From Fantasy to Fantastic

[James McGinn]

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean/comment-page-8/#comment-113971
Will Janoshka:
The POV of flat Earth astrologers on their moving, rotating, reference frame,
and calling their fantasy Meteorology or Climatology science I refuse to
accept.

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean/comment-page-8/#comment-114079
Will Janoshka:
My point I wish to express again, is that no one or group has the slightest
clue as to how this atmosphere may work. Any claim of such must be an attempt
at deliberate scam!

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean/comment-page-8/#comment-114103
James McGinn:
If you start out with a backwards understanding of the nature of atmospheric
flow you are going to spend all your energy trying to model it. Once you have a
model you will have something that will appear to have predictive power. And,
thus, you will have created an obstacle that you will never be able to
overcome. Never.

For example, if you build a model of planetary motion starting with the
assumptions that the earth is the center of the universe . . . . . . it won't
be until a guy like Copernicus or Galileo comes along . . . I am that guy.


https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean/comment-page-8/#comment-114201
Ray (Suricat):
That's 'strong' language James! Please explain yourself.

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean/comment-page-8/#comment-114202
James McGinn:
The jet streams concentrate and conserve momentum. The energy thereof is what
pulls the rest of the atmosphere along, by way of storms, which are themselves
the result of down-reaching extensions of the jet streams-vortices. Moisture is
intrinsic to the process because of H2O's high surface tension which becomes
maximized along wind shear boundaries. That is why storms are wet. Convection
plays no role at all.


https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean/comment-page-8/#comment-114224
Ray (Suricat):
I disagree. The 'conservation of momentum' is supplied by the 'global cell' per
se. The 'jet streams' are the product of 'overly energetic' entities that can't
integrate into a 'global cell' (into either of the 'polar' cells, or [the 'two
faced/bi-hemispherical' energy loss] of the 'Hadley' cell). The 'jets' are
'overspill' IMHO.

You state, "The energy thereof is what pulls the rest of the atmosphere along,
by way of storms, which are themselves the result of down-reaching extensions
of the jet streams-vortices." 'Jet streams-vortices'??? Are you suggesting
that jet streams and vortices are the same thing? AFAIK the direction of the
'jet stream' is defined by the 'forcing' within the appropriate 'global cell'.
Are you putting the 'cart before the horse' here or are you posing an
alternative solution?

Then you state, "Moisture is intrinsic to the process because of H2O's high
surface tension which becomes maximized along wind shear boundaries. That is
why storms are wet. Convection plays no role at all." Let's get at least one
thing straight! 'Surface tension' is only apparent in the 'liquid' phase of
H2O!


https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean/comment-page-8/#comment-114250
Ben Wouters:
We've seen weightless anything nutters. Now someone who claims the atmosphere
contains no water vapour. The number of idiotic ideas that are discussed on
this site is unbelievable. And all this in what should have been a short
discussion about something simple as atmospheric convection.


https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean/comment-page-8/#comment-114279
Ray (Suricat):
Ben, I guess you watched 'the video' that Jim McGinn linked to here:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/VRum0f7efwg/RbbFJ_Y5CwAJ
Yeah! Some are pretty 'far out', but 'plasma', in the tropo? Electrolytic
action perhaps, but temperatures are 'nowhere near' high enough here, unless
you consider ballistic particle physics. The energy levels are just not there!
A 'compound' doesn't change its 'atomic identity' when it undergoes a 'change
of phase/state'.


http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2011/08/26/how-to-get-off-the-ground-with-nothing-but-water-almost/#comment-39192
James McGinn:
Ray, You stated, "Are you putting the 'cart before the horse' here . . . "

No. I am putting the horse (jet streams) in front of the cart (Hadley cells):
By way of isolating its contents from the friction of the atmosphere, powered
by differential pressure, spanning thousands of miles, the jet streams
facilitate and conserve the momentum of atmospheric flow. The energy thereof is
what pulls the rest of the atmosphere along with storms being the proximate
mechanism that distributes the low pressure energy that itself is a consequence
of the Bernoulli effect in conjunction with the high wind speeds of jet
streams. Accordingly, Hadley cells are delineated by jet streams and the
internal flow of Hadley cells is pulled along by the storm producing
tributaries of jet streams-and that even includes storms in the tropics and
severe weather, like hurricanes.

Ray, you stated, "Jet streams-vortices???" Jet steams and vortices (tornadoes)
are the same thing. The reason we don't notice the vortices of the jet stream
as much is because vortices require wind shear (between moist bodies of air and
dry bodies of air) and 99.9% of the wind shear on this planet exists at the
boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere, which is far above us.
Moisture is intrinsic to the process, that is why storms are wet. Convection
plays no role at all.

Ray, you stated, "Let's get at least one thing straight! 'Surface tension' is
only apparent in the 'liquid' phase of H2O!" I agree. And, as I'm sure you
realized, there is no shortage of liquid (aerosol) H2O in the atmosphere. But
the tricky part is figuring out how its surface becomes maximized to produce a
strong plasma that can subsequently be rolled into the tubes that effectuate
the, above mentioned, isolation from the friction of the atmosphere. The
solution that I came up with involves wind shear along moist/dry and flat,
smooth boundaries like we find at the top of the troposphere.

Ray, you stated, " . . . 'plasma', in the tropo? Electrolytic action perhaps,
but temperatures are 'nowhere near' high enough here, unless you consider
ballistic particle physics. The energy levels are just not there!" Obviously I
am not referring to an ionic plasma. I use the word plasma because that seems
to best fit the behavior of the substance. And I'm not dogmatic about it. If
you prefer to use the phrase, "electrolytic action," I don't have a problem
with that. However, I don't think this has anything to do with electrolytes
(but I haven't really thought about that). I think it has more to do with H2O
surface tension than anything else. Maybe it would be best to think of it as a
surface tension plasma or even a hydrogen bond plasma.

NOY:
Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?

James McGinn:
Yes, this is true--when not spinning.

NOY:
How are your "plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their surface area as you
claim?

James McGinn:
By spinning. Spinning microdroplets elongate as a result of Centrifugal force,
forming into chains, polymers, occurring along wind shear boundaries between
moist and dry bodies of air. (Actually, they are like polymers of ice since the
breaking of bonds activates the polarity that underlies H2O structural
strengths. [This being the exact same mechanism that causes H2O surface
tension.]) Microdroplets along the surface of the moist layer experience side-
glancing impacts from the N2 and O2 in the dry layer. This causes them to
spin. As they spin their surface area is maximized. And, with H2O when you
maximize surface area you maximize surface tension.

By the way, this is also the reason tornadoes are associated with moist/dry
wind shear. When you see a tornado you can't help but notice its very distinct
tubular structure. And you can't help but wonder about the molecular
composition of the air that forms that tube. Now we know. It contains
electromagnetically activated spinning polymers of H2O (slivers of ice,
actually).


This mechanism--maximize the surface area of water and you maximize its surface
tension--is plainly evident in non-Newtonian fluids:
How Non-Newtonian Fluids Reveal the Mechanism Underlying Ice
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vPdAo78rU

[accla...@gmail.com]

How are you getting on with your reading
http://climate-change-theory.com
https://itsnotco2.com
http://earth-climate.com
?

[accla...@gmail.com]

Ooops .. that blog is https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com

What a shame that PSI stoops to deleting comments about the effect of gravity on temperature profiles - a concept supported by PSI member Dr Hans Jelbring and clearly evident in all planets and under centrifugal force as well. Postma's 30°C hemisphere is actually about 50 degrees colder because he forgot to deduct 20% for atmospheric absorption and over 100W/m^2 for non-radiative cooling. Jef Rynan's paper shows a mere 79W/m^2 into the surface, which is about right, but cannot explain the mean surface temperature. And now we have the Connollys' inventing a new rapid heat transfer mechanism (demonstrated in a rigged experiment they think) without any quantification of surface temperatures anyway.

You may read my three page refutation of this Connollys' conjecture (written (May 2014) by using the new link 'PSI Slayer Errors' at the top of my blog https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com and then the link in the first paragraph. The blog was visited by 43 yesterday, six of them coming from this PSI website.

[accla...@gmail.com]

PROOF of the 19th Century Physicist Josef Loschmidt's GRAVITO-THERMAL EFFECT using the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Kinetic Theory of Gases SHOWS WHY GREENHOUSE "SCIENCE" IS FALSE.

We consider in what DIRECTION the troposphere will tend towards by considering what happens as entropy increases and thus unbalanced energy potentials tend to dissipate.

In the theoretical state of thermodynamic equilibrium (that is, maximum entropy) in a column of the troposphere the pressure from above and below any horizontal plane is equal. Because pressure is proportional to the product of temperature and density, and because there can be no transfer of energy or matter across any internal boundary when there is thermodynamic equilibrium, we can deduce that, for any horizontal plane, there must be equal numbers of molecules crossing upwards as there are crossing downwards, and the mean kinetic energy of each group while crossing the plane must be equal.

For the numbers to be equal we note that the effect of gravity creates a greater than 50% chance that net downward motion will occur during and also between molecular collisions. This means that there must be a higher density below the plane and a lower one above.

And, for the temperatures to be equal, this means that (because molecules gain Kinetic Energy with downward motion) there must have been lower mean molecular Kinetic Energy (temperature) above the plane and warmer temperature below. Hence there is a stable equilibrium temperature gradient resulting from the entropy maximization process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.*

Hence the radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture is false.

Hence James Hansen and others are mistaken in thinking that temperatures at the base of planetary tropospheres (and in any solid surfaces there) are primarily determined by radiation of any form reaching that region.

A vortex tube (see Wikipedia) demonstrates how a force field (centrifugal in this case) forms a radial stable equilibrium temperature gradient as it acts on the mass of individual molecules. So too does gravity in every planetary troposphere and even in the crust and mantle. And that is why there is no need for back radiation to violate the Second Law and heat the surface. Hence the greenhouse "science" about carbon dioxide is totally incorrect. The gravitationally induced temperature gradient is in fact a direct corollary of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which is all about processes which are tending towards a state of maximum entropy. See https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com

* The Second law of thermodynamics: "In a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems increases."

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

On November 26, 2012 Principia Scientific International announced with pride "Today renowned climate expert Hans Jelbring and Bryan Leyland, spokesman on energy and economic matters for the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC) each announce themselves among dozens of new faces in the PSI team."

Dr Hans Jelbring (PhD in climatology) had published in 2003 a peer-reviewed paper in the "Energy and Environment" journal about the gravitationally induced temperature gradient.

But ever since, PSI has thrown mud on those like Hans and myself who are telling you that correct physics supports this 21st century breakthrough in our understanding of climate, and the hypothesis is supported by copious evidence throughout the Solar System as well as in lab experiments. As a result of PSI's out of hand and unproven rejection Hans wrote to me in a recent email saying:

"There has been a lot of mudslinging at me since I published that article but now after 13 years it might be time for scientists to really read it and ponder about what is causing the observed and infamous "Greenhouse Effect" which according to NASA is around 33 C.The answer is well known physics but it is not dominantly caused by radiative processes. These are secondary and so is the case in any planetary atmosphere if it is thick enough. Gravity is causing the dominant part of the Greenhouse Effect which according to observational evidence is around 33 C.

"If anyone has questions I will be glad to answer them as long as you are honestly trying to understand what is causing the Greenhouse Effect and why IPCC is hopelessly wrong. I am tired of mudslinging and insults because I have produced scientific results that should be considered seriousIy. I would also like to give credit to Doug Cotton who never seems to give up in his fight against ignorance among both politicians and scientists."

So you think that Hans Jelbring and the various scientists who are now telling us why it is the gravitationally induced temperature gradient that explains surface temperatures (not radiation from a cold atmosphere supposedly heating an already-warmer surface, or solar radiation reaching the surface) are all wrong do you? Then prove the solid physics that I present based on maximum entropy production (as per the Second Law of Thermodynamics) and the Kinetic Theory of Gases to be wrong. Also explain quantitatively the Venus surface temperature rising from 732K to 737K each Venus day and answer the "QUESTIONS THAT STUMP LUKES AND WARMISTS" found towards the end of my blog - noting the AU $10,000 (US $7,500) reward on offer to you there.

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

It's sad that PSI has fallen for publishing the Connolly conjecture which I refuted strongly years ago. If their rapid "pervection" process could exist then the temperature "hump" in the stratosphere of every planet would flatten out and there would be a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which they completely ignore. Do you see mention of entropy anywhere? No. So how have they proved the Second Law is not violated? They haven't. Heat transfer cannot be at the speed of sound even though molecules move at about that speed. This is because it is a statistical process and molecules keep changing direction with every collision. So their invented imaginary "pervection" process has no physical reality: it is neither radiation or convective heat transfer, thermal diffusion or any process recognized in physics.

Certainly there is a need for non-radiative heat transfer downwards because solar radiation does not supply all the necessary thermal energy, and atmospheric radiation from a cooler region supplies no thermal energy at all to a warmer surface, as Prof Claes Johnson and I explained.

In contrast to the Connolly conjecture, the process I have explained obeys the Second Law and is also seen in experiments with centrifugal force.

That is reality and the sooner PSI people wake up to it, the sooner they will be effective against the hoax. My 2013 paper that PSI rejected with nothing but hand-waving (no discussion of the physics what-so-ever by their nominated biased "reviewers") is linked at https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com where there is a AU $10,000 reward on offer for proving me wrong.

[James McGinn]

I've offerred $100.000.oo US for anybody that experimentally prove that the moisture in moist air is genuinely gaseous.

[James McGinn]

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/ff4eherGDhM/SXDCW3J7AAAJ

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

James McGinn, in
<news:c8009138-c320-4de6...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> FNVWe drop-kicked a retard. Again:

>> How are your "plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
>> surface area as you claim?

> By spinning: spinning microdroplets.

Wrong. That's yet another part of your delusional blather you've
pulled straight from your ass. Where's your proof, Tardnado?

> They elongate as a result of Centrifugal forces, forming into
> chains, polymers. Occurring along wind shear boundaries between

> moist and dry bodies of air.

You've retracted all that, Tardnado, remember?

And "polywater", that pathological science from last century about
water being a polymer, has been utterly debunked, James. It doesn't
exist.

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a4...@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Retracted:
> Polarity is a variable. And the mechanism that alters (reduces)
> the polarity of H2O molecules is the completion of hydrogen
> bonds with adjoining water molecules.
========================================================

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a4...@dizum.com>
========================================================
> In my post entitled Conservation of Energy in Earth's
> Atmosphere I describe how the spinning of water
> droplets/clusters--a direct result of wind shear--causes
> these droplets to elongate into chains of partially
> reactivated H2O molecules, effectuating a plasma with
> structural integrity. It is important to note that
> without the concept that is the subject of this post
> (the Polarity Neutralization Implication of Hydrogen
> Bonds Between Water Molecules and Groups Thereof) this
> would not be possible.
========================================================

Thus, without your "variable polarity of the water molecule" claim
(now retracted by you), your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim falls, by
your own admission. And without your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim, your
"boundaries and structures" which you claim that "plasma not-a-plasma"
forms which drives the winds. Thus your entire "theory not-a-theory"
just came crashing to the ground. That's what happens when you build
your "theory not-a-theory" like a Jenga tower of lies and
suppositions, James.

Yet again, you've destroyed your moronic theory in trying to slap
patches on it so you can writhe your way out of being proven wrong.
You're too ignorant, insane and uneducated to acknowledge or
understand reality, let alone model it, Tardnado. LOL

> Microdroplets along the surface of the moist layer are impacted by
> side-glancing impacts from the N2 and O2 in the dry layer.

Where does the energy come from to move the N2 and O2 to create these
"side-glancing impacts", Tardnado McGinn? From your "plasma
not-a-plasma", as you've previously claimed?

You're going around in circles because you're too stupid to figure out
reality. In your delusional world, the wind cannot blow until that
"plasma not-a-plasma" is created, and that "plasma not-a-plasma"
cannot be created until the wind blows. You've created a circulus in
probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your moronic
theory... which is why you were forced to retract the main premise of
your "theory not-a-theory", if you'll remember... that was more than a
little bit embarrassing for you, eh? LOL

> This causes them to spin.

Wrong. Where's your proof, Tardnado?

> Obviously you have no dispute with this, right?

I do dispute it. You have no proof, you have no empirically-observed
evidence, you have no experimental evidence, you have no corroborating
studies, you have nothing except your delusional schizo-brained
blather.

> (Not that you would be expected to.)

I've utterly destroyed your moronic blather, James. I've got your
tardbrain so twisted in knots you're spamming Usenet with your
bleat-tard circular reasoning, and you're far too stupid to see that
what you're babbling makes no sense. That's a manifestation of your
paranoid schizophrenia, which was the impetus for you being deemed to
be mentally incompetent, which is why you've had to live your entire
pathetic delusional life at home with mommy and daddy. You'd be a
danger to yourself if you lived alone.

Now, James, do try to contain your impotent tard-rage over having had
your moronic delusions shattered again. Don't pick up that gun and go
on a tard-rampage. We all know you want to, but innocent people don't
deserve to die just because you're a fucking broken-brained moron.

Just STFU, get out your crayons, and get to scribbling up that
"class-action" kooksoot you've been planning on filing against
*science*, *reality*, *electrons*, *photons* and the *universe* for
their part in conspiring to thwart your attempts to remodel all of
reality to fit your delusions. LOL

You sad pathetic uneducated insane moron. LOL

Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis,
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA?

--

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant
uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James?

Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a
lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating
that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself
if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia?
Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and
help you to not piss all over yourself?

And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a
pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser.

Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.

You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's
Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction
increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and
electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually
cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James?

According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.

How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even
you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli
Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard,
and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is
that not dissociating the water?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling
point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded
hydrides, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's
cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not*
splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have
such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same
H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron
that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of
vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that
your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and
that's just retarded.

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not
become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard?

How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
sky" sentient, James?

Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?

How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
you explain that, James?

Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is
*below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory
not-a-theory" can't answer.

Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?

Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
delusions, James?

Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
James?

Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James?

Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions,
James?

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being
*deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James?

Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as
"delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?

Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in
which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of
education about now, James?

Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out
of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been
deemed mentally incompetent, James?

Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class
as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist",
James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated,
whereas you're ignorant and uneducated?

What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was
the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then
you're not a physicist, James. LOL

If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?

Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
which would make air travel deadly.

Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?

Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?

How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
Jim?

Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?

How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their

surface area as you claim?

Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?

How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, Jim?

Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?

Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
implausible claims are workable, Jim?

Why are you not taking your meds, James?
============================================================

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?

[James McGinn]

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 11:52:34 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> James McGinn, in
> <news:c8009138-c320-4de6...@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
> > FNVWe drop-kicked a retard. Again:
>
> >> How are your "plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
> >> surface area as you claim?
>
> > By spinning: spinning microdroplets.
>
> Wrong.

It hasn't been proven. I'll grant you that. But it hasn't been disproven
either. Right?

> That's yet another part of your delusional blather

Why get emotional about something you can't disprove. Or, maybe, I
just answered my own question.

> you've
> pulled straight from your ass. Where's your proof, Tardnado?
>
> > They elongate as a result of Centrifugal forces, forming into
> > chains, polymers. Occurring along wind shear boundaries between
> > moist and dry bodies of air.
>
> You've retracted all that, Tardnado, remember?

No. (Consult your mental health professional.)

>
> And "polywater", that pathological science from last century about
> water being a polymer, has been utterly debunked, James. It doesn't
> exist.

The notion (polywater) was overextended. But it is based on sound principles that are
plainly demonstrated in capillary action. Also, my own hypothesis delineates
the mechanism:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ
(By the way, did you know that I was contacted by Google to congratulate me because the post at this link has more views than any post in the history of usenet?)

[James McGinn]

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 4:43:25 PM UTC-7, accla...@gmail.com wrote:

Relevance?

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:8d593c5f-a732-428d...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 11:52:34 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in

>> <news:c8009138-c320-4de6...@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>> FNVWe drop-kicked a retard. Again:

>>>> How are your "plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
>>>> surface area as you claim?

>>> By spinning: spinning microdroplets.

>> Wrong.

> It hasn't been proven. I'll grant you that. But it hasn't been disproven
> either. Right?

Yes, it has. The utter impossibility of water spinning at such a rate
all through the atmosphere that it becomes your "plasma not-a-plasma"
entails an energy equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm... just 3.32 nm
away from x-rays, TornadoTard... yet you've failed to explain why this
energy source that supposedly spins the water at higher energies than
that found in a fucking microwave oven hasn't been detected (let alone
harnessed, given that it'd be the most energetic source in the
troposphere), nor how that energy source can plasmize atmospheric
water yet it doesn't dissociate the water given that water's
dissociation energy and nuclear binding energy are identical and thus
water preferentially dissociates rather than plasmizing unless hit
with an unusually energetic source, nor how that energy source doesn't
dissociate all the water on the planet and kill off all life, given
that all life on the planet relies upon water.

Where's your proof of your delusional claim, Tardnado McGinn?

>> That's yet another part of your delusional blather

> Why get emotional about something you can't disprove. Or, maybe, I
> just answered my own question.

You've not proven it, James. Get right on doing that... oh... wait...
you can't, because your psychotic babbling has no connection to
reality and thus no proof.

>> you've pulled straight from your ass. Where's your proof, Tardnado?

>>> They elongate as a result of Centrifugal forces, forming into
>>> chains, polymers. Occurring along wind shear boundaries between
>>> moist and dry bodies of air.

>> You've retracted all that, Tardnado, remember?

> No. (Consult your mental health professional.)

Liar.

>> And "polywater", that pathological science from last century about
>> water being a polymer, has been utterly debunked, James. It doesn't
>> exist.

> The notion (polywater) was overextended. But it is based on sound
> principles

Wrong. It was "based" upon contaminated water samples. Even the
original paper's authors conceded "these anomalous properties should
be attributed to impurities rather than the existence of polymeric
water molecules.". Had the scientists performing the studies on
polywater at the time stopped to test their hypothesis, they'd have
realized that even on theoretical grounds, polywater should have been
rejected. Their studies showed that polywater would have been more
thermodynamically stable than ordinary water, and thus that all water
should have spontaneously converted into polywater. None other than
Richard Feynman remarked that if such water actually existed, an
animal would have long ago figured out how to extract energy from it
by drinking polywater and excrete ordinary water, harvesting the
energy differential to remain alive.

That you're stupid enough to still believe in polywater even after
it's been proven *so* wrong that it's a textbook example of
pathological science just proves what a delusional scientific fraud
you are, James.

> that are plainly demonstrated in capillary action.

Bwahahahaa! Now Tardnado McGinn is forced to deny that capillary
action is a result of water's cohesiveness, which is a result of
electrostatic H bonding, because he claims the water molecule's
polarity is negated upon H bonding, and thus he claims there is no
electrostatic attraction in liquid water's molecules.

Do you see how delusional you are, James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of
Antioch, CA?

> Also, my own hypothesis
is delusional blathering.

LOL!

> de<SMACKAKOOK!>

Your delusional blathering has no connection to reality, lying
shitbag.

> (By the way, did you know that I was contacted by Google to
> congratulate me because the post at this link has more views
> than any post in the history of usenet?)

Fucking delusional liar.

Google Groups search term:
authormsg:sci.physics,fV_XIjPUCgAJ after:2015/12/24 before:2015/12/27

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/authormsg$3Asci.physics$2CfV_XIjPUCgAJ$20after$3A2015$2F12$2F24$20before$3A2015$2F12$2F27>
661 views

Over the past 8 days, that link's been visited 20 times... by *you*,
James.

You're a fucking liar, a scientific fraud, a dishonest scumbag and a
psychotic uneducated halfwit, James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of
Antioch, CA.

[James McGinn]

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 11:55:32 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
> <news:8d593c5f-a732-428d...@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
> > On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 11:52:34 PM UTC-7,
> > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>
> >> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
> >> <news:c8009138-c320-4de6...@googlegroups.com> did
> >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
> >>> FNVWe drop-kicked a retard. Again:
>
> >>>> How are your "plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
> >>>> surface area as you claim?
>
> >>> By spinning: spinning microdroplets.
>
> >> Wrong.
>
> > It hasn't been proven. I'll grant you that. But it hasn't been disproven
> > either. Right?
>
> Yes, it has. The utter impossibility of water spinning at such a rate
> all through the atmosphere that it becomes your "plasma not-a-plasma"
> entails an energy equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm... just 3.32 nm
> away from x-rays,

Reference?

> TornadoTard... yet you've failed to explain why this
> energy source that supposedly spins the water at higher energies than
> that found in a fucking microwave oven hasn't been detected (let alone
> harnessed, given that it'd be the most energetic source in the
> troposphere), nor how that energy source can plasmize atmospheric
> water yet it doesn't dissociate the water given that water's
> dissociation energy and nuclear binding energy are identical and thus
> water preferentially dissociates rather than plasmizing unless hit
> with an unusually energetic source, nor how that energy source doesn't
> dissociate all the water on the planet and kill off all life, given
> that all life on the planet relies upon water.

Relevance?

>
> Where's your proof of your delusional claim, Tardnado McGinn?

See upthread.

>
> >> That's yet another part of your delusional blather
>
> > Why get emotional about something you can't disprove. Or, maybe, I
> > just answered my own question.
>
> You've not proven it, James. Get right on doing that... oh... wait...
> you can't, because your psychotic babbling has no connection to
> reality and thus no proof.
>
> >> you've pulled straight from your ass. Where's your proof, Tardnado?
>
> >>> They elongate as a result of Centrifugal forces, forming into
> >>> chains, polymers. Occurring along wind shear boundaries between
> >>> moist and dry bodies of air.
>
> >> You've retracted all that, Tardnado, remember?
>
> > No. (Consult your mental health professional.)
>
> Liar.

Reference?

Reference?

[James McGinn]

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 11:52:34 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

Based on what?

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:36ab25f3-631e-4268...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 11:52:34 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in

>> <news:c8009138-c320-4de6...@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>> FNVWe drop-kicked a retard. Again:

>>>> How are your "plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
>>>> surface area as you claim?

>>> By spinning: spinning microdroplets.

>> Wrong. That's yet another part of your delusional blather you've
>> pulled straight from your ass. Where's your proof, Tardnado?

James? Where's your proof, James? It's a simple question. Answer it,
you evasive shitbag.

James? No reply, James? Are you too embarrassed at your having
retracted your entire delusion, thereby proving that you're insane, to
face that reality, James?

It's a simple question, James. Answer it, you evasive shitbag.

>>> Microdroplets along the surface of the moist layer are impacted by
>>> side-glancing impacts from the N2 and O2 in the dry layer.

>> Where does the energy come from to move the N2 and O2 to create these
>> "side-glancing impacts", Tardnado McGinn? From your "plasma
>> not-a-plasma", as you've previously claimed?
>>
>> You're going around in circles because you're too stupid to figure out
>> reality. In your delusional world, the wind cannot blow until that
>> "plasma not-a-plasma" is created, and that "plasma not-a-plasma"
>> cannot be created until the wind blows. You've created a circulus in
>> probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your moronic
>> theory... which is why you were forced to retract the main premise of
>> your "theory not-a-theory", if you'll remember... that was more than a
>> little bit embarrassing for you, eh? LOL

>>> This causes them to spin.

>> Wrong. Where's your proof, Tardnado?

James? No reply? Where's your proof, James? It's a simple question,
answer it, you evasive shitbag.

>>> Obviously you have no dispute with this, right?

>> I do dispute it.

> Based on what?

Based upon your inability to post any proof of it, James. If you made
a claim that bright purple leprechauns were leaping out of your ass,
do you expect people to believe that, too, James?

If you had any proof of your claims you would have posted it
repeatedly. Where's your proof, James? It's a simple question, James,
answer it, you evasive shitbag.

>> You have no proof, you have no empirically-observed
>> evidence, you have no experimental evidence, you have no corroborating
>> studies, you have nothing except your delusional schizo-brained
>> blather.

Why do you have no proof of your delusion, James?

Why do you have no empirically-observed evidence of your delusion,
James?

Why do you have no experimental evidence of your delusion, James?

Why are there no corroborating studies to back up your delusion,
James?

Why do you only have your delusional schizo-brained blather, James?

Those are easy questions, James. Answer them, you evasive shitbag.

>>> (Not that you would be expected to.)

>> I've utterly destroyed your moronic blather, James. I've got your
>> tardbrain so twisted in knots you're spamming Usenet with your
>> bleat-tard circular reasoning, and you're far too stupid to see that
>> what you're babbling makes no sense. That's a manifestation of your
>> paranoid schizophrenia, which was the impetus for you being deemed to
>> be mentally incompetent, which is why you've had to live your entire
>> pathetic delusional life at home with mommy and daddy. You'd be a
>> danger to yourself if you lived alone.
>>
>> Now, James, do try to contain your impotent tard-rage over having had
>> your moronic delusions shattered again. Don't pick up that gun and go
>> on a tard-rampage. We all know you want to, but innocent people don't
>> deserve to die just because you're a fucking broken-brained moron.
>>
>> Just STFU, get out your crayons, and get to scribbling up that
>> "class-action" kooksoot you've been planning on filing against
>> *science*, *reality*, *electrons*, *photons* and the *universe* for
>> their part in conspiring to thwart your attempts to remodel all of
>> reality to fit your delusions. LOL

Where's your kooksoot, James? Answer the question, you evasive
shitbag.

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in

<news:3c81cac2-48bf-4dc6...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 11:55:32 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>>>> How are your "plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
>>>>>> surface area as you claim?

>>>>> By spinning: spinning microdroplets.

>>>> Wrong.

>>> It hasn't been proven. I'll grant you that. But it hasn't been disproven
>>> either. Right?

>> Yes, it has been disproven. The utter impossibility of water spinning

>> at such a rate all through the atmosphere that it becomes your "plasma
>> not-a-plasma" entails an energy equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm...
>> just 3.32 nm away from x-rays,

> Reference?

Your inability to provide any proof of your "spinning water" is proof
enough, James. If you had it, you'd have posted it again and again.
Where's that proof, James? Are you too slow-witted to find it?

Answer the question, you evasive shitbag.

>> TornadoTard... yet you've failed to explain why this
>> energy source that supposedly spins the water at higher energies than
>> that found in a fucking microwave oven hasn't been detected (let alone
>> harnessed, given that it'd be the most energetic source in the
>> troposphere), nor how that energy source can plasmize atmospheric
>> water yet it doesn't dissociate the water given that water's
>> dissociation energy and nuclear binding energy are identical and thus
>> water preferentially dissociates rather than plasmizing unless hit
>> with an unusually energetic source, nor how that energy source doesn't
>> dissociate all the water on the planet and kill off all life, given
>> that all life on the planet relies upon water.

> Relevance?

The relevance is that you're wrong and backpedaling, James. You
believe merely spamming your moronity long enough will magically make
it come true... but if it were true, James, you and it would have been
accepted into the scientific community long ago, just as Einstein was
accepted and lionized when he developed his revolutionary theory...
but you've been shunned, ridiculed, laughed at.

What does that tell you, James?

It's a simple question, James. Answer it, you evasive shitbag.

>> Where's your proof of your delusional claim, Tardnado McGinn?

> See upthread.

No proof, James. So you admit you have no proof. Does it fracture your
already-broken sanity to know you're being forced to admit that you're
insane, James?

It's a simple question, James. Answer it, you evasive shitbag.

>>>> That's yet another part of your delusional blather

>> You've not proven it, James. Get right on doing that... oh... wait...
>> you can't, because your psychotic babbling has no connection to
>> reality and thus no proof.

<crickets>

>>>> you've pulled straight from your ass. Where's your proof, Tardnado?

>>>>> They elongate as a result of Centrifugal forces, forming into
>>>>> chains, polymers. Occurring along wind shear boundaries between
>>>>> moist and dry bodies of air.

>>>> You've retracted all that, Tardnado, remember?

>>> No. (Consult your mental health professional.)

>> Liar.

> Reference?

Directly below, James. If you weren't backpedaling, writhing and
twisting in your desperate attempt at keeping your delusion alive,
held together with duct tape, all so your sanity doesn't come crashing
down around you, you'd have the guts to face reality. Why can't you
face reality, James?

It's a simple question, James. Answer it, you evasive shitbag.

>> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
>> Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a4...@dizum.com>
>> ========================================================
>> > Retracted:
>> > Polarity is a variable. And the mechanism that alters (reduces)
>> > the polarity of H2O molecules is the completion of hydrogen
>> > bonds with adjoining water molecules.
>> ========================================================
>>
>> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
>> Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a4...@dizum.com>
>> ========================================================
>> > In my post entitled Conservation of Energy in Earth's
>> > Atmosphere I describe how the spinning of water
>> > droplets/clusters--a direct result of wind shear--causes
>> > these droplets to elongate into chains of partially
>> > reactivated H2O molecules, effectuating a plasma with
>> > structural integrity. It is important to note that
>> > without the concept that is the subject of this post
>> > (the Polarity Neutralization Implication of Hydrogen
>> > Bonds Between Water Molecules and Groups Thereof) this
>> > would not be possible.
>> ========================================================

You cannot refute your own words, James. You cannot claim they're
irrelevant. You cannot claim that you've not read them or can't find
them... all you can do is run from them... as all delusional kooks run
from the proof that they are insane.

<crickets>

>>> that are plainly demonstrated in capillary action.

>> Bwahahahaa! Now Tardnado McGinn is forced to deny that capillary
>> action is a result of water's cohesiveness, which is a result of
>> electrostatic H bonding, because he claims the water molecule's
>> polarity is negated upon H bonding, and thus he claims there is no
>> electrostatic attraction in liquid water's molecules.

> Reference?

Are you now claiming that your own words above hold no sway, James? Do
you think attacking your own words is an avenue that will allow you to
sustain your delusion and thus your insanity?

>> Do you see how delusional you are, James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of
>> Antioch, CA?

>>> Also, my own hypothesis
>> is delusional blathering.
>>
>> LOL!

>>> de<SMACKAKOOK!>

>> Your delusional blathering has no connection to reality, lying
>> shitbag.

>>> (By the way, did you know that I was contacted by Google to
>>> congratulate me because the post at this link has more views
>>> than any post in the history of usenet?)

>> Fucking delusional liar.
>>
>> Google Groups search term:
>> authormsg:sci.physics,fV_XIjPUCgAJ after:2015/12/24 before:2015/12/27
>>
>> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/authormsg$3Asci.physics$2CfV_XIjPUCgAJ$20after$3A2015$2F12$2F24$20before$3A2015$2F12$2F27>
>> 661 views
>>
>> Over the past 8 days, that link's been visited 20 times... by *you*,
>> James.
>>
>> You're a fucking liar, a scientific fraud, a dishonest scumbag and a
>> psychotic uneducated halfwit, James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of
>> Antioch, CA.

James? This is the second time you've been caught in this lie... do
you believe if you just repeat a lie to yourself often enough it'll
become true, James? Go on, keep repeating that planet Earth has no
air, James... let's see how long it is before you suffocate. Given
your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim, that's pretty close to what you're
claiming anyway, as air will be ionized into a plasma long before
water will.

[James McGinn]

You are my proof:
I think you've done as good as possible to demonstrate the validity of
meteorology's storm theory. In the future, when people ask me to present an
aggregation of the best evidence to support the current paradigm of
meteorology's storm theory I am going to point them to your posts. Because
here's the thing. Meteorologists won't do what you did. They know it's
futile. They know that any attempt to demonstrate the validity of their
understanding of storms (especially with respect to their characterization of
the role of water) will only expose it is absurdly flawed.

I also think you've done as good as is possible to dispute my theoretical
thinking. Of course you are extremely scattered and desperate. But people will
see through that and realize that you actually made some effort. Again, and
for the same reasons, this is not something meteorologists would ever do.

Thank you for your participation. You've been a big help.

[James McGinn]

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in

<news:7190e393-d0f5-4f3c...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 9:45:05 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>>>> How are your "plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
>>>>>> surface area as you claim?

>>>>> By spinning: spinning microdroplets.

>>>> Wrong. That's yet another part of your delusional blather you've
>>>> pulled straight from your ass. Where's your proof, Tardnado?

>> James? Where's your proof, James? It's a simple question. Answer it,
>> you evasive shitbag.

You've yet again run away from answering those questions, and thus
have admitted defeat, James.

And again with your evasion as means of admitting defeat, James.

>>>>> Microdroplets along the surface of the moist layer are impacted by
>>>>> side-glancing impacts from the N2 and O2 in the dry layer.

>>>> Where does the energy come from to move the N2 and O2 to create these
>>>> "side-glancing impacts", Tardnado McGinn? From your "plasma
>>>> not-a-plasma", as you've previously claimed?
>>>>
>>>> You're going around in circles because you're too stupid to figure out
>>>> reality. In your delusional world, the wind cannot blow until that
>>>> "plasma not-a-plasma" is created, and that "plasma not-a-plasma"
>>>> cannot be created until the wind blows. You've created a circulus in
>>>> probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your moronic
>>>> theory... which is why you were forced to retract the main premise of
>>>> your "theory not-a-theory", if you'll remember... that was more than a
>>>> little bit embarrassing for you, eh? LOL

>>>>> This causes them to spin.

>>>> Wrong. Where's your proof, Tardnado?

>> James? No reply? Where's your proof, James? It's a simple question,
>> answer it, you evasive shitbag.

More of your admitting defeat, James.

>>>>> Obviously you have no dispute with this, right?

>>>> I do dispute it.

>>> Based on what?

>> Based upon your inability to post any proof of it, James. If you made
>> a claim that bright purple leprechauns were leaping out of your ass,
>> do you expect people to believe that, too, James?
>>
>> If you had any proof of your claims you would have posted it
>> repeatedly. Where's your proof, James? It's a simple question, James,
>> answer it, you evasive shitbag.

See, James? You find yourself utterly unable to defend yourself or
your delusion... so you run away, and in so doing, you admit defeat.

> I think you've done as good as possible to demonstrate the validity of
> meteorology's storm theory. In the future, when people ask me to present an
> aggregation of the best evidence to support the current paradigm of
> meteorology's storm theory I am going to point them to your posts. Because
> here's the thing. Meteorologists won't do what you did. They know it's
> futile. They know that any attempt to demonstrate the validity of their
> understanding of storms (especially with respect to their characterization of
> the role of water) will only expose it is absurdly flawed.
>
> I also think you've done as good as is possible to dispute my theoretical
> thinking. Of course you are extremely scattered and desperate. But people will
> see through that and realize that you actually made some effort. Again, and
> for the same reasons, this is not something meteorologists would ever do.
>
> Thank you for your participation. You've been a big help.

And your biggest admission of defeat to date, James, a spammed
concession speech. You've lost, James.

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in

<news:e82915fe-787d-4ba5...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 9:45:05 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>>>> How are your "plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
>>>>>> surface area as you claim?

>>>>> By spinning: spinning microdroplets.

>>>> Wrong. That's yet another part of your delusional blather you've
>>>> pulled straight from your ass. Where's your proof, Tardnado?

>> James? Where's your proof, James? It's a simple question. Answer it,
>> you evasive shitbag.

You've admitted defeat again, James. You and your delusion are
defenseless.

It appears as though you're becoming addicted to admitting defeat,
James. You've done it again just above.

>>>>> Microdroplets along the surface of the moist layer are impacted by
>>>>> side-glancing impacts from the N2 and O2 in the dry layer.

>>>> Where does the energy come from to move the N2 and O2 to create these
>>>> "side-glancing impacts", Tardnado McGinn? From your "plasma
>>>> not-a-plasma", as you've previously claimed?
>>>>
>>>> You're going around in circles because you're too stupid to figure out
>>>> reality. In your delusional world, the wind cannot blow until that
>>>> "plasma not-a-plasma" is created, and that "plasma not-a-plasma"
>>>> cannot be created until the wind blows. You've created a circulus in
>>>> probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your moronic
>>>> theory... which is why you were forced to retract the main premise of
>>>> your "theory not-a-theory", if you'll remember... that was more than a
>>>> little bit embarrassing for you, eh? LOL

>>>>> This causes them to spin.

>>>> Wrong. Where's your proof, Tardnado?

>> James? No reply? Where's your proof,

> You are my proof:

I've destroyed your delusion and forced you to backpedal so fast that
you stupidly retracted the central premise of your entire delusion,
upon which all your sub-delusions depended... that faux pas of yours
had to have caused you quite a lot of consternation when it slowly
dawned on you what you'd done, eh? You'd removed your protective
delusional bubble, exposing yourself to the full brightness of
reality... upon which you engaged in the world's quickest
reconstruction program ever, snatching shards of your shattered
"theory not-a-theory" off the floor and slapping them back together
with duct tape as fast as you could. Now you sit, whimpering and
sucking your thumb as you compulsively rock back and forth in your
duct tape and retardation bubble, screaming out in rage periodically
that anyone would have the temerity to kick holes in your delusion.
LOL

I did that to you, TornadoTard McGinn. You'll get right on
crayon-scribbling my name into the Defendant's list in your
"class-action" kooksoot. LOL

> I think you've done as good as possible to demonstrate the validity of
> meteorology's storm theory. In the future, when people ask me to present an
> aggregation of the best evidence to support the current paradigm of
> meteorology's storm theory I am going to point them to your posts. Because
> here's the thing. Meteorologists won't do what you did. They know it's
> futile. They know that any attempt to demonstrate the validity of their
> understanding of storms (especially with respect to their characterization of
> the role of water) will only expose it is absurdly flawed.
>
> I also think you've done as good as is possible to dispute my theoretical
> thinking. Of course you are extremely scattered and desperate. But people will
> see through that and realize that you actually made some effort. Again, and
> for the same reasons, this is not something meteorologists would ever do.
>
> Thank you for your participation. You've been a big help.

Do you believe spamming your concession speech is a viable method to
protect your delusion, James? I can assure you, it is not. You've
lost, you admit defeat with your every post.

>> James? It's a simple question, answer it, you evasive shitbag.

>>>>> Obviously you have no dispute with this, right?

>>>> I do dispute it.

>>> Based on what?

>> Based upon your inability to post any proof of it, James. If you made
>> a claim that bright purple leprechauns were leaping out of your ass,
>> do you expect people to believe that, too, James?
>>
>> If you had any proof of your claims you would have posted it
>> repeatedly. Where's your proof, James? It's a simple question, James,
>> answer it, you evasive shitbag.

See? You've yet again admitted defeat, James.

>>>> You have no proof, you have no empirically-observed
>>>> evidence, you have no experimental evidence, you have no corroborating
>>>> studies, you have nothing except your delusional schizo-brained
>>>> blather.

>> Why do you have no proof of your delusion, James?
>>
>> Why do you have no empirically-observed evidence of your delusion,
>> James?
>>
>> Why do you have no experimental evidence of your delusion, James?
>>
>> Why are there no corroborating studies to back up your delusion,
>> James?
>>
>> Why do you only have your delusional schizo-brained blather, James?
>>
>> Those are easy questions, James. Answer them, you evasive shitbag.

And again, you admit defeat, James. This is becoming a habit for you.

>>>>> (Not that you would be expected to.)

>>>> I've utterly destroyed your moronic blather, James. I've got your
>>>> tardbrain so twisted in knots you're spamming Usenet with your
>>>> bleat-tard circular reasoning, and you're far too stupid to see that
>>>> what you're babbling makes no sense. That's a manifestation of your
>>>> paranoid schizophrenia, which was the impetus for you being deemed to
>>>> be mentally incompetent, which is why you've had to live your entire
>>>> pathetic delusional life at home with mommy and daddy. You'd be a
>>>> danger to yourself if you lived alone.
>>>>
>>>> Now, James, do try to contain your impotent tard-rage over having had
>>>> your moronic delusions shattered again. Don't pick up that gun and go
>>>> on a tard-rampage. We all know you want to, but innocent people don't
>>>> deserve to die just because you're a fucking broken-brained moron.
>>>>
>>>> Just STFU, get out your crayons, and get to scribbling up that
>>>> "class-action" kooksoot you've been planning on filing against
>>>> *science*, *reality*, *electrons*, *photons* and the *universe* for
>>>> their part in conspiring to thwart your attempts to remodel all of
>>>> reality to fit your delusions. LOL

>> Where's your kooksoot, James? Answer the question, you evasive
>> shitbag.

More of your evasion as admission of defeat, James.

[James McGinn]

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in

<news:9bab6fb4-ff4c-4e91...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>> How are your "plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
>> surface area as you claim?

> By spinning: spinning microdroplets.

Wrong. That's yet another part of your delusional blather you've
pulled straight from your ass. Where's your proof, Tardnado?

> They elongate as a result of Centrifugal forces, forming into

> chains, polymers. Occurring along wind shear boundaries between

> moist and dry bodies of air.

> Microdroplets along the surface of the moist layer are impacted by
> side-glancing impacts from the N2 and O2 in the dry layer.

Where does the energy come from to move the N2 and O2 to create these
"side-glancing impacts", Tardnado McGinn? From your "plasma
not-a-plasma", as you've previously claimed?

You're going around in circles because you're too stupid to figure out
reality. In your delusional world, the wind cannot blow until that
"plasma not-a-plasma" is created, and that "plasma not-a-plasma"
cannot be created until the wind blows. You've created a circulus in
probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your moronic
theory... which is why you were forced to retract the main premise of
your "theory not-a-theory", if you'll remember... that was more than a
little bit embarrassing for you, eh? LOL

> This causes them to spin.

Wrong. Where's your proof, Tardnado?

> Obviously you have no dispute with this, right?

I do dispute it. You have no proof, you have no empirically-observed

evidence, you have no experimental evidence, you have no corroborating
studies, you have nothing except your delusional schizo-brained
blather.

> (Not that you would be expected to.)

I've utterly destroyed your moronic blather, James. I've got your
tardbrain so twisted in knots you're spamming Usenet with your
bleat-tard circular reasoning, and you're far too stupid to see that
what you're babbling makes no sense. That's a manifestation of your
paranoid schizophrenia, which was the impetus for you being deemed to
be mentally incompetent, which is why you've had to live your entire
pathetic delusional life at home with mommy and daddy. You'd be a
danger to yourself if you lived alone.

Now, James, do try to contain your impotent tard-rage over having had
your moronic delusions shattered again. Don't pick up that gun and go
on a tard-rampage. We all know you want to, but innocent people don't
deserve to die just because you're a fucking broken-brained moron.

Just STFU, get out your crayons, and get to scribbling up that
"class-action" kooksoot you've been planning on filing against
*science*, *reality*, *electrons*, *photons* and the *universe* for
their part in conspiring to thwart your attempts to remodel all of
reality to fit your delusions. LOL

Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?

How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their

surface area as you claim?

[James McGinn]

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 12:13:30 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
>

[James McGinn]

So . . .?

[James McGinn]