Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #553750
| Newsgroups | sci.physics |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-16 20:57 -0800 |
| References | (7 earlier) <na0k1t$ct4$1@gioia.aioe.org> <dc5ba621-6439-4cdb-9346-198856dbf382@googlegroups.com> <na0nkv$rcq$1@gioia.aioe.org> <28e2af1a-a9e8-49ec-b011-2e7d9371682a@googlegroups.com> <na0rvr$10hj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| Message-ID | <4e9259d8-b433-4e2e-8946-c06339e02624@googlegroups.com> (permalink) |
| Subject | Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation |
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 8:12:47 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: > On 2/16/2016 9:10 PM, James McGinn wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 6:58:46 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: > >> On 2/16/2016 8:10 PM, James McGinn wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 5:57:24 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: > >>>> On 2/16/2016 6:07 PM, James McGinn wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 3:59:29 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: > >>>>>> On 2/16/2016 5:45 PM, James McGinn wrote: > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 3:38:59 PM UTC-8, reber > >>>>>>> g=emc^2 wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Water is heavy > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Of course water is heavy. Moist air is heavier than dry > >>>>>>> air. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> wrong, it is moist is less dense, therefore lighter than dry > >>>>>> air, everybody knows that > >>>>> > >>>>> Look up gas laws, you idiot. And look up boiling temp/press of > >>>>> H2O. > >>>> > >>>> does gas law apply to water vapor in air ? > >> > >> answer the question ! > > > > Be more specific. > > sure => "if you look up you see clouds, they are made of water, how > did the water get up there ?" using your "theory" > > the clock is ticking.......... If H2O is not a gas. Then . . . Obviously . . . we can't just apply gas laws . . . right? Or, at least, not precisely. Right . . . That doesn't mean we can't make use of gas laws. But we can't just go by molecular weight . . . right? Am I going too fast for you? > > > >> > >>>> > >>>> on the BP of water, I am sure you can find it on the internet > >>>> somewhere, I do not want to take my time to learn you, as you just > >>>> do not know the fundamentals, pupa. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > "Dry air is composed of mostly of heavy oxygen (O2) and nitrogen > (N2) molecules. However in moist air, some molecules are the > lighter weight water molecules (H2O), rather than heavier O2 or N2 > molecules. And H2O is not a gas. Right? > > Not at all, that is a common mistake by novices. Take some time and > think about dry air is composed of mostly of heavy oxygen (O2) and > nitrogen (N2) Molecules. However in moist air, some molecules are the > lighter weight water molecules (H2O), rather than heavier O2 or N2 > molecules. > > what is the weight of H2O ? MM of 18.0152 g/mol > Weight of O2 ? MM of 31.9988 g/mol > Weight of N2 ? MM of 28.01340 g/mol No duh. Gas laws apply to gases. Now do you get it? > > clearly water, H2O is light weight, everybody already knows this, and > can easily verify this fact online in thousands of places. Too bad you > continue to fool yourself. > > H2O is gaseous in the atmosphere. Wrong. It's a vapor. Not a gas. It's a liquid suspended in air by static electricity, dumbass. Consult steam tables, or any > Psychrometric chart http://www.kaceenergy.com/images/fig4.gif Useless for this issue. > > Therefore, the *air is less dense in moist air* and this decrease in > density equates to less resistance to the ball's motion through air. > > So, for two baseballs hit with equal force, the one in the moist air > would travel much much farther than the one hit in dry air. > > >>>>>> if you look up you see clouds, they are made of water, how did > >>>>>> the water get up there? > >>>>> > >> > >> answer the Question ! > > > > I answered this question in other posts on this NG. (Hint: It has nothing to do with convection.) > > no, you avoided it. *Now answer the question*. Or admit your "theory" > is a failure. > > "if you look up you see clouds, they are made of water, how > did the water get up there ?" Since we know for a fact that moist air is heavier, we know it's not convection. Right? Answer my question you evasive jackass. > > > > > >> > >>>>> > >>>>> If moist air is heavier then it couldn't be due to convection, > >>>>> right. So what other process do you suggest? (BTW, this is my > >>>>> area of expertise.) > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> you failed to answer my question. > >>>> > >>>> Again "if you look up you see clouds, they are made of water, how > >>>> did the water get up there ?" > >> > >> you failed to answer my question again, this is the THIRD TIME I tell > >> you to answer the simple Question. > > > > You should never ask a question that you are unwilling to answer yourself. > > > > again, *answer the question*, "if you look up you see clouds, they are > made of water, how did the water get up there ?" What's your theory? > > If you cannot answer it, admit your theory is failed. I already have. Do a search. > > > > >> > >> you cannot. Because your thinking cannot explain Clouds, or Fog. > >> > >> Because you use your imagination for your "heavy moist air" and your > >> "books". your theories are science fiction, your imagination. > >> > >> You imagination confused with reality. > > > > If that is what you think you should make an argument to that effect. > > since you say you are expert, and you say moist air is heavy, Right. then > answer the question, "if you look up you see clouds, they are made of > water, how did the water get up there ?" Do a search. You'll find it. Do a search under my name and Plasma > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > >>>> > >>>> kind of simple question blows a HUGE HOLE in your "heavy moisture" > >>>> idea, > >>>> > >>>> I am waiting for your answer. (you are trapped) > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> I am waiting............. > >> > >> put up or shut up. > >> > >> you are so hosed ! > >> > >> Trapped ! > >> > >> > >> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> (crickets................................) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Water is in clumps/droplets at ambient temps. > >> > >> at what temp, and pressure ? > >> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> not all temps, and at what pressure ? what density ? > >>>>> > >>>>> Steam tables. > >>>> > >>>> got any URLs ? or are you just making stuff up ? > >>>> > >>>> steam tables or Psychrometric chart ? > >> > >> no URLs ?? > >> > >>>> > >>>> http://www.kaceenergy.com/images/fig4.gif > >>>> > >>>> sorry to get way ahead of you so quick, but you need to start > >>>> learning now. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Only idiots believe it turns to gas below its boiling point. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> at what pressure ? what density ? > >>>>> > >>>>> Depends. There are other factors that you are ignorant of. > >>>>> Crawl before you walk. First get it straight in your little mind > >>>>> that convection is not the only explanation and is plainly > >>>>> refuted by the ten cent observation that moist aid is heavier. > >>>> > >>>> no need to get angry, just answer this question, "how does the > >>>> water get up into the clouds ?" > >>>> > >>>> I am waiting..... > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> (crickets.......................................) > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> still no answer ? > >> > >> again " how does the water get up into the clouds ? " > > > > What is your answer? > > you have no answer. You have no answer. your theory cannot explain clouds. It and you are > bogus. > > since you say you are expert, and you say moist air is heavy, then > answer the question, "if you look up you see clouds, they are made of > water, how did the water get up there ?" Search for my answer. > > > > >> > >> you can use google. > > > > I don't need google. I'm an expert on this subject. > > if so, prove it, answer "How does water get up to the clouds ?" using > your "theories" > > If you can't answer such a simple question, you are no expert. > > > > >> > >>>>> > >>>>> What other process do you think might be involved? > >>>>> > >>>>> Think real hard. > >>>> > >>>> flipping the question to me is childish, and diversionary. > >>>> > >>>> You have trapped yourself and demonstrated to all, to the world, > >>>> that *you cannot explain why there are clouds*. > >>> > >>> Since I can't imagine > >>> anything else causing H2O to get high in the atmosphere therefore > >>> it's alright to pretend it's a gas when the facts clearly demonstrate > >>> it is impossible. > >> > >> what facts ? see the cloud ? how did the water get up there ? simple > >> stuff, > > > > Crawl before you walk. Do you accept that convection is impossible? > > answer my question, "How does water get up so high to form clouds ?" I already answered. Do a search. > > > > >> > >> again *you have no answer to why clouds exist*. you cannot explain it > >> at all using your failed idea of "heavy moist air", > > > > I already have explained it. No convection needed. > > > > liar. > > answer my question, "How does water get up so high to form clouds ?" > > > >> > >> I demote you from pupa, to .dot. > >> > >> .dot gets a SPANK!! SPANK !! You bad boy, you fail to study, you cannot > >> answer why clouds are there. > >> > >> you should re think your moistness, better yet, accept the fact that > >> water vapor it is too difficult for you, and change fields, try coloring > >> on some paper, and show somebody. you could trace and then color a > >> water molecule ! (wiki for it) > > > Take some time and think about dry air is composed of mostly of heavy > oxygen (O2) and > nitrogen (N2) Molecules. However in moist air, some molecules are the > lighter weight water molecules (H2O), rather than heavier O2 or N2 > molecules. Irrelevant. > > what is the weight of H2O ? MM of 18.0152 g/mol > Weight of O2 ? MM of 31.9988 g/mol > Weight of N2 ? MM of 28.01340 g/mol > > clearly water, H2O is light weight, everybody already knows this, and > can easily verify this fact online in thousands of places. Too bad you > continue to fool yourself. > > H2O is gaseous in the atmosphere. Steam tables indicate otherwise. Consult steam tables, or any > Psychrometric chart http://www.kaceenergy.com/images/fig4.gif > > Therefore, the *air is less dense in moist air* and this decrease in > density equates to less resistance to the ball's motion through air. > > So, for two baseballs hit with equal force, the one in the moist air > would travel much much farther than the one hit in dry air. Wrong. Moist air is heavier.
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 10:36 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-16 10:45 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 11:50 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-16 14:28 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 13:46 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-16 17:52 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 16:00 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-16 19:31 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-16 14:54 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 15:28 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-16 20:36 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 20:58 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 23:11 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 21:27 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 08:50 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 08:57 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:10 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-16 21:36 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 22:03 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-16 22:29 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 23:19 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-17 10:24 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 10:29 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 09:03 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-17 12:46 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 10:54 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-17 13:10 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:20 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-17 19:11 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2016-02-17 00:40 +0000
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 18:18 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 10:49 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 12:57 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-02-16 14:59 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 15:38 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 15:45 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-16 17:59 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 16:07 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-16 19:56 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 18:10 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-16 20:58 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 19:10 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-16 22:12 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 20:57 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 23:10 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 21:26 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 08:49 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation dm <pippinese@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 07:39 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 09:50 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-17 10:34 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 09:04 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-17 12:49 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 08:45 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-17 13:14 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 15:53 -0500
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 08:55 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 08:44 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 10:50 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 09:14 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:50 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 10:46 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-17 13:07 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:15 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 13:47 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 19:08 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-17 19:52 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 22:40 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-18 11:35 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 10:03 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 09:56 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 10:17 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 09:58 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 12:09 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 10:40 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 14:10 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 12:41 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 16:09 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 14:13 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-18 17:55 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 00:08 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 07:46 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 12:43 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 20:48 -0500
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 18:10 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 18:01 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-16 20:58 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 19:11 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-16 22:12 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 21:31 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-17 10:39 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 09:10 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:12 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 09:16 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:52 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 10:47 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-17 12:57 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:09 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-17 13:17 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 16:24 -0500
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-02-16 13:53 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:43 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 00:04 -0800
csiph-web