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

Groups > sci.physics > #558873 > unrolled thread

Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 07:04 -0800
    Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 09:22 -0600
      Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 07:31 -0800
        Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 09:53 -0800
          Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-03 11:58 -0600
            Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 10:17 -0800
              Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 10:33 -0800
            Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 10:38 -0800
          Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 10:29 -0800
            Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 12:32 -0600
    Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 09:24 -0600
    Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 09:46 -0800
      Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 12:12 -0600
      Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 10:19 -0800
        Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-03-03 10:30 -0800
          Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 10:35 -0800
        Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 12:34 -0600
          Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 10:40 -0800
            Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 12:45 -0600
              Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-03 20:17 +0000
                Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 12:41 -0800
                  Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 20:53 +0000
                    Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 13:20 -0800
                      Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 21:59 +0000
                        Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 15:04 -0800
                          Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 23:43 +0000
                            Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 15:51 -0800
                              Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-04 00:10 +0000
                                Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 16:29 -0800
                                  Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-04 00:44 +0000
                                    Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 17:34 -0800
                                  Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 21:14 -0800
                                    Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-05 06:48 +0000
                                    Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 08:14 -0600
                Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 12:57 -0800
                  Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 21:15 +0000
                    Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 13:27 -0800
                      Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 22:01 +0000
                        Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 14:18 -0800
                          Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 22:47 +0000
                            Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 15:11 -0800
                              Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 23:44 +0000
                    Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 19:17 -0800
                      Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-04 04:06 +0000
                        Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 21:11 -0800
                          Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-05 06:53 +0000
                            Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 06:20 -0800
                              Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-05 18:57 +0000
                          Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 08:18 -0600
                  Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-03 21:27 +0000
                    Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 13:36 -0800
                      Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 22:01 +0000
                      Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-03 23:44 +0000
                        Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 15:55 -0800
                        Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 16:41 -0800
                          Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-04 01:37 +0000
                            Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 17:55 -0800
                              Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-04 02:40 +0000
                                Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 18:52 -0800
                                  Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-04 04:08 +0000
                    Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 16:25 -0600
                      Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 14:42 -0800
                        Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 23:05 +0000
                          Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 15:25 -0800
                            Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 23:45 +0000
                      Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 22:50 +0000
                        Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 15:12 -0800
                          Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 23:48 +0000
        Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:57 -0800

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#558873 — Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect.

http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2011/08/26/how-to-get-off-the-ground-with-nothing-but-water-almost/#comment-39222

The reason warm, moist air isn't constantly rushing up through the abundance of cool, dry air that is but a few hundred meters above is because it is heavier.  The reason it is heavier is because it contains microdroplets of H2O and not the gaseous H2O that meteorologists, absurdly, have assumed.  

In other words, meteorology's notion of moist air convection is a hoax, not unlike climatology's notion of greenhouse effect.

It's really that simple. It's just bad science.  And a minimal amount of fact checking reveals it.  

Don't be gullible.

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#558874

   That is sad, James, for you are denying big chunks of Meteorology
   and Climatology. I'll bet you attempted a college course in
   meteorology and failed the course.

   Many a person who failed a course, have gone on to disparage a
   whole field of study because they did not master the content.

   In this newsgroup there are those who failed to understand
   relativity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, climatology,
   particle physics and now meteorology.

   Like I said, it is sad. Sad, especially in a time when so much
   knowledge is accessible from your keyboard.



-- 

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]

#558877

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 7:22:53 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> That is sad, James, for you are denying big chunks of Meteorology
>    and Climatology. I'll bet you attempted a college course in
>    meteorology and failed the course.
> 
>    Many a person who failed a course, have gone on to disparage a
>    whole field of study because they did not master the content.
> 
>    In this newsgroup there are those who failed to understand
>    relativity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, climatology,
>    particle physics and now meteorology.
> 
>    Like I said, it is sad. Sad, especially in a time when so much
>    knowledge is accessible from your keyboard.

It is sad that you and so many like you have reduced science to petty politics.

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

#558913

Dne čtvrtek 3. března 2016 16:31:54 UTC+1 James McGinn napsal(a):
> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 7:22:53 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > That is sad, James, for you are denying big chunks of Meteorology
> >    and Climatology. I'll bet you attempted a college course in
> >    meteorology and failed the course.
> > 
> >    Many a person who failed a course, have gone on to disparage a
> >    whole field of study because they did not master the content.
> > 
> >    In this newsgroup there are those who failed to understand
> >    relativity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, climatology,
> >    particle physics and now meteorology.
> > 
> >    Like I said, it is sad. Sad, especially in a time when so much
> >    knowledge is accessible from your keyboard.
> 
> It is sad that you and so many like you have reduced science to petty politics.

It is sad you focus on rudeness and insults.

If you rather focused on the fact the energy of a molecule is not determined by temperature, you would see its critical consequence for your hypothesis.

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

#558918

On 3/3/2016 11:53 AM, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne čtvrtek 3. března 2016 16:31:54 UTC+1 James McGinn napsal(a):
>> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 7:22:53 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>> That is sad, James, for you are denying big chunks of Meteorology
>>>     and Climatology. I'll bet you attempted a college course in
>>>     meteorology and failed the course.
>>>
>>>     Many a person who failed a course, have gone on to disparage a
>>>     whole field of study because they did not master the content.

>>>     In this newsgroup there are those who failed to understand
>>>     relativity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, climatology,
>>>     particle physics and now meteorology.
>>>
>>>     Like I said, it is sad. Sad, especially in a time when so much
>>>     knowledge is accessible from your keyboard.
>>
>> It is sad that you and so many like you have reduced science to petty politics.
>
> It is sad you focus on rudeness and insults.
>
> If you rather focused on the fact the energy of a molecule is not determined by temperature, you would see its critical consequence for your hypothesis.
>

it is interesting to review the model of a large # of molecules in a 
closed box at a specific temperature and pressure.

the Mean Free path until a collision.

the number of moles of the molecules put into the box.

all the relationships there based upon just molecule moving along and 
hitting another one, bounding off,

then throw in slight polar molecules for small effect(function of temp 
and pressure.)

temp and pressure are global mesures of the number and intensity of 
molecular collissions.

(spelt check OFF!)

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

#558925

Dne čtvrtek 3. března 2016 18:59:44 UTC+1 Sergio napsal(a):
> 
> it is interesting to review the model of a large # of molecules in a 
> closed box at a specific temperature and pressure.
> 
> the Mean Free path until a collision.
> 
> the number of moles of the molecules put into the box.
> 
> all the relationships there based upon just molecule moving along and 
> hitting another one, bounding off,
> 
> then throw in slight polar molecules for small effect(function of temp 
> and pressure.)

For chemists, the above are quite obvious things...
> 
> temp and pressure are global mesures of the number and intensity of 
> molecular collissions.
> 
Pressure of the number, temp of the mean intensity, as temp is measure of the average energy per 1 degree of freedom. The average is the essential.

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

#558941

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 10:17:53 AM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:

Pressure of the number, temp of the mean intensity, as temp is measure of the average energy per 1 degree of freedom. The average is the essential.

Meaningless rhetoric unsupported by empirical evidence.

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

#558946

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 9:59:44 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> On 3/3/2016 11:53 AM, Poutnik wrote:
> > Dne čtvrtek 3. března 2016 16:31:54 UTC+1 James McGinn napsal(a):
> >> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 7:22:53 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >>> That is sad, James, for you are denying big chunks of Meteorology
> >>>     and Climatology. I'll bet you attempted a college course in
> >>>     meteorology and failed the course.
> >>>
> >>>     Many a person who failed a course, have gone on to disparage a
> >>>     whole field of study because they did not master the content.
> 
> >>>     In this newsgroup there are those who failed to understand
> >>>     relativity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, climatology,
> >>>     particle physics and now meteorology.
> >>>
> >>>     Like I said, it is sad. Sad, especially in a time when so much
> >>>     knowledge is accessible from your keyboard.
> >>
> >> It is sad that you and so many like you have reduced science to petty politics.
> >
> > It is sad you focus on rudeness and insults.
> >
> > If you rather focused on the fact the energy of a molecule is not determined by temperature, you would see its critical consequence for your hypothesis.
> >
> 
> it is interesting to review the model of a large # of molecules in a 
> closed box at a specific temperature and pressure.
> 
> the Mean Free path until a collision.
> 
> the number of moles of the molecules put into the box.
> 
> all the relationships there based upon just molecule moving along and 
> hitting another one, bounding off,
> 
> then throw in slight polar molecules for small effect(function of temp 
> and pressure.)
> 
> temp and pressure are global mesures of the number and intensity of 
> molecular collissions.
> 
> (spelt check OFF!)

The experiments have already been done, most of them hundreds of years ago.  I know the evidence, it doesn't support the silly averaging notions that you simpletons desperately glob onto.

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

#558934

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 9:53:14 AM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne čtvrtek 3. března 2016 16:31:54 UTC+1 James McGinn napsal(a):
> > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 7:22:53 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > That is sad, James, for you are denying big chunks of Meteorology
> > >    and Climatology. I'll bet you attempted a college course in
> > >    meteorology and failed the course.
> > > 
> > >    Many a person who failed a course, have gone on to disparage a
> > >    whole field of study because they did not master the content.
> > > 
> > >    In this newsgroup there are those who failed to understand
> > >    relativity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, climatology,
> > >    particle physics and now meteorology.
> > > 
> > >    Like I said, it is sad. Sad, especially in a time when so much
> > >    knowledge is accessible from your keyboard.
> > 
> > It is sad that you and so many like you have reduced science to petty politics.
> 
> It is sad you focus on rudeness and insults.
> 
> If you rather focused on the fact the energy of a molecule is not determined by temperature, you would see its critical consequence for your hypothesis.

Its sad that it takes insults to get you fuckwits to express yourself clearly.  Laboratory evidence indicates H2O molecules maintain hydrogen bonds--making them liquid--at temperatures/pressures below their boiling point. The fact that clear moist air is clear is not evidence that contradicts this laboratory evidence.  That you pea-brains think that the clarity of moist air is an invitation to imagine it being gaseous is testament to your collective dimwittedness.

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

#558939

On 3/3/16 12:29 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> Its sad that it takes insults to get you fuckwits to express yourself clearly.


   One wonders why you think the knowledgeable posters are...

   (sigh)


-- 

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]

#558875

   Speaking of the greenhouse effect, James, you might want to beef up
   your background on the subject.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
   http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

   In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the
   atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the
   planet's temperature. These scientists were interested
   chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon
   dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past.
   At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that
   emissions from human industry might someday bring a global
   warming. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of
   carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature,
   but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was
   almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s
   discovered that global warming truly was possible.

   In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon
   dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began
   to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of
   carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was
   influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the
   gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising
   level could gravely affect our future. (This essay covers only
   developments relating directly to carbon dioxide, with a separate
   essay for Other Greenhouse Gases.


-- 

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]

#558912

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 7:04:38 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2011/08/26/how-to-get-off-the-ground-with-nothing-but-water-almost/#comment-39222
> 
> The reason warm, moist air isn't constantly rushing up through the abundance of cool, dry air that is but a few hundred meters above is because it is heavier.  The reason it is heavier is because it contains microdroplets of H2O and not the gaseous H2O that meteorologists, absurdly, have assumed.  
> 
> In other words, meteorology's notion of moist air convection is a hoax, not unlike climatology's notion of greenhouse effect.
> 
> It's really that simple. It's just bad science.  And a minimal amount of fact checking reveals it.  
> 
> Don't be gullible.
> 
> James McGinn
> Solving Tornadoes

Its possible James you are thinking closer bto the bottom line by thinking H2O is not a gas as hyydogen ,oxygen,nitrogen etc.You see it not as an element,but a molecule.Still this molecule made into steam,or just moisture acts like a gas.It expands,and compresses.It is a part of air. Its in all the books Go Figure.  TreBert

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

#558921

On 3/3/16 11:46 AM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> Its possible James you are thinking closer bto the bottom line by thinking H2O is not a gas as hyydogen ,oxygen,nitrogen etc.You see it not as an element,but a molecule.Still this molecule made into steam,or just moisture acts like a gas.It expands,and compresses.It is a part of air. Its in all the books Go Figure.  TreBert


   The only molecules that act like a gas are the molecules that are gas,
   such as N2, O2, CO2 and H2O.



-- 

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]

#558927

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 9:46:12 AM UTC-8, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 7:04:38 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2011/08/26/how-to-get-off-the-ground-with-nothing-but-water-almost/#comment-39222
> > 
> > The reason warm, moist air isn't constantly rushing up through the abundance of cool, dry air that is but a few hundred meters above is because it is heavier.  The reason it is heavier is because it contains microdroplets of H2O and not the gaseous H2O that meteorologists, absurdly, have assumed.  
> > 
> > In other words, meteorology's notion of moist air convection is a hoax, not unlike climatology's notion of greenhouse effect.
> > 
> > It's really that simple. It's just bad science.  And a minimal amount of fact checking reveals it.  
> > 
> > Don't be gullible.
> > 
> > James McGinn
> > Solving Tornadoes
> 
> Its possible James you are thinking closer bto the bottom line by thinking H2O is not a gas as hyydogen ,oxygen,nitrogen etc.You see it not as an element,but a molecule.Still this molecule made into steam,or just moisture acts like a gas.It expands,and compresses.It is a part of air. Its in all the books Go Figure.  TreBert

Is it possible you are too dull-witted to understand the subtle but real distinciton betweeb a gas and a liquid?  Do you not understand that when two molecules are connected they are a liquid?  Is this concept to complex for you dipshits?

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

#558935

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 1:19:05 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
[]
> 
> Is it possible you are too dull-witted to understand the subtle
> but real distinciton betweeb a gas and a liquid?

Are you???

>  Do you not understand that when two molecules are connected
>  they are a liquid?  [Insult deleted]

Do you?

So far in all your posts you have clearly demonstrated
a real lack of understanding of basic Physics and Chemistry.

I will complement you. You have such PASSION!
Did you have this passion when you took your
degree at that on-line college?

Me thinks he doth protest too much!  :) :)

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

#558944

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 10:30:15 AM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 1:19:05 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> []
> > 
> > Is it possible you are too dull-witted to understand the subtle
> > but real distinciton betweeb a gas and a liquid?
> 
> Are you???
> 
> >  Do you not understand that when two molecules are connected
> >  they are a liquid?  [Insult deleted]
> 
> Do you?
> 
> So far in all your posts you have clearly demonstrated
> a real lack of understanding of basic Physics and Chemistry.
> 
> I will complement you. You have such PASSION!
> Did you have this passion when you took your
> degree at that on-line college?
> 
> Me thinks he doth protest too much!  :) :)

Me think you too dumb to present an argument.

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

#558942

On 3/3/16 12:19 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>   Do you not understand that when two molecules are connected they are a liquid?


     Do you realize that water molecules above their local dew-point in
     the atmosphere are not a liquid, are not connected and is a gas.



-- 

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]

#558947

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 10:34:44 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 3/3/16 12:19 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> >   Do you not understand that when two molecules are connected they are a liquid?
> 
> 
>      Do you realize that water molecules above their local dew-point in
>      the atmosphere are not a liquid,

All of the moisture in the atmosphere is liquid.  Our planet is too cool to support existence of gaseous H2O, you frickin nitwit.

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

#558950

On 3/3/16 12:40 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 10:34:44 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 3/3/16 12:19 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>>    Do you not understand that when two molecules are connected they are a liquid?
>>
>>
>>       Do you realize that water molecules above their local dew-point in
>>       the atmosphere are not a liquid,
>
> All of the moisture in the atmosphere is liquid.  Our planet is too cool to support existence of gaseous H2O, you frickin nitwit.
>

   Obviously, this is the crux of your misunderstanding, James.



-- 

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]

#558981

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> writes:

>> All of the moisture in the atmosphere is liquid.  Our planet is too 
>> cool to support existence of gaseous H2O, you frickin nitwit.

>   Obviously, this is the crux of your misunderstanding, James.

Yes. He doesn't seem to understand the concept of partial pressure, where
the different gases in a mixture behave independently of each other.  So
water is perfectly happy to be a gas at 20 C as long as its partial
pressure is less than 0.34 psi.  If you try to increase the partial
pressure of water vapor above that. it will condense into liquid.
Similarly, in a partial vacuum, the boiling point of water at 0.34 psi is
20 C, not 100 C.  The boiling point of a liquid is when the partial 
pressure of the liquid (when it's a gas) equals the total pressure.

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

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web