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

Groups > alt.checkmate > #56148

Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

In article <323719d8a0ffc7eeeb81d09b5da2b252@dizum.com>, 
FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx says...


> 
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
> 
> James McGinn, in
> <news:a678955b-7929-400f-a8c0-a00a4ad0827c@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> 
> > On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 7:41:03 AM UTC-8, pipp...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 
> > James McGinn:
> > Whatever the case, your argument is contrived.  You are mixing metaphors and being deceptive.
> > 
> > LipperF:
> > Like I said, this is the most direct example I can find of published data showing that moist air is less dense than dry air. 
> > 
> > James McGinn:
> > There is zero data involving the direct measurement of the weight of moist air versus dry air.  Yet meteorologists continue to maintain the BELIEF that moist air is lighter than dry air as THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT IN ALL OF METEOROLOGY'S STORM THEORY.
> > 
> > The fact that this fact is casually dismissed by you and by all meteorologists is all anybody needs to conclude that meteorology is not a real science like physics or chemistry.
> > 
> > LipperF:
> > Since air is a fluid, it really doesn't make sense to talk about its weight
> > 
> > James McGinn:
> > LOL.  It's you meteorologists that assert that weight/buoyancy/convections is what powers all storms.  So your words sound funny coming from the mouth of a meteorologist. It's like you don't know what you think from one minute to the next.
> > 
> > LipperF:
> > So if there are any publications that address your question directly (by reporting a weight rather than a mass or a density) they are not easy to locate:
> > http://www.imeko.org/publications/tc3-2002/IMEKO-TC3-2002-038.pdf 
> > 
> > James McGinn:
> > As you eluded, your reference is worthless.  The details of meteorology's convection model of storm theory are IMPOSSIBLE to locate. Meteorologists don't discuss these details.  It is strictly a taboo subject--literally.   
> > 
> > You have as much chance to get a meteorologist to discuss the mathematical details of convection as you do getting a priest to discuss the details of the inquisition.
> > 
> > LipperF:
> > But since the weight of the sample is directly proportional to the density and the mass of the sample, both of which are reported in the reference(s) above, I find the publications to be thoroughly convincing.  
> > 
> > James McGinn:
> > I find your claim that the sample is directly proportional to density to be absurd--plainly.  And I find the fact that you find this convincing to be evidence that you are not a real scientists and, by association, meteorology is not a real science.
> > 
> > LipperF:
> > Nonsense. Meteorologists (as well as physicists, chemists, mathematicians, engineers, etc) spend a considerable amount of time and ink talking about how clouds, dust devils, thunderstorms, winter storms, supercell thunderstorms, monsoons, hurricanes, and tornadoes form. The conceptual and numerical models we use to analyze, simulate, and predict these systems are constantly analyzed for inconsistencies and improved when possible. 
> > 
> > James McGinn:
> > As you just eluded, meteorology is a conversational science.  It's not an empirical science.  Listening to you is like listening to two clergy discussing a passage in the bible.  Meteorologists make observations.  They/you don't do experiments.  The basic assumptions of their/your most fundamental models are mathematically absurd/inept.  So they/you can't actually solve problems.  It's all talk and phoney math used to create the illusion that they/you understand what 
they/you do not.  
> > 
> > Before there was global warming there was meteorology.
> 
> Still denying Avogadro's Law, Jim?
> 
> The molar mass of water is 18.02 g/mol, as calculated from the sum of
> the atomic masses of its constituent atoms.
> 
> The average molar mass of air (approximately 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen,
> 1% other gases) is 28.57 g/mol at STP.
> 
> Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous
> phase and air have a molar volume of 22.414 L/mol at STP. IOW, a molar
> mass of air and a molar mass of water in its gaseous phase occupy the
> same volume of 22.414 liters at STP.
> 
> The density of water in its gaseous phase at STP is 0.804 g/L, whereas
> the density of dry air is 1.27 g/L at STP.
> 
> Therefore that 22.414 liters molar volume would weigh:
> 18.02 grams for water in its gaseous phase
> 28.57 g for air
> 
> Therefore, water in its gaseous phase is lighter than air. Therefore
> air with water in its gaseous phase in it is lighter than dry air.
> 
> Therefore, drier air *must* sink through air laden with water in its
> gaseous phase, because it is less buoyant.
> 
> Ergo, your entire basis of argument is invalid, and you'll be
> forwarding the $100,000 to my BitCoin account immediately.
> 
> Now, I'm sure you'll blather something like "that only applies if the
> polarity of water is constant, it is not", as you've done in the past,
> so let's just destroy that kooky little duck-n-weave right now, shall
> we?
> 
> The solvent properties of water depend upon the hydrogen bonding of
> water. If the polarity of the water molecule varied, the hydrogen bond
> length would vary, and therefore the solvent properties of water would
> vary. We know it does not change randomly, only from temperature.
> 
> <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/images/solacid.gif>
> 
> M. H. Abraham and W. E. Acree Jr., The hydrogen bond properties of
> water from 273 K to 573 K; equations for the prediction of gas-water
> partition coefficients, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 14 (2012) 7433-7440. 
> 
> The solvent properties of water changing with temperature are
> explained by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Jim... a more energetic
> environment would cause those hydrogen bonds to be separated more
> often, thus affecting the solvent properties as a measure of
> temperature, *not* as a result of "variable polarity of water", you
> kooktard:
> 
> <http://preparatorychemistry.com/Bishop_solubility_temperature.htm>
> 
> Thus, for any given temperature, the solvent properties of water will
> not change, Jim, and thus the polarity of the water molecule does not
> change, Jim. It is such a bedrock of all chemical processes involving
> water that it can be graphed, as shown above.
> 
> Oh look, proof that the polarity of a water molecule does not change
> unless *induced* to do so via application of electric charge:
> <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/dielectric_constant.html#polar>
> 
> The only way one can force the polarity of water to vary, given that
> the polarization of water is, by definition, its electric dipole
> moment density, is to apply an electric field to the water, you
> kooktard.
> 
> Thus, if you're going to argue that the change in solvent properties
> of water as a result of temperature change is a result of change in
> polarity of the water molecule (an utter impossibility, but let's
> entertain Jim the Moron for a bit), then according to your kooky
> theory, water is an electrocaloric fluid! A change in polarity of the
> molecule due to temperature would entail a change in the electric
> dipole moment density, thus when that purported polarity change
> occurred, your kooky theory says that, by necessity due to the Law of
> Conservation of Energy, water *must* give off an electric charge!
> 
> And that, Jim, is just silly. As is your kooky conspiracy theory. As
> are you, Jim.
> 
> Your theory has been demolished, Jim. It does not reflect reality, it
> cannot reflect reality.
> 
> Now you get to backpedaling, Jim. You backpedal just as hard and fast
> as you can... your delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted state demands
> that you do so.
> 
> <snicker>

Fuck, you're smart!  Will you have my baby?

-- 
Mustaffa Sheboygan

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

Thread

Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-08 23:31 -0800
  Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 19:43 +0100
    Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 11:33 -0800
      Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 05:04 +0100

csiph-web