Groups > sci.physics > #554746 > unrolled thread

Meteorologists have never actually measured the comparative weight of moist air.

Started by	James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
First post	2016-02-19 16:34 -0800
Last post	2016-02-21 18:31 +0000
Articles	20 on this page of 102 — 11 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →

#555219

From	James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-21 02:05 -0800
Message-ID	<e4504ec4-e3cc-4e87-af05-3bfb5e6be08b@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#555191

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 10:57:26 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 7:55:00 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> >Subject: Re: Meteorologists have never actually measured the comparative 
> >> >weight of moist air.
> >> 
> >> Considering *I*'ve seen it measured, when I was in college, I have to 
> >> believe this is very wrong.
> 
> >So, why do you think nobody made the results of the experiment 
> >available?  Did they forget?  
> 
> Apparently not.  I can google "density of moist air" 

Pay attention, idiot.  Density isn't the issue.

and get results all
> day.  I can do proper scientific research and get all kinds of experiments
> that show, or depend on, moist air being less dense.

Are you really that stupid.  Duhr.

Are you a moron?

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

#554877

From	Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-20 09:43 +0100
Message-ID	<na98pk$93c$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#554808

Dne 20/02/2016 v 04:54 Michael Moroney napsal(a):
>> Subject: Re: Meteorologists have never actually measured the comparative 
>> weight of moist air.
> 
> Considering *I*'ve seen it measured, when I was in college, I have to 
> believe this is very wrong.
> 
Meteorology need not to bother to verify basic matter behaviour,
if it is well known, both measured and theoretized,
in physical chemistry.

As meteorology is an applied science,
when it comes to basic phenomena.


-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

#554940

From	James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-20 09:16 -0800
Message-ID	<6dababb2-a2b5-47b1-98a5-31b1afc3972a@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#554877

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 12:43:20 AM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:

> > Considering *I*'ve seen it measured, when I was in college, I have to 
> > believe this is very wrong.
> > 
> Meteorology need not to bother to verify basic matter behaviour,
> if it is well known, both measured and theoretized,
> in physical chemistry.

Where is the experimental data?  It doesn't exist.  

> As meteorology is an applied science,
> when it comes to basic phenomena.

Retard.  Where are the measurements?  

Tell us how jet streams are pushed into existence by convection.

Sheep can't think.  They jus

> 
> 
> -- 
> Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
> 
> Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

#554945

From	James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-20 09:21 -0800
Message-ID	<f376d4e0-cbc0-481d-b851-4c41cfc7d5cc@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#554877

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 12:43:20 AM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 20/02/2016 v 04:54 Michael Moroney napsal(a):
> >> Subject: Re: Meteorologists have never actually measured the comparative 
> >> weight of moist air.
> > 
> > Considering *I*'ve seen it measured, when I was in college, I have to 
> > believe this is very wrong.
> > 
> Meteorology need not to bother to verify basic matter behaviour,
> if it is well known,

If it isn't verified it isn't well known, you mental retard.




 both measured and theoretized,
> in physical chemistry.
> 
> As meteorology is an applied science,

It's largely superstition.  That is why meteorologist don't do experiments.


> when it comes to basic phenomena.

Is there such thing as non-basic phenomena?

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

#554946

From	James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-20 09:22 -0800
Message-ID	<bc3bfb53-0180-4334-a3b4-ae0357c5763d@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#554877

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 12:43:20 AM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 20/02/2016 v 04:54 Michael Moroney napsal(a):
> >> Subject: Re: Meteorologists have never actually measured the comparative 
> >> weight of moist air.
> > 
> > Considering *I*'ve seen it measured, when I was in college, I have to 
> > believe this is very wrong.
> > 
> Meteorology need not to bother to verify basic matter behaviour,
> if it is well known, both measured and theoretized,
> in physical chemistry.
> 
> As meteorology is an applied science,
> when it comes to basic phenomena.

Where is the experimental data?  In your imagination?  Is that good enough for you?  Apparently it is.  And you are alright with this, as you indicate.

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

#554993

From	Sergio <invalid@invalid.com>
Date	2016-02-20 12:45 -0600
Message-ID	<naac9o$i7e$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#554946

On 2/20/2016 11:22 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 12:43:20 AM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
>> Dne 20/02/2016 v 04:54 Michael Moroney napsal(a):
>>>> Subject: Re: Meteorologists have never actually measured the
>>>> comparative weight of moist air.

>>> Considering *I*'ve seen it measured, when I was in college, I
>>> have to believe this is very wrong.
>>>
>> Meteorology need not to bother to verify basic matter behaviour, if
>> it is well known, both measured and theoretized, in physical
>> chemistry.
>>
>> As meteorology is an applied science, when it comes to basic
>> phenomena.
>
> Where is the experimental data?

kO0k a choo, you stupid troll that cant read a HS book.

> In your imagination?  Is that good
> enough for me?  Apparently it is.

you in mental hospital KOOK, they should cut off access to computers to 
you koOktard


> And I are alright with this, as
> I indicate.
>

you got nothing at all to contribute, just your insanity

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

#554860

From	James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-19 23:08 -0800
Message-ID	<6dd28960-5334-4e02-ac74-40ad91f64097@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#554746

On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 4:34:27 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> Why do you think that is?
> 
> I know why:
> 
> Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl-GOPq8aA0
> 
> Why Meteorologists Maintain Dumb Explanations
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-1p1rJp1x4
> 
> H2O Surface Tension and Tornadoes
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q7zT-26BYQ
> 
> How Non-Newtonian Fluids Reveal the Mechanism Underlying Ice
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vPdAo78rU
> 
> Surface Tension, Jet Streams, Storms and the Twisted Truth of Meteorology
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6GZEn7N7Ss
> 
> Convection Versus Plasma
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk
> 
> Impact of Polarity Neutralization on the Water Sciences
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSGv08Rb_Lo
> 
> Alternative to Spiritualistic Thinking in the Atmospheric Sciences 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dexlOvP7mPw

The only response missing from these inane responses is Odd Bodkin telling us he saw it in a book once.

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

#555005

From	jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date	2016-02-20 19:09 +0000
Message-ID	<h8qmpc-55f.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to	#554860

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 4:34:27 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
>> Why do you think that is?
>> 
>> I know why:
>> 
>> Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl-GOPq8aA0
>> 
>> Why Meteorologists Maintain Dumb Explanations
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-1p1rJp1x4
>> 
>> H2O Surface Tension and Tornadoes
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q7zT-26BYQ
>> 
>> How Non-Newtonian Fluids Reveal the Mechanism Underlying Ice
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vPdAo78rU
>> 
>> Surface Tension, Jet Streams, Storms and the Twisted Truth of Meteorology
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6GZEn7N7Ss
>> 
>> Convection Versus Plasma
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk
>> 
>> Impact of Polarity Neutralization on the Water Sciences
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSGv08Rb_Lo
>> 
>> Alternative to Spiritualistic Thinking in the Atmospheric Sciences 
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dexlOvP7mPw
> 
> The only response missing from these inane responses is Odd Bodkin telling us he saw it in a book once.


Symptoms of Delusional Disorder

An unusually persistent idea or belief that is clearly untrue

Attempts by another to qualify or clarify are often met with strong
emotions, such as hostility

Lack of humor and hypersensitivity regarding the belief

http://www.regionalcenter.org/mental-health/delusional-disorder


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#555010

From	James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-20 11:23 -0800
Message-ID	<43caae95-e6cd-4621-b6a1-9935705164f3@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#555005

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 11:16:05 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 4:34:27 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> >> Why do you think that is?
> >> 
> >> I know why:
> >> 
> >> Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl-GOPq8aA0
> >> 
> >> Why Meteorologists Maintain Dumb Explanations
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-1p1rJp1x4
> >> 
> >> H2O Surface Tension and Tornadoes
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q7zT-26BYQ
> >> 
> >> How Non-Newtonian Fluids Reveal the Mechanism Underlying Ice
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vPdAo78rU
> >> 
> >> Surface Tension, Jet Streams, Storms and the Twisted Truth of Meteorology
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6GZEn7N7Ss
> >> 
> >> Convection Versus Plasma
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk
> >> 
> >> Impact of Polarity Neutralization on the Water Sciences
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSGv08Rb_Lo
> >> 
> >> Alternative to Spiritualistic Thinking in the Atmospheric Sciences 
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dexlOvP7mPw
> > 
> > The only response missing from these inane responses is Odd Bodkin telling us he saw it in a book once.
> 
> 
> Symptoms of Delusional Disorder
> 
> An unusually persistent idea or belief that is clearly untrue
> 
> Attempts by another to qualify or clarify are often met with strong
> emotions, such as hostility
> 
> Lack of humor and hypersensitivity regarding the belief
> 
> http://www.regionalcenter.org/mental-health/delusional-disorder

So, you have major scientific beliefs based on something somebody once saw in high school.  None of you nitwits is the least bit embarassed by this.  And *I* am the crazy one.  

Gee, golly.  I don't know about that.

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

#555036

From	jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date	2016-02-20 19:39 +0000
Message-ID	<v0smpc-55f.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to	#555010

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 11:16:05 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 4:34:27 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
>> >> Why do you think that is?
>> >> 
>> >> I know why:
>> >> 
>> >> Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
>> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl-GOPq8aA0
>> >> 
>> >> Why Meteorologists Maintain Dumb Explanations
>> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-1p1rJp1x4
>> >> 
>> >> H2O Surface Tension and Tornadoes
>> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q7zT-26BYQ
>> >> 
>> >> How Non-Newtonian Fluids Reveal the Mechanism Underlying Ice
>> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vPdAo78rU
>> >> 
>> >> Surface Tension, Jet Streams, Storms and the Twisted Truth of Meteorology
>> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6GZEn7N7Ss
>> >> 
>> >> Convection Versus Plasma
>> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk
>> >> 
>> >> Impact of Polarity Neutralization on the Water Sciences
>> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSGv08Rb_Lo
>> >> 
>> >> Alternative to Spiritualistic Thinking in the Atmospheric Sciences 
>> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dexlOvP7mPw
>> > 
>> > The only response missing from these inane responses is Odd Bodkin telling us he saw it in a book once.
>> 
>> 
>> Symptoms of Delusional Disorder
>> 
>> An unusually persistent idea or belief that is clearly untrue
>> 
>> Attempts by another to qualify or clarify are often met with strong
>> emotions, such as hostility
>> 
>> Lack of humor and hypersensitivity regarding the belief
>> 
>> http://www.regionalcenter.org/mental-health/delusional-disorder
> 
> So, you have major scientific beliefs based on something somebody once saw in high school.  None of you nitwits is the least bit embarassed by this.  And *I* am the crazy one.  
 
Nope, that is just your delusions trying to refute facts once again.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#555037

From	Sergio <invalid@invalid.com>
Date	2016-02-20 13:46 -0600
Message-ID	<naafqs$ojb$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#555010

On 2/20/2016 1:23 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 11:16:05 AM UTC-8,
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Symptoms of Delusional Disorder
>>
>> An unusually persistent idea or belief that is clearly untrue
>>
>> Attempts by another to qualify or clarify are often met with
>> strong emotions, such as hostility
>>
>> Lack of humor and hypersensitivity regarding the belief
>>
>> http://www.regionalcenter.org/mental-health/delusional-disorder
>
> So, you have major scientific beliefs based on something somebody
> once saw in high school.  None of you nitwits is the least bit
> embarassed by this.  And *I* am the crazy one.
>
> Gee, golly.  I don't know about that.

yep, and that proves to us you are delusional.
but you cannot see that, which is ok, that is one of the symptoms of 
being delusional.  In a newsgroup that is ok, but in home life it is a 
major disaster brewing.

you can always just let go of all these ideas,
they will never get you anywhere at all,
and move on to something else more construtive.

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

#555044

From	Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-20 12:11 -0800
Message-ID	<260f9a87-d4c0-41aa-81bb-67c7428bdfd4@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#555037

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 11:46:41 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> On 2/20/2016 1:23 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 11:16:05 AM UTC-8,
> > ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >> Symptoms of Delusional Disorder
> >>
> >> An unusually persistent idea or belief that is clearly untrue
> >>
> >> Attempts by another to qualify or clarify are often met with
> >> strong emotions, such as hostility
> >>
> >> Lack of humor and hypersensitivity regarding the belief
> >>
> >> http://www.regionalcenter.org/mental-health/delusional-disorder
> >
> > So, you have major scientific beliefs based on something somebody
> > once saw in high school.  None of you nitwits is the least bit
> > embarassed by this.  And *I* am the crazy one.
> >
> > Gee, golly.  I don't know about that.
> 
> yep, and that proves to us you are delusional.
> but you cannot see that, which is ok, that is one of the symptoms of 
> being delusional.  In a newsgroup that is ok, but in home life it is a 
> major disaster brewing.
> 
> you can always just let go of all these ideas,
> they will never get you anywhere at all,
> and move on to something else more construtive.

You can't dispute my theory.  Right?

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

#555122

From	Sergio <invalid@invalid.com>
Date	2016-02-20 16:24 -0600
Message-ID	<naap42$176s$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#555044

On 2/20/2016 2:11 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 11:46:41 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>> On 2/20/2016 1:23 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 11:16:05 AM UTC-8,
>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Symptoms of Delusional Disorder
>>>>
>>>> An unusually persistent idea or belief that is clearly untrue

>>>> Attempts by another to qualify or clarify are often met with
>>>> strong emotions, such as hostility
>>>>
>>>> Lack of humor and hypersensitivity regarding the belief

>>>> http://www.regionalcenter.org/mental-health/delusional-disorder
>>>
>>> So, you have major scientific beliefs based on something somebody
>>> once saw in high school.  None of you nitwits is the least bit
>>> embarassed by this.  And *I* am the crazy one.
>>>
>>> Gee, golly.  I don't know about that.
>
>> yep, and that proves to us you are delusional.
>> but you cannot see that, which is ok, that is one of the symptoms of
>> being delusional.  In a newsgroup that is ok, but in home life it is a
>> major disaster brewing.
>>
>> you can always just let go of all these ideas,
>> they will never get you anywhere at all,
>> and move on to something else more construtive.
>
> You can't dispute my theory.  Right?
>

sure, they are poop.
you cannot prove anything as you are incompetent,
you cannot convince anyone,
you don't have the tools,
the cheese has slid off your cracker.

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

#555124

From	Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-20 16:59 -0600
Message-ID	<gPydnVXKasAgclXLnZ2dnUU7-aednZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#555010

On 2/20/16 1:23 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> And*I*  am the crazy one.

   We already know that. What I don't want you to forget, is:

   Water vapour (H2O) like Oxygen (O2) like Nitrogen (N2) is an invisible
   gas. There is nothing to see.

 > Water vapour (H2O molecules)

 > Water vapor, water vapour or aqueous vapor, is the *gaseous phase* of
 > water. It is one state of water within the hydrosphere. Water vapor
 > can be produced from the *evaporation or boiling of liquid water* or
 > from the *sublimation of ice* . Unlike other forms of water, water
 > vapor is invisible. Under typical atmospheric conditions, water vapor
 > is continuously generated by evaporation and removed by condensation.
 > It is *lighter than air* and *triggers convection currents* that can
 > lead to clouds.

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#555206

From	Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-21 10:22 +0100
Message-ID	<nabvff$n8i$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#555124

Dne 20/02/2016 v 23:59 Sam Wormley napsal(a):

>  > It is *lighter than air* and *triggers convection currents* that can
>  > lead to clouds.

While this is true,
the major cause of convection is thermal,
higher temperature causing lower density and buoyancy.
(There is also turbulent and orographic convection.)

Above the condensation level,
condensation makes the trick with lowering of adiabatic gradient,
as cooling of up-going air is slowed by the latent heat.

This is helping to keep the buoyancy of the up-going cloud parts,
typically in Cumulus and Cumulonimbus clouds,
forming those known cauliflower-like structures.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

#555217

From	James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-21 01:58 -0800
Message-ID	<d20b2cb9-e6ea-4034-b0ea-ca2319d69ee5@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#555206

On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 1:22:45 AM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 20/02/2016 v 23:59 Sam Wormley napsal(a):
> 
> >  > It is *lighter than air* and *triggers convection currents* that can
> >  > lead to clouds.
> 
> While this is true,
> the major cause of convection is thermal,

No.  Not true. Warmer air absorbs more moisture droplets.  It is almost always heavier even than cooler air, for that reason.

> higher temperature causing lower density and buoyancy.
> (There is also turbulent and orographic convection.)

Any idiot can look this up on the internet, as you did.

Like all science groupies you think doing an internet search makes you an expert.  The fact is the experts aren't talking, for a reason.  And that reason is that their science doesn't add up.  It's just propaganda, like global warming.

> 
> Above the condensation level,
> condensation makes the trick with lowering of adiabatic gradient,
> as cooling of up-going air is slowed by the latent heat.
> 
> This is helping to keep the buoyancy of the up-going cloud parts,
> typically in Cumulus and Cumulonimbus clouds,
> forming those known cauliflower-like structures.

Cauliflower structure is easily explained without convection.

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

#555224

From	James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-21 02:56 -0800
Message-ID	<e24280a3-42b3-473f-a1e2-23779bee2f65@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#555206

On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 1:22:45 AM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 20/02/2016 v 23:59 Sam Wormley napsal(a):
> 
> >  > It is *lighter than air* and *triggers convection currents* that can
> >  > lead to clouds.
> 
> While this is true,
> the major cause of convection is thermal,
> higher temperature causing lower density and buoyancy.
> (There is also turbulent and orographic convection.)
> 
> Above the condensation level,
> condensation makes the trick with lowering of adiabatic gradient,
> as cooling of up-going air is slowed by the latent heat.

Latent heat?  You are a fool.

There is no steam.  No latent heat.  This is just absurd speculation.


> 
> This is helping to keep the buoyancy of the up-going cloud parts,
> typically in Cumulus and Cumulonimbus clouds,
> forming those known cauliflower-like structures.
> 
> -- 
> Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
> 
> Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

#555275

From	Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-21 12:39 -0600
Message-ID	<18CdnURH7PjHmVfLnZ2dnUU7-f-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#555206

On 2/21/16 3:22 AM, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 20/02/2016 v 23:59 Sam Wormley napsal(a):
>
>>   > It is *lighter than air* and *triggers convection currents* that can
>>   > lead to clouds.
>
> While this is true,
> the major cause of convection is thermal,
> higher temperature causing lower density and buoyancy.
> (There is also turbulent and orographic convection.)
>
> Above the condensation level,
> condensation makes the trick with lowering of adiabatic gradient,
> as cooling of up-going air is slowed by the latent heat.
>
> This is helping to keep the buoyancy of the up-going cloud parts,
> typically in Cumulus and Cumulonimbus clouds,
> forming those known cauliflower-like structures.
>

   That's correct, especially on smaller scales.



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#555045

From	Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-20 12:12 -0800
Message-ID	<3b3da356-59cc-461b-8786-8c36aa122e69@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#555005

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 11:16:05 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 4:34:27 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> >> Why do you think that is?
> >> 
> >> I know why:
> >> 
> >> Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl-GOPq8aA0
> >> 
> >> Why Meteorologists Maintain Dumb Explanations
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-1p1rJp1x4
> >> 
> >> H2O Surface Tension and Tornadoes
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q7zT-26BYQ
> >> 
> >> How Non-Newtonian Fluids Reveal the Mechanism Underlying Ice
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vPdAo78rU
> >> 
> >> Surface Tension, Jet Streams, Storms and the Twisted Truth of Meteorology
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6GZEn7N7Ss
> >> 
> >> Convection Versus Plasma
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk
> >> 
> >> Impact of Polarity Neutralization on the Water Sciences
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSGv08Rb_Lo
> >> 
> >> Alternative to Spiritualistic Thinking in the Atmospheric Sciences 
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dexlOvP7mPw
> > 
> > The only response missing from these inane responses is Odd Bodkin telling us he saw it in a book once.
> 
> 
> Symptoms of Delusional Disorder
> 
> An unusually persistent idea or belief that is clearly untrue
> 
> Attempts by another to qualify or clarify are often met with strong
> emotions, such as hostility
> 
> Lack of humor and hypersensitivity regarding the belief
> 
> http://www.regionalcenter.org/mental-health/delusional-disorder
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jim Pennino

All you bozos got is name calling.  Semantic triviality.  No substantive argument.

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

#555081

From	jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date	2016-02-20 20:32 +0000
Message-ID	<l3vmpc-emf.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to	#555045

Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:

> All you bozos got is name calling.  Semantic triviality.  No substantive argument.

Differnces in air density, convection, and water evaporation can all be
seen in real time with Schlieren imaging, which is simple enough to do
that it is a fairly common sience fair project for children.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →

csiph-web

Meteorologists have never actually measured the comparative weight of moist air.

Contents

#555219

#554877

#554940

#554945

#554946

#554993

#554860

#555005

#555010

#555036

#555037

#555044

#555122

#555124

#555206

#555217

#555224

#555275

#555045

#555081