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

Groups > sci.physics > #603268 > unrolled thread

Approved by Archimedes Plutonium

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Approved by Archimedes Plutonium James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 08:29 -0700
    Re: Approved by Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 19:13 -0700
      Re: Approved by Archimedes Plutonium Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 07:07 +0100
        Re: Approved by Archimedes Plutonium Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 07:14 +0100
          Re: Approved by Archimedes Plutonium moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-02 13:17 +0000
            Re: Approved by Archimedes Plutonium Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 17:47 +0100
              Re: Approved by Archimedes Plutonium noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 17:18 -0700
                Re: Approved by Archimedes Plutonium Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 06:01 +0100
              Re: Approved by Archimedes Plutonium Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-03 07:22 -0500
                a.p approves ... what ever noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 13:52 -0700

#603268 — Approved by Archimedes Plutonium

	me (James McGinn change) 	

Oct 31 (23 hours ago)

Re: latent heat release, ffNonlyff

On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 6:33:48 PM UTC-7, Yuri Kreaton wrote: 
> --answers for doctor mCg-- 

> On 10/30/2016 6:17 PM, noTthaTguY wrote: 
> > thanks, doctor mCg; your turn to go take a hike & preconsider 
> > 
> >>> Can you confirm/describe the underlying chemical dynamics of 
> >>> latent heat release in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window 
> >>> from cloud formation? 
> 
> 1.  there is no "chemistry" in the usual sense of materials reacting, 

Right. There is also no phase change. 

> I'm not sure why you use that term in your inquiry. [try Meteorology] 

I'm a meteorologists.  And a physicist.  The phrase "latent heat" is used 
(abused) by meteorologists for dramatic effect.  As you indicated, it has no 
basis in physical reality.  Ultimately meteorologists use (abuse) this 
notion to create cognitive dissonance--to create distance between them and 
the realization (by the public) that they really don't understand H2O or 
it's actual role in the atmosphere.  They kinda understand it.  But they 
don't really understand it--until now (see below). 

> 2.  the 11 micron "window" only means that Water Vapor does not have 
> absorption in that area of the infra red band, and it is  8 to 11 
> microns, not at just 11 microns. 
> 
> http://ber.parawag.net/images/Atmospheric_Absorption_Bands.jpg 

LOL. How is this even relevant?  It is relevant, but you aren't explaining 
how/why.  (I guess I have to do it for you.) 

Once again I feel like I'm running a hand holding service for people that 
don't know how to make an argument for themselves. 

> 3.  for Latent Heat, study this chart, I do not have all the time in the 
> world to teach you fundimentials; 

LOL. Yeah, you'd have to get an edgimication first.  And that would take a 
long, long time.   

For the time being take my word on it.  There is no latent heat in water. 
There is, however, a lot of conserved energy in liquid water, a lot more 
than is evident (inferentially) from its temperature.  This is due to the 
high heat capacity of liquid water.  And there is a lot of liquid water in 
the atmosphere.  Ultimately meteorologists use (abuse) this notion (latent 
heat) to create cognitive dissonance.  It's just a way to divert attention 
away from the fact that they are confused about water. 

Everybody in science is confused about water because the central point of 
confusion has been a mystery--up to now. You see, here is the thing, buster, 
H2O is the energy conservation superhero of our reality.  This has been 
widely known for a long time.  Now--just recently--we (I myself, actually) 
have discovered the underlying basis of a more comprehensive understanding 
of the how and why underlying H2O's amazing and heretofore mysterious energy 
conservation capabilities: 

Hydrogen Bonds Neutralize H2O Polarity 
https://zenodo.org/record/37224 

This also sets the stage for a more literal understanding of H2O's many 
anomalies. 

> >>> Why don't you contact NASA and see if they can point you to 
> >>> reproducible experimental data that underlies this imaginative 
> >>> claim. 
> 
> 4.   perhaps you, doctor mCg, should contact NASA as you are making the 
> inquiry.  Better yet, if you could post your address, phone number, here 
> in this forum, I will contact NASA for you, and report you. 
> 
> >>> 
> >>> Remember, these same people claim to have satellites that track 
> >>> "CO2 Forcing" that you say does not exist. 
> 
> 5.   I am sure those people do not have satellites at all, but may have 
> paid access to data from them. Also remember that Water Vapor is a far 
> larger absorber of heat in the atmosphere than CO2.  I am sure you can 
> find that information yourself. 

Right.  Like I said, this is widely known. H2O is the energy conservation 
superhero of our reality.  And now we know the underlying basis of how/why.   
Read my paper and look especially for the word "pendulumic". 

> http://ber.parawag.net/images/Atmospheric_Absorption_Bands.jpg 

Right.  And--until now--nobody has been able to explain the underlying basis 
of this. 

Isn't learning fun! 

> >>> Where is the reproducible experimental data that underlies this 
> >>> process?  Surely you don't expect me to take your word on it, do 
> >>> you? 
> > 
> 
> 6.  doctor mCg, I am sure any grade school science teacher can assist 
> you further to understand these elementary concepts, you seem very lost. 

Be careful not to drool on your keyboard. 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#603423

On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 10:29:48 AM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:

James, thanks for the headlines. AP approved.

There is one item that rankles me about weather. The horrible use of Doppler calling the weather report as a Doppler radar, when the physics of Doppler has absolutely no bearing to meteorology and weather.

So can you make up some ONE LINERS of how dumb that is:

How dumb are they? So dumb they have Doppler Radar and announce it publicly.

How dumb are they? So dumb they think Doppler Radar exists.

Can you make up some nice ones here.

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

#603437

Dne 02/11/2016 v 03:13 Archimedes Plutonium napsal(a):
> 
> How dumb are they? So dumb they think Doppler Radar exists.
> 

Of course it exists,
analyzing frequency shifts caused by reflections
from moving targets in military,
or moving condensation products.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_radar


-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

#603439

Dne 02/11/2016 v 07:07 Poutnik napsal(a):
> Dne 02/11/2016 v 03:13 Archimedes Plutonium napsal(a):
>>
>> How dumb are they? So dumb they think Doppler Radar exists.
>>
> 
> Of course it exists,
> analyzing frequency shifts caused by reflections
> from moving targets in military,  [...]

P.S.> For anti-aircraft systems, Doppler radar has advantage
not to get fooled by metal striped counter measures,
nor by horizon reflection interference.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

#603464

Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> writes:

>Dne 02/11/2016 v 07:07 Poutnik napsal(a):
>> Dne 02/11/2016 v 03:13 Archimedes Plutonium napsal(a):
>>>
>>> How dumb are they? So dumb they think Doppler Radar exists.
>>>
>> 
>> Of course it exists,
>> analyzing frequency shifts caused by reflections
>> from moving targets in military,  [...]

>P.S.> For anti-aircraft systems, Doppler radar has advantage
>not to get fooled by metal striped counter measures,
>nor by horizon reflection interference.

The TV weatherman term "Doppler Radar" exaggerates the use of the Doppler
effect for weather radar, as the Doppler effect is only part of the useful
data returned by the system.  But the Doppler effect is, in fact, used, it
gives data for the horizontal motion of precipitation due to wind, and
also rotation due to tornadic activity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_radar

Several months ago there were tornado warnings in this area and the TV
weather report showed a radar screen they normally never show. It had
different colors corresponding to motion toward or away from the radar
due to the Doppler effect, and they pointed out a particular cloud system
which showed significant rotation.  I believe there was an actual tornado
or funnel cloud that day (no damage).

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

#603481

On 11/02/2016 02:17 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:

> The TV weatherman term "Doppler Radar" exaggerates the use of the Doppler
> effect for weather radar, as the Doppler effect is only part of the useful
> data returned by the system.

 > [...]

As the "pulse Doppler radar"
is the official technical term for the used device,
the TV weatherman's term Doppler radar is no exaggeration.

I would rather say the Doppler effect is not part of data,
but rather a part of useful data manifests the Doppler effect.

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

#603541

a.p k.o's mCg ... d00 it, again

> I would rather say the Doppler effect is not part of data,
> but rather a part of useful data manifests the Doppler effect.

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

#603567

???

Dne 03/11/2016 v 01:18 noTthaTguY napsal(a):
> a.p k.o's mCg ... d00 it, again
> 
>> I would rather say the Doppler effect is not part of data,
>> but rather a part of useful data manifests the Doppler effect.
> 


-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

#603597

On 11/2/2016 11:47 AM, Poutnik wrote:
> On 11/02/2016 02:17 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>> The TV weatherman term "Doppler Radar" exaggerates the use of the Doppler
>> effect for weather radar, as the Doppler effect is only part of the
>> useful
>> data returned by the system.
>
>> [...]
>
> As the "pulse Doppler radar"
> is the official technical term for the used device,
> the TV weatherman's term Doppler radar is no exaggeration.
>
> I would rather say the Doppler effect is not part of data,
> but rather a part of useful data manifests the Doppler effect.
>
>

Doppler radar usually requires 2 feed horns instead of one.
one receive, one transmit.
many have 4.

no big deal, just more expensive, more hardware.

drop size can be determined by returing reflected amplitudes and using 
different frequencies, and there are polarization effects.

Interesting area

you can buy a complete new weather radar for just $2,500.  (made for 
boats, you can put it on your house or truck)

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

#603678 — a.p approves ... what ever

hey, now we're talking about radar(s;
a.p and mCg are ever & always completly off-topic,
what ever grunge they stick in the header

> Doppler radar usually requires 2 feed horns instead of one.
> one receive, one transmit.
> many have 4.
> 
> no big deal, just more expensive, more hardware.
> 
> drop size can be determined by returing reflected amplitudes and using 
> different frequencies, and there are polarization effects.
> 
> Interesting area
> 
> you can buy a complete new weather radar for just $2,500.  (made for 
> boats, you can put it on your house or truck)

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web