On 1/16/2022 11:30 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 8:22:59 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 1/16/2022 9:03 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 9:46:13 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:
>>>> As spectroscopic analyzers are a commercial product anyone can buy,
>>> Only liquid H2O has an IR signature. So . . . what do you think this indicates?
>> It indicates that you're wrong, McTard.
> Like you have a fucking clue, you worthless troll.
>> Gaseous H2O also has a unique IR
> This is not even remotely possible. You have no fucking clue.
Yet anyone with an IR spectral analyzer can detect it. Anyone can go
online to a NOAA site which displays satellite images showing the
concentration of gaseous H2O in the atmosphere. Very important for
weather forecasting. So it's real, despite your delusion it cannot exist.
> The IR signature of H2O is a (or, at least, can be characterized as) consequence of the elasticity of the hydrogen bonds that exists BETWEEN the molecules in liquid H2O. And THERE ARE NO FUCKING HYDROGEN BONDS BETWEEN MOLECULES IN GASEOUS H2O.
That's right, McTard. That's why gaseous H2O has completely *different*
IR signature! It comes from rotational or vibrational modes of
individual H2O molecules in the air. Such as the O-H bond itself.
But of course, you are so fucking clueless that manages to once again
reveal your Dunning Kruger delusions.
You're projecting again, Dunning Kruger poster boy.
> James McGinn / Tard