to once again reveal your Dunning Kruger delusions

26 views
Skip to first unread message

James McGinn

unread,
Jan 16, 2022, 11:30:54 PMJan 16
to
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
> signature.

This is not even remotely possible. You have no fucking clue. 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. But of course, you are so fucking clueless that manages to once again reveal your Dunning Kruger delusions.

James McGinn / Genius

Paul Alsing

unread,
Jan 16, 2022, 11:40:26 PMJan 16
to
> James McGinn / DUMBFUCK

"A delusion is something that people believe in despite a total lack of evidence."
Richard Dawkins

Jim Pennino

unread,
Jan 17, 2022, 12:16:09 AMJan 17
to
James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Nothing, just yet more of the delusional reposting frenzy in the
delusional belief that if reposted enough the response will change.

<snip repost>

> James McGinn / Delusional

Michael Moroney

unread,
Jan 17, 2022, 12:28:11 AMJan 17
to
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
>> signature.
>
> 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

Solving Tornadoes

unread,
Jan 17, 2022, 12:41:37 AMJan 17
to
On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 9:28:11 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:

> It comes from rotational or vibrational modes of
> individual H2O molecules in the air. Such as the O-H bond itself.

As do all compound molecules. But it is negligible.

It's the IR that is significant in the atmosphere.

You frauds have no evidence of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures.

James McGinn / Genius

Michael Moroney

unread,
Jan 17, 2022, 1:04:40 AMJan 17
to
On 1/17/2022 12:41 AM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 9:28:11 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>> It comes from rotational or vibrational modes of
>> individual H2O molecules in the air. Such as the O-H bond itself.
>
> As do all compound molecules. But it is negligible.

It's not negligible when it's the only source!
>
> It's the IR that is significant in the atmosphere.

Yes, the unique IR signature from all those individual gaseous H2O
molecules in the air.

Go find the NOAA satellite images, McTard.
>
> You frauds have no evidence of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures.

Except for actual measurements of it.
>
> James McGinn / Tard

Jim Pennino

unread,
Jan 17, 2022, 10:01:12 AMJan 17
to
Solving Tornadoes <solvingt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 9:28:11 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>> It comes from rotational or vibrational modes of
>> individual H2O molecules in the air. Such as the O-H bond itself.
>
> As do all compound molecules. But it is negligible.

Negligible to what?

The discussion was about instrumentation.

> It's the IR that is significant in the atmosphere.

Not to instrumentation. Instrumentation does not assign significance to
things, it only measures things.

> You frauds have no evidence of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures.

You mean other than actual measurement?

> James McGinn / Delusional


Claudius Denk

unread,
Jan 17, 2022, 11:44:20 AMJan 17
to
You have no measurements that indicate the existence of your magical "cold steam".

Science isn't about imagination or what anybody wants to be true.

You are just a common troll, one of millions.

Maybe you should find your way to a less intellectual hobby.

Or expect that McGinn will continue to embarrass you.

It's your choice.

Claudius Denk

Jim Pennino

unread,
Jan 17, 2022, 12:01:12 PMJan 17
to
Claudius Denk <claudi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 7:01:12 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:
>> Solving Tornadoes <solvingt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 9:28:11 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> >
>> >> It comes from rotational or vibrational modes of
>> >> individual H2O molecules in the air. Such as the O-H bond itself.
>> >
>> > As do all compound molecules. But it is negligible.
>> Negligible to what?
>>
>> The discussion was about instrumentation.
>> > It's the IR that is significant in the atmosphere.
>> Not to instrumentation. Instrumentation does not assign significance to
>> things, it only measures things.
>> > You frauds have no evidence of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures.
>> You mean other than actual measurement?
>
> You have no measurements that indicate the existence of your
> magical "cold steam".

Here is a nice graph of the absorption spectrum of ice, water, and water
vapor from low infrared to high ultraviolet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Water_infrared_absorption_coefficient_large.gif

Note that the curve for water vapor is vastly different than liquid
water and ice over the entire range.

This makes it trivial to construct instrumentation to detect magical
"cold steam" or as the sane people would call it, water vapor.

<snip babble>

> Or expect that McGinn will continue to embarrass you.

You ARE McGinn. Claudius Denk is your imaginary friend created by your
delusions so you will actually have a friend.

> Claudius Denk/James McGinn/Mental patient


Solving Tornadoes

unread,
Jan 19, 2022, 10:32:39 PMJan 19
to

Solving Tornadoes

unread,
Feb 10, 2022, 12:48:09 PMFeb 10
to

Solving Tornadoes

unread,
Mar 2, 2022, 1:43:34 PMMar 2
to

whodat

unread,
Mar 2, 2022, 1:51:03 PMMar 2
to
You're so stupid you think reposting stuff has an actual effect. Well
yes, it demonstrates how stupid you are, but which personality is that?

Why all of them of course.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

sergio

unread,
Mar 2, 2022, 2:13:25 PMMar 2
to
Of the three;

Denk is less bright and too emotional,

Mcginn is more delusional and hates science

Solving Potatoes is too argumentative and without any social skills






Jim Pennino

unread,
Mar 2, 2022, 3:01:11 PMMar 2
to
Solving Tornadoes <solvingt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 8:30:54 PM UTC-8, 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.

As is proved by the following graph showing th spectroscoptic responses
for ice, liquid water and gaseous water are clearly distinct.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Narrow-band-spectroscopy-can-distinguish-the-phases-of-water-by-wavelength-and-the_fig1_262967946

>> James McGinn / Still an insane crackpot


Claudius Denk

unread,
Mar 21, 2022, 2:40:28 AMMar 21
to

Jim Pennino

unread,
Mar 21, 2022, 10:01:17 AMMar 21
to
Claudius Denk <claudi...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip insane raving>

>> > Gaseous H2O also has a unique IR signature.
>>
>> This is not even remotely possible.

Yet here it is in all it's glory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Water_infrared_absorption_coefficient_large.gif

>> James McGinn / Insane crackpot

Claudius Denk

unread,
Apr 13, 2022, 3:27:45 PMApr 13
to
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages