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

Groups > sci.physics > #559427 > unrolled thread

Why the science of clouds is still cloudy

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Why the science of clouds is still cloudy Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 15:53 -0800
    Re: Why the science of clouds is still cloudy jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-05 00:39 +0000
      Re: Why the science of clouds is still cloudy Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 16:50 -0800
        Re: Why the science of clouds is still cloudy jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-05 03:34 +0000
          Re: Why the science of clouds is still cloudy Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-04 22:48 -0600
            Re: Why the science of clouds is still cloudy James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 20:52 -0800
              Re: Why the science of clouds is still cloudy jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-05 06:58 +0000
                Re: Why the science of clouds is still cloudy James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 06:25 -0800
                  Re: Why the science of clouds is still cloudy jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-05 19:11 +0000
                    Re: Why the science of clouds is still cloudy James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 11:34 -0800
                      Re: Why the science of clouds is still cloudy jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-05 22:11 +0000
        Re: Why the science of clouds is still cloudy edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-03-05 13:07 -0800
    Re: Why the science of clouds is still cloudy Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 19:01 -0600
    Re: Why the science of clouds is still cloudy noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:52 -0800

#559427 — Why the science of clouds is still cloudy

Why the science of clouds is still cloudy

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2016/03/04/why-the-science-of-clouds-is-still-cloudy/

Climatologists can't figure out climate because meteorologists can't figure out clouds.
Meteorologists can't figure out clouds because physicists can't figure out water.
Physicists can't figure out water because they can't figure out H2O polarity

BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ
https://zenodo.org/record/37224 

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

Convection Versus Plasma
https://youtu.be/LwSyalcoRAk

Alternative to Spiritualistic Thinking in the Atmospheric Sciences
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dexlOvP7mPw

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#559438

Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Why the science of clouds is still cloudy

It is not to anyone except you and a few other kooks.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#559441

On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 4:46:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Why the science of clouds is still cloudy
> 
> It is not to anyone except you and a few other kooks.

Why are you so frustrated all the time?

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

#559489

Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 4:46:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> > Why the science of clouds is still cloudy
>> 
>> It is not to anyone except you and a few other kooks.
> 
> Why are you so frustrated all the time?

You are projecting again; I'm not frustrated, I'm laughing at you.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#559499

On 3/4/2016 9:34 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 4:46:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Why the science of clouds is still cloudy
>>>
>>> It is not to anyone except you and a few other kooks.
>>
>> Why are you so frustrated all the time?
>
> You are projecting again; I'm not frustrated, I'm laughing at you.
>
>

sounds like all he really has is a set of one liners he likes to use, 
about 7, and that is about it.

nothing else of any substance or value, nada, zip.
Except for those extreme self-wacko films on Youtube, demented! Worth 
showing at a frat party

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

#559500

On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 8:49:39 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> On 3/4/2016 9:34 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> sounds like all he really has is a set of one liners he likes to use, 
> about 7, and that is about it.
> 
> nothing else of any substance or value, nada, zip.
> Except for those extreme self-wacko films on Youtube, demented! Worth 
> showing at a frat party


Do you think that if you had a substantive dispute with my thinking that you would be less obsessed with me.

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

#559544

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 8:49:39 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>> On 3/4/2016 9:34 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>> sounds like all he really has is a set of one liners he likes to use, 
>> about 7, and that is about it.
>> 
>> nothing else of any substance or value, nada, zip.
>> Except for those extreme self-wacko films on Youtube, demented! Worth 
>> showing at a frat party
> 
> 
> Do you think that if you had a substantive dispute with my thinking
> that you would be less obsessed with me.

It isn't obsession, it is that you are one hell of a comedy act.

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#559556

On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 6:05:18 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 8:49:39 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> >> On 3/4/2016 9:34 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > 
> >> sounds like all he really has is a set of one liners he likes to use, 
> >> about 7, and that is about it.
> >> 
> >> nothing else of any substance or value, nada, zip.
> >> Except for those extreme self-wacko films on Youtube, demented! Worth 
> >> showing at a frat party
> > 
> > 
> > Do you think that if you had a substantive dispute with my thinking
> > that you would be less obsessed with me.
> 
> It isn't obsession, it is that you are one hell of a comedy act.

I can't even imagine how frustrating it must be to be so sure you are right and so completely unable to say how or why.

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

#559614

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 6:05:18 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 8:49:39 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>> >> On 3/4/2016 9:34 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> > 
>> >> sounds like all he really has is a set of one liners he likes to use, 
>> >> about 7, and that is about it.
>> >> 
>> >> nothing else of any substance or value, nada, zip.
>> >> Except for those extreme self-wacko films on Youtube, demented! Worth 
>> >> showing at a frat party
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Do you think that if you had a substantive dispute with my thinking
>> > that you would be less obsessed with me.
>> 
>> It isn't obsession, it is that you are one hell of a comedy act.
> 
> I can't even imagine how frustrating it must be to be so sure you
> are right and so completely unable to say how or why.

Again, I'm laughing my ass off over your delusions and have given you
several references to show you are an uneducated kook.

Start with Fundamentals of Physics by Halliday and Resnick and follow
that with Foundations of College Chemistry by Murphy and Rousseau.

Do you have a job that would enable you to afford to buy books?


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#559628

On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 11:16:05 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 6:05:18 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 8:49:39 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> >> >> On 3/4/2016 9:34 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> > 
> >> >> sounds like all he really has is a set of one liners he likes to use, 
> >> >> about 7, and that is about it.
> >> >> 
> >> >> nothing else of any substance or value, nada, zip.
> >> >> Except for those extreme self-wacko films on Youtube, demented! Worth 
> >> >> showing at a frat party
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > Do you think that if you had a substantive dispute with my thinking
> >> > that you would be less obsessed with me.
> >> 
> >> It isn't obsession, it is that you are one hell of a comedy act.
> > 
> > I can't even imagine how frustrating it must be to be so sure you
> > are right and so completely unable to say how or why.
> 
> Again, I'm laughing my ass off over your delusions and have given you
> several references to show you are an uneducated kook.
> 
> Start with Fundamentals of Physics by Halliday and Resnick and follow
> that with Foundations of College Chemistry by Murphy and Rousseau.
> 
> Do you have a job that would enable you to afford to buy books?

I've looked in both of these books.  Nothing.  

It's regrettable you found nothing on the internet.

It must be frustrating that you can't just drop a link to your imagination.

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

#559664

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 11:16:05 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 6:05:18 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 8:49:39 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>> >> >> On 3/4/2016 9:34 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> >> sounds like all he really has is a set of one liners he likes to use, 
>> >> >> about 7, and that is about it.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> nothing else of any substance or value, nada, zip.
>> >> >> Except for those extreme self-wacko films on Youtube, demented! Worth 
>> >> >> showing at a frat party
>> >> > 
>> >> > 
>> >> > Do you think that if you had a substantive dispute with my thinking
>> >> > that you would be less obsessed with me.
>> >> 
>> >> It isn't obsession, it is that you are one hell of a comedy act.
>> > 
>> > I can't even imagine how frustrating it must be to be so sure you
>> > are right and so completely unable to say how or why.
>> 
>> Again, I'm laughing my ass off over your delusions and have given you
>> several references to show you are an uneducated kook.
>> 
>> Start with Fundamentals of Physics by Halliday and Resnick and follow
>> that with Foundations of College Chemistry by Murphy and Rousseau.
>> 
>> Do you have a job that would enable you to afford to buy books?
> 
> I've looked in both of these books.  Nothing.  

Then you must be an uneducatable, illiterate idiot.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#559653

On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 7:50:05 PM UTC-5, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
[]
> 
> Why are you so frustrated all the time?

Talking to yourself again!

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

#559446

On 3/4/16 5:53 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> Climatologists can't figure out climate because meteorologists can't figure out clouds.
> Meteorologists can't figure out clouds because physicists can't figure out water.
> Physicists can't figure out water because they can't figure out H2O polarity


   The problem lies with you, James, in that you don't understand the
   basic physics of meteorology.  For example:


   Evaporation from soil, oceans, plants and lakes results in a
   continuous supply of Water Vapor (gaseous H2O) in the earth's
   atmosphere.

   Water vapour (H2O) like Oxygen (O2) like Nitrogen (N2) is an invisible
   gas, so 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]

#559694

clouds diffuse light, almost perfectly, but
they are heavier than air

> Meteorologists can't figure out clouds because physicists can't figure out water.
> Physicists can't figure out water because they can't figure out H2O polarity
> 
> BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ
> https://zenodo.org/record/37224 
> 
> James McGinn
> Solving Tornadoes
> 
> Convection Versus Plasma
> https://youtu.be/LwSyalcoRAk
> 
> Alternative to Spiritualistic Thinking in the Atmospheric Sciences
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dexlOvP7mPw

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web