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

Groups > alt.usenet.kooks > #692837

Re: H2O surface tension properly explained for the first time

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Poutnik, in <news:ntf8ts$dks$1@dont-email.me> did thusly jump head 
first into the wood chipper again:

> Dne 10/10/2016 v 05:01 Friendly Neighbourhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus,
> DoW #1 napsal(a):

>> Um, Jim? You're talking to the guy who proved that CO2-driven AGW
>> violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and thus is a fairy tale. CO2 has
>> been proven by NASA to be a global *cooling* gas.

> By the same way as your cloth
> cools you by intensive thermal radiation
> and therefore you should not use it
> to warm yourself up.....

False analogy. Cloth is an insulator by blocking circulation of air, 
whereas CO2 facilitates augering heat to the upper atmosphere (much 
more efficiently than even water, given that water vapor generally 
doesn't go much higher than the tropopause).

While CO2 is an efficient absorber of infrared, it's also an efficient 
*emitter*... so heat gets absorbed in the lower atmosphere, gets 
circulated up into the upper atmosphere by convection, where it is 
released on the night-side of the planet in the 11-micron infrared 
atmospheric window, allowing that heat nearly unfettered escape to 
space.

Thus, more CO2 == more cooling, the diametric opposite of what the 
Klimate Katastrophe Kooks claim.

>From an earlier post:
============================================================
<http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/>
===========================
"Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats", explains
James Russell of Hampton University, SABER's principal investigator.
"When the upper atmosphere (or 'thermosphere') heats up, these
molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space."

For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere
absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO,
the two most efficient _coolants_ in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95%
of that total back into space.
===========================

<https://i0.wp.com/i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/SpectralCoolingRates_zps27867ef4.png>
===========================
Notice how CO2 has a cooling effect right from the lower stratosphere
and up into the mesosphere, its peak cooling effect around the
stratopause, while ozone has a clear warming effect in the lower
stratosphere (and even into the troposphere) but a cooling effect like
CO2 in the middle and upper stratosphere.
===========================

<http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.306.3621&rep=rep1&type=pdf>
===========================
Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission
Rudolf W. Gunnerman Energy and Environment Laboratory; University of
Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA; Institute of
Oceanology of Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

"The writers investigated the effect of CO2 emission on the
temperature of atmosphere. Computations based on the adiabatic theory
of greenhouse effect show that increasing CO2 concentration in the
atmosphere results in cooling rather than warming of the Earth's
atmosphere."
===========================
============================================================

If you Klimate Katastrophe Kooks were smart enough that you didn't 
have to be spoon-fed your talking points, you'd also be smart enough 
to realize you're being lied to for political and economic reasons.

The AGW fable gives the politicians an unprecedented opportunity to 
enact legislation that controls more people, while giving them the 
further opportunity to k'lame that they're fixing a large intractable 
"problem" (of their own invention).

Some of those politicians also happen to be ground-floor investors in 
the carbon exchanges (ManBearPig, I'm looking at you), which will 
allow them to reap hundreds of billions of dollars per year in 
profits, while increasing the cost of living worldwide by trillions 
per year... all to "fix" a problem that doesn't exist.

<http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/06/26/study-that-warned-of-global-warming-over-past-decade-ridiculed-after-temperatures-drop/>
The UK Met trend shows an accelerating -0.014 C per decade *decrease*.

Message-ID: <e46a4017e5a77519d1489cd3f1129c08@dizum.com>
The underlying (read: unmanipulated) NOAA data shows a 0.6186 F 
*decrease* from 2005 to 2015.

<http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783>
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI>
Dr. Don Easterbrook shows the past global warming was solar and
orbital forcing induced, the conditions have changed, and global
cooling has set in... since 1998.

<http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/global-warming-pause-hits-18-years-on-rss-data.html>
Using UK Met, UAH and RSS data.

Page 11 - Global temperature rate (C per year): dropping since ~1998.
*Negative* since ~2005. That means temps have been dropping for ~17
years, and the gullible LibTarDs have been lied to for ~17 years:
<http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/e/f/Paper1_Observing_changes_in_the_climate_system.PDF>

Message-ID: <b41f4a8054430ac46092e607919d7063@dizum.com>
Even NASA admitted that global temperatures were falling in recent
years (before they pulled that page... luckily the WayBack Machine
archived it):
<http://web.archive.org/web/20030816225534/http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/research/methane/greenhouse.html>
Note the center trace for modern times in that graphic... *falling*
temperature, even as CO2 and methane rose.

"There has been no warming since '98, and a very slight cooling that
is not statistically significant." - Phil Jones

<http://phys.org/news/2014-08-global-temperature-conundrum-cooling-climate.html>
"We have been building models and there are now robust 
contradictions," says Liu, a professor in the UW-Madison Center for 
Climatic Research. "Data from observation says global cooling. The 
physical model says it has to be warming."

===============================================================
Taken from the hacked ClimateGate 1.0 and ClimateGate 2.0 emails:
<http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/01/email-4141-glimpse-into-climate-science.html>

"I think the notion of telling the public to prepare for both global
warming and an ice age at the same time creates a real public
relations problem for us."  - Asher Minns, "climate scientist" from
scandal-rocked University of East Anglia, letting the cat completely
out of the bag.

You'll note he doesn't say "global cooling", he specifically says "an
ice age"... that's telling, don't you think? LOL
===============================================================

That's why so many former IPCC Global Climate Assessment contributors
have left the IPCC and publicly renounced any "data" the IPCC 
promulgates.

<http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/21/un-scientists-who-have-turned-on-unipcc-man-made-climate-fears-a-climate-depot-flashback-report/>
Just a small subset from that website:
==============================================================
Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history. When
people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by
science and scientists." – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori
Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
==============================================================
"Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted
mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than
sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made
with them!"- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric
chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's
(IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has
authored 83 peer-reviewed publications in the areas of climate change,
atmospheric chemistry, air pollution and vehicle emissions.
==============================================================
UN IPCC Scientist Kenneth P. Green Declares 'A Death Spiral for
Climate Alarmism' – September 30, 2009 – 'We can expect climate crisis
industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward 
anyone who questions their authority' – Dr. Kenneth Green was a 
Working Group 1 expert reviewer for the UN IPCC in 2001.
==============================================================
"Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I
quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp. Climate models can
at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." –
Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in
man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch
UN IPCC committee.
==============================================================
"The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the
natural circulation between air, water and soil. I am doing a detailed
assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers,
identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the
science." – South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr.
Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored
over 150 refereed publications.
==============================================================
"The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense" –
declared IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New
Zealand in 2007. Gray was an expert reviewer on every single draft of
the IPCC reports going back to 1990, author of more than 100
scientific publications.
==============================================================
One former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told the Senate Environment and
Public Works (EPW) committee how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers
"distorted" the scientists work. "I have found examples of a Summary
saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said," explained
South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip
Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150
refereed publications.
==============================================================
Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA's National Hurricane
Center, was both an author and reviewer for the IPCC's 2nd Assessment
Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but resigned
from the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with playing
politics with Hurricane science. Landsea wrote a January 17, 2005
public letter detailing his experience with the UN: "I am withdrawing
[from the IPCC] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to
which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In
addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their
response was simply to dismiss my concerns." "I personally cannot in
good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both
being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically
unsound," Landsea added.
==============================================================
Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core
researcher: "The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse.
It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere, not the other way round. A large number of critical
documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished
without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily
biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact."
==============================================================
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming>
<http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-man-made-global-warming-claims/5403284>
<http://cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf>
<http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/07/31/new-study-majority-of-climate-scientists-dont-agree-with-consensus/>
<http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/top-scientists-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures/>

-- 

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions 
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions 
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant 
uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James?

Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a 
lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating 
that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself 
if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia? 
Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and 
help you to not piss all over yourself?

And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a 
pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser.

Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a 
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. 
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was 
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase 
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, 
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby 
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from 
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the 
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come 
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" 
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport 
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates 
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin 
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've 
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly 
destroys your theory, James.

You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's 
Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction 
increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and 
electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually 
cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James?

According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with 
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an 
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher 
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic 
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the 
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, 
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic 
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just 
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.

How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even 
you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli 
Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard, 
and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is 
that not dissociating the water?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling 
point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded 
hydrides, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's 
cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not* 
splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have 
such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same 
H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron 
that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of 
vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that 
your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and 
that's just retarded.

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not 
become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard?

How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles 
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without 
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to 
touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than 
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other 
types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the 
sky" sentient, James?

Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the 
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, 
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant 
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that 
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?

How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient 
tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't 
you explain that, James?

Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is 
*below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory 
not-a-theory" can't answer.

Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your 
claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?

Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your 
delusions, James?

Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process, 
James?

Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James?

Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions, 
James?

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being 
*deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James?

Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as 
"delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?

Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in 
which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of 
education about now, James?

Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out 
of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been 
deemed mentally incompetent, James?

Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class 
as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist", 
James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated, 
whereas you're ignorant and uneducated?

What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was 
the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then 
you're not a physicist, James. LOL

If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while 
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an 
airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient 
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its 
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to 
shreds, Jim?

Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the 
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the 
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon 
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the 
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you 
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially 
thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, 
which would make air travel deadly.

Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if 
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado 
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?

Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? 
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is 
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, 
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due 
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist 
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire 
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of 
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced 
phenomenon due to density differential, James?

How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, 
Jim?

Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James? 
How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their 
surface area as you claim?

Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?

How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a 
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a 
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and 
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will 
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an 
extremely energetic laser, Jim?

Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, 
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except 
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above 
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the 
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not 
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the 
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly 
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?

Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change 
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes 
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do 
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water 
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account 
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your 
implausible claims are workable, Jim?

Why are you not taking your meds, James?
============================================================

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?

Back to alt.usenet.kooks | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: H2O surface tension properly explained for the first time "Friendly Neighbourhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1" <FNVWe@alt.usenet.kooks.xxx> - 2016-10-10 05:01 +0200
  Re: H2O surface tension properly explained for the first time "Friendly Neighbourhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1" <FNVWe@alt.usenet.kooks.xxx> - 2016-10-11 04:44 +0200
    Re: H2O surface tension properly explained for the first time "Friendly Neighbourhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1" <FNVWe@alt.usenet.kooks.xxx> - 2016-10-11 07:03 +0200
      Re: H2O surface tension properly explained for the first time Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-11 07:16 +0200
        Re: H2O surface tension properly explained for the first time "Friendly Neighbourhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1" <FNVWe@alt.usenet.kooks.xxx> - 2016-10-12 06:07 +0200
          Re: H2O surface tension properly explained for the first time "Friendly Neighbourhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1" <FNVWe@alt.usenet.kooks.xxx> - 2016-10-12 07:52 +0200
          Re: H2O surface tension properly explained for the first time "Friendly Neighbourhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1" <FNVWe@alt.usenet.kooks.xxx> - 2016-10-13 06:58 +0200
        Re: H2O surface tension properly explained for the first time "Friendly Neighbourhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1" <FNVWe@alt.usenet.kooks.xxx> - 2016-10-12 07:36 +0200
      Re: H2O surface tension properly explained for the first time THE STINGER <bzz.bzz.bzz@sting.sting.sting> - 2016-10-11 08:55 +0200

csiph-web