info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Believers gladly lie to maintain their fragile sense of certainty
151 views
Skip to first unread message
James McGinn
Dec 31, 2016, 1:12:58 PM12/31/16
to
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 11:46:06 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Water vapour (gas state of H2O) is invisible.
>
> Well that is true,
To be clear, this is Sam you are quoting, not me.
> but what is also true is that it has a different
> density than air and a different refractive index than air.
Obviously you are intellectually incapable of recognizing the distinction between evaporate (liquid H2O) and gaseous H2O. Your delusion runs so deep that multiple times you have claimed that Schlieren imaging proves that moist air contains gaseous H2O. Strangely you seem to recognize that Schlieren imaging involves refraction. Strangely you seem to be emotionally incapable of grasping the fact that refraction must involve microdroplets, not gaseous H2O. Possibly you are emotionally incapable of distinguishing between evaporate and gaseous H2O. I don't know. And I don't care. Why don't you see if you can find a professional that can help you with that distinction.
> What that means is that if you have a system, such as Schlieren imaging,
> that makes the different densities viewable, one can see things like
> convection currents and water evaporating.
Right, and the reason you can see something is because microdroplets produce refraction. Gaseous H2O does not. So, not only does this not substantiate your strange belief that moisture in the atmosphere is gaseous H2O but it proves exactly the opposite, that it is not gaseous H2O. It is evaporate. It is microdroplets.
It's not my responsibility to educate you on how to think rationally.
Go on, continue being a loon.
> Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Water vapour (gas state of H2O) is invisible.
>
> Well that is true,
To be clear, this is Sam you are quoting, not me.
> but what is also true is that it has a different
> density than air and a different refractive index than air.
Obviously you are intellectually incapable of recognizing the distinction between evaporate (liquid H2O) and gaseous H2O. Your delusion runs so deep that multiple times you have claimed that Schlieren imaging proves that moist air contains gaseous H2O. Strangely you seem to recognize that Schlieren imaging involves refraction. Strangely you seem to be emotionally incapable of grasping the fact that refraction must involve microdroplets, not gaseous H2O. Possibly you are emotionally incapable of distinguishing between evaporate and gaseous H2O. I don't know. And I don't care. Why don't you see if you can find a professional that can help you with that distinction.
> What that means is that if you have a system, such as Schlieren imaging,
> that makes the different densities viewable, one can see things like
> convection currents and water evaporating.
Right, and the reason you can see something is because microdroplets produce refraction. Gaseous H2O does not. So, not only does this not substantiate your strange belief that moisture in the atmosphere is gaseous H2O but it proves exactly the opposite, that it is not gaseous H2O. It is evaporate. It is microdroplets.
It's not my responsibility to educate you on how to think rationally.
Go on, continue being a loon.
James McGinn
Jan 18, 2017, 1:03:07 AM1/18/17
to
Claudius Denk
Jan 18, 2017, 10:17:47 AM1/18/17
to
On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 10:12:58 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> It's not my responsibility to educate you on how to think rationally.
>
> Go on, continue being a loon.
True. Loons will always be silly loons.
>
> Go on, continue being a loon.
James McGinn
Jan 21, 2017, 12:07:39 AM1/21/17
to
James McGinn:
So, Ed. What in the world allowed you to come to the conclusion that Dalton's Law was applicable to water vapor (H2O[l])?
Pnal:
Could it possibly be that H2O exists in the atmosphere as a gas? Look up the freaking definition of 'water vapor', you ignorant fool!
James McGinn:
Do you admit that you had classes in physics?
Pnal:
I admit that I have a university degree in physics...
James McGinn:
Then stop acting like a child.
pnal...@gmail.com
Jan 21, 2017, 12:20:44 AM1/21/17
to
edpr...@gmail.com
Jan 21, 2017, 10:57:27 AM1/21/17
to
As usual I respond so that other readers and newcomers can learn.
On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 12:07:39 AM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> James McGinn:
> So, Ed. What in the world allowed you to come to the conclusion
> that Dalton's Law was applicable to water vapor (H2O[l])?
Go back and look, I said it applies to gaseous water.
And you must agree because you said.
On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 11:07:54 AM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> Dalton's Law is well understood by science.
> It is a gas law. (It is not a vapor law.)
>
The term vapor applies to both gaseous and liquid substances
dispersed in air. Since you keep wanting to limit the
definition of vapor, let's agree to be precise and
ignore the term vapor. I said Dalton's law applies to
gaseous water in air.
And when you apply Dalton's law to water air mixtures,
the density and buoyancy values come out correctly.
I know you have trouble reading the NIST article I sent you,
So I'll summarize it:
Based on the ideal gas law and Dalton's law of partial pressure
NIST scientists derived a formula for the density of air-water
mixture. They need this to be VERY PRECISE in order to account
for buoyancy when they and other standards labs around the
world test the Kilogram standards.
Having the formula they then compared with measurements
in the lab. The measurements match. (end of article)
So since you agree with me that
Dalton's law will fail if the substance is a liquid,
We then add that
the NIST measurements succeed with a high precision
and we conclude
therefore the substance (water) MUST be a gas.
This is basic logic. Dates back to Aristotle.
So dear readers, this is just one more proof that
JM's theory of water is BOGUS
(as the Car Talk guys would say)
>
> Pnal:
> Could it possibly be that H2O exists in the atmosphere as a gas?
> Look up the freaking definition of 'water vapor', you ignorant fool!
>
> James McGinn:
> Do you admit that you had classes in physics?
>
> Pnal:
> I admit that I have a university degree in physics...
>
> James McGinn:
> Then stop acting like a child.
And Dear readers, note the reaction by JM.
JM clings to a very limited definition of vapor.
He thinks his definition is the one used in Physics.
Unfortunately, he is again wrong.
He is bitter because he has no college degree,
especially not a degree in physics.
JM's goal is to be the top poster in this group.
He thinks he is "creating content" for the internet.
his lack of skills in scientific discussions and
his goal combine to make him post the same thing
over and over. He has even created Claudius Denk,
another account which he uses to make it
appear someone else agrees with him.
Like I always say,
You are not crazy if you talk to yourself.
It is when you answer yourself that you should worry!
Enjoy!
ed
On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 12:07:39 AM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> James McGinn:
> So, Ed. What in the world allowed you to come to the conclusion
> that Dalton's Law was applicable to water vapor (H2O[l])?
And you must agree because you said.
On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 11:07:54 AM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> Dalton's Law is well understood by science.
> It is a gas law. (It is not a vapor law.)
>
The term vapor applies to both gaseous and liquid substances
dispersed in air. Since you keep wanting to limit the
definition of vapor, let's agree to be precise and
ignore the term vapor. I said Dalton's law applies to
gaseous water in air.
And when you apply Dalton's law to water air mixtures,
the density and buoyancy values come out correctly.
I know you have trouble reading the NIST article I sent you,
So I'll summarize it:
Based on the ideal gas law and Dalton's law of partial pressure
NIST scientists derived a formula for the density of air-water
mixture. They need this to be VERY PRECISE in order to account
for buoyancy when they and other standards labs around the
world test the Kilogram standards.
Having the formula they then compared with measurements
in the lab. The measurements match. (end of article)
So since you agree with me that
Dalton's law will fail if the substance is a liquid,
We then add that
the NIST measurements succeed with a high precision
and we conclude
therefore the substance (water) MUST be a gas.
This is basic logic. Dates back to Aristotle.
So dear readers, this is just one more proof that
JM's theory of water is BOGUS
(as the Car Talk guys would say)
>
> Pnal:
> Could it possibly be that H2O exists in the atmosphere as a gas?
> Look up the freaking definition of 'water vapor', you ignorant fool!
>
> James McGinn:
> Do you admit that you had classes in physics?
>
> Pnal:
> I admit that I have a university degree in physics...
>
> James McGinn:
> Then stop acting like a child.
JM clings to a very limited definition of vapor.
He thinks his definition is the one used in Physics.
Unfortunately, he is again wrong.
He is bitter because he has no college degree,
especially not a degree in physics.
JM's goal is to be the top poster in this group.
He thinks he is "creating content" for the internet.
his lack of skills in scientific discussions and
his goal combine to make him post the same thing
over and over. He has even created Claudius Denk,
another account which he uses to make it
appear someone else agrees with him.
Like I always say,
You are not crazy if you talk to yourself.
It is when you answer yourself that you should worry!
Enjoy!
ed
James McGinn
Jan 21, 2017, 12:04:01 PM1/21/17
to
On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 7:57:27 AM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > So, Ed. What in the world allowed you to come to the conclusion
> > that Dalton's Law was applicable to water vapor (H2O[l])?
>
> Go back and look, I said it applies to gaseous water.
> And you must agree because you said.
>
> On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 11:07:54 AM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> > Dalton's Law is well understood by science.
> > It is a gas law. (It is not a vapor law.)
LOL Since you are trapped the only option left is to start lying and
> > So, Ed. What in the world allowed you to come to the conclusion
> > that Dalton's Law was applicable to water vapor (H2O[l])?
>
> Go back and look, I said it applies to gaseous water.
> And you must agree because you said.
>
> On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 11:07:54 AM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> > Dalton's Law is well understood by science.
> > It is a gas law. (It is not a vapor law.)
becoming belligerent.
> The term vapor applies to both gaseous and liquid substances
> dispersed in air.
It's the same brain-dead position Chan resorted to when he saw his argument
breaking down. It's the same brain-dead position all of science has
resorted to a long long time ago.
All of science lies about water because all of science appeals to the lowest
common denominator of science consumer--and everybody knows water is simple.
Well, water isn't simple. And pretending it is simple is a major obstacle
to progress in many disciplines, like meteorology.
Exposing this pretense is a theme in the first chapter of my next book.
Here is the first paragraph:
Bill -- Chapter One: Air Brakes (Plasma [1 of 5])
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16582#p117060
Are you the kind of person that suspects an underlying complexity to our
reality that nobody quite understands so everybody just pretends to
understand and tacitly agrees to not call attention to each others
pretenses? Are you the kind of person that suspects that different academic
factions have colluded to sow confusion so that their collective failure to
understand this underlying complexity of our reality is not revealed to the
public? Are you the kind of person that believes the public can so easily be
led astray by pretentious, sciencey sounding rhetoric that diverts attention
away from the wider revelation of this poorly understood underlying
complexity of our reality? Me neither. So I was just as perplexed as anybody
would be when I first encountered the the zeroing out of polarity with with
fully coordinated (symmetric) hydrogen bonding between H2O molecules (as in
liquid water).
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Claudius Denk
Jan 21, 2017, 12:57:38 PM1/21/17
to
On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 7:57:27 AM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> As usual I respond so that other readers and newcomers can learn.
>
> On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 12:07:39 AM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> > James McGinn:
> > So, Ed. What in the world allowed you to come to the conclusion
> > that Dalton's Law was applicable to water vapor (H2O[l])?
>
> Go back and look, I said it applies to gaseous water.
> And you must agree because you said.
Did you hear that, McGinn. He says you "must" agree.
>
> On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 12:07:39 AM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> > James McGinn:
> > So, Ed. What in the world allowed you to come to the conclusion
> > that Dalton's Law was applicable to water vapor (H2O[l])?
>
> Go back and look, I said it applies to gaseous water.
> And you must agree because you said.
> And when you apply Dalton's law to water air mixtures,
> the density and buoyancy values come out correctly.
> So dear readers,
LOL. "dear reader" my ass. You lost the argument and now you are trying to "dear reader" your way out of it.
James McGinn
Jan 21, 2017, 4:25:33 PM1/21/17
to
Don't hold back, Ed. Show us what you got!
James McGinn
Mar 15, 2017, 6:11:24 PM3/15/17
to
On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 10:12:58 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
James McGinn
May 7, 2017, 1:32:03 PM5/7/17
to
On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 10:12:58 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
James McGinn
Jul 10, 2017, 6:58:08 PM7/10/17
to
On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 7:57:27 AM UTC-8, Edward Prochak wrote:
> As usual I respond so that other readers and newcomers can learn.
>
> On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 12:07:39 AM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> > James McGinn:
> > So, Ed. What in the world allowed you to come to the conclusion
> > that Dalton's Law was applicable to water vapor (H2O[l])?
>
> Go back and look, I said it applies to gaseous water.
> And you must agree because you said.
>
> On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 11:07:54 AM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> > Dalton's Law is well understood by science.
> > It is a gas law. (It is not a vapor law.)
> >
> The term vapor applies to both gaseous and liquid substances
Lot of the english language is ambiguous, you stupid ass.
> As usual I respond so that other readers and newcomers can learn.
>
> On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 12:07:39 AM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> > James McGinn:
> > So, Ed. What in the world allowed you to come to the conclusion
> > that Dalton's Law was applicable to water vapor (H2O[l])?
>
> Go back and look, I said it applies to gaseous water.
> And you must agree because you said.
>
> On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 11:07:54 AM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> > Dalton's Law is well understood by science.
> > It is a gas law. (It is not a vapor law.)
> >
> The term vapor applies to both gaseous and liquid substances
Only dumbass amateur and internet trolls aren't aware of this.
> dispersed in air. Since you keep wanting to limit the
> definition of vapor, let's agree to be precise and
> ignore the term vapor. I said Dalton's law applies to
> gaseous water in air.
There is no gaseous water in the air, you stupid SOB. It's all in the form of vapor. Earth is
>
> And when you apply Dalton's law to water air mixtures,
> the density and buoyancy values come out correctly.
>
> I know you have trouble reading the NIST article I sent you,
> So I'll summarize it:
> Based on the ideal gas law and Dalton's law of partial pressure
> NIST scientists derived a formula for the density of air-water
> mixture. They need this to be VERY PRECISE in order to account
> for buoyancy when they and other standards labs around the
> world test the Kilogram standards.
> Having the formula they then compared with measurements
> in the lab. The measurements match. (end of article)
James McGinn
Jul 10, 2017, 6:58:54 PM7/10/17
to
James McGinn
Jul 10, 2017, 7:00:36 PM7/10/17
to
On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 7:57:27 AM UTC-8, Edward Prochak wrote:
> As usual I respond so that other readers and newcomers can learn.
>
> On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 12:07:39 AM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> > James McGinn:
> > So, Ed. What in the world allowed you to come to the conclusion
> > that Dalton's Law was applicable to water vapor (H2O[l])?
>
> Go back and look, I said it applies to gaseous water.
> And you must agree because you said.
>
> On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 11:07:54 AM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> > Dalton's Law is well understood by science.
> > It is a gas law. (It is not a vapor law.)
> >
> The term vapor applies to both gaseous and liquid substances
Vapor involves liquid, you lying SOB. Not gas.
>
> On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 12:07:39 AM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> > James McGinn:
> > So, Ed. What in the world allowed you to come to the conclusion
> > that Dalton's Law was applicable to water vapor (H2O[l])?
>
> Go back and look, I said it applies to gaseous water.
> And you must agree because you said.
>
> On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 11:07:54 AM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> > Dalton's Law is well understood by science.
> > It is a gas law. (It is not a vapor law.)
> >
> The term vapor applies to both gaseous and liquid substances
pnal...@gmail.com
Jul 10, 2017, 10:49:55 PM7/10/17
to
On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 3:58:54 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> You never add anything to any conversation. You and Sergio. Brain dead trols.
Oh my! You can't even spell 'trolls'... and you are one of the biggest trolls ever!
> You never add anything to any conversation. You and Sergio. Brain dead trols.
Who's the actual brain-dead troll here?
Mushnik
Jul 10, 2017, 11:15:10 PM7/10/17
to
"I never add anything to any conversation. I love Sergio. Me Brain
dead troll."
Claudius Denk
Jul 11, 2017, 8:12:47 PM7/11/17
to
James McGinn
Jul 24, 2017, 10:20:41 PM7/24/17
to
On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 7:57:27 AM UTC-8, Edward Prochak wrote:
> As usual I respond so that other readers and newcomers can learn.
>
> On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 12:07:39 AM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> > James McGinn:
> > So, Ed. What in the world allowed you to come to the conclusion
> > that Dalton's Law was applicable to water vapor (H2O[l])?
>
> Go back and look, I said it applies to gaseous water.
> And you must agree because you said.
>
> On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 11:07:54 AM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> > Dalton's Law is well understood by science.
> > It is a gas law. (It is not a vapor law.)
> >
> The term vapor applies to both gaseous and liquid substances
> dispersed in air. Since you keep wanting to limit the
> definition of vapor, let's agree to be precise and
> ignore the term vapor. I said Dalton's law applies to
> gaseous water in air.
Uh, er, uh . . . well, there is no gaseous water in the air. Not here on earth, anyway. And it's not Dalton's gas or liquid law. It's Dalton's gas law.
>
> On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 12:07:39 AM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> > James McGinn:
> > So, Ed. What in the world allowed you to come to the conclusion
> > that Dalton's Law was applicable to water vapor (H2O[l])?
>
> Go back and look, I said it applies to gaseous water.
> And you must agree because you said.
>
> On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 11:07:54 AM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> > Dalton's Law is well understood by science.
> > It is a gas law. (It is not a vapor law.)
> >
> The term vapor applies to both gaseous and liquid substances
> dispersed in air. Since you keep wanting to limit the
> definition of vapor, let's agree to be precise and
> ignore the term vapor. I said Dalton's law applies to
> gaseous water in air.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
> And when you apply Dalton's law to water air mixtures,
> the density and buoyancy values come out correctly.
> I know you have trouble reading the NIST article I sent you,
> So I'll summarize it:
> Based on the ideal gas law and Dalton's law of partial pressure
> NIST scientists derived a formula for the density of air-water
> mixture.
Right?
James McGinn
Jul 27, 2017, 11:47:57 AM7/27/17
to
Claudius Denk
Jul 27, 2017, 1:54:25 PM7/27/17
to
The internet has made science into a belief system--no thinking necessary.
James McGinn
Jul 27, 2017, 9:21:33 PM7/27/17
to
James McGinn
Jul 30, 2017, 12:03:07 AM7/30/17
to
Claudius Denk
Jul 30, 2017, 1:02:50 PM7/30/17
to
James McGinn
Sep 13, 2017, 8:18:05 PM9/13/17
to
James McGinn
Oct 2, 2017, 2:27:07 AM10/2/17
to
James McGinn
Mar 9, 2018, 2:34:20 AM3/9/18
to
James McGinn
Mar 16, 2018, 4:09:21 PM3/16/18
to
James McGinn
Dec 7, 2019, 4:13:47 PM12/7/19
to
James McGinn
Jan 6, 2020, 5:07:13 PM1/6/20
to
James McGinn
Jan 7, 2020, 8:57:24 AM1/7/20
to
On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 9:20:44 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
James McGinn
Jan 7, 2020, 8:57:51 AM1/7/20
to
James McGinn
Jan 7, 2020, 7:57:59 PM1/7/20
to
McGinn wrote:
> James McGinn:
> So, Ed. What in the world allowed you to come to the conclusion
> that Dalton's Law was applicable to water vapor (H2O[l])?
> James McGinn:
> So, Ed. What in the world allowed you to come to the conclusion
> that Dalton's Law was applicable to water vapor (H2O[l])?
Go back and look, I said it applies to gaseous water.
I believe you.
Do you continue to claim that Dalton's law underlies your belief that H2O is gaseous in the atmosphere?
If so, please explain your delusion so that we can all have a laugh.
And you must agree because you said.
On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 11:07:54 AM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> Dalton's Law is well understood by science.
> It is a gas law. (It is not a vapor law.)
>
The term vapor applies to both gaseous and liquid substances
dispersed in air. Since you keep wanting to limit the
definition of vapor,
let's agree to be precise and
ignore the term vapor. I said Dalton's law applies to
gaseous water in air.
And when you apply Dalton's law to water air mixtures,
the density and buoyancy values come out correctly.
Like I said, Dalton's law is well understood.
Try to keep up.
Odd Bodkin
Jan 7, 2020, 8:45:24 PM1/7/20
to
people regard you with compassionate pity?
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
James McGinn
Jan 7, 2020, 9:44:04 PM1/7/20
to
Frustrated?
Odd Bodkin
Jan 7, 2020, 10:03:12 PM1/7/20
to
Claudius Denk
Jan 8, 2020, 11:11:58 AM1/8/20
to
On Tuesday, January 7, 2020 at 4:57:59 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > So, Ed. What in the world allowed you to come to the conclusion
> > that Dalton's Law was applicable to water vapor (H2O[l])?
>
> Go back and look, I said it applies to gaseous water.
>
> I believe you.
>
> Do you continue to claim that Dalton's law underlies your belief that H2O is gaseous in the atmosphere?
Answer the question you deceptive coward.
> > So, Ed. What in the world allowed you to come to the conclusion
> > that Dalton's Law was applicable to water vapor (H2O[l])?
>
> Go back and look, I said it applies to gaseous water.
>
> I believe you.
>
> Do you continue to claim that Dalton's law underlies your belief that H2O is gaseous in the atmosphere?
Claudius Denk
Jan 8, 2020, 11:19:34 AM1/8/20
to
You were fully invested in the dumbed down model that academia sold you and now that it's falling apart you don't know what to do.
Go ahead, lash out at me. I'm expecting it.
Science marches on.
Edward Prochak
Jan 17, 2020, 12:44:24 PM1/17/20
to
The false premises include:
"your belief" I accept scientific results. I don't believe them.
"Dalton's law underlies..." I gave that only in reference to the
NIST equations which calculate the density of air.
"you continue to claim that..." I have not brought up Dalton's law
in the context of your threads in half a year or more.
Your insecurity about your failing theory is not my problem.
Enjoy.
Ed
Sergio
Jan 17, 2020, 12:53:07 PM1/17/20
to
He has been regressing as much as poor James McGinn has.
James McGinn
Jan 17, 2020, 1:43:13 PM1/17/20
to
On Friday, January 17, 2020 at 9:44:24 AM UTC-8, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > > Do you continue to claim that Dalton's law underlies your belief
> > > that H2O is gaseous in the atmosphere?
> >
> > Answer the question you deceptive coward.
>
> Answering a question which contains false premises
If you can't figure out what your point is what chance do I have?
> > > Do you continue to claim that Dalton's law underlies your belief
> > > that H2O is gaseous in the atmosphere?
> >
> > Answer the question you deceptive coward.
>
> Answering a question which contains false premises
James McGinn
Feb 16, 2020, 3:19:24 PM2/16/20
to
olli...@gmail.com
Feb 16, 2020, 6:13:00 PM2/16/20
to
McGinn's Problem...
1. McGinn denies that water evaporates into Water Vapor (gas) in the atmosphere at low temps
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporation
2. McGinn denies that ice sublimates into Water Vapor (gas) in the atmosphere
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_(phase_transition)
3. McGinn denies the existence of Water Vapor (gas) and that moist air is much lighter than dry air.
https://www.convertunits.com/molarmass/H2O
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air
4. McGinn denies the existence of Water Vapor (gas), that it is a GHG, and absorbs and emits IR radiation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_absorption_by_water
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Water_infrared_absorption_coefficient_large.gif
5. McGinn denies the direct observation of IR radiation, and that it is monitored 24/7 by GOES satellites
https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/conus.php?sat=G16
Bands 8, 9, and 10.
1. McGinn denies that water evaporates into Water Vapor (gas) in the atmosphere at low temps
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporation
2. McGinn denies that ice sublimates into Water Vapor (gas) in the atmosphere
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_(phase_transition)
3. McGinn denies the existence of Water Vapor (gas) and that moist air is much lighter than dry air.
https://www.convertunits.com/molarmass/H2O
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air
4. McGinn denies the existence of Water Vapor (gas), that it is a GHG, and absorbs and emits IR radiation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_absorption_by_water
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Water_infrared_absorption_coefficient_large.gif
5. McGinn denies the direct observation of IR radiation, and that it is monitored 24/7 by GOES satellites
https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/conus.php?sat=G16
Bands 8, 9, and 10.
James McGinn
Mar 13, 2022, 5:57:21 PM3/13/22
to
Claudius Denk
Apr 19, 2022, 10:27:48 AM4/19/22
to
0 new messages