Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam"

[James McGinn]

Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam"

When confronted with mystery the public turns to experts and pays them
to resolve it. When confronted with irresolvable contradictions an
expert can either conceal and obscure the contradiction, pretending to
have resolved the mystery or they can reveal the contradiction and
notify the public that the mystery remains. If they do the latter
there is a good chance the public will fire them and look to hire a
new expert. But if they sweep the contradiction under the rug then the
public remains ignorant and the experts can keep their jobs.

This is why meteorology won't discuss the fact that moist air doesn't
contain gaseous H2O. (Earth's atmosphere doesn't contain H2O[g]. It is
far too cool for that. It contains H2O[l], small clusters/droplets of
H2O.) There models of storms are built around the notion that moist air
is lighter than dry air. And the math on this only works if gaseous H2O
is assumed. Accordingly, this allows them to pretend that this explains
why moist air rises, causing storms. And this pretense saves them from
having to worry about losing their jobs when the public figures out that
they really don't understand what causes storms.

A big part of how they have been able to conceal and obscure this
contradiction has to do with terminology. They use the terms for
gaseous H2O9(g) and vaporous H2O(l) interchangeably. There are any
number of words that they can use to obscure the issue: steam, vapor, evaporate, moist air, condensate etc. So there are any number of
different methods with which they can leave their audience confused.
They realize that when it comes to job security it is better to keep
the public confused thinking the subject is so complex that only an
expert can understand it than it is to educate them and risk revealing
that they really don't understand the mechanics of storms.

[Sergio]

On 1/18/2016 2:45 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>
> Why Meteorologists Won't
>


stop posting your ignored and stupid blog here, dumbass.


post your poo in alt.snorting.tomatoes.love.cold.steam.for.dumbasses

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam"

Because they are not insane.


--
Jim Pennino

[Poutnik]

Posts of James MacGinn aka Solving Tornadoes are not worthy to respond.
He does not bother with checking his ideas
against known experimental data, or learning physics.


--
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

[HVAC]

Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam"

-------------

Cold steam = Water

[hanson]

"benj" <no...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
A Doppelganger of Swine Glazier, the Cretin, wrote:
>> Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam"
>>

hanson wrote:
His 1-liner doesn't define neither "Cold" nor "Steam"
>>
Harlow Campbell HVAC wrote:
>> Cold steam = Water
>>
hanson wrote:
Harlow, if you must then better go with "Fog" or "Clouds".
>
"benj" wrote:
> water = "heavy air"
>
hamson wrote:
Ben, it is painful to see that ever since Full-Swine Glazier
did shit into your "Kisser", Swine Glazier's excrements
have affected your brain, .... deleteriously.... Pity!
Pity, but thanks for the laughs... ahahahahahahanson
>
>
PS:
Ben, for your benefit and recuperation, see below how your
damaged from his Glazierola occurred. It can be seen really
from the moment on when <herbert...@gmail.com>
"reber g=emc^2" :B::ert Glazier, the hate-mongering Full-Swine,
introduces himself as/with
>
:B:: "I am a proud Jew with a Superiority complex &
:B:: an IQ of 122", & "I do know how everything works,.."
:B:: "My Grandfathers had tails". -- Trebert
:B:: "Being Jewish I know this is so very true" -- Bert.
:B:: "I'm a non-bible(torra) Jew. I'm the only Jew that
:B:: got 2 form letters from two Popes". Bert
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
>
:B:: "I'll be sitting on Benj's, Saul Levi's & HVAC's face
:B:: to take a shit & say: "Open your mouth wide".
:B:: "Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And laugh".
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
>
:B:: "I'm M&M's Clueless Fuck-faced turd".Bert.
:B:: I'm "Siegman Fraud", "Bert, the Bowel Movement".
:B:: "I gave G=EMC^2 (wrong & stolen) to the world"
:B:: "Israel will drop its first H-bomb 'David' ". TreBert
:B:: __"I'm glad when war breaks out"__ Bert
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
>
:B:: "Even the FBI has me as a trouble maker and
:B:: the FBI blocks my phone from calling them. "....
:B:: cuz "I was mixing sulfur, carbon & iron together
:B:: to make gun powder" ... & "while I was in custody
:B:: of Osceola Sheriff Bob Hansel, for thieving, his
:B:: deputies beat the shit out of me. So I bought a
:B:: 357 magnum for death threats by Sheriff Bob.
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
>
about which ....
Moderator General "HVAC" <Mr....@gmail.com> aka
"Richard A." aka Harlow Campbell wrote:
>
"Bert, Seriously. You are the stupidest cocksucking
moron who ever came down the Mass Pike.
"Bert, you really are a pathetic excuse for a human
fucking being". "Bert is a racist. (And he's stupid too)"
"TreBert, you are one stupid cocksucker".
"Bert, does your stupidity know no bounds?"
"Bert, are the stupidest cocksucker on the planet."
"Spin THIS, Glazier, you fucking idiot." "Bert get
some spelling lessons, you feeble-minded fuck".
"Bert, your opinion doesn't count"
"Bert you are an idiot."
"Bert, you are a clueless cocksucker .... and "Bert
you are senile, dazed & confused. Fucked in the head.
"a trained cockroach is smarter than Bert"
"Bert, you should be arrested"
"Bert, I will call the police and tell them that your
van seems to be a center for drug activity in the
Wal-Mart parking lot".... .... about which....
>
Glazier's ex-tutor Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
Glazier, your brain is entangles with a used garbage can.
Glazier, "Its a shame" that your science is far worse
than the man's on the street.
Glazier, your postings are old man's garbage.
reber, take your you know it all thinking to your grave .
reber, your horseshit gets old.Say hi to Allah for me.
reber, you don't believe in science.
Glazier, do not post in a science newsgroup.
Glazier, quit posting __ your Gutter Science__.
Glazier, exit USENET. -- IOW Glazier, beat it!..
>
Jim Pennino ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
Glazier, you are a spamming piece of shit...
You are drunk again. Give up and kill yourself.
>
Astrophysicist "Saul Levy" <saul...@cox.net> wrote:
GLAZIER YOU ARE A LAMEbrain PIECE OF SHIT!
Saul Levy
>
Rocket Scientist Virdy "Mahipal" <mahip...@gmail.com> wrote:
Glazier, you are babbling desperately. Is it sympathy
or pity you're grasping for? Stop it, either way.
>
benj" <nob...@gmail.com> wrote:
One only has to read Glazier's posts to see when Bert was lobotomized.
But Herb found poster "Double-A" who likes to be like Glazier,
but "Alkie-Alkie" is another kook who is as dumb as Bert is!
Now they party and frolic!...still waiting "to be loved by all"...
>
hanson wrote:
So Glazier, given your Jewish Superiority complex and
your IQ of 122 and you knowing how how everything works,
... how come ended up shitting into a bucket in a 25 year
old van that you use as your residence on Wal-Mart's
Parking Lot? ..... .... What went wrong, Glazier?
>
Now, Glazier consider "what will the say when Glazier dies?
Are they gonna say he was a kind man? He was a wise man?
He had plans? He has wisdom? .... BULLSHIT, MAN!"...
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TAixFYnDh4> [D]
BULLSHIT,... because Swine Glazier DOES have plans
which Glazier, the Swine, announced and posted at the
ripe age of eighty (80) when Glazier became a criminal
Graveyard Vandal who wrote:
>
(1)
On 25Mar2008 Swine Glazier wrote in:
https://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3ffe7b2257cf8a9a
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.physics/uYtpFTRnW4k/morPVyJ7_j8J
Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And have a good laugh
when it seeps down on your face. -- Bert.
>
Glazier's geriatric decay worsened, along with Glazier's chronic
alcoholism and Glazier, the Olde Kacker, became a Coprophile
IOW Glazier became a filthy Face Shitter at his age of 86, which
Glazier proudly announced & posted...
>
(2)
On 06Dec2014, when the Christian-Hater, Jew-Swine Glazier
said to "benj" <nob...@gmail.com>:
Reality is you always post under me for you are an ass kisser.
For Christmas I'll shit on your kisser.
Benj, you can thank me in advance. - TreBert. ... after which...
>
Glazier, the Criminal Graveyard Vandal & Face Shitter got even
worse over the next year and at Glazier's age of 87, Glazier
widened his piggish Face-shitting habit, as seen when Glazier
threatened...
>
(3)
On 07Feb 2015 & on 08Feb2015, as Swine Glazier wrote:
Harlow HVAC, Mr....@gmail.com, Saul Levy <saul...@cox.net
& Jacoby Benj, <nob...@gmail.com>: "I'll be sitting on your face
to take a shit & say: "Open wide". Trebert.
>
(4)
The Criminal Swine Glazier refused to stop his practices & rejected
to be taken down, because Glazier at his age of 87+, Swine Glazier
labeled himself as "Siegman Fraud" which is synonym with "Bowel-
movement, actually saying that __ "Glazier is a piece of shit"__.
who, to boot, also announced that Glazier is a Transvestite who dons
female dresses and a Sarah Palin mask, saying that he has "nice
legs"...
>
hanson wrote:
So, Glazier you Transie-Swine, do know that as soon as you
have been "put away and under" Google will remove ALL YOUR
posts from the USENET and the only thing that will remain and
show your legacy, is because:
>
Glazier the Swine fortunately posted:
.... "hanson made me famous"....
>
hanson wrote
So, Glazier you swine you should be grateful to me & not wish
me ill like you did above, in your sick hate mongering, since
it is only because of hanson that Web searches show for:
>
--- Swine Glazier G=EMC^2 Cretin ---- 27'833 hits & rising
--- reber g=emc^2 Face-shitter & Vandal ---- 27'953 hits & rising
>
cuz of hanson's caring and loving administering badly needed
<http://tinyurl.com/G-EMC2-Recall-Therapy> to the mental
cripple aka <http://tinyurl.com/Swine-Glazier>. ... Shalom!

[Solving Tornadoes]

Oki doki

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Cold steam?

That's just that vapor pressure is non-zero
in comparing aqueous and gaseous environments
and the interface, and the fact that liquid
water covers 2/3 the Earth.

Also there are often a variety of other sooty
and even often ionized components in the atmosphere
which are carrying liquid water, not gaseous steam,
in terms of water density in the air. For being
a solvent, it's also quite often residual. That
there is also gaseous dihydrogen monoxide in air
and of measures of humidity etcetera is also known
in terms of water triple point etcetera. Still,
steam is only gaseous water and only exists
above the boiling point of water (otherwise being
fog).

Below zero it is quite a dry cold.

Minus ten or fifteen degrees C is crisp.

Water is interesting, to be sure, it's interesting
to consider its centrality in liquid phase systems
and as the prevalent liquid and solvent, besides
methane seas or along those lines in rather colder
climes, or under pressures on gas giant planets.

Similarly to iron and its centrality in fission and
fusion or nuclear stability, water as strongly oxidized
in hydrogen environments or stable, in that sense, may
be found to have theoretically central characteristics
in matter phase mechanics, besides being so totally
relevant to the biomechanics of living bodies as on Earth.

[James McGinn]

Water is a subject in which almost everybody (accept me) is, in one way or anotehr, deeply confused. The vast majority of people are confused into thinking it is a lot simpler than it really is. There are a handful of scientists that study it and they are overwhelmingly confused by why they can't quite seem to comprehend it; the more it seems like it makes sense the more its anomalies stand out. Here is a video I think you will like. It is a little bit longish but it is right along the lines of what I am talking about here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hGqlEpvODw

[Poutnik]

Dne 22/01/2016 v 04:48 Ross A. Finlayson napsal(a):
>
> Cold steam?
>
When one is breathing the cold air,
the steam being created
from moist and warm aire leaving the mouth
is quite cold.

Clouds but the ones in upper troposhere
are cold steam based.

But for cold steam to appear,
first saturated pressure of water vapours
must be reached ( can appear earlier
in salt condensation core presence ).

--
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[James McGinn]

On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 12:13:47 AM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 22/01/2016 v 04:48 Ross A. Finlayson napsal(a):
> >
> > Cold steam?
> >
> When one is breathing the cold air,
> the steam being created
> from moist and warm aire leaving the mouth
> is quite cold.
>
> Clouds but the ones in upper troposhere
> are cold steam based.
>
> But for cold steam to appear,
> first saturated pressure of water vapours
> must be reached ( can appear earlier
> in salt condensation core presence ).

What is steam to you? What is vapor to you? What criteria do you use to distinguish between them?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 1/22/2016 1:01 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> Water is a subject in which almost everybody (accept me) is, in one way or anotehr, deeply confused.

This sentence all by itself should be an early-warning siren for you. Or
in your case, an egregiously late warning siren.

--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Sergio]

Cold steam is fog.

hot steam is used for railroad engines, vapor is used in global worming.

steam is used for cooking vegatables, and vapors is what women got in
the 19th century.

steam is hot then cold, unless it is fog, then it is cold, and vapor
warm then cold, unless it is cold, then it can turn wormer

Fog is cold steam, vapor is mostly invisable to human eyes

[HVAC]

I think professor Wormley should post an article on the difference between evaporation and boiling.

There is obviously much confusion on this subject.

I would do it myself except for 2 reasons.

1) I am a poor instructor and often resort to threats of violence

2) I am lazy as fuck

[Sergio]

On 1/21/2016 9:26 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 4:45:14 PM UTC-8, hanson wrote:
>> "benj" <no...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>> A Doppelganger of Swine Glazier, the Cretin, wrote:
>>>> Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam"

>> hanson wrote:
>> His 1-liner doesn't define neither "Cold" nor "Steam"
>>>>
>> Harlow Campbell HVAC wrote:
>>>> Cold steam = Water
>>>>
>> hanson wrote:
>> Harlow, if you must then better go with "Fog" or "Clouds".
>>>
>> "benj" wrote:
>>> water = "heavy air"

>> hanson wrote
>> So, Glazier you swine you should be grateful to me & not wish
>> me ill like you did above, in your sick hate mongering, since
>> it is only because of hanson that Web searches show for:
>>>
>> --- Swine Glazier G=EMC^2 Cretin ---- 27'833 hits & rising
>> --- reber g=emc^2 Face-shitter & Vandal ---- 27'953 hits & rising

>> cuz of hanson's caring and loving administering badly needed
>> <http://tinyurl.com/G-EMC2-Recall-Therapy> to the mental
>> cripple aka <http://tinyurl.com/Swine-Glazier>. ... Shalom!
>
> Oki doki
>

trying to keep your troll OP at the top of the heap, Soilient Tomatoes ?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 1/22/2016 1:01 AM, James McGinn wrote:

> Water is a subject in which almost everybody (accept me) is, in one way or anotehr,
> deeply confused. The vast majority of people are confused into thinking it is a lot
> simpler than it really is.

Jim, I know you don't like it when people stop talking about your ideas
and start talking about you. You are lonely and want engagement, which
would give you some feelings of validation that your ideas are worth
attention. Some people politely give you a little of that. But the real
problem is not your ideas, which are easily dismantled with basic facts,
but instead is you and a few key personality issues.

The good news is that you have control over your personality issues and
can fix that. When that happens, then your steadfast clinging to broken
ideas will also likely resolve itself. Change is hard, but I know you
can do it.

[Sergio]

3) you just dont care about evaporation nor boiling.


"evaporation" is what the do to milk to put it in a can.

"boiling" is what the do to clams, lobsters and other critters that live
on the ocean floor with spunge bob.

WIKI SAYS (read this! if you want to);

Evaporation is a type of vaporization of a liquid that occurs from the
surface of a liquid into a gaseous phase that is not saturated with the
evaporating substance. The other type of vaporization is boiling, which
is characterized by bubbles of saturated vapor forming in the liquid
phase. Steam produced in a boiler is another example of evaporation
occurring in a saturated vapor phase. Evaporation that occurs directly
from the solid phase below the melting point, as commonly observed with
ice at or below freezing or moth crystals (napthalene or
paradichlorobenzene), is called sublimation. Fog is Cold Steam.

[James McGinn]

On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 6:25:02 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> On 1/22/2016 7:42 AM, HVAC wrote:
> > I think professor Wormley should post an article on the difference between evaporation and boiling.
> >
> > There is obviously much confusion on this subject.
> >
> > I would do it myself except for 2 reasons.
> >
> > 1) I am a poor instructor and often resort to threats of violence
> >
> > 2) I am lazy as fuck
> >
>
>
>
> 3) you just dont care about evaporation nor boiling.
>
>
> "evaporation" is what the do to milk to put it in a can.
>
> "boiling" is what the do to clams, lobsters and other critters that live
> on the ocean floor with spunge bob.
>
> WIKI SAYS (read this! if you want to);
>
> Evaporation is a type of vaporization of a liquid that occurs from the
> surface of a liquid into a gaseous phase

What do you think the term, "gaseous phase," means?

At what temperature does water turn to gas?

At what temperature does evaporation generally take place?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 1/22/2016 10:18 AM, James McGinn wrote:

>
> What do you think the term, "gaseous phase," means?
>
> At what temperature does water turn to gas?

All temperatures. Basic fact, Jim.

>
> At what temperature does evaporation generally take place?
>

[James McGinn]

On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 8:23:57 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 1/22/2016 10:18 AM, James McGinn wrote:
>
> >
> > What do you think the term, "gaseous phase," means?
> >
> > At what temperature does water turn to gas?
>
> All temperatures. Basic fact, Jim.

Except that is not what steam tables indicate, is it?

Why do you think that is?

[Odd Bodkin]

For example? Maybe you could point to one online that seems to indicate
otherwise.

>
> Why do you think that is?
>

Dunno yet. Maybe you don't understand what you're looking at. We'll see.

Previous statement stands. All temperatures.

Tell me, Jim, when water ice sublimates, is the stuff that goes into the
air at temperatures below 0 C composed of microsnowflakes?

[James McGinn]

On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 8:23:57 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 1/22/2016 10:18 AM, James McGinn wrote:
>
> >
> > What do you think the term, "gaseous phase," means?

No response.

[James McGinn]

On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 8:37:09 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 1/22/2016 10:30 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 8:23:57 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 1/22/2016 10:18 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> What do you think the term, "gaseous phase," means?
> >>>
> >>> At what temperature does water turn to gas?
> >>
> >> All temperatures. Basic fact, Jim.
> >
> > Except that is not what steam tables indicate, is it?
>
> For example? Maybe you could point to one online that seems to indicate
> otherwise.

Take my word on it.

>
> >
> > Why do you think that is?
> >
>
> Dunno yet.

Excellent. You are honest about what you don't know. What do you think the next step is?

[Odd Bodkin]

You are somehow under the impression that substances have phases that
are marked by melting points and boiling points, and that at
temperatures below the melting point the ENTIRETY of the substance is in
the solid phase; that at temperatures between the melting point and the
boiling point the ENTIRETY of the substance is in the liquid phase; that
at temperatures above the boiling point the ENTIRETY of the substance is
in the gaseous phase. This impression that you have gotten is wrong --
not only for water but for ANY substance.

You have not learned the basics of thermodynamics and the phases of
matter, and would do well to go back to learning those basics.

Choose not to, and you will continue to get the reception you have
gotten for years and years until you have a stroke and drop quietly to
the sidewalk.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 1/22/2016 10:53 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 8:37:09 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 1/22/2016 10:30 AM, James McGinn wrote:
>>> On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 8:23:57 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 1/22/2016 10:18 AM, James McGinn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think the term, "gaseous phase," means?
>>>>>
>>>>> At what temperature does water turn to gas?
>>>>
>>>> All temperatures. Basic fact, Jim.
>>>
>>> Except that is not what steam tables indicate, is it?
>>
>> For example? Maybe you could point to one online that seems to indicate
>> otherwise.
>
> Take my word on it.

No. You're a lone voice. I can find steam tables. From what I see in
them, they don't support your claim.

Now you've made a claim and say that steam tables support your claim. So
pull the steam table up, let's look at it and you can point to what you
think it says.

>
>
>>
>>>
>>> Why do you think that is?
>>>
>>
>> Dunno yet.
>
> Excellent. You are honest about what you don't know. What do you think the next step is?
>

You showing me a steam table supporting what you claim. That's the next
step.

[James McGinn]

On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 9:05:15 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> You are somehow under the impression that substances have phases that
> are marked by melting points and boiling points,

Right.

and that at
> temperatures below the melting point the ENTIRETY of the substance is in
> the solid phase;

Not necessarily, no. I don't assume that.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 1/22/2016 12:03 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 9:05:15 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> You are somehow under the impression that substances have phases that
>> are marked by melting points and boiling points,
>
> Right.

And what happens at those temperatures, in your thinking?
(More importantly, where did that impression come from?)

>
> and that at
>> temperatures below the melting point the ENTIRETY of the substance is in
>> the solid phase;
>
> Not necessarily, no. I don't assume that.
>

[James McGinn]

> > Take my word on it.
>
> No. You're a lone voice. I can find steam tables.

Good.

> From what I see in
> them, they don't support your claim.

Reference?

[James McGinn]

On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 10:04:33 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 1/22/2016 12:03 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 9:05:15 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> You are somehow under the impression that substances have phases that
> >> are marked by melting points and boiling points,
> >
> > Right.
>
> And what happens at those temperatures, in your thinking?

Why don't you do research on this topic and see what you find?

[Odd Bodkin]

Sure. http://www.efunda.com/materials/water/steamtable_general.cfm

Now, you made a claim about steam tables.
You point to one that supports your claim.

Can't find one? So your making a statement without support from a
reference that you claim exists is what you call an argument?

[James McGinn]

A chart would be better.

[Sergio]

On 1/22/2016 10:18 AM, James McGinn wrote:

> On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 6:25:02 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>> On 1/22/2016 7:42 AM, HVAC wrote:
>>> I think professor Wormley should post an article on the difference between evaporation and boiling.
>>>
>>> There is obviously much confusion on this subject.
>>>
>>> I would do it myself except for 2 reasons.
>>>
>>> 1) I am a poor instructor and often resort to threats of violence
>>>
>>> 2) I am lazy as fuck
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 3) you just dont care about evaporation nor boiling.
>>
>>
>> "evaporation" is what the do to milk to put it in a can.
>>
>> "boiling" is what the do to clams, lobsters and other critters that live
>> on the ocean floor with spunge bob.
>>
>> WIKI SAYS (read this! if you want to);
>>
>> Evaporation is a type of vaporization of a liquid that occurs from the
>> surface of a liquid into a gaseous phase
>
> What do you think the term, "gaseous phase," means?

non-liquid, non solid

>
> At what temperature does water turn to gas?

at what pressure ?, and what gas is it evaporating into ?
you should review "vapor pressure",

you will find it works differently than you are thinking, it is a
equliberium point where atoms of liquid water leave the surface and go
into the air, and an equal # of atoms of water return into the liquid.
think of a closed jar with some water in it. And think about "pressure"
the dimention of these problems you have been missing all this time, how
much pressure does water exert on its container?

Bonus Questions:
What if you raise the temperature?
what happens to pressure inside? Why ?
By how much ? (wiki for equations)

>
> At what temperature does evaporation generally take place?

all temps.

[James McGinn]

On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 10:43:38 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> > At what temperature does water turn to gas?
>
> at what pressure?

I'll leave that up to you.

[Lawrence Senreich]

Does not matter the temperature and pressure, but the saturation of the
surrounding environment, say air. If the humidity is 100% then no
evaporations takes place. Otherwise always.

[Sergio]

I understand you do not believe in "pressure", it is obvious in what you
post. You missed out on "density" as well.

With these two fundamental metrics missing from your background, and
from your posts/blogs, no wonder your theories are simple, and
self-disproving. Any scientist knows "density" and "pressure".

wiki "pressure cooker"

tires have "pressure" in them.

[James McGinn]

On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 10:59:37 AM UTC-8, Lawrence Senreich wrote:

> Does not matter the temperature and pressure,

What do the steam tables indicate?

[James McGinn]

On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 11:05:09 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

> I understand you do not believe in "pressure",

I do.

[Poutnik]

Dne 22/01/2016 v 19:59 Lawrence Senreich napsal(a):

>
> Does not matter the temperature and pressure, but the saturation of the
> surrounding environment, say air. If the humidity is 100% then no
> evaporations takes place. Otherwise always.
>

It is not related to environment saturation.
It is not attribute of air, but of water itself.

For given temperature and partial vapour pressure
equal to saturated one, rate of condensation
reaches rate of evaporation, as it is dynamic process.

If vapour pressure reaches external pressure,
liquid starts boiling, as external pressure is not able
to prevent vapour bubbles to be created.

--
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[Sergio]

you have never mentioned "pressure" before in your posts or writing.
is that a parameter in you theories ?

[Sergio]

here you go;

http://www.steamtablesonline.com/steam97web.aspx

[James McGinn]

implicity, yes.

[James McGinn]

On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 8:18:52 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

> What do you think the term, "gaseous phase," means?
>
> At what temperature does water turn to gas?
>
> At what temperature does evaporation generally take place?

Okay. Here are the answers:

Gaseous means the individual water molecules are not bonded to each other. Each molecule of H2O in gaseous H2O is independent.

Water only becomes a gas above boiling temperature/pressure of H2O, 100C 212F at 1 ATM, as clearly indicated in steam tables. There is no place in Earth's atmosphere where the temperature is hot enough or the pressure is low enough to produce gaseous H2O. Consequently there is zero gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere, it is all evaporate (vapor). One common misconception is that moist air that is clear is gaseous. This isn't true. Again, there is no gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere, it is all evaporate (vapor). The reason it is often invisible is because H2O's unusually high surface tension allow it to form into droplet/clusters that are so small they are invisible.


Evaporation (and/or sublimation). Can take place anywhere from 99 degrees Celsius all the way down to its triple point temperature, which is very low. But evaporation does not produce gaseous H2O, as described above it produces evaporate (vapor).

[Sylvia Else]

On 19/01/2016 7:45 AM, James McGinn wrote:
>
> Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam"

What is this? Some kind of idée fixe?

It's all about a dynamic equilibrium between liquid water and its
vapour. I suspect it was you who managed to post to the moderated group
sci.physics.research, and had this explained to you.

So drop it. You're wrong. That's all.

Sylvia.

[James McGinn]

On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 6:41:46 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:

> It's all about a dynamic equilibrium between liquid water and its
> vapour.

Uh, . . . er . . . uh . . . dynamic . . . uh . . . equi . . .

I suspect it was you who managed to post to the moderated group
> sci.physics.research, and had this explained to you.

Yer like, one of dem smart peeples that noes dem big words. Dang golly I wiss I wuz more smarter lyke yiew.

[Sylvia Else]

It's hard to see how you could have come up with an understanding of the
behaviour of water without having come across those words. If you really
don't know what they mean, then it's time to learn some stuff rather
than just spouting nonsense.

Sylvia.

[James McGinn]

There are a lot of stupid responses on this NG and a lot of inane responses, but rarely do we see them combined.

[HVAC]

Fun fact: Because the high-energy particles evaporate out of the liquid, the average kinetic energy of the liquid never reaches that of its surroundings. The liquid is always slightly colder.

[Lawrence Senreich]

Poutnik wrote:

> Dne 22/01/2016 v 19:59 Lawrence Senreich napsal(a):
>>
>> Does not matter the temperature and pressure, but the saturation of the
>> surrounding environment, say air. If the humidity is 100% then no
>> evaporations takes place. Otherwise always.
>>
> It is not related to environment saturation.
> It is not attribute of air, but of water itself.

So you mean that humidity can go above those 100%. Why aren't continue
posting in sci.physics.research, a place where you are allowed, without
the fear to be called stupid?

[Odd Bodkin]

So show me a chart that makes your argument for you. Or maybe you don't
have one.

Can you learn a new word today, Jim? The word is chickenshit. Can you
say chickenshit? There! I knew you could!

[Solving Tornadoes]

On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 10:02:25 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> So show me a chart that makes your argument for you. Or maybe you don't
> have one.
>
> Can you learn a new word today, Jim? The word is chickenshit. Can you
> say chickenshit? There! I knew you could!

As you demonstrate, the boiling temperature/pressure of water is
not controversial. It's not even worth looking up because everybody
knows what the evidence indicates. It's uneqivocal. Yet whole
disciplines, like meteorology and climatology, have models the
PERCIEVED validity of which depend on this phantom notion that
water can be a gas at ambient temperatures. So, we have whole
disciplines dumbed down to appeal to the lowest common denominator
because otherwise all members of the discipline are revealed as
fools.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.research/QOxLdbhLwQ0/KQyKNSw6DAAJ

[Sergio]

Soylent Tomatoes (Esad the Troll) says,

"...phantom notion that water can be a gas at ambient temperatures..."

you should get another shtick, dude. You are like an old car in a circus.

[James McGinn]

On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 10:02:25 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> So show me a chart that makes your argument for you. Or maybe you don't
> have one.

address the issue, frikin phoney

[Poutnik]

Dne 23/01/2016 v 14:28 Lawrence Senreich napsal(a):

In fact it can, being not stable stable
what is used in a fog chambers
to detect the flight of charged particles.

You can continue to post in sci.physics,
if you do not fear to be called stupid.

[Poutnik]

Dne 23/01/2016 v 14:28 Lawrence Senreich napsal(a):

> Poutnik wrote:
>
>> Dne 22/01/2016 v 19:59 Lawrence Senreich napsal(a):
>>>
>>> Does not matter the temperature and pressure, but the saturation of the
>>> surrounding environment, say air. If the humidity is 100% then no
>>> evaporations takes place. Otherwise always.
>>>
>> It is not related to environment saturation.
>> It is not attribute of air, but of water itself.
>
> So you mean that humidity can go above those 100%.

If there is maintained equilibrium
between liquid and gaseous phase,
the relative humidity does not go above 100%.

As above 100%, rate of condensation
is higher than rate of evaporation.

But if the gaseous phase with 100% humidity* gets cooled down,
and if there is lack of condensation centres withing gaseous phase
like dust or droplets, vapour get routinely oversaturated.

It is similar as
when liquid can be temporarily overheated above boiling point,
or overcooled below freezing point.

Note that all these states are not stable, but waits for opportunity
to be changed to stable state.

* regardless on if other gases than water vapour are present or not

[James McGinn]

On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 11:33:49 PM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 23/01/2016 v 14:28 Lawrence Senreich napsal(a):
> > Poutnik wrote:
> >
> >> Dne 22/01/2016 v 19:59 Lawrence Senreich napsal(a):
> >>>
> >>> Does not matter the temperature and pressure, but the saturation of the
> >>> surrounding environment, say air. If the humidity is 100% then no
> >>> evaporations takes place. Otherwise always.
> >>>
> >> It is not related to environment saturation.
> >> It is not attribute of air, but of water itself.
> >
> > So you mean that humidity can go above those 100%. Why aren't continue
> > posting in sci.physics.research, a place where you are allowed, without
> > the fear to be called stupid?
> >
> In fact it can, being not stable stable
> what is used in a fog chambers
> to detect the flight of charged particles.

Incoherent, as usual.

[James McGinn]

On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 11:48:56 PM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:

> If there is maintained equilibrium
> between liquid and gaseous phase,

There is no gaseous phase in earth's atmosphere.

> the relative humidity does not go above 100%.
>
> As above 100%, rate of condensation
> is higher than rate of evaporation.

It is more complicated than just this. Water vapor in the atmosphere is maybe the most poorly understood subject in all of science. Meteorology is clueless, by design. physicists have their heads up there asses on this subject.

>
> But if the gaseous phase with 100% humidity* gets cooled down,

There is no gaseous H2O in the atmospher, you moron. Stop pretending you understand what you don't.

> and if there is lack of condensation centres withing gaseous phase
> like dust or droplets, vapour get routinely oversaturated.
>
> It is similar as
> when liquid can be temporarily overheated above boiling point,
> or overcooled below freezing point.
>
> Note that all these states are not stable, but waits for opportunity
> to be changed to stable state.

incoherent.

[Sylvia Else]

On 23/01/2016 5:03 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 9:05:15 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> You are somehow under the impression that substances have phases that
>> are marked by melting points and boiling points,
>
> Right.

So what's the boiling point of water?

Sylvia.

[James McGinn]

Google it.

[Rebecca Ochsenknecht]

Poutnik wrote:

>>>> Does not matter the temperature and pressure, but the saturation of
>>>> the surrounding environment, say air. If the humidity is 100% then no
>>>> evaporations takes place. Otherwise always.
>>>>
>>> It is not related to environment saturation.
>>> It is not attribute of air, but of water itself.
>>
>> So you mean that humidity can go above those 100%.
>
> If there is maintained equilibrium between liquid and gaseous phase,
> the relative humidity does not go above 100%.

Otherwise it will? I can see you are not afraid of being called stupid. Go
back and do research in sci.physics.research, a place where nobody ever
will call you stupid.

[Poutnik]

Dne 24/01/2016 v 13:27 Rebecca Ochsenknecht napsal(a):

Otherwise it can and it does so,
as used routinely if fog chambers of particle physics.

Being stupid stays with you,
along with your name shifting.

[Rebecca Ochsenknecht]

Poutnik wrote:

>> Otherwise it will? I can see you are not afraid of being called stupid.
>> Go back and do research in sci.physics.research, a place where nobody
>> ever will call you stupid.
>
> Otherwise it can and it does so, as used routinely if fog chambers of
> particle physics.

Will your wet clothes still by drying in 100% humidity? Yes?

[Poutnik]

Dne 22/01/2016 v 17:23 Odd Bodkin napsal(a):

> On 1/22/2016 10:18 AM, James McGinn wrote:
>
>>
>> What do you think the term, "gaseous phase," means?
>>
>> At what temperature does water turn to gas?
>

> All temperatures. Basic fact, Jim.

And not only water, but ice as well.

The freezing point is the temperature,
when vapour pressure is the same above both condensed phases.

[Poutnik]

Dne 24/01/2016 v 10:08 James McGinn napsal(a):

She does know it.

[Poutnik]

Dne 22/01/2016 v 19:15 James McGinn napsal(a):
> On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 10:04:33 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:

>> On 1/22/2016 12:03 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>> On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 9:05:15 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> You are somehow under the impression that substances have phases that
>>>> are marked by melting points and boiling points,
>>>
>>> Right.
>>

>> And what happens at those temperatures, in your thinking?
>
> Why don't you do research on this topic and see what you find?
>
He need not it. You do.

[James McGinn]

On Sunday, January 24, 2016 at 8:22:26 AM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 24/01/2016 v 10:08 James McGinn napsal(a):
> > On Sunday, January 24, 2016 at 1:00:25 AM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 23/01/2016 5:03 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> >>> On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 9:05:15 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> You are somehow under the impression that substances have phases that
> >>>> are marked by melting points and boiling points,
> >>>
> >>> Right.
> >>
> >> So what's the boiling point of water?
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > Google it.
> >
> She does know it.

Notice how emotional people get with water.

[James McGinn]

On Sunday, January 24, 2016 at 8:06:00 AM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 22/01/2016 v 17:23 Odd Bodkin napsal(a):
> > On 1/22/2016 10:18 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> What do you think the term, "gaseous phase," means?
> >>
> >> At what temperature does water turn to gas?
> >
> > All temperatures. Basic fact, Jim.
>
> And not only water, but ice as well.
>
> The freezing point is the temperature,
> when vapour pressure is the same above both condensed phases.

Vapour isn't gas. It is liquid, suspended in air.

Ignorance makes arrogant men small.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 1/22/2016 12:15 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 10:04:33 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:

>> On 1/22/2016 12:03 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>> On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 9:05:15 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> You are somehow under the impression that substances have phases that
>>>> are marked by melting points and boiling points,
>>>
>>> Right.
>>

>> And what happens at those temperatures, in your thinking?
>
> Why don't you do research on this topic and see what you find?
>

OK, so you don't actually have any idea what your OWN thinking is on
what happens at those temperatures. Fine.

You acknowledge that you're a lone wolf, and you claim that you and you
alone understand what happens to water and that most other people don't
know what they're talking about. But when asked what you think you
understand, you deflect and point elsewhere.

Jim, you're a chickenshit blusterer.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 1/23/2016 12:36 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:

> On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 10:02:25 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> So show me a chart that makes your argument for you. Or maybe you don't
>> have one.
>>
>> Can you learn a new word today, Jim? The word is chickenshit. Can you
>> say chickenshit? There! I knew you could!
>
> As you demonstrate, the boiling temperature/pressure of water is
> not controversial.

Right. But the boiling temperature and pressure of water is not the
lowest temperature at which gaseous water exists. Nor does any steam
table that you can produce claim that. If you disagree, produce a steam
table that claims it.

> It's not even worth looking up because everybody
> knows what the evidence indicates.

In other words, when you stated earlier that steam tables indicate that
gaseous water does not exist below the boiling point, you were lying.
Instead, you were saying that steam tables are not worth looking at
anyway, because your common experience tells you otherwise.

> It's uneqivocal. Yet whole
> disciplines, like meteorology and climatology, have models the
> PERCIEVED validity of which depend on this phantom notion that
> water can be a gas at ambient temperatures. So, we have whole
> disciplines dumbed down to appeal to the lowest common denominator
> because otherwise all members of the discipline are revealed as
> fools.
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.research/QOxLdbhLwQ0/KQyKNSw6DAAJ
>

[Odd Bodkin]

The issue is that, when presented with the BASIC fact that gaseous water
exists at ALL temperatures, not just temperatures above the boiling
point, you claimed that steam tables indicate otherwise. And yet you've
yet to produce any steam table that supports your claim. That is the issue.

So address the issue, frickin phony.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 1/24/2016 10:05 AM, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 22/01/2016 v 17:23 Odd Bodkin napsal(a):
>> On 1/22/2016 10:18 AM, James McGinn wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> What do you think the term, "gaseous phase," means?
>>>
>>> At what temperature does water turn to gas?
>>
>> All temperatures. Basic fact, Jim.
>
> And not only water, but ice as well.

Exactly. Which is why I asked Jim if he thought that the sublimated
water ice that passes into the atmosphere at temperatures below 0 C took
the form of microsnowflakes rather than gas.

>
> The freezing point is the temperature,
> when vapour pressure is the same above both condensed phases.
>


--

[Sergio]

On 1/24/2016 1:14 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Sunday, January 24, 2016 at 8:22:26 AM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:

>

> Notice how emotional people get .
>

is that what you are looking for ? an emotional response from people ?

are you in a home ? all by yourself again ?

[Sergio]

On 1/24/2016 1:16 PM, James McGinn wrote:

>
> Vapour isn't gas. It is liquid, suspended in air.

at what pressure, and temperature ?

> Ignorance makes arrogant men small.
>

you are already microscopic in this newsgroup, you are esad troll.

you have demonstrated no real knowledge of physics or chemistry.

[Sergio]

On 1/24/2016 2:27 AM, James McGinn wrote:
















<snip crap>

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 24.01.2016 13:27, Rebecca Ochsenknecht wrote:
> []

It doesn't help to change your name,
the trolling idiot is recognized anyway.

plonk


--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[James McGinn]

On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 6:52:11 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> You acknowledge that you're a lone wolf,

Uh huh.

and you claim that you and you
> alone understand what happens to water

Right.

and that most other people don't
> know what they're talking about.

Uh huh.

But when asked what you think you
> understand, you deflect and point elsewhere.

Ask me anything.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 1/25/2016 1:33 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> But when asked what you think you
>> >understand, you deflect and point elsewhere.
> Ask me anything.

I have.
I've asked you for a reference to the steam table that you say indicates
that gaseous water cannot exist below the boiling point of water.

So, consider it asked.

Now, I fully expect you to deflect and perform other chickenshittery.

[claudi...@gmail.com]

On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 7:11:30 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:

>
> Right. But the boiling temperature and pressure of water is not the
> lowest temperature at which gaseous water exists.

It is regrettable that the internet does not allow you to post links to your imagination so that you could provide support for this absurd claim.

So . . . uh . . .er. . . uh. Why do you think it is the steam tables don't confirm your imagination on this point? Is it a mistake? Conspiracy? Does it involve space aliens? Bigfoot?

[claudi...@gmail.com]

On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 7:51:53 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 1/23/2016 3:35 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 10:02:25 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> So show me a chart that makes your argument for you. Or maybe you don't
> >> have one.
> >
> > address the issue, frikin phoney
> >
>
> The issue is that, when presented with the BASIC fact that gaseous water
> exists at ALL temperatures,

It appears to not be a fact. It appears to be a belief.

If you ever find any direct evidence for the existence of your magical substance be sure let us know.

[claudi...@gmail.com]

On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 8:39:04 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> Exactly. Which is why I asked Jim if he thought that the sublimated
> water ice that passes into the atmosphere at temperatures below 0 C took
> the form of microsnowflakes rather than gas.

Liquid. It can even be supercooled water. But it is always liquid, not gas. Consult steam tables.

[claudi...@gmail.com]

On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 11:39:10 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 1/25/2016 1:33 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > But when asked what you think you
> >> >understand, you deflect and point elsewhere.
> > Ask me anything.
>
> I have.
> I've asked you for a reference to the steam table that you say indicates
> that gaseous water cannot exist below the boiling point of water.
>
> So, consider it asked.

Google is your friend.

[James McGinn]

On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 11:39:10 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:

Nobody is suggesting that you are not perfectly within your rights to believe what you want to believe.

[James McGinn]

On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 8:39:04 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 1/24/2016 10:05 AM, Poutnik wrote:
> > Dne 22/01/2016 v 17:23 Odd Bodkin napsal(a):
> >> On 1/22/2016 10:18 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> What do you think the term, "gaseous phase," means?
> >>>
> >>> At what temperature does water turn to gas?
> >>
> >> All temperatures. Basic fact, Jim.
> >
> > And not only water, but ice as well.
>
> Exactly. Which is why I asked Jim if he thought that the sublimated
> water ice that passes into the atmosphere at temperatures below 0 C took
> the form of microsnowflakes rather than gas.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.research/QOxLdbhLwQ0/jYwQxYtPCwAJ

[Odd Bodkin]

On 1/25/2016 1:50 PM, claudi...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 7:11:30 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>>
>> Right. But the boiling temperature and pressure of water is not the
>> lowest temperature at which gaseous water exists.
>
> It is regrettable that the internet does not allow you to post links
> to your imagination so that you could provide support for this absurd claim.

It's not imagination. It's basic freshman physics book stuff, found in
books in chemistry, biology and physics. Since you dismiss links to the
internet, I can provide (and have provided) book references. You asked
for a steam table link, by the way, and I provided you one, and you
asked for something else so you could make your case. You have not made
your case.

You are saying that BASIC facts are absurd, Jim.

>
> So . . . uh . . .er. . . uh. Why do you think it is the steam tables don't
> confirm your imagination on this point? Is it a mistake? Conspiracy? Does
> it involve space aliens? Bigfoot?
>

You are the one that is imagining that steam tables indicate that no
gaseous water exists below the boiling point. So point to where steam
tables show that.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 1/25/2016 1:55 PM, claudi...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 7:51:53 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 1/23/2016 3:35 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>> On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 10:02:25 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> So show me a chart that makes your argument for you. Or maybe you don't
>>>> have one.
>>>
>>> address the issue, frikin phoney
>>>
>>
>> The issue is that, when presented with the BASIC fact that gaseous water
>> exists at ALL temperatures,
>
> It appears to not be a fact. It appears to be a belief.

No, it is a BASIC fact. In introductory physics, chemistry and biology
books.

If you believe it is NOT a fact, and you believe that steam tables in
fact indicate otherwise, then produce the steam tables and point to
where you believe they indicate otherwise.

>
> If you ever find any direct evidence for the existence of your magical substance be sure let us know.
>

[Odd Bodkin]

Now, why would there be supercooled liquid drops in the air at -40 C, Jim?

> Consult steam tables.

You consult steam tables. Show where in steam tables it says that there
is only liquid water in air at -40 C.

[Odd Bodkin]

Sorry, Jim, this is YOUR contention. Not Google's. You say YOU ALONE
understand that water in air below boiling point is liquid, not gas. So
if YOU ALONE are the one that holds that knowledge, then Google won't
help. If YOU ALONE are the holder of this knowledge, then YOU ALONE have
the facts to back it up. If you do not have the facts to back it up,
then you do not have the knowledge.

This is not Thursday nite poker with friends, where you've got an
eight-high hand, and you're trying to bluff to win a pot of $5.50.

You are bullshitting and deflecting, and you look like a complete ass
doing it.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 1/25/2016 3:28 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 11:39:10 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
> Nobody is suggesting that you are not perfectly within your rights to believe what you want to believe.
>

I am certainly within my rights to NOT believe what you contend but
cannot back up. Feel free to believe what you alone believe, even though
you cannot back it up but believe it anyway.

[James McGinn]

On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 2:37:58 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> >> Right. But the boiling temperature and pressure of water is not the
> >> lowest temperature at which gaseous water exists.
> >
> > It is regrettable that the internet does not allow you to post links
> > to your imagination so that you could provide support for this absurd claim.
>
> It's not imagination.

How do you know?

> It's basic freshman physics book stuff, found in
> books in chemistry, biology and physics. Since you dismiss links to the
> internet, I can provide (and have provided) book references. You asked
> for a steam table link, by the way, and I provided you one, and you
> asked for something else so you could make your case. You have not made
> your case.
>
> You are saying that BASIC facts are absurd, Jim.

Science isn't about what you believe or how deeply you believe it or even how many other people share your belief. Sorry to burst your bubble.

>
> >
> > So . . . uh . . .er. . . uh. Why do you think it is the steam tables don't
> > confirm your imagination on this point? Is it a mistake? Conspiracy? Does
> > it involve space aliens? Bigfoot?
> >
>
> You are the one that is imagining that steam tables indicate that no
> gaseous water exists below the boiling point. So point to where steam
> tables show that.

Nobody is saying you are not allowed to believe what you want, just don't call it science.

[James McGinn]

On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 2:39:12 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> > It appears to not be a fact. It appears to be a belief.
>
> No, it is a BASIC fact.

Is there such thing as a non-basic fact?

[James McGinn]

On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 2:40:29 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> > Liquid. It can even be supercooled water. But it is always liquid, not gas.
>
> Now, why would there be supercooled liquid drops in the air at -40 C, Jim?
>
> > Consult steam tables.
>
> You consult steam tables. Show where in steam tables it says that there
> is only liquid water in air at -40 C.

LOL. So, your point is based on what the steam table doesn't say? Is that right?

[James McGinn]

On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 2:43:24 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> >> So, consider it asked.
> >
> > Google is your friend.
> >
>
> Sorry, Jim, this is YOUR contention.

Right. Another thing that confuses people is the psychrometric charts:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.research/QOxLdbhLwQ0/TVKql-ReCQAJ

> Not Google's. You say YOU ALONE
> understand that water in air below boiling point is liquid, not gas.

Quote me directly, you strawbaiting nitwit.

> So
> if YOU ALONE are the one that holds that knowledge, then Google won't
> help. If YOU ALONE are the holder of this knowledge, then YOU ALONE have
> the facts to back it up. If you do not have the facts to back it up,

It would appear that you have done that for me.

> then you do not have the knowledge.
>
> This is not Thursday nite poker with friends, where you've got an
> eight-high hand, and you're trying to bluff to win a pot of $5.50.

I got the nuts:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ

[James McGinn]

On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 2:46:23 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> > Nobody is suggesting that you are not perfectly within
> > your rights to believe what you want to believe.

> I am certainly within my rights to NOT believe

That too.

[James McGinn]

On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 2:40:29 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> > Liquid. It can even be supercooled water. But it is always
> > liquid, not gas.
>
> Now, why would there be supercooled liquid drops in the air at -40 C, Jim?
>
> > Consult steam tables.
>
> You consult steam tables. Show where in steam tables it says that there
> is only liquid water in air at -40 C.

Supercooled water is well documented in the atmosphere. Google is your friend, again.

[Sylvia Else]

On 25/01/2016 6:14 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Sunday, January 24, 2016 at 8:22:26 AM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:

>> Dne 24/01/2016 v 10:08 James McGinn napsal(a):
>>> On Sunday, January 24, 2016 at 1:00:25 AM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 23/01/2016 5:03 AM, James McGinn wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 9:05:15 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> You are somehow under the impression that substances have phases that
>>>>>> are marked by melting points and boiling points,
>>>>>
>>>>> Right.
>>>>
>>>> So what's the boiling point of water?
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> Google it.
>>>
>> She does know it.
>
> Notice how emotional people get with water.
>

Well, you do, that's for sure.

Your position appears to be that water boils at a fixed temperature.
Since Google doesn't support your view, the only way I can discover the
temperature at which you believe water boils is to ask you.

So, I ask again. What's the boiling point of water?

Sylvia.

[James McGinn]

On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 4:40:29 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:

> So, I ask again. What's the boiling point of water?

Look it up.

[Sylvia Else]

I've already explained that I cannot possibly look up what you believe
to be the boiling point.

What do you believe to be the boiling point?

Sylvia.

[Sylvia Else]

That there can be liquid water in the air at -40C was not the point. The
operative word was "only".

Sylvia.

[James McGinn]

On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 6:03:48 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:

> I've already explained that I cannot possibly look up what you believe
> to be the boiling point.
>
> What do you believe to be the boiling point?

I believe steam tables.

[James McGinn]

ice too.

[Sylvia Else]

Sylvia