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

Groups > alt.usenet.kooks > #651682

Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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

James McGinn, in
<news:1d93c0c0-9cc7-4162-8047-0ef59062dccd@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 9:09:36 PM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> James McGinn, in
>> <news:6ce0e771-15f0-413d-aca0-2f4f0353cba6@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>> Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma 
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQSIApZxgVk

>> Translation:
>> "I realize there can exist no plasma in the troposphere, where 91.43%
>> of all water in the atmosphere exists, mainly because the conditions
>> for plasma to exist include high solar flux and a dominant species
>> consisting of hydrogen ions, not oxygen and nitrogen as in the
>> troposphere... which is why the plasmasphere exists so far above the
>> planet's surface, and no plasma can be created further down in the
>> atmosphere. So I'll make my blathering video private... it doesn't
>> provide any evidence of plasma in the troposphere anyway. I'm just a
>> delusional kooktard promulgating a conspiracy theory."
>> 
>> <snicker>
>> 
>> I've seen no proof from you that plasma *does* exist anywhere in our
>> atmosphere except in the plasmasphere, Jim. Because you *have* no
>> proof... and a large corpus of evidence that you're a blathering moron
>> for even suggesting such a thing.
>> 
>> Do you not understand that the reason the plasmasphere exists so high
>> above the planet's surface is because it takes a lot of energy to
>> generate and sustain a plasma?
>> 
>> Do you not understand that the reason the plasmasphere has plasma is
>> because at that altitude, the predominant species is hydrogen ions,
>> not oxygen and nitrogen, said hydrogen ions *required* for the plasma
>> to form?
>> 
>> Do you not understand that the atmospheric reflection and absorption
>> of sunlight as it descends through the atmosphere means the
>> troposphere doesn't have the solar flux *nor* the hydrogen ions
>> necessary to generate plasma?
>> 
>> Do you not understand that clouds top out at the tropopause, and
>> therefore the *only* place you can claim there exists plasma for your
>> kooky conspiracy theory to work is in the troposphere?
>> 
>> Do you not understand that therefore there is no plasma in the
>> troposphere, and thus your kooky conspiracy theory is the mad ranting
>> of an uneducated goof trying to pretend that he's a physicist, when
>> really you're just a delusional kooktard?
>> 
>> So yet again via yet another avenue, I utterly destroy your kooky
>> conspiracy theory, Jim. That's reality. Deal with it.
>> 
>> <snicker>
>> 
>> Two peer-reviewed studies, empirically-derived data, proving monomer
>> water in the atmosphere, Jim:
>> 
>> Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research
>> <http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation>
>> =================================================
>> A water molecule is typically tied to three or four other molecules in
>> the liquid through strong hydrogen bonds. At the surface, this number
>> is reduced, and in order to evaporate the molecule must break at least
>> one hydrogen bond. However, this requires substantial energy, and the
>> obvious question is: "How do evaporating water molecules gain
>> sufficient energy to break the strong hydrogen bond?" To answer this,
>> the researchers watched molecules evaporate in their molecular movies,
>> and inspected the evaporating molecules' trajectories. They found that
>> an ejected molecule always gains its kinetic energy through a precise
>> interaction with two other molecules. It always had a violent
>> collision with a fast-moving molecule just prior to leaving the
>> liquid. This fast-moving molecule, further study showed, was
>> interacting strongly with a third molecule, femtoseconds prior to the
>> evaporation process, in a way that was crucial to the evaporation
>> process. As such, the evaporation process can be viewed as a Newton's
>> cradle, where momentum is transferred to the surface from below, in a
>> well-timed manner, to kick off one water molecule.

> Did you not notice this phrase: " . . . according to computer simulations."?
> 
> What do you think that phrase means?

Did *you* notice the fact that no ultraviolet of sufficient energy can
make its way through the atmosphere to the troposphere to create your
kooky "water plasma", Jim? That utterly destroys your kooky conspiracy
theory, right there. And that's besides all the other avenues which
I've destroyed it, Jim.

Your kooky conspiracy theory is dead, Jim.

As regards your kooky claim that water forms a plasma in the
atmosphere:

<http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-02/983243860.Ph.r.html>
=========================================================
It has been measured that to create any degree of ionization in a
water vapor atmosphere you need to have electrons with energy of at
least around 12 electron volts. (See Ref. below) That means that if
you want to ionize the water (make a plasma) by thermal energy only
you must impart enough thermal energy to get a lot of electrons of
energy about 12 electron volts of higher.  That means the water
molecules will have to be heated up to an excitation level of about
this magnitude.   For a water molecule to be heated to this excitation
energy we are talking about a temperature of about 12,000 degrees K.
So if you could heat the water to this temperature you would begin to
make such a plasma.
=========================================================

Do you know what 12 eV entails, Jim? That'd entail photons of 103.32
nm, a frequency of 2.9016e15 Hz, extremely energetic ultraviolet
light, nearly in the x-ray range.

And that's the *minimum* required to even create *any* degree of
plasma from water... you're claiming *all* the water in the atmosphere
is plasma.

Only 3% of the ultraviolet light from the sun makes its way through
the atmosphere to the trophosphere, Jim, most of it far less
energetic, ranging upwards of 400 nm.

In fact, because ultraviolet shorter than 121 nm ionizes air so
strongly, it is absorbed far above the troposphere, hence, plasma
*cannot* exist in the troposphere, where the overwhelming majority of
atmospheric water is (and hence where all clouds are except for those
wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds), Jim.

Yet again, and via yet another avenue, I utterly destroy your kooky
little conspiracy theory.

<snicker>

-- 

Kensi the moron wrote:
================================
The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so
the curvature is 4*pi
================================

Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the
Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi.

Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi
Therefore, r = 0.28209479176

Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius
of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the
units.

The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent
upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect.

Kensi the moron was corrected:
================================
Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the
Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you
backpedal, LunkHead.

You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore =
(4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is
independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original
"The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*?
================================

But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't
fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend
upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's
trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant
curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral
is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry
problems.

Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an
astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor
concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general
relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of
space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is
"science fiction" and "a howler".

In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was
mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative
Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects
of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold.

He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is
predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive
objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the
tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby
making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature,
and thus causing gravity to *repel*. It also means LunkHead believes
the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding.

Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon
the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there
was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in
the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the
4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of
magnetic attraction.

Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could
not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work,
and therefore a universe which could not exist.

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature
than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and
Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation".

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody
radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow
at 489 F.

Kensi attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming
that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of
temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron
doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain
circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien
Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron
infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve.

Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the
~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed
that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven
wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of
"blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral
emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how
spectral absorption and emission works.

Kensi is the same moron who k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer;
that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place",
that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on
a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead
cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is.

Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that
CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared
atmospheric window.

The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate
Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a
global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second
Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same
moron continues to cling to his delusions.

Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that
global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three
peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite.

Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a
lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard loser trying to pretend that he's
intelligent... and failing badly.

That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that
struggles (and fails) to understand reality.

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

Thread

Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 05:59 +0100
  Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 19:37 +0100
  Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 06:14 +0100

csiph-web