016-03-08 23:37:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 8:49:50 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus asks:

Did you never stop to consider why, exactly, water in its gaseous
phase exists primarily in the troposphere, whereas carbon dioxide and
nitrogen, for example, can rise far above the troposphere, Jim?

Yes. But that is the wrong question. The right question is how/why
heavier droplets/clusters of H2O get up high in the troposphere:

Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma


Let me know if you have any questions.

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
2016-03-09 00:29:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Yes. But that is the wrong question. The right question is how/why
The question is nonsense based on a delusional premise.
--
Jim Pennino
James McGinn
2017-09-23 15:24:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
Post by James McGinn
Yes. But that is the wrong question. The right question is how/why
The question is nonsense based on a delusional premise.
Moron.
James McGinn
2017-09-28 06:22:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The question is nonsense based on a delusional premise.

Delusional? LOL.

Uh. So, if 'cold steam' really existed don't you think there would be some evidence of it being detected?

How do you explain this absence of evidence?
James McGinn
2017-10-21 06:48:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
Post by James McGinn
Yes. But that is the wrong question. The right question is how/why
The question is nonsense based on a delusional premise.
You have no fucking evidence.
Sergio
2016-03-09 01:44:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Wizard of BoOze and the Discovery of Atmospheric Pizza
http://youtu.be/pl-GOPq8aA0
some insane creep babbling nonsense, on and on, what a lard head
Sam Wormley
2016-03-09 03:36:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Yes. But that is the wrong question. The right question is how/why
Convection currents of water vapor condense when the temperature falls
below the local dew-point. You should know this, James.
--
sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.
Poutnik
2016-03-09 06:25:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Wormley
Post by James McGinn
Yes. But that is the wrong question. The right question is how/why
Convection currents of water vapor condense when the temperature falls
below the local dew-point. You should know this, James.
Making James to learn anything
and verify his claims before stating they are true
is Sysifos's work.
--
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
James McGinn
2016-03-17 06:25:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Yes. But that is the wrong question. The right question is how/why
Post by Poutnik
Post by Sam Wormley
Convection currents of water vapor condense when the temperature falls
below the local dew-point. You should know this, James.
Making James to learn anything
and verify his claims before stating they are true
is Sysifos's work.
--
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
noTthaTguY
2016-03-17 20:22:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
ZizzyphuZ
Post by Poutnik
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
James McGinn
2016-03-24 10:21:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Did you never stop to consider why, exactly, water in its gaseous
phase exists primarily in the troposphere, whereas carbon dioxide and
nitrogen, for example, can rise far above the troposphere, Jim?
Yes. But that is the wrong question. The right question is how/why
Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
http://youtu.be/pl-GOPq8aA0
Post by James McGinn
Let me know if you have any questions.
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
James McGinn
2016-04-17 02:18:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Did you never stop to consider why, exactly, water in its gaseous
phase exists primarily in the troposphere, whereas carbon dioxide and
nitrogen, for example, can rise far above the troposphere, Jim?
Yes. But that is the wrong question. The right question is how/why
Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
Post by James McGinn
http://youtu.be/pl-GOPq8aA0
Let me know if you have any questions.
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
James McGinn
2016-05-12 00:56:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Did you never stop to consider why, exactly, water in its gaseous
phase exists primarily in the troposphere, whereas carbon dioxide and
nitrogen, for example, can rise far above the troposphere, Jim?
Yes. But that is the wrong question. The right question is how/why
Post by James McGinn
Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
http://youtu.be/pl-GOPq8aA0
Let me know if you have any questions.
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1
2016-05-12 05:20:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
Oh, Jim didn't realize that
water in its gaseous phase, water in its liquid phase and water in its
solid phase would reflect and refract different wavelengths, did he?
Water in its gaseous phase reflects and refracts microwave radiation
at a far lower rate than does, say, the water vapor in clouds. Thus
the differential tells researchers cloud depth as well as humidity.
If you think it definitive then why not make an argument to that effect?
I just did, Jim. The multi-frequency split-window technique to
determine cloud optical depth and atmospheric humidity has been used
for years by NASA, Jim.
But it has to be definitive. No Global-warming-reasoning will be accepted.
Um, Jim? You're talking to the guy who proved that CO2-driven AGW
violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and thus is a fairy tale. CO2 has
been proven by NASA to be a global *cooling* gas.
Did you never stop to consider why, exactly, water in its gaseous
phase exists primarily in the troposphere, whereas carbon dioxide and
nitrogen, for example, can rise far above the troposphere, Jim?
Yes: https://www.youtu<SMACKAKOOK!>
Referring back to your own kooky conspiracy theory blather is like
standing in an echo chamber screaming at the top of your lungs and
taking the echoes as confirmation of your kooky blathering, Jim. It's
an indication of mental instability and a burgeoning schizoid
paranoiac insanity. Seek immediate professional psychiatric
intervention, Jim.
Did you never stop to consider why water can go *below* its freezing
temperature after being updrafted into the upper troposphere, yet not
immediately fall out of the sky (hint: because it's in its gaseous
phase... individual molecules...
Wrong. It' is always liquid or solid (ice). It is never gaseous.
Wrong. I've presented *four* peer-reviewed studies proving the
existence of monomolecular gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere, Jim.
Is water "speshul", James? Does it not have a gaseous phase like every
other molecule?

Nilsson's study:

If water molecules are H bonded together, it's liquid water, James.
Photon energy from electron orbital descent is dependent upon H
bonding strength (given that it's an electrostatic bond), the stronger
the H bond, the lower the photon energy. Nilsson measured a higher
photon energy from electron orbital descent in gaseous-phase water
than that of liquid-phase water. If it'd been liquid-phase water as
you claim, the photon energy would have been identical to that of
liquid-phase water. It wasn't, hence gaseous phase water is
monomolecular with no H bonding.

Water In The Gas Phase -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3350649/
Not ab initio (which you stupidly call "ab initro" in your videos
LOL)... direct measurement of monomolecular water in the gaseous
phase. 16 referenced papers.

Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research
http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation
Direct empirical observation of monomolecular evaporation.

http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/
Active Long Path Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy to
directly observe monomolecular gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere.

Now you can run away from reality all over again, James. You
delusional reality-denying kooktard.

Now let's contrast that with what you've got, James... you've
*retracted* the central premise for your entire delusion as you
writhed and squirmed in trying to escape being proven wrong, then when
you realized that your having done so destroyed your entire delusion,
you quickly picked up your "variable polarity of the H2O molecule"
claim from the ground, dusted it off, slapped it back onto your
delusion and duct-taped it in place. That had to be embarrassing for
you, eh? LOL

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
Message-ID: <***@dizum.com>
========================================================
Polarity is a variable. And the mechanism that alters (reduces)
the polarity of H2O molecules is the completion of hydrogen
bonds with adjoining water molecules.
========================================================

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
Message-ID: <***@dizum.com>
========================================================
In my post entitled Conservation of Energy in Earth's
Atmosphere I describe how the spinning of water
droplets/clusters--a direct result of wind shear--causes
these droplets to elongate into chains of partially
reactivated H2O molecules, effectuating a plasma with
structural integrity. It is important to note that
without the concept that is the subject of this post
(the Polarity Neutralization Implication of Hydrogen
Bonds Between Water Molecules and Groups Thereof) this
would not be possible.
========================================================

Thus, without your "variable polarity of the water molecule" claim
(now retracted by you), your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim falls, by
your own admission. And without your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim, your
"boundaries and structures" which you claim that "plasma not-a-plasma"
forms which drives the winds. Thus your entire "theory not-a-theory"
just came crashing to the ground. That's what happens when you build
your "theory not-a-theory" like a Jenga tower of lies and
suppositions, James.

Yet again, you've destroyed your moronic theory in trying to slap
patches on it so you can writhe your way out of being proven wrong.
You're too ignorant, insane and uneducated to acknowledge or
understand reality, let alone model it, Tardnado. LOL

That was an embarrassing gaffe on your part, wasn't it, TornadoTard?
LOL
According to you, since you k'lame
all water in the atmosphere is clustered, it would be heavier than air
and would thus all fall out of the air once its mass exceeded its
downward-facing combined radius holding it up due to updraft...
I address this point in my videos.
Your kooky conspiracy theory videos are merely the outgrowth of your
kooky written conspiracy theory, Jim. The same retarded tripe in a
different form. IOW, you have nothing in your arsenal to refute the
peer-reviewed studies I presented with utterly *destroyed* your kooky
conspiracy theory.
thus rainfall would be next to impossible, the lower troposphere would
perpetually be enveloped in falling mist, and every horizontal surface
would be perpetually covered with a film of water.
Right. Based on meteorology's assumptions clouds should drop out of
the sky like bricks. Right? But they don't. Why do you think that is?
Wrong, that's according to your wrong interpretation of meteorology's
precepts. The reality of physical phenomena such as clouds has been
explained to you, including links to corroborable data. You snipped it
out and ran away from it because you're a delusional paranoiac
suffering from the crippling effects of Dunning-Kruger.
Are you beginning to understand that you don't understand much at all,
Jim? Are you beginning to see that you conceived of your kooky little
theory and ran off half-cocked, crowing about your "discovery" without
fully testing its premises, Jim?
You exemplify the dimwittedness of meteorological assumptions.
That must be why you find yourself utterly unable to refute any of
that peer-reviewed data, right, Jim? Everyone else is crazy and *you*
are the only sane one. Everyone else who has years of training and
experience is wrong, but *you*, a high school dropout kooktard who has
demonstrated his stupidity repeatedly, are the only one who is right.

Yeah, that makes sense, Jim. Right?

Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit.
Then you'll have no problem providing a microscopy printout of these
so-called "small droplets", Jim. Do you even own a microscope?
So, now you are conceding that you don't have counterevidence?
I've just provided yet another peer reviewed study
Yet you are conceding that it is not conclusive, right?
I "conceded" no such thing, Jim. It is a peer-reviewed study which
utterly decimates your kooky conspiracy theory. Do you not understand
what the peer-review process entails, Jim? Oh, of course you don't...
you can't get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, nor can you even get your kooky conspiracy theory published
on any pre-print servers. Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy
theory through the peer-review process, Jim? Answer the question, you
evasive twit.
Ever heard of the scientific method?
Sure I have, which is why I've been offering evidence consisting of
peer reviewed studies...
Peer review is consensus. Consensus is politics. (I am not a
climate scientist.) Only empirical evidence is valid if you
want to collect the money. Sorry to burst your bubble. I thought
this was obvious. Sorry if you got the wrong idea.
Ah, another goalpost move from the evasive twit James McGinn. Well,
it's a good thing I've presented empirical evidence such as you taking
a trip from sea level to the top of Mt. Everest with a container of
water, eh, Jim? That also disproves your kooky theory. So you'll be
paying up. Now.
Wrong, but nice CAPSscreed, Jim. The two acceptor bonds are to two
*different* water molecules.
No duh.
Then breaking one will not affect the other, KookTard.
It affects the symmetry on the Oxygen molecule, dumbass.
No, it doesn't. It affects the diametrically-opposed covalent bond,
shortening it, as I've proven via two peer-reviewed studies, which you
snipped out and ran away from, Jim.

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
"There is a trade-off between the covalent and hydrogen bond
strengths; the stronger the H····O hydrogen bond, the weaker the O-H
covalent bond, and the shorter the O····O distance"

Note the graph... the covalent bond remains shorter (and stronger)
than the inter-molecular H bond. Because the inter-molecular H bond is
~1/20th the strength of the covalent bond, the diametrically-opposite
covalent bond will preferentially shorten and strengthen when one of
the inter-molecular bonds is broken, Jim. That's why, when using high
frequency AC to dissociate water, you target the short covalent bond
frequency, as the long covalent bond frequency is too close to the H
bond frequency, and if you break that, you strengthen the covalent
bonds.

You are *wrong*. Your kooky theory is *wrong*. The entire underlying
premise of your kooky theory is fallacious. I've just destroyed your
kooky theory, Jim. Now what will you do?

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
"The movement of electrons from the oxygen atom to the O-H antibonding
orbital on a neighboring molecule (HO-H-····OH2) both weaken the
covalent O-H bond (so lengthening it ) and reduces the HO-H····OH2
'hydrogen' bond."

Hence, when that inter-molecular H bond is broken, the diametrically
opposed covalent bond is shortened and strengthened, Jim. This has
been known and is well-exploited when building HHO welders for a great
number of years, Jim. That's why, when dissociating water, you don't
target the long covalent bond, as the resonant frequency required to
break that covalent bond is too close to the inter-molecular H bond
resonant frequency, and breaking that would strengthen the covalent
bond opposite, thereby costing more energy in dissociating the water.

Again, your lack of understanding of physical processes stems in part
from your broken delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted brain rejecting
any information from those you deem to be of higher authority than you
(which would be pretty much everyone), and in part from your lack of
education. Both conditions together lead you off into the brambles of
your kooky discredited conspiracy theory, and both can be ameliorated
by subjecting yourself to those very same psychiatric and educational
authorities your broken brain rejects... hence you'll remain
delusional for the remainder of your pathetic life, Jim... but you'll
find your delusion and hence your insanity grows until it destroys
your life. Fix yourself, Jim, or suffer the same fate of every other
D-K sufferer.

<snicker>
You are ignoring symmetry, to no good effect.
You don't even know what 'symmetry' means, Jim,
Look into VESPR theory.
Oh, trust me, Jim. I know about VSEPR theory. You're still misusing
the word 'symmetry', Jim. Liquid water has no symmetry. Gaseous-phase
water has absolutely no symmetry. You're 180 degrees out from reality.
I understand polarity better than anybody
No, you don't. You're a moronic delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted
kooktard who believes himself to know polarity better than anybody,
but you demonstrate daily that in reality you know squat, Jim.
Actually I do.
Actually, you don't, as the data above proves, Jim.
In fact, the H bonding gets *weaker* when one is knocked loose.
Surface tension proves you wrong and me right.
You've already been proven wrong below, Jim.
Explain surface tension using your model. Go ahead.
What are you waiting for?
The surface condition is a special case, Jim, so I'm not surprised you
don't know about it.

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html>
=====================================================
Analysis of simple thermodynamics c shows the surface has considerable
structuring, having identical density to that of bulk water at just
under 4 °C. In addition, the surface water structuring varies less
with temperature than the bulk. Refractive index study of the
water-air surface reveals it to be about 1.7 nm thick at 22 °C and
more dense than the bulk liquid (that is, it behaves like water at a
lower temperature).
=====================================================

So the "surface tension" is a result of the increased viscosity of the
interfacial water, Jim. Did you not know this, Jim? What kind of loon
would hold themselves out as the 'premiere expert' on water, and yet
not know a single fact *about* water, Jim?
Your explanation of surface tension is ad hoc. It's not intrinsic.
You just tacked it on. It's worthless.
That explanation is backed up by 2517 peer-reviewed studies, you
fecking nong. It's been vetted and proven to reflect reality.

Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit.
That's a model, dumbass. That is not reality.
That is a (poorly considered) attempt to explain what is observed.
So, only a loon would employ that as proof.
That model happens to be the model that is accepted
It's still just a model, dumbass. Model's are not evidence.
That you use a model as evidence reveals your dimwittedness.
It is a model which explains all physical phenomenon of water, Jim.
Backed up by 2517 peer-reviewed studies. How many studies back up your
kooky conspiracy theory, Jim?

Oh, that's right, ZERO. In fact, you can't even get your kooky
conspiracy theory itself through the peer-review process. Why is that,
Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit.
Descriptive models don't dispute reality, dumbass.
Then do the experiment that prove it.
Kooktard keeps asking for "experiments", when that data has been known
for a very long time...
As you are revealing, none of it is definitive.
It is, you're just backpedaling away from the fact that your kooky
conspiracy theory has been utterly destroyed, Jim.
I'll let you do this experiment, Jim. Carry a beaker of water to sea
level, heat it to 100 C. You'll note the water gaseous pressure is
sufficient to overcome the 760 mm Hg atmospheric pressure.
Now allow the water to cool to 70 C, you'll note the vapor pressure is
insufficient to overcome the 750 mm Hg atmospheric pressure, so
boiling does not occur,
Boiling stops below 100, dumbass.
Very good, Jim! At least you can acknowledge reality when it suits you
to do so. So we know you're not fully delusional... yet.
yet evaporation does occur.
Evaporation occurs all the way do to freezing, dumbass.
Very good again, Jim! In fact, it occurs even *below* the freezing
point, Jim. Or are you going to now deny sublimation?
Now, while maintaining that water at 70 C, carry it to the top of Mt.
Everest. You'll note that as you rise in altitude, the water will
again begin boiling, despite the temperature of the water only being
70 C.
You're an idiot.
I've proven your kooky theory is *wrong*, Jim. You're the idiot.
Hence, boiling and evaporation are the same process,
Surreal.
I'm sure you do find reality to be "surreal", Jim... Dunning-Kruger
sufferers often do. It's part and parcel of your burgeoning insanity.
You can fix yourself, it's not too late. All it requires is
acknowledging that your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly
destroyed, and thereby escaping its insanity-inducing grip.

I don't think you're strong enough to do that, Jim.

<snicker>

Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis,
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA?
--
Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant
uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James?

Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a
lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating
that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself
if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia?
Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and
help you to not piss all over yourself?

And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a
pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser.

Anders Nilsson measured http://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.

You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's
Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction
increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and
electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually
cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James?

According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.

How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even
you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli
Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard,
and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is
that not dissociating the water?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling
point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded
hydrides, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's
cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not*
splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have
such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same
H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron
that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of
vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that
your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and
that's just retarded.

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not
become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard?

How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
sky" sentient, James?

Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?

How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
you explain that, James?

Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is
*below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory
not-a-theory" can't answer.

Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?

Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
delusions, James?

Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
James?

Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James?

Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions,
James?

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being
*deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James?

Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as
"delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?

Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in
which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of
education about now, James?

Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out
of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been
deemed mentally incompetent, James?

Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class
as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist",
James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated,
whereas you're ignorant and uneducated?

What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was
the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then
you're not a physicist, James. LOL

If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?

Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
which would make air travel deadly.

Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?

Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?

How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
Jim?

Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
surface area as you claim?

Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?

How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, Jim?

Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?

Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
implausible claims are workable, Jim?

Why are you not taking your meds, James?
============================================================

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
James McGinn
2016-06-08 23:02:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Did you never stop to consider why, exactly, water in its gaseous
phase exists primarily in the troposphere, whereas carbon dioxide and
nitrogen, for example, can rise far above the troposphere, Jim?
Yes. But that is the wrong question. The right question is how/why
Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
http://youtu.be/pl-GOPq8aA0
Let me know if you have any questions.
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1
2016-06-09 04:12:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
Post by James McGinn
Did you never stop to consider why, exactly, water in its gaseous
phase exists primarily in the troposphere, whereas carbon dioxide and
nitrogen, for example, can rise far above the troposphere, Jim?
Yes: https://www.youtu<SMACKAKOOK!>
Referring back to your own kooky conspiracy theory blather is like
standing in an echo chamber screaming at the top of your lungs and
taking the echoes as confirmation of your kooky blathering, Jim. It's
an indication of mental instability and a burgeoning schizoid
paranoiac insanity. Seek immediate professional psychiatric
intervention, Jim.
Post by James McGinn
Did you never stop to consider why water can go *below* its freezing
temperature after being updrafted into the upper troposphere, yet not
immediately fall out of the sky (hint: because it's in its gaseous
phase... individual molecules...
Wrong. It' is always liquid or solid (ice). It is never gaseous.
Wrong. I've presented *four* peer-reviewed studies proving the
existence of monomolecular gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere, Jim.
Is water "speshul", James? Does it not have a gaseous phase like every
other molecule?

Nilsson's study:
http://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw
If water molecules are H bonded together, it's liquid water, James.
Photon energy from electron orbital descent is dependent upon H
bonding strength (given that it's an electrostatic bond), the stronger
the H bond, the lower the photon energy. Nilsson measured a higher
photon energy from electron orbital descent in gaseous-phase water
than that of liquid-phase water. If it'd been liquid-phase water as
you claim, the photon energy would have been identical to that of
liquid-phase water. It wasn't, hence gaseous phase water is
monomolecular with no H bonding.

Water In The Gas Phase -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3350649/
Not ab initio (which you stupidly call "ab initro" in your videos
LOL)... direct measurement of monomolecular water in the gaseous
phase. 16 referenced papers.

Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research
http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation
Direct empirical observation of monomolecular evaporation.

http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/
Active Long Path Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy to
directly observe monomolecular gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere.

Now you can run away from reality all over again, James. You
delusional reality-denying kooktard.

Now let's contrast that with what you've got, James... you've
*retracted* the central premise for your entire delusion as you
writhed and squirmed in trying to escape being proven wrong, then when
you realized that your having done so destroyed your entire delusion,
you quickly picked up your "variable polarity of the H2O molecule"
claim from the ground, dusted it off, slapped it back onto your
delusion and duct-taped it in place. That had to be embarrassing for
you, eh? LOL

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
Message-ID: <***@dizum.com>
========================================================
Polarity is a variable. And the mechanism that alters (reduces)
the polarity of H2O molecules is the completion of hydrogen
bonds with adjoining water molecules.
========================================================

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
Message-ID: <***@dizum.com>
========================================================
In my post entitled Conservation of Energy in Earth's
Atmosphere I describe how the spinning of water
droplets/clusters--a direct result of wind shear--causes
these droplets to elongate into chains of partially
reactivated H2O molecules, effectuating a plasma with
structural integrity. It is important to note that
without the concept that is the subject of this post
(the Polarity Neutralization Implication of Hydrogen
Bonds Between Water Molecules and Groups Thereof) this
would not be possible.
========================================================

Thus, without your "variable polarity of the water molecule" claim
(now retracted by you), your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim falls, by
your own admission. And without your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim, your
"boundaries and structures" which you claim that "plasma not-a-plasma"
forms which drives the winds. Thus your entire "theory not-a-theory"
just came crashing to the ground. That's what happens when you build
your "theory not-a-theory" like a Jenga tower of lies and
suppositions, James.

Yet again, you've destroyed your moronic theory in trying to slap
patches on it so you can writhe your way out of being proven wrong.
You're too ignorant, insane and uneducated to acknowledge or
understand reality, let alone model it, Tardnado. LOL

That was an embarrassing gaffe on your part, wasn't it, TornadoTard?
LOL
Post by James McGinn
According to you, since you k'lame
all water in the atmosphere is clustered, it would be heavier than air
and would thus all fall out of the air once its mass exceeded its
downward-facing combined radius holding it up due to updraft...
I address this point in my videos.
Your kooky conspiracy theory videos are merely the outgrowth of your
kooky written conspiracy theory, Jim. The same retarded tripe in a
different form. IOW, you have nothing in your arsenal to refute the
peer-reviewed studies I presented with utterly *destroyed* your kooky
conspiracy theory.
Post by James McGinn
thus rainfall would be next to impossible, the lower troposphere would
perpetually be enveloped in falling mist, and every horizontal surface
would be perpetually covered with a film of water.
Right. Based on meteorology's assumptions clouds should drop out of
the sky like bricks. Right? But they don't. Why do you think that is?
Wrong, that's according to your wrong interpretation of meteorology's
precepts. The reality of physical phenomena such as clouds has been
explained to you, including links to corroborable data. You snipped it
out and ran away from it because you're a delusional paranoiac
suffering from the crippling effects of Dunning-Kruger.
Post by James McGinn
Are you beginning to understand that you don't understand much at all,
Jim? Are you beginning to see that you conceived of your kooky little
theory and ran off half-cocked, crowing about your "discovery" without
fully testing its premises, Jim?
You exemplify the dimwittedness of meteorological assumptions.
That must be why you find yourself utterly unable to refute any of
that peer-reviewed data, right, Jim? Everyone else is crazy and *you*
are the only sane one. Everyone else who has years of training and
experience is wrong, but *you*, a high school dropout kooktard who has
demonstrated his stupidity repeatedly, are the only one who is right.

Yeah, that makes sense, Jim. Right?

Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit.
Post by James McGinn
Then you'll have no problem providing a microscopy printout of these
so-called "small droplets", Jim. Do you even own a microscope?
So, now you are conceding that you don't have counterevidence?
I've just provided yet another peer reviewed study
Yet you are conceding that it is not conclusive, right?
I "conceded" no such thing, Jim. It is a peer-reviewed study which
utterly decimates your kooky conspiracy theory. Do you not understand
what the peer-review process entails, Jim? Oh, of course you don't...
you can't get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, nor can you even get your kooky conspiracy theory published
on any pre-print servers. Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy
theory through the peer-review process, Jim? Answer the question, you
evasive twit.
Post by James McGinn
Ever heard of the scientific method?
Sure I have, which is why I've been offering evidence consisting of
peer reviewed studies...
Peer review is consensus. Consensus is politics. (I am not a
climate scientist.) Only empirical evidence is valid if you
want to collect the money. Sorry to burst your bubble. I thought
this was obvious. Sorry if you got the wrong idea.
Ah, another goalpost move from the evasive twit James McGinn. Well,
it's a good thing I've presented empirical evidence such as you taking
a trip from sea level to the top of Mt. Everest with a container of
water, eh, Jim? That also disproves your kooky theory. So you'll be
paying up. Now.
Post by James McGinn
Wrong, but nice CAPSscreed, Jim. The two acceptor bonds are to two
*different* water molecules.
No duh.
Then breaking one will not affect the other, KookTard.
It affects the symmetry on the Oxygen molecule, dumbass.
No, it doesn't. It affects the diametrically-opposed covalent bond,
shortening it, as I've proven via two peer-reviewed studies, which you
snipped out and ran away from, Jim.

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
"There is a trade-off between the covalent and hydrogen bond
strengths; the stronger the H····O hydrogen bond, the weaker the O-H
covalent bond, and the shorter the O····O distance"

Note the graph... the covalent bond remains shorter (and stronger)
than the inter-molecular H bond. Because the inter-molecular H bond is
~1/20th the strength of the covalent bond, the diametrically-opposite
covalent bond will preferentially shorten and strengthen when one of
the inter-molecular bonds is broken, Jim. That's why, when using high
frequency AC to dissociate water, you target the short covalent bond
frequency, as the long covalent bond frequency is too close to the H
bond frequency, and if you break that, you strengthen the covalent
bonds.

You are *wrong*. Your kooky theory is *wrong*. The entire underlying
premise of your kooky theory is fallacious. I've just destroyed your
kooky theory, Jim. Now what will you do?

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
"The movement of electrons from the oxygen atom to the O-H antibonding
orbital on a neighboring molecule (HO-H-····OH2) both weaken the
covalent O-H bond (so lengthening it ) and reduces the HO-H····OH2
'hydrogen' bond."

Hence, when that inter-molecular H bond is broken, the diametrically
opposed covalent bond is shortened and strengthened, Jim. This has
been known and is well-exploited when building HHO welders for a great
number of years, Jim. That's why, when dissociating water, you don't
target the long covalent bond, as the resonant frequency required to
break that covalent bond is too close to the inter-molecular H bond
resonant frequency, and breaking that would strengthen the covalent
bond opposite, thereby costing more energy in dissociating the water.

Again, your lack of understanding of physical processes stems in part
from your broken delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted brain rejecting
any information from those you deem to be of higher authority than you
(which would be pretty much everyone), and in part from your lack of
education. Both conditions together lead you off into the brambles of
your kooky discredited conspiracy theory, and both can be ameliorated
by subjecting yourself to those very same psychiatric and educational
authorities your broken brain rejects... hence you'll remain
delusional for the remainder of your pathetic life, Jim... but you'll
find your delusion and hence your insanity grows until it destroys
your life. Fix yourself, Jim, or suffer the same fate of every other
D-K sufferer.

<snicker>
Post by James McGinn
You are ignoring symmetry, to no good effect.
You don't even know what 'symmetry' means, Jim,
Look into VESPR theory.
Oh, trust me, Jim. I know about VSEPR theory. You're still misusing
the word 'symmetry', Jim. Liquid water has no symmetry. Gaseous-phase
water has absolutely no symmetry. You're 180 degrees out from reality.
Post by James McGinn
I understand polarity better than anybody
No, you don't. You're a moronic delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted
kooktard who believes himself to know polarity better than anybody,
but you demonstrate daily that in reality you know squat, Jim.
Actually I do.
Actually, you don't, as the data above proves, Jim.
Post by James McGinn
In fact, the H bonding gets *weaker* when one is knocked loose.
Surface tension proves you wrong and me right.
You've already been proven wrong below, Jim.
Explain surface tension using your model. Go ahead.
What are you waiting for?
The surface condition is a special case, Jim, so I'm not surprised you
don't know about it.

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html>
=====================================================
Analysis of simple thermodynamics c shows the surface has considerable
structuring, having identical density to that of bulk water at just
under 4 °C. In addition, the surface water structuring varies less
with temperature than the bulk. Refractive index study of the
water-air surface reveals it to be about 1.7 nm thick at 22 °C and
more dense than the bulk liquid (that is, it behaves like water at a
lower temperature).
=====================================================

So the "surface tension" is a result of the increased viscosity of the
interfacial water, Jim. Did you not know this, Jim? What kind of loon
would hold themselves out as the 'premiere expert' on water, and yet
not know a single fact *about* water, Jim?
Your explanation of surface tension is ad hoc. It's not intrinsic.
You just tacked it on. It's worthless.
That explanation is backed up by 2517 peer-reviewed studies, you
fecking nong. It's been vetted and proven to reflect reality.

Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit.
Post by James McGinn
That's a model, dumbass. That is not reality.
That is a (poorly considered) attempt to explain what is observed.
So, only a loon would employ that as proof.
That model happens to be the model that is accepted
It's still just a model, dumbass. Model's are not evidence.
That you use a model as evidence reveals your dimwittedness.
It is a model which explains all physical phenomenon of water, Jim.
Backed up by 2517 peer-reviewed studies. How many studies back up your
kooky conspiracy theory, Jim?

Oh, that's right, ZERO. In fact, you can't even get your kooky
conspiracy theory itself through the peer-review process. Why is that,
Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit.
Post by James McGinn
Descriptive models don't dispute reality, dumbass.
Then do the experiment that prove it.
Kooktard keeps asking for "experiments", when that data has been known
for a very long time...
As you are revealing, none of it is definitive.
It is, you're just backpedaling away from the fact that your kooky
conspiracy theory has been utterly destroyed, Jim.
Post by James McGinn
I'll let you do this experiment, Jim. Carry a beaker of water to sea
level, heat it to 100 C. You'll note the water gaseous pressure is
sufficient to overcome the 760 mm Hg atmospheric pressure.
Now allow the water to cool to 70 C, you'll note the vapor pressure is
insufficient to overcome the 750 mm Hg atmospheric pressure, so
boiling does not occur,
Boiling stops below 100, dumbass.
Very good, Jim! At least you can acknowledge reality when it suits you
to do so. So we know you're not fully delusional... yet.
Post by James McGinn
yet evaporation does occur.
Evaporation occurs all the way do to freezing, dumbass.
Very good again, Jim! In fact, it occurs even *below* the freezing
point, Jim. Or are you going to now deny sublimation?
Post by James McGinn
Now, while maintaining that water at 70 C, carry it to the top of Mt.
Everest. You'll note that as you rise in altitude, the water will
again begin boiling, despite the temperature of the water only being
70 C.
You're an idiot.
I've proven your kooky theory is *wrong*, Jim. You're the idiot.
Post by James McGinn
Hence, boiling and evaporation are the same process,
Surreal.
I'm sure you do find reality to be "surreal", Jim... Dunning-Kruger
sufferers often do. It's part and parcel of your burgeoning insanity.
You can fix yourself, it's not too late. All it requires is
acknowledging that your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly
destroyed, and thereby escaping its insanity-inducing grip.

I don't think you're strong enough to do that, Jim.

Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis,
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA?
--
Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant
uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James?

Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a
lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating
that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself
if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia?
Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and
help you to not piss all over yourself?

And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a
pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser.

Anders Nilsson measured http://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.

You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's
Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction
increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and
electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually
cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James?

According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.

How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even
you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli
Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard,
and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is
that not dissociating the water?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling
point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded
hydrides, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's
cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not*
splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have
such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same
H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron
that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of
vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that
your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and
that's just retarded.

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not
become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard?

How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
sky" sentient, James?

Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?

How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
you explain that, James?

Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is
*below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory
not-a-theory" can't answer.

Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?

Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
delusions, James?

Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
James?

Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James?

Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions,
James?

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being
*deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James?

Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as
"delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?

Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in
which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of
education about now, James?

Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out
of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been
deemed mentally incompetent, James?

Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class
as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist",
James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated,
whereas you're ignorant and uneducated?

What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was
the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then
you're not a physicist, James. LOL

If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?

Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
which would make air travel deadly.

Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?

Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?

How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
Jim?

Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
surface area as you claim?

Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?

How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, Jim?

Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?

Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
implausible claims are workable, Jim?

Why are you not taking your meds, James?
============================================================

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
Mikkel Haaheim
2016-06-09 07:08:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
The right question is how/why
Because that is where they form. This is further evidence against your notion that gaseous H2O does not exist in the atmosphere. Evaporated water is monomolecular (gaseous phase). It diffuses in the atmosphere, and it rises because it has lower molecular mass than the rest of the surrounding air gases. It also rises because it is often diffusing into a mass of warm air that is rising due to having lower density than the surrounding cooler air. When gaseous H2O rises in the atmosphere, it cools because pressure is decreasing. When this gaseous H2O cools, it begins to condense into clouds. Condensation is the process of gaseous molecules cooling and forming bonds, transiting back into liquid state. This condensate can remain suspended in the atmosphere for a considerable amount of time, but the net motion of condensed droplets is always downward. Either the clouds themselves settle to the ground (fog), or the droplets become too heavy for the air to sustain, and it rains, snows, hails, etc.

Please note, the droplets do not rise, except for short term spurts when kicked up by winds or other collisions from below. All net upward motion (except for the strong winds, is the result of being in a gaseous state.
noTthaTguY
2016-06-09 18:15:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
HOH islighter than OO,
NN, OCO & so on;
the atmosphere is stratified by molarity, like,
many miles upwrd, it is mostly H2, which is lighter than HOH
Post by Mikkel Haaheim
Please note, the droplets do not rise, except for short term spurts when kicked up by winds or other collisions from below. All net upward motion (except for the strong winds, is the result of being in a gaseous state.
James McGinn
2016-06-10 02:38:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mikkel Haaheim
Post by James McGinn
The right question is how/why
Because that is where they form.
Wrong. Heavier H2O droplets are pulled up in vortices. There is not steam in earth's atmosphere, you idiot.
Post by Mikkel Haaheim
This is further evidence against your notion that gaseous H2O does not exist in the atmosphere.
Wrong. It's evidence that low pressure is delivered in the vortices of storms.

Evaporated water is monomolecular (gaseous phase).

Not possible. Consult steam tables.

It diffuses in the atmosphere,

Diffusion that is a result of electrostatic forces only explains that that rises at lower altitudes. The rest of the way it is pulled up in storms, by vortices directly connected to jet streams and tributaries thereof.

and it rises because it has lower molecular mass than the rest of the surrounding air gases.

Not possible. Consult steam tables.
noTthaTguY
2016-06-10 04:24:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
every one knows that steam is different from smoke;
smoke doesn't evaporate as rapidly (dyssapear.

what is the Father of all hurricaneS
Post by James McGinn
Diffusion that is a result of electrostatic forces only explains that that rises at lower altitudes. The rest of the way it is pulled up in storms, by vortices directly connected to jet streams and tributaries thereof.
and it rises because it has lower molecular mass than the rest of the surrounding air gases.
Not possible. Consult steam tables.
Mikkel Haaheim
2016-06-11 15:39:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Heavier H2O droplets are pulled up in vortices. There is not steam in earth's atmosphere, you idiot.
Present your evidence. You can conduct experiments in the laboratory demonstrating water evaporating in simple beakers. No vortices present.
Post by James McGinn
It's evidence that low pressure is delivered in the vortices of storms.
No. It occurs well before any presence of a storm. It occurs before the conditions for a storm to develop even exist. It occurs wherever you have water and a little extra heat. It occurs indoors (which is how a mopped floor dries).
Post by James McGinn
Evaporated water is monomolecular (gaseous phase).
Not possible. Consult steam tables.
Steam tables only apply to large quantities of H2O, they do not apply to individual molecules. Instead, try looking up vapour pressure.
Post by James McGinn
Diffusion that is a result of electrostatic forces only explains that that rises at lower altitudes. The rest of the way it is pulled up in storms, by vortices directly connected to jet streams and tributaries thereof.
Diffusion is not a result of electrostatic forces. It does not involve bonding/attraction nor repulsion. Diffusion is about gases achieving a homogenous blend. Diffusion (also) occurs indors, and in rigidly controlled experiments where there is no access to the jetstream, neither directly not indirectly.
Post by James McGinn
and it rises because it has lower molecular mass than the rest of the surrounding air gases.
Not possible. Consult steam tables.
Again, steam tables are not appropriate in this situation.
James McGinn
2016-06-11 20:27:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 8:39:50 AM UTC-7, Mikkel Haaheim wrote:
Le vendredi 10 juin 2016 04:38:14 UTC+2, James McGinn a écrit :

JM: Heavier H2O droplets are pulled up in vortices. There is no steam in earth's atmosphere, you idiot.


MH: Present your evidence.

JM: Prove me wrong. The evidence is freely available in the public domain.

MH: You can conduct experiments in the laboratory demonstrating water evaporating in simple beakers.

JM: Consult steam tables

MH: No vortices present.

JM: True. No wind shear present either. The plasma phase of water is a consequence of H2O's surface tension and the fact that spinning of microdroplets maximizes surface area. When you maximize surface area you maximize surface tension. Wind shear causes the spinning. But this only occurs when one body of air is moist and the other is dry. And it only occurs right along that boundary.

Tornadoes occur in situations when moist/dry boundaries extend all the way to the ground. For more on this subject I suggest doing research on the "dry-line" phenomena associated with severe weather.

JM: It's evidence that low pressure is delivered in the vortices of storms.

MH: No. It occurs well before any presence of a storm. It occurs before the conditions for a storm to develop even exist. It occurs wherever you have water and a little extra heat. It occurs indoors (which is how a mopped floor dries).

JM: You sound like an idiot. Are you suggesting storms occur indoors?

MH: Evaporated water is monomolecular (gaseous phase).

JM: Not possible. Consult steam tables.

MH: Steam tables only apply to large quantities of H2O, they do not apply to individual molecules. Instead, try looking up vapour pressure.


JM: Once again, you sound like an idiot. Water is only gaseous above its boiling temperature.



JM: Diffusion that is a result of electrostatic forces only explains that that rises at lower altitudes. The rest of the way it is pulled up in storms, by vortices directly connected to jet streams and tributaries thereof.

MH: Diffusion is not a result of electrostatic forces. It does not involve bonding/attraction nor repulsion.

JM: Your imagination is not evidence.

MH: Diffusion is about gases achieving a homogenous blend.

JM: LOL. The fact that you can imagine it as such does not make it true. Science involves facts, not imagination.

MH: Diffusion (also) occurs indoors, and in rigidly controlled experiments where there is no access to the jetstream, neither directly not indirectly.

JM: LOL. Uh, yeah, so? What’s your point?

MH: . . . and it rises because it has lower molecular mass than the rest of the surrounding air gases.

JM: Wrong. Evaporation involves microdroplets that rise as a result of electrostatic forces. Trust me, I’m a physicist. You are a pretender.
p***@gmail.com
2016-08-08 23:56:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Trust me, I’m a physicist...
Biggest lie of the year! You are no physicist, and you are an even worse pretender!
Odd Bodkin
2016-08-09 12:14:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
Trust me, I’m a physicist...
Biggest lie of the year! You are no physicist, and you are an even worse pretender!
Jim McGinn has some serious mental problems.
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Claudius Denk
2016-08-09 18:37:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
Trust me, I’m a physicist...
Biggest lie of the year! You are no physicist, and you are an even worse pretender!
LOL. McGinn wins again.

Ever note how you guys never have a counterargument to McGinn?

What do you think this indicates?
James McGinn
2016-08-10 04:29:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by p***@gmail.com
Trust me, I’m a physicist...
Biggest lie of the year! You are no physicist, and you are an even worse pretender!
LOL. McGinn wins again.
Ever note how you guys never have a counterargument to McGinn?
What do you think this indicates?
You tell em, Claude.

Go claude. Go claude. Go claude.
p***@gmail.com
2016-08-16 00:34:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by p***@gmail.com
Trust me, I’m a physicist...
Biggest lie of the year! You are no physicist, and you are an even worse pretender!
LOL. McGinn wins again.
Ever note how you guys never have a counterargument to McGinn?
What do you think this indicates?
You tell em, Claude.
Go claude. Go claude. Go claude.
Jim, you dumbfuck, you probably aren't even aware that you are talking to yourself!

Are going to deny that these a$$holes are the same guys?

https://disqus.com/by/claudiusdenk/

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcg8R1ALfDP7sGkeIEBjkMQ
Sergio
2016-08-16 00:46:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by p***@gmail.com
Trust me, I’m a physicist...
Biggest lie of the year! You are no physicist, and you are an even worse pretender!
LOL. McGinn wins again.
Ever note how you guys never have a counterargument to asshole McGinn?
What do you think this indicates?
You tell em, asshole Claude.
Go asshole claude. Go asshole claude. Go asshole claude.
Jim, you dumbfuck, you probably aren't even aware that you are talking to yourself!
Are going to deny that these a$$holes are the same guys?
https://disqus.com/by/claudiusdenk/
note his followers: "retired attorney", and "Business lady"
Ha!
Post by p***@gmail.com
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcg8R1ALfDP7sGkeIEBjkMQ
here is more of His Dinkness, just an argumentive old airhead;

Discussion on Raw Story 399 comments
Astrophysicist deGrasse Tyson schools former GM exec Lutz on climate change
Claudius Denk
Claudius Denk Budzilla 4 years ago

His reasoning was worthless.
View in discussion
Claudius Denk
Claudius Denk 4 years ago

I thought that was surreal how Maher tried to say that Cap and Trade was
republican. It was never republican. I don't even know where he gets
this. He's so out of touch.
View in discussion
Claudius Denk
Claudius Denk oddsrhuge 4 years ago

Well stated. The only sensible thing Neil stated was to contradict
Maher that science is (or should be) a consensus of experiment. But he
obviously hasn't applied this to global warming because if he had he'd
have long ago realized that the experimental evidence for CO2 caused
global warming is nonexistent.
View in discussion
Claudius Denk
Claudius Denk Steve Lane 4 years ago

The global warming industrial complex intentionally conceals the
distinction between temperature and heat. The "evidence" you speak of
is anecdotal nonsense.
View in discussion
Claudius Denk
Claudius Denk Ryan Simon 4 years ago

Actually, there is zero peer-reveiwed and/or experimental evidence that
CO2 has any kind of thermal effect on the atmosphere. Global warming is
cult phenomenon based science-based speculation.
View in discussion
Claudius Denk
Claudius Denk Jordan Barker 4 years ago

Neil deGrasse-Tyson came across as perfectly ignorant about climatology.
View in discussion
Claudius Denk
Claudius Denk PithHelmut 4 years ago

The hole in the ozone notion was based on unverified speculation. There
is zero evidence that any "movement" had any effect on this phenomenon.
View in discussion
Claudius Denk
Claudius Denk Ryan Simon 4 years ago

Mann cherrypicked data and concealed this from the public for over 15
years.
View in discussion
Claudius Denk
Claudius Denk Ryan Simon 4 years ago

They did not claim Mann was/is correct. They simply stated, wrongly
IMO, that they did not see convincing evidence of illegal activity.
View in discussion
Claudius Denk
Claudius Denk Susan Salisbury 4 years ago

Good advice. What is surprising to me here is how completely
nonscientific is the attitude of Mr. deGrasse Tyson. From Maher it's
expected. He's obviously not a scientists. But deGrasse seems to have
swallowed AGW propaganda hook, line and sinker.
Odd Bodkin
2016-08-17 12:07:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by p***@gmail.com
Trust me, I’m a physicist...
Biggest lie of the year! You are no physicist, and you are an even worse pretender!
LOL. McGinn wins again.
Ever note how you guys never have a counterargument to McGinn?
What do you think this indicates?
You tell em, Claude.
Go claude. Go claude. Go claude.
Jim, you dumbfuck, you probably aren't even aware that you are talking to yourself!
Are going to deny that these a$$holes are the same guys?
https://disqus.com/by/claudiusdenk/
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcg8R1ALfDP7sGkeIEBjkMQ
You know, of course, that you're talking with a barely functional mental
basket case?
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Sergio
2016-08-16 02:02:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
Trust me, I’m a physicist...
Biggest lie of the year! You are no physicist, and you are an even worse pretender!
LOL. McGinn sucks again.
Ever note how you guys never have a counterargument to McGinn's non argument?
What do you think this indicates, McGinn is a Troll.
- show quoted text -

I regrettably concluded that he's a complete troll. Irrational
attacks, non-sequitur posts, virtually content-free. It's weird, like
he's sometimes responding to some hidden content that we can't see.
I'm stuck using Google for the time being or I'd remove the temptation
by plonking him.

So I suppose what I am saying is, there's no point in asking him for a
response. Whatever you get will likely not be appropriate and will
only be annoying.
James McGinn
2016-08-17 14:11:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by p***@gmail.com
Trust me, I’m a physicist...
Biggest lie of the year! You are no physicist, and you are an even worse pretender!
LOL. McGinn wins again.
Ever note how you guys never have a counterargument to McGinn?
What do you think this indicates?
It indicates they are brain-dead believers. They can't think, they can't reason. They just believe.

These bozos can't explain anything.
p***@gmail.com
2016-08-17 18:20:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by p***@gmail.com
Trust me, I’m a physicist...
Biggest lie of the year! You are no physicist, and you are an even worse pretender!
LOL. McGinn wins again.
Ever note how you guys never have a counterargument to McGinn?
What do you think this indicates?
It indicates they are brain-dead believers. They can't think, they can't reason. They just believe.
These bozos can't explain anything.
... with you being the biggest bozo of all, having never explained a single thing...
Sergio
2016-08-17 19:52:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by p***@gmail.com
Trust me, I’m a physicist...
Biggest lie of the year! You are no physicist, and you are an even worse pretender!
LOL. McGinn wins again.
Ever note how you guys never have a counterargument to McGinn?
What do you think this indicates?
It indicates they are brain-dead believers. They can't think, they can't reason. They just believe.
These bozos can't explain anything.
... with you being the biggest bozo of all, having never explained a single thing...
I have McGinn *plonked*, sounds like he is over in the corner mumbling
again. I dont think he has ever been the member of a team, but a loaner.
Claudius Denk
2016-12-29 16:29:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sergio
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by p***@gmail.com
Trust me, I’m a physicist...
Biggest lie of the year! You are no physicist, and you are an even worse pretender!
LOL. McGinn wins again.
Ever note how you guys never have a counterargument to McGinn?
What do you think this indicates?
It indicates they are brain-dead believers. They can't think, they can't reason. They just believe.
These bozos can't explain anything.
... with you being the biggest bozo of all, having never explained a single thing...
I have McGinn *plonked*, sounds like he is over in the corner mumbling
again. I dont think he has ever been the member of a team, but a loaner.
How's that working for ya?
James McGinn
2017-10-03 13:50:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by p***@gmail.com
Trust me, I’m a physicist...
Biggest lie of the year! You are no physicist, and you are an even worse pretender!
LOL. McGinn wins again.
Ever note how you guys never have a counterargument to McGinn?
What do you think this indicates?
It indicates they are brain-dead believers. They can't think, they can't reason. They just believe.
These bozos can't explain anything.
... with you being the biggest bozo of all, having never explained a single thing...
You are an emptyminded nitwit.
noTthaTguY
2016-09-13 20:54:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
mason jars go very well with hygrometers,
AFAiK
Post by James McGinn
These bozos can't explain anything.
noTthaTguY
2016-08-15 23:17:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I once saw a cart00n of water vapor in the semi-annual lecture
on science that they give, hereinat,
and tehy were all rotating, nicely, which would, of course
cause hte angle between the two H's to increase,
the faster it rotates.

when the vapor reaches the c00lth,
whereat it is saturated (100% relative humidity,
it makes droplets, til they get big enough to fall; of course,
since the air pressure gets less as it rises,
that has to be included in the adiabatic calculation
Post by James McGinn
JM: Heavier H2O droplets are pulled up in vortices. There is no steam in earth's atmosphere, you idiot.
James McGinn
2016-08-16 02:49:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mikkel Haaheim
Post by James McGinn
Heavier H2O droplets are pulled up in vortices. There is not steam in earth's atmosphere, you idiot.
Present your evidence. You can conduct experiments in the laboratory demonstrating water evaporating in simple beakers. No vortices present.
Try to follow. That is evaporation. Evaporation is caused by electrostatic forces. Moist air is heavier so any convection will be negative.
Post by Mikkel Haaheim
Post by James McGinn
It's evidence that low pressure is delivered in the vortices of storms.
No. It occurs well before any presence of a storm.
That's because storms start above you before you can see them.



It occurs before the conditions for a storm to develop even exist. It occurs wherever you have water and a little extra heat. It occurs indoors (which is how a mopped floor dries).

Even an idiot knows this is a not true. Just look at the evidence.
Post by Mikkel Haaheim
Post by James McGinn
Evaporated water is monomolecular (gaseous phase).
Not possible. Consult steam tables.
Steam tables only apply to large quantities of H2O, they do not apply to individual molecules. Instead, try looking up vapour pressure.
LOL. What a loon.
Post by Mikkel Haaheim
Post by James McGinn
Diffusion that is a result of electrostatic forces only explains that that rises at lower altitudes. The rest of the way it is pulled up in storms, by vortices directly connected to jet streams and tributaries thereof.
Diffusion is not a result of electrostatic forces.
Yes it is, dumbass. Prove me wrong.



It does not involve bonding/attraction nor repulsion. Diffusion is about gases achieving a homogenous blend. Diffusion (also) occurs indors, and in rigidly controlled experiments where there is no access to the jetstream, neither directly not indirectly.
Post by Mikkel Haaheim
Post by James McGinn
and it rises because it has lower molecular mass than the rest of the surrounding air gases.
Not possible. Consult steam tables.
Again, steam tables are not appropriate in this situation.
Ignor the evidence if you want, you loon.
James McGinn
2016-08-08 06:44:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mikkel Haaheim
Post by James McGinn
The right question is how/why
Because that is where they form. This is further evidence against your notion that gaseous H2O does not exist in the atmosphere. Evaporated water is monomolecular (gaseous phase). It diffuses in the atmosphere, and it rises because it has lower molecular mass than the rest of the surrounding air gases. It also rises because it is often diffusing into a mass of warm air that is rising due to having lower density than the surrounding cooler air. When gaseous H2O rises in the atmosphere, it cools because pressure is decreasing. When this gaseous H2O cools, it begins to condense into clouds. Condensation is the process of gaseous molecules cooling and forming bonds, transiting back into liquid state. This condensate can remain suspended in the atmosphere for a considerable amount of time, but the net motion of condensed droplets is always downward. Either the clouds themselves settle to the ground (fog), or the droplets become too heavy for the air to sustain, and it rains, snows, hails, etc.
Please note, the droplets do not rise, except for short term spurts when kicked up by winds or other collisions from below. All net upward motion (except for the strong winds, is the result of being in a gaseous state.
Surreal.
James McGinn
2016-09-05 22:36:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mikkel Haaheim
Post by James McGinn
The right question is how/why
Because that is where they form. This is further evidence against your notion that gaseous H2O does not exist in the atmosphere. Evaporated water is monomolecular (gaseous phase). It diffuses in the atmosphere, and it rises because it has lower molecular mass than the rest of the surrounding air gases. It also rises because it is often diffusing into a mass of warm air that is rising due to having lower density than the surrounding cooler air. When gaseous H2O rises in the atmosphere, it cools because pressure is decreasing. When this gaseous H2O cools, it begins to condense into clouds. Condensation is the process of gaseous molecules cooling and forming bonds, transiting back into liquid state. This condensate can remain suspended in the atmosphere for a considerable amount of time, but the net motion of condensed droplets is always downward. Either the clouds themselves settle to the ground (fog), or the droplets become too heavy for the air to sustain, and it rains, snows, hails, etc.
Please note, the droplets do not rise, except for short term spurts when kicked up by winds or other collisions from below. All net upward motion (except for the strong winds, is the result of being in a gaseous state.
Mikkel Haaheim
2016-06-09 07:23:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Did you never stop to consider why, exactly, water in its gaseous
phase exists primarily in the troposphere, whereas carbon dioxide and
nitrogen, for example, can rise far above the troposphere, Jim?
Yes. But that is the wrong question. The right question is how/why
Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
http://youtu.be/pl-GOPq8aA0
Let me know if you have any questions.
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
Claud, the concepts of convection (etc) do not make sense to you because you are not competent. The rest of us here, your alter ego not withstanding, have demonstrated an ability to understand the principals that are readily available to anyone interested in looking. The concepts do not make sense to you, not because they are wrong, but because you are incapable of understanding them.
James McGinn
2016-06-10 02:30:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mikkel Haaheim
Post by James McGinn
Did you never stop to consider why, exactly, water in its gaseous
phase exists primarily in the troposphere, whereas carbon dioxide and
nitrogen, for example, can rise far above the troposphere, Jim?
Yes. But that is the wrong question. The right question is how/why
Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
http://youtu.be/pl-GOPq8aA0
Let me know if you have any questions.
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
Claud, the concepts of convection (etc) do not make sense to you because you are not competent. The rest of us here, your alter ego not withstanding, have demonstrated an ability to understand the principals that are readily available to anyone interested in looking. The concepts do not make sense to you, not because they are wrong, but because you are incapable of understanding them.
LOL. You bozos don't have arguments supported by fact you have beliefs supported by consensus.
p***@gmail.com
2016-06-10 02:40:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by Mikkel Haaheim
Post by James McGinn
Did you never stop to consider why, exactly, water in its gaseous
phase exists primarily in the troposphere, whereas carbon dioxide and
nitrogen, for example, can rise far above the troposphere, Jim?
Yes. But that is the wrong question. The right question is how/why
Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
http://youtu.be/pl-GOPq8aA0
Let me know if you have any questions.
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
Claud, the concepts of convection (etc) do not make sense to you because you are not competent. The rest of us here, your alter ego not withstanding, have demonstrated an ability to understand the principals that are readily available to anyone interested in looking. The concepts do not make sense to you, not because they are wrong, but because you are incapable of understanding them.
LOL. You bozos don't have arguments supported by fact you have beliefs supported by consensus.
Jim, you bozo, you are the one who has arguments unsupported by experiment and/or evidence, let alone facts. LOL yourself.

You have nothing, nothing at all!

Proof, Jim, proof. You need to provide proof of your claims. YOU!! Not others. YOU!
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1
2016-06-10 04:40:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
Post by James McGinn
Did you never stop to consider why, exactly, water in its gaseous
phase exists primarily in the troposphere, whereas carbon dioxide and
nitrogen, for example, can rise far above the troposphere, Jim?
Yes: https://www.youtu<SMACKAKOOK!>
Referring back to your own kooky conspiracy theory blather is like
standing in an echo chamber screaming at the top of your lungs and
taking the echoes as confirmation of your kooky blathering, Jim. It's
an indication of mental instability and a burgeoning schizoid
paranoiac insanity. Seek immediate professional psychiatric
intervention, Jim.
Post by James McGinn
Did you never stop to consider why water can go *below* its freezing
temperature after being updrafted into the upper troposphere, yet not
immediately fall out of the sky (hint: because it's in its gaseous
phase... individual molecules...
Wrong. It' is always liquid or solid (ice). It is never gaseous.
Wrong. I've presented *four* peer-reviewed studies proving the
existence of monomolecular gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere, Jim.
Is water "speshul", James? Does it not have a gaseous phase like every
other molecule?

Nilsson's study:
http://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw
If water molecules are H bonded together, it's liquid water, James.
Photon energy from electron orbital descent is dependent upon H
bonding strength (given that it's an electrostatic bond), the stronger
the H bond, the lower the photon energy. Nilsson measured a higher
photon energy from electron orbital descent in gaseous-phase water
than that of liquid-phase water. If it'd been liquid-phase water as
you claim, the photon energy would have been identical to that of
liquid-phase water. It wasn't, hence gaseous phase water is
monomolecular with no H bonding.

Water In The Gas Phase -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3350649/
Not ab initio (which you stupidly call "ab initro" in your videos
LOL)... direct measurement of monomolecular water in the gaseous
phase. 16 referenced papers.

Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research
http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation
Direct empirical observation of monomolecular evaporation.

http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/
Active Long Path Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy to
directly observe monomolecular gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere.

Now you can run away from reality all over again, James. You
delusional reality-denying kooktard.

Now let's contrast that with what you've got, James... you've
*retracted* the central premise for your entire delusion as you
writhed and squirmed in trying to escape being proven wrong, then when
you realized that your having done so destroyed your entire delusion,
you quickly picked up your "variable polarity of the H2O molecule"
claim from the ground, dusted it off, slapped it back onto your
delusion and duct-taped it in place. That had to be embarrassing for
you, eh? LOL

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
Message-ID: <***@dizum.com>
========================================================
Polarity is a variable. And the mechanism that alters (reduces)
the polarity of H2O molecules is the completion of hydrogen
bonds with adjoining water molecules.
========================================================

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
Message-ID: <***@dizum.com>
========================================================
In my post entitled Conservation of Energy in Earth's
Atmosphere I describe how the spinning of water
droplets/clusters--a direct result of wind shear--causes
these droplets to elongate into chains of partially
reactivated H2O molecules, effectuating a plasma with
structural integrity. It is important to note that
without the concept that is the subject of this post
(the Polarity Neutralization Implication of Hydrogen
Bonds Between Water Molecules and Groups Thereof) this
would not be possible.
========================================================

Thus, without your "variable polarity of the water molecule" claim
(now retracted by you), your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim falls, by
your own admission. And without your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim, your
"boundaries and structures" which you claim that "plasma not-a-plasma"
forms which drives the winds. Thus your entire "theory not-a-theory"
just came crashing to the ground. That's what happens when you build
your "theory not-a-theory" like a Jenga tower of lies and
suppositions, James.

Yet again, you've destroyed your moronic theory in trying to slap
patches on it so you can writhe your way out of being proven wrong.
You're too ignorant, insane and uneducated to acknowledge or
understand reality, let alone model it, Tardnado. LOL

That was an embarrassing gaffe on your part, wasn't it, TornadoTard?
LOL
Post by James McGinn
According to you, since you k'lame
all water in the atmosphere is clustered, it would be heavier than air
and would thus all fall out of the air once its mass exceeded its
downward-facing combined radius holding it up due to updraft...
I address this point in my videos.
Your kooky conspiracy theory videos are merely the outgrowth of your
kooky written conspiracy theory, Jim. The same retarded tripe in a
different form. IOW, you have nothing in your arsenal to refute the
peer-reviewed studies I presented with utterly *destroyed* your kooky
conspiracy theory.
Post by James McGinn
thus rainfall would be next to impossible, the lower troposphere would
perpetually be enveloped in falling mist, and every horizontal surface
would be perpetually covered with a film of water.
Right. Based on meteorology's assumptions clouds should drop out of
the sky like bricks. Right? But they don't. Why do you think that is?
Wrong, that's according to your wrong interpretation of meteorology's
precepts. The reality of physical phenomena such as clouds has been
explained to you, including links to corroborable data. You snipped it
out and ran away from it because you're a delusional paranoiac
suffering from the crippling effects of Dunning-Kruger.
Post by James McGinn
Are you beginning to understand that you don't understand much at all,
Jim? Are you beginning to see that you conceived of your kooky little
theory and ran off half-cocked, crowing about your "discovery" without
fully testing its premises, Jim?
You exemplify the dimwittedness of meteorological assumptions.
That must be why you find yourself utterly unable to refute any of
that peer-reviewed data, right, Jim? Everyone else is crazy and *you*
are the only sane one. Everyone else who has years of training and
experience is wrong, but *you*, a high school dropout kooktard who has
demonstrated his stupidity repeatedly, are the only one who is right.

Yeah, that makes sense, Jim. Right?

Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit.
Post by James McGinn
Then you'll have no problem providing a microscopy printout of these
so-called "small droplets", Jim. Do you even own a microscope?
So, now you are conceding that you don't have counterevidence?
I've just provided yet another peer reviewed study
Yet you are conceding that it is not conclusive, right?
I "conceded" no such thing, Jim. It is a peer-reviewed study which
utterly decimates your kooky conspiracy theory. Do you not understand
what the peer-review process entails, Jim? Oh, of course you don't...
you can't get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, nor can you even get your kooky conspiracy theory published
on any pre-print servers. Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy
theory through the peer-review process, Jim? Answer the question, you
evasive twit.
Post by James McGinn
Ever heard of the scientific method?
Sure I have, which is why I've been offering evidence consisting of
peer reviewed studies...
Peer review is consensus. Consensus is politics. (I am not a
climate scientist.) Only empirical evidence is valid if you
want to collect the money. Sorry to burst your bubble. I thought
this was obvious. Sorry if you got the wrong idea.
Ah, another goalpost move from the evasive twit James McGinn. Well,
it's a good thing I've presented empirical evidence such as you taking
a trip from sea level to the top of Mt. Everest with a container of
water, eh, Jim? That also disproves your kooky theory. So you'll be
paying up. Now.
Post by James McGinn
Wrong, but nice CAPSscreed, Jim. The two acceptor bonds are to two
*different* water molecules.
No duh.
Then breaking one will not affect the other, KookTard.
It affects the symmetry on the Oxygen molecule, dumbass.
No, it doesn't. It affects the diametrically-opposed covalent bond,
shortening it, as I've proven via two peer-reviewed studies, which you
snipped out and ran away from, Jim.

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
"There is a trade-off between the covalent and hydrogen bond
strengths; the stronger the H····O hydrogen bond, the weaker the O-H
covalent bond, and the shorter the O····O distance"

Note the graph... the covalent bond remains shorter (and stronger)
than the inter-molecular H bond. Because the inter-molecular H bond is
~1/20th the strength of the covalent bond, the diametrically-opposite
covalent bond will preferentially shorten and strengthen when one of
the inter-molecular bonds is broken, Jim. That's why, when using high
frequency AC to dissociate water, you target the short covalent bond
frequency, as the long covalent bond frequency is too close to the H
bond frequency, and if you break that, you strengthen the covalent
bonds.

You are *wrong*. Your kooky theory is *wrong*. The entire underlying
premise of your kooky theory is fallacious. I've just destroyed your
kooky theory, Jim. Now what will you do?

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
"The movement of electrons from the oxygen atom to the O-H antibonding
orbital on a neighboring molecule (HO-H-····OH2) both weaken the
covalent O-H bond (so lengthening it ) and reduces the HO-H····OH2
'hydrogen' bond."

Hence, when that inter-molecular H bond is broken, the diametrically
opposed covalent bond is shortened and strengthened, Jim. This has
been known and is well-exploited when building HHO welders for a great
number of years, Jim. That's why, when dissociating water, you don't
target the long covalent bond, as the resonant frequency required to
break that covalent bond is too close to the inter-molecular H bond
resonant frequency, and breaking that would strengthen the covalent
bond opposite, thereby costing more energy in dissociating the water.

Again, your lack of understanding of physical processes stems in part
from your broken delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted brain rejecting
any information from those you deem to be of higher authority than you
(which would be pretty much everyone), and in part from your lack of
education. Both conditions together lead you off into the brambles of
your kooky discredited conspiracy theory, and both can be ameliorated
by subjecting yourself to those very same psychiatric and educational
authorities your broken brain rejects... hence you'll remain
delusional for the remainder of your pathetic life, Jim... but you'll
find your delusion and hence your insanity grows until it destroys
your life. Fix yourself, Jim, or suffer the same fate of every other
D-K sufferer.

<snicker>
Post by James McGinn
You are ignoring symmetry, to no good effect.
You don't even know what 'symmetry' means, Jim,
Look into VESPR theory.
Oh, trust me, Jim. I know about VSEPR theory. You're still misusing
the word 'symmetry', Jim. Liquid water has no symmetry. Gaseous-phase
water has absolutely no symmetry. You're 180 degrees out from reality.
Post by James McGinn
I understand polarity better than anybody
No, you don't. You're a moronic delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted
kooktard who believes himself to know polarity better than anybody,
but you demonstrate daily that in reality you know squat, Jim.
Actually I do.
Actually, you don't, as the data above proves, Jim.
Post by James McGinn
In fact, the H bonding gets *weaker* when one is knocked loose.
Surface tension proves you wrong and me right.
You've already been proven wrong below, Jim.
Explain surface tension using your model. Go ahead.
What are you waiting for?
The surface condition is a special case, Jim, so I'm not surprised you
don't know about it.

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html>
=====================================================
Analysis of simple thermodynamics c shows the surface has considerable
structuring, having identical density to that of bulk water at just
under 4 °C. In addition, the surface water structuring varies less
with temperature than the bulk. Refractive index study of the
water-air surface reveals it to be about 1.7 nm thick at 22 °C and
more dense than the bulk liquid (that is, it behaves like water at a
lower temperature).
=====================================================

So the "surface tension" is a result of the increased viscosity of the
interfacial water, Jim. Did you not know this, Jim? What kind of loon
would hold themselves out as the 'premiere expert' on water, and yet
not know a single fact *about* water, Jim?
Your explanation of surface tension is ad hoc. It's not intrinsic.
You just tacked it on. It's worthless.
That explanation is backed up by 2517 peer-reviewed studies, you
fecking nong. It's been vetted and proven to reflect reality.

Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit.
Post by James McGinn
That's a model, dumbass. That is not reality.
That is a (poorly considered) attempt to explain what is observed.
So, only a loon would employ that as proof.
That model happens to be the model that is accepted
It's still just a model, dumbass. Model's are not evidence.
That you use a model as evidence reveals your dimwittedness.
It is a model which explains all physical phenomenon of water, Jim.
Backed up by 2517 peer-reviewed studies. How many studies back up your
kooky conspiracy theory, Jim?

Oh, that's right, ZERO. In fact, you can't even get your kooky
conspiracy theory itself through the peer-review process. Why is that,
Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit.
Post by James McGinn
Descriptive models don't dispute reality, dumbass.
Then do the experiment that prove it.
Kooktard keeps asking for "experiments", when that data has been known
for a very long time...
As you are revealing, none of it is definitive.
It is, you're just backpedaling away from the fact that your kooky
conspiracy theory has been utterly destroyed, Jim.
Post by James McGinn
I'll let you do this experiment, Jim. Carry a beaker of water to sea
level, heat it to 100 C. You'll note the water gaseous pressure is
sufficient to overcome the 760 mm Hg atmospheric pressure.
Now allow the water to cool to 70 C, you'll note the vapor pressure is
insufficient to overcome the 750 mm Hg atmospheric pressure, so
boiling does not occur,
Boiling stops below 100, dumbass.
Very good, Jim! At least you can acknowledge reality when it suits you
to do so. So we know you're not fully delusional... yet.
Post by James McGinn
yet evaporation does occur.
Evaporation occurs all the way do to freezing, dumbass.
Very good again, Jim! In fact, it occurs even *below* the freezing
point, Jim. Or are you going to now deny sublimation?
Post by James McGinn
Now, while maintaining that water at 70 C, carry it to the top of Mt.
Everest. You'll note that as you rise in altitude, the water will
again begin boiling, despite the temperature of the water only being
70 C.
You're an idiot.
I've proven your kooky theory is *wrong*, Jim. You're the idiot.
Post by James McGinn
Hence, boiling and evaporation are the same process,
Surreal.
I'm sure you do find reality to be "surreal", Jim... Dunning-Kruger
sufferers often do. It's part and parcel of your burgeoning insanity.
You can fix yourself, it's not too late. All it requires is
acknowledging that your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly
destroyed, and thereby escaping its insanity-inducing grip.

I don't think you're strong enough to do that, Jim.

Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis,
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA?
--
Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant
uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James?

Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a
lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating
that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself
if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia?
Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and
help you to not piss all over yourself?

And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a
pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser.

Anders Nilsson measured http://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.

You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's
Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction
increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and
electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually
cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James?

According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.

How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even
you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli
Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard,
and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is
that not dissociating the water?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling
point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded
hydrides, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's
cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not*
splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have
such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same
H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron
that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of
vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that
your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and
that's just retarded.

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not
become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard?

How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
sky" sentient, James?

Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?

How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
you explain that, James?

Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is
*below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory
not-a-theory" can't answer.

Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?

Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
delusions, James?

Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
James?

Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James?

Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions,
James?

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being
*deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James?

Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as
"delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?

Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in
which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of
education about now, James?

Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out
of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been
deemed mentally incompetent, James?

Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class
as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist",
James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated,
whereas you're ignorant and uneducated?

What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was
the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then
you're not a physicist, James. LOL

If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?

Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
which would make air travel deadly.

Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?

Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?

How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
Jim?

Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
surface area as you claim?

Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?

How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, Jim?

Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?

Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
implausible claims are workable, Jim?

Why are you not taking your meds, James?
============================================================

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
James McGinn
2016-08-07 17:21:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Did you never stop to consider why, exactly, water in its gaseous
phase exists primarily in the troposphere, whereas carbon dioxide and
nitrogen, for example, can rise far above the troposphere, Jim?
Yes. But that is the wrong question. The right question is how/why
Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
http://youtu.be/pl-GOPq8aA0
Let me know if you have any questions.
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
Friendly Neighbourhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1
2016-08-08 05:24:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
Post by James McGinn
Did you never stop to consider why, exactly, water in its gaseous
phase exists primarily in the troposphere, whereas carbon dioxide and
nitrogen, for example, can rise far above the troposphere, Jim?
Yes: https://www.youtu<SMACKAKOOK!>
Referring back to your own kooky conspiracy theory blather is like
standing in an echo chamber screaming at the top of your lungs and
taking the echoes as confirmation of your kooky blathering, Jim. It's
an indication of mental instability and a burgeoning schizoid
paranoiac insanity. Seek immediate professional psychiatric
intervention, Jim.
Post by James McGinn
Did you never stop to consider why water can go *below* its freezing
temperature after being updrafted into the upper troposphere, yet not
immediately fall out of the sky (hint: because it's in its gaseous
phase... individual molecules...
Wrong. It' is always liquid or solid (ice). It is never gaseous.
Wrong. I've presented *four* peer-reviewed studies proving the
existence of monomolecular gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere, Jim.
Is water "speshul", James? Does it not have a gaseous phase like every
other molecule?

Nilsson's study:
http://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw
If water molecules are H bonded together, it's liquid water, James.
Photon energy from electron orbital descent is dependent upon H
bonding strength (given that it's an electrostatic bond), the stronger
the H bond, the lower the photon energy. Nilsson measured a higher
photon energy from electron orbital descent in gaseous-phase water
than that of liquid-phase water. If it'd been liquid-phase water as
you claim, the photon energy would have been identical to that of
liquid-phase water. It wasn't, hence gaseous phase water is
monomolecular with no H bonding.

Water In The Gas Phase -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3350649/
Not ab initio (which you stupidly call "ab initro" in your videos
LOL)... direct measurement of monomolecular water in the gaseous
phase. 16 referenced papers.

Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research
http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation
Direct empirical observation of monomolecular evaporation.

http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/
Active Long Path Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy to
directly observe monomolecular gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere.

Now you can run away from reality all over again, James. You
delusional reality-denying kooktard.

Now let's contrast that with what you've got, James... you've
*retracted* the central premise for your entire delusion as you
writhed and squirmed in trying to escape being proven wrong, then when
you realized that your having done so destroyed your entire delusion,
you quickly picked up your "variable polarity of the H2O molecule"
claim from the ground, dusted it off, slapped it back onto your
delusion and duct-taped it in place. That had to be embarrassing for
you, eh? LOL

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
Message-ID: <***@dizum.com>
========================================================
Polarity is a variable. And the mechanism that alters (reduces)
the polarity of H2O molecules is the completion of hydrogen
bonds with adjoining water molecules.
========================================================

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
Message-ID: <***@dizum.com>
========================================================
In my post entitled Conservation of Energy in Earth's
Atmosphere I describe how the spinning of water
droplets/clusters--a direct result of wind shear--causes
these droplets to elongate into chains of partially
reactivated H2O molecules, effectuating a plasma with
structural integrity. It is important to note that
without the concept that is the subject of this post
(the Polarity Neutralization Implication of Hydrogen
Bonds Between Water Molecules and Groups Thereof) this
would not be possible.
========================================================

Thus, without your "variable polarity of the water molecule" claim
(now retracted by you), your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim falls, by
your own admission. And without your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim, your
"boundaries and structures" which you claim that "plasma not-a-plasma"
forms which drives the winds. Thus your entire "theory not-a-theory"
just came crashing to the ground. That's what happens when you build
your "theory not-a-theory" like a Jenga tower of lies and
suppositions, James.

Yet again, you've destroyed your moronic theory in trying to slap
patches on it so you can writhe your way out of being proven wrong.
You're too ignorant, insane and uneducated to acknowledge or
understand reality, let alone model it, Tardnado. LOL

That was an embarrassing gaffe on your part, wasn't it, TornadoTard?
LOL
Post by James McGinn
According to you, since you k'lame
all water in the atmosphere is clustered, it would be heavier than air
and would thus all fall out of the air once its mass exceeded its
downward-facing combined radius holding it up due to updraft...
I address this point in my videos.
Your kooky conspiracy theory videos are merely the outgrowth of your
kooky written conspiracy theory, Jim. The same retarded tripe in a
different format. IOW, you have nothing in your arsenal to refute the
peer-reviewed studies I presented which utterly *destroyed* your kooky
conspiracy theory.
Post by James McGinn
thus rainfall would be next to impossible, the lower troposphere would
perpetually be enveloped in falling mist, and every horizontal surface
would be perpetually covered with a film of water.
Right. Based on meteorology's assumptions clouds should drop out of
the sky like bricks. Right? But they don't. Why do you think that is?
Wrong, that's according to your wrong interpretation of meteorology's
precepts. The reality of physical phenomena such as clouds has been
explained to you, including links to corroborable data. You snipped it
out and ran away from it because you're a delusional paranoiac
suffering from the crippling effects of Dunning-Kruger.
Post by James McGinn
Are you beginning to understand that you don't understand much at all,
Jim? Are you beginning to see that you conceived of your kooky little
theory and ran off half-cocked, crowing about your "discovery" without
fully testing its premises, Jim?
You exemplify the dimwittedness of meteorological assumptions.
That must be why you find yourself utterly unable to refute any of
that peer-reviewed data, right, Jim? Everyone else is crazy and *you*
are the only sane one. Everyone else who has years of training and
experience is wrong, but *you*, a high school dropout kooktard who has
demonstrated his stupidity repeatedly, are the only one who is right.

Yeah, that makes sense, Jim. Right?

Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit.
Post by James McGinn
Then you'll have no problem providing a microscopy printout of these
so-called "small droplets", Jim. Do you even own a microscope?
So, now you are conceding that you don't have counterevidence?
I've just provided yet another peer reviewed study
Yet you are conceding that it is not conclusive, right?
I "conceded" no such thing, Jim. It is a peer-reviewed study which
utterly decimates your kooky conspiracy theory. Do you not understand
what the peer-review process entails, Jim? Oh, of course you don't...
you can't get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, nor can you even get your kooky conspiracy theory published
on any pre-print servers. Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy
theory through the peer-review process, Jim? Answer the question, you
evasive twit.
Post by James McGinn
Ever heard of the scientific method?
Sure I have, which is why I've been offering evidence consisting of
peer reviewed studies...
Peer review is consensus. Consensus is politics. (I am not a
climate scientist.) Only empirical evidence is valid if you
want to collect the money. Sorry to burst your bubble. I thought
this was obvious. Sorry if you got the wrong idea.
Ah, another goalpost move from the evasive twit James McGinn. Well,
it's a good thing I've presented empirical evidence such as you taking
a trip from sea level to the top of Mt. Everest with a container of
water, eh, Jim? That also disproves your kooky theory. So you'll be
paying up. Now.
Post by James McGinn
Wrong, but nice CAPSscreed, Jim. The two acceptor bonds are to two
*different* water molecules.
No duh.
Then breaking one will not affect the other, KookTard.
It affects the symmetry on the Oxygen molecule, dumbass.
No, it doesn't. It affects the diametrically-opposed covalent bond,
shortening it, as I've proven via two peer-reviewed studies, which you
snipped out and ran away from, Jim.

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
"There is a trade-off between the covalent and hydrogen bond
strengths; the stronger the H····O hydrogen bond, the weaker the O-H
covalent bond, and the shorter the O····O distance"

Note the graph... the covalent bond remains shorter (and stronger)
than the inter-molecular H bond. Because the inter-molecular H bond is
~1/20th the strength of the covalent bond, the diametrically-opposite
covalent bond will preferentially shorten and strengthen when one of
the inter-molecular bonds is broken, Jim. That's why, when using high
frequency AC to dissociate water, you target the short covalent bond
frequency, as the long covalent bond frequency is too close to the H
bond frequency, and if you break that, you strengthen the covalent
bonds.

You are *wrong*. Your kooky theory is *wrong*. The entire underlying
premise of your kooky theory is fallacious. I've just destroyed your
kooky theory, Jim. Now what will you do?

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
"The movement of electrons from the oxygen atom to the O-H antibonding
orbital on a neighboring molecule (HO-H-····OH2) both weaken the
covalent O-H bond (so lengthening it ) and reduces the HO-H····OH2
'hydrogen' bond."

Hence, when that inter-molecular H bond is broken, the diametrically
opposed covalent bond is shortened and strengthened, Jim. This has
been known and is well-exploited when building HHO welders for a great
number of years, Jim. That's why, when dissociating water, you don't
target the long covalent bond, as the resonant frequency required to
break that covalent bond is too close to the inter-molecular H bond
resonant frequency, and breaking that would strengthen the covalent
bond opposite, thereby costing more energy in dissociating the water.

Again, your lack of understanding of physical processes stems in part
from your broken delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted brain rejecting
any information from those you deem to be of higher authority than you
(which would be pretty much everyone), and in part from your lack of
education. Both conditions together lead you off into the brambles of
your kooky discredited conspiracy theory, and both can be ameliorated
by subjecting yourself to those very same psychiatric and educational
authorities your broken brain rejects... hence you'll remain
delusional for the remainder of your pathetic life, Jim... but you'll
find your delusion and hence your insanity grows until it destroys
your life. Fix yourself, Jim, or suffer the same fate of every other
D-K sufferer.

<snicker>
Post by James McGinn
You are ignoring symmetry, to no good effect.
You don't even know what 'symmetry' means, Jim,
Look into VESPR theory.
Oh, trust me, Jim. I know about VSEPR theory. You're still misusing
the word 'symmetry', Jim. Liquid water has no symmetry. Gaseous-phase
water has absolutely no symmetry. You're 180 degrees out from reality.
Post by James McGinn
I understand polarity better than anybody
No, you don't. You're a moronic delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted
kooktard who believes himself to know polarity better than anybody,
but you demonstrate daily that in reality you know squat, Jim.
Actually I do.
Actually, you don't, as the data above proves, Jim.
Post by James McGinn
In fact, the H bonding gets *weaker* when one is knocked loose.
Surface tension proves you wrong and me right.
You've already been proven wrong below, Jim.
Explain surface tension using your model. Go ahead.
What are you waiting for?
The surface condition is a special case, Jim, so I'm not surprised you
don't know about it.

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html>
=====================================================
Analysis of simple thermodynamics c shows the surface has considerable
structuring, having identical density to that of bulk water at just
under 4 °C. In addition, the surface water structuring varies less
with temperature than the bulk. Refractive index study of the
water-air surface reveals it to be about 1.7 nm thick at 22 °C and
more dense than the bulk liquid (that is, it behaves like water at a
lower temperature).
=====================================================

So the "surface tension" is a result of the increased viscosity of the
interfacial water, Jim. Did you not know this, Jim? What kind of loon
would hold themselves out as the 'premiere expert' on water, and yet
not know a single fact *about* water, Jim?
Your explanation of surface tension is ad hoc. It's not intrinsic.
You just tacked it on. It's worthless.
That explanation is backed up by 2517 peer-reviewed studies, you
fecking nong. It's been vetted and proven to reflect reality.

Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit.
Post by James McGinn
That's a model, dumbass. That is not reality.
That is a (poorly considered) attempt to explain what is observed.
So, only a loon would employ that as proof.
That model happens to be the model that is accepted
It's still just a model, dumbass. Model's are not evidence.
That you use a model as evidence reveals your dimwittedness.
It is a model which explains all physical phenomenon of water, Jim.
Backed up by 2517 peer-reviewed studies. How many studies back up your
kooky conspiracy theory, Jim?

Oh, that's right, ZERO. In fact, you can't even get your kooky
conspiracy theory itself through the peer-review process. Why is that,
Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit.
Post by James McGinn
Descriptive models don't dispute reality, dumbass.
Then do the experiment that prove it.
Kooktard keeps asking for "experiments", when that data has been known
for a very long time...
As you are revealing, none of it is definitive.
It is, you're just backpedaling away from the fact that your kooky
conspiracy theory has been utterly destroyed, Jim.
Post by James McGinn
I'll let you do this experiment, Jim. Carry a beaker of water to sea
level, heat it to 100 C. You'll note the water gaseous pressure is
sufficient to overcome the 760 mm Hg atmospheric pressure.
Now allow the water to cool to 70 C, you'll note the vapor pressure is
insufficient to overcome the 760 mm Hg atmospheric pressure, so
boiling does not occur,
Boiling stops below 100, dumbass.
Very good, Jim! At least you can acknowledge reality when it suits you
to do so. So we know you're not fully delusional... yet.
Post by James McGinn
yet evaporation does occur.
Evaporation occurs all the way do to freezing, dumbass.
Very good again, Jim! In fact, it occurs even *below* the freezing
point, Jim. Or are you going to now deny sublimation?
Post by James McGinn
Now, while maintaining that water at 70 C, carry it to the top of Mt.
Everest. You'll note that as you rise in altitude, the water will
again begin boiling, despite the temperature of the water only being
70 C.
You're an idiot.
I've proven your kooky theory is *wrong*, Jim. You're the idiot.
Post by James McGinn
Hence, boiling and evaporation are the same process, under different
conditions. How could you not know this, yet you k'lame yourself
to know everything about water, Tardnado? Are you retarded?
Is this like you k'laming to know everything about tornados, yet
you've never actually seen nor studied an actual tornado, never
done any storm chasing... in fact, have never been within 20 miles
proximity to a tornado, and even then, the few tornados Antioch has
had over the past quarter century have all been 0 or 1 on the Fujita
scale... little more than energetic dust devils?
Surreal.
I'm sure you do find reality to be "surreal", Jim... Dunning-Kruger
sufferers often do. It's part and parcel of your burgeoning insanity.
You can fix yourself, it's not too late. All it requires is
acknowledging that your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly
destroyed, and thereby escaping its insanity-inducing grip.

I don't think you're strong enough to do that, Jim.

Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis,
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA?
--
Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant
uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James?

Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a
lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating
that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself
if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia?
Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and
help you to not piss all over yourself?

And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a
pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser.

Anders Nilsson measured http://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.

You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's
Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction
increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and
electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually
cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James?

According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.

How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even
you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli
Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard,
and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is
that not dissociating the water?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling
point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded
hydrides, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's
cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not*
splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have
such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same
H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron
that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of
vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that
your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and
that's just retarded.

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not
become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard?

How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
sky" sentient, James?

Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?

How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
you explain that, James?

Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is
*below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory
not-a-theory" can't answer.

Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?

Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
delusions, James?

Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
James?

Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James?

Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions,
James?

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being
*deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James?

Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as
"delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?

Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in
which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of
education about now, James?

Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out
of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been
deemed mentally incompetent, James?

Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class
as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist",
James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated,
whereas you're ignorant and uneducated?

What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was
the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then
you're not a physicist, James. LOL

If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?

Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
which would make air travel deadly.

Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?

Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?

How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
Jim?

Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
surface area as you claim?

Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?

How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, Jim?

Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?

Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
implausible claims are workable, Jim?

Why are you not taking your meds, James?
============================================================

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
James McGinn
2016-11-04 19:48:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Did you never stop to consider why, exactly, water in its gaseous
phase exists primarily in the troposphere, whereas carbon dioxide and
nitrogen, for example, can rise far above the troposphere, Jim?
Yes. But that is the wrong question. The right question is how/why
Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
http://youtu.be/pl-GOPq8aA0
Let me know if you have any questions.
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
Friendly Neighbourhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1
2016-11-05 05:17:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Slobbering Tardnado' McGinn, in
Oh, Jim didn't realize that water in its gaseous phase, water in its
liquid phase and water in its solid phase would reflect and refract
different wavelengths, did he?
Water in its gaseous phase reflects and refracts microwave radiation
at a far lower rate than does, say, the water vapor in clouds. Thus
the differential tells researchers cloud depth as well as humidity.
If you think it definitive then why not make an argument to that effect?
I just did, Jim. The multi-frequency split-window technique to
determine cloud optical depth and atmospheric humidity has been used
for years by NASA, Jim.
But it has to be definitive. No Global-warming-reasoning will be accepted.
Um, Jim? You're talking to the guy who proved that CO2-driven AGW
violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and thus is a fairy tale. CO2 has
been proven by NASA to be a global *cooling* gas.
Did you never stop to consider why, exactly, water in its gaseous
phase exists primarily in the troposphere, whereas carbon dioxide and
nitrogen, for example, can rise far above the troposphere, Jim?
Yes: https://www.youtu<SMACKAKOOK!>
Referring back to your own kooky conspiracy theory blather is like
standing in an echo chamber screaming at the top of your lungs and
taking the echoes as confirmation of your kooky blathering, Jim. It's
an indication of mental instability and a burgeoning schizoid
paranoiac insanity. Seek immediate professional psychiatric
intervention, Jim.
Did you never stop to consider why water can go *below* its freezing
temperature after being updrafted into the upper troposphere, yet not
immediately fall out of the sky (hint: because it's in its gaseous
phase... individual molecules...
Wrong. It' is always liquid or solid (ice). It is never gaseous.
Wrong. I've presented *four* peer-reviewed studies proving the
existence of monomolecular gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere, Jim.
Is water "speshul", James? Does it not have a gaseous phase like every
other molecule?

Nilsson's study:
http://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw
If water molecules are H bonded together, it's liquid water, James.
Photon energy from electron orbital descent is dependent upon H
bonding strength (given that it's an electrostatic bond), the stronger
the H bond, the lower the photon energy. Nilsson measured a higher
photon energy from electron orbital descent in gaseous-phase water
than that of liquid-phase water. If it'd been liquid-phase water as
you claim, the photon energy would have been identical to that of
liquid-phase water. It wasn't, hence gaseous phase water is
monomolecular with no H bonding.

Water In The Gas Phase -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3350649/
Not ab initio (which you stupidly call "ab initro" in your videos
LOL)... direct measurement of monomolecular water in the gaseous
phase. 16 referenced papers.

Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research
http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation
Direct empirical observation of monomolecular evaporation.

http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/
Active Long Path Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy to
directly observe monomolecular gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere.

Now you can run away from reality all over again, James. You
delusional reality-denying kooktard.

Now let's contrast that with what you've got, James... you've
*retracted* the central premise for your entire delusion as you
writhed and squirmed in trying to escape being proven wrong, then when
you realized that your having done so destroyed your entire delusion,
you quickly picked up your "variable polarity of the H2O molecule"
claim from the ground, dusted it off, slapped it back onto your
delusion and duct-taped it in place. That had to be embarrassing for
you, eh? LOL

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
Message-ID: <***@dizum.com>
========================================================
Polarity is a variable. And the mechanism that alters (reduces)
the polarity of H2O molecules is the completion of hydrogen
bonds with adjoining water molecules.
========================================================

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
Message-ID: <***@dizum.com>
========================================================
In my post entitled Conservation of Energy in Earth's
Atmosphere I describe how the spinning of water
droplets/clusters--a direct result of wind shear--causes
these droplets to elongate into chains of partially
reactivated H2O molecules, effectuating a plasma with
structural integrity. It is important to note that
without the concept that is the subject of this post
(the Polarity Neutralization Implication of Hydrogen
Bonds Between Water Molecules and Groups Thereof) this
would not be possible.
========================================================

Thus, without your "variable polarity of the water molecule" claim
(now retracted by you), your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim falls, by
your own admission. And without your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim, your
"boundaries and structures" which you claim that "plasma not-a-plasma"
forms which drives the winds. Thus your entire "theory not-a-theory"
just came crashing to the ground. That's what happens when you build
your "theory not-a-theory" like a Jenga tower of lies and
suppositions, James.

Yet again, you've destroyed your moronic theory in trying to slap
patches on it so you can writhe your way out of being proven wrong.
You're too ignorant, insane and uneducated to acknowledge or
understand reality, let alone model it, Tardnado. LOL

That was an embarrassing gaffe on your part, wasn't it, TornadoTard?
LOL
According to you, since you k'lame
all water in the atmosphere is clustered, it would be heavier than air
and would thus all fall out of the air once its mass exceeded its
downward-facing combined radius holding it up due to updraft...
I address this point in my videos.
Your kooky conspiracy theory videos are merely the outgrowth of your
kooky written conspiracy theory, Jim. The same retarded tripe in a
different form. IOW, you have nothing in your arsenal to refute the
peer-reviewed studies I presented with utterly *destroyed* your kooky
conspiracy theory.
thus rainfall would be next to impossible, the lower troposphere would
perpetually be enveloped in falling mist, and every horizontal surface
would be perpetually covered with a film of water.
Right. Based on meteorology's assumptions clouds should drop out of
the sky like bricks. Right? But they don't. Why do you think that is?
Wrong, that's according to your wrong interpretation of meteorology's
precepts. The reality of physical phenomena such as clouds has been
explained to you, including links to corroborable data. You snipped it
out and ran away from it because you're a delusional paranoiac
suffering from the crippling effects of Dunning-Kruger.
Are you beginning to understand that you don't understand much at all,
Jim? Are you beginning to see that you conceived of your kooky little
theory and ran off half-cocked, crowing about your "discovery" without
fully testing its premises, Jim?
You exemplify the dimwittedness of meteorological assumptions.
That must be why you find yourself utterly unable to refute any of
that peer-reviewed data, right, Jim? Everyone else is crazy and *you*
are the only sane one. Everyone else who has years of training and
experience is wrong, but *you*, a high school dropout kooktard who has
demonstrated his stupidity repeatedly, are the only one who is right.

Yeah, that makes sense, Jim. Right?

Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit.
Then you'll have no problem providing a microscopy printout of these
so-called "small droplets", Jim. Do you even own a microscope?
So, now you are conceding that you don't have counterevidence?
I've just provided yet another peer reviewed study
Yet you are conceding that it is not conclusive, right?
I "conceded" no such thing, Jim. It is a peer-reviewed study which
utterly decimates your kooky conspiracy theory. Do you not understand
what the peer-review process entails, Jim? Oh, of course you don't...
you can't get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, nor can you even get your kooky conspiracy theory published
on any pre-print servers. Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy
theory through the peer-review process, Jim? Answer the question, you
evasive twit.
Ever heard of the scientific method?
Sure I have, which is why I've been offering evidence consisting of
peer reviewed studies...
Peer review is consensus. Consensus is politics. (I am not a
climate scientist.) Only empirical evidence is valid if you
want to collect the money. Sorry to burst your bubble. I thought
this was obvious. Sorry if you got the wrong idea.
Ah, another goalpost move from the evasive twit James McGinn. Well,
it's a good thing I've presented empirical evidence such as you taking
a trip from sea level to the top of Mt. Everest with a container of
water, eh, Jim? That also disproves your kooky theory. So you'll be
paying up. Now.
Wrong, but nice CAPSscreed, Jim. The two acceptor bonds are to two
*different* water molecules.
No duh.
Then breaking one will not affect the other, KookTard.
It affects the symmetry on the Oxygen molecule, dumbass.
No, it doesn't. It affects the diametrically-opposed covalent bond,
shortening it, as I've proven via two peer-reviewed studies, which you
snipped out and ran away from, Jim.

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
"There is a trade-off between the covalent and hydrogen bond
strengths; the stronger the H····O hydrogen bond, the weaker the O-H
covalent bond, and the shorter the O····O distance"

Note the graph... the covalent bond remains shorter (and stronger)
than the inter-molecular H bond. Because the inter-molecular H bond is
~1/20th the strength of the covalent bond, the diametrically-opposite
covalent bond will preferentially shorten and strengthen when one of
the inter-molecular bonds is broken, Jim. That's why, when using high
frequency AC to dissociate water, you target the short covalent bond
frequency, as the long covalent bond frequency is too close to the H
bond frequency, and if you break that, you strengthen the covalent
bonds.

You are *wrong*. Your kooky theory is *wrong*. The entire underlying
premise of your kooky theory is fallacious. I've just destroyed your
kooky theory, Jim. Now what will you do?

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
"The movement of electrons from the oxygen atom to the O-H antibonding
orbital on a neighboring molecule (HO-H-····OH2) both weaken the
covalent O-H bond (so lengthening it ) and reduces the HO-H····OH2
'hydrogen' bond."

Hence, when that inter-molecular H bond is broken, the diametrically
opposed covalent bond is shortened and strengthened, Jim. This has
been known and is well-exploited when building HHO welders for a great
number of years, Jim. That's why, when dissociating water, you don't
target the long covalent bond, as the resonant frequency required to
break that covalent bond is too close to the inter-molecular H bond
resonant frequency, and breaking that would strengthen the covalent
bond opposite, thereby costing more energy in dissociating the water.

Again, your lack of understanding of physical processes stems in part
from your broken delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted brain rejecting
any information from those you deem to be of higher authority than you
(which would be pretty much everyone), and in part from your lack of
education. Both conditions together lead you off into the brambles of
your kooky discredited conspiracy theory, and both can be ameliorated
by subjecting yourself to those very same psychiatric and educational
authorities your broken brain rejects... hence you'll remain
delusional for the remainder of your pathetic life, Jim... but you'll
find your delusion and hence your insanity grows until it destroys
your life. Fix yourself, Jim, or suffer the same fate of every other
D-K sufferer.

<snicker>
You are ignoring symmetry, to no good effect.
You don't even know what 'symmetry' means, Jim,
Look into VESPR theory.
Oh, trust me, Jim. I know about VSEPR theory. You're still misusing
the word 'symmetry', Jim. Liquid water has no symmetry. Gaseous-phase
water has absolutely no symmetry. You're 180 degrees out from reality.
I understand polarity better than anybody
No, you don't. You're a moronic delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted
kooktard who believes himself to know polarity better than anybody,
but you demonstrate daily that in reality you know squat, Jim.
Actually I do.
Actually, you don't, as the data above proves, Jim.
In fact, the H bonding gets *weaker* when one is knocked loose.
Surface tension proves you wrong and me right.
You've already been proven wrong below, Jim.
Explain surface tension using your model. Go ahead.
What are you waiting for?
The surface condition is a special case, Jim, so I'm not surprised you
don't know about it.

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html>
=====================================================
Analysis of simple thermodynamics c shows the surface has considerable
structuring, having identical density to that of bulk water at just
under 4 °C. In addition, the surface water structuring varies less
with temperature than the bulk. Refractive index study of the
water-air surface reveals it to be about 1.7 nm thick at 22 °C and
more dense than the bulk liquid (that is, it behaves like water at a
lower temperature).
=====================================================

So the "surface tension" is a result of the increased viscosity of the
interfacial water, Jim. Did you not know this, Jim? What kind of loon
would hold themselves out as the 'premiere expert' on water, and yet
not know a single fact *about* water, Jim?
Your explanation of surface tension is ad hoc. It's not intrinsic.
You just tacked it on. It's worthless.
That explanation is backed up by 2517 peer-reviewed studies, you
fecking nong. It's been vetted and proven to reflect reality.

Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit.
That's a model, dumbass. That is not reality.
That is a (poorly considered) attempt to explain what is observed.
So, only a loon would employ that as proof.
That model happens to be the model that is accepted
It's still just a model, dumbass. Model's are not evidence.
That you use a model as evidence reveals your dimwittedness.
It is a model which explains all physical phenomenon of water, Jim.
Backed up by 2517 peer-reviewed studies. How many studies back up your
kooky conspiracy theory, Jim?

Oh, that's right, ZERO. In fact, you can't even get your kooky
conspiracy theory itself through the peer-review process. Why is that,
Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit.
Descriptive models don't dispute reality, dumbass.
Then do the experiment that prove it.
Kooktard keeps asking for "experiments", when that data has been known
for a very long time...
As you are revealing, none of it is definitive.
It is, you're just backpedaling away from the fact that your kooky
conspiracy theory has been utterly destroyed, Jim.
I'll let you do this experiment, Jim. Carry a beaker of water to sea
level, heat it to 100 C. You'll note the water gaseous pressure is
sufficient to overcome the 760 mm Hg atmospheric pressure.
Now allow the water to cool to 70 C, you'll note the vapor pressure is
insufficient to overcome the 750 mm Hg atmospheric pressure, so
boiling does not occur,
Boiling stops below 100, dumbass.
Very good, Jim! At least you can acknowledge reality when it suits you
to do so. So we know you're not fully delusional... yet.
yet evaporation does occur.
Evaporation occurs all the way do to freezing, dumbass.
Very good again, Jim! In fact, it occurs even *below* the freezing
point, Jim. Or are you going to now deny sublimation?
Now, while maintaining that water at 70 C, carry it to the top of Mt.
Everest. You'll note that as you rise in altitude, the water will
again begin boiling, despite the temperature of the water only being
70 C.
You're an idiot.
I've proven your kooky theory is *wrong*, Jim. You're the idiot.
Hence, boiling and evaporation are the same process,
Surreal.
I'm sure you do find reality to be "surreal", Jim... Dunning-Kruger
sufferers often do. It's part and parcel of your burgeoning insanity.
You can fix yourself, it's not too late. All it requires is
acknowledging that your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly
destroyed, and thereby escaping its insanity-inducing grip.

I don't think you're strong enough to do that, Jim.

Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis,
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA?
--
Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant
uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James?

Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a
lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating
that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself
if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia?
Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and
help you to not piss all over yourself?

And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a
pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser.

Anders Nilsson measured http://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.

You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's
Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction
increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and
electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually
cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James?

According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.

How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even
you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli
Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard,
and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is
that not dissociating the water?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling
point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded
hydrides, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's
cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not*
splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have
such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same
H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron
that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of
vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that
your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and
that's just retarded.

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not
become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard?

How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
sky" sentient, James?

Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?

How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
you explain that, James?

Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is
*below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory
not-a-theory" can't answer.

Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?

Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
delusions, James?

Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
James?

Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James?

Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions,
James?

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being
*deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James?

Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as
"delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?

Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in
which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of
education about now, James?

Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out
of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been
deemed mentally incompetent, James?

Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class
as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist",
James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated,
whereas you're ignorant and uneducated?

What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was
the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then
you're not a physicist, James. LOL

If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?

Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
which would make air travel deadly.

Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?

Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?

How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
Jim?

Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
surface area as you claim?

Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?

How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, Jim?

Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?

Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
implausible claims are workable, Jim?

Why are you not taking your meds, James?
============================================================

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
noTthaTguY
2016-11-09 00:14:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
OCO p00ls at the bottom,
as said by John muiR, of when
he had to dig a forty f00t deep well for his dad
Post by James McGinn
Did you never stop to consider why, exactly, water in its gaseous
phase exists primarily in the troposphere, whereas carbon dioxide and
nitrogen, for example, can rise far above the troposphere, Jim?
Yes. But that is the wrong question. The right question is how/why
Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
http://youtu.be/pl-GOPq8aA0
Let me know if you have any questions.
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
James McGinn
2017-05-25 03:33:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Did you never stop to consider why, exactly, water in its gaseous
phase exists primarily in the troposphere, whereas carbon dioxide and
nitrogen, for example, can rise far above the troposphere, Jim?
Yes. But that is the wrong question. The right question is how/why
Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
http://youtu.be/pl-GOPq8aA0
Let me know if you have any questions.
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
Jimmy McGinn Is A Retard
2017-05-28 03:07:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James Bernard 'Slobbering Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA (aka
'Solving Tornades' LOL!), in
Post by James McGinn
Did you never stop to consider why, exactly, water in its gaseous
phase exists primarily in the troposphere, whereas carbon dioxide and
nitrogen, for example, can rise far above the troposphere, Jim?
Yes: https://www.youtu<SMACKAKOOK!>
Referring back to your own kooky conspiracy theory blather is like
standing in an echo chamber screaming at the top of your lungs and
taking the echoes as confirmation of your kooky blathering, Jim. It's
an indication of mental instability and a burgeoning schizoid
paranoiac insanity. Seek immediate professional psychiatric
intervention, Jim.
Post by James McGinn
Did you never stop to consider why water can go *below* its freezing
temperature after being updrafted into the upper troposphere, yet not
immediately fall out of the sky (hint: because it's in its gaseous
phase... individual molecules...
Wrong. It' is always liquid or solid (ice). It is never gaseous.
Wrong. I've presented *four* peer-reviewed studies proving the
existence of monomolecular gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere, Jim.
Is water "speshul", James? Does it not have a gaseous phase like every
other molecule?

Nilsson's study:
http://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw
If water molecules are H bonded together, it's liquid water, James.
Photon energy from electron orbital descent is dependent upon H
bonding strength (given that it's an electrostatic bond), the stronger
the H bond, the lower the photon energy. Nilsson measured a higher
photon energy from electron orbital descent in gaseous-phase water
than that of liquid-phase water. If it'd been liquid-phase water as
you claim, the photon energy would have been identical to that of
liquid-phase water. It wasn't, hence gaseous phase water is
monomolecular with no H bonding.

Water In The Gas Phase -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3350649/
Not ab initio (which you stupidly call "ab initro" in your videos
LOL)... direct measurement of monomolecular water in the gaseous
phase. 16 referenced papers.

Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research
http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation
Direct empirical observation of monomolecular evaporation.

http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/
Active Long Path Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy to
directly observe monomolecular gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere.

Now you can run away from reality all over again, James. You
delusional reality-denying kooktard.

Now let's contrast that with what you've got, James... you've
*retracted* the central premise for your entire delusion as you
writhed and squirmed in trying to escape being proven wrong, then when
you realized that your having done so destroyed your entire delusion,
you quickly picked up your "variable polarity of the H2O molecule"
claim from the ground, dusted it off, slapped it back onto your
delusion and duct-taped it in place. That had to be embarrassing for
you, eh? LOL

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
Message-ID: <***@dizum.com>
========================================================
Polarity is a variable. And the mechanism that alters (reduces)
the polarity of H2O molecules is the completion of hydrogen
bonds with adjoining water molecules.
========================================================

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
Message-ID: <***@dizum.com>
========================================================
In my post entitled Conservation of Energy in Earth's
Atmosphere I describe how the spinning of water
droplets/clusters--a direct result of wind shear--causes
these droplets to elongate into chains of partially
reactivated H2O molecules, effectuating a plasma with
structural integrity. It is important to note that
without the concept that is the subject of this post
(the Polarity Neutralization Implication of Hydrogen
Bonds Between Water Molecules and Groups Thereof) this
would not be possible.
========================================================

Thus, without your "variable polarity of the water molecule" claim
(now retracted by you), your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim falls, by
your own admission. And without your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim, your
"boundaries and structures" which you claim that "plasma not-a-plasma"
forms which drives the winds. Thus your entire "theory not-a-theory"
just came crashing to the ground. That's what happens when you build
your "theory not-a-theory" like a Jenga tower of lies and
suppositions, James.

Yet again, you've destroyed your moronic theory in trying to slap
patches on it so you can writhe your way out of being proven wrong.
You're too ignorant, insane and uneducated to acknowledge or
understand reality, let alone model it, Tardnado. LOL

That was an embarrassing gaffe on your part, wasn't it, TornadoTard?
LOL
Post by James McGinn
According to you, since you k'lame
all water in the atmosphere is clustered, it would be heavier than air
and would thus all fall out of the air once its mass exceeded its
downward-facing combined radius holding it up due to updraft...
I address this point in my videos.
Your kooky conspiracy theory videos are merely the outgrowth of your
kooky written conspiracy theory, Jim. The same retarded tripe in a
different form. IOW, you have nothing in your arsenal to refute the
peer-reviewed studies I presented with utterly *destroyed* your kooky
conspiracy theory.
Post by James McGinn
thus rainfall would be next to impossible, the lower troposphere would
perpetually be enveloped in falling mist, and every horizontal surface
would be perpetually covered with a film of water.
Right. Based on meteorology's assumptions clouds should drop out of
the sky like bricks. Right? But they don't. Why do you think that is?
Wrong, that's according to your wrong interpretation of meteorology's
precepts. The reality of physical phenomena such as clouds has been
explained to you, including links to corroborable data. You snipped it
out and ran away from it because you're a delusional paranoiac
suffering from the crippling effects of Dunning-Kruger.
Post by James McGinn
Are you beginning to understand that you don't understand much at all,
Jim? Are you beginning to see that you conceived of your kooky little
theory and ran off half-cocked, crowing about your "discovery" without
fully testing its premises, Jim?
You exemplify the dimwittedness of meteorological assumptions.
That must be why you find yourself utterly unable to refute any of
that peer-reviewed data, right, Jim? Everyone else is crazy and *you*
are the only sane one. Everyone else who has years of training and
experience is wrong, but *you*, a high school dropout kooktard who has
demonstrated his stupidity repeatedly, are the only one who is right.

Yeah, that makes sense, Jim. Right?

Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit.
Post by James McGinn
Then you'll have no problem providing a microscopy printout of these
so-called "small droplets", Jim. Do you even own a microscope?
So, now you are conceding that you don't have counterevidence?
I've just provided yet another peer reviewed study
Yet you are conceding that it is not conclusive, right?
I "conceded" no such thing, Jim. It is a peer-reviewed study which
utterly decimates your kooky conspiracy theory. Do you not understand
what the peer-review process entails, Jim? Oh, of course you don't...
you can't get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, nor can you even get your kooky conspiracy theory published
on any pre-print servers. Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy
theory through the peer-review process, Jim? Answer the question, you
evasive twit.
Post by James McGinn
Ever heard of the scientific method?
Sure I have, which is why I've been offering evidence consisting of
peer reviewed studies...
Peer review is consensus. Consensus is politics. (I am not a
climate scientist.) Only empirical evidence is valid if you
want to collect the money. Sorry to burst your bubble. I thought
this was obvious. Sorry if you got the wrong idea.
Ah, another goalpost move from the evasive twit James McGinn. Well,
it's a good thing I've presented empirical evidence such as you taking
a trip from sea level to the top of Mt. Everest with a container of
water, eh, Jim? That also disproves your kooky theory. So you'll be
paying up. Now.
Post by James McGinn
Wrong, but nice CAPSscreed, Jim. The two acceptor bonds are to two
*different* water molecules.
No duh.
Then breaking one will not affect the other, KookTard.
It affects the symmetry on the Oxygen molecule, dumbass.
No, it doesn't. It affects the diametrically-opposed covalent bond,
shortening it, as I've proven via two peer-reviewed studies, which you
snipped out and ran away from, Jim.

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
"There is a trade-off between the covalent and hydrogen bond
strengths; the stronger the H····O hydrogen bond, the weaker the O-H
covalent bond, and the shorter the O····O distance"

Note the graph... the covalent bond remains shorter (and stronger)
than the inter-molecular H bond. Because the inter-molecular H bond is
~1/20th the strength of the covalent bond, the diametrically-opposite
covalent bond will preferentially shorten and strengthen when one of
the inter-molecular bonds is broken, Jim. That's why, when using high
frequency AC to dissociate water, you target the short covalent bond
frequency, as the long covalent bond frequency is too close to the H
bond frequency, and if you break that, you strengthen the covalent
bonds.

You are *wrong*. Your kooky theory is *wrong*. The entire underlying
premise of your kooky theory is fallacious. I've just destroyed your
kooky theory, Jim. Now what will you do?

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
"The movement of electrons from the oxygen atom to the O-H antibonding
orbital on a neighboring molecule (HO-H-····OH2) both weaken the
covalent O-H bond (so lengthening it ) and reduces the HO-H····OH2
'hydrogen' bond."

Hence, when that inter-molecular H bond is broken, the diametrically
opposed covalent bond is shortened and strengthened, Jim. This has
been known and is well-exploited when building HHO welders for a great
number of years, Jim. That's why, when dissociating water, you don't
target the long covalent bond, as the resonant frequency required to
break that covalent bond is too close to the inter-molecular H bond
resonant frequency, and breaking that would strengthen the covalent
bond opposite, thereby costing more energy in dissociating the water.

Again, your lack of understanding of physical processes stems in part
from your broken delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted brain rejecting
any information from those you deem to be of higher authority than you
(which would be pretty much everyone), and in part from your lack of
education. Both conditions together lead you off into the brambles of
your kooky discredited conspiracy theory, and both can be ameliorated
by subjecting yourself to those very same psychiatric and educational
authorities your broken brain rejects... hence you'll remain
delusional for the remainder of your pathetic life, Jim... but you'll
find your delusion and hence your insanity grows until it destroys
your life. Fix yourself, Jim, or suffer the same fate of every other
D-K sufferer.

<snicker>
Post by James McGinn
You are ignoring symmetry, to no good effect.
You don't even know what 'symmetry' means, Jim,
Look into VESPR theory.
Oh, trust me, Jim. I know about VSEPR theory. You're still misusing
the word 'symmetry', Jim. Liquid water has no symmetry. Gaseous-phase
water has absolutely no symmetry. You're 180 degrees out from reality.
Post by James McGinn
I understand polarity better than anybody
No, you don't. You're a moronic delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted
kooktard who believes himself to know polarity better than anybody,
but you demonstrate daily that in reality you know squat, Jim.
Actually I do.
Actually, you don't, as the data above proves, Jim.
Post by James McGinn
In fact, the H bonding gets *weaker* when one is knocked loose.
Surface tension proves you wrong and me right.
You've already been proven wrong below, Jim.
Explain surface tension using your model. Go ahead.
What are you waiting for?
The surface condition is a special case, Jim, so I'm not surprised you
don't know about it.

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html>
=====================================================
Analysis of simple thermodynamics c shows the surface has considerable
structuring, having identical density to that of bulk water at just
under 4 °C. In addition, the surface water structuring varies less
with temperature than the bulk. Refractive index study of the
water-air surface reveals it to be about 1.7 nm thick at 22 °C and
more dense than the bulk liquid (that is, it behaves like water at a
lower temperature).
=====================================================

So the "surface tension" is a result of the increased viscosity of the
interfacial water, Jim. Did you not know this, Jim? What kind of loon
would hold themselves out as the 'premiere expert' on water, and yet
not know a single fact *about* water, Jim?
Your explanation of surface tension is ad hoc. It's not intrinsic.
You just tacked it on. It's worthless.
That explanation is backed up by 2517 peer-reviewed studies, you
fecking nong. It's been vetted and proven to reflect reality.

Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit.
Post by James McGinn
That's a model, dumbass. That is not reality.
That is a (poorly considered) attempt to explain what is observed.
So, only a loon would employ that as proof.
That model happens to be the model that is accepted
It's still just a model, dumbass. Model's are not evidence.
That you use a model as evidence reveals your dimwittedness.
It is a model which explains all physical phenomenon of water, Jim.
Backed up by 2517 peer-reviewed studies. How many studies back up your
kooky conspiracy theory, Jim?

Oh, that's right, ZERO. In fact, you can't even get your kooky
conspiracy theory itself through the peer-review process. Why is that,
Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit.
Post by James McGinn
Descriptive models don't dispute reality, dumbass.
Then do the experiment that prove it.
Kooktard keeps asking for "experiments", when that data has been known
for a very long time...
As you are revealing, none of it is definitive.
It is, you're just backpedaling away from the fact that your kooky
conspiracy theory has been utterly destroyed, Jim.
Post by James McGinn
I'll let you do this experiment, Jim. Carry a beaker of water to sea
level, heat it to 100 C. You'll note the water gaseous pressure is
sufficient to overcome the 760 mm Hg atmospheric pressure.
Now allow the water to cool to 70 C, you'll note the vapor pressure is
insufficient to overcome the 750 mm Hg atmospheric pressure, so
boiling does not occur,
Boiling stops below 100, dumbass.
Very good, Jim! At least you can acknowledge reality when it suits you
to do so. So we know you're not fully delusional... yet.
Post by James McGinn
yet evaporation does occur.
Evaporation occurs all the way do to freezing, dumbass.
Very good again, Jim! In fact, it occurs even *below* the freezing
point, Jim. Or are you going to now deny sublimation?
Post by James McGinn
Now, while maintaining that water at 70 C, carry it to the top of Mt.
Everest. You'll note that as you rise in altitude, the water will
again begin boiling, despite the temperature of the water only being
70 C.
You're an idiot.
I've proven your kooky theory is *wrong*, Jim. You're the idiot.
Post by James McGinn
Hence, boiling and evaporation are the same process,
Surreal.
I'm sure you do find reality to be "surreal", Jim... Dunning-Kruger
sufferers often do. It's part and parcel of your burgeoning insanity.
You can fix yourself, it's not too late. All it requires is
acknowledging that your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly
destroyed, and thereby escaping its insanity-inducing grip.

I don't think you're strong enough to do that, Jim.

Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis,
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA?
--
Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant
uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James?

Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a
lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating
that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself
if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia?
Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and
help you to not piss all over yourself?

And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a
pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser.

Anders Nilsson measured http://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.

You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's
Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction
increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and
electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually
cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James?

According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.

How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even
you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli
Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard,
and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is
that not dissociating the water?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling
point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded
hydrides, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's
cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not*
splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have
such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same
H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron
that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of
vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that
your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and
that's just retarded.

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not
become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard?

How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
sky" sentient, James?

Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?

How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
you explain that, James?

Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is
*below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory
not-a-theory" can't answer.

Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?

Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
delusions, James?

Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
James?

Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James?

Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions,
James?

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being
*deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James?

Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as
"delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?

Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in
which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of
education about now, James?

Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out
of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been
deemed mentally incompetent, James?

Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class
as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist",
James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated,
whereas you're ignorant and uneducated?

What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was
the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then
you're not a physicist, James. LOL

If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?

Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
which would make air travel deadly.

Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?

Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?

How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
Jim?

Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
surface area as you claim?

Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?

How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, Jim?

Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?

Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
implausible claims are workable, Jim?

Why are you not taking your meds, James?
============================================================

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
%
2017-05-28 03:16:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James Bernard 'Slobbering Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA (aka
'Solving Tornades' LOL!), in
Post by James McGinn
Did you never stop to consider why, exactly, water in its gaseous
phase exists primarily in the troposphere, whereas carbon dioxide
and nitrogen, for example, can rise far above the troposphere, Jim?
Yes: https://www.youtu<SMACKAKOOK!>
Referring back to your own kooky conspiracy theory blather is like
standing in an echo chamber screaming at the top of your lungs and
taking the echoes as confirmation of your kooky blathering, Jim. It's
an indication of mental instability and a burgeoning schizoid
paranoiac insanity. Seek immediate professional psychiatric
intervention, Jim.
Post by James McGinn
Did you never stop to consider why water can go *below* its freezing
temperature after being updrafted into the upper troposphere, yet
not immediately fall out of the sky (hint: because it's in its
gaseous phase... individual molecules...
Wrong. It' is always liquid or solid (ice). It is never gaseous.
Wrong. I've presented *four* peer-reviewed studies proving the
existence of monomolecular gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere, Jim.
Is water "speshul", James? Does it not have a gaseous phase like every
other molecule?
http://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw
If water molecules are H bonded together, it's liquid water, James.
Photon energy from electron orbital descent is dependent upon H
bonding strength (given that it's an electrostatic bond), the stronger
the H bond, the lower the photon energy. Nilsson measured a higher
photon energy from electron orbital descent in gaseous-phase water
than that of liquid-phase water. If it'd been liquid-phase water as
you claim, the photon energy would have been identical to that of
liquid-phase water. It wasn't, hence gaseous phase water is
monomolecular with no H bonding.
Water In The Gas Phase -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3350649/
Not ab initio (which you stupidly call "ab initro" in your videos
LOL)... direct measurement of monomolecular water in the gaseous
phase. 16 referenced papers.
Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research
http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation
Direct empirical observation of monomolecular evaporation.
http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/
Active Long Path Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy to
directly observe monomolecular gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere.
Now you can run away from reality all over again, James. You
delusional reality-denying kooktard.
Now let's contrast that with what you've got, James... you've
*retracted* the central premise for your entire delusion as you
writhed and squirmed in trying to escape being proven wrong, then when
you realized that your having done so destroyed your entire delusion,
you quickly picked up your "variable polarity of the H2O molecule"
claim from the ground, dusted it off, slapped it back onto your
delusion and duct-taped it in place. That had to be embarrassing for
you, eh? LOL
========================================================
Polarity is a variable. And the mechanism that alters (reduces)
the polarity of H2O molecules is the completion of hydrogen
bonds with adjoining water molecules.
========================================================
========================================================
In my post entitled Conservation of Energy in Earth's
Atmosphere I describe how the spinning of water
droplets/clusters--a direct result of wind shear--causes
these droplets to elongate into chains of partially
reactivated H2O molecules, effectuating a plasma with
structural integrity. It is important to note that
without the concept that is the subject of this post
(the Polarity Neutralization Implication of Hydrogen
Bonds Between Water Molecules and Groups Thereof) this
would not be possible.
========================================================
Thus, without your "variable polarity of the water molecule" claim
(now retracted by you), your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim falls, by
your own admission. And without your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim, your
"boundaries and structures" which you claim that "plasma not-a-plasma"
forms which drives the winds. Thus your entire "theory not-a-theory"
just came crashing to the ground. That's what happens when you build
your "theory not-a-theory" like a Jenga tower of lies and
suppositions, James.
Yet again, you've destroyed your moronic theory in trying to slap
patches on it so you can writhe your way out of being proven wrong.
You're too ignorant, insane and uneducated to acknowledge or
understand reality, let alone model it, Tardnado. LOL
That was an embarrassing gaffe on your part, wasn't it, TornadoTard?
LOL
Post by James McGinn
According to you, since you k'lame
all water in the atmosphere is clustered, it would be heavier than
air and would thus all fall out of the air once its mass exceeded
its downward-facing combined radius holding it up due to updraft...
I address this point in my videos.
Your kooky conspiracy theory videos are merely the outgrowth of your
kooky written conspiracy theory, Jim. The same retarded tripe in a
different form. IOW, you have nothing in your arsenal to refute the
peer-reviewed studies I presented with utterly *destroyed* your kooky
conspiracy theory.
Post by James McGinn
thus rainfall would be next to impossible, the lower troposphere
would perpetually be enveloped in falling mist, and every
horizontal surface would be perpetually covered with a film of
water.
Right. Based on meteorology's assumptions clouds should drop out of
the sky like bricks. Right? But they don't. Why do you think that is?
Wrong, that's according to your wrong interpretation of meteorology's
precepts. The reality of physical phenomena such as clouds has been
explained to you, including links to corroborable data. You snipped it
out and ran away from it because you're a delusional paranoiac
suffering from the crippling effects of Dunning-Kruger.
Post by James McGinn
Are you beginning to understand that you don't understand much at
all, Jim? Are you beginning to see that you conceived of your kooky
little theory and ran off half-cocked, crowing about your
"discovery" without fully testing its premises, Jim?
You exemplify the dimwittedness of meteorological assumptions.
That must be why you find yourself utterly unable to refute any of
that peer-reviewed data, right, Jim? Everyone else is crazy and *you*
are the only sane one. Everyone else who has years of training and
experience is wrong, but *you*, a high school dropout kooktard who has
demonstrated his stupidity repeatedly, are the only one who is right.
Yeah, that makes sense, Jim. Right?
Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit.
Post by James McGinn
Then you'll have no problem providing a microscopy printout of
these so-called "small droplets", Jim. Do you even own a
microscope?
So, now you are conceding that you don't have counterevidence?
I've just provided yet another peer reviewed study
Yet you are conceding that it is not conclusive, right?
I "conceded" no such thing, Jim. It is a peer-reviewed study which
utterly decimates your kooky conspiracy theory. Do you not understand
what the peer-review process entails, Jim? Oh, of course you don't...
you can't get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, nor can you even get your kooky conspiracy theory published
on any pre-print servers. Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy
theory through the peer-review process, Jim? Answer the question, you
evasive twit.
Post by James McGinn
Ever heard of the scientific method?
Sure I have, which is why I've been offering evidence consisting of
peer reviewed studies...
Peer review is consensus. Consensus is politics. (I am not a
climate scientist.) Only empirical evidence is valid if you
want to collect the money. Sorry to burst your bubble. I thought
this was obvious. Sorry if you got the wrong idea.
Ah, another goalpost move from the evasive twit James McGinn. Well,
it's a good thing I've presented empirical evidence such as you taking
a trip from sea level to the top of Mt. Everest with a container of
water, eh, Jim? That also disproves your kooky theory. So you'll be
paying up. Now.
Post by James McGinn
Wrong, but nice CAPSscreed, Jim. The two acceptor bonds are to two
*different* water molecules.
No duh.
Then breaking one will not affect the other, KookTard.
It affects the symmetry on the Oxygen molecule, dumbass.
No, it doesn't. It affects the diametrically-opposed covalent bond,
shortening it, as I've proven via two peer-reviewed studies, which you
snipped out and ran away from, Jim.
<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
"There is a trade-off between the covalent and hydrogen bond
strengths; the stronger the H····O hydrogen bond, the weaker the
O-H covalent bond, and the shorter the O····O distance"
Note the graph... the covalent bond remains shorter (and stronger)
than the inter-molecular H bond. Because the inter-molecular H bond is
~1/20th the strength of the covalent bond, the diametrically-opposite
covalent bond will preferentially shorten and strengthen when one of
the inter-molecular bonds is broken, Jim. That's why, when using high
frequency AC to dissociate water, you target the short covalent bond
frequency, as the long covalent bond frequency is too close to the H
bond frequency, and if you break that, you strengthen the covalent
bonds.
You are *wrong*. Your kooky theory is *wrong*. The entire underlying
premise of your kooky theory is fallacious. I've just destroyed your
kooky theory, Jim. Now what will you do?
<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
"The movement of electrons from the oxygen atom to the O-H antibonding
orbital on a neighboring molecule (HO-H-····OH2) both weaken the
covalent O-H bond (so lengthening it ) and reduces the HO-H····OH2
'hydrogen' bond."
Hence, when that inter-molecular H bond is broken, the diametrically
opposed covalent bond is shortened and strengthened, Jim. This has
been known and is well-exploited when building HHO welders for a great
number of years, Jim. That's why, when dissociating water, you don't
target the long covalent bond, as the resonant frequency required to
break that covalent bond is too close to the inter-molecular H bond
resonant frequency, and breaking that would strengthen the covalent
bond opposite, thereby costing more energy in dissociating the water.
Again, your lack of understanding of physical processes stems in part
from your broken delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted brain rejecting
any information from those you deem to be of higher authority than you
(which would be pretty much everyone), and in part from your lack of
education. Both conditions together lead you off into the brambles of
your kooky discredited conspiracy theory, and both can be ameliorated
by subjecting yourself to those very same psychiatric and educational
authorities your broken brain rejects... hence you'll remain
delusional for the remainder of your pathetic life, Jim... but you'll
find your delusion and hence your insanity grows until it destroys
your life. Fix yourself, Jim, or suffer the same fate of every other
D-K sufferer.
<snicker>
Post by James McGinn
You are ignoring symmetry, to no good effect.
You don't even know what 'symmetry' means, Jim,
Look into VESPR theory.
Oh, trust me, Jim. I know about VSEPR theory. You're still misusing
the word 'symmetry', Jim. Liquid water has no symmetry. Gaseous-phase
water has absolutely no symmetry. You're 180 degrees out from reality.
Post by James McGinn
I understand polarity better than anybody
No, you don't. You're a moronic delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted
kooktard who believes himself to know polarity better than anybody,
but you demonstrate daily that in reality you know squat, Jim.
Actually I do.
Actually, you don't, as the data above proves, Jim.
Post by James McGinn
In fact, the H bonding gets *weaker* when one is knocked loose.
Surface tension proves you wrong and me right.
You've already been proven wrong below, Jim.
Explain surface tension using your model. Go ahead.
What are you waiting for?
The surface condition is a special case, Jim, so I'm not surprised you
don't know about it.
<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html>
=====================================================
Analysis of simple thermodynamics c shows the surface has considerable
structuring, having identical density to that of bulk water at just
under 4 °C. In addition, the surface water structuring varies less
with temperature than the bulk. Refractive index study of the
water-air surface reveals it to be about 1.7 nm thick at 22 °C and
more dense than the bulk liquid (that is, it behaves like water at a
lower temperature).
=====================================================
So the "surface tension" is a result of the increased viscosity of the
interfacial water, Jim. Did you not know this, Jim? What kind of loon
would hold themselves out as the 'premiere expert' on water, and yet
not know a single fact *about* water, Jim?
Your explanation of surface tension is ad hoc. It's not intrinsic.
You just tacked it on. It's worthless.
That explanation is backed up by 2517 peer-reviewed studies, you
fecking nong. It's been vetted and proven to reflect reality.
Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit.
Post by James McGinn
That's a model, dumbass. That is not reality.
That is a (poorly considered) attempt to explain what is observed.
So, only a loon would employ that as proof.
That model happens to be the model that is accepted
It's still just a model, dumbass. Model's are not evidence.
That you use a model as evidence reveals your dimwittedness.
It is a model which explains all physical phenomenon of water, Jim.
Backed up by 2517 peer-reviewed studies. How many studies back up your
kooky conspiracy theory, Jim?
Oh, that's right, ZERO. In fact, you can't even get your kooky
conspiracy theory itself through the peer-review process. Why is that,
Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit.
Post by James McGinn
Descriptive models don't dispute reality, dumbass.
Then do the experiment that prove it.
Kooktard keeps asking for "experiments", when that data has been
known for a very long time...
As you are revealing, none of it is definitive.
It is, you're just backpedaling away from the fact that your kooky
conspiracy theory has been utterly destroyed, Jim.
Post by James McGinn
I'll let you do this experiment, Jim. Carry a beaker of water to sea
level, heat it to 100 C. You'll note the water gaseous pressure is
sufficient to overcome the 760 mm Hg atmospheric pressure.
Now allow the water to cool to 70 C, you'll note the vapor pressure
is insufficient to overcome the 750 mm Hg atmospheric pressure, so
boiling does not occur,
Boiling stops below 100, dumbass.
Very good, Jim! At least you can acknowledge reality when it suits you
to do so. So we know you're not fully delusional... yet.
Post by James McGinn
yet evaporation does occur.
Evaporation occurs all the way do to freezing, dumbass.
Very good again, Jim! In fact, it occurs even *below* the freezing
point, Jim. Or are you going to now deny sublimation?
Post by James McGinn
Now, while maintaining that water at 70 C, carry it to the top of
Mt. Everest. You'll note that as you rise in altitude, the water
will again begin boiling, despite the temperature of the water only
being 70 C.
You're an idiot.
I've proven your kooky theory is *wrong*, Jim. You're the idiot.
Post by James McGinn
Hence, boiling and evaporation are the same process,
Surreal.
I'm sure you do find reality to be "surreal", Jim... Dunning-Kruger
sufferers often do. It's part and parcel of your burgeoning insanity.
You can fix yourself, it's not too late. All it requires is
acknowledging that your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly
destroyed, and thereby escaping its insanity-inducing grip.
I don't think you're strong enough to do that, Jim.
Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis,
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA?
%
2017-05-28 03:16:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James Bernard 'Slobbering Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA (aka
'Solving Tornades' LOL!), in
Post by James McGinn
Did you never stop to consider why, exactly, water in its gaseous
phase exists primarily in the troposphere, whereas carbon dioxide
and nitrogen, for example, can rise far above the troposphere, Jim?
Yes: https://www.youtu<SMACKAKOOK!>
Referring back to your own kooky conspiracy theory blather is like
standing in an echo chamber screaming at the top of your lungs and
taking the echoes as confirmation of your kooky blathering, Jim. It's
an indication of mental instability and a burgeoning schizoid
paranoiac insanity. Seek immediate professional psychiatric
intervention, Jim.
Post by James McGinn
Did you never stop to consider why water can go *below* its freezing
temperature after being updrafted into the upper troposphere, yet
not immediately fall out of the sky (hint: because it's in its
gaseous phase... individual molecules...
Wrong. It' is always liquid or solid (ice). It is never gaseous.
Wrong. I've presented *four* peer-reviewed studies proving the
existence of monomolecular gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere, Jim.
Is water "speshul", James? Does it not have a gaseous phase like every
other molecule?
http://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw
If water molecules are H bonded together, it's liquid water, James.
Photon energy from electron orbital descent is dependent upon H
bonding strength (given that it's an electrostatic bond), the stronger
the H bond, the lower the photon energy. Nilsson measured a higher
photon energy from electron orbital descent in gaseous-phase water
than that of liquid-phase water. If it'd been liquid-phase water as
you claim, the photon energy would have been identical to that of
liquid-phase water. It wasn't, hence gaseous phase water is
monomolecular with no H bonding.
Water In The Gas Phase -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3350649/
Not ab initio (which you stupidly call "ab initro" in your videos
LOL)... direct measurement of monomolecular water in the gaseous
phase. 16 referenced papers.
Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research
http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation
Direct empirical observation of monomolecular evaporation.
http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/
Active Long Path Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy to
directly observe monomolecular gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere.
Now you can run away from reality all over again, James. You
delusional reality-denying kooktard.
Now let's contrast that with what you've got, James... you've
*retracted* the central premise for your entire delusion as you
writhed and squirmed in trying to escape being proven wrong, then when
you realized that your having done so destroyed your entire delusion,
you quickly picked up your "variable polarity of the H2O molecule"
claim from the ground, dusted it off, slapped it back onto your
delusion and duct-taped it in place. That had to be embarrassing for
you, eh? LOL
========================================================
Polarity is a variable. And the mechanism that alters (reduces)
the polarity of H2O molecules is the completion of hydrogen
bonds with adjoining water molecules.
========================================================
========================================================
In my post entitled Conservation of Energy in Earth's
Atmosphere I describe how the spinning of water
droplets/clusters--a direct result of wind shear--causes
these droplets to elongate into chains of partially
reactivated H2O molecules, effectuating a plasma with
structural integrity. It is important to note that
without the concept that is the subject of this post
(the Polarity Neutralization Implication of Hydrogen
Bonds Between Water Molecules and Groups Thereof) this
would not be possible.
========================================================
Thus, without your "variable polarity of the water molecule" claim
(now retracted by you), your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim falls, by
your own admission. And without your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim, your
"boundaries and structures" which you claim that "plasma not-a-plasma"
forms which drives the winds. Thus your entire "theory not-a-theory"
just came crashing to the ground. That's what happens when you build
your "theory not-a-theory" like a Jenga tower of lies and
suppositions, James.
Yet again, you've destroyed your moronic theory in trying to slap
patches on it so you can writhe your way out of being proven wrong.
You're too ignorant, insane and uneducated to acknowledge or
understand reality, let alone model it, Tardnado. LOL
That was an embarrassing gaffe on your part, wasn't it, TornadoTard?
LOL
Post by James McGinn
According to you, since you k'lame
all water in the atmosphere is clustered, it would be heavier than
air and would thus all fall out of the air once its mass exceeded
its downward-facing combined radius holding it up due to updraft...
I address this point in my videos.
Your kooky conspiracy theory videos are merely the outgrowth of your
kooky written conspiracy theory, Jim. The same retarded tripe in a
different form. IOW, you have nothing in your arsenal to refute the
peer-reviewed studies I presented with utterly *destroyed* your kooky
conspiracy theory.
Post by James McGinn
thus rainfall would be next to impossible, the lower troposphere
would perpetually be enveloped in falling mist, and every
horizontal surface would be perpetually covered with a film of
water.
Right. Based on meteorology's assumptions clouds should drop out of
the sky like bricks. Right? But they don't. Why do you think that is?
Wrong, that's according to your wrong interpretation of meteorology's
precepts. The reality of physical phenomena such as clouds has been
explained to you, including links to corroborable data. You snipped it
out and ran away from it because you're a delusional paranoiac
suffering from the crippling effects of Dunning-Kruger.
Post by James McGinn
Are you beginning to understand that you don't understand much at
all, Jim? Are you beginning to see that you conceived of your kooky
little theory and ran off half-cocked, crowing about your
"discovery" without fully testing its premises, Jim?
You exemplify the dimwittedness of meteorological assumptions.
That must be why you find yourself utterly unable to refute any of
that peer-reviewed data, right, Jim? Everyone else is crazy and *you*
are the only sane one. Everyone else who has years of training and
experience is wrong, but *you*, a high school dropout kooktard who has
demonstrated his stupidity repeatedly, are the only one who is right.
Yeah, that makes sense, Jim. Right?
Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit.
Post by James McGinn
Then you'll have no problem providing a microscopy printout of
these so-called "small droplets", Jim. Do you even own a
microscope?
So, now you are conceding that you don't have counterevidence?
I've just provided yet another peer reviewed study
Yet you are conceding that it is not conclusive, right?
I "conceded" no such thing, Jim. It is a peer-reviewed study which
utterly decimates your kooky conspiracy theory. Do you not understand
what the peer-review process entails, Jim? Oh, of course you don't...
you can't get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, nor can you even get your kooky conspiracy theory published
on any pre-print servers. Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy
theory through the peer-review process, Jim? Answer the question, you
evasive twit.
Post by James McGinn
Ever heard of the scientific method?
Sure I have, which is why I've been offering evidence consisting of
peer reviewed studies...
Peer review is consensus. Consensus is politics. (I am not a
climate scientist.) Only empirical evidence is valid if you
want to collect the money. Sorry to burst your bubble. I thought
this was obvious. Sorry if you got the wrong idea.
Ah, another goalpost move from the evasive twit James McGinn. Well,
it's a good thing I've presented empirical evidence such as you taking
a trip from sea level to the top of Mt. Everest with a container of
water, eh, Jim? That also disproves your kooky theory. So you'll be
paying up. Now.
Post by James McGinn
Wrong, but nice CAPSscreed, Jim. The two acceptor bonds are to two
*different* water molecules.
No duh.
Then breaking one will not affect the other, KookTard.
It affects the symmetry on the Oxygen molecule, dumbass.
No, it doesn't. It affects the diametrically-opposed covalent bond,
shortening it, as I've proven via two peer-reviewed studies, which you
snipped out and ran away from, Jim.
<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
"There is a trade-off between the covalent and hydrogen bond
strengths; the stronger the H····O hydrogen bond, the weaker the
O-H covalent bond, and the shorter the O····O distance"
Note the graph... the covalent bond remains shorter (and stronger)
than the inter-molecular H bond. Because the inter-molecular H bond is
~1/20th the strength of the covalent bond, the diametrically-opposite
covalent bond will preferentially shorten and strengthen when one of
the inter-molecular bonds is broken, Jim. That's why, when using high
frequency AC to dissociate water, you target the short covalent bond
frequency, as the long covalent bond frequency is too close to the H
bond frequency, and if you break that, you strengthen the covalent
bonds.
You are *wrong*. Your kooky theory is *wrong*. The entire underlying
premise of your kooky theory is fallacious. I've just destroyed your
kooky theory, Jim. Now what will you do?
<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
"The movement of electrons from the oxygen atom to the O-H antibonding
orbital on a neighboring molecule (HO-H-····OH2) both weaken the
covalent O-H bond (so lengthening it ) and reduces the HO-H····OH2
'hydrogen' bond."
Hence, when that inter-molecular H bond is broken, the diametrically
opposed covalent bond is shortened and strengthened, Jim. This has
been known and is well-exploited when building HHO welders for a great
number of years, Jim. That's why, when dissociating water, you don't
target the long covalent bond, as the resonant frequency required to
break that covalent bond is too close to the inter-molecular H bond
resonant frequency, and breaking that would strengthen the covalent
bond opposite, thereby costing more energy in dissociating the water.
Again, your lack of understanding of physical processes stems in part
from your broken delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted brain rejecting
any information from those you deem to be of higher authority than you
(which would be pretty much everyone), and in part from your lack of
education. Both conditions together lead you off into the brambles of
your kooky discredited conspiracy theory, and both can be ameliorated
by subjecting yourself to those very same psychiatric and educational
authorities your broken brain rejects... hence you'll remain
delusional for the remainder of your pathetic life, Jim... but you'll
find your delusion and hence your insanity grows until it destroys
your life. Fix yourself, Jim, or suffer the same fate of every other
D-K sufferer.
<snicker>
Post by James McGinn
You are ignoring symmetry, to no good effect.
You don't even know what 'symmetry' means, Jim,
Look into VESPR theory.
Oh, trust me, Jim. I know about VSEPR theory. You're still misusing
the word 'symmetry', Jim. Liquid water has no symmetry. Gaseous-phase
water has absolutely no symmetry. You're 180 degrees out from reality.
Post by James McGinn
I understand polarity better than anybody
No, you don't. You're a moronic delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted
kooktard who believes himself to know polarity better than anybody,
but you demonstrate daily that in reality you know squat, Jim.
Actually I do.
Actually, you don't, as the data above proves, Jim.
Post by James McGinn
In fact, the H bonding gets *weaker* when one is knocked loose.
Surface tension proves you wrong and me right.
You've already been proven wrong below, Jim.
Explain surface tension using your model. Go ahead.
What are you waiting for?
The surface condition is a special case, Jim, so I'm not surprised you
don't know about it.
<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html>
=====================================================
Analysis of simple thermodynamics c shows the surface has considerable
structuring, having identical density to that of bulk water at just
under 4 °C. In addition, the surface water structuring varies less
with temperature than the bulk. Refractive index study of the
water-air surface reveals it to be about 1.7 nm thick at 22 °C and
more dense than the bulk liquid (that is, it behaves like water at a
lower temperature).
=====================================================
So the "surface tension" is a result of the increased viscosity of the
interfacial water, Jim. Did you not know this, Jim? What kind of loon
would hold themselves out as the 'premiere expert' on water, and yet
not know a single fact *about* water, Jim?
Your explanation of surface tension is ad hoc. It's not intrinsic.
You just tacked it on. It's worthless.
That explanation is backed up by 2517 peer-reviewed studies, you
fecking nong. It's been vetted and proven to reflect reality.
Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit.
Post by James McGinn
That's a model, dumbass. That is not reality.
That is a (poorly considered) attempt to explain what is observed.
So, only a loon would employ that as proof.
That model happens to be the model that is accepted
It's still just a model, dumbass. Model's are not evidence.
That you use a model as evidence reveals your dimwittedness.
It is a model which explains all physical phenomenon of water, Jim.
Backed up by 2517 peer-reviewed studies. How many studies back up your
kooky conspiracy theory, Jim?
Oh, that's right, ZERO. In fact, you can't even get your kooky
conspiracy theory itself through the peer-review process. Why is that,
Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit.
Post by James McGinn
Descriptive models don't dispute reality, dumbass.
Then do the experiment that prove it.
Kooktard keeps asking for "experiments", when that data has been
known for a very long time...
As you are revealing, none of it is definitive.
It is, you're just backpedaling away from the fact that your kooky
conspiracy theory has been utterly destroyed, Jim.
Post by James McGinn
I'll let you do this experiment, Jim. Carry a beaker of water to sea
level, heat it to 100 C. You'll note the water gaseous pressure is
sufficient to overcome the 760 mm Hg atmospheric pressure.
Now allow the water to cool to 70 C, you'll note the vapor pressure
is insufficient to overcome the 750 mm Hg atmospheric pressure, so
boiling does not occur,
Boiling stops below 100, dumbass.
Very good, Jim! At least you can acknowledge reality when it suits you
to do so. So we know you're not fully delusional... yet.
Post by James McGinn
yet evaporation does occur.
Evaporation occurs all the way do to freezing, dumbass.
Very good again, Jim! In fact, it occurs even *below* the freezing
point, Jim. Or are you going to now deny sublimation?
Post by James McGinn
Now, while maintaining that water at 70 C, carry it to the top of
Mt. Everest. You'll note that as you rise in altitude, the water
will again begin boiling, despite the temperature of the water only
being 70 C.
You're an idiot.
I've proven your kooky theory is *wrong*, Jim. You're the idiot.
Post by James McGinn
Hence, boiling and evaporation are the same process,
Surreal.
I'm sure you do find reality to be "surreal", Jim... Dunning-Kruger
sufferers often do. It's part and parcel of your burgeoning insanity.
You can fix yourself, it's not too late. All it requires is
acknowledging that your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly
destroyed, and thereby escaping its insanity-inducing grip.
I don't think you're strong enough to do that, Jim.
Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis,
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA?
%
2017-05-28 03:16:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James Bernard 'Slobbering Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA (aka
'Solving Tornades' LOL!), in
Post by James McGinn
Did you never stop to consider why, exactly, water in its gaseous
phase exists primarily in the troposphere, whereas carbon dioxide
and nitrogen, for example, can rise far above the troposphere, Jim?
Yes: https://www.youtu<SMACKAKOOK!>
Referring back to your own kooky conspiracy theory blather is like
standing in an echo chamber screaming at the top of your lungs and
taking the echoes as confirmation of your kooky blathering, Jim. It's
an indication of mental instability and a burgeoning schizoid
paranoiac insanity. Seek immediate professional psychiatric
intervention, Jim.
Post by James McGinn
Did you never stop to consider why water can go *below* its freezing
temperature after being updrafted into the upper troposphere, yet
not immediately fall out of the sky (hint: because it's in its
gaseous phase... individual molecules...
Wrong. It' is always liquid or solid (ice). It is never gaseous.
Wrong. I've presented *four* peer-reviewed studies proving the
existence of monomolecular gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere, Jim.
Is water "speshul", James? Does it not have a gaseous phase like every
other molecule?
http://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw
If water molecules are H bonded together, it's liquid water, James.
Photon energy from electron orbital descent is dependent upon H
bonding strength (given that it's an electrostatic bond), the stronger
the H bond, the lower the photon energy. Nilsson measured a higher
photon energy from electron orbital descent in gaseous-phase water
than that of liquid-phase water. If it'd been liquid-phase water as
you claim, the photon energy would have been identical to that of
liquid-phase water. It wasn't, hence gaseous phase water is
monomolecular with no H bonding.
Water In The Gas Phase -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3350649/
Not ab initio (which you stupidly call "ab initro" in your videos
LOL)... direct measurement of monomolecular water in the gaseous
phase. 16 referenced papers.
Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research
http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation
Direct empirical observation of monomolecular evaporation.
http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/
Active Long Path Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy to
directly observe monomolecular gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere.
Now you can run away from reality all over again, James. You
delusional reality-denying kooktard.
Now let's contrast that with what you've got, James... you've
*retracted* the central premise for your entire delusion as you
writhed and squirmed in trying to escape being proven wrong, then when
you realized that your having done so destroyed your entire delusion,
you quickly picked up your "variable polarity of the H2O molecule"
claim from the ground, dusted it off, slapped it back onto your
delusion and duct-taped it in place. That had to be embarrassing for
you, eh? LOL
========================================================
Polarity is a variable. And the mechanism that alters (reduces)
the polarity of H2O molecules is the completion of hydrogen
bonds with adjoining water molecules.
========================================================
========================================================
In my post entitled Conservation of Energy in Earth's
Atmosphere I describe how the spinning of water
droplets/clusters--a direct result of wind shear--causes
these droplets to elongate into chains of partially
reactivated H2O molecules, effectuating a plasma with
structural integrity. It is important to note that
without the concept that is the subject of this post
(the Polarity Neutralization Implication of Hydrogen
Bonds Between Water Molecules and Groups Thereof) this
would not be possible.
========================================================
Thus, without your "variable polarity of the water molecule" claim
(now retracted by you), your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim falls, by
your own admission. And without your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim, your
"boundaries and structures" which you claim that "plasma not-a-plasma"
forms which drives the winds. Thus your entire "theory not-a-theory"
just came crashing to the ground. That's what happens when you build
your "theory not-a-theory" like a Jenga tower of lies and
suppositions, James.
Yet again, you've destroyed your moronic theory in trying to slap
patches on it so you can writhe your way out of being proven wrong.
You're too ignorant, insane and uneducated to acknowledge or
understand reality, let alone model it, Tardnado. LOL
That was an embarrassing gaffe on your part, wasn't it, TornadoTard?
LOL
Post by James McGinn
According to you, since you k'lame
all water in the atmosphere is clustered, it would be heavier than
air and would thus all fall out of the air once its mass exceeded
its downward-facing combined radius holding it up due to updraft...
I address this point in my videos.
Your kooky conspiracy theory videos are merely the outgrowth of your
kooky written conspiracy theory, Jim. The same retarded tripe in a
different form. IOW, you have nothing in your arsenal to refute the
peer-reviewed studies I presented with utterly *destroyed* your kooky
conspiracy theory.
Post by James McGinn
thus rainfall would be next to impossible, the lower troposphere
would perpetually be enveloped in falling mist, and every
horizontal surface would be perpetually covered with a film of
water.
Right. Based on meteorology's assumptions clouds should drop out of
the sky like bricks. Right? But they don't. Why do you think that is?
Wrong, that's according to your wrong interpretation of meteorology's
precepts. The reality of physical phenomena such as clouds has been
explained to you, including links to corroborable data. You snipped it
out and ran away from it because you're a delusional paranoiac
suffering from the crippling effects of Dunning-Kruger.
Post by James McGinn
Are you beginning to understand that you don't understand much at
all, Jim? Are you beginning to see that you conceived of your kooky
little theory and ran off half-cocked, crowing about your
"discovery" without fully testing its premises, Jim?
You exemplify the dimwittedness of meteorological assumptions.
That must be why you find yourself utterly unable to refute any of
that peer-reviewed data, right, Jim? Everyone else is crazy and *you*
are the only sane one. Everyone else who has years of training and
experience is wrong, but *you*, a high school dropout kooktard who has
demonstrated his stupidity repeatedly, are the only one who is right.
Yeah, that makes sense, Jim. Right?
Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit.
Post by James McGinn
Then you'll have no problem providing a microscopy printout of
these so-called "small droplets", Jim. Do you even own a
microscope?
So, now you are conceding that you don't have counterevidence?
I've just provided yet another peer reviewed study
Yet you are conceding that it is not conclusive, right?
I "conceded" no such thing, Jim. It is a peer-reviewed study which
utterly decimates your kooky conspiracy theory. Do you not understand
what the peer-review process entails, Jim? Oh, of course you don't...
you can't get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, nor can you even get your kooky conspiracy theory published
on any pre-print servers. Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy
theory through the peer-review process, Jim? Answer the question, you
evasive twit.
Post by James McGinn
Ever heard of the scientific method?
Sure I have, which is why I've been offering evidence consisting of
peer reviewed studies...
Peer review is consensus. Consensus is politics. (I am not a
climate scientist.) Only empirical evidence is valid if you
want to collect the money. Sorry to burst your bubble. I thought
this was obvious. Sorry if you got the wrong idea.
Ah, another goalpost move from the evasive twit James McGinn. Well,
it's a good thing I've presented empirical evidence such as you taking
a trip from sea level to the top of Mt. Everest with a container of
water, eh, Jim? That also disproves your kooky theory. So you'll be
paying up. Now.
Post by James McGinn
Wrong, but nice CAPSscreed, Jim. The two acceptor bonds are to two
*different* water molecules.
No duh.
Then breaking one will not affect the other, KookTard.
It affects the symmetry on the Oxygen molecule, dumbass.
No, it doesn't. It affects the diametrically-opposed covalent bond,
shortening it, as I've proven via two peer-reviewed studies, which you
snipped out and ran away from, Jim.
<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
"There is a trade-off between the covalent and hydrogen bond
strengths; the stronger the H····O hydrogen bond, the weaker the
O-H covalent bond, and the shorter the O····O distance"
Note the graph... the covalent bond remains shorter (and stronger)
than the inter-molecular H bond. Because the inter-molecular H bond is
~1/20th the strength of the covalent bond, the diametrically-opposite
covalent bond will preferentially shorten and strengthen when one of
the inter-molecular bonds is broken, Jim. That's why, when using high
frequency AC to dissociate water, you target the short covalent bond
frequency, as the long covalent bond frequency is too close to the H
bond frequency, and if you break that, you strengthen the covalent
bonds.
You are *wrong*. Your kooky theory is *wrong*. The entire underlying
premise of your kooky theory is fallacious. I've just destroyed your
kooky theory, Jim. Now what will you do?
<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
"The movement of electrons from the oxygen atom to the O-H antibonding
orbital on a neighboring molecule (HO-H-····OH2) both weaken the
covalent O-H bond (so lengthening it ) and reduces the HO-H····OH2
'hydrogen' bond."
Hence, when that inter-molecular H bond is broken, the diametrically
opposed covalent bond is shortened and strengthened, Jim. This has
been known and is well-exploited when building HHO welders for a great
number of years, Jim. That's why, when dissociating water, you don't
target the long covalent bond, as the resonant frequency required to
break that covalent bond is too close to the inter-molecular H bond
resonant frequency, and breaking that would strengthen the covalent
bond opposite, thereby costing more energy in dissociating the water.
Again, your lack of understanding of physical processes stems in part
from your broken delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted brain rejecting
any information from those you deem to be of higher authority than you
(which would be pretty much everyone), and in part from your lack of
education. Both conditions together lead you off into the brambles of
your kooky discredited conspiracy theory, and both can be ameliorated
by subjecting yourself to those very same psychiatric and educational
authorities your broken brain rejects... hence you'll remain
delusional for the remainder of your pathetic life, Jim... but you'll
find your delusion and hence your insanity grows until it destroys
your life. Fix yourself, Jim, or suffer the same fate of every other
D-K sufferer.
<snicker>
Post by James McGinn
You are ignoring symmetry, to no good effect.
You don't even know what 'symmetry' means, Jim,
Look into VESPR theory.
Oh, trust me, Jim. I know about VSEPR theory. You're still misusing
the word 'symmetry', Jim. Liquid water has no symmetry. Gaseous-phase
water has absolutely no symmetry. You're 180 degrees out from reality.
Post by James McGinn
I understand polarity better than anybody
No, you don't. You're a moronic delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted
kooktard who believes himself to know polarity better than anybody,
but you demonstrate daily that in reality you know squat, Jim.
Actually I do.
Actually, you don't, as the data above proves, Jim.
Post by James McGinn
In fact, the H bonding gets *weaker* when one is knocked loose.
Surface tension proves you wrong and me right.
You've already been proven wrong below, Jim.
Explain surface tension using your model. Go ahead.
What are you waiting for?
The surface condition is a special case, Jim, so I'm not surprised you
don't know about it.
<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html>
=====================================================
Analysis of simple thermodynamics c shows the surface has considerable
structuring, having identical density to that of bulk water at just
under 4 °C. In addition, the surface water structuring varies less
with temperature than the bulk. Refractive index study of the
water-air surface reveals it to be about 1.7 nm thick at 22 °C and
more dense than the bulk liquid (that is, it behaves like water at a
lower temperature).
=====================================================
So the "surface tension" is a result of the increased viscosity of the
interfacial water, Jim. Did you not know this, Jim? What kind of loon
would hold themselves out as the 'premiere expert' on water, and yet
not know a single fact *about* water, Jim?
Your explanation of surface tension is ad hoc. It's not intrinsic.
You just tacked it on. It's worthless.
That explanation is backed up by 2517 peer-reviewed studies, you
fecking nong. It's been vetted and proven to reflect reality.
Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit.
Post by James McGinn
That's a model, dumbass. That is not reality.
That is a (poorly considered) attempt to explain what is observed.
So, only a loon would employ that as proof.
That model happens to be the model that is accepted
It's still just a model, dumbass. Model's are not evidence.
That you use a model as evidence reveals your dimwittedness.
It is a model which explains all physical phenomenon of water, Jim.
Backed up by 2517 peer-reviewed studies. How many studies back up your
kooky conspiracy theory, Jim?
Oh, that's right, ZERO. In fact, you can't even get your kooky
conspiracy theory itself through the peer-review process. Why is that,
Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit.
Post by James McGinn
Descriptive models don't dispute reality, dumbass.
Then do the experiment that prove it.
Kooktard keeps asking for "experiments", when that data has been
known for a very long time...
As you are revealing, none of it is definitive.
It is, you're just backpedaling away from the fact that your kooky
conspiracy theory has been utterly destroyed, Jim.
Post by James McGinn
I'll let you do this experiment, Jim. Carry a beaker of water to sea
level, heat it to 100 C. You'll note the water gaseous pressure is
sufficient to overcome the 760 mm Hg atmospheric pressure.
Now allow the water to cool to 70 C, you'll note the vapor pressure
is insufficient to overcome the 750 mm Hg atmospheric pressure, so
boiling does not occur,
Boiling stops below 100, dumbass.
Very good, Jim! At least you can acknowledge reality when it suits you
to do so. So we know you're not fully delusional... yet.
Post by James McGinn
yet evaporation does occur.
Evaporation occurs all the way do to freezing, dumbass.
Very good again, Jim! In fact, it occurs even *below* the freezing
point, Jim. Or are you going to now deny sublimation?
Post by James McGinn
Now, while maintaining that water at 70 C, carry it to the top of
Mt. Everest. You'll note that as you rise in altitude, the water
will again begin boiling, despite the temperature of the water only
being 70 C.
You're an idiot.
I've proven your kooky theory is *wrong*, Jim. You're the idiot.
Post by James McGinn
Hence, boiling and evaporation are the same process,
Surreal.
I'm sure you do find reality to be "surreal", Jim... Dunning-Kruger
sufferers often do. It's part and parcel of your burgeoning insanity.
You can fix yourself, it's not too late. All it requires is
acknowledging that your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly
destroyed, and thereby escaping its insanity-inducing grip.
I don't think you're strong enough to do that, Jim.
Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis,
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA?
%
2017-05-28 03:16:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James Bernard 'Slobbering Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA (aka
'Solving Tornades' LOL!), in
Post by James McGinn
Did you never stop to consider why, exactly, water in its gaseous
phase exists primarily in the troposphere, whereas carbon dioxide
and nitrogen, for example, can rise far above the troposphere, Jim?
Yes: https://www.youtu<SMACKAKOOK!>
Referring back to your own kooky conspiracy theory blather is like
standing in an echo chamber screaming at the top of your lungs and
taking the echoes as confirmation of your kooky blathering, Jim. It's
an indication of mental instability and a burgeoning schizoid
paranoiac insanity. Seek immediate professional psychiatric
intervention, Jim.
Post by James McGinn
Did you never stop to consider why water can go *below* its freezing
temperature after being updrafted into the upper troposphere, yet
not immediately fall out of the sky (hint: because it's in its
gaseous phase... individual molecules...
Wrong. It' is always liquid or solid (ice). It is never gaseous.
Wrong. I've presented *four* peer-reviewed studies proving the
existence of monomolecular gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere, Jim.
Is water "speshul", James? Does it not have a gaseous phase like every
other molecule?
http://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw
If water molecules are H bonded together, it's liquid water, James.
Photon energy from electron orbital descent is dependent upon H
bonding strength (given that it's an electrostatic bond), the stronger
the H bond, the lower the photon energy. Nilsson measured a higher
photon energy from electron orbital descent in gaseous-phase water
than that of liquid-phase water. If it'd been liquid-phase water as
you claim, the photon energy would have been identical to that of
liquid-phase water. It wasn't, hence gaseous phase water is
monomolecular with no H bonding.
Water In The Gas Phase -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3350649/
Not ab initio (which you stupidly call "ab initro" in your videos
LOL)... direct measurement of monomolecular water in the gaseous
phase. 16 referenced papers.
Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research
http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation
Direct empirical observation of monomolecular evaporation.
http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/
Active Long Path Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy to
directly observe monomolecular gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere.
Now you can run away from reality all over again, James. You
delusional reality-denying kooktard.
Now let's contrast that with what you've got, James... you've
*retracted* the central premise for your entire delusion as you
writhed and squirmed in trying to escape being proven wrong, then when
you realized that your having done so destroyed your entire delusion,
you quickly picked up your "variable polarity of the H2O molecule"
claim from the ground, dusted it off, slapped it back onto your
delusion and duct-taped it in place. That had to be embarrassing for
you, eh? LOL
========================================================
Polarity is a variable. And the mechanism that alters (reduces)
the polarity of H2O molecules is the completion of hydrogen
bonds with adjoining water molecules.
========================================================
========================================================
In my post entitled Conservation of Energy in Earth's
Atmosphere I describe how the spinning of water
droplets/clusters--a direct result of wind shear--causes
these droplets to elongate into chains of partially
reactivated H2O molecules, effectuating a plasma with
structural integrity. It is important to note that
without the concept that is the subject of this post
(the Polarity Neutralization Implication of Hydrogen
Bonds Between Water Molecules and Groups Thereof) this
would not be possible.
========================================================
Thus, without your "variable polarity of the water molecule" claim
(now retracted by you), your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim falls, by
your own admission. And without your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim, your
"boundaries and structures" which you claim that "plasma not-a-plasma"
forms which drives the winds. Thus your entire "theory not-a-theory"
just came crashing to the ground. That's what happens when you build
your "theory not-a-theory" like a Jenga tower of lies and
suppositions, James.
Yet again, you've destroyed your moronic theory in trying to slap
patches on it so you can writhe your way out of being proven wrong.
You're too ignorant, insane and uneducated to acknowledge or
understand reality, let alone model it, Tardnado. LOL
That was an embarrassing gaffe on your part, wasn't it, TornadoTard?
LOL
Post by James McGinn
According to you, since you k'lame
all water in the atmosphere is clustered, it would be heavier than
air and would thus all fall out of the air once its mass exceeded
its downward-facing combined radius holding it up due to updraft...
I address this point in my videos.
Your kooky conspiracy theory videos are merely the outgrowth of your
kooky written conspiracy theory, Jim. The same retarded tripe in a
different form. IOW, you have nothing in your arsenal to refute the
peer-reviewed studies I presented with utterly *destroyed* your kooky
conspiracy theory.
Post by James McGinn
thus rainfall would be next to impossible, the lower troposphere
would perpetually be enveloped in falling mist, and every
horizontal surface would be perpetually covered with a film of
water.
Right. Based on meteorology's assumptions clouds should drop out of
the sky like bricks. Right? But they don't. Why do you think that is?
Wrong, that's according to your wrong interpretation of meteorology's
precepts. The reality of physical phenomena such as clouds has been
explained to you, including links to corroborable data. You snipped it
out and ran away from it because you're a delusional paranoiac
suffering from the crippling effects of Dunning-Kruger.
Post by James McGinn
Are you beginning to understand that you don't understand much at
all, Jim? Are you beginning to see that you conceived of your kooky
little theory and ran off half-cocked, crowing about your
"discovery" without fully testing its premises, Jim?
You exemplify the dimwittedness of meteorological assumptions.
That must be why you find yourself utterly unable to refute any of
that peer-reviewed data, right, Jim? Everyone else is crazy and *you*
are the only sane one. Everyone else who has years of training and
experience is wrong, but *you*, a high school dropout kooktard who has
demonstrated his stupidity repeatedly, are the only one who is right.
Yeah, that makes sense, Jim. Right?
Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit.
Post by James McGinn
Then you'll have no problem providing a microscopy printout of
these so-called "small droplets", Jim. Do you even own a
microscope?
So, now you are conceding that you don't have counterevidence?
I've just provided yet another peer reviewed study
Yet you are conceding that it is not conclusive, right?
I "conceded" no such thing, Jim. It is a peer-reviewed study which
utterly decimates your kooky conspiracy theory. Do you not understand
what the peer-review process entails, Jim? Oh, of course you don't...
you can't get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, nor can you even get your kooky conspiracy theory published
on any pre-print servers. Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy
theory through the peer-review process, Jim? Answer the question, you
evasive twit.
Post by James McGinn
Ever heard of the scientific method?
Sure I have, which is why I've been offering evidence consisting of
peer reviewed studies...
Peer review is consensus. Consensus is politics. (I am not a
climate scientist.) Only empirical evidence is valid if you
want to collect the money. Sorry to burst your bubble. I thought
this was obvious. Sorry if you got the wrong idea.
Ah, another goalpost move from the evasive twit James McGinn. Well,
it's a good thing I've presented empirical evidence such as you taking
a trip from sea level to the top of Mt. Everest with a container of
water, eh, Jim? That also disproves your kooky theory. So you'll be
paying up. Now.
Post by James McGinn
Wrong, but nice CAPSscreed, Jim. The two acceptor bonds are to two
*different* water molecules.
No duh.
Then breaking one will not affect the other, KookTard.
It affects the symmetry on the Oxygen molecule, dumbass.
No, it doesn't. It affects the diametrically-opposed covalent bond,
shortening it, as I've proven via two peer-reviewed studies, which you
snipped out and ran away from, Jim.
<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
"There is a trade-off between the covalent and hydrogen bond
strengths; the stronger the H····O hydrogen bond, the weaker the
O-H covalent bond, and the shorter the O····O distance"
Note the graph... the covalent bond remains shorter (and stronger)
than the inter-molecular H bond. Because the inter-molecular H bond is
~1/20th the strength of the covalent bond, the diametrically-opposite
covalent bond will preferentially shorten and strengthen when one of
the inter-molecular bonds is broken, Jim. That's why, when using high
frequency AC to dissociate water, you target the short covalent bond
frequency, as the long covalent bond frequency is too close to the H
bond frequency, and if you break that, you strengthen the covalent
bonds.
You are *wrong*. Your kooky theory is *wrong*. The entire underlying
premise of your kooky theory is fallacious. I've just destroyed your
kooky theory, Jim. Now what will you do?
<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
"The movement of electrons from the oxygen atom to the O-H antibonding
orbital on a neighboring molecule (HO-H-····OH2) both weaken the
covalent O-H bond (so lengthening it ) and reduces the HO-H····OH2
'hydrogen' bond."
Hence, when that inter-molecular H bond is broken, the diametrically
opposed covalent bond is shortened and strengthened, Jim. This has
been known and is well-exploited when building HHO welders for a great
number of years, Jim. That's why, when dissociating water, you don't
target the long covalent bond, as the resonant frequency required to
break that covalent bond is too close to the inter-molecular H bond
resonant frequency, and breaking that would strengthen the covalent
bond opposite, thereby costing more energy in dissociating the water.
Again, your lack of understanding of physical processes stems in part
from your broken delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted brain rejecting
any information from those you deem to be of higher authority than you
(which would be pretty much everyone), and in part from your lack of
education. Both conditions together lead you off into the brambles of
your kooky discredited conspiracy theory, and both can be ameliorated
by subjecting yourself to those very same psychiatric and educational
authorities your broken brain rejects... hence you'll remain
delusional for the remainder of your pathetic life, Jim... but you'll
find your delusion and hence your insanity grows until it destroys
your life. Fix yourself, Jim, or suffer the same fate of every other
D-K sufferer.
<snicker>
Post by James McGinn
You are ignoring symmetry, to no good effect.
You don't even know what 'symmetry' means, Jim,
Look into VESPR theory.
Oh, trust me, Jim. I know about VSEPR theory. You're still misusing
the word 'symmetry', Jim. Liquid water has no symmetry. Gaseous-phase
water has absolutely no symmetry. You're 180 degrees out from reality.
Post by James McGinn
I understand polarity better than anybody
No, you don't. You're a moronic delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted
kooktard who believes himself to know polarity better than anybody,
but you demonstrate daily that in reality you know squat, Jim.
Actually I do.
Actually, you don't, as the data above proves, Jim.
Post by James McGinn
In fact, the H bonding gets *weaker* when one is knocked loose.
Surface tension proves you wrong and me right.
You've already been proven wrong below, Jim.
Explain surface tension using your model. Go ahead.
What are you waiting for?
The surface condition is a special case, Jim, so I'm not surprised you
don't know about it.
<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html>
=====================================================
Analysis of simple thermodynamics c shows the surface has considerable
structuring, having identical density to that of bulk water at just
under 4 °C. In addition, the surface water structuring varies less
with temperature than the bulk. Refractive index study of the
water-air surface reveals it to be about 1.7 nm thick at 22 °C and
more dense than the bulk liquid (that is, it behaves like water at a
lower temperature).
=====================================================
So the "surface tension" is a result of the increased viscosity of the
interfacial water, Jim. Did you not know this, Jim? What kind of loon
would hold themselves out as the 'premiere expert' on water, and yet
not know a single fact *about* water, Jim?
Your explanation of surface tension is ad hoc. It's not intrinsic.
You just tacked it on. It's worthless.
That explanation is backed up by 2517 peer-reviewed studies, you
fecking nong. It's been vetted and proven to reflect reality.
Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit.
Post by James McGinn
That's a model, dumbass. That is not reality.
That is a (poorly considered) attempt to explain what is observed.
So, only a loon would employ that as proof.
That model happens to be the model that is accepted
It's still just a model, dumbass. Model's are not evidence.
That you use a model as evidence reveals your dimwittedness.
It is a model which explains all physical phenomenon of water, Jim.
Backed up by 2517 peer-reviewed studies. How many studies back up your
kooky conspiracy theory, Jim?
Oh, that's right, ZERO. In fact, you can't even get your kooky
conspiracy theory itself through the peer-review process. Why is that,
Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit.
Post by James McGinn
Descriptive models don't dispute reality, dumbass.
Then do the experiment that prove it.
Kooktard keeps asking for "experiments", when that data has been
known for a very long time...
As you are revealing, none of it is definitive.
It is, you're just backpedaling away from the fact that your kooky
conspiracy theory has been utterly destroyed, Jim.
Post by James McGinn
I'll let you do this experiment, Jim. Carry a beaker of water to sea
level, heat it to 100 C. You'll note the water gaseous pressure is
sufficient to overcome the 760 mm Hg atmospheric pressure.
Now allow the water to cool to 70 C, you'll note the vapor pressure
is insufficient to overcome the 750 mm Hg atmospheric pressure, so
boiling does not occur,
Boiling stops below 100, dumbass.
Very good, Jim! At least you can acknowledge reality when it suits you
to do so. So we know you're not fully delusional... yet.
Post by James McGinn
yet evaporation does occur.
Evaporation occurs all the way do to freezing, dumbass.
Very good again, Jim! In fact, it occurs even *below* the freezing
point, Jim. Or are you going to now deny sublimation?
Post by James McGinn
Now, while maintaining that water at 70 C, carry it to the top of
Mt. Everest. You'll note that as you rise in altitude, the water
will again begin boiling, despite the temperature of the water only
being 70 C.
You're an idiot.
I've proven your kooky theory is *wrong*, Jim. You're the idiot.
Post by James McGinn
Hence, boiling and evaporation are the same process,
Surreal.
I'm sure you do find reality to be "surreal", Jim... Dunning-Kruger
sufferers often do. It's part and parcel of your burgeoning insanity.
You can fix yourself, it's not too late. All it requires is
acknowledging that your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly
destroyed, and thereby escaping its insanity-inducing grip.
I don't think you're strong enough to do that, Jim.
Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis,
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA?
James McGinn
2017-08-06 17:46:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Did you never stop to consider why, exactly, water in its gaseous
phase exists primarily in the troposphere, whereas carbon dioxide and
nitrogen, for example, can rise far above the troposphere, Jim?
Yes. But that is the wrong question. The right question is how/why
Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
http://youtu.be/pl-GOPq8aA0
Let me know if you have any questions.
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
James McGinn
2017-08-06 22:28:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Did you never stop to consider why, exactly, water in its gaseous
phase exists primarily in the troposphere, whereas carbon dioxide and
nitrogen, for example, can rise far above the troposphere, Jim?
Yes. But that is the wrong question. The right question is how/why
Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
http://youtu.be/pl-GOPq8aA0
Let me know if you have any questions.
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
James McGinn
2017-09-14 00:15:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Did you never stop to consider why, exactly, water in its gaseous
phase exists primarily in the troposphere, whereas carbon dioxide and
nitrogen, for example, can rise far above the troposphere, Jim?
Yes. But that is the wrong question. The right question is how/why
Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
http://youtu.be/pl-GOPq8aA0
Let me know if you have any questions.
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
James McGinn
2017-09-23 22:16:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Did you never stop to consider why, exactly, water in its gaseous
phase exists primarily in the troposphere, whereas carbon dioxide and
nitrogen, for example, can rise far above the troposphere, Jim?
Yes. But that is the wrong question. The right question is how/why
Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
http://youtu.be/pl-GOPq8aA0
Let me know if you have any questions.
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
James McGinn
2017-09-28 02:42:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Did you never stop to consider why, exactly, water in its gaseous
phase exists primarily in the troposphere, whereas carbon dioxide and
nitrogen, for example, can rise far above the troposphere, Jim?
Yes. But that is the wrong question. The right question is how/why
Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
http://youtu.be/pl-GOPq8aA0
Let me know if you have any questions.
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
m***@gmail.com
2017-09-28 02:48:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Did you never stop to consider why, exactly, water in its gaseous
phase exists primarily in the troposphere, whereas carbon dioxide and
nitrogen, for example, can rise far above the troposphere, Jim?
Yes. But that is the wrong question. The right question is how/why
Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
http://youtu.be/pl-GOPq8aA0
Let me know if you have any questions.
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
How do metal planes beat the atmosphere?

It looks like heaviness can beat gravity... this is more gravity
to be considered.

Mitchell Raemsch
Serg io
2017-09-28 03:21:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Yes. But that is the wrong question. The right question is how/why
Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
http://youtu.be/pl-GOPq8aA0
Jeremy Wang says about Jame McGinn, "Do not listen to this person unless
you want to become stupider."
James McGinn
2017-09-28 06:08:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Jeremy Wang says about Jame McGinn, "Do not listen to this person unless
you want to become stupider."

So, up, how does H2O get to the top of the troposphere?

Think hard!

Don't listen to those mean people that tell you that you are stupid.
James McGinn
2017-10-21 06:47:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Did you never stop to consider why, exactly, water in its gaseous
phase exists primarily in the troposphere,
There is no gaseous H2O in the atmosphere. It's physically impossible.


whereas carbon dioxide and
Post by James McGinn
nitrogen, for example, can rise far above the troposphere, Jim?
Yes. But that is the wrong question. The right question is how/why
Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
http://youtu.be/pl-GOPq8aA0
Let me know if you have any questions.
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
James McGinn
2017-10-27 03:21:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Did you never stop to consider why, exactly, water in its gaseous
phase exists primarily in the troposphere, whereas carbon dioxide and
nitrogen, for example, can rise far above the troposphere, Jim?
Yes. But that is the wrong question. The right question is how/why
Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
http://youtu.be/pl-GOPq8aA0
Let me know if you have any questions.
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
James McGinn
2018-04-08 18:02:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Did you never stop to consider why, exactly, water in its gaseous
phase exists primarily in the troposphere, whereas carbon dioxide and
nitrogen, for example, can rise far above the troposphere, Jim?
Yes. But that is the wrong question. The right question is how/why
Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
http://youtu.be/pl-GOPq8aA0
Let me know if you have any questions.
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
Loading...