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

#590474 — Re: Precipitation

James McGinn wrote:

> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn […] wrote:
>> James McGinn wrote:
>> > […] 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:
>> >> >> >> [condensation 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.

No, your claim was: “[The] supposition [that ‘condensation nuclei are 
required for clouds’] has never been thoroughly tested.”

Put your money where your mouth is.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#590528 — Re: Precipitation

On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 1:01:34 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> James McGinn wrote:
> 
> > […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn […] wrote:
> >> James McGinn wrote:
> >> > […] 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:
> >> >> >> >> [condensation 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.
> 
> No, your claim was: “[The] supposition [that ‘condensation nuclei are 
> required for clouds’] has never been thoroughly tested.”

Yes.  And you are my evidence.

Anymore questions?

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

#590536 — Re: Precipitation

James McGinn wrote:

> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> James McGinn wrote:
>> > My claim is that the steam tables are accurate.
>> No, your claim was: “[The] supposition [that ‘condensation nuclei are
>> required for clouds’] has never been thoroughly tested.”
> 
> Yes.  And you are my evidence.
> 
> Anymore questions?

No.

*PLONK*

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

#590567 — Re: Precipitation

On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 6:53:52 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> James McGinn wrote:
> 
> > […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> James McGinn wrote:
> >> > My claim is that the steam tables are accurate.
> >> No, your claim was: “[The] supposition [that ‘condensation nuclei are
> >> required for clouds’] has never been thoroughly tested.”
> > 
> > Yes.  And you are my evidence.
> > 
> > Anymore questions?
> 
> No.
> 
> *PLONK*

you got nothing.

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

#590541 — Re: Precipitation

On 7/23/2016 3:01 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> James McGinn wrote:
>
>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn […] wrote:
>>> James McGinn wrote:
>>>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' […] Lahn wrote:
>>>>> James McGinn wrote:

>>
>> My claim is that the steam tables are accurate.
>

James learn the words "steam tables" from sci.physics about 5 months 
ago,  but James does not know the meaning of the words "steam tables", 
nor where to find them.

          James has the intelligence of a lobotomized clam.



> No, your claim was: “[The] supposition [that ‘condensation nuclei are
> required for clouds’] has never been thoroughly tested.”
>
> Put your money where your mouth is.
>

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

#590581 — Re: Precipitation

On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 1:01:34 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> >> > 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.
> 
> No, your claim was: “[The] supposition [that ‘condensation nuclei are 
> required for clouds’] has never been thoroughly tested.”
> 
> Put your money where your mouth is.

LOL.  Listen you simpleton, the fact that there is dust in rain doesn't prove that the dust initiated nucleation.

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

#590299

Obviously condensation does not require gaseous H2O to proceed.  Right?  Only an idiot would suggest such.

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

#590432

James McGinn wrote:

> Obviously condensation does not require gaseous H2O to proceed.  Right? 

Wrong.

> Only an idiot would suggest such.

Straw man.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#590452

On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 10:33:17 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> James McGinn wrote:
> 
> > Obviously condensation does not require gaseous H2O to proceed.  Right? 
> 
> Wrong.

If you can't support your claim then maybe you should make a retraction.

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

#590334

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.
> 
> ,-
> <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.


Cloud seeding doesn't work.  Never has.


> 
> > 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?

They don't come from gas.



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

Dumb question.

> 
> 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)?

Uh, it evaporates, dumbass.


> 
> 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?

Say what?


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

It doesn't turn to gas.

> 
> 
> 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?

Your experiment is meaningless.



> 
> 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. ∎

You are just dumb.

> 
> >> > 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.o

Only dumb people base arguments on definitions.




> 
> 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.

These are incredibly weak and nonsensical arguments.

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

#590434

James McGinn wrote:

> On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 7:58:11 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> wrote:

Which part of “attribution line” did you not understand?

>> James McGinn wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 10:43:32 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars'
>> > Lahn wrote:
>> >> [Cloud condensation nuclei]
>> > 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.
> 
> Cloud seeding doesn't work.  Never has.

Cite evidence.

>> > 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?
> 
> They don't come from gas.

Cite evidence.

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

Why have you answered it in your other posting, then?

>> 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)?
> 
> Uh, it evaporates,

Correct.  It evaporates *into Earth’s atmosphere*, i.e. single water 
molecules diffuse into the mix of other molecules of the gases of air.  When 
there single molecules of a substance are floating around, the corresponding 
substance is in the *gaseous* phase.  The gaseous phase of water is called 
“water vapour”.  Therefore, there is water vapour in Earth’s atmosphere.

> dumbass.

You have no good arguments, so you are throwing insults.

>> 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?
> 
> Say what?

Did you not understand the question?  If yes, which part(s) of it did you 
not understand?
 
>> (More practical:) If so, where does the additional ice in the freezer
>> come from if you leave it open for too long (commonly knIown as being the
>> result of resublimation of atmospheric water)?
> 
> It doesn't turn to gas.

Correct (you did not read the question carefully, yes?).  The water vapour 
in the inflowing air turns into ice instead; therefore, the thicker ice 
layer in the freezer, and the reason why fridges and freezers have to be 
defrosted regularly for maximum efficiency even if not carelessly left open 
for too long.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refrigerator#Energy_efficiency>

>> 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?
> 
> Your experiment is meaningless.

How so?  And have you done it?
 
>> 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. ∎
> 
> You are just dumb.

No, you are ignorant.

>> >> > 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.o
> 
> Only dumb people base arguments on definitions.

I am describing observable facts.  Your denial of reality does not make it 
go away; it just makes you look stupid.
 
>> Again, please trim your quotes.

Which part of that did you not understand?

> These are incredibly weak and nonsensical arguments.

You are not in a position to make that assessment, having *no* (*good*) 
arguments and *no* evidence in your favor *at all*.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#590457

On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 10:52:40 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> > Cloud seeding doesn't work.  Never has.
> 
> Cite evidence.



> 
> >> > 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?
> > 
> > They don't come from gas.
> 
> Cite evidence.
> 
> >> If so, where do frostings in winter (commonly known as being the result
> >> of resublimation of atmospheric water) come from?
> > 
> > Dumb question.
> 
> Why have you answered it in your other posting, then?
> 
> >> 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)?
> > 
> > Uh, it evaporates,
> 
> Correct.  It evaporates *into Earth’s atmosphere*, i.e. single water 
> molecules diffuse into the mix of other molecules of the gases of air.  When 
> there single molecules of a substance are floating around, the corresponding 
> substance is in the *gaseous* phase.  The gaseous phase of water is called 
> “water vapour”.  Therefore, there is water vapour in Earth’s atmosphere.

This is a plainly stupid argument.  Obviously gaseous H2O cannot be defined into existence.


> 
> > dumbass.
> 
> You have no good arguments, so you are throwing insults.

When people become delusional insults are the slap in the face they need to snap out of it.  Wakeup dumbass!  Gaseous H2O can't be defined into existence.

> 
> >> 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?
> > 
> > Say what?
> 
> Did you not understand the question?  If yes, which part(s) of it did you 
> not understand?

If you can't figure out what you point is don't expect me to do it for you.

>  
> >> (More practical:) If so, where does the additional ice in the freezer
> >> come from if you leave it open for too long (commonly knIown as being the
> >> result of resublimation of atmospheric water)?
> > 
> > It doesn't turn to gas.
> 
> Correct (you did not read the question carefully, yes?).  The water vapour 
> in the inflowing air turns into ice instead; therefore, the thicker ice 
> layer in the freezer, and the reason why fridges and freezers have to be 
> defrosted regularly for maximum efficiency even if not carelessly left open 
> for too long.

Yeah, so?  What is your point?  I'm not a mind reader.


> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refrigerator#Energy_efficiency>
> 
> >> 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?
> > 
> > Your experiment is meaningless.
> 
> How so?  And have you done it?

You seem to not have a point.  Be explicit.  What does your experiment prove?  I'm not a mind reader.



>  
> >> 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. ∎
> > 
> > You are just dumb.
> 
> No, you are ignorant.

So, your dumbass solution is to just assume gaseous H2O.  Right?

> 
> >> >> > 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.o
> > 
> > Only dumb people base arguments on definitions.
> 
> I am describing observable facts.

Then fucking explain how you verify that H2O is gaseous you freekin imbecile.  


  Your denial of reality does not make it 
> go away; it just makes you look stupid.
>  
> >> Again, please trim your quotes.
> 
> Which part of that did you not understand?
> 
> > These are incredibly weak and nonsensical arguments.
> 
> You are not in a position to make that assessment, having *no* (*good*) 
> arguments and *no* evidence in your favor *at all*.

You got nothing.

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

#590473

James McGinn wrote:

> Then [invective] explain how you verify that H2O is gaseous you [insult]

AISB: Reduce the temperature or pressure of the air it is supposed to be 
contained in.  See it condense as water drop(let)s, or resublimate as water 
ice *only then*.  As a bonus, all phase changes include the exchange of 
specific amounts of heat which can be measured.

<http://www.weatherquestions.com/What_is_condensation.htm>

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#590527

On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 12:45:40 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> James McGinn wrote:
> 
> > Then [invective] explain how you verify that H2O is gaseous you [insult]
> 
> AISB: Reduce the temperature or pressure of the air it is supposed to be 
> contained in.  See it condense as water drop(let)s, or resublimate as water 
> ice *only then*.  As a bonus, all phase changes include the exchange of 
> specific amounts of heat which can be measured.
> 
> <http://www.weatherquestions.com/What_is_condensation.htm>
> 
> -- 
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

LOL.  A birdbrain without a point.

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

#590584

On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 7:58:11 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Either there *is* gaseous water in the atmosphere, only then it can condense 
> to droplets,

This is obvious BS.  Why can't microdroplets come together?  Explain this.


 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.

Now you just sound stupid.  Why can't microdroplets come together?  Are you an idiot?



  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:

What are you babbling about?


> 
> <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>)
> 

What is your frikin point?

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

#590013

On 7/6/2016 12:33 AM, 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. Technically,
> its not persisting in the atmosphere since it has purged the
> atmosphere from its vicinity. 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).

> As water vapor (much lighter than air) rises and cools, it condenses
> into water droplets (clouds). 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.

> 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. The resultant vapor rises upward
> again to the top of the cloud and condenses again to repeat the cycle.
> The energy required to vaporize a droplet increases with the mass of
> the droplet (cube of the droplet radius ) but the energy acquired from
> falling friction increases only as the square of the droplet radius.
> Thus the larger the droplet, the farther it falls before evaporating
> again.

> As the cloud grows upward and the temperature at the top drops, colder
> and larger drops form. They are larger because the vapor molecules are
> moving slower and more nucleate (stick together) per second. These
> larger, colder droplets eventually survive the trip falling through
> the cloud and (and air below the cloud) without vaporizing. They hit
> the ground as rain drops.
>
> Mike
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
> ---------------------------------------------------
>

good explination, and shows the complex process of going from opaque 
steam to invisable gas.

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

#590114

On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 4:05:26 PM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
> On 7/6/2016 12:33 AM, 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. Technically,
> > its not persisting in the atmosphere since it has purged the
> > atmosphere from its vicinity. 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).
> 
> > As water vapor (much lighter than air) rises and cools, it condenses
> > into water droplets (clouds). 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.
> 
> > 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. The resultant vapor rises upward
> > again to the top of the cloud and condenses again to repeat the cycle.
> > The energy required to vaporize a droplet increases with the mass of
> > the droplet (cube of the droplet radius ) but the energy acquired from
> > falling friction increases only as the square of the droplet radius.
> > Thus the larger the droplet, the farther it falls before evaporating
> > again.
> 
> > As the cloud grows upward and the temperature at the top drops, colder
> > and larger drops form. They are larger because the vapor molecules are
> > moving slower and more nucleate (stick together) per second. These
> > larger, colder droplets eventually survive the trip falling through
> > the cloud and (and air below the cloud) without vaporizing. They hit
> > the ground as rain drops.
> >
> > Mike
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> > Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> >
> 
> good explination, and shows the complex process of going from opaque 
> steam to invisable gas.

Sergio, you are so dumb.  The explanation was wrong.  

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

#590133

it was easy to find th partial pressures
for all kind of liquid *but water ...
which has its own table, of course

> Sergio, you are so dumb.  The explanation was wrong.

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

#590144

On 7/20/2016 5:13 PM, noTthaTguY wrote:
> it was easy to find th partial pressures
> for all kind of liquid *but water ...
> which has its own table, of course
>
>> Sergio, you are so dumb.  The explanation was wrong.
>

McGinn must be recycling his old junk posts, I have him PLONKED, throw 
him out with the garbage.

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

#595329

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 10:13:37 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense because they have painted themselves into a corner with their assumptions and believing in nonsense is the only option that remains to save them from appearing to be complete fools. The most stupefying myth in all of meteorology is the myth that steam can persist in our atmosphere. It is universally believed by all meteorologists yet, strangely, not one of them would claim knowledge of a test or experiment to demonstrate its validity. Stranger still, what little empirical evidence we do have decidedly indicates that the notion fails. This notion has evolved into a taboo within the disciplines that study the atmosphere, the primary champions and enforcers of this taboo being meteorologists, most of whom for which the issue is a mute point in that they exclusively work with synoptic charts (cold fronts, warm fronts and such, usually displayed on computer screens) and, therefore, the notion is never applied in the context of their daily duties. Only for a very small subset of meteorologists—those that deal with the severe weather and, even then, only those that deal with the theoretical aspects thereof—does this notion have any real significance. But for these few the effect is intellectually devastating, rendering them feckless, incapable of making any kind of real progress in the discipline. One consequence of this being that the theoretical aspects of the study of severe weather have come to epitomize academic vapidity. And there really isn’t much any of them can do about it in that belief in the concept is a prerequisite for being taken seriously by any of the various stakeholders in the discipline. But at least they don’t look like complete fools.
> http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16329

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

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

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web