Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #545002 > unrolled thread
| Started by | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-12 21:58 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-01-31 22:31 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 57 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 21:58 -0800
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 21:16 -0800
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-14 17:08 +0000
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 18:27 +0100
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 10:23 -0800
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 10:23 -0800
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-14 10:35 -0800
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 13:43 -0500
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 12:03 -0800
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-14 12:09 -0800
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 12:13 -0800
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-14 21:19 -0800
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 22:03 -0800
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-14 22:38 -0800
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 23:05 -0800
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 10:25 -0800
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-15 12:27 -0800
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 10:58 -0600
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-15 07:06 +0000
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 10:22 -0800
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-15 20:33 +0000
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 13:22 -0800
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 16:07 -0600
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-16 00:14 +0000
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-15 18:52 -0600
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 15:12 -0600
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-17 15:34 -0600
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 19:23 -0800
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-21 21:53 -0600
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 09:01 -0800
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 00:30 -0800
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-15 12:34 -0800
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-14 18:53 +0000
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-14 19:13 +0000
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 12:10 -0800
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-14 20:29 +0000
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 12:42 -0800
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-14 21:46 +0000
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 18:15 -0800
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-15 17:23 +0000
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 10:14 -0800
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-15 19:07 +0000
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 12:07 -0800
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-17 10:31 -0600
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 12:19 -0800
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-15 16:31 -0600
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 10:17 -0800
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 14:11 -0800
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-15 18:00 -0600
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-16 00:06 +0000
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 16:57 -0800
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-16 06:10 +0000
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-16 23:34 -0600
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 15:21 -0600
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 11:36 -0800
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 10:16 -0800
Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 22:31 -0800
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 21:58 -0800 |
| Subject | Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought |
| Message-ID | <fbd1b3c6-e2fd-42a9-8366-01fcff318e61@googlegroups.com> |
Boundaries are the seams in our atmosphere where energy accumulates allowing vortices to form. Vortices can only form if one body of air is moist and the other is dry. (Specifically, the boundary conditions invoke a form of H2O that, effectively, activates its surface tension. [Intricate knowledge of H2O hydrogen bonding dynamics is necessary to comprehend this]). Vortices are a constant along the boundary layer between the moist troposphere and the dry stratosphere. These are the jet streams. Vortices (jet streams and their many, usually invisible, tributaries) are the conduits of energy transfer in our atmosphere. They are self-sustaining energetically in that the vortex invokes an aerodynamic effect of air entering a tube and accelerating along its length, powered by air pressure, as it experiences isolation from the friction of atmosphere, producing a ramjet effect. This is how our atmosphere actually functions. Convection plays no role whatsoever. Storms happen when the tributaries of the jet streams run out of moisture along the top of the troposphere and begin to grow down into the lower atmosphere. But they require smooth boundary layers (again, between moist bodies of air and dry bodies of air) to grow down. If they find an extremely high quality boundary layer they might grow all the way to the ground causing a tornado. Whatever the case, the net effect of a storm is to pull moist air higher to re-hydrate the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere. If, however, they find no boundary layer or if the boundary layer has had its smoothness destroyed they cannot grow down. And no storm will happen. Smooth boundary layers between moist bodies of air and dry bodies of air cannot be created by man. They form naturally during periods of warmth and atmospheric calmness as heavier bodies of moist air pool-up under lighter bodies of dry air. (This phenomenon has been labelled [misnamed] by meteorlogists as "inversion" layers.) If the smoothness of these bodies of air is maintained as it is pulled up into the flow of the jet streams there is a good chance that it will be used as a pathway to achieve vortex growth downward to initiate a storm. On the other hand, if the smoothness is destroyed by wind farms, for example, there is little or no chance that it will serve as a pathway for vortex growth and a storm will not happen. This is why when wind farms are constructed drought soon follows.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 21:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5d78f522-e572-470a-9090-b27a1a3fb42c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545002 |
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 9:58:20 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: Smooth boundary layers between moist bodies of air and dry bodies of air cannot be created by man. They form naturally during periods of warmth and atmospheric calmness as heavier bodies of moist air pool-up under lighter bodies of dry air.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 17:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n78kmu$91e$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #545276 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> writes: >On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 9:58:20 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: >Smooth boundary layers between moist bodies of air and dry bodies of air >cannot be created by man. They form naturally during periods of warmth >and atmospheric calmness as heavier bodies of moist air pool-up under >lighter bodies of dry air. Moist air is lighter than dry air at the same temperature, not heavier. Any experienced pilot or meteorologist can tell you that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 18:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n78llk$fmm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #545366 |
On 01/14/2016 06:08 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 9:58:20 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > >> Smooth boundary layers between moist bodies of air and dry bodies of air >> cannot be created by man. They form naturally during periods of warmth >> and atmospheric calmness as heavier bodies of moist air pool-up under >> lighter bodies of dry air. > > Moist air is lighter than dry air at the same temperature, not heavier. > > Any experienced pilot or meteorologist can tell you that. He is obsessed by his idea, blind and deaf to any theoretical principles and experimental evidences. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 10:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4f97b5ad-23cd-4b41-a233-0432fc6fe8bf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545372 |
On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 9:27:55 AM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote: > On 01/14/2016 06:08 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > > James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> writes: > > > >> On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 9:58:20 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > > > >> Smooth boundary layers between moist bodies of air and dry bodies of air > >> cannot be created by man. They form naturally during periods of warmth > >> and atmospheric calmness as heavier bodies of moist air pool-up under > >> lighter bodies of dry air. > > > > Moist air is lighter than dry air at the same temperature, not heavier. > > > > Any experienced pilot or meteorologist can tell you that. > > He is obsessed by his idea, blind and deaf > to any theoretical principles and experimental evidences. It's my discovery. (Or, one of them.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 10:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <31e32040-f5e3-4e88-9d16-6fac3dbc3a27@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545366 |
On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 9:08:57 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: > Moist air is lighter than dry air at the same temperature, not heavier. Actually, that is a myth. Moist air is always heavier. > Any experienced pilot or meteorologist can tell you that. Their opinions are based on anecdote and consensus, not facts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 10:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e0d4dc52-c0d8-4ab0-a6b4-9d278eb103b0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545396 |
On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 10:23:19 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 9:08:57 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: > > > Moist air is lighter than dry air at the same temperature, not heavier. > > Actually, that is a myth. Moist air is always heavier. > > > Any experienced pilot or meteorologist can tell you that. > > Their opinions are based on anecdote and consensus, not facts. Here are some facts for you to refute... http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/260/ http://whyfiles.org/2010/the-weather-guys-heavy-air/ http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/atmospheric/is-humid-air-heavier-than-dry-air.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air#Humidity_.28water_vapor.29
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 13:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <8%Rly.160275$TE6.90394@fx41.iad> |
| In reply to | #545413 |
On 01/14/2016 01:35 PM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/atmospheric/is-humid-air-heavier-than-dry-air.htm
Herb says he knows how everything works. But this link shows his "heavy
air" theory is totally wrong. No surprise there. He's been posting wrong
theories for 20 years.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 12:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e7bfa5a4-2fdc-4511-adb2-0fe29683f2e5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545413 |
On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 10:36:08 AM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 10:23:19 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > > On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 9:08:57 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: > > > > > Moist air is lighter than dry air at the same temperature, not heavier. > > > > Actually, that is a myth. Moist air is always heavier. > > > > > Any experienced pilot or meteorologist can tell you that. > > > > Their opinions are based on anecdote and consensus, not facts. > > Here are some facts for you to refute... > > http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/260/ > > http://whyfiles.org/2010/the-weather-guys-heavy-air/ > > http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/atmospheric/is-humid-air-heavier-than-dry-air.htm > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air#Humidity_.28water_vapor.29 Relevance?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 12:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <be95958f-c871-4199-bd1b-46572e2bd30f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545433 |
On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 12:03:45 PM UTC-8, Solving Tornadoes wrote: > On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 10:36:08 AM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 10:23:19 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > > > On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 9:08:57 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: > > > > > > > Moist air is lighter than dry air at the same temperature, not heavier. > > > > > > Actually, that is a myth. Moist air is always heavier. > > > > > > > Any experienced pilot or meteorologist can tell you that. > > > > > > Their opinions are based on anecdote and consensus, not facts. > > > > Here are some facts for you to refute... > > > > http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/260/ > > > > http://whyfiles.org/2010/the-weather-guys-heavy-air/ > > > > http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/atmospheric/is-humid-air-heavier-than-dry-air.htm > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air#Humidity_.28water_vapor.29 > > Relevance? Perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 12:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <57891c79-7bee-4e51-9eb6-118f24df2c6e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545435 |
On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 12:03:45 PM UTC-8, Solving Tornadoes wrote: > > On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 10:36:08 AM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 10:23:19 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > > > > On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 9:08:57 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: > > > > > > > > > Moist air is lighter than dry air at the same temperature, not heavier. > > > > > > > > Actually, that is a myth. Moist air is always heavier. > > > > > > > > > Any experienced pilot or meteorologist can tell you that. > > > > > > > > Their opinions are based on anecdote and consensus, not facts. > > > > > > Here are some facts for you to refute... > > > > > > http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/260/ > > > > > > http://whyfiles.org/2010/the-weather-guys-heavy-air/ > > > > > > http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/atmospheric/is-humid-air-heavier-than-dry-air.htm > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air#Humidity_.28water_vapor.29 > > > > Relevance? > > Perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem? Read other posts to understanding the probitive issue here. All the links you posted here are based on anecdote and consensus, not science. Science has techniques for distinguishing between collective beliefs and facts. But they don't work unless you apply them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 21:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5c71ed92-efa7-408c-9cf6-dcb78bf06e83@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545438 |
On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 12:13:09 PM UTC-8, Solving Tornadoes wrote: > On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 12:03:45 PM UTC-8, Solving Tornadoes wrote: > > > On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 10:36:08 AM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 10:23:19 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > > > > > On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 9:08:57 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Moist air is lighter than dry air at the same temperature, not heavier. > > > > > > > > > > Actually, that is a myth. Moist air is always heavier. > > > > > > > > > > > Any experienced pilot or meteorologist can tell you that. > > > > > > > > > > Their opinions are based on anecdote and consensus, not facts. > > > > > > > > Here are some facts for you to refute... > > > > > > > > http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/260/ > > > > > > > > http://whyfiles.org/2010/the-weather-guys-heavy-air/ > > > > > > > > http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/atmospheric/is-humid-air-heavier-than-dry-air.htm > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air#Humidity_.28water_vapor.29 > > > > > > Relevance? > > > > Perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem? > > Read other posts to understanding the probitive issue here. All the links you posted here are based on anecdote and consensus, not science. > > Science has techniques for distinguishing between collective beliefs and facts. But they don't work unless you apply them. You state that all the links I provided are based on anecdotes and consensus, and not science, but apparently you didn't actually read, for example, the Wiki link... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air#Humidity_.28water_vapor.29 ... which is, in almost its entirety, nothing but science, filled with formulae and facts. You, on the other hand, have presented ZERO facts and/or calculations to support your own position. Go ahead, show us all where the faults lie in the Wiki article, if you can, and good luck with that!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 22:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fab90298-b166-415c-a3d0-ce6c0fbe28ce@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545563 |
On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 9:19:50 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > You state that all the links I provided are based > on anecdotes and consensus, and not science, Uh, huh. > but apparently you didn't actually read, for example, > the Wiki link... I did read it. And I stand by my previous statement. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air#Humidity_.28water_vapor.29 > > ... which is, in almost its entirety, nothing but > science, filled with formulae and facts. > You, on the other hand, have presented ZERO facts and/or > calculations to support your own position. Go ahead, > show us all where the faults lie in the Wiki article, > if you can, and good luck with that! I don't dispute the facts and/or calculations. I dispute the interpretation of the facts and/or calculations. What message do you think it sends that you are not addressing my argument and you are not making an argument of your own?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 22:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3dc4a6fb-a0ec-445a-b1bb-c16e908a400b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545564 |
On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 10:03:16 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 9:19:50 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > You state that all the links I provided are based > > on anecdotes and consensus, and not science, > > Uh, huh. > > > but apparently you didn't actually read, for example, > > the Wiki link... > > I did read it. And I stand by my previous statement. > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air#Humidity_.28water_vapor.29 > > > > ... which is, in almost its entirety, nothing but > > science, filled with formulae and facts. > > > You, on the other hand, have presented ZERO facts and/or > > calculations to support your own position. Go ahead, > > show us all where the faults lie in the Wiki article, > > if you can, and good luck with that! > > I don't dispute the facts and/or calculations. I dispute > the interpretation of the facts and/or calculations. Well, I think the calculations and the facts can stand on their own, and do not need any interpretation. Since when do math results need interpretation? I can clearly see for myself that dry air is heavier than moist air, at the same temperature, from the math presented. If you don't dispute this math, how can you dispute the result? Interpretation? Really? > What message do you think it sends that you are not > addressing my argument and you are not making an > argument of your own? I'm not the one here making claims that are contrary to virtually all the atmospheric scientists, so why do I need to make an argument of my own? You have made no argument whatsoever, other than strictly verbal. I have seen no science from you at all. You can talk until the cows come home, but you haven't proven a darn thing!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 23:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ee5c5893-3878-4f5f-93c1-38b8d1218f15@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545571 |
On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 10:38:05 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not interested in debating your imagination.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 10:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <91e3b9ec-a5aa-4dff-a69b-d07f7cdd167f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545571 |
On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 10:38:05 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > Well, I think the calculations and the facts can stand on their own, and do not need any interpretation. That is because you are an idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 12:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4d578d14-371b-42c9-a895-f52304893fa8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545641 |
On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 10:25:13 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 10:38:05 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > Well, I think the calculations and the facts can stand on their own, and do not need any interpretation. > > That is because you are an idiot. ... said the guy who can't back up his own position with any science whatsoever... http://www.lovethispic.com/uploaded_images/88628-Troll-Spray.png
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 10:58 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7b8g7$3rq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #545564 |
On 1/15/2016 12:03 AM, James McGinn wrote: > On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 9:19:50 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > I don't dispute the facts and/or calculations. I dispute > the interpretation of the facts and/or calculations. > > What message do you think it sends that you are not > addressing my argument and you are not making an > argument of your own? > pnalsing, I just want to observe that Jim McGinn is noticeably cranking the reel on his fishing rod, and I think he believes he has you hooked. He is starting his traditional maneuvers now of trying to get you to convince him of something he is going to refuse to acknowledge. Your choice, of course, whether to waste your time. Mudwrestling pigs: you get dirty and the pig likes it. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 07:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <gdimmc-67f.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #545563 |
pnalsing@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 12:13:09 PM UTC-8, Solving Tornadoes wrote: >> On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: >> > On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 12:03:45 PM UTC-8, Solving Tornadoes wrote: >> > > On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 10:36:08 AM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: >> > > > On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 10:23:19 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: >> > > > > On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 9:08:57 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > Moist air is lighter than dry air at the same temperature, not heavier. >> > > > > >> > > > > Actually, that is a myth. Moist air is always heavier. >> > > > > >> > > > > > Any experienced pilot or meteorologist can tell you that. >> > > > > >> > > > > Their opinions are based on anecdote and consensus, not facts. >> > > > >> > > > Here are some facts for you to refute... >> > > > >> > > > http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/260/ >> > > > >> > > > http://whyfiles.org/2010/the-weather-guys-heavy-air/ >> > > > >> > > > http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/atmospheric/is-humid-air-heavier-than-dry-air.htm >> > > > >> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air#Humidity_.28water_vapor.29 >> > > >> > > Relevance? >> > >> > Perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem? >> >> Read other posts to understanding the probitive issue here. All the links you posted here are based on anecdote and consensus, not science. >> >> Science has techniques for distinguishing between collective beliefs and facts. But they don't work unless you apply them. > > You state that all the links I provided are based on anecdotes and consensus, and not science, but apparently you didn't actually read, for example, the Wiki link... > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air#Humidity_.28water_vapor.29 > > ... which is, in almost its entirety, nothing but science, filled with formulae and facts. > > You, on the other hand, have presented ZERO facts and/or calculations to support your own position. Go ahead, show us all where the faults lie in the Wiki article, if you can, and good luck with that! You realize you are arguing with a lunatic? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 10:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <97c3f24e-dd27-4954-a3a8-459b5ffaabe5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545601 |
On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 6:05:06 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > pnalsing@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 12:13:09 PM UTC-8, Solving Tornadoes wrote: > >> On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > >> > On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 12:03:45 PM UTC-8, Solving Tornadoes wrote: > >> > > On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 10:36:08 AM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > >> > > > On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 10:23:19 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > >> > > > > On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 9:08:57 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Moist air is lighter than dry air at the same temperature, not heavier. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Actually, that is a myth. Moist air is always heavier. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Any experienced pilot or meteorologist can tell you that. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Their opinions are based on anecdote and consensus, not facts. > >> > > > > >> > > > Here are some facts for you to refute... > >> > > > > >> > > > http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/260/ > >> > > > > >> > > > http://whyfiles.org/2010/the-weather-guys-heavy-air/ > >> > > > > >> > > > http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/atmospheric/is-humid-air-heavier-than-dry-air.htm > >> > > > > >> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air#Humidity_.28water_vapor.29 > >> > > > >> > > Relevance? > >> > > >> > Perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem? > >> > >> Read other posts to understanding the probitive issue here. All the links you posted here are based on anecdote and consensus, not science. > >> > >> Science has techniques for distinguishing between collective beliefs and facts. But they don't work unless you apply them. > > > > You state that all the links I provided are based on anecdotes and consensus, and not science, but apparently you didn't actually read, for example, the Wiki link... > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air#Humidity_.28water_vapor.29 > > > > ... which is, in almost its entirety, nothing but science, filled with formulae and facts. > > > > You, on the other hand, have presented ZERO facts and/or calculations to support your own position. Go ahead, show us all where the faults lie in the Wiki article, if you can, and good luck with that! > > You realize you are arguing with a lunatic? > > > -- > Jim Pennino You simpletons couldn't muster an argument to save your life. You are like church ladies quoting the bible except you have the internet as your bible. Frickin retards.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web