Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James 'Slobbering Tardnado' McGinn, in
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>> 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
>> 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
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 -
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
Direct empirical observation of monomolecular evaporation.
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:
> 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:
> 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
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?
>> 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
>> 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
>>> 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.
"There is a trade-off between the covalent and hydrogen bond
strengths; the stronger the HÂ·Â·Â·Â·O hydrogen bond, the weaker the O-H
covalent bond, and the shorter the OÂ·Â·Â·Â·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
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?
"The movement of electrons from the oxygen atom to the O-H antibonding
orbital on a neighboring molecule (HO-H-Â·Â·Â·Â·OH2) both weaken the
covalent O-H bond (so lengthening it ) and reduces the HO-HÂ·Â·Â·Â·OH2
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
>>> 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.
Analysis of simple thermodynamics c shows the surface has considerable
structuring, having identical density to that of bulk water at just
under 4 Â°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 Â°C and
more dense than the bulk liquid (that is, it behaves like water at a
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,
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 (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) 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
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
Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James?
Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions,
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
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,
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?