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

Groups > sci.physics > #600155 > unrolled thread

Re: H2O surface tension properly explained for the first time

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: H2O surface tension properly explained for the first time James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 12:12 -0700
    Re: H2O surface tension properly explained for the first time "Friendly Neighbourhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1" <FNVWe@alt.usenet.kooks.xxx> - 2016-10-10 05:01 +0200
      Re: H2O surface tension properly explained for the first time Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-10 07:28 +0200
        Re: H2O surface tension properly explained for the first time "Friendly Neighbourhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1" <FNVWe@alt.usenet.kooks.xxx> - 2016-10-11 04:44 +0200
          Re: H2O surface tension properly explained for the first time Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-11 06:02 +0200
            Re: H2O surface tension properly explained for the first time "Friendly Neighbourhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1" <FNVWe@alt.usenet.kooks.xxx> - 2016-10-11 07:03 +0200
              Re: H2O surface tension properly explained for the first time Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-11 07:16 +0200
                Re: H2O surface tension properly explained for the first time Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-11 07:21 +0200
                  Re: H2O surface tension properly explained for the first time "Friendly Neighbourhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1" <FNVWe@alt.usenet.kooks.xxx> - 2016-10-12 06:07 +0200
                    Re: H2O surface tension properly explained for the first time Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 06:17 +0200
                      Re: H2O surface tension properly explained for the first time Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 07:34 +0200
                        Re: H2O surface tension properly explained for the first time "Friendly Neighbourhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1" <FNVWe@alt.usenet.kooks.xxx> - 2016-10-13 06:58 +0200
                      Re: H2O surface tension properly explained for the first time "Friendly Neighbourhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1" <FNVWe@alt.usenet.kooks.xxx> - 2016-10-12 07:52 +0200
                Re: H2O surface tension properly explained for the first time Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-11 08:43 -0500
                  combustion, vapor of that noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-10-11 12:42 -0700
                    Re: combustion, vapor of that Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 02:48 +0200
                Re: H2O surface tension properly explained for the first time "Friendly Neighbourhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1" <FNVWe@alt.usenet.kooks.xxx> - 2016-10-12 07:36 +0200
                  tardo-nado noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 11:39 -0700
              Re: H2O surface tension properly explained for the first time THE STINGER <bzz.bzz.bzz@sting.sting.sting> - 2016-10-11 08:55 +0200

#600155 — Re: H2O surface tension properly explained for the first time

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 6:26:42 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> James McGinn: 
> You are ignoring symmetry, to no good effect.   
>   
> You don't even know what 'symmetry' means, Jim.   
> 
> James McGinn: 
> Actually I do.  In fact I'm the first person to correctly recognize the significance of the variability of symmetry to determine the variability of polarity. Accordingly, I understand polarity better than anybody.  See my paper for details: 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ 
>   
> No, you don't. 
> 
> James McGinn: 
> Actually I do. No joke. 
> 
> In fact, the H bonding gets *weaker* when one is knocked loose. 
>   
> James McGinn: 
> You are just as clueless as Martin Chaplin and the other people you quote.  Surface tension proves you wrong and me right. As described in my paper, H bonds get stronger when asymmetry is restored with the breaking of one of the two hydrogen bonds.  As I describe explicitly, polarity depends on the existence of asymmetry: 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ 
>   
> You've already been proven wrong below, Jim. 
> 
> James McGinn: 
> How so?  Explain surface tension using your model.  Go ahead.  If what you are saying is true H2O would have no surface tension in that a surface forces the breaking of some but not all bonds. Accordingly the surface would be weaker, not stronger. 
>   
> The surface condition is a special case, Jim, so I'm not surprised you 
> don't know about it. 
> 
> James McGinn: 
> Nothing in physics is a "special case."  That is just a copout.  If your model can't explain what is observed then it is useless as an explanation. 
> 
> So the "surface tension" is a result of the increased viscosity of the 
> interfacial water: 
>  http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html 
>  Analysis of simple thermodynamics c shows the surface has considerable 
>  structuring, having identical density to that of bulk water at just 
>  under 4C. In addition, the surface water structuring varies less 
>  with temperature than the bulk. Refractive index study of the 
>  water-air surface reveals it to be about 1.7 nm thick at 22C and 
>  more dense than the bulk liquid (that is, it behaves like water at a 
>  lower temperature). 
> 
> James McGinn: 
> That is just a descriptive model based on observation.  You are presenting it as an explanation! In other words, your explanation of surface tension is ad hoc. It's not intrinsic.  You just tacked it on. It's worthless. Moreover, its just a model.  IOW, its an attempt to explain what is observed. Only an amateur would employ a descriptive model as proof. 
>   
> That model happens to be the model that is accepted 
> 
> James McGinn: 
> It's still just a model, dumbass.  Model's are not evidence.  That you use a descriptive model as evidence reveals your cluelessness. Descriptive models can't be used to dispute reality. For your model to be valid it has to be proven through rigorous attempt to refute it.  You don't have that.  You just have a descriptive model that doesn't even conform with what is observed.  In sharp contrast, what I presented is a genuine explanation supported by theory.

lkjlkjkl

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#600203

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Slobbering Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:49397f76-7367-475b-94d8-ba2c725abf8c@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>> Oh, Jim didn't realize that water in its gaseous phase, water in its
>> liquid phase and water in its solid phase would reflect and refract
>> different wavelengths, did he?
>> 
>> Water in its gaseous phase reflects and refracts microwave radiation 
>> at a far lower rate than does, say, the water vapor in clouds. Thus 
>> the differential tells researchers cloud depth as well as humidity.

> If you think it definitive then why not make an argument to that effect?

I just did, Jim. The multi-frequency split-window technique to
determine cloud optical depth and atmospheric humidity has been used
for years by NASA, Jim.

> But it has to be definitive.  No Global-warming-reasoning will be accepted.

Um, Jim? You're talking to the guy who proved that CO2-driven AGW
violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and thus is a fairy tale. CO2 has
been proven by NASA to be a global *cooling* gas.

>> Did you never stop to consider why, exactly, water in its gaseous 
>> phase exists primarily in the troposphere, whereas carbon dioxide and 
>> nitrogen, for example, can rise far above the troposphere, Jim?

> Yes: https://www.youtu<SMACKAKOOK!>

Referring back to your own kooky conspiracy theory blather is like
standing in an echo chamber screaming at the top of your lungs and
taking the echoes as confirmation of your kooky blathering, Jim. It's
an indication of mental instability and a burgeoning schizoid
paranoiac insanity. Seek immediate professional psychiatric
intervention, Jim.

>> Did you never stop to consider why water can go *below* its freezing 
>> temperature after being updrafted into the upper troposphere, yet not 
>> immediately fall out of the sky (hint: because it's in its gaseous 
>> phase... individual molecules... 

> Wrong.  It' is always liquid or solid (ice).  It is never gaseous.

Wrong. I've presented *four* peer-reviewed studies proving the
existence of monomolecular gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere, Jim.
Is water "speshul", James? Does it not have a gaseous phase like every
other molecule?

Nilsson's study:
<https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156>
If water molecules are H bonded together, it's liquid water, James.
Photon energy from electron orbital descent is dependent upon H
bonding strength (given that it's an electrostatic bond), the stronger
the H bond, the lower the photon energy. Nilsson measured a higher
photon energy from electron orbital descent in gaseous-phase water
than that of liquid-phase water. If it'd been liquid-phase water as
you claim, the photon energy would have been identical to that of
liquid-phase water. It wasn't, hence gaseous phase water is
monomolecular with no H bonding.

Water In The Gas Phase - 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3350649/
Not ab initio (which you stupidly call "ab initro" in your videos
LOL)... direct measurement of monomolecular water in the gaseous
phase. 16 referenced papers.

Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research
http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation
Direct empirical observation of monomolecular evaporation.

http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/
Active Long Path Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy to
directly observe monomolecular gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere.

Now you can run away from reality all over again, James. You
delusional reality-denying kooktard.

Now let's contrast that with what you've got, James... you've
*retracted* the central premise for your entire delusion as you
writhed and squirmed in trying to escape being proven wrong, then when
you realized that your having done so destroyed your entire delusion,
you quickly picked up your "variable polarity of the H2O molecule"
claim from the ground, dusted it off, slapped it back onto your
delusion and duct-taped it in place. That had to be embarrassing for
you, eh? LOL

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a43a939ee435645e09@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Retracted:
> Polarity is a variable. And the mechanism that alters (reduces)
> the polarity of H2O molecules is the completion of hydrogen
> bonds with adjoining water molecules.
========================================================

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a43a939ee435645e09@dizum.com>
========================================================
> In my post entitled Conservation of Energy in Earth's
> Atmosphere I describe how the spinning of water
> droplets/clusters--a direct result of wind shear--causes
> these droplets to elongate into chains of partially
> reactivated H2O molecules, effectuating a plasma with
> structural integrity. It is important to note that
> without the concept that is the subject of this post
> (the Polarity Neutralization Implication of Hydrogen
> Bonds Between Water Molecules and Groups Thereof) this
> would not be possible.
========================================================

Thus, without your "variable polarity of the water molecule" claim
(now retracted by you), your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim falls, by
your own admission. And without your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim, your
"boundaries and structures" which you claim that "plasma not-a-plasma"
forms which drives the winds. Thus your entire "theory not-a-theory"
just came crashing to the ground. That's what happens when you build
your "theory not-a-theory" like a Jenga tower of lies and
suppositions, James.

Yet again, you've destroyed your moronic theory in trying to slap
patches on it so you can writhe your way out of being proven wrong.
You're too ignorant, insane and uneducated to acknowledge or
understand reality, let alone model it, Tardnado. LOL

That was an embarrassing gaffe on your part, wasn't it, TornadoTard?
LOL

>> According to you, since you k'lame 
>> all water in the atmosphere is clustered, it would be heavier than air 
>> and would thus all fall out of the air once its mass exceeded its 
>> downward-facing combined radius holding it up due to updraft... 

> I address this point in my videos.

Your kooky conspiracy theory videos are merely the outgrowth of your
kooky written conspiracy theory, Jim. The same retarded tripe in a
different form. IOW, you have nothing in your arsenal to refute the
peer-reviewed studies I presented with utterly *destroyed* your kooky
conspiracy theory.

>> thus rainfall would be next to impossible, the lower troposphere would 
>> perpetually be enveloped in falling mist, and every horizontal surface 
>> would be perpetually covered with a film of water.

> Right.  Based on meteorology's assumptions clouds should drop out of
> the sky like bricks.  Right?  But they don't. Why do you think that is?

Wrong, that's according to your wrong interpretation of meteorology's
precepts. The reality of physical phenomena such as clouds has been
explained to you, including links to corroborable data. You snipped it
out and ran away from it because you're a delusional paranoiac
suffering from the crippling effects of Dunning-Kruger.

>> Are you beginning to understand that you don't understand much at all, 
>> Jim? Are you beginning to see that you conceived of your kooky little 
>> theory and ran off half-cocked, crowing about your "discovery" without 
>> fully testing its premises, Jim?

> You exemplify the dimwittedness of meteorological assumptions.

That must be why you find yourself utterly unable to refute any of
that peer-reviewed data, right, Jim? Everyone else is crazy and *you*
are the only sane one. Everyone else who has years of training and
experience is wrong, but *you*, a high school dropout kooktard who has
demonstrated his stupidity repeatedly, are the only one who is right.

Yeah, that makes sense, Jim. Right?

Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit.

>>>> Then you'll have no problem providing a microscopy printout of these
>>>> so-called "small droplets", Jim. Do you even own a microscope?

>>> So, now you are conceding that you don't have counterevidence?

>> I've just provided yet another peer reviewed study

> Yet you are conceding that it is not conclusive, right?

I "conceded" no such thing, Jim. It is a peer-reviewed study which
utterly decimates your kooky conspiracy theory. Do you not understand
what the peer-review process entails, Jim? Oh, of course you don't...
you can't get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, nor can you even get your kooky conspiracy theory published
on any pre-print servers. Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy
theory through the peer-review process, Jim? Answer the question, you
evasive twit.

>>> Ever heard of the scientific method?

>> Sure I have, which is why I've been offering evidence consisting of 
>> peer reviewed studies... 

> Peer review is consensus.  Consensus is politics.  (I am not a
> climate scientist.)  Only empirical evidence is valid if you
> want to collect the money. Sorry to burst your bubble.  I thought
> this was obvious.  Sorry if you got the wrong idea.

Ah, another goalpost move from the evasive twit James McGinn. Well,
it's a good thing I've presented empirical evidence such as you taking
a trip from sea level to the top of Mt. Everest with a container of
water, eh, Jim? That also disproves your kooky theory. So you'll be
paying up. Now.

>>>> Wrong, but nice CAPSscreed, Jim. The two acceptor bonds are to two
>>>> *different* water molecules. 

>>> No duh.

>> Then breaking one will not affect the other, KookTard.

> It affects the symmetry on the Oxygen molecule, dumbass.

No, it doesn't. It affects the diametrically-opposed covalent bond,
shortening it, as I've proven via two peer-reviewed studies, which you
snipped out and ran away from, Jim.

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
"There is a trade-off between the covalent and hydrogen bond
strengths; the stronger the H····O hydrogen bond, the weaker the O-H
covalent bond, and the shorter the O····O distance"

Note the graph... the covalent bond remains shorter (and stronger)
than the inter-molecular H bond. Because the inter-molecular H bond is
~1/20th the strength of the covalent bond, the diametrically-opposite
covalent bond will preferentially shorten and strengthen when one of
the inter-molecular bonds is broken, Jim. That's why, when using high
frequency AC to dissociate water, you target the short covalent bond
frequency, as the long covalent bond frequency is too close to the H
bond frequency, and if you break that, you strengthen the covalent
bonds.

You are *wrong*. Your kooky theory is *wrong*. The entire underlying
premise of your kooky theory is fallacious. I've just destroyed your
kooky theory, Jim. Now what will you do?

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
"The movement of electrons from the oxygen atom to the O-H antibonding
orbital on a neighboring molecule (HO-H-····OH2) both weaken the
covalent O-H bond (so lengthening it ) and reduces the HO-H····OH2
'hydrogen' bond."

Hence, when that inter-molecular H bond is broken, the diametrically
opposed covalent bond is shortened and strengthened, Jim. This has
been known and is well-exploited when building HHO welders for a great
number of years, Jim. That's why, when dissociating water, you don't
target the long covalent bond, as the resonant frequency required to
break that covalent bond is too close to the inter-molecular H bond
resonant frequency, and breaking that would strengthen the covalent
bond opposite, thereby costing more energy in dissociating the water.

Again, your  lack of understanding of physical processes stems in part
from your broken delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted brain rejecting
any information from those you deem to be of higher authority than you
(which would be pretty much everyone), and in part from your lack of
education. Both conditions together lead you off into the brambles of
your kooky discredited conspiracy theory, and both can be ameliorated
by subjecting yourself to those very same psychiatric and educational
authorities your broken brain rejects... hence you'll remain
delusional for the remainder of your pathetic life, Jim... but you'll
find your delusion and hence your insanity grows until it destroys
your life. Fix yourself, Jim, or suffer the same fate of every other
D-K sufferer.

<snicker>

>>> You are ignoring symmetry, to no good effect.  

>> You don't even know what 'symmetry' means, Jim, 

> Look into VESPR theory.  

Oh, trust me, Jim. I know about VSEPR theory. You're still misusing
the word 'symmetry', Jim. Liquid water has no symmetry. Gaseous-phase
water has absolutely no symmetry. You're 180 degrees out from reality.

>>> I understand polarity better than anybody

>> No, you don't. You're a moronic delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted 
>> kooktard who believes himself to know polarity better than anybody, 
>> but you demonstrate daily that in reality you know squat, Jim.
> Actually I do.

Actually, you don't, as the data above proves, Jim.

>>>> In fact, the H bonding gets *weaker* when one is knocked loose.

>>> Surface tension proves you wrong and me right.

>> You've already been proven wrong below, Jim. 

> Explain surface tension using your model.  Go ahead.
> What are you waiting for?

The surface condition is a special case, Jim, so I'm not surprised you 
don't know about it.

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

So the "surface tension" is a result of the increased viscosity of the 
interfacial water, Jim. Did you not know this, Jim? What kind of loon 
would hold themselves out as the 'premiere expert' on water, and yet 
not know a single fact *about* water, Jim?

> Your explanation of surface tension is ad hoc. It's not intrinsic.
> You just tacked it on. It's worthless. 

That explanation is backed up by 2517 peer-reviewed studies, you
fecking nong. It's been vetted and proven to reflect reality.

Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit.

>>> That's a model, dumbass.  That is not reality.
>>> That is a (poorly considered) attempt to explain what is observed.
>>> So, only a loon would employ that as proof.

>> That model happens to be the model that is accepted

> It's still just a model, dumbass.  Model's are not evidence.
> That you use a model as evidence reveals your dimwittedness.

It is a model which explains all physical phenomenon of water, Jim.
Backed up by 2517 peer-reviewed studies. How many studies back up your
kooky conspiracy theory, Jim?

Oh, that's right, ZERO. In fact, you can't even get your kooky
conspiracy theory itself through the peer-review process. Why is that,
Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit.

>>> Descriptive models don't dispute reality, dumbass.
>>> Then do the experiment that prove it.  

>> Kooktard keeps asking for "experiments", when that data has been known 
>> for a very long time... 

> As you are revealing, none of it is definitive.

It is, you're just backpedaling away from the fact that your kooky
conspiracy theory has been utterly destroyed, Jim.

>> I'll let you do this experiment, Jim. Carry a beaker of water to sea 
>> level, heat it to 100 C. You'll note the water gaseous pressure is 
>> sufficient to overcome the 760 mm Hg atmospheric pressure.
>> 
>> Now allow the water to cool to 70 C, you'll note the vapor pressure is 
>> insufficient to overcome the 750 mm Hg atmospheric pressure, so 
>> boiling does not occur, 

> Boiling stops below 100, dumbass.

Very good, Jim! At least you can acknowledge reality when it suits you
to do so. So we know you're not fully delusional... yet.

>> yet evaporation does occur.

> Evaporation occurs all the way do to freezing, dumbass.

Very good again, Jim! In fact, it occurs even *below* the freezing
point, Jim. Or are you going to now deny sublimation?

>> Now, while maintaining that water at 70 C, carry it to the top of Mt. 
>> Everest. You'll note that as you rise in altitude, the water will 
>> again begin boiling, despite the temperature of the water only being 
>> 70 C.

> You're an idiot.

I've proven your kooky theory is *wrong*, Jim. You're the idiot.

>> Hence, boiling and evaporation are the same process,

> Surreal.

I'm sure you do find reality to be "surreal", Jim... Dunning-Kruger
sufferers often do. It's part and parcel of your burgeoning insanity.
You can fix yourself, it's not too late. All it requires is
acknowledging that your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly
destroyed, and thereby escaping its insanity-inducing grip.

I don't think you're strong enough to do that, Jim.

Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis,
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA?

-- 

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

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

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

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

Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?

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

#600218

Dne 10/10/2016 v 05:01 Friendly Neighbourhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus,
DoW #1 napsal(a):

> 
> Um, Jim? You're talking to the guy who proved that CO2-driven AGW
> violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and thus is a fairy tale. CO2 has
> been proven by NASA to be a global *cooling* gas.
> 

By the same way as your cloth
cools you by intensive thermal radiation
and therefore you should not use it
to warm yourself up.....


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

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

#600347

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Poutnik, in <news:ntf8ts$dks$1@dont-email.me> did thusly jump head 
first into the wood chipper again:

> Dne 10/10/2016 v 05:01 Friendly Neighbourhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus,
> DoW #1 napsal(a):

>> Um, Jim? You're talking to the guy who proved that CO2-driven AGW
>> violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and thus is a fairy tale. CO2 has
>> been proven by NASA to be a global *cooling* gas.

> By the same way as your cloth
> cools you by intensive thermal radiation
> and therefore you should not use it
> to warm yourself up.....

False analogy. Cloth is an insulator by blocking circulation of air, 
whereas CO2 facilitates augering heat to the upper atmosphere (much 
more efficiently than even water, given that water vapor generally 
doesn't go much higher than the tropopause).

While CO2 is an efficient absorber of infrared, it's also an efficient 
*emitter*... so heat gets absorbed in the lower atmosphere, gets 
circulated up into the upper atmosphere by convection, where it is 
released on the night-side of the planet in the 11-micron infrared 
atmospheric window, allowing that heat nearly unfettered escape to 
space.

Thus, more CO2 == more cooling, the diametric opposite of what the 
Klimate Katastrophe Kooks claim.

>From an earlier post:
============================================================
<http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/>
===========================
"Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats", explains
James Russell of Hampton University, SABER's principal investigator.
"When the upper atmosphere (or 'thermosphere') heats up, these
molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space."

For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere
absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO,
the two most efficient _coolants_ in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95%
of that total back into space.
===========================

<https://i0.wp.com/i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/SpectralCoolingRates_zps27867ef4.png>
===========================
Notice how CO2 has a cooling effect right from the lower stratosphere
and up into the mesosphere, its peak cooling effect around the
stratopause, while ozone has a clear warming effect in the lower
stratosphere (and even into the troposphere) but a cooling effect like
CO2 in the middle and upper stratosphere.
===========================

<http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.306.3621&rep=rep1&type=pdf>
===========================
Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission
Rudolf W. Gunnerman Energy and Environment Laboratory; University of
Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA; Institute of
Oceanology of Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

"The writers investigated the effect of CO2 emission on the
temperature of atmosphere. Computations based on the adiabatic theory
of greenhouse effect show that increasing CO2 concentration in the
atmosphere results in cooling rather than warming of the Earth's
atmosphere."
===========================
============================================================

If you Klimate Katastrophe Kooks were smart enough that you didn't 
have to be spoon-fed your talking points, you'd also be smart enough 
to realize you're being lied to for political and economic reasons.

The AGW fable gives the politicians an unprecedented opportunity to 
enact legislation that controls more people, while giving them the 
further opportunity to k'lame that they're fixing a large intractable 
"problem" (of their own invention).

Some of those politicians also happen to be ground-floor investors in 
the carbon exchanges (ManBearPig, I'm looking at you), which will 
allow them to reap hundreds of billions of dollars per year in 
profits, while increasing the cost of living worldwide by trillions 
per year... all to "fix" a problem that doesn't exist.

<http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/06/26/study-that-warned-of-global-warming-over-past-decade-ridiculed-after-temperatures-drop/>
The UK Met trend shows an accelerating -0.014 C per decade *decrease*.

Message-ID: <e46a4017e5a77519d1489cd3f1129c08@dizum.com>
The underlying (read: unmanipulated) NOAA data shows a 0.6186 F 
*decrease* from 2005 to 2015.

<http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783>
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI>
Dr. Don Easterbrook shows the past global warming was solar and
orbital forcing induced, the conditions have changed, and global
cooling has set in... since 1998.

<http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/global-warming-pause-hits-18-years-on-rss-data.html>
Using UK Met, UAH and RSS data.

Page 11 - Global temperature rate (C per year): dropping since ~1998.
*Negative* since ~2005. That means temps have been dropping for ~17
years, and the gullible LibTarDs have been lied to for ~17 years:
<http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/e/f/Paper1_Observing_changes_in_the_climate_system.PDF>

Message-ID: <b41f4a8054430ac46092e607919d7063@dizum.com>
Even NASA admitted that global temperatures were falling in recent
years (before they pulled that page... luckily the WayBack Machine
archived it):
<http://web.archive.org/web/20030816225534/http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/research/methane/greenhouse.html>
Note the center trace for modern times in that graphic... *falling*
temperature, even as CO2 and methane rose.

"There has been no warming since '98, and a very slight cooling that
is not statistically significant." - Phil Jones

<http://phys.org/news/2014-08-global-temperature-conundrum-cooling-climate.html>
"We have been building models and there are now robust 
contradictions," says Liu, a professor in the UW-Madison Center for 
Climatic Research. "Data from observation says global cooling. The 
physical model says it has to be warming."

===============================================================
Taken from the hacked ClimateGate 1.0 and ClimateGate 2.0 emails:
<http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/01/email-4141-glimpse-into-climate-science.html>

"I think the notion of telling the public to prepare for both global
warming and an ice age at the same time creates a real public
relations problem for us."  - Asher Minns, "climate scientist" from
scandal-rocked University of East Anglia, letting the cat completely
out of the bag.

You'll note he doesn't say "global cooling", he specifically says "an
ice age"... that's telling, don't you think? LOL
===============================================================

That's why so many former IPCC Global Climate Assessment contributors
have left the IPCC and publicly renounced any "data" the IPCC 
promulgates.

<http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/21/un-scientists-who-have-turned-on-unipcc-man-made-climate-fears-a-climate-depot-flashback-report/>
Just a small subset from that website:
==============================================================
Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history. When
people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by
science and scientists." – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori
Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
==============================================================
"Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted
mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than
sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made
with them!"- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric
chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's
(IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has
authored 83 peer-reviewed publications in the areas of climate change,
atmospheric chemistry, air pollution and vehicle emissions.
==============================================================
UN IPCC Scientist Kenneth P. Green Declares 'A Death Spiral for
Climate Alarmism' – September 30, 2009 – 'We can expect climate crisis
industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward 
anyone who questions their authority' – Dr. Kenneth Green was a 
Working Group 1 expert reviewer for the UN IPCC in 2001.
==============================================================
"Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I
quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp. Climate models can
at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." –
Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in
man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch
UN IPCC committee.
==============================================================
"The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the
natural circulation between air, water and soil. I am doing a detailed
assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers,
identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the
science." – South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr.
Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored
over 150 refereed publications.
==============================================================
"The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense" –
declared IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New
Zealand in 2007. Gray was an expert reviewer on every single draft of
the IPCC reports going back to 1990, author of more than 100
scientific publications.
==============================================================
One former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told the Senate Environment and
Public Works (EPW) committee how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers
"distorted" the scientists work. "I have found examples of a Summary
saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said," explained
South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip
Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150
refereed publications.
==============================================================
Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA's National Hurricane
Center, was both an author and reviewer for the IPCC's 2nd Assessment
Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but resigned
from the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with playing
politics with Hurricane science. Landsea wrote a January 17, 2005
public letter detailing his experience with the UN: "I am withdrawing
[from the IPCC] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to
which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In
addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their
response was simply to dismiss my concerns." "I personally cannot in
good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both
being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically
unsound," Landsea added.
==============================================================
Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core
researcher: "The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse.
It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere, not the other way round. A large number of critical
documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished
without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily
biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact."
==============================================================
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming>
<http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-man-made-global-warming-claims/5403284>
<http://cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf>
<http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/07/31/new-study-majority-of-climate-scientists-dont-agree-with-consensus/>
<http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/top-scientists-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures/>

-- 

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

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

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

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

Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a 
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. 
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was 
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase 
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, 
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby 
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?

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

#600358

Dne 11/10/2016 v 04:44 Friendly Neighbourhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus,
DoW #1 napsal(a):

> 
>> By the same way as your cloth
>> cools you by intensive thermal radiation
>> and therefore you should not use it
>> to warm yourself up.....
> 
> False analogy. Cloth is an insulator by blocking circulation of air.

False. About 2/3 of the body thermal loses are due to radiation.

> While CO2 is an efficient absorber of infrared, it's also an efficient 
> *emitter*... so heat gets absorbed in the lower atmosphere, gets 
> circulated up into the upper atmosphere by convection, where it is 
> released on the night-side of the planet in the 11-micron infrared 
> atmospheric window, allowing that heat nearly unfettered escape to 
> space.

What you have missed is, that the effect of CO2
is lowering Earth emission temperature at affected wavelengths.

BTW, your vocabulary is a strong indirect evidence
you cannot be taken seriously.

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

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

#600362

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Poutnik, in <news:ntho7c$das$1@dont-email.me> did thusly jump head
first into the wood chipper again:

> Dne 11/10/2016 v 04:44 Friendly Neighbourhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus,
> DoW #1 napsal(a):

>>> By the same way as your cloth
>>> cools you by intensive thermal radiation
>>> and therefore you should not use it
>>> to warm yourself up.....

>> False analogy. Cloth is an insulator by blocking circulation of air.

> False.

Feynman would disagree with you... are you claiming a physicist is
wrong?

Here, educate yourself:
<http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-2080.html>

> About 2/3 of the body thermal loses are due to radiation.

Yes, and some cloth is opaque to that radiation, reflecting it back to
the body and thereby warming it... again, a false analogy. The
atmosphere is not "blanketed" or "clothed" in any manner. It is free
to convect.

You'll note some cloth is transparent to infrared at the wavelengths
emitted by the human body... in fact, there are several videos on
YouTube of people altering their iPhones to see through clothes
because of this effect.

>> While CO2 is an efficient absorber of infrared, it's also an efficient 
>> *emitter*... so heat gets absorbed in the lower atmosphere, gets 
>> circulated up into the upper atmosphere by convection, where it is 
>> released on the night-side of the planet in the 11-micron infrared 
>> atmospheric window, allowing that heat nearly unfettered escape to 
>> space.

> What you have missed is, that the effect of CO2
> is lowering Earth emission temperature at affected wavelengths.

And what you have missed is that reflected heat is at differing
wavelengths than the source wavelength, some of which are at the
absorption (and emission) wavelengths of CO2. Thus, more CO2 means
more absorption, and thus more emission on the night side of the
planet. CO2 is a global *cooling* gas, as the peer-reviewed studies
referenced in my prior post (and below) prove.

> BTW, your vocabulary is a strong indirect evidence
> you cannot be taken seriously.

I note you snipped out the peer-reviewed studies and the quotes from
the dozens of scientists who've resigned from the IPCC and publicly
rejected the junk science the IPCC promulgates... nothing like burying
your head in the sand so you can maintain your delusion, eh? LOL

Here, I'll give you another chance to rectify your delusion:

Taken from an earlier post:
============================================================
<http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/>
===========================
"Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats", explains
James Russell of Hampton University, SABER's principal investigator.
"When the upper atmosphere (or 'thermosphere') heats up, these
molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space."

For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere
absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO,
the two most efficient _coolants_ in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95%
of that total back into space.
===========================

<https://i0.wp.com/i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/SpectralCoolingRates_zps27867ef4.png>
===========================
Notice how CO2 has a cooling effect right from the lower stratosphere
and up into the mesosphere, its peak cooling effect around the
stratopause, while ozone has a clear warming effect in the lower
stratosphere (and even into the troposphere) but a cooling effect like
CO2 in the middle and upper stratosphere.

You'll further note that CO2 has a slight cooling effect all the way
to the bottom of the troposphere. Where's the warming from CO2
supposed to be taking place, again? LOL
===========================

<http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.306.3621&rep=rep1&type=pdf>
===========================
Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission
Rudolf W. Gunnerman Energy and Environment Laboratory; University of
Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA; Institute of
Oceanology of Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

"The writers investigated the effect of CO2 emission on the
temperature of atmosphere. Computations based on the adiabatic theory
of greenhouse effect show that increasing CO2 concentration in the
atmosphere results in cooling rather than warming of the Earth's
atmosphere."
===========================
============================================================

If you Klimate Katastrophe Kooks were smart enough that you didn't 
have to be spoon-fed your talking points, you'd also be smart enough 
to realize you're being lied to for political and economic reasons.

The AGW fable gives the politicians an unprecedented opportunity to 
enact legislation that controls more people, while giving them the 
further opportunity to k'lame that they're fixing a large intractable 
"problem" (of their own invention).

Some of those politicians also happen to be ground-floor investors in 
the carbon exchanges (ManBearPig, I'm looking at you), which will 
allow them to reap hundreds of billions of dollars per year in 
profits, while increasing the cost of living worldwide by trillions 
per year... all to "fix" a problem that doesn't exist.

<http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/06/26/study-that-warned-of-global-warming-over-past-decade-ridiculed-after-temperatures-drop/>
The UK Met trend shows an accelerating -0.014 C per decade *decrease*.

Message-ID: <e46a4017e5a77519d1489cd3f1129c08@dizum.com>
The underlying (read: unmanipulated) NOAA data shows a 0.6186 F 
*decrease* from 2005 to 2015.

<http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783>
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI>
Dr. Don Easterbrook shows the past global warming was solar and
orbital forcing induced, the conditions have changed, and global
cooling has set in... since 1998.

<http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/global-warming-pause-hits-18-years-on-rss-data.html>
Using UK Met, UAH and RSS data.

Page 11 - Global temperature rate (C per year): dropping since ~1998.
*Negative* since ~2005. That means temps have been dropping for ~17
years, and the gullible LibTarDs have been lied to for ~17 years:
<http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/e/f/Paper1_Observing_changes_in_the_climate_system.PDF>

Message-ID: <b41f4a8054430ac46092e607919d7063@dizum.com>
Even NASA admitted that global temperatures were falling in recent
years (before they pulled that page... luckily the WayBack Machine
archived it):
<http://web.archive.org/web/20030816225534/http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/research/methane/greenhouse.html>
Note the center trace for modern times in that graphic... *falling*
temperature, even as CO2 and methane rose.

"There has been no warming since '98, and a very slight cooling that
is not statistically significant." - Phil Jones

<http://phys.org/news/2014-08-global-temperature-conundrum-cooling-climate.html>
"We have been building models and there are now robust 
contradictions," says Liu, a professor in the UW-Madison Center for 
Climatic Research. "Data from observation says global cooling. The 
physical model says it has to be warming."

===============================================================
Taken from the hacked ClimateGate 1.0 and ClimateGate 2.0 emails:
<http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/01/email-4141-glimpse-into-climate-science.html>

"I think the notion of telling the public to prepare for both global
warming and an ice age at the same time creates a real public
relations problem for us."  - Asher Minns, "climate scientist" from
scandal-rocked University of East Anglia, letting the cat completely
out of the bag.

You'll note he doesn't say "global cooling", he specifically says "an
ice age"... that's telling, don't you think? LOL
===============================================================

That's why so many former IPCC Global Climate Assessment contributors
have left the IPCC and publicly renounced any "data" the IPCC 
promulgates.

<http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/21/un-scientists-who-have-turned-on-unipcc-man-made-climate-fears-a-climate-depot-flashback-report/>
Just a small subset from that website:
==============================================================
Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history. When
people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by
science and scientists." – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori
Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
==============================================================
"Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted
mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than
sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made
with them!"- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric
chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's
(IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has
authored 83 peer-reviewed publications in the areas of climate change,
atmospheric chemistry, air pollution and vehicle emissions.
==============================================================
UN IPCC Scientist Kenneth P. Green Declares 'A Death Spiral for
Climate Alarmism' – September 30, 2009 – 'We can expect climate crisis
industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward 
anyone who questions their authority' – Dr. Kenneth Green was a 
Working Group 1 expert reviewer for the UN IPCC in 2001.
==============================================================
"Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I
quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp. Climate models can
at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." –
Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in
man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch
UN IPCC committee.
==============================================================
"The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the
natural circulation between air, water and soil. I am doing a detailed
assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers,
identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the
science." – South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr.
Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored
over 150 refereed publications.
==============================================================
"The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense" –
declared IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New
Zealand in 2007. Gray was an expert reviewer on every single draft of
the IPCC reports going back to 1990, author of more than 100
scientific publications.
==============================================================
One former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told the Senate Environment and
Public Works (EPW) committee how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers
"distorted" the scientists work. "I have found examples of a Summary
saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said," explained
South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip
Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150
refereed publications.
==============================================================
Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA's National Hurricane
Center, was both an author and reviewer for the IPCC's 2nd Assessment
Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but resigned
from the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with playing
politics with Hurricane science. Landsea wrote a January 17, 2005
public letter detailing his experience with the UN: "I am withdrawing
[from the IPCC] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to
which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In
addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their
response was simply to dismiss my concerns." "I personally cannot in
good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both
being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically
unsound," Landsea added.
==============================================================
Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core
researcher: "The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse.
It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere, not the other way round. A large number of critical
documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished
without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily
biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact."
==============================================================
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming>
<http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-man-made-global-warming-claims/5403284>
<http://cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf>
<http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/07/31/new-study-majority-of-climate-scientists-dont-agree-with-consensus/>
<http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/top-scientists-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures/>

-- 

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

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

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

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

Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?

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

#600365

Dne 11/10/2016 v 07:03 Friendly Neighbourhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus,
DoW #1 napsal(a):
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
> 
> Poutnik, in <news:ntho7c$das$1@dont-email.me> did thusly jump head
> first into the wood chipper again:
> 
>> Dne 11/10/2016 v 04:44 Friendly Neighbourhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus,
>> DoW #1 napsal(a):
> 
>>>> By the same way as your cloth
>>>> cools you by intensive thermal radiation
>>>> and therefore you should not use it
>>>> to warm yourself up.....
> 
>>> False analogy. Cloth is an insulator by blocking circulation of air.
> 
>> False.
> 
> Feynman would disagree with you... are you claiming a physicist is
> wrong?
> 
No, just yourself misinterpretting it.


> Here, educate yourself:
> <http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-2080.html>
> 
>> About 2/3 of the body thermal loses are due to radiation.
> 
> Yes, and some cloth is opaque to that radiation, reflecting it back to
> the body and thereby warming it... again, a false analogy. The
> atmosphere is not "blanketed" or "clothed" in any manner. It is free
> to convect.

I see you do not understand the physical principles you talk about.
The cloth emits in both directions, toward body and toware open space,
according to its surface effective temperature.

Convention does not change anything.
> 
>> What you have missed is, that the effect of CO2
>> is lowering Earth emission temperature at affected wavelengths.
> 
> And what you have missed is that reflected heat is at differing
> wavelengths than the source wavelength, some of which are at the
> absorption (and emission) wavelengths of CO2. Thus, more CO2 means
> more absorption, and thus more emission on the night side of the
> planet. CO2 is a global *cooling* gas, as the peer-reviewed studies
> referenced in my prior post (and below) prove.
> 
CO2 emiiting to space is always colder ( with rare exception of some
polar regions in winter ) that Earth surface, therefore always
emitting to the space less, that was absorved Ir emittied by surface.



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

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

#600366

Dne 11/10/2016 v 07:16 Poutnik napsal(a):

> The cloth emits in both directions, toward body and toward open space,
> according to its surface effective temperature.
> 
And exactly the same does CO2
toward Earth surface and toward space.

Radiation laws are valid for both solids and gases.

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

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

#600532

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Poutnik, in <news:nthsrc$ngb$2@dont-email.me> did thusly jump head
first into the wood chipper again:

> Dne 11/10/2016 v 07:16 Poutnik napsal(a):

>> The cloth emits in both directions, toward body and toward open space,
>> according to its surface effective temperature.

> And exactly the same does CO2
> toward Earth surface and toward space.
> 
> Radiation laws are valid for both solids and gases.

But cloth doesn't convect upward like CO2 does, now does it? Or are
you going to jump on the McGinn TardWagon and try to claim that
convection doesn't exist? LOL

Your cowardly snipping of the peer-reviewed studies proving CO2 is a
global cooling gas, combined with your cowardly snipping of those
dozens of scientists who've resigned from the IPCC and denounced the
junk science promulgated by the IPCC, stands as your tacit admission
that you know you're wrong.

Here, admit to everyone you're wrong again... go on, cowardly snip and
bleat another non sequitur... you know you want to. You know you
must... you obviously can't refute reality. LOL

============================================================
<http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/>
===========================
"Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats", explains
James Russell of Hampton University, SABER's principal investigator.
"When the upper atmosphere (or 'thermosphere') heats up, these
molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space."

For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere
absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO,
the two most efficient _coolants_ in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95%
of that total back into space.
===========================

<https://i0.wp.com/i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/SpectralCoolingRates_zps27867ef4.png>
===========================
Notice how CO2 has a cooling effect right from the lower stratosphere
and up into the mesosphere, its peak cooling effect around the
stratopause, while ozone has a clear warming effect in the lower
stratosphere (and even into the troposphere) but a cooling effect like
CO2 in the middle and upper stratosphere.

You'll further note that CO2 has a slight cooling effect all the way
to the bottom of the troposphere. Where's the warming from CO2
supposed to be taking place, again? LOL
===========================

<http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.306.3621&rep=rep1&type=pdf>
===========================
Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission
Rudolf W. Gunnerman Energy and Environment Laboratory; University of
Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA; Institute of
Oceanology of Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

"The writers investigated the effect of CO2 emission on the
temperature of atmosphere. Computations based on the adiabatic theory
of greenhouse effect show that increasing CO2 concentration in the
atmosphere results in cooling rather than warming of the Earth's
atmosphere."
===========================
============================================================

If you Klimate Katastrophe Kooks were smart enough that you didn't 
have to be spoon-fed your talking points, you'd also be smart enough 
to realize you're being lied to for political and economic reasons.

The AGW fable gives the politicians an unprecedented opportunity to 
enact legislation that controls more people, while giving them the 
further opportunity to k'lame that they're fixing a large intractable 
"problem" (of their own invention).

Some of those politicians also happen to be ground-floor investors in 
the carbon exchanges (ManBearPig, I'm looking at you), which will 
allow them to reap hundreds of billions of dollars per year in 
profits, while increasing the cost of living worldwide by trillions 
per year... all to "fix" a problem that doesn't exist.

<http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/06/26/study-that-warned-of-global-warming-over-past-decade-ridiculed-after-temperatures-drop/>
The UK Met trend shows an accelerating -0.014 C per decade *decrease*.

Message-ID: <e46a4017e5a77519d1489cd3f1129c08@dizum.com>
The underlying (read: unmanipulated) NOAA data shows a 0.6186 F 
*decrease* from 2005 to 2015.

<http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783>
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI>
Dr. Don Easterbrook shows the past global warming was solar and
orbital forcing induced, the conditions have changed, and global
cooling has set in... since 1998.

<http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/global-warming-pause-hits-18-years-on-rss-data.html>
Using UK Met, UAH and RSS data.

Page 11 - Global temperature rate (C per year): dropping since ~1998.
*Negative* since ~2005. That means temps have been dropping for ~17
years, and the gullible LibTarDs have been lied to for ~17 years:
<http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/e/f/Paper1_Observing_changes_in_the_climate_system.PDF>

Message-ID: <b41f4a8054430ac46092e607919d7063@dizum.com>
Even NASA admitted that global temperatures were falling in recent
years (before they pulled that page... luckily the WayBack Machine
archived it):
<http://web.archive.org/web/20030816225534/http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/research/methane/greenhouse.html>
Note the center trace for modern times in that graphic... *falling*
temperature, even as CO2 and methane rose.

"There has been no warming since '98, and a very slight cooling that
is not statistically significant." - Phil Jones

<http://phys.org/news/2014-08-global-temperature-conundrum-cooling-climate.html>
"We have been building models and there are now robust 
contradictions," says Liu, a professor in the UW-Madison Center for 
Climatic Research. "Data from observation says global cooling. The 
physical model says it has to be warming."

===============================================================
Taken from the hacked ClimateGate 1.0 and ClimateGate 2.0 emails:
<http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/01/email-4141-glimpse-into-climate-science.html>

"I think the notion of telling the public to prepare for both global
warming and an ice age at the same time creates a real public
relations problem for us."  - Asher Minns, "climate scientist" from
scandal-rocked University of East Anglia, letting the cat completely
out of the bag.

You'll note he doesn't say "global cooling", he specifically says "an
ice age"... that's telling, don't you think? LOL
===============================================================

That's why so many former IPCC Global Climate Assessment contributors
have left the IPCC and publicly renounced any "data" the IPCC 
promulgates.

<http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/21/un-scientists-who-have-turned-on-unipcc-man-made-climate-fears-a-climate-depot-flashback-report/>
Just a small subset from that website:
==============================================================
Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history. When
people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by
science and scientists." – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori
Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
==============================================================
"Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted
mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than
sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made
with them!"- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric
chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's
(IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has
authored 83 peer-reviewed publications in the areas of climate change,
atmospheric chemistry, air pollution and vehicle emissions.
==============================================================
UN IPCC Scientist Kenneth P. Green Declares 'A Death Spiral for
Climate Alarmism' – September 30, 2009 – 'We can expect climate crisis
industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward 
anyone who questions their authority' – Dr. Kenneth Green was a 
Working Group 1 expert reviewer for the UN IPCC in 2001.
==============================================================
"Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I
quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp. Climate models can
at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." –
Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in
man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch
UN IPCC committee.
==============================================================
"The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the
natural circulation between air, water and soil. I am doing a detailed
assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers,
identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the
science." – South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr.
Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored
over 150 refereed publications.
==============================================================
"The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense" –
declared IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New
Zealand in 2007. Gray was an expert reviewer on every single draft of
the IPCC reports going back to 1990, author of more than 100
scientific publications.
==============================================================
One former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told the Senate Environment and
Public Works (EPW) committee how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers
"distorted" the scientists work. "I have found examples of a Summary
saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said," explained
South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip
Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150
refereed publications.
==============================================================
Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA's National Hurricane
Center, was both an author and reviewer for the IPCC's 2nd Assessment
Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but resigned
from the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with playing
politics with Hurricane science. Landsea wrote a January 17, 2005
public letter detailing his experience with the UN: "I am withdrawing
[from the IPCC] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to
which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In
addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their
response was simply to dismiss my concerns." "I personally cannot in
good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both
being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically
unsound," Landsea added.
==============================================================
Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core
researcher: "The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse.
It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere, not the other way round. A large number of critical
documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished
without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily
biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact."
==============================================================
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming>
<http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-man-made-global-warming-claims/5403284>
<http://cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf>
<http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/07/31/new-study-majority-of-climate-scientists-dont-agree-with-consensus/>
<http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/top-scientists-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures/>

-- 

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

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

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

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

Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?

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

#600535

Dne 12/10/2016 v 06:07 Friendly Neighbourhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus,
DoW #1 napsal(a):
> 
> But cloth doesn't convect upward like CO2 does, now does it? Or are
> you going to jump on the McGinn TardWagon and try to claim that
> convection doesn't exist? LOL

No, I just claim you do not understand the role of convention
in external Earth energy balance.

I quote just nonsenses I comment, not the ones I do not.


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

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

#600549

Dne 12/10/2016 v 06:17 Poutnik napsal(a):
> Dne 12/10/2016 v 06:07 Friendly Neighbourhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus,
> DoW #1 napsal(a):
>>
>> But cloth doesn't convect upward like CO2 does, now does it? Or are
>> you going to jump on the McGinn TardWagon and try to claim that
>> convection doesn't exist? LOL
> 
> No, I just claim you do not understand the role of convention
> in external Earth energy balance.
> 
> I quote just nonsenses I comment, not the ones I do not.
> 
P.S:

Earth is lucky to have cooling gases as water vapour a CO2.

As these shield the superior cooling effect of Earth surface,
that has about by 1/3 higher absolute temperature,
with emission proportional to T^4.


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

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

#600668

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Poutnik, in <news:ntki0d$qno$1@dont-email.me> did thusly jump head
first into the wood chipper again:

> Dne 12/10/2016 v 06:17 Poutnik napsal(a):

>> Dne 12/10/2016 v 06:07 Friendly Neighbourhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus,
>> DoW #1 napsal(a):

>>> But cloth doesn't convect upward like CO2 does, now does it? Or are
>>> you going to jump on the McGinn TardWagon and try to claim that
>>> convection doesn't exist? LOL

>> No, I just claim you do not understand the role of convention
>> in external Earth energy balance.
>> 
>> I quote just nonsenses I comment, not the ones I do not.

> P.S:
> 
> Earth is lucky to have cooling gases as water vapour a CO2.

Ah, so you *admit*, then, that CO2 is a global cooling gas, in direct
contradiction to the lies told by the IPCC. So at least your delusion
isn't so concrete that it can't be chipped away with a cluehammer. LOL

> As these shield the superior cooling effect of Earth surface,
> that has about by 1/3 higher absolute temperature,
> with emission proportional to T^4.

Yet again, you state a non sequitur. You're backpedaling. LOL

Tell us all again how anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming...

<https://i0.wp.com/i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/SpectralCoolingRates_zps27867ef4.png>
===========================
Notice how CO2 has a cooling effect right from the lower stratosphere
and up into the mesosphere, its peak cooling effect around the
stratopause, while ozone has a clear warming effect in the lower
stratosphere (and even into the troposphere) but a cooling effect like
CO2 in the middle and upper stratosphere.

You'll further note that CO2 has a slight cooling effect all the way
to the bottom of the troposphere. Where's the warming from CO2
supposed to be taking place, again? LOL
===========================

Got that? A slight cooling effect *all* *the* *way* *to* *the*
*bottom* *of* *the* *troposphere*.

<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2845972>
===========================
We conclude that the data and analysis presented here do not serve as
empirical evidence that warming and fossil fuel emissions are related
at a generational time scale. This result is consistent with the
findings of a previous study that failed to establish a relationship
between warming and emissions at a decadal time scale (Munshi, 2015).
===========================

Got that? In order to prove causation, one must first prove
correlation as a precondition... which the Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
have thus far been utterly unable to do.

Just admit you've been lied to by the climate alarmist camp... that
mountain of proof of same bears down on you like an 800 pound gorilla
squatting on your lumpy skull.

<snicker>

-- 

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

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

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

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

Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?

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

#600551

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Poutnik, in <news:ntkdh0$h5c$1@dont-email.me> did thusly jump head
first into the wood chipper again:

> Dne 12/10/2016 v 06:07 Friendly Neighbourhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus,
> DoW #1 napsal(a):

>> But cloth doesn't convect upward like CO2 does, now does it? Or are
>> you going to jump on the McGinn TardWagon and try to claim that
>> convection doesn't exist? LOL

> No, I just claim you do not understand the role of convention
> in external Earth energy balance.

Ah, but I do... in fact, I've referenced several peer reviewed studies
proving what I say, whereas all you've done is blathered out
unsubstantiated stupidity based upon the fairy tales spoon-fed to you
by the climate alarmist camp.

> I quote just nonsenses I comment, not the ones I do not.

Do try next time to make some semblance of sense, won't you? LOL

Here, I'll give you another chance to admit to everyone that you know
your religious belief in the fairy tale of AGW is fallacious, by your
cowardly snipping of the peer-reviewed studies and the quotes of
former IPCC scientists that so scares you because it threatens your
closely-held delusions.

<snicker>

============================================================
<http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/>
===========================
"Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats", explains
James Russell of Hampton University, SABER's principal investigator.
"When the upper atmosphere (or 'thermosphere') heats up, these
molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space."

For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere
absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO,
the two most efficient _coolants_ in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95%
of that total back into space.
===========================

<https://i0.wp.com/i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/SpectralCoolingRates_zps27867ef4.png>
===========================
Notice how CO2 has a cooling effect right from the lower stratosphere
and up into the mesosphere, its peak cooling effect around the
stratopause, while ozone has a clear warming effect in the lower
stratosphere (and even into the troposphere) but a cooling effect like
CO2 in the middle and upper stratosphere.

You'll further note that CO2 has a slight cooling effect all the way
to the bottom of the troposphere. Where's the warming from CO2
supposed to be taking place, again? LOL
===========================

<http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.306.3621&rep=rep1&type=pdf>
===========================
Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission
Rudolf W. Gunnerman Energy and Environment Laboratory; University of
Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA; Institute of
Oceanology of Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

"The writers investigated the effect of CO2 emission on the
temperature of atmosphere. Computations based on the adiabatic theory
of greenhouse effect show that increasing CO2 concentration in the
atmosphere results in cooling rather than warming of the Earth's
atmosphere."
===========================
============================================================

If you Klimate Katastrophe Kooks were smart enough that you didn't 
have to be spoon-fed your talking points, you'd also be smart enough 
to realize you're being lied to for political and economic reasons.

The AGW fable gives the politicians an unprecedented opportunity to 
enact legislation that controls more people, while giving them the 
further opportunity to k'lame that they're fixing a large intractable 
"problem" (of their own invention).

Some of those politicians also happen to be ground-floor investors in 
the carbon exchanges (ManBearPig, I'm looking at you), which will 
allow them to reap hundreds of billions of dollars per year in 
profits, while increasing the cost of living worldwide by trillions 
per year... all to "fix" a problem that doesn't exist.

<http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/06/26/study-that-warned-of-global-warming-over-past-decade-ridiculed-after-temperatures-drop/>
The UK Met trend shows an accelerating -0.014 C per decade *decrease*.

Message-ID: <e46a4017e5a77519d1489cd3f1129c08@dizum.com>
The underlying (read: unmanipulated) NOAA data shows a 0.6186 F 
*decrease* from 2005 to 2015.

<http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783>
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI>
Dr. Don Easterbrook shows the past global warming was solar and
orbital forcing induced, the conditions have changed, and global
cooling has set in... since 1998.

<http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/global-warming-pause-hits-18-years-on-rss-data.html>
Using UK Met, UAH and RSS data.

Page 11 - Global temperature rate (C per year): dropping since ~1998.
*Negative* since ~2005. That means temps have been dropping for ~17
years, and the gullible LibTarDs have been lied to for ~17 years:
<http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/e/f/Paper1_Observing_changes_in_the_climate_system.PDF>

Message-ID: <b41f4a8054430ac46092e607919d7063@dizum.com>
Even NASA admitted that global temperatures were falling in recent
years (before they pulled that page... luckily the WayBack Machine
archived it):
<http://web.archive.org/web/20030816225534/http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/research/methane/greenhouse.html>
Note the center trace for modern times in that graphic... *falling*
temperature, even as CO2 and methane rose.

"There has been no warming since '98, and a very slight cooling that
is not statistically significant." - Phil Jones

<http://phys.org/news/2014-08-global-temperature-conundrum-cooling-climate.html>
"We have been building models and there are now robust 
contradictions," says Liu, a professor in the UW-Madison Center for 
Climatic Research. "Data from observation says global cooling. The 
physical model says it has to be warming."

===============================================================
Taken from the hacked ClimateGate 1.0 and ClimateGate 2.0 emails:
<http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/01/email-4141-glimpse-into-climate-science.html>

"I think the notion of telling the public to prepare for both global
warming and an ice age at the same time creates a real public
relations problem for us."  - Asher Minns, "climate scientist" from
scandal-rocked University of East Anglia, letting the cat completely
out of the bag.

You'll note he doesn't say "global cooling", he specifically says "an
ice age"... that's telling, don't you think? LOL
===============================================================

That's why so many former IPCC Global Climate Assessment contributors
have left the IPCC and publicly renounced any "data" the IPCC 
promulgates.

<http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/21/un-scientists-who-have-turned-on-unipcc-man-made-climate-fears-a-climate-depot-flashback-report/>
Just a small subset from that website:
==============================================================
Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history. When
people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by
science and scientists." – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori
Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
==============================================================
"Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted
mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than
sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made
with them!"- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric
chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's
(IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has
authored 83 peer-reviewed publications in the areas of climate change,
atmospheric chemistry, air pollution and vehicle emissions.
==============================================================
UN IPCC Scientist Kenneth P. Green Declares 'A Death Spiral for
Climate Alarmism' – September 30, 2009 – 'We can expect climate crisis
industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward 
anyone who questions their authority' – Dr. Kenneth Green was a 
Working Group 1 expert reviewer for the UN IPCC in 2001.
==============================================================
"Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I
quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp. Climate models can
at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." –
Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in
man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch
UN IPCC committee.
==============================================================
"The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the
natural circulation between air, water and soil. I am doing a detailed
assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers,
identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the
science." – South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr.
Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored
over 150 refereed publications.
==============================================================
"The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense" –
declared IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New
Zealand in 2007. Gray was an expert reviewer on every single draft of
the IPCC reports going back to 1990, author of more than 100
scientific publications.
==============================================================
One former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told the Senate Environment and
Public Works (EPW) committee how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers
"distorted" the scientists work. "I have found examples of a Summary
saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said," explained
South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip
Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150
refereed publications.
==============================================================
Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA's National Hurricane
Center, was both an author and reviewer for the IPCC's 2nd Assessment
Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but resigned
from the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with playing
politics with Hurricane science. Landsea wrote a January 17, 2005
public letter detailing his experience with the UN: "I am withdrawing
[from the IPCC] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to
which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In
addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their
response was simply to dismiss my concerns." "I personally cannot in
good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both
being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically
unsound," Landsea added.
==============================================================
Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core
researcher: "The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse.
It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere, not the other way round. A large number of critical
documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished
without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily
biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact."
==============================================================
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming>
<http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-man-made-global-warming-claims/5403284>
<http://cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf>
<http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/07/31/new-study-majority-of-climate-scientists-dont-agree-with-consensus/>
<http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/top-scientists-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures/>

-- 

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

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

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

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

Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?

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

#600394

On 10/11/2016 12:16 AM, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 11/10/2016 v 07:03 Friendly Neighbourhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus,

>>>>> By the same way as your cloth
>>>>> cools you by intensive thermal radiation
>>>>> and therefore you should not use it
>>>>> to warm yourself up.....
>>
>>>> False analogy. Cloth is an insulator by blocking circulation of air.
>>
>>> False.

>>
>> Feynman would disagree with you... are you claiming a physicist is
>> wrong?
>>
> No, just yourself misinterpretting it.

"Feynman" has nothing to do with it.  red herring.

>
>
>> Here, educate yourself:
>> <http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-2080.html>
>>
>>> About 2/3 of the body thermal loses are due to radiation.

>> Yes, and some cloth is opaque to that radiation, reflecting it back to
>> the body and thereby warming it... again, a false analogy. The
>> atmosphere is not "blanketed" or "clothed" in any manner. It is free
>> to convect.

consider the magnitude of each process, radiation vs convection.

>
> I see you do not understand the physical principles you talk about.
> The cloth emits in both directions, toward body and toware open space,
> according to its surface effective temperature.

true

>
> Convention does not change anything.
>>
>>> What you have missed is, that the effect of CO2
>>> is lowering Earth emission temperature at affected wavelengths.

>> And what you have missed is that reflected heat is at differing
>> wavelengths than the source wavelength, some of which are at the
>> absorption (and emission) wavelengths of CO2. Thus, more CO2 means
>> more absorption, and thus more emission on the night side of the
>> planet. CO2 is a global *cooling* gas, as the peer-reviewed studies
>> referenced in my prior post (and below) prove.

well, look at water vapor, the bands that it absorbes IR and reradiates, 
and sum that up over all the optical/ir bands, it dominates over CO2.

why is water vapor as a greenouse gas that not discussed that much?
1. because there is nothing man can do about it
2. Venus, the dramatic result of a condition of trapped heat, has CO2 as 
its major cause, little water.

>>
> CO2 emiiting to space is always colder ( with rare exception of some
> polar regions in winter ) that Earth surface, therefore always
> emitting to the space less, that was absorved Ir emittied by surface.
>

true.

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

#600445 — combustion, vapor of that

thanks for the precis, d00d;
the vapor of ocmbustion is a giant, l00ming over urbanites

> well, look at water vapor, the bands that it absorbes IR and reradiates, 
> and sum that up over all the optical/ir bands, it dominates over CO2.
> 
> why is water vapor as a greenouse gas that not discussed that much?
> 1. because there is nothing man can do about it
> 2. Venus, the dramatic result of a condition of trapped heat, has CO2 as 
> its major cause, little water.
> 
> >>
> > CO2 emiiting to space is always colder ( with rare exception of some
> > polar regions in winter ) that Earth surface, therefore always
> > emitting to the space less, that was absorved Ir emittied by surface.
> >
> 
> true.

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

#600501 — Re: combustion, vapor of that

Dne 11/10/2016 v 21:42 noTthaTguY napsal(a):
> thanks for the precis, d00d;
> the vapor of ocmbustion is a giant, l00ming over urbanites
> 
No, it is not. It is well balanced via precipitation.


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

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

#600550

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Poutnik, in <news:nthsim$ngb$1@dont-email.me> did thusly jump head
first into the wood chipper again:

> Dne 11/10/2016 v 07:03 Friendly Neighbourhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus,
> DoW #1 napsal(a):

>>>>> By the same way as your cloth
>>>>> cools you by intensive thermal radiation
>>>>> and therefore you should not use it
>>>>> to warm yourself up.....

>>>> False analogy. Cloth is an insulator by blocking circulation of air.

>>> False.

>> Feynman would disagree with you... are you claiming a physicist is
>> wrong?

> No, just yourself misinterpretting it.

There's no misinterpretation on my part. The graphic I included (and
include below), as well as the several peer-reviewed studies you
continue to snip out to preserve your delusion, prove CO2 is a global
*cooling* gas, in contradiction to the fable the politicized IPCC
claims.

>> Here, educate yourself:
>> <http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-2080.html>

<crickets> LOL

>>> About 2/3 of the body thermal loses are due to radiation.

>> Yes, and some cloth is opaque to that radiation, reflecting it back to
>> the body and thereby warming it... again, a false analogy. The
>> atmosphere is not "blanketed" or "clothed" in any manner. It is free
>> to convect.

> I see you do not understand the physical principles you talk about.
> The cloth emits in both directions, toward body and toware open space,
> according to its surface effective temperature.
> 
> Convention does not change anything.

And that which is emitted or reflected back toward the body warms the
body via reduced heat loss. So it's you who doesn't understand.

I encourage you to stand in Antarctica in a t-shirt and tell us that
the forced convection due to high winds there doesn't change the
amount of heat loss from your body than you'd otherwise experience at
a more hospitable latitude under similar temperature conditions but
less wind. LOL

>>> What you have missed is, that the effect of CO2
>>> is lowering Earth emission temperature at affected wavelengths.

>> And what you have missed is that reflected heat is at differing
>> wavelengths than the source wavelength, some of which are at the
>> absorption (and emission) wavelengths of CO2. Thus, more CO2 means
>> more absorption, and thus more emission on the night side of the
>> planet. CO2 is a global *cooling* gas, as the peer-reviewed studies
>> referenced in my prior post (and below) prove.

> CO2 emiiting to space is always colder ( with rare exception of some
> polar regions in winter )

Increased CO2 concentration has been proven to cause cooling in
Antarctica year-round, you nong. LOL

<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL066749/full>

The same effect holds true for the rest of the planet, as well, which
you'd know if you'd had the guts to actually read those peer-reviewed
studies you keep cowardly snipping.

============================================================
<http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/>
===========================
"Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats", explains
James Russell of Hampton University, SABER's principal investigator.
"When the upper atmosphere (or 'thermosphere') heats up, these
molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space."

For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere
absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO,
the two most efficient _coolants_ in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95%
of that total back into space.
===========================

<https://i0.wp.com/i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/SpectralCoolingRates_zps27867ef4.png>
===========================
Notice how CO2 has a cooling effect right from the lower stratosphere
and up into the mesosphere, its peak cooling effect around the
stratopause, while ozone has a clear warming effect in the lower
stratosphere (and even into the troposphere) but a cooling effect like
CO2 in the middle and upper stratosphere.

You'll further note that CO2 has a slight cooling effect all the way
to the bottom of the troposphere. Where's the warming from CO2
supposed to be taking place, again? LOL
===========================

<http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.306.3621&rep=rep1&type=pdf>
===========================
Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission
Rudolf W. Gunnerman Energy and Environment Laboratory; University of
Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA; Institute of
Oceanology of Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

"The writers investigated the effect of CO2 emission on the
temperature of atmosphere. Computations based on the adiabatic theory
of greenhouse effect show that increasing CO2 concentration in the
atmosphere results in cooling rather than warming of the Earth's
atmosphere."
===========================
============================================================

> that Earth surface, therefore always
> emitting to the space less, that was absorved Ir emittied by surface.

Your non sequitur has nothing to do with the fact of CO2 having been
proven to cause global cooling, but I do note your anxiously awaiting
my post, sitting on the edge of your seat, post-pouncing in a mere 13
minutes, 8 seconds to bleat your moronic reply. LOL

Defend you delusion, Klimate Katastrophe Kook! Never mind that NASA,
UAH, UK Met, RSS and NSIDC have *all* documented global cooling. Cling
to your delusion! You risk spiraling into the inky blackness of
insanity if you admit to yourself that you were gullible and stupid
enough to be lied to for so long, and you never even caught a whiff of
it.

<snicker>

<http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/06/26/study-that-warned-of-global-warming-over-past-decade-ridiculed-after-temperatures-drop/>
The UK Met trend shows an accelerating -0.014 C per decade *decrease*.

Message-ID: <e46a4017e5a77519d1489cd3f1129c08@dizum.com>
The underlying (read: unmanipulated) NOAA data shows a 0.6186 F 
*decrease* from 2005 to 2015.

<http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783>
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI>
Dr. Don Easterbrook shows the past global warming was solar and
orbital forcing induced, the conditions have changed, and global
cooling has set in... since 1998.

<http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/global-warming-pause-hits-18-years-on-rss-data.html>
Using UK Met, UAH and RSS data.

Page 11 - Global temperature rate (C per year): dropping since ~1998.
*Negative* since ~2005. That means temps have been dropping for ~17
years, and the gullible LibTarDs have been lied to for ~17 years:
<http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/e/f/Paper1_Observing_changes_in_the_climate_system.PDF>

Message-ID: <b41f4a8054430ac46092e607919d7063@dizum.com>
Even NASA admitted that global temperatures were falling in recent
years (before they pulled that page... luckily the WayBack Machine
archived it):
<http://web.archive.org/web/20030816225534/http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/research/methane/greenhouse.html>
Note the center trace for modern times in that graphic... *falling*
temperature, even as CO2 and methane rose.

"There has been no warming since '98, and a very slight cooling that
is not statistically significant." - Phil Jones

<http://phys.org/news/2014-08-global-temperature-conundrum-cooling-climate.html>
"We have been building models and there are now robust 
contradictions," says Liu, a professor in the UW-Madison Center for 
Climatic Research. "Data from observation says global cooling. The 
physical model says it has to be warming."

===============================================================
Taken from the hacked ClimateGate 1.0 and ClimateGate 2.0 emails:
<http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/01/email-4141-glimpse-into-climate-science.html>

"I think the notion of telling the public to prepare for both global
warming and an ice age at the same time creates a real public
relations problem for us."  - Asher Minns, "climate scientist" from
scandal-rocked University of East Anglia, letting the cat completely
out of the bag.

You'll note he doesn't say "global cooling", he specifically says "an
ice age"... that's telling, don't you think? LOL
===============================================================

That's why so many former IPCC Global Climate Assessment contributors
have left the IPCC and publicly renounced any "data" the IPCC 
promulgates.

<http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/21/un-scientists-who-have-turned-on-unipcc-man-made-climate-fears-a-climate-depot-flashback-report/>
Just a small subset from that website:
==============================================================
Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history. When
people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by
science and scientists." – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori
Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
==============================================================
"Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted
mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than
sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made
with them!"- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric
chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's
(IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has
authored 83 peer-reviewed publications in the areas of climate change,
atmospheric chemistry, air pollution and vehicle emissions.
==============================================================
UN IPCC Scientist Kenneth P. Green Declares 'A Death Spiral for
Climate Alarmism' – September 30, 2009 – 'We can expect climate crisis
industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward 
anyone who questions their authority' – Dr. Kenneth Green was a 
Working Group 1 expert reviewer for the UN IPCC in 2001.
==============================================================
"Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I
quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp. Climate models can
at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." –
Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in
man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch
UN IPCC committee.
==============================================================
"The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the
natural circulation between air, water and soil. I am doing a detailed
assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers,
identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the
science." – South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr.
Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored
over 150 refereed publications.
==============================================================
"The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense" –
declared IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New
Zealand in 2007. Gray was an expert reviewer on every single draft of
the IPCC reports going back to 1990, author of more than 100
scientific publications.
==============================================================
One former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told the Senate Environment and
Public Works (EPW) committee how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers
"distorted" the scientists work. "I have found examples of a Summary
saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said," explained
South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip
Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150
refereed publications.
==============================================================
Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA's National Hurricane
Center, was both an author and reviewer for the IPCC's 2nd Assessment
Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but resigned
from the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with playing
politics with Hurricane science. Landsea wrote a January 17, 2005
public letter detailing his experience with the UN: "I am withdrawing
[from the IPCC] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to
which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In
addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their
response was simply to dismiss my concerns." "I personally cannot in
good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both
being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically
unsound," Landsea added.
==============================================================
Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core
researcher: "The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse.
It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere, not the other way round. A large number of critical
documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished
without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily
biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact."
==============================================================
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming>
<http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-man-made-global-warming-claims/5403284>
<http://cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf>
<http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/07/31/new-study-majority-of-climate-scientists-dont-agree-with-consensus/>
<http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/top-scientists-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures/>

-- 

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

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

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

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

Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?

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

#600598 — tardo-nado

the <rickets are sneaking up upon you, but
that is an interesting plausability, owing as how
the spectrum of OCO is dwarfed by that of HOH ...
all. because OCO is linear?

> There's no misinterpretation on my part. The graphic I included (and
> include below), as well as the several peer-reviewed studies you
> continue to snip out to preserve your delusion, prove CO2 is a global
> *cooling* gas, in contradiction to the fable the politicized IPCC
> claims.
> 
> >> Here, educate yourself:
> >> <http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-2080.html>
> 
> <crickets> LOL
> 
> >>> About 2/3 of the body thermal loses are due to radiation.
> 
> >> Yes, and some cloth is opaque to that radiation, reflecting it back to
> >> the body and thereby warming it... again, a false analogy. The
> >> atmosphere is not "blanketed" or "clothed" in any manner. It is free
> >> to convect.
> 
> > I see you do not understand the physical principles you talk about.
> > The cloth emits in both directions, toward body and toware open space,
> > according to its surface effective temperature.
> > 
> > Convention does not change anything.
> 
> And that which is emitted or reflected back toward the body warms the
> body via reduced heat loss. So it's you who doesn't understand.
> 
> I encourage you to stand in Antarctica in a t-shirt and tell us that
> the forced convection due to high winds there doesn't change the
> amount of heat loss from your body than you'd otherwise experience at
> a more hospitable latitude under similar temperature conditions but
> less wind. LOL
> 
> >>> What you have missed is, that the effect of CO2
> >>> is lowering Earth emission temperature at affected wavelengths.
> 
> >> And what you have missed is that reflected heat is at differing
> >> wavelengths than the source wavelength, some of which are at the
> >> absorption (and emission) wavelengths of CO2. Thus, more CO2 means
> >> more absorption, and thus more emission on the night side of the
> >> planet. CO2 is a global *cooling* gas, as the peer-reviewed studies
> >> referenced in my prior post (and below) prove.
> 
> > CO2 emiiting to space is always colder ( with rare exception of some
> > polar regions in winter )
> 
> Increased CO2 concentration has been proven to cause cooling in
> Antarctica year-round, you nong. LOL
> 
> <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL066749/full>
> 
> The same effect holds true for the rest of the planet, as well, which
> you'd know if you'd had the guts to actually read those peer-reviewed
> studies you keep cowardly snipping.
> 
> ============================================================
> <http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/>
> ===========================
> "Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats", explains
> James Russell of Hampton University, SABER's principal investigator.
> "When the upper atmosphere (or 'thermosphere') heats up, these
> molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space."
> 
> For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere
> absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO,
> the two most efficient _coolants_ in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95%
> of that total back into space.
> ===========================
> 
> <https://i0.wp.com/i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/SpectralCoolingRates_zps27867ef4.png>
> ===========================
> Notice how CO2 has a cooling effect right from the lower stratosphere
> and up into the mesosphere, its peak cooling effect around the
> stratopause, while ozone has a clear warming effect in the lower
> stratosphere (and even into the troposphere) but a cooling effect like
> CO2 in the middle and upper stratosphere.
> 
> You'll further note that CO2 has a slight cooling effect all the way
> to the bottom of the troposphere. Where's the warming from CO2
> supposed to be taking place, again? LOL
> ===========================
> 
> <http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.306.3621&rep=rep1&type=pdf>
> ===========================
> Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission
> Rudolf W. Gunnerman Energy and Environment Laboratory; University of
> Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA; Institute of
> Oceanology of Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
> 
> "The writers investigated the effect of CO2 emission on the
> temperature of atmosphere. Computations based on the adiabatic theory
> of greenhouse effect show that increasing CO2 concentration in the
> atmosphere results in cooling rather than warming of the Earth's
> atmosphere."
> ===========================
> ============================================================
> 
> > that Earth surface, therefore always
> > emitting to the space less, that was absorved Ir emittied by surface.
> 
> Your non sequitur has nothing to do with the fact of CO2 having been
> proven to cause global cooling, but I do note your anxiously awaiting
> my post, sitting on the edge of your seat, post-pouncing in a mere 13
> minutes, 8 seconds to bleat your moronic reply. LOL
> 
> Defend you delusion, Klimate Katastrophe Kook! Never mind that NASA,
> UAH, UK Met, RSS and NSIDC have *all* documented global cooling. Cling
> to your delusion! You risk spiraling into the inky blackness of
> insanity if you admit to yourself that you were gullible and stupid
> enough to be lied to for so long, and you never even caught a whiff of
> it.
> 
> <snicker>
> 
> <http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/06/26/study-that-warned-of-global-warming-over-past-decade-ridiculed-after-temperatures-drop/>
> The UK Met trend shows an accelerating -0.014 C per decade *decrease*.
> 
> Message-ID: <e46a4017e5a77519d1489cd3f1129c08@dizum.com>
> The underlying (read: unmanipulated) NOAA data shows a 0.6186 F 
> *decrease* from 2005 to 2015.
> 
> <http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI>
> Dr. Don Easterbrook shows the past global warming was solar and
> orbital forcing induced, the conditions have changed, and global
> cooling has set in... since 1998.
> 
> <http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/global-warming-pause-hits-18-years-on-rss-data.html>
> Using UK Met, UAH and RSS data.
> 
> Page 11 - Global temperature rate (C per year): dropping since ~1998.
> *Negative* since ~2005. That means temps have been dropping for ~17
> years, and the gullible LibTarDs have been lied to for ~17 years:
> <http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/e/f/Paper1_Observing_changes_in_the_climate_system.PDF>
> 
> Message-ID: <b41f4a8054430ac46092e607919d7063@dizum.com>
> Even NASA admitted that global temperatures were falling in recent
> years (before they pulled that page... luckily the WayBack Machine
> archived it):
> <http://web.archive.org/web/20030816225534/http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/research/methane/greenhouse.html>
> Note the center trace for modern times in that graphic... *falling*
> temperature, even as CO2 and methane rose.
> 
> "There has been no warming since '98, and a very slight cooling that
> is not statistically significant." - Phil Jones
> 
> <http://phys.org/news/2014-08-global-temperature-conundrum-cooling-climate.html>
> "We have been building models and there are now robust 
> contradictions," says Liu, a professor in the UW-Madison Center for 
> Climatic Research. "Data from observation says global cooling. The 
> physical model says it has to be warming."
> 
> ===============================================================
> Taken from the hacked ClimateGate 1.0 and ClimateGate 2.0 emails:
> <http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/01/email-4141-glimpse-into-climate-science.html>
> 
> "I think the notion of telling the public to prepare for both global
> warming and an ice age at the same time creates a real public
> relations problem for us."  - Asher Minns, "climate scientist" from
> scandal-rocked University of East Anglia, letting the cat completely
> out of the bag.
> 
> You'll note he doesn't say "global cooling", he specifically says "an
> ice age"... that's telling, don't you think? LOL
> ===============================================================
> 
> That's why so many former IPCC Global Climate Assessment contributors
> have left the IPCC and publicly renounced any "data" the IPCC 
> promulgates.
> 
> <http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/21/un-scientists-who-have-turned-on-unipcc-man-made-climate-fears-a-climate-depot-flashback-report/>
> Just a small subset from that website:
> ==============================================================
> Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history. When
> people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by
> science and scientists." – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori
> Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
> ==============================================================
> "Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted
> mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than
> sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made
> with them!"- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric
> chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's
> (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has
> authored 83 peer-reviewed publications in the areas of climate change,
> atmospheric chemistry, air pollution and vehicle emissions.
> ==============================================================
> UN IPCC Scientist Kenneth P. Green Declares 'A Death Spiral for
> Climate Alarmism' – September 30, 2009 – 'We can expect climate crisis
> industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward 
> anyone who questions their authority' – Dr. Kenneth Green was a 
> Working Group 1 expert reviewer for the UN IPCC in 2001.
> ==============================================================
> "Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I
> quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp. Climate models can
> at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." –
> Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in
> man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch
> UN IPCC committee.
> ==============================================================
> "The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the
> natural circulation between air, water and soil. I am doing a detailed
> assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers,
> identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the
> science." – South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr.
> Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored
> over 150 refereed publications.
> ==============================================================
> "The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense" –
> declared IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New
> Zealand in 2007. Gray was an expert reviewer on every single draft of
> the IPCC reports going back to 1990, author of more than 100
> scientific publications.
> ==============================================================
> One former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told the Senate Environment and
> Public Works (EPW) committee how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers
> "distorted" the scientists work. "I have found examples of a Summary
> saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said," explained
> South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip
> Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150
> refereed publications.
> ==============================================================
> Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA's National Hurricane
> Center, was both an author and reviewer for the IPCC's 2nd Assessment
> Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but resigned
> from the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with playing
> politics with Hurricane science. Landsea wrote a January 17, 2005
> public letter detailing his experience with the UN: "I am withdrawing
> [from the IPCC] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to
> which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In
> addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their
> response was simply to dismiss my concerns." "I personally cannot in
> good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both
> being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically
> unsound," Landsea added.
> ==============================================================
> Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core
> researcher: "The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse.
> It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in
> the atmosphere, not the other way round. A large number of critical
> documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished
> without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily
> biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact."
> ==============================================================
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming>
> <http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-man-made-global-warming-claims/5403284>
> <http://cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf>
> <http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/07/31/new-study-majority-of-climate-scientists-dont-agree-with-consensus/>
> <http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/top-scientists-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures/>
> 
> -- 
> 
> Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
> which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
> inherent in your "theory":
> 
> ============================================================
> Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant
> uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James?
> 
> Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a
> lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating
> that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself
> if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia?
> Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and
> help you to not piss all over yourself?
> 
> And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a
> pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser.
> 
> Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
> spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
> You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
> Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
> water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
> thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
> *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.
> 
> You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
> water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
> atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
> from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
> if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
> energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
> your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
> with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
> created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
> destroys your theory, James.
> 
> You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's
> Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction
> increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and
> electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually
> cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James?
> 
> According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
> distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
> electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
> energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
> attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
> electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
> that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
> attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
> violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.
> 
> How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even
> you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli
> Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard,
> and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is
> that not dissociating the water?
> 
> If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling
> point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded
> hydrides, KookTard?
> 
> If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's
> cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard?
> 
> If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not*
> splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard?
> 
> If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have
> such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same
> H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron
> that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of
> vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that
> your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and
> that's just retarded.
> 
> If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not
> become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard?
> 
> How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
> away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
> detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
> touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
> tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
> types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
> sky" sentient, James?
> 
> Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
> troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
> Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
> tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
> way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?
> 
> How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
> tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
> you explain that, James?
> 
> Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is
> *below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory
> not-a-theory" can't answer.
> 
> Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
> claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?
> 
> Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
> delusions, James?
> 
> Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
> James?
> 
> Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James?
> 
> Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions,
> James?
> 
> Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?
> 
> Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being
> *deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James?
> 
> Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as
> "delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?
> 
> Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in
> which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of
> education about now, James?
> 
> Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out
> of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been
> deemed mentally incompetent, James?
> 
> Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class
> as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist",
> James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated,
> whereas you're ignorant and uneducated?
> 
> What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was
> the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then
> you're not a physicist, James. LOL
> 
> If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
> inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
> airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
> jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
> back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
> shreds, Jim?
> 
> Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
> tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
> mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
> which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
> ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
> claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
> thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
> which would make air travel deadly.
> 
> Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
> the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
> being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?
> 
> Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
> That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
> it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
> James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
> to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
> means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
> cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
> oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
> phenomenon due to density differential, James?
> 
> How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
> Jim?
> 
> Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
> How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
> surface area as you claim?
> 
> Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?
> 
> How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
> hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
> semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
> dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
> preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
> extremely energetic laser, Jim?
> 
> Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
> extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
> photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
> the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
> troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?
> 
> How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
> dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
> planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
> all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?
> 
> Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
> upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
> in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
> not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
> molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
> for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
> implausible claims are workable, Jim?

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

#600373

O\_n \_/ \T/ u_/e\_, \_/ \1/ 1_/ \_/O\_c \t/ \_/ 2_/0\_1 \6/ \_/ 0_/ 
_7 \:/ 1_/6\_: \2/ 2_/ \_/+\_0 \2/ 0_/0\_, \_/ \P/ o_/u\_t \n/ i_/k\_
 \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_/ \_< \p/ o_/u\_t \n/ i_/k\_4 \n/ n_/t\_p \@/ g_/m\_a \i/ \_
l\_. \c/ o_/m\_> \_/ \w/ r_/o\_t \e/ :_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
 \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \>/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
 >_/ \_/D\_n \e/ \_/ 1_/1\_/ \1/ 0_//\_2 \0/ 1_/6\_/ \_v \_/ \0/ 7_/ 
_: \0/ 3_/ \_/F\_r \i/ e_/n\_d \l/ y_/ \_/N\_e \i/ g_/h\_b \o/ u_/r\_
 \h/ o_/o\_d \_/ \V/ o_/t\_e \_/ \W/ r_/a\_n \g/ l_/e\_r \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
 \E/ m_/e\_r \i/ t_/u\_s \,/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \>/ \_/ D_/o\_W \_/ \#/ 1_/ \_/n\_
 \a/ p_/s\_a \l/ (_/a\_) \:/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \>/ \_/ >_/ \_/T\_i \m/ e_/ \_/t\_
 \o/ \_/ s_/p\_i \n/ \_/ t_/h\_e \_/ \k/ o_/o\_k \s/ \_/ u_/p\_/ \_/ 
a/ g_/a\_i \n/ ._/ \_/M\_e \l/ t_/,\_/ \_k \o/ o_/k\_s \,/ \_/ m_/e\_
 \l/ t_/.\_/ \_< \s/ n_/i\_c \k/ e_/r\_> \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_> \_/ \>/ \_/ \_/ \_
 \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ >_/ \_/>\_/ \_P \o/ u_/t\_n \i/ k_/,\_/ \_i \n/ \_/ <_/n\_e \w/ \_
s\_: \n/ t_/h\_o \7/ c_/$\_d \a/ s_/$\_1 \@/ d_/o\_n \t/ -_/e\_m \a/ 
_/i\_l \./ m_/e\_> \_/ \d/ i_/d\_/ \_t \h/ u_/s\_l \y/ \_/ j_/u\_m \_
 p_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ h_/e\_a \d/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
 \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \>/ \_/ >_/ \_/f\_i \r/ s_/t\_/ \_/ 
i/ n_/t\_o \_/ \t/ h_/e\_/ \_w \o/ o_/d\_/ \_c \h/ i_/p\_p \e/ r_/ \_
 \_a \g/ a_/i\_n \:/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \>/ \_/ >_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
 \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ >_/ \_/>\_> \_/ \D/ 
_/n\_e \_/ \1/ 1_//\_1 \0/ /_/2\_0 \1/ 6_/ \_/v\_/ \_0 \4/ :_/4\_4 \_
 \_/ F_/r\_i \e/ n_/d\_l \y/ \_/ N_/e\_i \g/ h_/b\_o \u/ r_/h\_o \o/ 
_/d\_/ \_V \o/ t_/e\_/ \_W \r/ a_/n\_g \l/ e_/r\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
 \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/E\_m \e/ 
_/r\_i \t/ u_/s\_, \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
 \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_> \_/ \>/ >_/ \_/D\_o \W/ \_/ #_/1\_/ \_/ 
n/ a_/p\_s \a/ l_/(\_a \)/ :_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
 \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ >_/ \_/>\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/>\_/ \_> \_
 >_/>\_> \_/ \B/ y_/ \_/t\_h \e/ \_/ s_/a\_m \e/ \_/ w_/a\_y \_/ \a/ 
_/s\_/ \_y \o/ u_/r\_/ \_c \l/ o_/t\_h \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
 \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_> \_/ \>/ >_/>\_> \_/ 
_/ c_/o\_o \l/ s_/ \_/y\_o \u/ \_/ b_/y\_/ \_i \n/ t_/e\_n \s/ i_/v\_
 \e/ \_/ t_/h\_e \r/ m_/a\_l \_/ \r/ a_/d\_i \a/ t_/i\_o \n/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
 >_/ \_/>\_> \>/ >_/ \_/a\_n \d/ \_/ t_/h\_e \r/ e_/f\_o \r/ e_/ \_/ 
_y \o/ u_/ \_/s\_h \o/ u_/l\_d \_/ \n/ o_/t\_/ \_u \s/ e_/ \_/i\_t \_
 \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \>/ \_/ >_/>\_> \>/ \_/ t_/o\_/ \_w \a/ r_/m\_/ \_y \o/ u_/r\_
 \s/ e_/l\_f \_/ \u/ p_/.\_. \./ ._/.\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/>\_/ \_> \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
 \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
>/ \_/ >_/>\_> \_/ \F/ a_/l\_s \e/ \_/ a_/n\_a \l/ o_/g\_y \./ \_/ \_
C\_l \o/ t_/h\_/ \_i \s/ \_/ a_/n\_/ \_i \n/ s_/u\_l \a/ t_/o\_r \_/ 
_/ b_/y\_/ \_b \l/ o_/c\_k \i/ n_/g\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
 \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/c\_i \r/ c_/u\_l \a/ 
_/t\_i \o/ n_/ \_/o\_f \_/ \a/ i_/r\_. \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
 \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_> \_/ \>/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
 >_/ \_/>\_> \_/ \F/ a_/l\_s \e/ ._/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ >_/ \_/>\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
 \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/>\_/ 
_/ \>/ \_/ F_/e\_y \n/ m_/a\_n \_/ \w/ o_/u\_l \d/ \_/ d_/i\_s \a/ \_
g\_r \e/ e_/ \_/w\_i \t/ h_/ \_/y\_o \u/ ._/.\_. \_/ \a/ r_/e\_/ \_/ 
y/ o_/u\_/ \_c \l/ a_/i\_m \i/ n_/g\_/ \_a \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
 \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_p \h/ y_/s\_/ 
i/ c_/i\_s \t/ \_/ i_/s\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
 \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/>\_/ \_> \_/ \w/ r_/o\_n \g/ ?_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
 \_/>\_/ \_> \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_> \_/ \N/ o_/,\_/ \_j \u/ s_/t\_/ \_y \o/ \_
u\_r \s/ e_/l\_f \_/ \m/ i_/s\_i \n/ t_/e\_r \p/ r_/e\_t \t/ i_/n\_/ 
g/ \_/ i_/t\_. \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
 \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_> \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_> \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
 \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_> \_/ \>/ \_/ H_/ 
_e \r/ e_/,\_/ \_e \d/ u_/c\_a \t/ e_/ \_/y\_o \u/ r_/s\_e \l/ f_/:\_
 \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_> \_/ \>/ \_/ <_/h\_t \t/ p_/:\_/ \// w_/w\_w \./ g_/l\_o \_
 b_/a\_l \w/ a_/r\_m \i/ n_/g\_s \k/ e_/p\_t \i/ c_/s\_. \i/ n_/f\_/ 
o/ /_/t\_h \r/ e_/a\_d \-/ 2_/0\_8 \0/ ._/h\_t \m/ l_/>\_/ \_/ \_/ \_
 \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/>\_/ 
_/ \>/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
 \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \>/ \_/ >_/>\_/ \_A \b/ o_/u\_t \_/ \2/ /_/3\_/ \_/ 
o/ f_/ \_/t\_h \e/ \_/ b_/o\_d \y/ \_/ t_/h\_e \r/ m_/a\_l \_/ \l/ \_
o\_s \e/ s_/ \_/a\_r \e/ \_/ d_/u\_e \_/ \t/ o_/ \_/r\_a \d/ i_/a\_/ 
t/ i_/o\_n \./ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
 \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \>/ \_/ >_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ >_/ \_/>\_/ \_Y \e/ s_/,\_
 \_/ \a/ n_/d\_/ \_s \o/ m_/e\_/ \_c \l/ o_/t\_h \_/ \i/ s_/ \_/o\_/ 
p/ a_/q\_u \e/ \_/ t_/o\_/ \_t \h/ a_/t\_/ \_r \a/ d_/i\_a \t/ i_/o\_
 \n/ ,_/ \_/r\_e \f/ l_/e\_c \t/ i_/n\_g \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_i \t/ \_/ b_/a\_
 \c/ k_/ \_/t\_o \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_> \_/ \>/ \_/ t_/h\_e \_/ \b/ o_/d\_y \_/ \_
 a_/n\_d \_/ \t/ h_/e\_r \e/ b_/y\_/ \_w \a/ r_/m\_i \n/ g_/ \_/i\_/ 
t/ ._/.\_. \_/ \a/ g_/a\_i \n/ ,_/ \_/a\_/ \_f \a/ l_/s\_e \_/ \a/ \_
n\_a \l/ o_/g\_y \./ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \T/ h_/e\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
 \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/>\_/ \_> \_/ \a/ t_/ 
_m \o/ s_/p\_h \e/ r_/e\_/ \_i \s/ \_/ n_/o\_t \_/ \"/ b_/l\_a \n/ \_
k\_e \t/ e_/d\_" \_/ \o/ r_/ \_/"\_c \l/ o_/t\_h \e/ d_/"\_/ \_i \n/ 
_/ \_/a\_n \y/ \_/ m_/a\_n \n/ e_/r\_. \_/ \I/ t_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
 \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ i_/s\_/ 
_/ \f/ r_/e\_e \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
 \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_> \_/ \>/ \_/ t_/o\_/ \_c \o/ n_/v\_e \c/ t_/ 
_. \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
 \_/ \_/ \_> \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_> \_/ \I/ \_/ s_/e\_e \_/ \y/ o_/u\_/ \_d \_
 o_/ \_/n\_o \t/ \_/ u_/n\_d \e/ r_/s\_t \a/ n_/d\_/ \_t \h/ e_/ \_/ 
_p \h/ y_/s\_i \c/ a_/l\_/ \_p \r/ i_/n\_c \i/ p_/l\_e \s/ \_/ y_/o\_
 \u/ \_/ t_/a\_l \k/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \a/ b_/o\_u \t/ ._/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
 \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ >_/ \_/T\_/ 
h/ e_/ \_/c\_l \o/ t_/h\_/ \_e \m/ i_/t\_s \_/ \i/ n_/ \_/b\_o \t/ \_
h\_/ \_d \i/ r_/e\_c \t/ i_/o\_n \s/ ,_/ \_/t\_o \w/ a_/r\_d \_/ \b/ 
_/o\_d \y/ \_/ a_/n\_d \_/ \t/ o_/w\_a \r/ e_/ \_/o\_p \e/ n_/ \_/ \_
 \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/s\_p \a/ c_/e\_, \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
 \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_> \_/ \a/ c_/c\_o \r/ d_/i\_n \g/ \_/ 
_/t\_o \_/ \i/ t_/s\_/ \_s \u/ r_/f\_a \c/ e_/ \_/e\_f \f/ e_/c\_t \_
 i_/v\_e \_/ \t/ e_/m\_p \e/ r_/a\_t \u/ r_/e\_. \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_> \_/ \_/ \_
 \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ \>/ \_/ C_/o\_n \v/ e_/n\_t \i/ o_/n\_/ \_d \o/ e_/s\_/ \_n \o/ \_
t\_/ \_c \h/ a_/n\_g \e/ \_/ a_/n\_y \t/ h_/i\_n \g/ ._/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ >_/ \_
 \_> \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_> \_/ \>/ >_/ \_/W\_h \a/ t_/ \_/y\_o \u/ \_/ h_/a\_
 \v/ e_/ \_/m\_i \s/ s_/e\_d \_/ \i/ s_/,\_/ \_t \h/ a_/t\_/ \_t \h/ 
_/e\_/ \_e \f/ f_/e\_c \t/ \_/ o_/f\_/ \_C \O/ 2_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
 \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ >_/ \_/>\_/ 
>/ \_/ i_/s\_/ \_l \o/ w_/e\_r \i/ n_/g\_/ \_E \a/ r_/t\_h \_/ \e/ \_
m\_i \s/ s_/i\_o \n/ \_/ t_/e\_m \p/ e_/r\_a \t/ u_/r\_e \_/ \a/ t_/ 
_/ \_a \f/ f_/e\_c \t/ e_/d\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
 \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/w\_a \v/ e_/l\_e \n/ g_/t\_/ 
h/ s_/.\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
 \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/>\_/ \_> \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_> \_/ \>/ \_/ A_/n\_d \_/ \w/ \_
h\_a \t/ \_/ y_/o\_u \_/ \h/ a_/v\_e \_/ \m/ i_/s\_s \e/ d_/ \_/i\_/ 
s/ \_/ t_/h\_a \t/ \_/ r_/e\_f \l/ e_/c\_t \e/ d_/ \_/h\_e \a/ t_/ \_
 \_i \s/ \_/ a_/t\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/d\_i \f/ f_/e\_r \i/ n_/g\_/ \_/ \_/ \_
 \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/>\_/ 
_/ \>/ \_/ w_/a\_v \e/ l_/e\_n \g/ t_/h\_s \_/ \t/ h_/a\_n \_/ \t/ \_
h\_e \_/ \s/ o_/u\_r \c/ e_/ \_/w\_a \v/ e_/l\_e \n/ g_/t\_h \,/ \_/ 
_/s\_o \m/ e_/ \_/o\_f \_/ \w/ h_/i\_c \h/ \_/ a_/r\_e \_/ \a/ t_/ \_
 \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_/t\_h \e/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
 \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \>/ \_/ >_/ \_/a\_b \s/ o_/r\_p \t/ i_/o\_/ 
n/ \_/ (_/a\_n \d/ \_/ e_/m\_i \s/ s_/i\_o \n/ )_/ \_/w\_a \v/ e_/l\_
 \e/ n_/g\_t \h/ s_/ \_/o\_f \_/ \C/ O_/2\_. \_/ \T/ h_/u\_s \,/ \_/ 
_/m\_o \r/ e_/ \_/C\_O \2/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
 \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \m/ e_/a\_n \s/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \>/ \_/ \_
>\_/ \_m \o/ r_/e\_/ \_a \b/ s_/o\_r \p/ t_/i\_o \n/ ,_/ \_/a\_n \d/ 
_/ \_/t\_h \u/ s_/ \_/m\_o \r/ e_/ \_/e\_m \i/ s_/s\_i \o/ n_/ \_/o\_
 \n/ \_/ t_/h\_e \_/ \n/ i_/g\_h \t/ \_/ s_/i\_d \e/ \_/ o_/f\_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
 \_/ \_t \h/ e_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ >_/ \_/>\_/ \_p \l/ a_/n\_e \t/ ._/ \_/C\_O \_
 2_/ \_/i\_s \_/ \a/ \_/ g_/l\_o \b/ a_/l\_/ \_* \c/ o_/o\_l \i/ n_/ 
_g \*/ \_/ g_/a\_s \,/ \_/ a_/s\_/ \_t \h/ e_/ \_/p\_e \e/ r_/-\_r \_
 e_/v\_i \e/ w_/e\_d \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_s \t/ u_/d\_i \e/ s_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
 \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ >_/ \_/ 
_> \_/ \r/ e_/f\_e \r/ e_/n\_c \e/ d_/ \_/i\_n \_/ \m/ y_/ \_/p\_r \_
 i_/o\_r \_/ \p/ o_/s\_t \_/ \(/ a_/n\_d \_/ \b/ e_/l\_o \w/ )_/ \_/ 
_p \r/ o_/v\_e \./ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
 \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \>/ \_/ >_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ >_/ \_/C\_O \2/ \_/ \_
e\_m \i/ i_/t\_i \n/ g_/ \_/t\_o \_/ \s/ p_/a\_c \e/ \_/ i_/s\_/ \_/ 
a/ l_/w\_a \y/ s_/ \_/c\_o \l/ d_/e\_r \_/ \(/ \_/ w_/i\_t \h/ \_/ \_
r\_a \r/ e_/ \_/e\_x \c/ e_/p\_t \i/ o_/n\_/ \_o \f/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \s/ \_
o\_m \e/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \>/ \_/ p_/o\_l \a/ r_/ \_/r\_e \g/ i_/o\_n \s/ \_/ \_
i\_n \_/ \w/ i_/n\_t \e/ r_/ \_/)\_/ \_t \h/ a_/t\_/ \_E \a/ r_/t\_/ 
h/ \_/ s_/u\_r \f/ a_/c\_e \,/ \_/ t_/h\_e \r/ e_/f\_o \r/ e_/ \_/a\_
 \l/ w_/a\_y \s/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \>/ \_/ e_/m\_i \t/ t_/i\_n \g/ \_/ t_/o\_/ \_
 \t/ h_/e\_/ \_s \p/ a_/c\_e \_/ \l/ e_/s\_s \,/ \_/ t_/h\_a \t/ \_/ 
_/w\_a \s/ \_/ a_/b\_s \o/ r_/v\_e \d/ \_/ I_/r\_/ \_e \m/ i_/t\_t \_
 i_/e\_d \_/ \b/ y_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ s_/u\_r \f/ a_/c\_e \./ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
 \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \>/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
 \_/ \_/ >_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ >_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
 \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \T/ h_/a\_t \_/ \f/ u_/c\_
 \k/ t_/a\_r \d/ \_/ y_/o\_u \'/ r_/e\_/ \_r \e/ s_/p\_o \n/ d_/i\_/ 
n/ g_/ \_/t\_o \_/ \t/ h_/i\_n \k/ s_/ \_/h\_e \_/ \o/ w_/n\_s \_/ \_
 a_/ \_/L\_o \t/ u_/s\_. \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
 \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ -_/-\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_
 \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/T\_/ 
h/ e_/ \_/S\_t \i/ n_/g\_e \r/ \_/ -_/ \_/S\_c \o/ u_/r\_g \e/ \_/ \_
o\_f \_/ \T/ e_/h\_/ \_U \s/ e_/n\_e \t/ s_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ 
_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web