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

Groups > sci.physics > #556893 > unrolled thread

Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 09:35 -0800
    Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 10:14 -0800
      Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 11:07 -0800
        Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 11:24 -0800
      Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 14:11 -0800
        Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 16:26 -0600
          Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 14:38 -0800
            Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 17:02 -0600
    Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 18:06 +0000
    Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:34 -0600
      Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 11:11 -0800
        Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 13:22 -0600
          Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 11:26 -0800
            Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 13:29 -0600
              Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:00 -0800
                Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:04 -0800
                  Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 14:06 -0600
                    Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:17 -0800
                      Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 23:01 +0000
                        Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 15:24 -0800
                          Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 23:42 +0000
                            Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 18:33 -0800
                              Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-27 03:52 +0000
                                pull or\and push it noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 16:58 -0800
                        Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 16:03 -0800
                Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 14:05 -0600
                  Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:13 -0800
                    Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 14:16 -0600
                Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 20:52 +0000
                  Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 13:05 -0800
                    Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 23:02 +0000
                      Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 15:25 -0800
                        Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 23:47 +0000
    Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-26 13:03 -0600
    is pulled by noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 16:46 -0800
    Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 09:41 -0800
      Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-06 11:47 -0600
    Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-07 19:38 +1100
      Re: Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 01:01 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#556893 — Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean/comment-page-7/#comment-114096


Will:
My point is that no one or group has the slightest clue as to how this atmosphere may work. Any claim of such must be an attempt at deliberate scam!

James:
Atmospheric flow isn't pushed, it is pulled.  Expansiveness and buoyancy play no role.  Kinetic energy running along distinct boundaries at the top of the troposphere create the flows--jet strams--that create the LOW PRESSURE that pulls the rest of the atmosphere along.  Moisture in the atmosphere facilitates the kinetic energy and provides the leverage by which the upper atmosphere maintains its grip on the lower atmosphere through storms.

One simple observation that proves I'm right and the convection model is wrong:
The fact that storms and low pressure are correlated.  Specifically, if the convection model was correct then storms would have to be correlated with high pressure.  Bu they aren't.  As predicted by my model storms are associated with low pressure.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#556903

Dne pátek 26. února 2016 18:35:30 UTC+1 James McGinn napsal(a):

> One simple observation that proves I'm right and the convection model is wrong:
> The fact that storms and low pressure are correlated.  Specifically, if the convection model was correct then storms would have to be correlated with high pressure.  Bu they aren't.  As predicted by my model storms are associated with low pressure.

Sancta simplicitas.... There is no need of high pressure for storms,
what you would have known, if you had learnt yourself the basics of meteorology.

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

#556929

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 10:14:48 AM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:


> Sancta simplicitas.... There is no need of high pressure for storms,
> what you would have known, if you had learnt yourself the basics of meteorology.

You are a vague nitwit.  If convection caused storms then storms would be associated with high pressure.  

Nitwits can't distinguish between what they understand and what they only believe.

The atmosphere works very different from what meteorologists tell you.  

So, go ahead, dumbass, tell us how convection causes low pressure, you imbecile.

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

#556944

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 11:07:46 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 10:14:48 AM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
> 
> 
> > Sancta simplicitas.... There is no need of high pressure for storms,
> > what you would have known, if you had learnt yourself the basics of meteorology.
> 
> You are a vague nitwit.  If convection caused storms then storms would be associated with high pressure.  
> 
> Nitwits can't distinguish between what they understand and what they only believe.
> 
> The atmosphere works very different from what meteorologists tell you.  
> 
> So, go ahead, dumbass, tell us how convection causes low pressure, you imbecile.


Notice how sure these nitwits are that they are right.  Yet they can't actually formulate an argument.

We see this same phenomena among people that have deep religious beliefs.

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

#557036

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 10:14:48 AM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne pátek 26. února 2016 18:35:30 UTC+1 James McGinn napsal(a):
> 
> > One simple observation that proves I'm right and the convection model is wrong:
> > The fact that storms and low pressure are correlated.  Specifically, if the convection model was correct then storms would have to be correlated with high pressure.  Bu they aren't.  As predicted by my model storms are associated with low pressure.
> 
> Sancta simplicitas.... There is no need of high pressure for storms,
> what you would have known, if you had learnt yourself the basics of meteorology.

Address the issue, you evasive jackass.

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

#557040

On 2/26/16 4:11 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 10:14:48 AM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
>> Dne pátek 26. února 2016 18:35:30 UTC+1 James McGinn napsal(a):
>>
>>> One simple observation that proves I'm right and the convection model is wrong:
>>> The fact that storms and low pressure are correlated.  Specifically, if the convection model was correct then storms would have to be correlated with high pressure.  Bu they aren't.  As predicted by my model storms are associated with low pressure.
>>
>> Sancta simplicitas.... There is no need of high pressure for storms,
>> what you would have known, if you had learnt yourself the basics of meteorology.
>
> Address the issue, you evasive jackass.
>

   The issue, James, is that you don't have the foggiest of the basics of
   meteorology.

   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]

#557046

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 2:26:07 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 2/26/16 4:11 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 10:14:48 AM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
> >> Dne pátek 26. února 2016 18:35:30 UTC+1 James McGinn napsal(a):
> >>
> >>> One simple observation that proves I'm right and the convection model is wrong:
> >>> The fact that storms and low pressure are correlated.  Specifically, if the convection model was correct then storms would have to be correlated with high pressure.  Bu they aren't.  As predicted by my model storms are associated with low pressure.
> >>
> >> Sancta simplicitas.... There is no need of high pressure for storms,
> >> what you would have known, if you had learnt yourself the basics of meteorology.
> >
> > Address the issue, you evasive jackass.
> >
> 
>    The issue, James, is that you don't have the foggiest of the basics of
>    meteorology.

Like global warming, meteorology appears to make sense to the dull-witted.  

Dimwits are easily convinced by explanations that show the slightest congruity with what they want to believe.  And they always want to believe what is simple and obvious.  

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

#557056

On 2/26/16 4:38 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> Like global warming, meteorology appears to make sense to the dull-witted.


   There is no doubt that the earth is warming. Just look at the
   observables.

NOAA | Climate Information and Indicators
   http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information
   http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/
   http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201512

NASA | Global Climate Change Evidence
   http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

IPCC | Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)
   http://www.ipcc.ch
   http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf




-- 

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]

#556904

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean/comment-page-7/#comment-114096
> 
> 
> Will:
> My point is that no one or group has the slightest clue as to how this

Who is Will and why haven't you figured out how to limit line lengths to
less than 78 characters?


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#556909

On 2/26/16 11:35 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> My point is that no one or group has the slightest clue as to how this atmosphere may work.


   Translation: James McGinn is just about the only poster to sci.physics
   that has no clue to how earth's troposphere works.


-- 

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]

#556934

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 10:34:03 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 2/26/16 11:35 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> > My point is that no one or group has the slightest clue as to how this atmosphere may work.
> 
> 
>    Translation: James McGinn is just about the only poster to sci.physics
>    that has no clue to how earth's troposphere works.

I predicted, correctly it appears, that nobody would have a substantive dispute with this assertion.  They would only have the emotional disputes of simpletons that are losing their simple model.

Since you, obviously, can't describe the substance of your dispute can you describe your emotions, you nitwit?

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

#556942

On 2/26/16 1:11 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> I predicted, correctly it appears, that nobody would have a substantive dispute with this assertion.


   James against the world. Let's get so some basic background:


   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]

#556949

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 11:22:34 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 2/26/16 1:11 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > I predicted, correctly it appears, that nobody would have a substantive dispute with this assertion.
> 
> 
>    James against the world. Let's get so some basic background:
> 
> 
>    Water vapour (H2O) like Oxygen (O2) like Nitrogen (N2) is an invisible
>    gas. There is nothing to see.

Sam, other than the one on top of your head, do you have a point?

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

#556951

On 2/26/16 1:26 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> Sam, other than the one on top of your head, do you have a point?


   Here is my point, James:

   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]

#556965

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 11:29:37 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 2/26/16 1:26 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > Sam, other than the one on top of your head, do you have a point?
> 
> 
>    Here is my point, James:
> 
>    Water vapour (H2O) like Oxygen (O2) like Nitrogen (N2) is an invisible
>    gas. There is nothing to see.

Gaseous H2O; H2O(g) = Invisible (g is for gas)

Evaporate H2O; H2O(l) = Sometimes invisible, sometimes visible * (l is for liquid)

(*) It depends on size of droplet/cluster.  The exact number isn't known, but generally a cluster with a diameter smaller than a photon is invisible.


Sam, the real world is too complex for global warming believers.

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

#556968

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 12:00:33 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 11:29:37 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > On 2/26/16 1:26 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > > Sam, other than the one on top of your head, do you have a point?
> > 
> > 
> >    Here is my point, James:
> > 
> >    Water vapour (H2O) like Oxygen (O2) like Nitrogen (N2) is an invisible
> >    gas. There is nothing to see.
> 
> Gaseous H2O; H2O(g) = Invisible (g is for gas)
> 
> Evaporate H2O; H2O(l) = Sometimes invisible, sometimes visible * (l is for liquid)
> 
> (*) It depends on size of droplet/cluster.  The exact number isn't known, but generally a cluster with a diameter smaller than a photon is invisible.
> 
> 
> Sam, the real world is too complex for global warming believers.

One more thing, Gaseous H2O, H2O(g), requires a temperature above its boiling temperature/pressure.  These conditions don't occur in our atmosphere.  Consequently all moisture in our atmosphere is H2O(l), evaporate.  IOW, there is no gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere. 

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

#556970

On 2/26/16 2:04 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> One more thing, Gaseous H2O, H2O(g), requires a temperature above its boiling temperature/pressure.


   Wrong, James, you don't understand evaporation.

   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]

#556982

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 12:06:09 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
 
>    Wrong, James, you don't understand evaporation.

Dumb people believe the invisibility of an evaporate proves it is gas. 

It doesn't.  

Dumb people believe a sliver of CO2 can trap heat.

It doesn't.

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

#557055

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 12:06:09 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>  
>>    Wrong, James, you don't understand evaporation.
> 
> Dumb people believe the invisibility of an evaporate proves it is gas. 
> 
> It doesn't.  

True, but LOTS of other things do.

And it is invisible only to the human eye.

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#557072

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 3:01:26 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 12:06:09 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >  
> >>    Wrong, James, you don't understand evaporation.
> > 
> > Dumb people believe the invisibility of an evaporate proves it is gas. 
> > 
> > It doesn't.  
> 
> True, but LOTS of other things do.

Your delusions aren't evidence.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web