Discussion:
The True Commodity of Atmospheric Flow
(too old to reply)
James McGinn
2016-03-26 04:20:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Vortices can exist-in/grow-into boundary layers in our atmosphere. There are thousands of vortices in existence and growing into thousands of boundary layers in our atmosphere at all times. These vortices are extensions of jet streams which are themselves vortices that exist-in and grow into the boundary layer between the stratosphere and the troposphere. Understanding how and why vortices grow (along boundaries between moist bodies of air and dry bodies of air) in our atmosphere is, possibly, the most important concept in storm theory. Along these lines, it helps us resolve what would otherwise be a significant conundrum, how/why heavier moist air gets higher in our atmosphere than lighter dry air.

In a nutshell, the net effect of these thousands of vortices in our atmosphere is to lift heavier moist air higher in the atmosphere than drier air. Meteorology, however, does not recognize this. Instead meteorology decreed that moist air is lighter than dry air. Problem solved. Now all they had to do was avoid testing this assumption, which they achieved by making the whole subject a taboo issue. (Now you see the REAL reason that John Coleman has muted himself.) What can't be discussed can't be tested. Then it's simply a matter of systematically ignoring/alienating anybody that has the temerity to suggest that the weight of moist/dry air should be measured. Accordingly these political tactics insure that the notion that convection causes storms can never be tested empirically. The end-maintaining the illusion of scientific credibilty-justifies the means.

There is a gigantic price to pay for the convenience of meteorologists being able to pretend to understand what they do not understand, and this burden is bared by the public in the form of death and destruction from severe weather and economic losses as a result of drought. Accordingly, if meteorologists were not so obsessed with maintaining this taboo then research would have, naturally, lead meteorologists to be better able to recognize the importance of boundary layers in our atmosphere which would, naturally, lead to the development of methods to better predict and mitigate severe weather and avoid drought.

The time has come to make a change. The time has come that the public must make it known that meteorologists no longer have to fear retribution if they admit that they really don't understand storms. The time has come for us to inform them that pretending to understand and evading debate/discussion will no longer be tolerated. The time has come to bring them, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. And then, maybe, we can start making progress in getting a better understanding of boundary layers.

Boundary layers are the true commodity of atmospheric flow, not convection.
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
2016-03-26 05:31:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:0da4b86d-4b8d-40b5-a167-***@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> Vortices can exist-in/grow-into boundary layers in our atmosphere. There
> are thousands of vortices in existence and growing into thousands of
> boundary layers in our atmosphere at all times. These vortices are extensions
> of jet streams which are themselves vortices that exist-in and grow into the
> boundary layer between the stratosphere and the troposphere.

Why is there a "barrier" between the troposphere and stratosphere,
Tardnado Jim?

> Understanding how and why vortices grow (along boundaries between moist
> bodies of air and dry bodies of air) in our atmosphere is, possibly, the
> most important concept in storm theory. Along these lines, it helps us
> resolve what would otherwise be a significant conundrum, how/why heavier
> moist air gets higher in our atmosphere than lighter dry air.

How much heavier do you claim humid air to be than dry air, James? Do
get right on providing the math and rigorous scientific studies to
support your contention, James.

> In a nutshell, the net effect of these thousands of vortices in our
> atmosphere

Why can't we detect these "thousands of vortices", Jim? We can detect
humidity differences, it's on the weather maps. Are your "thousands of
vortices" invisible and magic? Or is your "giant sentient tornado
monster in the jet stream with noodly appendages which it stretches
thousands of miles through the troposphere" just really, really
sneaky? James? Hello? Are you there, Jim? Hello. Is there anybody in
there? Just nod if you can hear me. Is there anyone at home?

> is to lift heavier moist air higher in the atmosphere than drier air.
> Meteorology, however, does not recognize this. Instead meteorology
> decreed that moist air is lighter than dry air.

No, physicists declared that, because real scientists realize molar
volume and molar mass are an offshoot of the Periodic Table of the
Elements, and two atoms or molecules can't occupy the same space.

> Problem solved.

Except problem not solved, Tardnado Jim. What powers your "plasma
not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" created, given that you've retracted
the means by which you claim it is created, Tardnado?

> Now all they had to do was avoid testing this assumption, which they
> achieved by making the whole subject a taboo issue. (Now you see the
> REAL reason that John Coleman has muted himself.) What can't be
> discussed can't be tested.

Your paranoid schizophrenia is rearing its ugly head again, Tardnado.
Take your meds.

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
Message-ID: <***@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Retracted:
> 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. 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

Thanks for playing, but you lose.

That's reality, James. Deal with it. Tardnado. LOL

--

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
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.

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 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?

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
hundreds 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 does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density
differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That
less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your
giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly
appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim?

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

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 can't you answer those questions, Jim?
James McGinn
2016-03-26 07:15:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 10:42:16 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> > Vortices can exist-in/grow-into boundary layers in our atmosphere. There
> > are thousands of vortices in existence and growing into thousands of
> > boundary layers in our atmosphere at all times. These vortices are extensions
> > of jet streams which are themselves vortices that exist-in and grow into the
> > boundary layer between the stratosphere and the troposphere.
>
> Why is there a "barrier" between the troposphere and stratosphere,
> Tardnado Jim?

I never heard of that.

> > Understanding how and why vortices grow (along boundaries between moist
> > bodies of air and dry bodies of air) in our atmosphere is, possibly, the
> > most important concept in storm theory. Along these lines, it helps us
> > resolve what would otherwise be a significant conundrum, how/why heavier
> > moist air gets higher in our atmosphere than lighter dry air.
>
> How much heavier do you claim humid air to be than dry air, James?

I've already discussed this. Do search on this NG.

> > In a nutshell, the net effect of these thousands of vortices in our
> > atmosphere
>
> Why can't we detect these "thousands of vortices", Jim?

I've already discussed this. Try to follow.
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
2016-03-26 16:35:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:2408b01d-0492-400c-9802-***@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 10:42:16 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>> Vortices can exist-in/grow-into boundary layers in our atmosphere. There
>>> are thousands of vortices in existence and growing into thousands of
>>> boundary layers in our atmosphere at all times. These vortices are extensions
>>> of jet streams which are themselves vortices that exist-in and grow into the
>>> boundary layer between the stratosphere and the troposphere.

>> Why is there a "barrier" between the troposphere and stratosphere,
>> Tardnado Jim?

> I never heard of that.

You're pathetic, Jim. You must know you've made yourself the
laughingstock of the entire scientific world. Those hyper-intelligent
people are all laughing at your stupidity. Tardnado. LOL

>>> Understanding how and why vortices grow (along boundaries between moist
>>> bodies of air and dry bodies of air) in our atmosphere is, possibly, the
>>> most important concept in storm theory. Along these lines, it helps us
>>> resolve what would otherwise be a significant conundrum, how/why heavier
>>> moist air gets higher in our atmosphere than lighter dry air.

>> How much heavier do you claim humid air to be than dry air, James?

> I've already discussed this. Do search on this NG.

No, you haven't, James. Get right on doing the math and back it up
with research, otherwise you're forced to admit you're just a moronic
halfwit blathering out your insanity.

>>> In a nutshell, the net effect of these thousands of vortices in our
>>> atmosphere

>> Why can't we detect these "thousands of vortices", Jim?

> I've already discussed this. Try to follow.

Is it a secret, Jim? Is your "giant sentient tornado monster in the
jet stream with noodly appendages which it stretches thousands of
miles through the troposphere to touch down tornadoes" just really,
really sneaky, James? Do you need to take your meds, James?

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
Message-ID: <***@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Retracted:
> 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. 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

Thanks for playing, but you lose.

That's reality, James. Deal with it. Tardnado. LOL

--

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
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.

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 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?

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
hundreds 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 does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density
differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That
less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your
giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly
appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim?

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

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 can't you answer those questions, Jim?
James McGinn
2016-03-27 18:52:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 9:46:32 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> You're pathetic, Jim. You must know you've made yourself the
> laughingstock of the entire scientific world. Those hyper-intelligent
> people are all laughing at your stupidity.

So, let me get this straight the "hyper-intelligent" people of the
world have chosen you to speak for them. And this is what you have
to say.

So, uh, was there an interview process before these hyper-intelligent
people selected you?

Or did they swear you to secrecy?
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
2016-03-28 05:32:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:d3e03f99-fbc7-4054-99cc-***@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 9:46:32 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> You're pathetic, Jim. You must know you've made yourself the
>> laughingstock of the entire scientific world. Those hyper-intelligent
>> people are all laughing at your stupidity.

> So,

So you'll never be taken seriously, James. You'll always be that
halfwit living at home with mommy and daddy because you're too
feeble-minded to live independently. You've been off-meds for 25
years, and your ever-encroaching paranoid schizophrenia gets worse by
the day. You blather on about fictional fabrications that make no
sense because your badly broken brain cannot process reality... you're
the internet version of the street corner crackpot screaming out
unintelligible gibberish.

It's over, Jim. The jig is up, you've been proven to be delusional.
You can either dig deep and do the hard research to suss out the
truth, or you can continue driving yourself deeper into psychosis.
Your choice.

> let me get this straight the "hyper-intelligent" people of the
> world have chosen you to speak for them. And this is what you have
> to say.

No, Jim. I chose to drop-kick a moronic anti-science
conspiracy-spewing reality-denying halfwit of my own accord because
while you denigrate the AGW morons, you're even worse than they are.
At least the Klimate Katastrophe Kooks attempt to stick to reality,
whereas you're off in La-La Land blathering on about impossible
physical processes as you deny scientific proof and reality.

Those hyper-intelligent people of the sciences need no defending,
they're right, and they've proven it via rigorously-controlled
experimentation, whereas all you've got is stupid suppositions that
make no sense, which you pulled straight from your ass.

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

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

> So, uh, was there an interview process before these hyper-intelligent
> people selected you?
>
> Or did they swear you to secrecy?

You're still backpedaling, James.

Remember, James, you were stupid enough to let yourself get trapped by
your own illogic, and in attempting to evade your having been proven
wrong, you stupidly publicly retracted the main premise of your
"theory not-a-theory", and thus your entire fabrication came crashing
down around you.

I did that to you, James. I predicted it'd happen, then I made it
happen. You're far too stupid, uneducated and insane to even
understand or acknowledge reality, let alone try to model it.

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
Message-ID: <***@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Retracted:
> 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

Thanks for playing, but you lose.

That's reality, James. Deal with it. Tardnado. LOL

--

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
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.

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 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?

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
hundreds 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 does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density
differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That
less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your
giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly
appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim?

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

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 can't you answer those questions, Jim?
James McGinn
2016-03-28 06:06:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 10:43:31 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
> <news:d3e03f99-fbc7-4054-99cc-***@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
> > On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 9:46:32 AM UTC-7,
> > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>
> >> You're pathetic, Jim. You must know you've made yourself the
> >> laughingstock of the entire scientific world. Those hyper-intelligent
> >> people are all laughing at your stupidity.
>
> > So,
>
> So you'll never be taken seriously, James. You'll always be that
> halfwit living at home with mommy and daddy because you're too
> feeble-minded to live independently. You've been off-meds for 25
> years, and your ever-encroaching paranoid schizophrenia gets worse by
> the day. You blather on about fictional fabrications that make no
> sense because your badly broken brain cannot process reality... you're
> the internet version of the street corner crackpot screaming out
> unintelligible gibberish.
>
> It's over, Jim. The jig is up, you've been proven to be delusional.
> You can either dig deep and do the hard research to suss out the
> truth, or you can continue driving yourself deeper into psychosis.
> Your choice.
>
> > let me get this straight the "hyper-intelligent" people of the
> > world have chosen you to speak for them. And this is what you have
> > to say.
>
> No, Jim. I chose to drop-kick a moronic anti-science
> conspiracy-spewing reality-denying halfwit of my own accord because
> while you denigrate the AGW morons, you're even worse than they are.
> At least the Klimate Katastrophe Kooks attempt to stick to reality,
> whereas you're off in La-La Land blathering on about impossible
> physical processes as you deny scientific proof and reality.
>
> Those hyper-intelligent people of the sciences need no defending,
> they're right, and they've proven it via rigorously-controlled
> experimentation, whereas all you've got is stupid suppositions that
> make no sense, which you pulled straight from your ass.
>
> 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 are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions,
> James?
>
> Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as
> "delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?
>
> > So, uh, was there an interview process before these hyper-intelligent
> > people selected you?
> >
> > Or did they swear you to secrecy?
>
> You're still backpedaling, James.
>
> Remember, James, you were stupid enough to let yourself get trapped by
> your own illogic, and in attempting to evade your having been proven
> wrong, you stupidly publicly retracted the main premise of your
> "theory not-a-theory", and thus your entire fabrication came crashing
> down around you.
>
> I did that to you, James. I predicted it'd happen, then I made it
> happen. You're far too stupid, uneducated and insane to even
> understand or acknowledge reality, let alone try to model it.
>
> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
> Message-ID: <***@dizum.com>
> ========================================================
> > Retracted:
> > 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
>
> Thanks for playing, but you lose.
>
> That's reality, James. Deal with it. Tardnado. LOL
>
> --
>
> Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
> which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
> inherent in your "theory":
>
> ============================================================
> 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.
>
> 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 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?
>
> 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
> hundreds 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 does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density
> differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That
> less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your
> giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly
> appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim?
>
> How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
> Jim?
>
> 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 can't you answer those questions, Jim?

So, can you provide details as to how these hyper-intelligent people contacted you to inform you that you had been selected? Did it in any way involve telepathy? You can tell us. We're your friends.
James McGinn
2016-03-28 15:36:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 11:06:13 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 10:43:31 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> > Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
> >
> > James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
> > <news:d3e03f99-fbc7-4054-99cc-***@googlegroups.com> did
> > thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> >
> > > On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 9:46:32 AM UTC-7,
> > > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> >
> > >> You're pathetic, Jim. You must know you've made yourself the
> > >> laughingstock of the entire scientific world. Those hyper-intelligent
> > >> people are all laughing at your stupidity.
> >
> > > So,
> >
> > So you'll never be taken seriously, James. You'll always be that
> > halfwit living at home with mommy and daddy because you're too
> > feeble-minded to live independently. You've been off-meds for 25
> > years, and your ever-encroaching paranoid schizophrenia gets worse by
> > the day. You blather on about fictional fabrications that make no
> > sense because your badly broken brain cannot process reality... you're
> > the internet version of the street corner crackpot screaming out
> > unintelligible gibberish.
> >
> > It's over, Jim. The jig is up, you've been proven to be delusional.
> > You can either dig deep and do the hard research to suss out the
> > truth, or you can continue driving yourself deeper into psychosis.
> > Your choice.
> >
> > > let me get this straight the "hyper-intelligent" people of the
> > > world have chosen you to speak for them. And this is what you have
> > > to say.
> >
> > No, Jim. I chose to drop-kick a moronic anti-science
> > conspiracy-spewing reality-denying halfwit of my own accord because
> > while you denigrate the AGW morons, you're even worse than they are.
> > At least the Klimate Katastrophe Kooks attempt to stick to reality,
> > whereas you're off in La-La Land blathering on about impossible
> > physical processes as you deny scientific proof and reality.
> >
> > Those hyper-intelligent people of the sciences need no defending,
> > they're right, and they've proven it via rigorously-controlled
> > experimentation, whereas all you've got is stupid suppositions that
> > make no sense, which you pulled straight from your ass.
> >
> > 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 are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions,
> > James?
> >
> > Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as
> > "delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?
> >
> > > So, uh, was there an interview process before these hyper-intelligent
> > > people selected you?
> > >
> > > Or did they swear you to secrecy?
> >
> > You're still backpedaling, James.
> >
> > Remember, James, you were stupid enough to let yourself get trapped by
> > your own illogic, and in attempting to evade your having been proven
> > wrong, you stupidly publicly retracted the main premise of your
> > "theory not-a-theory", and thus your entire fabrication came crashing
> > down around you.
> >
> > I did that to you, James. I predicted it'd happen, then I made it
> > happen. You're far too stupid, uneducated and insane to even
> > understand or acknowledge reality, let alone try to model it.
> >
> > James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
> > Message-ID: <***@dizum.com>
> > ========================================================
> > > Retracted:
> > > 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
> >
> > Thanks for playing, but you lose.
> >
> > That's reality, James. Deal with it. Tardnado. LOL
> >
> > --
> >
> > Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
> > which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
> > inherent in your "theory":
> >
> > ============================================================
> > 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.
> >
> > 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 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?
> >
> > 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
> > hundreds 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 does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density
> > differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That
> > less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your
> > giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly
> > appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim?
> >
> > How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
> > Jim?
> >
> > 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 can't you answer those questions, Jim?
>
> So, can you provide details as to how these hyper-intelligent people contacted you to inform you that you had been selected? Did it in any way involve telepathy? You can tell us. We're your friends.

I imagine they must have had some super secret method for revealing you had been selected that allowed them to maintain the secrecy of their identity. And I suppose you can't tell us about that, can you?
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
2016-03-28 16:27:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:cd269802-b9b3-4063-a6cc-***@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 11:06:13 PM UTC-7,
> James 'Tardnado' McGinn wrote:

>> On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 10:43:31 PM UTC-7,
>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>>> You're pathetic, Jim. You must know you've made yourself the
>>>>> laughingstock of the entire scientific world. Those hyper-intelligent
>>>>> people are all laughing at your stupidity.

>>>> So,

>>> So you'll never be taken seriously, James. You'll always be that
>>> halfwit living at home with mommy and daddy because you're too
>>> feeble-minded to live independently. You've been off-meds for 25
>>> years, and your ever-encroaching paranoid schizophrenia gets worse by
>>> the day. You blather on about fictional fabrications that make no
>>> sense because your badly broken brain cannot process reality... you're
>>> the internet version of the street corner crackpot screaming out
>>> unintelligible gibberish.
>>>
>>> It's over, Jim. The jig is up, you've been proven to be delusional.
>>> You can either dig deep and do the hard research to suss out the
>>> truth, or you can continue driving yourself deeper into psychosis.
>>> Your choice.

>>>> let me get this straight the "hyper-intelligent" people of the
>>>> world have chosen you to speak for them. And this is what you have
>>>> to say.

>>> No, Jim. I chose to drop-kick a moronic anti-science
>>> conspiracy-spewing reality-denying halfwit of my own accord because
>>> while you denigrate the AGW morons, you're even worse than they are.
>>> At least the Klimate Katastrophe Kooks attempt to stick to reality,
>>> whereas you're off in La-La Land blathering on about impossible
>>> physical processes as you deny scientific proof and reality.
>>>
>>> Those hyper-intelligent people of the sciences need no defending,
>>> they're right, and they've proven it via rigorously-controlled
>>> experimentation, whereas all you've got is stupid suppositions that
>>> make no sense, which you pulled straight from your ass.
>>>
>>> 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 are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions,
>>> James?
>>>
>>> Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as
>>> "delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?

No reply, James? Still running away from the fact that you're a
pathetic loser, James?

>>>> So, uh, was there an interview process before these hyper-intelligent
>>>> people selected you?
>>>>
>>>> Or did they swear you to secrecy?

>>> You're still backpedaling, James.
>>>
>>> Remember, James, you were stupid enough to let yourself get trapped by
>>> your own illogic, and in attempting to evade your having been proven
>>> wrong, you stupidly publicly retracted the main premise of your
>>> "theory not-a-theory", and thus your entire fabrication came crashing
>>> down around you.
>>>
>>> I did that to you, James. I predicted it'd happen, then I made it
>>> happen. You're far too stupid, uneducated and insane to even
>>> understand or acknowledge reality, let alone try to model it.
>>>
>>> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
>>> Message-ID: <***@dizum.com>
>>> ========================================================
>>> > Retracted:
>>> > 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
>>>
>>> Thanks for playing, but you lose.
>>>
>>> That's reality, James. Deal with it. Tardnado. LOL

>> So, can you provide details as to how these hyper-intelligent
>> people contacted you to inform you that you had been selected?
>> Did it in any way involve telepathy? You can tell us. We're
>> your friends.

Still trying to backpedal via non sequitur, James? I've got you
constantly back on your heels now. You're not even trying to discuss
or defend your moronic theory, you're just backing away as I land blow
after blow. You've lost, James. I won.

That's reality, James. _Deal_ _with_ _it_.

<snicker>

> I imagine they must have had some super secret method for revealing
> you had been selected that allowed them to maintain the secrecy of
> their identity. And I suppose you can't tell us about that, can you?

And now I've got James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn so defensive that
he's answering his own posts... likely a result of his Dissociative
Identity Disorder flaring up.

Why have the courts made you a ward of your mommy and daddy, with whom
you've lived your entire pathetic life, because you've legally been
deemed mentally incompetent, 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 can't you answer those questions, James?

--

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
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.

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 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?

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
hundreds 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 does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density
differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That
less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your
giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly
appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim?

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

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 can't you answer those questions, Jim?
James McGinn
2016-03-28 16:59:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 9:38:20 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> >>> Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as
> >>> "delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?
>
> No reply, James? Still running away from the fact that you're a
> pathetic loser, James?

These same people would have described Einstein as such too, right.

Believers call names when their beliefs are shown to be false.

> >> So, can you provide details as to how these hyper-intelligent
> >> people contacted you to inform you that you had been selected?
> >> Did it in any way involve telepathy? You can tell us. We're
> >> your friends.
>
> Still trying to backpedal via non sequitur, James? I've got you
> constantly back on your heels now. You're not even trying to discuss
> or defend your moronic theory, you're just backing away as I land blow
> after blow. You've lost, James. I won.

How do you all idenitify each other. Is there somekind of secret hand shake or something?

> > I imagine they must have had some super secret method for revealing
> > you had been selected that allowed them to maintain the secrecy of
> > their identity. And I suppose you can't tell us about that, can you?
>
> And now I've got James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn so defensive that
> he's answering his own posts... likely a result of his Dissociative
> Identity Disorder flaring up.

Do you wear funny hats on certain days of the week?
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
2016-03-29 05:19:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:82ee84d6-3fea-40a7-b50d-***@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 9:38:20 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

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

>> No reply, James? Still running away from the fact that you're a
>> pathetic loser, James?

> These same people would have described Einstein as such too, right.

Wrong. Einstein was hailed as a luminary, a mathematical genius who
derived the elegant mathematics, with help from and working alongside
other scientists of the time, to describe reality to an amazing level
of accuracy. He then did the carefully controlled experiments to test
his hypothesis in an attempt to null it, as every good scientist does.

Conversely, you have no evidence, no proof, no mathematics, no
collaborations, no corroborating experimental data, your "theory
not-a-theory" cannot predict any behavior and cannot explain a giant
swath of everyday phenomena, and there is a growing mountain of
scientific proof that you're delusional. You run from doing
experiments because you know it'll null your moronic blather, you
attempt to twist scientific fact to fit your delusion, you backpedal
and lie as you blather on about wholly impossible physical processes.

You're not a scientist, James. You're just a basement-dwelling
off-meds schizo-brain moron who has to live at home with mommy and
daddy because you've been deemed legally mentally incompetent.

Why can't you explain how a hot air balloon works, Jim? No "plasma
not-a-plasma", no sentient tornado monster in the jet stream... what
makes it rise, James? You don't know, huh, Tardnado McGinn. LOL

> Believers call names when their beliefs are shown to be false.

And that's exactly what you're doing, James, to no effect. You cannot
refute reality. Although I will note you've stated your intention to
try to sue *science*, *reality*, *photons*, *electrons* and the
*universe* in a crayon-scribbled kooksoot for their part in that
wide-ranging conspiracy to thwart your attempts at remodeling reality.

You poor broken-brained little kooktard. Take your meds. You're
embarrassing yourself. LOL

>>>> So, can you provide details as to how these hyper-intelligent
>>>> people contacted you to inform you that you had been selected?
>>>> Did it in any way involve telepathy? You can tell us. We're
>>>> your friends.

>> Still trying to backpedal via non sequitur, James? I've got you
>> constantly back on your heels now. You're not even trying to discuss
>> or defend your moronic theory, you're just backing away as I land blow
>> after blow. You've lost, James. I won.

> How do you all idenitify each other. Is there somekind of secret
> hand shake or something?

Your schizophrenic paranoia is rearing its head again, James. Do you
believe the Meteorology Cabal would go to such lengths as to monitor
your phone line, monitor your computer, bug your room, James? Don't be
ridiculous. You'll never find the bugs no matter how hard you look.
And that psychotronic transmitter hidden in your wall, beaming voices
into your head? Doesn't exist. We're most definitely *not* trying to
drive you insane, James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of 1824 Crater Peak Way,
Antioch, CA, phone number (925) 756-0968.

But I do note you're resisting us with all your might.
Resistance is futile, James. You *will* be assimilated.

<snicker>

>>> I imagine they must have had some super secret method for revealing
>>> you had been selected that allowed them to maintain the secrecy of
>>> their identity. And I suppose you can't tell us about that, can you?

>> And now I've got James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn so defensive that
>> he's answering his own posts... likely a result of his Dissociative
>> Identity Disorder flaring up.

> Do you wear funny hats on certain days of the week?

Do you often babble incoherently, James?

<adjusts psychotronic transmitter>

Yeah, it's working. Not long now.

<snicker>

--

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
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.

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 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?

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
hundreds 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 does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density
differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That
less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your
giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly
appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim?

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

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 can't you answer those questions, Jim?
James McGinn
2016-03-29 05:58:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 10:30:13 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
> <news:82ee84d6-3fea-40a7-b50d-***@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
> > On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 9:38:20 AM UTC-7,
> > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>
> >>>>> Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as
> >>>>> "delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?
>
> >> No reply, James? Still running away from the fact that you're a
> >> pathetic loser, James?
>
> > These same people would have described Einstein as such too, right.
>
> Wrong. Einstein was hailed as a luminary,

Not at first.
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
2016-03-29 17:32:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:4b6b8191-54ec-4326-afe5-***@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 10:30:13 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
>> <news:82ee84d6-3fea-40a7-b50d-***@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>> On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 9:38:20 AM UTC-7,
>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

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

>>>> No reply, James? Still running away from the fact that you're a
>>>> pathetic loser, James?

>>> These same people would have described Einstein as such too, right.

>> Wrong. Einstein was hailed as a luminary, a mathematical genius who
>> derived the elegant mathematics, with help from and working alongside
>> other scientists of the time, to describe reality to an amazing level
>> of accuracy. He then did the carefully controlled experiments to test
>> his hypothesis in an attempt to null it, as every good scientist does.
>>
>> Conversely, you have no evidence, no proof, no mathematics, no
>> collaborations, no corroborating experimental data, your "theory
>> not-a-theory" cannot predict any behavior and cannot explain a giant
>> swath of everyday phenomena, and there is a growing mountain of
>> scientific proof that you're delusional. You run from doing
>> experiments because you know it'll null your moronic blather, you
>> attempt to twist scientific fact to fit your delusion, you backpedal
>> and lie as you blather on about wholly impossible physical processes.
>>
>> You're not a scientist, James. You're just a basement-dwelling
>> off-meds schizo-brain moron who has to live at home with mommy and
>> daddy because you've been deemed legally mentally incompetent.
>>
>> Why can't you explain how a hot air balloon works, Jim? No "plasma
>> not-a-plasma", no sentient tornado monster in the jet stream... what
>> makes it rise, James? You don't know, huh, Tardnado McGinn. LOL

> Not at first.

You've been at it since 1991 by your own admission, James. If what
you've been blathering had any scientific merit whatsoever, it would
have been accepted by now. That you've instead become a scientific
fraud, a laughingstock, and your name made synonymous with scientific
fraudulence should tell you something.

You're never going to live this down, James. You've blathered your
moronity for a quarter century as your paranoid schizophrenia grew,
and you'll go to your grave to the sounds of taunting laughter
directed at the moronic halfwit who just couldn't for the life of him
figure our reality. LOL

Why can't you answer those questions, James?

--

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.

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.

You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's
Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrstatic 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?

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, Jim?
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
2016-03-28 16:48:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:9d247746-4048-453e-8d87-***@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 10:43:31 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
>> <news:d3e03f99-fbc7-4054-99cc-***@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>> On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 9:46:32 AM UTC-7,
>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>> You're pathetic, Jim. You must know you've made yourself the
>>>> laughingstock of the entire scientific world. Those hyper-intelligent
>>>> people are all laughing at your stupidity.

>>> So,

>> So you'll never be taken seriously, James. You'll always be that
>> halfwit living at home with mommy and daddy because you're too
>> feeble-minded to live independently. You've been off-meds for 25
>> years, and your ever-encroaching paranoid schizophrenia gets worse by
>> the day. You blather on about fictional fabrications that make no
>> sense because your badly broken brain cannot process reality... you're
>> the internet version of the street corner crackpot screaming out
>> unintelligible gibberish.
>>
>> It's over, Jim. The jig is up, you've been proven to be delusional.
>> You can either dig deep and do the hard research to suss out the
>> truth, or you can continue driving yourself deeper into psychosis.
>> Your choice.

<crckets> LOL

No reply, James? Does that truth about yourself sting your fragile
psyche so much you can't even defensively blather backpedaling non
sequiturs, James?

>>> let me get this straight the "hyper-intelligent" people of the
>>> world have chosen you to speak for them. And this is what you have
>>> to say.

>> No, Jim. I chose to drop-kick a moronic anti-science
>> conspiracy-spewing reality-denying halfwit of my own accord because
>> while you denigrate the AGW morons, you're even worse than they are.
>> At least the Klimate Katastrophe Kooks attempt to stick to reality,
>> whereas you're off in La-La Land blathering on about impossible
>> physical processes as you deny scientific proof and reality.
>>
>> Those hyper-intelligent people of the sciences need no defending,
>> they're right, and they've proven it via rigorously-controlled
>> experimentation, whereas all you've got is stupid suppositions that
>> make no sense, which you pulled straight from your ass.
>>
>> 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 are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions,
>> James?
>>
>> Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as
>> "delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?

No answer to those tough questions, James? You poor pathetic
kooktard... are you frequently depressed knowing you've accomplished
exactly *nothing* in life other than proving that you're an utter
failure at *everything*, James? LOL

>>> So, uh, was there an interview process before these hyper-intelligent
>>> people selected you?
>>>
>>> Or did they swear you to secrecy?

>> You're still backpedaling, James.
>>
>> Remember, James, you were stupid enough to let yourself get trapped by
>> your own illogic, and in attempting to evade your having been proven
>> wrong, you stupidly publicly retracted the main premise of your
>> "theory not-a-theory", and thus your entire fabrication came crashing
>> down around you.
>>
>> I did that to you, James. I predicted it'd happen, then I made it
>> happen. You're far too stupid, uneducated and insane to even
>> understand or acknowledge reality, let alone try to model it.
>>
>> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
>> Message-ID: <***@dizum.com>
>> ========================================================
>> > Retracted:
>> > 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
>>
>> Thanks for playing, but you lose.
>>
>> That's reality, James. Deal with it. Tardnado. LOL

> So, can you provide details as to how these hyper-intelligent
> people contacted you to inform you that you had been selected?
> Did it in any way involve telepathy? You can tell us. We're
> your friends.

Still trying to backpedal via non sequitur, James? I've got you
constantly back on your heels now. You're not even trying to discuss
or defend your moronic theory, you're just backing away as I land blow
after blow. You've lost, James. I won.

That's reality, James. _Deal_ _with_ _it_.

<snicker>

--

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
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.

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 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?

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
hundreds 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 does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density
differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That
less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your
giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly
appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim?

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

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 can't you answer those questions, Jim?
James McGinn
2016-03-28 17:03:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 9:59:07 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> No reply, James? Does that truth about yourself sting your fragile
> psyche so much you can't even defensively blather backpedaling non
> sequiturs, James?

So, let me get this straight, your theory is that *I* have a fragile psyche?
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
2016-03-29 05:57:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:55240c64-73e3-4fd1-a03c-***@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 9:59:07 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> No reply, James? Does that truth about yourself sting your fragile
>> psyche so much you can't even defensively blather backpedaling non
>> sequiturs, James?

> So, let me get this straight, your theory is that *I* have a fragile psyche?

Your psyche is so fragile, James, that you delusionally believe there
to be a Meteorology Cabal which is conspiring to hide the truth. We
don't exist, James. It's all in your head. Take your meds. Let go. You
*will* be assimilated. You have no choice. Resistance is futile.

<snicker>

--

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
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.

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 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?

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
hundreds 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 does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density
differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That
less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your
giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly
appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim?

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

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 can't you answer those questions, Jim?
Skeet
2016-03-28 19:15:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 18:48:19 +0200 (CEST), Friendly Neighborhood Vote
Wrangler Emeritus <***@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

><crckets> LOL
>
>No reply, James? Does that truth about yourself sting your fragile
>psyche so much you can't even defensively blather backpedaling non
>sequiturs, James?

crckets?
pandora
2016-03-28 21:51:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 13:15:15 -0600, Skeet wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 18:48:19 +0200 (CEST), Friendly Neighborhood Vote
> Wrangler Emeritus <***@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
>
>><crckets> LOL
>>
>>No reply, James? Does that truth about yourself sting your fragile
>>psyche so much you can't even defensively blather backpedaling non
>>sequiturs, James?
>
> crckets?

The guy is Really desperate for attention, non?
James McGinn
2016-04-10 15:29:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 9:21:07 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> Vortices can exist-in/grow-into boundary layers in our atmosphere. There are thousands of vortices in existence and growing into thousands of boundary layers in our atmosphere at all times. These vortices are extensions of jet streams which are themselves vortices that exist-in and grow into the boundary layer between the stratosphere and the troposphere. Understanding how and why vortices grow (along boundaries between moist bodies of air and dry bodies of air) in our atmosphere is, possibly, the most important concept in storm theory. Along these lines, it helps us resolve what would otherwise be a significant conundrum, how/why heavier moist air gets higher in our atmosphere than lighter dry air.
>
> In a nutshell, the net effect of these thousands of vortices in our atmosphere is to lift heavier moist air higher in the atmosphere than drier air. Meteorology, however, does not recognize this. Instead meteorology decreed that moist air is lighter than dry air. Problem solved. Now all they had to do was avoid testing this assumption, which they achieved by making the whole subject a taboo issue. (Now you see the REAL reason that John Coleman has muted himself.) What can't be discussed can't be tested. Then it's simply a matter of systematically ignoring/alienating anybody that has the temerity to suggest that the weight of moist/dry air should be measured. Accordingly these political tactics insure that the notion that convection causes storms can never be tested empirically. The end-maintaining the illusion of scientific credibilty-justifies the means.
>
> There is a gigantic price to pay for the convenience of meteorologists being able to pretend to understand what they do not understand, and this burden is bared by the public in the form of death and destruction from severe weather and economic losses as a result of drought. Accordingly, if meteorologists were not so obsessed with maintaining this taboo then research would have, naturally, lead meteorologists to be better able to recognize the importance of boundary layers in our atmosphere which would, naturally, lead to the development of methods to better predict and mitigate severe weather and avoid drought.
>
>
The time has come to make a change. The time has come that the public must make it known that meteorologists no longer have to fear retribution if they admit that they really don't understand storms. The time has come for us to inform them that pretending to understand and evading debate/discussion will no longer be tolerated. The time has come to bring them, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. And then, maybe, we can start making progress in getting a better understanding of boundary layers.
>
> Boundary layers are the true commodity of atmospheric flow, not convection.
James McGinn
2016-04-21 09:00:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 9:21:07 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> Vortices can exist-in/grow-into boundary layers in our atmosphere. There are thousands of vortices in existence and growing into thousands of boundary layers in our atmosphere at all times. These vortices are extensions of jet streams which are themselves vortices that exist-in and grow into the boundary layer between the stratosphere and the troposphere. Understanding how and why vortices grow (along boundaries between moist bodies of air and dry bodies of air) in our atmosphere is, possibly, the most important concept in storm theory. Along these lines, it helps us resolve what would otherwise be a significant conundrum, how/why heavier moist air gets higher in our atmosphere than lighter dry air.
>
> In a nutshell, the net effect of these thousands of vortices in our atmosphere is to lift heavier moist air higher in the atmosphere than drier air. Meteorology, however, does not recognize this. Instead meteorology decreed that moist air is lighter than dry air. Problem solved. Now all they had to do was avoid testing this assumption, which they achieved by making the whole subject a taboo issue. (Now you see the REAL reason that John Coleman has muted himself.) What can't be discussed can't be tested. Then it's simply a matter of systematically ignoring/alienating anybody that has the temerity to suggest that the weight of moist/dry air should be measured. Accordingly these political tactics insure that the notion that convection causes storms can never be tested empirically. The end-maintaining the illusion of scientific credibilty-justifies the means.
>
> There is a gigantic price to pay for the convenience of meteorologists being able to pretend to understand what they do not understand, and this burden is bared by the public in the form of death and destruction from severe weather and economic losses as a result of drought. Accordingly, if meteorologists were not so obsessed with maintaining this taboo then research would have, naturally, lead meteorologists to be better able to recognize the importance of boundary layers in our atmosphere which would, naturally, lead to the development of methods to better predict and mitigate severe weather and avoid drought.
>
>
The time has come to make a change. The time has come that the public must make it known that meteorologists no longer have to fear retribution if they admit that they really don't understand storms. The time has come for us to inform them that pretending to understand and evading debate/discussion will no longer be tolerated. The time has come to bring them, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. And then, maybe, we can start making progress in getting a better understanding of boundary layers.
>
> Boundary layers are the true commodity of atmospheric flow, not convection.
James McGinn
2016-04-29 16:25:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 9:21:07 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> Vortices can exist-in/grow-into boundary layers in our atmosphere. There are thousands of vortices in existence and growing into thousands of boundary layers in our atmosphere at all times. These vortices are extensions of jet streams which are themselves vortices that exist-in and grow into the boundary layer between the stratosphere and the troposphere. Understanding how and why vortices grow (along boundaries between moist bodies of air and dry bodies of air) in our atmosphere is, possibly, the most important concept in storm theory. Along these lines, it helps us resolve what would otherwise be a significant conundrum, how/why heavier moist air gets higher in our atmosphere than lighter dry air.
>
> In a nutshell, the net effect of these thousands of vortices in our atmosphere is to lift heavier moist air higher in the atmosphere than drier air. Meteorology, however, does not recognize this. Instead meteorology decreed that moist air is lighter than dry air. Problem solved. Now all they had to do was avoid testing this assumption, which they achieved by making the whole subject a taboo issue. (Now you see the REAL reason that John Coleman has muted himself.) What can't be discussed can't be tested. Then it's simply a matter of systematically ignoring/alienating anybody that has the temerity to suggest that the weight of moist/dry air should be measured. Accordingly these political tactics insure that the notion that convection causes storms can never be tested empirically. The end-maintaining the illusion of scientific credibilty-justifies the means.
>
> There is a gigantic price to pay for the convenience of meteorologists being able to pretend to understand what they do not understand, and this burden is bared by the public in the form of death and destruction from severe weather and economic losses as a result of drought. Accordingly, if meteorologists were not so obsessed with maintaining this taboo then research would have, naturally, lead meteorologists to be better able to recognize the importance of boundary layers in our atmosphere which would, naturally, lead to the development of methods to better predict and mitigate severe weather and avoid drought.
>
> The time has come to make a change. The time has come that the public must make it known that meteorologists no longer have to fear retribution if they admit that they really don't understand storms. The time has come for us to inform them that pretending to understand and evading debate/discussion will no longer be tolerated. The time has come to bring them, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. And then, maybe, we can start making progress in getting a better understanding of boundary layers.
>
>
Boundary layers are the true commodity of atmospheric flow, not convection.
James McGinn
2016-06-14 04:54:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 9:21:07 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> Vortices can exist-in/grow-into boundary layers in our atmosphere. There are thousands of vortices in existence and growing into thousands of boundary layers in our atmosphere at all times. These vortices are extensions of jet streams which are themselves vortices that exist-in and grow into the boundary layer between the stratosphere and the troposphere. Understanding how and why vortices grow (along boundaries between moist bodies of air and dry bodies of air) in our atmosphere is, possibly, the most important concept in storm theory. Along these lines, it helps us resolve what would otherwise be a significant conundrum, how/why heavier moist air gets higher in our atmosphere than lighter dry air.
>
> In a nutshell, the net effect of these thousands of vortices in our atmosphere is to lift heavier moist air higher in the atmosphere than drier air. Meteorology, however, does not recognize this. Instead meteorology decreed that moist air is lighter than dry air. Problem solved. Now all they had to do was avoid testing this assumption, which they achieved by making the whole subject a taboo issue. (Now you see the REAL reason that John Coleman has muted himself.) What can't be discussed can't be tested. Then it's simply a matter of systematically ignoring/alienating anybody that has the temerity to suggest that the weight of moist/dry air should be measured. Accordingly these political tactics insure that the notion that convection causes storms can never be tested empirically. The end-maintaining the illusion of scientific credibilty-justifies the means.
>
> There is a gigantic price to pay for the convenience of meteorologists being able to pretend to understand what they do not understand, and this burden is bared by the public in the form of death and destruction from severe weather and economic losses as a result of drought. Accordingly, if meteorologists were not so obsessed with maintaining this taboo then research would have, naturally, lead meteorologists to be better able to recognize the importance of boundary layers in our atmosphere which would, naturally, lead to the development of methods to better predict and mitigate severe weather and avoid drought.
>
> The time has come to make a change. The time has come that the public must make it known that meteorologists no longer have to fear retribution if they admit that they really don't understand storms. The time has come for us to inform them that pretending to understand and evading debate/discussion will no longer be tolerated. The time has come to bring them, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. And then, maybe, we can start making progress in getting a better understanding of boundary layers.
>
> Boundary layers are the true commodity of atmospheric flow, not convection.
James McGinn
2016-09-05 14:28:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 9:21:07 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> Vortices can exist-in/grow-into boundary layers in our atmosphere. There are thousands of vortices in existence and growing into thousands of boundary layers in our atmosphere at all times. These vortices are extensions of jet streams which are themselves vortices that exist-in and grow into the boundary layer between the stratosphere and the troposphere. Understanding how and why vortices grow (along boundaries between moist bodies of air and dry bodies of air) in our atmosphere is, possibly, the most important concept in storm theory. Along these lines, it helps us resolve what would otherwise be a significant conundrum, how/why heavier moist air gets higher in our atmosphere than lighter dry air.
>
> In a nutshell, the net effect of these thousands of vortices in our atmosphere is to lift heavier moist air higher in the atmosphere than drier air. Meteorology, however, does not recognize this. Instead meteorology decreed that moist air is lighter than dry air. Problem solved. Now all they had to do was avoid testing this assumption, which they achieved by making the whole subject a taboo issue. (Now you see the REAL reason that John Coleman has muted himself.) What can't be discussed can't be tested. Then it's simply a matter of systematically ignoring/alienating anybody that has the temerity to suggest that the weight of moist/dry air should be measured. Accordingly these political tactics insure that the notion that convection causes storms can never be tested empirically. The end-maintaining the illusion of scientific credibilty-justifies the means.
>
> There is a gigantic price to pay for the convenience of meteorologists being able to pretend to understand what they do not understand, and this burden is bared by the public in the form of death and destruction from severe weather and economic losses as a result of drought. Accordingly, if meteorologists were not so obsessed with maintaining this taboo then research would have, naturally, lead meteorologists to be better able to recognize the importance of boundary layers in our atmosphere which would, naturally, lead to the development of methods to better predict and mitigate severe weather and avoid drought.
>
> The time has come to make a change. The time has come that the public must make it known that meteorologists no longer have to fear retribution if they admit that they really don't understand storms. The time has come for us to inform them that pretending to understand and evading debate/discussion will no longer be tolerated. The time has come to bring them, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. And then, maybe, we can start making progress in getting a better understanding of boundary layers.
>
> Boundary layers are the true commodity of atmospheric flow, not convection.
James McGinn
2016-10-17 02:54:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 9:21:07 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> Vortices can exist-in/grow-into boundary layers in our atmosphere. There are thousands of vortices in existence and growing into thousands of boundary layers in our atmosphere at all times. These vortices are extensions of jet streams which are themselves vortices that exist-in and grow into the boundary layer between the stratosphere and the troposphere. Understanding how and why vortices grow (along boundaries between moist bodies of air and dry bodies of air) in our atmosphere is, possibly, the most important concept in storm theory. Along these lines, it helps us resolve what would otherwise be a significant conundrum, how/why heavier moist air gets higher in our atmosphere than lighter dry air.
>
> In a nutshell, the net effect of these thousands of vortices in our atmosphere is to lift heavier moist air higher in the atmosphere than drier air. Meteorology, however, does not recognize this. Instead meteorology decreed that moist air is lighter than dry air. Problem solved. Now all they had to do was avoid testing this assumption, which they achieved by making the whole subject a taboo issue. (Now you see the REAL reason that John Coleman has muted himself.) What can't be discussed can't be tested. Then it's simply a matter of systematically ignoring/alienating anybody that has the temerity to suggest that the weight of moist/dry air should be measured. Accordingly these political tactics insure that the notion that convection causes storms can never be tested empirically. The end-maintaining the illusion of scientific credibilty-justifies the means.
>
> There is a gigantic price to pay for the convenience of meteorologists being able to pretend to understand what they do not understand, and this burden is bared by the public in the form of death and destruction from severe weather and economic losses as a result of drought. Accordingly, if meteorologists were not so obsessed with maintaining this taboo then research would have, naturally, lead meteorologists to be better able to recognize the importance of boundary layers in our atmosphere which would, naturally, lead to the development of methods to better predict and mitigate severe weather and avoid drought.
>
> The time has come to make a change. The time has come that the public must make it known that meteorologists no longer have to fear retribution if they admit that they really don't understand storms. The time has come for us to inform them that pretending to understand and evading debate/discussion will no longer be tolerated. The time has come to bring them, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. And then, maybe, we can start making progress in getting a better understanding of boundary layers.
>
> Boundary layers are the true commodity of atmospheric flow, not convection.
James McGinn
2016-11-27 18:25:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 9:21:07 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> Vortices can exist-in/grow-into boundary layers in our atmosphere. There are thousands of vortices in existence and growing into thousands of boundary layers in our atmosphere at all times. These vortices are extensions of jet streams which are themselves vortices that exist-in and grow into the boundary layer between the stratosphere and the troposphere. Understanding how and why vortices grow (along boundaries between moist bodies of air and dry bodies of air) in our atmosphere is, possibly, the most important concept in storm theory. Along these lines, it helps us resolve what would otherwise be a significant conundrum, how/why heavier moist air gets higher in our atmosphere than lighter dry air.
>
> In a nutshell, the net effect of these thousands of vortices in our atmosphere is to lift heavier moist air higher in the atmosphere than drier air. Meteorology, however, does not recognize this. Instead meteorology decreed that moist air is lighter than dry air. Problem solved. Now all they had to do was avoid testing this assumption, which they achieved by making the whole subject a taboo issue. (Now you see the REAL reason that John Coleman has muted himself.) What can't be discussed can't be tested. Then it's simply a matter of systematically ignoring/alienating anybody that has the temerity to suggest that the weight of moist/dry air should be measured. Accordingly these political tactics insure that the notion that convection causes storms can never be tested empirically. The end-maintaining the illusion of scientific credibilty-justifies the means.
>
> There is a gigantic price to pay for the convenience of meteorologists being able to pretend to understand what they do not understand, and this burden is bared by the public in the form of death and destruction from severe weather and economic losses as a result of drought. Accordingly, if meteorologists were not so obsessed with maintaining this taboo then research would have, naturally, lead meteorologists to be better able to recognize the importance of boundary layers in our atmosphere which would, naturally, lead to the development of methods to better predict and mitigate severe weather and avoid drought.
>
> The time has come to make a change. The time has come that the public must make it known that meteorologists no longer have to fear retribution if they admit that they really don't understand storms. The time has come for us to inform them that pretending to understand and evading debate/discussion will no longer be tolerated. The time has come to bring them, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. And then, maybe, we can start making progress in getting a better understanding of boundary layers.
>
> Boundary layers are the true commodity of atmospheric flow, not convection.
James McGinn
2016-12-30 05:49:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 9:21:07 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> Vortices can exist-in/grow-into boundary layers in our atmosphere. There are thousands of vortices in existence and growing into thousands of boundary layers in our atmosphere at all times. These vortices are extensions of jet streams which are themselves vortices that exist-in and grow into the boundary layer between the stratosphere and the troposphere. Understanding how and why vortices grow (along boundaries between moist bodies of air and dry bodies of air) in our atmosphere is, possibly, the most important concept in storm theory. Along these lines, it helps us resolve what would otherwise be a significant conundrum, how/why heavier moist air gets higher in our atmosphere than lighter dry air.
>
> In a nutshell, the net effect of these thousands of vortices in our atmosphere is to lift heavier moist air higher in the atmosphere than drier air. Meteorology, however, does not recognize this. Instead meteorology decreed that moist air is lighter than dry air. Problem solved. Now all they had to do was avoid testing this assumption, which they achieved by making the whole subject a taboo issue. (Now you see the REAL reason that John Coleman has muted himself.) What can't be discussed can't be tested. Then it's simply a matter of systematically ignoring/alienating anybody that has the temerity to suggest that the weight of moist/dry air should be measured. Accordingly these political tactics insure that the notion that convection causes storms can never be tested empirically. The end-maintaining the illusion of scientific credibilty-justifies the means.
>
> There is a gigantic price to pay for the convenience of meteorologists being able to pretend to understand what they do not understand, and this burden is bared by the public in the form of death and destruction from severe weather and economic losses as a result of drought. Accordingly, if meteorologists were not so obsessed with maintaining this taboo then research would have, naturally, lead meteorologists to be better able to recognize the importance of boundary layers in our atmosphere which would, naturally, lead to the development of methods to better predict and mitigate severe weather and avoid drought.
>
> The time has come to make a change. The time has come that the public must make it known that meteorologists no longer have to fear retribution if they admit that they really don't understand storms. The time has come for us to inform them that pretending to understand and evading debate/discussion will no longer be tolerated. The time has come to bring them, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. And then, maybe, we can start making progress in getting a better understanding of boundary layers.
>
> Boundary layers are the true commodity of atmospheric flow, not convection.
James McGinn
2017-03-04 20:35:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 9:21:07 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> Vortices can exist-in/grow-into boundary layers in our atmosphere. There are thousands of vortices in existence and growing into thousands of boundary layers in our atmosphere at all times. These vortices are extensions of jet streams which are themselves vortices that exist-in and grow into the boundary layer between the stratosphere and the troposphere. Understanding how and why vortices grow (along boundaries between moist bodies of air and dry bodies of air) in our atmosphere is, possibly, the most important concept in storm theory. Along these lines, it helps us resolve what would otherwise be a significant conundrum, how/why heavier moist air gets higher in our atmosphere than lighter dry air.
>
> In a nutshell, the net effect of these thousands of vortices in our atmosphere is to lift heavier moist air higher in the atmosphere than drier air. Meteorology, however, does not recognize this. Instead meteorology decreed that moist air is lighter than dry air. Problem solved. Now all they had to do was avoid testing this assumption, which they achieved by making the whole subject a taboo issue. (Now you see the REAL reason that John Coleman has muted himself.) What can't be discussed can't be tested. Then it's simply a matter of systematically ignoring/alienating anybody that has the temerity to suggest that the weight of moist/dry air should be measured. Accordingly these political tactics insure that the notion that convection causes storms can never be tested empirically. The end-maintaining the illusion of scientific credibilty-justifies the means.
>
> There is a gigantic price to pay for the convenience of meteorologists being able to pretend to understand what they do not understand, and this burden is bared by the public in the form of death and destruction from severe weather and economic losses as a result of drought. Accordingly, if meteorologists were not so obsessed with maintaining this taboo then research would have, naturally, lead meteorologists to be better able to recognize the importance of boundary layers in our atmosphere which would, naturally, lead to the development of methods to better predict and mitigate severe weather and avoid drought.
>
> The time has come to make a change. The time has come that the public must make it known that meteorologists no longer have to fear retribution if they admit that they really don't understand storms. The time has come for us to inform them that pretending to understand and evading debate/discussion will no longer be tolerated. The time has come to bring them, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. And then, maybe, we can start making progress in getting a better understanding of boundary layers.
>
> Boundary layers are the true commodity of atmospheric flow, not convection.
James McGinn
2017-03-10 16:11:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 9:21:07 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> Vortices can exist-in/grow-into boundary layers in our atmosphere. There are thousands of vortices in existence and growing into thousands of boundary layers in our atmosphere at all times. These vortices are extensions of jet streams which are themselves vortices that exist-in and grow into the boundary layer between the stratosphere and the troposphere. Understanding how and why vortices grow (along boundaries between moist bodies of air and dry bodies of air) in our atmosphere is, possibly, the most important concept in storm theory. Along these lines, it helps us resolve what would otherwise be a significant conundrum, how/why heavier moist air gets higher in our atmosphere than lighter dry air.
>
> In a nutshell, the net effect of these thousands of vortices in our atmosphere is to lift heavier moist air higher in the atmosphere than drier air. Meteorology, however, does not recognize this. Instead meteorology decreed that moist air is lighter than dry air. Problem solved. Now all they had to do was avoid testing this assumption, which they achieved by making the whole subject a taboo issue. (Now you see the REAL reason that John Coleman has muted himself.) What can't be discussed can't be tested. Then it's simply a matter of systematically ignoring/alienating anybody that has the temerity to suggest that the weight of moist/dry air should be measured. Accordingly these political tactics insure that the notion that convection causes storms can never be tested empirically. The end-maintaining the illusion of scientific credibilty-justifies the means.
>
> There is a gigantic price to pay for the convenience of meteorologists being able to pretend to understand what they do not understand, and this burden is bared by the public in the form of death and destruction from severe weather and economic losses as a result of drought. Accordingly, if meteorologists were not so obsessed with maintaining this taboo then research would have, naturally, lead meteorologists to be better able to recognize the importance of boundary layers in our atmosphere which would, naturally, lead to the development of methods to better predict and mitigate severe weather and avoid drought.
>
> The time has come to make a change. The time has come that the public must make it known that meteorologists no longer have to fear retribution if they admit that they really don't understand storms. The time has come for us to inform them that pretending to understand and evading debate/discussion will no longer be tolerated. The time has come to bring them, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. And then, maybe, we can start making progress in getting a better understanding of boundary layers.
>
> Boundary layers are the true commodity of atmospheric flow, not convection.
James McGinn
2017-05-26 03:47:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 9:21:07 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> Vortices can exist-in/grow-into boundary layers in our atmosphere. There are thousands of vortices in existence and growing into thousands of boundary layers in our atmosphere at all times. These vortices are extensions of jet streams which are themselves vortices that exist-in and grow into the boundary layer between the stratosphere and the troposphere. Understanding how and why vortices grow (along boundaries between moist bodies of air and dry bodies of air) in our atmosphere is, possibly, the most important concept in storm theory. Along these lines, it helps us resolve what would otherwise be a significant conundrum, how/why heavier moist air gets higher in our atmosphere than lighter dry air.
>
> In a nutshell, the net effect of these thousands of vortices in our atmosphere is to lift heavier moist air higher in the atmosphere than drier air. Meteorology, however, does not recognize this. Instead meteorology decreed that moist air is lighter than dry air. Problem solved. Now all they had to do was avoid testing this assumption, which they achieved by making the whole subject a taboo issue. (Now you see the REAL reason that John Coleman has muted himself.) What can't be discussed can't be tested. Then it's simply a matter of systematically ignoring/alienating anybody that has the temerity to suggest that the weight of moist/dry air should be measured. Accordingly these political tactics insure that the notion that convection causes storms can never be tested empirically. The end-maintaining the illusion of scientific credibilty-justifies the means.
>
> There is a gigantic price to pay for the convenience of meteorologists being able to pretend to understand what they do not understand, and this burden is bared by the public in the form of death and destruction from severe weather and economic losses as a result of drought. Accordingly, if meteorologists were not so obsessed with maintaining this taboo then research would have, naturally, lead meteorologists to be better able to recognize the importance of boundary layers in our atmosphere which would, naturally, lead to the development of methods to better predict and mitigate severe weather and avoid drought.
>
> The time has come to make a change. The time has come that the public must make it known that meteorologists no longer have to fear retribution if they admit that they really don't understand storms. The time has come for us to inform them that pretending to understand and evading debate/discussion will no longer be tolerated. The time has come to bring them, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. And then, maybe, we can start making progress in getting a better understanding of boundary layers.
>
> Boundary layers are the true commodity of atmospheric flow, not convection.
James McGinn
2017-06-22 17:52:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 9:21:07 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> Vortices can exist-in/grow-into boundary layers in our atmosphere. There are thousands of vortices in existence and growing into thousands of boundary layers in our atmosphere at all times. These vortices are extensions of jet streams which are themselves vortices that exist-in and grow into the boundary layer between the stratosphere and the troposphere. Understanding how and why vortices grow (along boundaries between moist bodies of air and dry bodies of air) in our atmosphere is, possibly, the most important concept in storm theory. Along these lines, it helps us resolve what would otherwise be a significant conundrum, how/why heavier moist air gets higher in our atmosphere than lighter dry air.
>
> In a nutshell, the net effect of these thousands of vortices in our atmosphere is to lift heavier moist air higher in the atmosphere than drier air. Meteorology, however, does not recognize this. Instead meteorology decreed that moist air is lighter than dry air. Problem solved. Now all they had to do was avoid testing this assumption, which they achieved by making the whole subject a taboo issue. (Now you see the REAL reason that John Coleman has muted himself.) What can't be discussed can't be tested. Then it's simply a matter of systematically ignoring/alienating anybody that has the temerity to suggest that the weight of moist/dry air should be measured. Accordingly these political tactics insure that the notion that convection causes storms can never be tested empirically. The end-maintaining the illusion of scientific credibilty-justifies the means.
>
> There is a gigantic price to pay for the convenience of meteorologists being able to pretend to understand what they do not understand, and this burden is bared by the public in the form of death and destruction from severe weather and economic losses as a result of drought. Accordingly, if meteorologists were not so obsessed with maintaining this taboo then research would have, naturally, lead meteorologists to be better able to recognize the importance of boundary layers in our atmosphere which would, naturally, lead to the development of methods to better predict and mitigate severe weather and avoid drought.
>
> The time has come to make a change. The time has come that the public must make it known that meteorologists no longer have to fear retribution if they admit that they really don't understand storms. The time has come for us to inform them that pretending to understand and evading debate/discussion will no longer be tolerated. The time has come to bring them, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. And then, maybe, we can start making progress in getting a better understanding of boundary layers.
>
> Boundary layers are the true commodity of atmospheric flow, not convection.
James McGinn
2017-08-13 20:39:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 9:21:07 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> Vortices can exist-in/grow-into boundary layers in our atmosphere. There are thousands of vortices in existence and growing into thousands of boundary layers in our atmosphere at all times. These vortices are extensions of jet streams which are themselves vortices that exist-in and grow into the boundary layer between the stratosphere and the troposphere. Understanding how and why vortices grow (along boundaries between moist bodies of air and dry bodies of air) in our atmosphere is, possibly, the most important concept in storm theory. Along these lines, it helps us resolve what would otherwise be a significant conundrum, how/why heavier moist air gets higher in our atmosphere than lighter dry air.
>
> In a nutshell, the net effect of these thousands of vortices in our atmosphere is to lift heavier moist air higher in the atmosphere than drier air. Meteorology, however, does not recognize this. Instead meteorology decreed that moist air is lighter than dry air. Problem solved. Now all they had to do was avoid testing this assumption, which they achieved by making the whole subject a taboo issue. (Now you see the REAL reason that John Coleman has muted himself.) What can't be discussed can't be tested. Then it's simply a matter of systematically ignoring/alienating anybody that has the temerity to suggest that the weight of moist/dry air should be measured. Accordingly these political tactics insure that the notion that convection causes storms can never be tested empirically. The end-maintaining the illusion of scientific credibilty-justifies the means.
>
> There is a gigantic price to pay for the convenience of meteorologists being able to pretend to understand what they do not understand, and this burden is bared by the public in the form of death and destruction from severe weather and economic losses as a result of drought. Accordingly, if meteorologists were not so obsessed with maintaining this taboo then research would have, naturally, lead meteorologists to be better able to recognize the importance of boundary layers in our atmosphere which would, naturally, lead to the development of methods to better predict and mitigate severe weather and avoid drought.
>
> The time has come to make a change. The time has come that the public must make it known that meteorologists no longer have to fear retribution if they admit that they really don't understand storms. The time has come for us to inform them that pretending to understand and evading debate/discussion will no longer be tolerated. The time has come to bring them, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. And then, maybe, we can start making progress in getting a better understanding of boundary layers.
>
> Boundary layers are the true commodity of atmospheric flow, not convection.
James McGinn
2017-10-31 15:33:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 9:21:07 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> Vortices can exist-in/grow-into boundary layers in our atmosphere. There are thousands of vortices in existence and growing into thousands of boundary layers in our atmosphere at all times. These vortices are extensions of jet streams which are themselves vortices that exist-in and grow into the boundary layer between the stratosphere and the troposphere. Understanding how and why vortices grow (along boundaries between moist bodies of air and dry bodies of air) in our atmosphere is, possibly, the most important concept in storm theory. Along these lines, it helps us resolve what would otherwise be a significant conundrum, how/why heavier moist air gets higher in our atmosphere than lighter dry air.
>
> In a nutshell, the net effect of these thousands of vortices in our atmosphere is to lift heavier moist air higher in the atmosphere than drier air. Meteorology, however, does not recognize this. Instead meteorology decreed that moist air is lighter than dry air. Problem solved. Now all they had to do was avoid testing this assumption, which they achieved by making the whole subject a taboo issue. (Now you see the REAL reason that John Coleman has muted himself.) What can't be discussed can't be tested. Then it's simply a matter of systematically ignoring/alienating anybody that has the temerity to suggest that the weight of moist/dry air should be measured. Accordingly these political tactics insure that the notion that convection causes storms can never be tested empirically. The end-maintaining the illusion of scientific credibilty-justifies the means.
>
> There is a gigantic price to pay for the convenience of meteorologists being able to pretend to understand what they do not understand, and this burden is bared by the public in the form of death and destruction from severe weather and economic losses as a result of drought. Accordingly, if meteorologists were not so obsessed with maintaining this taboo then research would have, naturally, lead meteorologists to be better able to recognize the importance of boundary layers in our atmosphere which would, naturally, lead to the development of methods to better predict and mitigate severe weather and avoid drought.
>
> The time has come to make a change. The time has come that the public must make it known that meteorologists no longer have to fear retribution if they admit that they really don't understand storms. The time has come for us to inform them that pretending to understand and evading debate/discussion will no longer be tolerated. The time has come to bring them, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. And then, maybe, we can start making progress in getting a better understanding of boundary layers.
>
> Boundary layers are the true commodity of atmospheric flow, not convection.
James McGinn
2018-03-06 04:02:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 9:21:07 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> Vortices can exist-in/grow-into boundary layers in our atmosphere. There are thousands of vortices in existence and growing into thousands of boundary layers in our atmosphere at all times. These vortices are extensions of jet streams which are themselves vortices that exist-in and grow into the boundary layer between the stratosphere and the troposphere. Understanding how and why vortices grow (along boundaries between moist bodies of air and dry bodies of air) in our atmosphere is, possibly, the most important concept in storm theory. Along these lines, it helps us resolve what would otherwise be a significant conundrum, how/why heavier moist air gets higher in our atmosphere than lighter dry air.
>
> In a nutshell, the net effect of these thousands of vortices in our atmosphere is to lift heavier moist air higher in the atmosphere than drier air. Meteorology, however, does not recognize this. Instead meteorology decreed that moist air is lighter than dry air. Problem solved. Now all they had to do was avoid testing this assumption, which they achieved by making the whole subject a taboo issue. (Now you see the REAL reason that John Coleman has muted himself.) What can't be discussed can't be tested. Then it's simply a matter of systematically ignoring/alienating anybody that has the temerity to suggest that the weight of moist/dry air should be measured. Accordingly these political tactics insure that the notion that convection causes storms can never be tested empirically. The end-maintaining the illusion of scientific credibilty-justifies the means.
>
> There is a gigantic price to pay for the convenience of meteorologists being able to pretend to understand what they do not understand, and this burden is bared by the public in the form of death and destruction from severe weather and economic losses as a result of drought. Accordingly, if meteorologists were not so obsessed with maintaining this taboo then research would have, naturally, lead meteorologists to be better able to recognize the importance of boundary layers in our atmosphere which would, naturally, lead to the development of methods to better predict and mitigate severe weather and avoid drought.
>
> The time has come to make a change. The time has come that the public must make it known that meteorologists no longer have to fear retribution if they admit that they really don't understand storms. The time has come for us to inform them that pretending to understand and evading debate/discussion will no longer be tolerated. The time has come to bring them, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. And then, maybe, we can start making progress in getting a better understanding of boundary layers.
>
> Boundary layers are the true commodity of atmospheric flow, not convection.
James McGinn
2018-04-06 02:22:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 9:21:07 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> Vortices can exist-in/grow-into boundary layers in our atmosphere. There are thousands of vortices in existence and growing into thousands of boundary layers in our atmosphere at all times. These vortices are extensions of jet streams which are themselves vortices that exist-in and grow into the boundary layer between the stratosphere and the troposphere. Understanding how and why vortices grow (along boundaries between moist bodies of air and dry bodies of air) in our atmosphere is, possibly, the most important concept in storm theory. Along these lines, it helps us resolve what would otherwise be a significant conundrum, how/why heavier moist air gets higher in our atmosphere than lighter dry air.
>
> In a nutshell, the net effect of these thousands of vortices in our atmosphere is to lift heavier moist air higher in the atmosphere than drier air. Meteorology, however, does not recognize this. Instead meteorology decreed that moist air is lighter than dry air. Problem solved. Now all they had to do was avoid testing this assumption, which they achieved by making the whole subject a taboo issue. (Now you see the REAL reason that John Coleman has muted himself.) What can't be discussed can't be tested. Then it's simply a matter of systematically ignoring/alienating anybody that has the temerity to suggest that the weight of moist/dry air should be measured. Accordingly these political tactics insure that the notion that convection causes storms can never be tested empirically. The end-maintaining the illusion of scientific credibilty-justifies the means.
>
> There is a gigantic price to pay for the convenience of meteorologists being able to pretend to understand what they do not understand, and this burden is bared by the public in the form of death and destruction from severe weather and economic losses as a result of drought. Accordingly, if meteorologists were not so obsessed with maintaining this taboo then research would have, naturally, lead meteorologists to be better able to recognize the importance of boundary layers in our atmosphere which would, naturally, lead to the development of methods to better predict and mitigate severe weather and avoid drought.
>
> The time has come to make a change. The time has come that the public must make it known that meteorologists no longer have to fear retribution if they admit that they really don't understand storms. The time has come for us to inform them that pretending to understand and evading debate/discussion will no longer be tolerated. The time has come to bring them, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. And then, maybe, we can start making progress in getting a better understanding of boundary layers.
>
> Boundary layers are the true commodity of atmospheric flow, not convection.
James McGinn
2018-04-06 02:45:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 9:21:07 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> Vortices can exist-in/grow-into boundary layers in our atmosphere. There are thousands of vortices in existence and growing into thousands of boundary layers in our atmosphere at all times. These vortices are extensions of jet streams which are themselves vortices that exist-in and grow into the boundary layer between the stratosphere and the troposphere. Understanding how and why vortices grow (along boundaries between moist bodies of air and dry bodies of air) in our atmosphere is, possibly, the most important concept in storm theory. Along these lines, it helps us resolve what would otherwise be a significant conundrum, how/why heavier moist air gets higher in our atmosphere than lighter dry air.
>
> In a nutshell, the net effect of these thousands of vortices in our atmosphere is to lift heavier moist air higher in the atmosphere than drier air. Meteorology, however, does not recognize this. Instead meteorology decreed that moist air is lighter than dry air. Problem solved. Now all they had to do was avoid testing this assumption, which they achieved by making the whole subject a taboo issue. (Now you see the REAL reason that John Coleman has muted himself.) What can't be discussed can't be tested. Then it's simply a matter of systematically ignoring/alienating anybody that has the temerity to suggest that the weight of moist/dry air should be measured. Accordingly these political tactics insure that the notion that convection causes storms can never be tested empirically. The end-maintaining the illusion of scientific credibilty-justifies the means.
>
> There is a gigantic price to pay for the convenience of meteorologists being able to pretend to understand what they do not understand, and this burden is bared by the public in the form of death and destruction from severe weather and economic losses as a result of drought. Accordingly, if meteorologists were not so obsessed with maintaining this taboo then research would have, naturally, lead meteorologists to be better able to recognize the importance of boundary layers in our atmosphere which would, naturally, lead to the development of methods to better predict and mitigate severe weather and avoid drought.
>
> The time has come to make a change. The time has come that the public must make it known that meteorologists no longer have to fear retribution if they admit that they really don't understand storms. The time has come for us to inform them that pretending to understand and evading debate/discussion will no longer be tolerated. The time has come to bring them, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. And then, maybe, we can start making progress in getting a better understanding of boundary layers.
>
> Boundary layers are the true commodity of atmospheric flow, not convection.
James McGinn
2018-05-05 20:46:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 9:21:07 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> Vortices can exist-in/grow-into boundary layers in our atmosphere. There are thousands of vortices in existence and growing into thousands of boundary layers in our atmosphere at all times. These vortices are extensions of jet streams which are themselves vortices that exist-in and grow into the boundary layer between the stratosphere and the troposphere. Understanding how and why vortices grow (along boundaries between moist bodies of air and dry bodies of air) in our atmosphere is, possibly, the most important concept in storm theory. Along these lines, it helps us resolve what would otherwise be a significant conundrum, how/why heavier moist air gets higher in our atmosphere than lighter dry air.
>
> In a nutshell, the net effect of these thousands of vortices in our atmosphere is to lift heavier moist air higher in the atmosphere than drier air. Meteorology, however, does not recognize this. Instead meteorology decreed that moist air is lighter than dry air. Problem solved. Now all they had to do was avoid testing this assumption, which they achieved by making the whole subject a taboo issue. (Now you see the REAL reason that John Coleman has muted himself.) What can't be discussed can't be tested. Then it's simply a matter of systematically ignoring/alienating anybody that has the temerity to suggest that the weight of moist/dry air should be measured. Accordingly these political tactics insure that the notion that convection causes storms can never be tested empirically. The end-maintaining the illusion of scientific credibilty-justifies the means.
>
> There is a gigantic price to pay for the convenience of meteorologists being able to pretend to understand what they do not understand, and this burden is bared by the public in the form of death and destruction from severe weather and economic losses as a result of drought. Accordingly, if meteorologists were not so obsessed with maintaining this taboo then research would have, naturally, lead meteorologists to be better able to recognize the importance of boundary layers in our atmosphere which would, naturally, lead to the development of methods to better predict and mitigate severe weather and avoid drought.
>
> The time has come to make a change. The time has come that the public must make it known that meteorologists no longer have to fear retribution if they admit that they really don't understand storms. The time has come for us to inform them that pretending to understand and evading debate/discussion will no longer be tolerated. The time has come to bring them, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. And then, maybe, we can start making progress in getting a better understanding of boundary layers.
>
> Boundary layers are the true commodity of atmospheric flow, not convection.
Loading...