Discussion:
Can you confirm/describe the underlying chemical dynamics of latent heat release
(too old to reply)
James McGinn
2016-03-13 05:38:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 8:59:11 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

Do you deny that NASA is performing real-time atmospheric profiling, to include latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?

Let's take it one step at a time:
Can you confirm/describe the underlying chemical dynamics of latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?

Why don't you contact NASA and see if they can point you to reproducible experimental data that underlies this imaginative claim.

Remember, these same people claim to have satellites that track "CO2 Forcing" that you say does not exist.

Where is the reproducible experimental data that underlies this process? Surely you don't expect me to take your word on it, do you?
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
2016-03-13 06:49:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in
Post by James McGinn
On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 8:59:11 PM UTC-8,
Post by James McGinn
Do you deny that NASA is performing real-time atmospheric
profiling, to include latent heat release in the ~11-micron
infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Can you confirm/describe the underlying chemical dynamics of
latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric
window from cloud formation?
Certainly, Jim. Can you disprove that mechanism of latent heat
release, Jim? Because I just got done spanking Kensi the LibTard
LunkHead off Usenet on that exact topic, all the information is queued
up and ready to spank you for your stupidity, too.
Post by James McGinn
Why don't you contact NASA and see if they can point you to
reproducible experimental data that underlies this imaginative claim.
Remember, these same people claim to have satellites that track
"CO2 Forcing" that you say does not exist.
Where is the reproducible experimental data that underlies this
process? Surely you don't expect me to take your word on it, do you?
Ah, so because some rogue "scientists" have been stupid enough to buy
into the CO2-induced anthropogenic global warming scam and alter their
data so they can continue to receive research grants from the liberal
government stooges who want there to be a climate catastrophe so they
can push through their kooky policies which would not otherwise have a
chance of passing, that somehow also conflates that NASA is faking
their data on cloud profiling, which would be easily discerned by the
fact that anything out of line in their readings would violate the
Laws of Thermodynamics, just as it was proven CO2-induced AGW violates
the Laws of Thermodynamics, simply because NASA isn't the only one
watching the clouds, Jim.

<http://cloudsat.atmos.colostate.edu/data>
<http://global.jaxa.jp/projects/sat/earthcare/>
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/7416/20155/00931494.pdf?arnumber=931494>
<http://radiometrics.com/data/uploads/2012/11/Ruffieux_MetZeit_06.pdf>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CCSP>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CERES>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CERES%20FM-5>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CPR>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=TANSO%20-%20CAI>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=WV-3%20CAVIS>

And yet, for all the decades that all those agencies have been
profiling clouds, not one instance of them altering the cloud
profiling data has been found... what would be the point, Jim? So
weathermen could somehow gain dominance over the populace?

Your paranoia is showing through again, Jim... you believe the
weathermen of the world are planning a coup!

Now, how about you get to answering those tough questions you've been
ducking, Jim...

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

How is your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" forming if the nuclear binding
energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the
water is dissociating into hydrogen and oxygen, Jim?

Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm, 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 kooky "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your kooky "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, 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 kooky
conspiracy theory is workable, Jim?

Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?

Your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly destroyed, Jim. It does
not and cannot reflect reality. Deal with that reality as you will,
Jim.

Most Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards like you, when presented with
the proof that they are delusional, tend to 'circle the wagons' to
protect their delusions, driving themselves ever deeper into insanity.
I note you are doing the same.

<snicker>
--
Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know:
=====================================
The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier
Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create
*sinusoids*);

That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms;

That superposition is the same as wave interference;

That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves;

That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things;

That RMS isn't a DC voltage;

That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207
volts RMS L-L;

That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1;

The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave;

That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical
engineering, physics and control systems engineering;

What a positive or negative vector is;

That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per
Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero;

That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic";

That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2
positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron.

That water does not have negative poles. The oxygen has an
electronegativity of 8+, the hydrogens 1+.

That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* nucleal charge.

What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.

That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples.

That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the
atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law to within 1.337842%
margin of error *worst* *case* at 70 F.

That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of
a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does
*not* equal zero, as Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames.

That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes
into account molar volume.

That "within 10% error" does not equal "10% error".

That water can be plasmized.

That atomic number does not equal effective nuclear charge.

That nuclear charge does not equal effective nuclear charge.

And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph.
=====================================

SPNAK!

<snicker>
James McGinn
2016-03-13 07:24:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Certainly, Jim. Can you disprove that mechanism of latent heat
release, Jim?
It's not possible to disprove a mechanism that has never been demonstrated. And I'm otherwise not interested in debating your imagination. Sorry.
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
2016-03-14 03:24:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in
On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 10:59:40 PM UTC-8,
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Certainly, Jim. Can you disprove that mechanism of latent heat
release, Jim?
It's not possible to disprove a mechanism that has never been
demonstrated.
Oh, but it has been demonstrated, Jim... to such an extent that it's
been mathematically modeled to a very high degree of accuracy, and
corroborated via empirical observation. For more than a century.
And I'm otherwise not interested in debating your imagination. Sorry.
Translation:
"I'm running away because I can't defend my kooky discredited
conspiracy theory. Sorry I'm such a delusional paranoid-schizophrenic
Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktard."

Does mental illness run in your family, James? It does now. It's
trampling you as we speak.

<snicker>

Now, get right on running away from those tough questions again,
James, thereby proving that you know your kooky conspiracy theory
cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny because it is nothing more than
the mad ranting of a thoroughly confused and insane kooktard.

So you throw out 150+ years of substantive and in-depth research as
means of attempting to salvage your kooky discredited conspiracy
theory in order to maintain your delusion that you know something no
one else, all of them smarter and saner than you, knows, Jim?

Do you really think the entire world has been wrong for a century and
a half, and *you*, the kooktard who cannot answer my tough questions,
are right, Jim?

Or do you think the Occam's Razor explanation is that you're a
delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted paranoid-schizophrenic kook who's
concocted a kooky conspiracy theory that is laughably wrong?

Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, Jim?

Why are there *no* corroborating peer-reviewed papers that back up
your kooky contentions, Jim? The ones you've provided I've used to
prove you and your kooky conspiracy theory *wrong*.

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

How is your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" forming if the nuclear binding
energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the
water is dissociating into hydrogen and oxygen, Jim?

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

How is the energy to plasmize your kooky "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, 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 kooky
conspiracy theory is workable, Jim?

Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?

Your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly destroyed, Jim. It does
not and cannot reflect reality. Deal with that reality as you will,
Jim.

Most Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards like you, when presented with
the proof that they are delusional, tend to 'circle the wagons' to
protect their delusions, driving themselves ever deeper into insanity.
I note you are doing the same.

I also note that, despite being driven *so* insane by their Usenet
Lord and Master that some kooks forget their own name, they never
forget mine... it haunts them for as long as they live.

<snicker>
--
Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know:
=====================================
The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier
Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create
*sinusoids*).

That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms.

That superposition is the same as wave interference.

That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves.

That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things.

That RMS isn't a DC voltage.

That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207
volts RMS L-L.

That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1.

The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave.

That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical
engineering, physics and control systems engineering.

What a positive or negative vector is.

That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per
Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero.

That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic".

That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2
positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron.

That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* effective
nuclear charge.

What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.

That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples.

That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the
atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law to within 1.337842%
margin of error *worst* *case* at 70 F.

That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of
a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does
*not* equal zero, as Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames.

That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes
into account molar volume.

That "within 10% error" does not equal "10% error".

That water can be plasmized.

That atomic number does not equal effective nuclear charge.

And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph.
=====================================

SPNAK!

<snicker>
James McGinn
2016-03-14 04:18:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James McGinn, in
On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 10:59:40 PM UTC-8,
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Certainly, Jim. Can you disprove that mechanism of latent heat
release, Jim?
It's not possible to disprove a mechanism that has never been
demonstrated.
Oh, but it has been demonstrated, Jim... to such an extent that it's
been mathematically modeled to a very high degree of accuracy, and
corroborated via empirical observation.
Then one can only wonder why you don't make an argument to that effect. Go ahead. I'm listening. If you have if figured out then please show me. Because I went looking for it and all I found was a wall of silence.

Go ahead. Knock yourself out.
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
2016-03-14 04:54:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in
On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 8:35:05 PM UTC-7,
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
James McGinn, in
On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 10:59:40 PM UTC-8,
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Certainly, Jim. Can you disprove that mechanism of latent heat
release, Jim?
It's not possible to disprove a mechanism that has never been
demonstrated.
Oh, but it has been demonstrated, Jim... to such an extent that it's
been mathematically modeled to a very high degree of accuracy, and
corroborated via empirical observation.
Then one can only wonder why you don't make an argument to that effect.
One can only wonder why you continue to run away from the argument
already made, Jim.
Go ahead. I'm listening.
Bwahaha! No you're not. If you were listening, Jim, you'd realize
you're a delusional kooktard touting a wholly impossible fairy tale
that's even kookier than CO2-induced AGW.
If you have if figured out then please show me.
I have shown you, Jim. You apparently lack the requisite intellectual
capacity to understand it, or your too insane to acknowledge that
reality, or a combination of both.
Because I went looking for it and all I found was a wall of silence.
Liar.
Go ahead. Knock yourself out.
You gonna just ignore my drop-kicking your delusional ass across
Usenet in my other post, Jim? Here it is again... do get right on
refuting that 250+ year knowledge, empirically observed and
experimentally confirmed time and time again, KookTard.

============================================================
James McGinn:
"Liquid water (evaporate) does have a high heat capacity. And when it
gets pulled up into the upper at atmosphere it does bring heat with
it. But it isn’t “latent” heat. It’s just heat. There is no phase
transition from gaseous H2O to liquid H2O happening in the atmosphere.
And even if there was that would not be latent heat either. Latent
heat has to do with chemical reactions, not phase transitions."

Bwahahahaa! KookTard James McGinn denies latent heat! A value that has
been empirically measured time and again, and the delusional moron
denies it exists. He goes on to further blather that "latent heat has
to do with chemical reaction, not phase transitions.", which is wrong.

Latent Heat Values (-25 to 40 C):
=================================
Melting: -79.7 cal/g, -330,000 J/kg
Freezing: +79.7 cal/g, +330,000 J/kg

Evaporation: -597.3 cal/g, -2,500,000 J/kg
Condensation: +597.3 cal/g, +2,500,000 J/kg
=================================

Latent Heat Values (-40 to 0 C):
=================================
Sublimation: -677.0 cal/g, -2,830,000 J/kg
Deposition: +677.0 cal/g, +2,830,000 J/kg
=================================

You'll note that evaporation has ~7.5 times the latent heat, aka
enthalpy, than ice melting, thus water evaporation carries away ~7.5
times more heat than ice does when melting.

Yeah, folks, James McGinn is *so* delusional that he denies well-known
physical phenomena in order to keep his kooky conspiracy theory (and
his delusions) alive.

Now, I'm sure Jim will blather something akin to:
=================================================
=================================
Evaporation: -597.3 cal/g, -2,500,000 J/kg
Condensation: +597.3 cal/g, +2,500,000 J/kg
Can you describe the reproducible experimental
evidence that underlies these numbers?"
=================================================

To which I'll reply:
=================================================
Sure, Jim. Yet again you ask for the well-known and long-obvious as
means of diverting attention away from the fact that you have
absolutely no defense of your kooky conspiracy theory.

<http://nautilus.fis.uc.pt/personal/mfiolhais/artigosdid/did5.pdf>

That PDF file not only contains details of Joseph Black's experiments
way back in the 1700s, but a modern reproduction of those experiments,
complete with references to past experiments of a similar nature.

1. S.C. Brown, "The caloric theory of heat," Am. J. Phys . 18, 367
(Sept. 1950).

2. L.W. Taylor, Physics: The Pioneer Science. Volume I. Mechanics
Heat, Sound (Dover Publications, New York), Ch. 20, p. 267. This
reproduces the original Lectures on Elements of Chemistry, given by
Black at the University of Edinburgh, published from his manuscripts
by John Robinson (Longman & Rees, London, 1803).

3. H.S. Allen and H. Moore, A Textbook of Practical Physics
(MacMillan, London, 1965), p. 296.

4. P.H. Bligh and R. Haywood, "Latent heat — Its meaning and
measurement," Eur. J. Phys. 7, 245 (1986).

5. S.Y. Mak and C.K.W. Chun, "The measurement of the specific latent
heat of fusion of ice: two improved methods," Phys. Educ. 35, 181 (May
2000).

8. H.U. Fuchs, The Dynamics of Heat (Springer, New York, 1996), p.
659.

9. C.D. Galles, "Revival of Black's experiment," Am. J. Phys. 47, 1008
(Nov. 1979).

10. J.W. Dewdney, "Newton's law of cooling as a laboratory
introduction to exponential decay functions," Am. J. Phys. 27, 668
(Dec. 1959).

11. H. Lindeman and A. Lavie, "Instrument for the measurement of the
heat of vaporization of water," Am. J. Phys. 29, 705 (Oct. 1961).

So you can see just from that small handful of replications of Joseph
Black's original experiments, James, that the latent heat of water has
been well-known for a long time, empirically observed, experimentally
confirmed, corroborated by experiment after experiment over 250+
years.
=================================================

How do I know James McGinn will bleat something like the above?
Because he already has. Then he ran away. Again.

Ok, Jim... prove your kooky contention. Measure the heat being carried
away by evaporation. If it amounts to 2,500,000 J/kg, then your kooky
theory is wrong.

But if the water being evaporated only carries away 2326 J/kg, then
you'll know you are right, and that your kooky conspiracy theory
thereby reflects reality.

Who wants to lay odds that James McGinn will run away from doing that
simple experiment which will either verify or null his kooky
conspiracy theory, because he knows it'll null.

<snicker>

Now, Jim, get right on answering those tough questions you've been
avoiding like a coward... keep that up, and people will start thinking
you don't have a plausible defense of your kooky discredited
conspiracy theory...

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

How is your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" forming if the nuclear binding
energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the
water is dissociating into hydrogen and oxygen, 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 kooky "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your kooky "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, 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 kooky
conspiracy theory is workable, Jim?

Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?

Your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly destroyed, Jim. It does
not and cannot reflect reality. Deal with that reality as you will,
Jim.

Most Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards like you, when presented with
the proof that they are delusional, tend to 'circle the wagons' to
protect their delusions, driving themselves ever deeper into insanity.
I note you are doing the same.

I also note that, despite being driven *so* insane by their Usenet
Lord and Master that some kooks forget their own name, they never
forget mine... it haunts them for as long as they live.

<snicker>
============================================================
--
Kensi the moron wrote:
================================
The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so
the curvature is 4*pi
================================

Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the
Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi.

Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi
Therefore, r = 0.28209479176

Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius
of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the
units.

The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent
upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect.

Kensi the moron was corrected:
================================
Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the
Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you
backpedal, LunkHead.

You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore =
(4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is
independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original
"The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*?
================================

But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't
fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend
upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's
trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant
curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral
is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry
problems.

Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an
astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor
concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general
relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of
space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is
"science fiction" and "a howler".

In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was
mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative
Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects
of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold.

He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is
predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive
objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the
tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby
making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature,
and thus causing gravity to *repel*. It also means LunkHead believes
the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding.

Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon
the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there
was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in
the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the
4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of
magnetic attraction.

Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could
not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work,
and therefore a universe which could not exist.

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature
than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and
Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation".

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody
radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow
at 489 F.

Kensi attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming
that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of
temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron
doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain
circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien
Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron
infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve.

Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the
~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed
that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven
wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of
"blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral
emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how
spectral absorption and emission works.

Kensi is the same moron who k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer;
that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place",
that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on
a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead
cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is.

Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that
CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared
atmospheric window.

The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate
Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a
global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second
Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same
moron continues to cling to his delusions.

Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that
global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three
peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite.

Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a
lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard loser trying to pretend that he's
intelligent... and failing badly.

That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that
struggles (and fails) to understand reality.
James McGinn
2016-03-14 05:15:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by James McGinn
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Oh, but it has been demonstrated, Jim... to such an extent that it's
been mathematically modeled to a very high degree of accuracy, and
corroborated via empirical observation.
Then one can only wonder why you don't make an argument to that effect.
One can only wonder why you continue to run away from the argument
already made, Jim.
I guess we'll just have to disagree.
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
2016-03-14 06:19:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in
Post by James McGinn
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by James McGinn
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Oh, but it has been demonstrated, Jim... to such an extent that it's
been mathematically modeled to a very high degree of accuracy, and
corroborated via empirical observation.
Then one can only wonder why you don't make an argument to that effect.
One can only wonder why you continue to run away from the argument
already made, Jim.
I guess we'll just have to disagree.
I guess I'll just have to continue drop-kicking your retarded ass
across Usenet, proving you're a low-information uneducated oaf for all
the world to see, James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA.

<snicker>

Now, let's you get to answering those questions you've been ducking,
Jim...

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

How is your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" forming if the nuclear binding
energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the
water is dissociating into hydrogen and oxygen, 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 kooky "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your kooky "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, 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 kooky
conspiracy theory is workable, Jim?

Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?

Your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly destroyed, Jim. It does
not and cannot reflect reality. Deal with that reality as you will,
Jim.

Most Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards like you, when presented with
the proof that they are delusional, tend to 'circle the wagons' to
protect their delusions, driving themselves ever deeper into insanity.
I note you are doing the same.

I also note that, despite being driven *so* insane by their Usenet
Lord and Master that some kooks forget their own name, they never
forget mine... it haunts them for as long as they live.

<snicker>

You must realize by now that your name is Google-Stacked to hell and
back, Jim... anyone searching for your name will know what a
delusional moron you are. Your kooky conspiracy theory is dead, and
now I've Google-stacked it so the whole world knows James Bernard
McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA is an idiot. And you cannot refute that
fact any more than you can refute the scientific reality used to
destroy your kooky little theory, Jim.
--
Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know:
=====================================
The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier
Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create
*sinusoids*).

That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms.

That superposition is the same as wave interference.

That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves.

That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things.

That RMS isn't a DC voltage.

That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207
volts RMS L-L.

That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1.

The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave.

That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical
engineering, physics and control systems engineering.

What a positive or negative vector is.

That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per
Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero.

That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic".

That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2
positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron.

That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* effective
nuclear charge.

What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.

That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples.

That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the
atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law to within 1.337842%
margin of error *worst* *case* at 70 F.

That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of
a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does
*not* equal zero, as Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames.

That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes
into account molar volume.

That "within 10% error" does not equal "10% error".

That water can be plasmized.

That atomic number does not equal effective nuclear charge.

And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph.
=====================================

SPNAK!

<snicker>
James McGinn
2016-03-14 07:41:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by James McGinn
I guess we'll just have to disagree.
I guess I'll just have to continue drop-kicking your retarded ass
across Usenet,
Do they let you go to the bathroom alone?
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
2016-03-14 15:08:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in
<news:8f4c2dd2-e4d9-41cd-a71d-***@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again on Date: Mon, 14
Mar 2016 00:41:03 -0700 (PDT):

I've got James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, the halfwitted
moron with a kooky conspiracy theory, up in the wee hours because he's
so perturbed over the fact that I've utterly destroyed said theory.
LOL
On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 11:29:25 PM UTC-7,
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Post by James McGinn
I guess we'll just have to disagree.
I guess I'll just have to continue drop-kicking your retarded ass
across Usenet, proving you're a low-information uneducated oaf for all
the world to see, James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA.
<snicker>
The world is watching, James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA...
what are you going to do? Just let your kooky theory lie there and get
stomped to death?

<snicker>
Do they let you go to the bathroom alone?
Your pathetic attempts to divert attention away from the fact that you
find yourself utterly unable to defend your kooky conspiracy theory
against scientific scrutiny are not substitutes for said defense,
James.

==========================================================

Still demonstrating your inability to grasp how water can be gaseous
phase below its boiling point, James? It's already been fully
explained to you, and in the process, your kooky conspiracy theory has
been utterly demolished.

You postulate the following:

1) There is a "plasma not-a-plasma" that exists in the troposphere,
which you have admitted is merely a hypothetical construct so you can
continue to blather on about your kooky discredited conspiracy theory.

2) This magical "plasma not-a-plasma" is plasmized by an energy source
that is somehow magically plasmizing water in the troposphere without
dissociating it, given that the dissociation energy and nuclear
binding energy of water are identical at 940.8 kJ/mol, and thus water
will dissociate rather than plasmize, unless hit with an extremely
energetic laser.

3) That your kooky energy source is somehow plasmizing only
atmospheric water while not plasmizing or dissociating Earth-bound
water, and is not killing off all life on the planet. Given that the
*minimum* energy necessary to even *begin* to plasmize water would be
equivalent to photons at a *maximum* wavelength of 103.32 nm, just
3.32 nm away from the x-ray range, I'm sure even you can see the
problem inherent in your contention, James.

4) That this magical energy source exists in the troposphere. Except
it cannot exist in the troposphere. Photons of shorter wavelength than
~121 nm are absorbed far above the troposphere due to their ability to
ionize air, thus they are not present in the troposphere, where the
overwhelming majority of all water is.

5) That warm air is heavier than cooler air... tell me, Jim... which
direction does air flow from a flame? Oh, that's right, upward. Why?
Because warm air is lighter and less dense than cooler air and thus
convects upward.

6) That air with gaseous phase water in it is heavier than dry air,
except you forget that science has long known about molar mass and
molar volume...

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Air temperature is a much greater determiner of air density than
humidity.

The molar mass of water is 18.02 g/mol, as calculated from the sum of
the atomic masses of its constituent atoms.

The average molar mass of air (approximately 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen,
1% other gases) is 28.57 g/mol at STP.

Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous
phase and air have a molar volume of 22.414 L/mol at STP. IOW, a molar
mass of air and a molar mass of water in its gaseous phase occupy the
same volume of 22.414 liters at STP.

The density of water in its gaseous phase at STP is 0.804 g/L, whereas
the density of dry air is 1.27 g/L at STP.

Therefore that 22.414 liters molar volume would weigh:
18.02 grams for water in its gaseous phase
28.57 g for dry air

Therefore, water in its gaseous phase is lighter than air. Therefore
air containing water in its gaseous phase is lighter than dry air.

Therefore, drier air *must* sink through air laden with water in its
gaseous phase, because it is less buoyant.

Except that's not all, Jim. Because air becomes denser as the altitude
decreases.

At any given altitude, air of the same temperature and gaseous water
partial pressure will have the same density.

At any given altitude, air of lower temperature but similar gaseous
water partial pressure will have higher density.

At any given altitude, air of the same temperature but greater gaseous
water partial pressure will have lower density.

For air of the same temperature and gaseous water partial pressure,
air at a higher altitude will have lower density.

(1) For instance, at sea level, 20 C temperature, and 0% relative
humidity, the air density is 1.204 kg/m^3.

Keeping all other factors in (1) the same but increasing relative
humidity to 100%, or elevation to 74 meters, or temperature to 22.4 C,
the air density is 1.194 kg/m^3.

Thus in order for the air at sea level to rise 74 meters due to
increased buoyancy, it must have 100% more relative humidity than the
air 74 meters above (IOW, the air at sea level must be at 100% RH, the
air 74 meters above must be at 0% RH), given the same temperature; or
the temperature of that sea level air must be at least 2.4 C greater
than the air at 74 meters, given the same relative humidity.

Given that temperature can change much more than 2.4 C, whereas
relative humidity can only max out at 100%, one can see that
temperature-induced convection is the predominant driver of weather
systems, destroying yet another of your kooky contentions.

IOW, in order for air to rise, it must overcome gravity, which
requires energy (said energy in the form of temperature of the air
itself decreasing air density or the latent heat of vaporization of
monomer water in its gaseous phase replacing a certain percentage of
higher molar weight air molecules and thus decreasing air density).

It's not because of your blather that the air at a lower altitude is
"heavier" due to "water droplets", Ko0okTard.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

And before you begin blathering on again about the Ideal Gas Law not
applying to the atmosphere, let me remind you that I've done the
calculations for the van der Waals equation, as well. It is in
agreement with the Ideal Gas Law to a great degree of accuracy even
with the molar volume I used. As air volume increases for the same
relative humidity, air with gaseous phase water in it acts more and
more like an ideal gas, Jim. Compare the Ideal Gas Law to the van der
Waals Equation with all parameters the same except for volume, and
increase the volume through several iterations, then plot the
difference between the results of the Ideal Gas Law and the van der
Waals equation... notice the converging trend?

Do you think for an Earth-atmosphere-sized container, the air with
gaseous phase water in it would be within a very small margin of error
to an ideal gas, Jim? Sure it is. But that's something else you don't
understand because you're a low-information uneducated oaf.

7) Your kooky contention that water polarity changes upon H bonding...
which would also cause random changes in water's solvent properties,
and we know water's solvent properties do not change randomly, Jim.
You didn't know about the two spin isomers of water, which means there
are two hybrids of water with different H bonding strengths:


They used x-ray spectroscopy to determine photon energy from electron
orbital shell descent. You'll note the gaseous phase water molecule's
photon spectra peaks at a much lower photon energy than ice. This is
due to differences in hydrogen bonding strength between the two
phases.

http://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw
You'll note the double peak of liquid water.

Professor Anders Nilsson, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory:
====================================================
Two peaks, what does that mean? Could it be two different types of
water molecules then, in the liquid? And if you look at it, one of the
peaks is very close to the gas phase and the other peak is closer to
the ice. So it looks like water contains two types of molecules.
====================================================

You betcha... para and ortho-form water.

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/ortho_para_water.html>
====================================================
Each hydrogen atom in water has a magnetic moment, which is associated
with the proton's spin of 1/2. As is found in molecular hydrogen (H2),
the protons (within the hydrogen atoms) in water (H2O) may possess
parallel or antiparallel nuclear spin (see right). When the spins are
parallel, there is a paramagnetic state called ortho-H2O with a
magnetic moment = 1. This is the high spin (triplet) state with three
symmetric spin states +1 , 0 , -1 (^^, ^v+^v, vv) where the three
states have equal energy in a zero magnetic field. This spin state
always possesses positive energy with a minimum energy level of 284.7
J mol-1 (23.794352 cm-1) H216O, [607c], 284.4 J mol-1 (23.773510 cm-1)
H217O [607a] or 284.2 J mol-1 (23.754902 cm-1) H218O [607a].

When the spins are opposed there exists the nonmagnetic state called
para-H2O with magnetic moment = 0 with just one antisymmetric spin
state (^v-^v) and magnetic moment = 0. Some of the water molecules in
this low spin (singlet) state will not be rotating even at room
temperature.

Para-H2O does not interact with an external magnetic field, but
ortho-H2O does. Conversion between these isomers is symmetry forbidden
for isolated water molecules and they act as different molecular
species. They can change spin state on interaction with another
particle, including other water molecules. The equilibrium ratio of
these nuclear spin states in H2O is all para- at zero Kelvin, where
the molecules have no rotational spin in their ground state, shifting
to the most stable ratio [1694] of 3:1 ortho:para, in the relative
amounts of the number of magnetic states, at less cold temperatures
(>50 K, see left [2478]); the equilibrium taking months to establish
itself in ice (or gas) and nearly an hour in ambient water [410]. It
is now thought that the ratio lies far from equilibrium and much
closer to 1:1 in liquid water due to hydrogen bond formation [2076].
This means that liquid H2O effectively consists of a mixture of
non-identical molecules and the properties of pure liquid ortho-H2O or
para-H2O are unknown. The differences in the properties of these two
forms of water are expected to be greater in an electric field [1186],
which may be imposed externally, from surfaces or from water
clustering itself. Many materials preferentially adsorb para-H2O due
to its non-rotation ground state [410, 835].

The apparent difference in energy between the two states is a
significant 1-2 kJ mol-1, far greater than expected from spin-spin
interactions (< ÎŒJ mol-1) [835]. It has been suggested that structural
rearrangements may be induced by ortho-H2O : para-H2O conversion
[1430], as it is possible that hydrogen bonds between para-H2O,
possessing no ground state spin, are stronger and last longer than
hydrogen bonds between ortho-H2O [1150]. It is thus possible that
ortho-H2O and para-H2O form separate hydrogen bonded clusters [1150]
with para-H2O being preferred in the low density tetrahedrally
coordinated clusters and ortho-H2O being preferred in the high density
clusters [2070], where their rotation is more easily accommodated.
Picoliter samples of pure ortho-H2O and para-H2O may be separated in a
strong dc electric field [2156].
====================================================

The two spin isomers of water cause a different H bond strength when
water molecules of like spin isomers engage in H bonding to form water
clusters, Jim. Thus the weaker ortho-H2O hydrogen bond is more easily
broken, so most of the gaseous phase water being evaporated should be
ortho-H2O. You'll note above that ortho-H2O even in its liquid form is
very close to the same properties as gaseous phase water under x-ray
spectroscopy, the difference accountable by taking into consideration
temperature and phase.

Remember when I said the surface layer of water was more viscous than
the bulk water? Yeah, that's because the ortho-H2O being evaporated
removes heat from the water, which makes the para-H2O in the ~1.7 nm
thick surface layer act nearly the same as ice.

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

As for condensation? Well, it's been found that under circumstances in
which relative humidity is less than ~25%, a four-molecule thick layer
of ice forms on the condensation surface... so apparently what is
happening is that the ortho-H2O being evaporated is colliding with
other molecules in the air, changing their spin isomer and thus giving
off energy, becoming para-H2O, and those are the ones preferentially
condensing, forming that four-molecule thick layer of ice. You'll note
above that para-H2O even in its liquid form is very close to the same
properties as solid phase water (ice) under x-ray spectroscopy, the
difference accountable by taking into consideration temperature and
phase.

For conditions of greater than ~25% relative humidity and thus greater
water gaseous-phase partial pressure in the air, apparently the
condensation process is fast enough to allow even ortho-H2O
gaseous-phase water to condense, thus the four-molecule thick layer of
ice is melted.

So you see, James, it's not because of your kooky contention that the
water molecule's polarity changes upon hydrogen bonding, it's because
there are two spin-isomer hybrids of the water molecule with two
different hydrogen bonding strengths.

Yet again, your kooky conspiracy theory is ripped to shreds by
scientific fact... made especially delicious because it was done
utilizing a link *you* provided. LOL

<http://phys.org/news/2014-09-para-ortho.html>
==============================================
A hydrogen nucleus (proton) can adopt two different states, comparable
to rotation clockwise and counterclockwise. In the case of water, the
nuclear spins of the two — indistinguishable — protons can be combined
in four different ways: one antisymmetric and three symmetric
wavefunctions. Water adopting the antisymmetric wavefunction is called
para water, whereas water adopting one of the symmetric ones is called
ortho water. Because switching from one state to the other is
"forbidden" due to quantum-mechanical symmetry rules, the two spin
isomers cannot interconvert without external influences such as
collisions.
==============================================

Were you not aware that hydrogen has two spin isomers, ortho- and
para-, and thus water, comprised of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen
atoms, also has two spin isomers?

<https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f24e171918d462fac89b809dccaa7c3e>
<Loading Image...>

In pure hydrogen, ortho-hydrogen is thermodynamically unstable even at
low temperature and / or high pressure and it thus spontaneously
converts to para-hydrogen upon molecular collision, which has
implications for liquefied hydrogen storage, as energy is given off by
this spin isomer conversion.

In water, the oxygen atom slows the already slow conversion process to
para-hydrogen by preserving spin state of the hydrogen atom via
partially shielding the hydrogen atom from molecular collision which
would cause spin isomer conversion.

Now, let's you get to answering those questions you've been ducking,
Jim...

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

How is your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" forming if the nuclear binding
energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the
water is dissociating into hydrogen and oxygen, 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 kooky "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your kooky "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, 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 kooky
conspiracy theory is workable, Jim?

Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?

Your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly destroyed, Jim. It does
not and cannot reflect reality. Deal with that reality as you will,
Jim.

Most Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards like you, when presented with
the proof that they are delusional, tend to 'circle the wagons' to
protect their delusions, driving themselves ever deeper into insanity.
I note you are doing the same.

I also note that, despite being driven *so* insane by their Usenet
Lord and Master that some kooks forget their own name, they never
forget mine... it haunts them for as long as they live.

<snicker>
--
Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know:
=====================================
The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier
Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create
*sinusoids*).

That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms.

That superposition is the same as wave interference.

That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves.

That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things.

That RMS isn't a DC voltage.

That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207
volts RMS L-L.

That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1.

The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave.

That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical
engineering, physics and control systems engineering.

What a positive or negative vector is.

That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per
Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero.

That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic".

That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2
positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron.

That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* effective
nuclear charge.

What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.

That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples.

That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the
atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law to within 1.337842%
margin of error *worst* *case* at 70 F.

That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of
a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does
*not* equal zero, as Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames.

That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes
into account molar volume.

That "within 10% error" does not equal "10% error".

That water can be plasmized.

That atomic number does not equal effective nuclear charge.

And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph.
=====================================

SPNAK!

<snicker>
James McGinn
2016-03-15 19:00:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Do they let you go to the bathroom alone?
No response.
Sergio
2016-03-15 19:08:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 11:29:25 PM UTC-7, Friendly
Do they let you go to the bathroom alone?
No response.
James doesn't know.
Existing in real time does not seem to be one of his strengths.
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
2016-03-16 03:54:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in
Post by James McGinn
On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 11:29:25 PM UTC-7,
Do they let you go to the bathroom alone?
No response.
Liar. The only 'no response' was from you, James Bernard McGinn, Jr.
of Antioch, CA... because you have no defense of your kooky
discredited conspiracy theory. All you have left is backpedaling.

Here you go, James... you now have another chance at proving yourself
a cowardly insane kooktard who will yet again run away from scientific
reality...

============================================================

Your pathetic attempts to divert attention away from the fact that you
find yourself utterly unable to defend your kooky conspiracy theory
against scientific scrutiny are not substitutes for said defense,
James.

==========================================================

Still demonstrating your inability to grasp how water can be gaseous
phase below its boiling point, James? It's already been fully
explained to you, and in the process, your kooky conspiracy theory has
been utterly demolished.

You postulate the following:

1) There is a "plasma not-a-plasma" that exists in the troposphere,
which you have admitted is merely a hypothetical construct so you can
continue to blather on about your kooky discredited conspiracy theory.

2) This magical "plasma not-a-plasma" is plasmized by an energy source
that is somehow magically plasmizing water in the troposphere without
dissociating it, given that the dissociation energy and nuclear
binding energy of water are identical at 940.8 kJ/mol, and thus water
will dissociate rather than plasmize, unless hit with an extremely
energetic laser.

3) That your kooky energy source is somehow plasmizing only
atmospheric water while not plasmizing or dissociating Earth-bound
water, and is not killing off all life on the planet. Given that the
*minimum* energy necessary to even *begin* to plasmize water would be
equivalent to photons at a *maximum* wavelength of 103.32 nm, just
3.32 nm away from the x-ray range, I'm sure even you can see the
problem inherent in your contention, James.

4) That this magical energy source exists in the troposphere. Except
it cannot exist in the troposphere. Photons of shorter wavelength than
~121 nm are absorbed far above the troposphere due to their ability to
ionize air, thus they are not present in the troposphere, where the
overwhelming majority of all water is.

5) That warm air is heavier than cooler air... tell me, Jim... which
direction does air flow from a flame? Oh, that's right, upward. Why?
Because warm air is lighter and less dense than cooler air and thus
convects upward.

6) That air with gaseous phase water in it is heavier than dry air,
except you forget that science has long known about molar mass and
molar volume...

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Air temperature is a much greater determiner of air density than
humidity.

The molar mass of water is 18.02 g/mol, as calculated from the sum of
the atomic masses of its constituent atoms.

The average molar mass of air (approximately 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen,
1% other gases) is 28.57 g/mol at STP.

Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous
phase and air have a molar volume of 22.414 L/mol at STP. IOW, a molar
mass of air and a molar mass of water in its gaseous phase occupy the
same volume of 22.414 liters at STP.

The density of water in its gaseous phase at STP is 0.804 g/L, whereas
the density of dry air is 1.27 g/L at STP.

Therefore that 22.414 liters molar volume would weigh:
18.02 grams for water in its gaseous phase
28.57 g for dry air

Therefore, water in its gaseous phase is lighter than air. Therefore
air containing water in its gaseous phase is lighter than dry air.

Therefore, drier air *must* sink through air laden with water in its
gaseous phase, because it is less buoyant.

Except that's not all, Jim. Because air becomes denser as the altitude
decreases.

At any given altitude, air of the same temperature and gaseous water
partial pressure will have the same density.

At any given altitude, air of lower temperature but similar gaseous
water partial pressure will have higher density.

At any given altitude, air of the same temperature but greater gaseous
water partial pressure will have lower density.

For air of the same temperature and gaseous water partial pressure,
air at a higher altitude will have lower density.

(1) For instance, at sea level, 20 C temperature, and 0% relative
humidity, the air density is 1.204 kg/m^3.

Keeping all other factors in (1) the same but increasing relative
humidity to 100%, or elevation to 74 meters, or temperature to 22.4 C,
the air density is 1.194 kg/m^3.

Thus in order for the air at sea level to rise 74 meters due to
increased buoyancy, it must have 100% more relative humidity than the
air 74 meters above (IOW, the air at sea level must be at 100% RH, the
air 74 meters above must be at 0% RH), given the same temperature; or
the temperature of that sea level air must be at least 2.4 C greater
than the air at 74 meters, given the same relative humidity.

Given that temperature can change much more than 2.4 C, whereas
relative humidity can only max out at 100%, one can see that
temperature-induced convection is the predominant driver of weather
systems, destroying yet another of your kooky contentions.

IOW, in order for air to rise, it must overcome gravity, which
requires energy (said energy in the form of temperature of the air
itself decreasing air density or the latent heat of vaporization of
monomer water in its gaseous phase replacing a certain percentage of
higher molar weight air molecules and thus decreasing air density).

It's not because of your blather that the air at a lower altitude is
"heavier" due to "water droplets", Ko0okTard.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

And before you begin blathering on again about the Ideal Gas Law not
applying to the atmosphere, let me remind you that I've done the
calculations for the van der Waals equation, as well. It is in
agreement with the Ideal Gas Law to a great degree of accuracy even
with the molar volume I used. As air volume increases for the same
relative humidity, air with gaseous phase water in it acts more and
more like an ideal gas, Jim. Compare the Ideal Gas Law to the van der
Waals Equation with all parameters the same except for volume, and
increase the volume through several iterations, then plot the
difference between the results of the Ideal Gas Law and the van der
Waals equation... notice the converging trend?

Do you think for an Earth-atmosphere-sized container, the air with
gaseous phase water in it would be within a very small margin of error
to an ideal gas, Jim? Sure it is. But that's something else you don't
understand because you're a low-information uneducated oaf.

7) Your kooky contention that water polarity changes upon H bonding...
which would also cause random changes in water's solvent properties,
and we know water's solvent properties do not change randomly, Jim.
You didn't know about the two spin isomers of water, which means there
are two hybrids of water with different H bonding strengths:

http://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw
They used x-ray spectroscopy to determine photon energy from electron
orbital shell descent. You'll note the gaseous phase water molecule's
photon spectra peaks at a much lower photon energy than ice. This is
due to differences in hydrogen bonding strength between the two
phases.

http://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw
You'll note the double peak of liquid water.

Professor Anders Nilsson, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory:
====================================================
Two peaks, what does that mean? Could it be two different types of
water molecules then, in the liquid? And if you look at it, one of the
peaks is very close to the gas phase and the other peak is closer to
the ice. So it looks like water contains two types of molecules.
====================================================

You betcha... para and ortho-form water.

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/ortho_para_water.html>
====================================================
Each hydrogen atom in water has a magnetic moment, which is associated
with the proton's spin of 1/2. As is found in molecular hydrogen (H2),
the protons (within the hydrogen atoms) in water (H2O) may possess
parallel or antiparallel nuclear spin (see right). When the spins are
parallel, there is a paramagnetic state called ortho-H2O with a
magnetic moment = 1. This is the high spin (triplet) state with three
symmetric spin states +1 , 0 , -1 (^^, ^v+^v, vv) where the three
states have equal energy in a zero magnetic field. This spin state
always possesses positive energy with a minimum energy level of 284.7
J mol-1 (23.794352 cm-1) H216O, [607c], 284.4 J mol-1 (23.773510 cm-1)
H217O [607a] or 284.2 J mol-1 (23.754902 cm-1) H218O [607a].

When the spins are opposed there exists the nonmagnetic state called
para-H2O with magnetic moment = 0 with just one antisymmetric spin
state (^v-^v) and magnetic moment = 0. Some of the water molecules in
this low spin (singlet) state will not be rotating even at room
temperature.

Para-H2O does not interact with an external magnetic field, but
ortho-H2O does. Conversion between these isomers is symmetry forbidden
for isolated water molecules and they act as different molecular
species. They can change spin state on interaction with another
particle, including other water molecules. The equilibrium ratio of
these nuclear spin states in H2O is all para- at zero Kelvin, where
the molecules have no rotational spin in their ground state, shifting
to the most stable ratio [1694] of 3:1 ortho:para, in the relative
amounts of the number of magnetic states, at less cold temperatures
(>50 K, see left [2478]); the equilibrium taking months to establish
itself in ice (or gas) and nearly an hour in ambient water [410]. It
is now thought that the ratio lies far from equilibrium and much
closer to 1:1 in liquid water due to hydrogen bond formation [2076].
This means that liquid H2O effectively consists of a mixture of
non-identical molecules and the properties of pure liquid ortho-H2O or
para-H2O are unknown. The differences in the properties of these two
forms of water are expected to be greater in an electric field [1186],
which may be imposed externally, from surfaces or from water
clustering itself. Many materials preferentially adsorb para-H2O due
to its non-rotation ground state [410, 835].

The apparent difference in energy between the two states is a
significant 1-2 kJ mol-1, far greater than expected from spin-spin
interactions (< ÎŒJ mol-1) [835]. It has been suggested that structural
rearrangements may be induced by ortho-H2O : para-H2O conversion
[1430], as it is possible that hydrogen bonds between para-H2O,
possessing no ground state spin, are stronger and last longer than
hydrogen bonds between ortho-H2O [1150]. It is thus possible that
ortho-H2O and para-H2O form separate hydrogen bonded clusters [1150]
with para-H2O being preferred in the low density tetrahedrally
coordinated clusters and ortho-H2O being preferred in the high density
clusters [2070], where their rotation is more easily accommodated.
Picoliter samples of pure ortho-H2O and para-H2O may be separated in a
strong dc electric field [2156].
====================================================

The two spin isomers of water cause a different H bond strength when
water molecules of like spin isomers engage in H bonding to form water
clusters, Jim. Thus the weaker ortho-H2O hydrogen bond is more easily
broken, so most of the gaseous phase water being evaporated should be
ortho-H2O. You'll note above that ortho-H2O even in its liquid form is
very close to the same properties as gaseous phase water under x-ray
spectroscopy, the difference accountable by taking into consideration
temperature and phase.

Remember when I said the surface layer of water was more viscous than
the bulk water? Yeah, that's because the ortho-H2O being evaporated
removes heat from the water, which makes the para-H2O in the ~1.7 nm
thick surface layer act nearly the same as ice.

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

As for condensation? Well, it's been found that under circumstances in
which relative humidity is less than ~25%, a four-molecule thick layer
of ice forms on the condensation surface... so apparently what is
happening is that the ortho-H2O being evaporated is colliding with
other molecules in the air, changing their spin isomer and thus giving
off energy, becoming para-H2O, and those are the ones preferentially
condensing, forming that four-molecule thick layer of ice. You'll note
above that para-H2O even in its liquid form is very close to the same
properties as solid phase water (ice) under x-ray spectroscopy, the
difference accountable by taking into consideration temperature and
phase.

For conditions of greater than ~25% relative humidity and thus greater
water gaseous-phase partial pressure in the air, apparently the
condensation process is fast enough to allow even ortho-H2O
gaseous-phase water to condense, thus the four-molecule thick layer of
ice is melted.

So you see, James, it's not because of your kooky contention that the
water molecule's polarity changes upon hydrogen bonding, it's because
there are two spin-isomer hybrids of the water molecule with two
different hydrogen bonding strengths.

Yet again, your kooky conspiracy theory is ripped to shreds by
scientific fact... made especially delicious because it was done
utilizing a link *you* provided. LOL

<http://phys.org/news/2014-09-para-ortho.html>
==============================================
A hydrogen nucleus (proton) can adopt two different states, comparable
to rotation clockwise and counterclockwise. In the case of water, the
nuclear spins of the two — indistinguishable — protons can be combined
in four different ways: one antisymmetric and three symmetric
wavefunctions. Water adopting the antisymmetric wavefunction is called
para water, whereas water adopting one of the symmetric ones is called
ortho water. Because switching from one state to the other is
"forbidden" due to quantum-mechanical symmetry rules, the two spin
isomers cannot interconvert without external influences such as
collisions.
==============================================

Were you not aware that hydrogen has two spin isomers, ortho- and
para-, and thus water, comprised of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen
atoms, also has two spin isomers?

<https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f24e171918d462fac89b809dccaa7c3e>
<http://cdn.phys.org/newman/csz/news/800/2014/201434press.gif>

In pure hydrogen, ortho-hydrogen is thermodynamically unstable even at
low temperature and / or high pressure and it thus spontaneously
converts to para-hydrogen upon molecular collision, which has
implications for liquefied hydrogen storage, as energy is given off by
this spin isomer conversion.

In water, the oxygen atom slows the already slow conversion process to
para-hydrogen by preserving spin state of the hydrogen atom via
partially shielding the hydrogen atom from molecular collision which
would cause spin isomer conversion.

Now, let's you get to answering those questions you've been ducking,
Jim...

============================================================
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 k'laming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further k'laming 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 what the definition of "plasma" is, James?

How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct so your claims have even a semblance of
plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation
energy of water are identical, and thus the water will 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?

Your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly destroyed, Jim. It does
not and cannot reflect reality. Deal with that reality as you will,
Jim.

Most Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards like you, when presented with
the proof that they are delusional, tend to 'circle the wagons' to
protect their delusions, driving themselves ever deeper into insanity.
I note you are doing the same.

I also note that, despite being driven *so* insane by their Usenet
Lord and Master that some kooks forget their own name, they never
forget mine... it haunts them for as long as they live.

<snicker>
--
Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know:
=====================================
The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier
Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create
*sinusoids*).

That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms.

That superposition is the same as wave interference.

That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves.

That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things.

That RMS isn't a DC voltage.

That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207
volts RMS L-L.

That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1.

The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave.

That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical
engineering, physics and control systems engineering.

What a positive or negative vector is.

That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per
Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero.

That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic".

That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2
positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron.

That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* effective
nuclear charge.

What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.

That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples.

That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the
atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law to within 1.337842%
margin of error *worst* *case* at 70 F.

That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of
a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does
*not* equal zero, as Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames.

That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes
into account molar volume.

That "within 10% error" does not equal "10% error".

That water can be plasmized.

That atomic number does not equal effective nuclear charge.

And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph.
=====================================

SPNAK!

<snicker>
James McGinn
2016-03-16 04:42:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
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?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/gZHpm8pM-ew/alpJoCctBgAJ
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
2016-03-16 06:35:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in
On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 9:05:05 PM UTC-7,
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
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?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/gZHpm8pM-ew/alpJoCctBgAJ
Still referring to your own kookblather, James? Why is there no
corroborating data for your kooky claims, James? Why is there a
veritable mountain of evidence that you're an insane kooktard who is
losing his grasp upon reality, James?

Why have you k'lamed you're an "expert" in water, atmospheric physics,
aerodynamics, plasma physics and a whole host of other topics, even
going to the point of claiming you're a physicist merely because you
once took an elective Basic Meteorology class, when you continue to
demonstrate that you don't have the first faint fucking clue what
you're talking about on any of those topics, James?

You've made a laughingstock of yourself, James. You're a pathetic
joke. People worldwide are pointing and laughing at you. And your
response?

A kooksoot. "I'm gonna sue *science*!"

LOL!

I suggest you study the Navier-Stokes Equations and determine for
yourself why air fronts of different densities form different shapes
in attempting to minimize aerodynamic drag. I further suggest that you
study aerodynamics in depth. You'll discover just how wrong you are.

But of course, you won't. You're convinced you're right..
Dunning-Kruger afflicted individuals, after they've convinced
themselves they are right, seldom self-correct, often leading them
into full-blown psychosis.

You're being given the chance to save yourself from that unfortunate
fate, Mr. McGinn, and all it takes for you to begin is to prove one of
your claims.

You have made the extraordinary claims that convection doesn't exist,
that latent heat doesn't exist, that all water in the troposphere is
plasma, that plasma can form droplets, that these plasma droplets
cause air with humidity to be *heavier* than dry air, that the jet
stream is a giant tornado just waiting to stretch down to the planet's
surface and wreak havoc.... you've run away from substantiating any of
those claims, James.

In fact, I've outlined an experiment which you can perform to either
prove or null your kooky claim that latent heat of evaporation doesn't
exist, merely by measuring the heat carried away during evaporation...
and you've run away from performing that experiment because you know
it'll null your claim, which will destroy the premise of your entire
"theory".

That's also why you've either run away from answering those tough
questions or provided non-answers that are so far out from reality as
to be laughable...

============================================================
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?

How do your "jet stream vortices" travel hundreds of miles away from
the jet stream, without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and
know where and when to touch down so they always hit clouds, rather
than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is
your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, 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 k'laming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further k'laming 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 what the definition of "plasma" is, James?

How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct so your claims have even a semblance of
plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation
energy of water are identical, and thus the water will 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?
--
Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka
DildoRider, aka Teh Mop Jockey)
5907 Stanton Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA
(412) 853-6395
(412) 799-0532
(412) 665-8289
(412) 404-8757

DildoRider admits he's stoooopid:
MID: <***@dizum.com>
=================================================
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
it appears I've kicked your ass so hard it's
damaged your brain, DildoRider.
then it appears that you like shooting fish in
barrels, intellectually lazy fuckhead that you are.
Well, you've just admitted that intellectually kicking your ass is
akin to shooting fish in a barrel... IOW, you've admitted that you're
stoooopid. No un-ringing that bell.

<snicker>
=================================================

DildoRider admits he's "really stupid" (his words). LOL
MID: <***@dizum.com>
=================================================
so what you're saying is that your targets for attack
have to be really stupid or else you can't manage?
=================================================

DildoRider admits much more about himself:
MID: <***@dizum.com>
=================================================
"absolutely and completely retarded, insane, gay, ugly, smelly,
toothless, dirt-poor, incontinent and possibly homeless"
=================================================

This is a libtard's method of "winning", for fuck sake.

150 IQ? LOL
James McGinn
2018-02-13 20:45:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Certainly, Jim. Can you disprove that mechanism of latent heat
release, Jim?
It's not possible to disprove a mechanism that has never been demonstrated. And I'm otherwise not interested in debating your imagination. Sorry.
James McGinn
2016-06-12 16:52:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James McGinn, in
Post by James McGinn
On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 8:59:11 PM UTC-8,
Post by James McGinn
Do you deny that NASA is performing real-time atmospheric
profiling, to include latent heat release in the ~11-micron
infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Can you confirm/describe the underlying chemical dynamics of
latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric
window from cloud formation?
Certainly, Jim.
Well, . . . uh, er. . . uh, go ahead then. What are you waiting for?
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1
2016-06-13 05:20:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
Post by James McGinn
Post by James McGinn
Do you deny that NASA is performing real-time atmospheric
profiling, to include latent heat release in the ~11-micron
infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Can you confirm/describe the underlying chemical dynamics of
latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric
window from cloud formation?
Certainly, Jim. Can you disprove that mechanism of latent heat
release, Jim? Because I just got done spanking Kensi the LibTard
LunkHead off Usenet on that exact topic, all the information is queued
up and ready to spank you for your stupidity, too.
Post by James McGinn
Why don't you contact NASA and see if they can point you to
reproducible experimental data that underlies this imaginative claim.
Remember, these same people claim to have satellites that track
"CO2 Forcing" that you say does not exist.
Where is the reproducible experimental data that underlies this
process? Surely you don't expect me to take your word on it, do you?
Ah, so because some rogue "scientists" have been stupid enough to buy
into the CO2-induced anthropogenic global warming scam and alter their
data so they can continue to receive research grants from the liberal
government stooges who want there to be a climate catastrophe so they
can push through their kooky policies which would not otherwise have a
chance of passing, that somehow also conflates that NASA is faking
their data on cloud profiling, which would be easily discerned by the
fact that anything out of line in their readings would violate the
Laws of Thermodynamics, just as it was proven CO2-induced AGW violates
the Laws of Thermodynamics, simply because NASA isn't the only one
watching the clouds, Jim.

<http://cloudsat.atmos.colostate.edu/data>
<http://global.jaxa.jp/projects/sat/earthcare/>
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/7416/20155/00931494.pdf?arnumber=931494>
<http://radiometrics.com/data/uploads/2012/11/Ruffieux_MetZeit_06.pdf>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CCSP>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CERES>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CERES%20FM-5>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CPR>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=TANSO%20-%20CAI>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=WV-3%20CAVIS>

And yet, for all the decades that all those agencies have been
profiling clouds, not one instance of them altering the cloud
profiling data has been found... what would be the point, Jim? So
weathermen could somehow gain dominance over the populace?

Your paranoia is showing through again, Jim... you believe the
weathermen of the world are planning a coup!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
Steve BH
2018-02-14 04:23:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 10:59:40 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know:

That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes
into account molar volume.

===========

COMMENT:

You got that wrong. The molar volume of an ideal gas V = RT/P is not remotely the same as the molar volume of the "gas" when it is liquid or solid, which is close to the true molar mass of exclusion in other non-ideal gas formulas (ie the Van der Waals b coefficient). Indeed, at room temp when RT/P approaches 30% of b or the liquid molar volume, even gasses like nitrogen and oxygen that are far from their critical points, typically start to depart badly from ideal behavior, and PV/RT (aka compressibility = Z ) is no longer 1.

That's about the pressure in a typical scuba tank (200 atm). A tank at 300 atm does NOT hold 50% more air than one at 200 atm. Yet 200 atm IS about twice as much gas as 100 atm. That's because at 300 atm (4400 psi) the density of air is about a third that of the liquid, and non-ideal effect are starting to be significant.

Take a look at compressibility of a real gas like nitrogen in section C:

https://www.bnl.gov/magnets/staff/gupta/cryogenic-data-handbook/Section6.pdf
James McGinn
2018-02-14 18:17:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes
into account molar volume.
===========
You got that wrong. The molar volume of an ideal gas V = RT/P is not remotely the same as the molar volume of the "gas" when it is liquid or solid, which is close to the true molar mass of exclusion in other non-ideal gas formulas (ie the Van der Waals b coefficient). Indeed, at room temp when RT/P approaches 30% of b or the liquid molar volume, even gasses like nitrogen and oxygen that are far from their critical points, typically start to depart badly from ideal behavior, and PV/RT (aka compressibility = Z ) is no longer 1.
That's about the pressure in a typical scuba tank (200 atm). A tank at 300 atm does NOT hold 50% more air than one at 200 atm. Yet 200 atm IS about twice as much gas as 100 atm. That's because at 300 atm (4400 psi) the density of air is about a third that of the liquid, and non-ideal effect are starting to be significant.
https://www.bnl.gov/magnets/staff/gupta/cryogenic-data-handbook/Section6.pdf
Well stated.

Be aware that this guy is a moron. Unfortunately much of science is dictated by morons who alter scientific facts to fit simple models that they learned in grade school.
James McGinn
2016-03-24 01:20:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Do you deny that NASA is performing real-time atmospheric profiling, to include latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Post by James McGinn
Can you confirm/describe the underlying chemical dynamics of latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Why don't you contact NASA and see if they can point you to reproducible experimental data that underlies this imaginative claim.
Remember, these same people claim to have satellites that track "CO2 Forcing" that you say does not exist.
Where is the reproducible experimental data that underlies this process? Surely you don't expect me to take your word on it, do you?
James McGinn
2016-03-24 01:21:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Do you deny that NASA is performing real-time atmospheric profiling, to include latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Can you confirm/describe the underlying chemical dynamics of latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Why don't you contact NASA and see if they can point you to reproducible experimental data that underlies this imaginative claim.
Post by James McGinn
Remember, these same people claim to have satellites that track "CO2 Forcing" that you say does not exist.
Where is the reproducible experimental data that underlies this process? Surely you don't expect me to take your word on it, do you?
James McGinn
2016-04-11 05:50:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Do you deny that NASA is performing real-time atmospheric profiling, to include latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Can you confirm/describe the underlying chemical dynamics of latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Why don't you contact NASA and see if they can point you to reproducible experimental data that underlies this imaginative claim.
Post by James McGinn
Remember, these same people claim to have satellites that track "CO2 Forcing" that you say does not exist.
Where is the reproducible experimental data that underlies this process? Surely you don't expect me to take your word on it, do you?
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
2016-04-11 13:43:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
Post by James McGinn
On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 8:59:11 PM UTC-8,
Post by James McGinn
Do you deny that NASA is performing real-time atmospheric
profiling, to include latent heat release in the ~11-micron
infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Can you confirm/describe the underlying chemical dynamics of
latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric
window from cloud formation?
Certainly, Jim. Can you disprove that mechanism of latent heat
release, Jim? Because I just got done spanking Kensi the LibTard
LunkHead off Usenet on that exact topic, all the information is queued
up and ready to spank you for your stupidity, too.
Post by James McGinn
Why don't you contact NASA and see if they can point you to
reproducible experimental data that underlies this imaginative claim.
Remember, these same people claim to have satellites that track
"CO2 Forcing" that you say does not exist.
Where is the reproducible experimental data that underlies this
process? Surely you don't expect me to take your word on it, do you?
Ah, so because some rogue "scientists" have been stupid enough to buy
into the CO2-induced anthropogenic global warming scam and alter their
data so they can continue to receive research grants from the liberal
government stooges who want there to be a climate catastrophe so they
can push through their kooky policies which would not otherwise have a
chance of passing, that somehow also conflates that NASA is faking
their data on cloud profiling, which would be easily discerned by the
fact that anything out of line in their readings would violate the
Laws of Thermodynamics, just as it was proven CO2-induced AGW violates
the Laws of Thermodynamics, simply because NASA isn't the only one
watching the clouds, Jim.

<http://cloudsat.atmos.colostate.edu/data>
<http://global.jaxa.jp/projects/sat/earthcare/>
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/7416/20155/00931494.pdf?arnumber=931494>
<http://radiometrics.com/data/uploads/2012/11/Ruffieux_MetZeit_06.pdf>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CCSP>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CERES>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CERES%20FM-5>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CPR>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=TANSO%20-%20CAI>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=WV-3%20CAVIS>

And yet, for all the decades that all those agencies have been
profiling clouds, not one instance of them altering the cloud
profiling data has been found... what would be the point, Jim? So
weathermen could somehow gain dominance over the populace?

Your paranoia is showing through again, Jim... you believe the
weathermen of the world are planning a coup!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
James McGinn
2016-04-21 09:01:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Do you deny that NASA is performing real-time atmospheric profiling, to include latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Can you confirm/describe the underlying chemical dynamics of latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Why don't you contact NASA and see if they can point you to reproducible experimental data that underlies this imaginative claim.
Post by James McGinn
Remember, these same people claim to have satellites that track "CO2 Forcing" that you say does not exist.
Where is the reproducible experimental data that underlies this process? Surely you don't expect me to take your word on it, do you?
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
2016-04-22 05:49:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
Can you provide details as to how they detect, "latent heat?"
It is quite apparent, James, that you have no clue how energy is
absorbed and released by atoms. I'd suggest you go back to school, but
your Dunning-Kruger affliction and associated psychological
aberrations preclude your ever receiving knowledge from anyone you
deem to be smarter or saner than yourself. Hence, just as are most
Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards, you're stuck in a downward spiral
toward clinical psychosis.
Or should we just take your word on that -- and NASAs?
Or you can educate yourself on the underlying science of cloud
profiling, James. Perhaps you could start by looking at photons, given
that is the key.

Then, when you realize exactly how insane, retarded and uneducated you
truly are, do take a hammer and smash it repeatedly against your skull
in frustration over having spent the last quarter century proving how
insane, retarded and uneducated you are.

<snicker>
Maybe you can get Gavin Schmidt to explain it: www.realclimate.org
Or, we could look at the multiple agencies I've already listed, which
all have satellites monitoring the clouds... are all those agencies
around the entire world in on your kooky manufactured conspiracy
theory, James?

Or would the more likely explanation be that you suffer from a rapidly
encroaching paranoid schizophrenia induced by your Dunning-Kruger
affliction preventing you from self-correcting your aberrational
thought processes?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
Checkmate, DoW #1
2016-04-22 06:17:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Subject: Re: Can you confirm/describe the underlying chemical dynamics of latent heat release
Newsgroups: alt.usenet.kooks, sci.physics
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
Can you provide details as to how they detect, "latent heat?"
It is quite apparent... SMACK!!!
With remailer latency, ya moron! OB LOL
--
Checkmate, AUK DoW #1, new Honorary FNVW of AUK, and Fakey's master
AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012 (Pre-Burnore)
Destroyer of the AUK Ko0k Vote (Post-Burnore)
Originator of the "Dance for me" (tm) lame
Copyright © 2016
all rights reserved
James McGinn
2016-05-03 10:29:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Do you deny that NASA is performing real-time atmospheric profiling, to include latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Can you confirm/describe the underlying chemical dynamics of latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Why don't you contact NASA and see if they can point you to reproducible experimental data that underlies this imaginative claim.
Remember, these same people claim to have satellites that track "CO2 Forcing" that you say does not exist.
Where is the reproducible experimental data that underlies this process? Surely you don't expect me to take your word on it, do you?
Really?
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
2016-05-04 05:35:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
Post by James McGinn
Post by James McGinn
Do you deny that NASA is performing real-time atmospheric
profiling, to include latent heat release in the ~11-micron
infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Can you confirm/describe the underlying chemical dynamics of
latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric
window from cloud formation?
Certainly, Jim. Can you disprove that mechanism of latent heat
release, Jim? Because I just got done spanking Kensi the LibTard
LunkHead off Usenet on that exact topic, all the information is queued
up and ready to spank you for your stupidity, too.
Post by James McGinn
Why don't you contact NASA and see if they can point you to
reproducible experimental data that underlies this imaginative claim.
Remember, these same people claim to have satellites that track
"CO2 Forcing" that you say does not exist.
Where is the reproducible experimental data that underlies this
process? Surely you don't expect me to take your word on it, do you?
Ah, so because some rogue "scientists" have been stupid enough to buy
into the CO2-induced anthropogenic global warming scam and alter their
data so they can continue to receive research grants from the liberal
government stooges who want there to be a climate catastrophe so they
can push through their kooky policies which would not otherwise have a
chance of passing, that somehow also conflates that NASA is faking
their data on cloud profiling, which would be easily discerned by the
fact that anything out of line in their readings would violate the
Laws of Thermodynamics, just as it was proven CO2-induced AGW violates
the Laws of Thermodynamics, simply because NASA isn't the only one
watching the clouds, Jim.

<http://cloudsat.atmos.colostate.edu/data>
<http://global.jaxa.jp/projects/sat/earthcare/>
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/7416/20155/00931494.pdf?arnumber=931494>
<http://radiometrics.com/data/uploads/2012/11/Ruffieux_MetZeit_06.pdf>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CCSP>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CERES>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CERES%20FM-5>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CPR>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=TANSO%20-%20CAI>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=WV-3%20CAVIS>

And yet, for all the decades that all those agencies have been
profiling clouds, not one instance of them altering the cloud
profiling data has been found... what would be the point, Jim? So
weathermen could somehow gain dominance over the populace?

Your paranoia is showing through again, Jim... you believe the
weathermen of the world are planning a coup!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
James McGinn
2016-06-04 16:09:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Do you deny that NASA is performing real-time atmospheric profiling, to include latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Can you confirm/describe the underlying chemical dynamics of latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Why don't you contact NASA and see if they can point you to reproducible experimental data that underlies this imaginative claim.
Remember, these same people claim to have satellites that track "CO2 Forcing" that you say does not exist.
Where is the reproducible experimental data that underlies this process? Surely you don't expect me to take your word on it, do you?
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1
2016-06-05 04:41:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
Post by James McGinn
Post by James McGinn
Do you deny that NASA is performing real-time atmospheric
profiling, to include latent heat release in the ~11-micron
infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Can you confirm/describe the underlying chemical dynamics of
latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric
window from cloud formation?
Certainly, Jim. Can you disprove that mechanism of latent heat
release, Jim? Because I just got done spanking Kensi the LibTard
LunkHead off Usenet on that exact topic, all the information is queued
up and ready to spank you for your stupidity, too.
Post by James McGinn
Why don't you contact NASA and see if they can point you to
reproducible experimental data that underlies this imaginative claim.
Remember, these same people claim to have satellites that track
"CO2 Forcing" that you say does not exist.
Where is the reproducible experimental data that underlies this
process? Surely you don't expect me to take your word on it, do you?
Ah, so because some rogue "scientists" have been stupid enough to buy
into the CO2-induced anthropogenic global warming scam and alter their
data so they can continue to receive research grants from the liberal
government stooges who want there to be a climate catastrophe so they
can push through their kooky policies which would not otherwise have a
chance of passing, that somehow also conflates that NASA is faking
their data on cloud profiling, which would be easily discerned by the
fact that anything out of line in their readings would violate the
Laws of Thermodynamics, just as it was proven CO2-induced AGW violates
the Laws of Thermodynamics, simply because NASA isn't the only one
watching the clouds, Jim.

<http://cloudsat.atmos.colostate.edu/data>
<http://global.jaxa.jp/projects/sat/earthcare/>
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/7416/20155/00931494.pdf?arnumber=931494>
<http://radiometrics.com/data/uploads/2012/11/Ruffieux_MetZeit_06.pdf>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CCSP>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CERES>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CERES%20FM-5>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CPR>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=TANSO%20-%20CAI>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=WV-3%20CAVIS>

And yet, for all the decades that all those agencies have been
profiling clouds, not one instance of them altering the cloud
profiling data has been found... what would be the point, Jim? So
weathermen could somehow gain dominance over the populace?

Your paranoia is showing through again, Jim... you believe the
weathermen of the world are planning a coup!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
James McGinn
2016-06-19 15:44:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Do you deny that NASA is performing real-time atmospheric profiling, to include latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Can you confirm/describe the underlying chemical dynamics of latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Why don't you contact NASA and see if they can point you to reproducible experimental data that underlies this imaginative claim.
Remember, these same people claim to have satellites that track "CO2 Forcing" that you say does not exist.
Where is the reproducible experimental data that underlies this process? Surely you don't expect me to take your word on it, do you?
If it will make you fell any better I will allow you to make a retraction.
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1
2016-06-20 04:36:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
Post by James McGinn
Post by James McGinn
Do you deny that NASA is performing real-time atmospheric
profiling, to include latent heat release in the ~11-micron
infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Can you confirm/describe the underlying chemical dynamics of
latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric
window from cloud formation?
Certainly, Jim. Can you disprove that mechanism of latent heat
release, Jim? Because I just got done spanking Kensi the LibTard
LunkHead off Usenet on that exact topic, all the information is queued
up and ready to spank you for your stupidity, too.
Post by James McGinn
Why don't you contact NASA and see if they can point you to
reproducible experimental data that underlies this imaginative claim.
Remember, these same people claim to have satellites that track
"CO2 Forcing" that you say does not exist.
Where is the reproducible experimental data that underlies this
process? Surely you don't expect me to take your word on it, do you?
Ah, so because some rogue "scientists" have been stupid enough to buy
into the CO2-induced anthropogenic global warming scam and alter their
data so they can continue to receive research grants from the liberal
government stooges who want there to be a climate catastrophe so they
can push through their kooky policies which would not otherwise have a
chance of passing, that somehow also conflates that NASA is faking
their data on cloud profiling, which would be easily discerned by the
fact that anything out of line in their readings would violate the
Laws of Thermodynamics, just as it was proven CO2-induced AGW violates
the Laws of Thermodynamics, simply because NASA isn't the only one
watching the clouds, Jim.

<http://cloudsat.atmos.colostate.edu/data>
<http://global.jaxa.jp/projects/sat/earthcare/>
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/7416/20155/00931494.pdf?arnumber=931494>
<http://radiometrics.com/data/uploads/2012/11/Ruffieux_MetZeit_06.pdf>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CCSP>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CERES>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CERES%20FM-5>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CPR>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=TANSO%20-%20CAI>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=WV-3%20CAVIS>

And yet, for all the decades that all those agencies have been
profiling clouds, not one instance of them altering the cloud
profiling data has been found... what would be the point, Jim? So
weathermen could somehow gain dominance over the populace?

Your paranoia is showing through again, Jim... you believe the
weathermen of the world are planning a coup!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
noTthaTguY
2016-10-26 19:22:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
all better
Post by James McGinn
If it will make you fell any better I will allow you to make a retraction.
Yuri Kreaton
2016-10-30 16:54:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by noTthaTguY
all better
Post by James McGinn
If it will make you fell any better I will allow you to make a retraction.
you can fell better too, use a fell checker.
James McGinn
2016-09-04 15:41:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Do you deny that NASA is performing real-time atmospheric profiling, to include latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Can you confirm/describe the underlying chemical dynamics of latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Why don't you contact NASA and see if they can point you to reproducible experimental data that underlies this imaginative claim.
Remember, these same people claim to have satellites that track "CO2 Forcing" that you say does not exist.
Where is the reproducible experimental data that underlies this process? Surely you don't expect me to take your word on it, do you?
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1
2016-09-05 04:42:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
Post by James McGinn
Post by James McGinn
Do you deny that NASA is performing real-time atmospheric
profiling, to include latent heat release in the ~11-micron
infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Can you confirm/describe the underlying chemical dynamics of
latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric
window from cloud formation?
Certainly, Jim. Can you disprove that mechanism of latent heat
release, Jim? Because I just got done spanking Kensi the LibTard
LunkHead off Usenet on that exact topic, all the information is queued
up and ready to spank you for your stupidity, too.
Post by James McGinn
Why don't you contact NASA and see if they can point you to
reproducible experimental data that underlies this imaginative claim.
Remember, these same people claim to have satellites that track
"CO2 Forcing" that you say does not exist.
Where is the reproducible experimental data that underlies this
process? Surely you don't expect me to take your word on it, do you?
Ah, so because some rogue "scientists" have been stupid enough to buy
into the CO2-induced anthropogenic global warming scam and alter their
data so they can continue to receive research grants from the liberal
government stooges who want there to be a climate catastrophe so they
can push through their kooky policies which would not otherwise have a
chance of passing, that somehow also conflates that NASA is faking
their data on cloud profiling, which would be easily discerned by the
fact that anything out of line in their readings would violate the
Laws of Thermodynamics, just as it was proven CO2-induced AGW violates
the Laws of Thermodynamics, simply because NASA isn't the only one
watching the clouds, Jim.

<http://cloudsat.atmos.colostate.edu/data>
<http://global.jaxa.jp/projects/sat/earthcare/>
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/7416/20155/00931494.pdf?arnumber=931494>
<http://radiometrics.com/data/uploads/2012/11/Ruffieux_MetZeit_06.pdf>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CCSP>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CERES>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CERES%20FM-5>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CPR>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=TANSO%20-%20CAI>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=WV-3%20CAVIS>

And yet, for all the decades that all those agencies have been
profiling clouds, not one instance of them altering the cloud
profiling data has been found... what would be the point, Jim? So
weathermen could somehow gain dominance over the populace?

Your paranoia is showing through again, Jim... you believe the
weathermen of the world are planning a coup!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
James McGinn
2016-10-15 08:43:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Do you deny that NASA is performing real-time atmospheric profiling, to include latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Can you confirm/describe the underlying chemical dynamics of latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Why don't you contact NASA and see if they can point you to reproducible experimental data that underlies this imaginative claim.
Remember, these same people claim to have satellites that track "CO2 Forcing" that you say does not exist.
Where is the reproducible experimental data that underlies this process? Surely you don't expect me to take your word on it, do you?
Friendly Neighbourhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1
2016-10-16 01:21:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Slobbering Tardnado' McGinn, in
Post by James McGinn
Post by James McGinn
Do you deny that NASA is performing real-time atmospheric
profiling, to include latent heat release in the ~11-micron
infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Can you confirm/describe the underlying chemical dynamics of
latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric
window from cloud formation?
Certainly, Jim. Can you disprove that mechanism of latent heat
release, Jim? Because I just got done spanking Kensi the LibTard
LunkHead off Usenet on that exact topic, all the information is queued
up and ready to spank you for your stupidity, too.
Post by James McGinn
Why don't you contact NASA and see if they can point you to
reproducible experimental data that underlies this imaginative claim.
Remember, these same people claim to have satellites that track
"CO2 Forcing" that you say does not exist.
Where is the reproducible experimental data that underlies this
process? Surely you don't expect me to take your word on it, do you?
Ah, so because some rogue "scientists" have been stupid enough to buy
into the CO2-induced anthropogenic global warming scam and alter their
data so they can continue to receive research grants from the liberal
government stooges who want there to be a climate catastrophe so they
can push through their kooky policies which would not otherwise have a
chance of passing, that somehow also conflates that NASA is faking
their data on cloud profiling, which would be easily discerned by the
fact that anything out of line in their readings would violate the
Laws of Thermodynamics, just as it was proven CO2-induced AGW violates
the Laws of Thermodynamics, simply because NASA isn't the only one
watching the clouds, Jim.

<http://cloudsat.atmos.colostate.edu/data>
<http://global.jaxa.jp/projects/sat/earthcare/>
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/7416/20155/00931494.pdf?arnumber=931494>
<http://radiometrics.com/data/uploads/2012/11/Ruffieux_MetZeit_06.pdf>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CCSP>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CERES>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CERES%20FM-5>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CPR>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=TANSO%20-%20CAI>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=WV-3%20CAVIS>

And yet, for all the decades that all those agencies have been
profiling clouds, not one instance of them altering the cloud
profiling data has been found... what would be the point, Jim? So
weathermen could somehow gain dominance over the populace?

Your paranoia is showing through again, Jim... you believe the
weathermen of the world are planning a coup!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
James McGinn
2016-10-23 17:47:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Do you deny that NASA is performing real-time atmospheric profiling, to include latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Can you confirm/describe the underlying chemical dynamics of latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Why don't you contact NASA and see if they can point you to reproducible experimental data that underlies this imaginative claim.
Remember, these same people claim to have satellites that track "CO2 Forcing" that you say does not exist.
Where is the reproducible experimental data that underlies this process? Surely you don't expect me to take your word on it, do you?
Friendly Neighbourhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1
2016-10-24 04:12:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Slobbering Tardnado' McGinn, in
Post by James McGinn
Post by James McGinn
Do you deny that NASA is performing real-time atmospheric
profiling, to include latent heat release in the ~11-micron
infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Can you confirm/describe the underlying chemical dynamics of
latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric
window from cloud formation?
Certainly, Jim. Can you disprove that mechanism of latent heat
release, Jim? Because I just got done spanking Kensi the LibTard
LunkHead off Usenet on that exact topic, all the information is queued
up and ready to spank you for your stupidity, too.
Post by James McGinn
Why don't you contact NASA and see if they can point you to
reproducible experimental data that underlies this imaginative claim.
Remember, these same people claim to have satellites that track
"CO2 Forcing" that you say does not exist.
Where is the reproducible experimental data that underlies this
process? Surely you don't expect me to take your word on it, do you?
Ah, so because some rogue "scientists" have been stupid enough to buy
into the CO2-induced anthropogenic global warming scam and alter their
data so they can continue to receive research grants from the liberal
government stooges who want there to be a climate catastrophe so they
can push through their kooky policies which would not otherwise have a
chance of passing, that somehow also conflates that NASA is faking
their data on cloud profiling, which would be easily discerned by the
fact that anything out of line in their readings would violate the
Laws of Thermodynamics, just as it was proven CO2-induced AGW violates
the Laws of Thermodynamics, simply because NASA isn't the only one
watching the clouds, Jim.

<http://cloudsat.atmos.colostate.edu/data>
<http://global.jaxa.jp/projects/sat/earthcare/>
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/7416/20155/00931494.pdf?arnumber=931494>
<http://radiometrics.com/data/uploads/2012/11/Ruffieux_MetZeit_06.pdf>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CCSP>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CERES>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CERES%20FM-5>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CPR>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=TANSO%20-%20CAI>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=WV-3%20CAVIS>

And yet, for all the decades that all those agencies have been
profiling clouds, not one instance of them altering the cloud
profiling data has been found... what would be the point, Jim? So
weathermen could somehow gain dominance over the populace?

Your paranoia is showing through again, Jim... you believe the
weathermen of the world are planning a coup!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
Janithor
2016-10-24 04:28:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-archive: yes

On 10/23/2016 9:12 PM, Friendly Neighbourhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus,
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James 'Slobbering Tardnado' McGinn, in
Post by James McGinn
Post by James McGinn
Do you deny that NASA is performing real-time atmospheric
profiling, to include latent heat release in the ~11-micron
infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Can you confirm/describe the underlying chemical dynamics of
latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric
window from cloud formation?
Certainly, Jim. Can you disprove that mechanism of latent heat
release, Jim? Because I just got done spanking Kensi the LibTard
LunkHead off Usenet on that exact topic, all the information is queued
up and ready to spank you for your stupidity, too.
Post by James McGinn
Why don't you contact NASA and see if they can point you to
reproducible experimental data that underlies this imaginative claim.
Remember, these same people claim to have satellites that track
"CO2 Forcing" that you say does not exist.
Where is the reproducible experimental data that underlies this
process? Surely you don't expect me to take your word on it, do you?
Ah, so because some rogue "scientists" have been stupid enough to buy
into the CO2-induced anthropogenic global warming scam and alter their
data so they can continue to receive research grants from the liberal
government stooges who want there to be a climate catastrophe so they
can push through their kooky policies which would not otherwise have a
chance of passing, that somehow also conflates that NASA is faking
their data on cloud profiling, which would be easily discerned by the
fact that anything out of line in their readings would violate the
Laws of Thermodynamics, just as it was proven CO2-induced AGW violates
the Laws of Thermodynamics, simply because NASA isn't the only one
watching the clouds, Jim.
<http://cloudsat.atmos.colostate.edu/data>
<http://global.jaxa.jp/projects/sat/earthcare/>
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/7416/20155/00931494.pdf?arnumber=931494>
<http://radiometrics.com/data/uploads/2012/11/Ruffieux_MetZeit_06.pdf>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CCSP>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CERES>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CERES%20FM-5>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CPR>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=TANSO%20-%20CAI>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=WV-3%20CAVIS>
And yet, for all the decades that all those agencies have been
profiling clouds, not one instance of them altering the cloud
profiling data has been found... what would be the point, Jim? So
weathermen could somehow gain dominance over the populace?
Your paranoia is showing through again, Jim... you believe the
weathermen of the world are planning a coup!
Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis,
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA?
-- Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions inherent
============================================================ Why are you
known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant uneducated
psychotic babbling loon, James? Why have you been legally deemed to be
mentally incompetent and a lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and
Constance, necessitating that you live with your parents because you'd
be a danger to yourself if you lived independently, James? Is it your
paranoid schizophrenia? Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress
you, wipe your ass and help you to not piss all over yourself? And you
call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a pathetic
basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser. Anders Nilsson
measured http://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw a spectral peak that was
not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. You claim that water
remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was Anders Nilsson
measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase water, thereby
proving that evaporation entails a phase change, thereby proving latent
heat of evaporation exists, thereby *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of
your theory, James. You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma"
is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy
throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the
energy come from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma
not-a-plasma" if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby
"transport energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which
creates your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to
begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles.
You've created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James. You've yet again slapped a patch on your
theory, abandoning Coulomb's Law for a separate "mechanism" by which
electrostatic attraction increases with increasing distance. How does
your "mechanism" and electrostatic attraction in accordance with
Coulomb's Law not mutually cancel, thereby dissociating all water,
James? According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases*
with distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the electron
in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, that *lower*
energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic attraction...
how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just violated the Law
of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level. How do the polarity of the
electron and the proton cancel if, as even you admit, there is a
distance between them as a result of the Pauli Exclusion Principle and
the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard, and once they've cancelled,
how is polarity reestablished, and how is that not dissociating the
water? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the
boiling point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded
hydrides, KookTard? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding,
then water's cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that,
KookTard? If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is
water *not* splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard? If
water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have such
a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same H
bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron that
you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of vaporization... but
you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that your denial also means
you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and that's just retarded. If
water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not
become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard? How do your "jet
stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your
"jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without detection by satellite
*or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always
hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing
out of the clear blue sky or from other types of clouds, James? Is your
"jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James? Go on, Jim,
tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the troposphere and the
stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, Jim? Is it because
that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with
noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that way, Jim? Do you need
your meds, Jim? How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no
giant sentient tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise,
Jim? Why can't you explain that, James? Why does water freeze from the
top down, even if the heat sink is *below* the container of water?
That's another question your "theory not-a-theory" can't answer. Why
can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your claim
that humid air is heavier than dry air, James? Why can't you explain or
mathematically model even *one* of your delusions, James? Why can't you
get your delusions through the peer-review process, James? Why can't you
even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James? Why are there *no*
corroborating studies backing up your delusions, James? Why are you
shunned by the scientific community, James? Why is your blather on the
comments sections of websites being *deleted*, dismissed as the mad
barking of a loon, James? Why are you described in the reviews of the
"books" you've written as "delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy
theorist", James? Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic
Meteorology class, in which they teach the very concepts you're
blathering out your lack of education about now, James? Why do you so
hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out of the elective
Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been deemed mentally
incompetent, James? Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic
Meteorology class as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist
not-a-physicist", James? Do you not understand that physicists are
highly educated, whereas you're ignorant and uneducated? What
universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was the
topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then you're
not a physicist, James. LOL If, as you claim, the jet stream is a
vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James?
Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it
just that your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly
appendages" likes its back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip
the aircraft to shreds, Jim? Do you not understand that once the air
going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud
base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly
a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go
from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as
you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for
potentially thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet
stream, which would make air travel deadly. Explain why the jets run
easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the
creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles
from the edge of the jets, James? Which direction does air flow from a
flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That's convection due to
temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction
does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all
directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So
your claiming that convection doesn't exist means you're further
claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long
before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that
convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential,
James? How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're
plasma, Jim? Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface
area, James? How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets"
*maximizing* their surface area as you claim? Do you not know what the
definition of "plasma" is, James? How is your "plasma not-a-plasma"
(which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt
to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the
nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical,
and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and
oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim? Where is the
energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong
ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with
shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere
because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form
your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your
"plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and
killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the
troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?
Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in
the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do not
randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
implausible claims are workable, Jim? Why are you not taking your meds,
James? ============================================================ Why
can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
smackdown
James McGinn
2016-10-29 18:32:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Do you deny that NASA is performing real-time atmospheric profiling, to include latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Can you confirm/describe the underlying chemical dynamics of latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Why don't you contact NASA and see if they can point you to reproducible experimental data that underlies this imaginative claim.
Remember, these same people claim to have satellites that track "CO2 Forcing" that you say does not exist.
Where is the reproducible experimental data that underlies this process? Surely you don't expect me to take your word on it, do you?
Friendly Neighbourhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1
2016-10-30 02:52:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Slobbering Tardnado' McGinn, in
Post by James McGinn
Post by James McGinn
Do you deny that NASA is performing real-time atmospheric
profiling, to include latent heat release in the ~11-micron
infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Can you confirm/describe the underlying chemical dynamics of
latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric
window from cloud formation?
Certainly, Jim. Can you disprove that mechanism of latent heat
release, Jim? Because I just got done spanking Kensi the LibTard
LunkHead off Usenet on that exact topic, all the information is queued
up and ready to spank you for your stupidity, too.
Post by James McGinn
Why don't you contact NASA and see if they can point you to
reproducible experimental data that underlies this imaginative claim.
Remember, these same people claim to have satellites that track
"CO2 Forcing" that you say does not exist.
Where is the reproducible experimental data that underlies this
process? Surely you don't expect me to take your word on it, do you?
Ah, so because some rogue "scientists" have been stupid enough to buy
into the CO2-induced anthropogenic global warming scam and alter their
data so they can continue to receive research grants from the liberal
government stooges who want there to be a climate catastrophe so they
can push through their kooky policies which would not otherwise have a
chance of passing, that somehow also conflates that NASA is faking
their data on cloud profiling, which would be easily discerned by the
fact that anything out of line in their readings would violate the
Laws of Thermodynamics, just as it was proven CO2-induced AGW violates
the Laws of Thermodynamics, simply because NASA isn't the only one
watching the clouds, Jim.

<http://cloudsat.atmos.colostate.edu/data>
<http://global.jaxa.jp/projects/sat/earthcare/>
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/7416/20155/00931494.pdf?arnumber=931494>
<http://radiometrics.com/data/uploads/2012/11/Ruffieux_MetZeit_06.pdf>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CCSP>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CERES>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CERES%20FM-5>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CPR>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=TANSO%20-%20CAI>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=WV-3%20CAVIS>

And yet, for all the decades that all those agencies have been
profiling clouds, not one instance of them altering the cloud
profiling data has been found... what would be the point, Jim? So
weathermen could somehow gain dominance over the populace?

Your paranoia is showing through again, Jim... you believe the
weathermen of the world are planning a coup!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
noTthaTguY
2016-10-30 23:17:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
thanks, doctor mCg;
your turn to go take a hike & preconsider
Post by James McGinn
Can you confirm/describe the underlying chemical dynamics of latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Why don't you contact NASA and see if they can point you to reproducible experimental data that underlies this imaginative claim.
Remember, these same people claim to have satellites that track "CO2 Forcing" that you say does not exist.
Where is the reproducible experimental data that underlies this process? Surely you don't expect me to take your word on it, do you?
Yuri Kreaton
2016-10-31 01:33:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
--answers for doctor mCg--
thanks, doctor mCg; your turn to go take a hike & preconsider
Post by James McGinn
Can you confirm/describe the underlying chemical dynamics of
latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window
from cloud formation?
1. there is no "chemistry" in the usual sense of materials reacting,
I'm not sure why you use that term in your inquiry. [try Meteorology]

2. the 11 micron "window" only means that Water Vapor does not have
absorption in that area of the infra red band, and it is 8 to 11
microns, not at just 11 microns.

Loading Image...


3. for Latent Heat, study this chart, I do not have all the time in the
world to teach you fundimentials;

Loading Image...
Post by James McGinn
Why don't you contact NASA and see if they can point you to
reproducible experimental data that underlies this imaginative
claim.
4. perhaps you, doctor mCg, should contact NASA as you are making the
inquiry. Better yet, if you could post your address, phone number, here
in this forum, I will contact NASA for you, and report you.
Post by James McGinn
Remember, these same people claim to have satellites that track
"CO2 Forcing" that you say does not exist.
5. I am sure those people do not have satellites at all, but may have
paid access to data from them. Also remember that Water Vapor is a far
larger absorber of heat in the atmosphere than CO2. I am sure you can
find that information yourself.

http://ber.parawag.net/images/Atmospheric_Absorption_Bands.jpg
Post by James McGinn
Where is the reproducible experimental data that underlies this
process? Surely you don't expect me to take your word on it, do
you?
6. doctor mCg, I am sure any grade school science teacher can assist
you further to understand these elementary concepts, you seem very lost.
James McGinn
2016-10-31 15:36:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yuri Kreaton
--answers for doctor mCg--
thanks, doctor mCg; your turn to go take a hike & preconsider
Post by James McGinn
Can you confirm/describe the underlying chemical dynamics of
latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window
from cloud formation?
1. there is no "chemistry" in the usual sense of materials reacting,
Right. There is also no phase change.
Post by Yuri Kreaton
I'm not sure why you use that term in your inquiry. [try Meteorology]
I'm a meteorologists. And a physicist. The phrase "latent heat" is used
(abused) by meteorologists for dramatic effect. As you indicated, it has no
basis in physical reality. Ultimately meteorologists use (abuse) this
notion to create cognitive dissonance--to create distance between them and
the realization (by the public) that they really don't understand H2O or
it's actual role in the atmosphere. They kinda understand it. But they
don't really understand it--until now (see below).
Post by Yuri Kreaton
2. the 11 micron "window" only means that Water Vapor does not have
absorption in that area of the infra red band, and it is 8 to 11
microns, not at just 11 microns.
http://ber.parawag.net/images/Atmospheric_Absorption_Bands.jpg
LOL. How is this even relevant? It is relevant, but you aren't explaining
how/why. (I guess I have to do it for you.)

Once again I feel like I'm running a hand holding service for people that
don't know how to make an argument for themselves.
Post by Yuri Kreaton
3. for Latent Heat, study this chart, I do not have all the time in the
world to teach you fundimentials;
LOL. Yeah, you'd have to get an edgimication first. And that would take a
long, long time.

For the time being take my word on it. There is no latent heat in water.
There is, however, a lot of conserved energy in liquid water, a lot more
than is evident (inferentially) from its temperature. This is due to the
high heat capacity of liquid water. And there is a lot of liquid water in
the atmosphere. Ultimately meteorologists use (abuse) this notion (latent
heat) to create cognitive dissonance. It's just a way to divert attention
away from the fact that they are confused about water.

Everybody in science is confused about water because the central point of
confusion has been a mystery--up to now. You see, here is the thing, buster,
H2O is the energy conservation superhero of our reality. This has been
widely known for a long time. Now--just recently--we (I myself, actually)
have discovered the underlying basis of a more comprehensive understanding
of the how and why underlying H2O's amazing and heretofore mysterious energy
conservation capabilities:

Hydrogen Bonds Neutralize H2O Polarity
https://zenodo.org/record/37224

This also sets the stage for a more literal understanding of H2O's many
anomalies.
Post by Yuri Kreaton
Post by James McGinn
Why don't you contact NASA and see if they can point you to
reproducible experimental data that underlies this imaginative
claim.
4. perhaps you, doctor mCg, should contact NASA as you are making the
inquiry. Better yet, if you could post your address, phone number, here
in this forum, I will contact NASA for you, and report you.
Post by James McGinn
Remember, these same people claim to have satellites that track
"CO2 Forcing" that you say does not exist.
5. I am sure those people do not have satellites at all, but may have
paid access to data from them. Also remember that Water Vapor is a far
larger absorber of heat in the atmosphere than CO2. I am sure you can
find that information yourself.
Right. Like I said, this is widely known. H2O is the energy conservation
superhero of our reality. And now we know the underlying basis of how/why.
Read my paper and look especially for the word "pendulumic".
Post by Yuri Kreaton
http://ber.parawag.net/images/Atmospheric_Absorption_Bands.jpg
Right. And--until now--nobody has been able to explain the underlying basis
of this.

Isn't learning fun!
Post by Yuri Kreaton
Post by James McGinn
Where is the reproducible experimental data that underlies this
process? Surely you don't expect me to take your word on it, do
you?
6. doctor mCg, I am sure any grade school science teacher can assist
you further to understand these elementary concepts, you seem very lost.
Be careful not to drool on your keyboard.
noTthaTguY
2016-10-31 19:21:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
you like it wet, pi?... I mean,
three
Post by James McGinn
Be careful not to drool on your keyboard.
Yuri Kreaton
2016-10-31 21:29:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by noTthaTguY
you like it wet, pi?... I mean,
three
Post by James McGinn
Be careful not to drool on your keyboard.
dr mCg knows from experience that drooling shorts out keyboards.


pi being 3, is ok by me,
within 5%,
2pi foot waves => 6 foot, surfs up!
the other 5% dosent care
noTthaTguY
2016-10-31 23:05:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I thought, he said, how one dr00ls, not,
not to dr00l.

although the canonical surfer's value of pi is 22/7 (in base_seven,
of course, and it is the median, 25/8 is quite useful in base_ten;
twenty-eight ninths, I don't know, but it is 3.11 in base_ten
Post by Yuri Kreaton
dr mCg knows from experience that drooling shorts out keyboards.
pi being 3, is ok by me,
within 5%,
2pi foot waves => 6 foot, surfs up!
the other 5% dosent care
James McGinn
2017-02-02 15:59:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Do you deny that NASA is performing real-time atmospheric profiling, to include latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Can you confirm/describe the underlying chemical dynamics of latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Why don't you contact NASA and see if they can point you to reproducible experimental data that underlies this imaginative claim.
Remember, these same people claim to have satellites that track "CO2 Forcing" that you say does not exist.
Where is the reproducible experimental data that underlies this process? Surely you don't expect me to take your word on it, do you?
The Party Of Trump (The Party For Winners)
2017-02-04 03:02:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James Bernard 'Slobbering Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, in
Post by James McGinn
Post by James McGinn
Do you deny that NASA is performing real-time atmospheric
profiling, to include latent heat release in the ~11-micron
infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Can you confirm/describe the underlying chemical dynamics of
latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric
window from cloud formation?
Certainly, Jim. Can you disprove that mechanism of latent heat
release, Jim? Because I just got done spanking Kensi the LibTard
LunkHead off Usenet on that exact topic, all the information is queued
up and ready to spank you for your stupidity, too.
Post by James McGinn
Why don't you contact NASA and see if they can point you to
reproducible experimental data that underlies this imaginative claim.
Remember, these same people claim to have satellites that track
"CO2 Forcing" that you say does not exist.
Where is the reproducible experimental data that underlies this
process? Surely you don't expect me to take your word on it, do you?
Ah, so because some rogue "scientists" have been stupid enough to buy
into the CO2-induced anthropogenic global warming scam and alter their
data so they can continue to receive research grants from the liberal
government stooges who want there to be a climate catastrophe so they
can push through their kooky policies which would not otherwise have a
chance of passing, that somehow also conflates that NASA is faking
their data on cloud profiling, which would be easily discerned by the
fact that anything out of line in their readings would violate the
Laws of Thermodynamics, just as it was proven CO2-induced AGW violates
the Laws of Thermodynamics, simply because NASA isn't the only one
watching the clouds, Jim.

<http://cloudsat.atmos.colostate.edu/data>
<http://global.jaxa.jp/projects/sat/earthcare/>
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/7416/20155/00931494.pdf?arnumber=931494>
<http://radiometrics.com/data/uploads/2012/11/Ruffieux_MetZeit_06.pdf>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CCSP>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CERES>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CERES%20FM-5>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CPR>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=TANSO%20-%20CAI>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=WV-3%20CAVIS>

And yet, for all the decades that all those agencies have been
profiling clouds, not one instance of them altering the cloud
profiling data has been found... what would be the point, Jim? So
weathermen could somehow gain dominance over the populace?

Your paranoia is showing through again, Jim... you believe the
weathermen of the world are planning a coup!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
James McGinn
2017-02-11 22:52:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Do you deny that NASA is performing real-time atmospheric profiling, to include latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Can you confirm/describe the underlying chemical dynamics of latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Why don't you contact NASA and see if they can point you to reproducible experimental data that underlies this imaginative claim.
Remember, these same people claim to have satellites that track "CO2 Forcing" that you say does not exist.
Where is the reproducible experimental data that underlies this process? Surely you don't expect me to take your word on it, do you?
Trump Team
2017-02-22 02:34:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James Bernard 'Slobbering Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, in
Post by James McGinn
Post by James McGinn
Do you deny that NASA is performing real-time atmospheric
profiling, to include latent heat release in the ~11-micron
infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Can you confirm/describe the underlying chemical dynamics of
latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric
window from cloud formation?
Certainly, Jim. Can you disprove that mechanism of latent heat
release, Jim? Because I just got done spanking Kensi the LibTard
LunkHead off Usenet on that exact topic, all the information is queued
up and ready to spank you for your stupidity, too.
Post by James McGinn
Why don't you contact NASA and see if they can point you to
reproducible experimental data that underlies this imaginative claim.
Remember, these same people claim to have satellites that track
"CO2 Forcing" that you say does not exist.
Where is the reproducible experimental data that underlies this
process? Surely you don't expect me to take your word on it, do you?
Ah, so because some rogue "scientists" have been stupid enough to buy
into the CO2-induced anthropogenic global warming scam and alter their
data so they can continue to receive research grants from the liberal
government stooges who want there to be a climate catastrophe so they
can push through their kooky policies which would not otherwise have a
chance of passing, that somehow also conflates that NASA is faking
their data on cloud profiling, which would be easily discerned by the
fact that anything out of line in their readings would violate the
Laws of Thermodynamics, just as it was proven CO2-induced AGW violates
the Laws of Thermodynamics, simply because NASA isn't the only one
watching the clouds, Jim.

<http://cloudsat.atmos.colostate.edu/data>
<http://global.jaxa.jp/projects/sat/earthcare/>
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/7416/20155/00931494.pdf?arnumber=931494>
<http://radiometrics.com/data/uploads/2012/11/Ruffieux_MetZeit_06.pdf>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CCSP>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CERES>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CERES%20FM-5>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CPR>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=TANSO%20-%20CAI>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=WV-3%20CAVIS>

And yet, for all the decades that all those agencies have been
profiling clouds, not one instance of them altering the cloud
profiling data has been found... what would be the point, Jim? So
weathermen could somehow gain dominance over the populace?

Your paranoia is showing through again, Jim... you believe the
weathermen of the world are planning a coup!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
James McGinn
2017-04-24 02:50:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Do you deny that NASA is performing real-time atmospheric profiling, to include latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Can you confirm/describe the underlying chemical dynamics of latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Why don't you contact NASA and see if they can point you to reproducible experimental data that underlies this imaginative claim.
Remember, these same people claim to have satellites that track "CO2 Forcing" that you say does not exist.
Where is the reproducible experimental data that underlies this process? Surely you don't expect me to take your word on it, do you?
James McGinn
2017-05-18 22:42:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Do you deny that NASA is performing real-time atmospheric profiling, to include latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Can you confirm/describe the underlying chemical dynamics of latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Why don't you contact NASA and see if they can point you to reproducible experimental data that underlies this imaginative claim.
Remember, these same people claim to have satellites that track "CO2 Forcing" that you say does not exist.
Where is the reproducible experimental data that underlies this process? Surely you don't expect me to take your word on it, do you?
James McGinn
2017-05-18 22:42:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Do you deny that NASA is performing real-time atmospheric profiling, to include latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Can you confirm/describe the underlying chemical dynamics of latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Why don't you contact NASA and see if they can point you to reproducible experimental data that underlies this imaginative claim.
Remember, these same people claim to have satellites that track "CO2 Forcing" that you say does not exist.
Where is the reproducible experimental data that underlies this process? Surely you don't expect me to take your word on it, do you?
Melt, Snowflakes, Melt!
2017-05-20 02:05:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James Bernard 'Slobbering Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA (aka
'Solving Tornades' LOL!), in
Post by James McGinn
Post by James McGinn
Do you deny that NASA is performing real-time atmospheric
profiling, to include latent heat release in the ~11-micron
infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Can you confirm/describe the underlying chemical dynamics of
latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric
window from cloud formation?
Certainly, Jim. Can you disprove that mechanism of latent heat
release, Jim? Because I just got done spanking Kensi the LibTard
LunkHead off Usenet on that exact topic, all the information is queued
up and ready to spank you for your stupidity, too.
Post by James McGinn
Why don't you contact NASA and see if they can point you to
reproducible experimental data that underlies this imaginative claim.
Remember, these same people claim to have satellites that track
"CO2 Forcing" that you say does not exist.
Where is the reproducible experimental data that underlies this
process? Surely you don't expect me to take your word on it, do you?
Ah, so because some rogue "scientists" have been stupid enough to buy
into the CO2-induced anthropogenic global warming scam and alter their
data so they can continue to receive research grants from the liberal
government stooges who want there to be a climate catastrophe so they
can push through their kooky policies which would not otherwise have a
chance of passing, that somehow also conflates that NASA is faking
their data on cloud profiling, which would be easily discerned by the
fact that anything out of line in their readings would violate the
Laws of Thermodynamics, just as it was proven CO2-induced AGW violates
the Laws of Thermodynamics, simply because NASA isn't the only one
watching the clouds, Jim.

<http://cloudsat.atmos.colostate.edu/data>
<http://global.jaxa.jp/projects/sat/earthcare/>
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/7416/20155/00931494.pdf?arnumber=931494>
<http://radiometrics.com/data/uploads/2012/11/Ruffieux_MetZeit_06.pdf>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CCSP>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CERES>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CERES%20FM-5>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=CPR>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=TANSO%20-%20CAI>
<http://www.itc.nl/research/products/sensordb/getsen.aspx?name=WV-3%20CAVIS>

And yet, for all the decades that all those agencies have been
profiling clouds, not one instance of them altering the cloud
profiling data has been found... what would be the point, Jim? So
weathermen could somehow gain dominance over the populace?

Your paranoia is showing through again, Jim... you believe the
weathermen of the world are planning a coup!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
James McGinn
2017-06-25 00:07:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Do you deny that NASA is performing real-time atmospheric profiling, to include latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Can you confirm/describe the underlying chemical dynamics of latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Why don't you contact NASA and see if they can point you to reproducible experimental data that underlies this imaginative claim.
Remember, these same people claim to have satellites that track "CO2 Forcing" that you say does not exist.
Where is the reproducible experimental data that underlies this process? Surely you don't expect me to take your word on it, do you?
James McGinn
2017-08-31 00:02:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Do you deny that NASA is performing real-time atmospheric profiling, to include latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Can you confirm/describe the underlying chemical dynamics of latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Why don't you contact NASA and see if they can point you to reproducible experimental data that underlies this imaginative claim.
Remember, these same people claim to have satellites that track "CO2 Forcing" that you say does not exist.
Where is the reproducible experimental data that underlies this process? Surely you don't expect me to take your word on it, do you?
James McGinn
2017-10-22 22:34:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Do you deny that NASA is performing real-time atmospheric profiling, to include latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Can you confirm/describe the underlying chemical dynamics of latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Why don't you contact NASA and see if they can point you to reproducible experimental data that underlies this imaginative claim.
Remember, these same people claim to have satellites that track "CO2 Forcing" that you say does not exist.
Where is the reproducible experimental data that underlies this process? Surely you don't expect me to take your word on it, do you?
James McGinn
2017-11-16 19:54:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Do you deny that NASA is performing real-time atmospheric profiling, to include latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Can you confirm/describe the underlying chemical dynamics of latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Why don't you contact NASA and see if they can point you to reproducible experimental data that underlies this imaginative claim.
Remember, these same people claim to have satellites that track "CO2 Forcing" that you say does not exist.
Where is the reproducible experimental data that underlies this process? Surely you don't expect me to take your word on it, do you?
James McGinn
2018-03-12 23:21:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Do you deny that NASA is performing real-time atmospheric profiling, to include latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Can you confirm/describe the underlying chemical dynamics of latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window from cloud formation?
Why don't you contact NASA and see if they can point you to reproducible experimental data that underlies this imaginative claim.
Remember, these same people claim to have satellites that track "CO2 Forcing" that you say does not exist.
Where is the reproducible experimental data that underlies this process? Surely you don't expect me to take your word on it, do you?
Loading...