Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #587819 > unrolled thread

Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-03 10:13 -0700
    Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-07-06 01:33 -0400
      Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 23:03 -0700
      Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 09:59 -0700
      Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 11:15 -0700
        Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 18:33 -0700
      Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2016-07-06 12:02 -0700
        Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 14:25 -0700
      Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-06 14:40 -0500
        Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 05:51 -0700
          ah, cOOl noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-08 10:51 -0700
            Re: ah, cOOl noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-08 16:07 -0700
        Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 11:22 -0700
          Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-07 18:20 -0700
            Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-08 13:51 -0500
        Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-19 19:45 +0200
      Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-19 19:43 +0200
        Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-19 19:58 +0200
        Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 21:48 +0200
          Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-19 22:29 +0200
            Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 15:33 -0500
              Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-19 22:40 +0200
                Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 23:24 +0200
            Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 23:15 +0200
        Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 09:08 -0700
          Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-21 03:27 +0200
            Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 20:58 -0700
              Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-23 07:55 +0200
                Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 09:21 -0700
        Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 12:19 -0700
          Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-21 04:58 +0200
            Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-21 05:12 +0200
            Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 07:22 +0200
            Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 14:00 -0700
              Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-21 17:46 -0700
                Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 08:10 -0700
              Precipitation (was: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-23 07:32 +0200
                Re: Precipitation (was: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 08:33 -0700
                  Re: Precipitation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-23 21:25 +0200
                    Re: Precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 12:38 -0700
                      Re: Precipitation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-23 22:01 +0200
                        Re: Precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 18:09 -0700
                          Re: Precipitation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-24 03:53 +0200
                            Re: Precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 06:17 -0700
                        Re: Precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-23 22:41 -0500
                        Re: Precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 09:14 -0700
            Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 08:21 -0700
              Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-23 07:33 +0200
                Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 08:35 -0700
            Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 12:16 -0700
              Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-23 07:52 +0200
                Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 09:20 -0700
                  Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-23 21:45 +0200
                    Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 18:06 -0700
            Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 11:10 -0700
      Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-19 18:05 -0500
        Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 11:58 -0700
          Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:13 -0700
            Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-20 18:12 -0500
    Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 07:14 -0700
    Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 15:29 -0700

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#590001

On 7/19/2016 3:29 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Incorrect.  Air *contains* water vapour because it mainly consists of other
> gases that water molecules can diffuse into.

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

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

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


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590006

Odd Bodkin wrote:

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

No.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590010

Dne 19/07/2016 v 22:40 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
> 
>> On 7/19/2016 3:29 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Incorrect.  Air *contains* water vapour because it mainly consists of
>>> other gases that water molecules can diffuse into.
>>
>> What? Are you saying that water vapor cannot exist in an airless region
>> of space?
> 
> No.
> 
Correct.

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

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

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590009

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

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

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

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

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

Every chemistry graduate should get that idea.

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

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590095

On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 10:43:32 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Michael J.  Strickland wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 10:13:32 -0700 (PDT), James McGinn
> > <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > ...
> >>The most stupefying myth in all of meteorology is the myth that steam can
> >>persist in our atmosphere.
> > 
> > Steam is water vapor above air saturation density. The steam coming
> > out of a kettle is opaque because it is well over saturation density
> > (>> 100% humidity) and pushes the air aside as it exits.
> 
> Partially true.  It is not the steam that is over 100 % humidity, but the 
> *air* is (i.e., there is more water in the air that it can hold; the warmer 
> the air, the more water it can hold), *therefore* there is steam.
> 
> > Technically, its not persisting in the atmosphere since it has purged the
> > atmosphere from its vicinity.
> 
> Nonsense.

Right.

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

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



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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590168

James McGinn wrote:

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

Attribution _line_, *not* attribution novel.

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

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

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

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

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

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590423

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
This mechanism is well-researched since at least the 1930s: 

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

Do you have any reproducible experimental evidence?  Obviously you don't, right?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590435

James McGinn wrote:

[Fixed quotation style]

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

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

Learn to quote.

> Do you have any reproducible experimental evidence?

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

> Obviously you don't, right?

Obviously there is no evidence that you would accept.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590458

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

Your imagination isn't evidence.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590117

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

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

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

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




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


Wikipedia is nonsense.  But so is most meteorology.


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

No, they are droplets.  Nuclei is not necessary.



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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590169

James McGinn wrote:

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

You are wrong.

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

It is tested and confirmed every time cloud seeding works.

> So it is just a conjecture or superstition.

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

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

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

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

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

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


You can do a simple experiment to test your assumption:

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

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

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

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

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

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

This statement is inconsistent with your claim above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, please trim your quotes.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590170

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

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

does _not_

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590172

Dne 21/07/2016 v 04:58 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
> James McGinn wrote:
> 
>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 10:43:32 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
>> wrote:
>>> You have omitted the most important part of the story.  For a gas to
>>> condense to drops that results in clouds, it does not suffice that its
>>> temperature is reduced; there has to be something *solid* that it can
>>> *condense on*.
>>
>> Actually, this supposition has never been thoroughly tested.
> 
> You are wrong.
> 

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

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590242

On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 7:58:11 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> James McGinn wrote:
> 
> > On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 10:43:32 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> > wrote:
> >> You have omitted the most important part of the story.  For a gas to
> >> condense to drops that results in clouds, it does not suffice that its
> >> temperature is reduced; there has to be something *solid* that it can
> >> *condense on*.
> > 
> > Actually, this supposition has never been thoroughly tested.
> 
> You are wrong.

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


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


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


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

Proof?


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

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

How was this not obvious?



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

Ditto.


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

evaporate (which is liquid suspended in air)

This is obvious stuff. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590262

On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 2:00:39 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 7:58:11 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

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

Look who's talking! Jim, it is YOU who has always failed to present any reproducible experimental evidence, not a single shred!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590298

R U brainless?

Don't U think your evidence would have shown up by now, dumbass?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590431 — Precipitation (was: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense)

James McGinn wrote:

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

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

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

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

One of the most cited of them is

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

which has the virtue of being available for free at

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

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

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

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

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

> You don't have proof.

Yes, I have.

> You just have more consensus-based propaganda.

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

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

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

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

No, for water droplets, i.e. liquid water, to exist, water has to have a 
temperature above the melting point of water.
 
> How was this not obvious?

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

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

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

  (1)  . . .  (2)  . . .  (3)  . . .  (4)  . . .  (5)  o . o  (6)  * . *
      . . . .     . . . .     . o o .     . * * .     . * * .     . * * .
     . . . . .   . . o . .   . o * o .   . * * * .   o * * * o   * * * * *
      . . . .     . . . .     . o o .     . * * .     . * * .     . * * .
       . . .        . .        . . .       . . .       o . o       * . *
 
  . – gaseous water (water vapor; diffused into other gases of air)
  o – liquid water
  * – solid water (water ice)
   __
  |PE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> This is obvious stuff.

What you are claiming is obviously *wrong*.

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

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590451 — Re: Precipitation (was: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense)

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

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


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

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

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

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


> 
> But it should be easy to find out.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Yeah, so?  What's your point?


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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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



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

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

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

Obviously it's inconclusive.

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16329#p114492

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590470 — Re: Precipitation

James McGinn wrote:

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

No, you have made the claim.

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

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

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

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

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

> [tl;dr]

-- 
PointedEars

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590472 — Re: Precipitation

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

My claim is that the steam tables are accurate.

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

Too bad your imagination isn't evidence, huh?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web