Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures
126 views
Skip to first unread message
James McGinn
Mar 10, 2016, 11:31:28 PM3/10/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 10:40:59 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Um, Jim? You're talking to the guy who proved that CO2-driven AGW
> violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and thus is a fairy tale. CO2 has
> been proven by NASA to be a global *cooling* gas.
So, you noticed that CO2-driven AGW violates Laws of Thermodynamics but you never noticed that gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures/pressures also violates Laws of Thermodynamics.
> Um, Jim? You're talking to the guy who proved that CO2-driven AGW
> violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and thus is a fairy tale. CO2 has
> been proven by NASA to be a global *cooling* gas.
So, you noticed that CO2-driven AGW violates Laws of Thermodynamics but you never noticed that gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures/pressures also violates Laws of Thermodynamics.
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Mar 11, 2016, 3:08:04 AM3/11/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James McGinn, in
<news:b0cb369b-c6b5-427a...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
That's because it doesn't, Jim.
It's been explained to you prior about the surface condition of water
and electrostatic attachment of individual water molecules to air
molecules, the underlying mechanism of evaporation. Which also
explains atmospheric diffusion into water, Jim.
Your inability to understand is a limitation of your low-IQ and your
affliction with Dunning-Kruger, which has led you to make a kooky
conspiracy theory that invents a new "plasma not-a-plasma" made of
water which isn't ionized, plasmized from a magical energy source that
does not and could not exist within the troposphere (or it would kill
off all life), given that high energy photons are absorbed high up in
the atmosphere and SCRs and GCRs have too low a flux and too low an
energy by the time they reach the troposphere to plasmize anything.
You also didn't know that the dissociation energy and nuclear binding
energy of water is identical at 940.8 kJ/mol, thus water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen rather than ionize.
That's one of the anomalous properties of water, Jim.
How is your "water plasma" forming your purported "droplets" if it's
plasma, Jim? And given that the dissociation energy and nuclear
binding energy of water are identical at 940.8 kJ/mol, you're saying
that your water has actually dissociated into hydrogen and oxygen...
so how is this hydrogen and oxygen forming your purported "droplets",
Jim?
Your theory is yet again dismantled, Jim, utterly destroyed.
<snicker>
--
Kensi the moron wrote:
================================
The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so
the curvature is 4*pi
================================
Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the
Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi.
Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi
Therefore, r = 0.28209479176
Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius
of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the
units.
The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent
upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect.
Kensi the moron was corrected:
================================
Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the
Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you
backpedal, LunkHead.
You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore =
(4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is
independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original
"The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*?
================================
But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't
fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend
upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's
trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant
curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral
is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry
problems.
Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an
astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor
concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general
relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of
space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is
"science fiction" and "a howler".
In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was
mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative
Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects
of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold.
He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is
predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive
objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the
tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby
making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature,
and thus causing gravity to *repel*. It also means LunkHead believes
the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding.
Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon
the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there
was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in
the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the
4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of
magnetic attraction.
Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could
not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work,
and therefore a universe which could not exist.
Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature
than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and
Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation".
Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody
radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow
at 489 F.
Kensi attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming
that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of
temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron
doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain
circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien
Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron
infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve.
Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the
~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed
that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven
wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of
"blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral
emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how
spectral absorption and emission works.
Kensi is the same moron who k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer;
that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place",
that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on
a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead
cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is.
Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that
CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared
atmospheric window.
The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate
Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a
global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second
Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same
moron continues to cling to his delusions.
Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that
global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three
peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite.
Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a
lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard loser trying to pretend that he's
intelligent... and failing badly.
That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that
struggles (and fails) to understand reality.
James McGinn, in
<news:b0cb369b-c6b5-427a...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
It's been explained to you prior about the surface condition of water
and electrostatic attachment of individual water molecules to air
molecules, the underlying mechanism of evaporation. Which also
explains atmospheric diffusion into water, Jim.
Your inability to understand is a limitation of your low-IQ and your
affliction with Dunning-Kruger, which has led you to make a kooky
conspiracy theory that invents a new "plasma not-a-plasma" made of
water which isn't ionized, plasmized from a magical energy source that
does not and could not exist within the troposphere (or it would kill
off all life), given that high energy photons are absorbed high up in
the atmosphere and SCRs and GCRs have too low a flux and too low an
energy by the time they reach the troposphere to plasmize anything.
You also didn't know that the dissociation energy and nuclear binding
energy of water is identical at 940.8 kJ/mol, thus water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen rather than ionize.
That's one of the anomalous properties of water, Jim.
How is your "water plasma" forming your purported "droplets" if it's
plasma, Jim? And given that the dissociation energy and nuclear
binding energy of water are identical at 940.8 kJ/mol, you're saying
that your water has actually dissociated into hydrogen and oxygen...
so how is this hydrogen and oxygen forming your purported "droplets",
Jim?
Your theory is yet again dismantled, Jim, utterly destroyed.
<snicker>
--
Kensi the moron wrote:
================================
The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so
the curvature is 4*pi
================================
Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the
Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi.
Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi
Therefore, r = 0.28209479176
Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius
of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the
units.
The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent
upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect.
Kensi the moron was corrected:
================================
Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the
Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you
backpedal, LunkHead.
You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore =
(4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is
independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original
"The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*?
================================
But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't
fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend
upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's
trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant
curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral
is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry
problems.
Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an
astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor
concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general
relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of
space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is
"science fiction" and "a howler".
In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was
mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative
Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects
of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold.
He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is
predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive
objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the
tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby
making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature,
and thus causing gravity to *repel*. It also means LunkHead believes
the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding.
Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon
the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there
was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in
the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the
4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of
magnetic attraction.
Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could
not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work,
and therefore a universe which could not exist.
Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature
than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and
Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation".
Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody
radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow
at 489 F.
Kensi attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming
that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of
temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron
doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain
circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien
Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron
infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve.
Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the
~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed
that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven
wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of
"blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral
emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how
spectral absorption and emission works.
Kensi is the same moron who k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer;
that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place",
that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on
a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead
cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is.
Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that
CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared
atmospheric window.
The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate
Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a
global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second
Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same
moron continues to cling to his delusions.
Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that
global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three
peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite.
Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a
lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard loser trying to pretend that he's
intelligent... and failing badly.
That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that
struggles (and fails) to understand reality.
Solving Tornadoes
Mar 11, 2016, 3:41:59 AM3/11/16
to
On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 12:08:04 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> James McGinn, in
> <news:b0cb369b-c6b5-427a...@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
> > On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 10:40:59 PM UTC-8,
> > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>
> >> Um, Jim? You're talking to the guy who proved that CO2-driven AGW
> >> violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and thus is a fairy tale. CO2 has
> >> been proven by NASA to be a global *cooling* gas.
>
> > So, you noticed that CO2-driven AGW violates Laws of
> > Thermodynamics but you never noticed that gaseous H2O
> > at ambient temperatures/pressures also violates Laws
> > of Thermodynamics.
>
> That's because it doesn't, Jim.
The steam tables indicate otherwise. If you want to contradict the steam tables we need something more than anecdote based peer-review.
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> James McGinn, in
> <news:b0cb369b-c6b5-427a...@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
> > On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 10:40:59 PM UTC-8,
> > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>
> >> Um, Jim? You're talking to the guy who proved that CO2-driven AGW
> >> violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and thus is a fairy tale. CO2 has
> >> been proven by NASA to be a global *cooling* gas.
>
> > So, you noticed that CO2-driven AGW violates Laws of
> > Thermodynamics but you never noticed that gaseous H2O
> > at ambient temperatures/pressures also violates Laws
> > of Thermodynamics.
>
> That's because it doesn't, Jim.
Here is the thing that I know that you don't know. The fact that everybody believes something is not evidence that it is true. It is, however, evidence that nobody ever bothered to test/measure it. Think about that.
This is something that isn't true but that everybody believes to be true. Why? Because everybody made the same mistake that you are making to ask the opinion of other people before they actually measured/tested it.
The fact that you have to resort to arguments based on, "peer-review," indicates that you have lost the argument.
You will never find evidence of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures/pressures because it is just a myth. It's just something people chose to believe. It doesn't actually exist.
There is a story by Hans Christian Andersen called, The Emperor's New Clothes. It explains better than I can why you will never, ever find evidence of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures/pressures.
Sam Wormley
Mar 11, 2016, 9:58:45 AM3/11/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On 3/10/16 10:31 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> So, you noticed that CO2-driven AGW violates Laws of Thermodynamics but you never noticed that gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures/pressures also violates Laws of Thermodynamics.
Obviously you don't understand the laws of thermodynamics, James.
> So, you noticed that CO2-driven AGW violates Laws of Thermodynamics but you never noticed that gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures/pressures also violates Laws of Thermodynamics.
Evaluating and Explaining Climate Science
http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/co2/
http://scienceofdoom.com/about/
--
sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.
Sam Wormley
Mar 11, 2016, 10:01:34 AM3/11/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On 3/11/16 2:41 AM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> You will never find evidence of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures/pressures because it is just a myth.
Makes up about 1% of the troposphere, James. Measured every hour at
> You will never find evidence of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures/pressures because it is just a myth.
tens of thousands of weather stations around the globe.
Definition for James McGinn | Water Vapor
> https://www.wordnik.com/words/water%20vapor
> from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th
> Edition
> n. Water in a gaseous state, especially when diffused as a vapor in
> the atmosphere and at a temperature below boiling point.
> from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License
> n. water in a gaseous state, especially when diffused in the
> atmosphere
Poutnik
Mar 11, 2016, 3:43:01 PM3/11/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Dne 11/03/2016 v 09:41 Solving Tornadoes napsal(a):
>
Exactly, bear steam tables in mind,
promoting your heavy water hypotheses.
There is no way for water clusters
to keep measured pressure/density ratios.
--
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
> On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 12:08:04 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>
> The steam tables indicate otherwise. If you want to contradict the steam tables we need something more than anecdote based peer-review. gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures/pressures.
>
>
Exactly, bear steam tables in mind,
promoting your heavy water hypotheses.
There is no way for water clusters
to keep measured pressure/density ratios.
--
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Mar 13, 2016, 12:55:04 AM3/13/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James McGinn, socked up as Solving Tornadoes, in
<news:353ec31e-e8fe-488a...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 12:08:04 AM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>> James McGinn, in
>> <news:b0cb369b-c6b5-427a...@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>>> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 10:40:59 PM UTC-8,
>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>>>> Um, Jim? You're talking to the guy who proved that CO2-driven AGW
>>>> violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and thus is a fairy tale. CO2 has
>>>> been proven by NASA to be a global *cooling* gas.
>>> So, you noticed that CO2-driven AGW violates Laws of
>>> Thermodynamics but you never noticed that gaseous H2O
>>> at ambient temperatures/pressures also violates Laws
>>> of Thermodynamics.
>> That's because it doesn't, Jim.
> The steam tables indicate otherwise. If you want to contradict the
> steam tables we need something more than anecdote based peer-review.
One doesn't use the steam tables for the atmosphere, Jim. One uses a
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>> James McGinn, in
>> <news:b0cb369b-c6b5-427a...@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>>> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 10:40:59 PM UTC-8,
>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>>>> Um, Jim? You're talking to the guy who proved that CO2-driven AGW
>>>> violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and thus is a fairy tale. CO2 has
>>>> been proven by NASA to be a global *cooling* gas.
>>> So, you noticed that CO2-driven AGW violates Laws of
>>> Thermodynamics but you never noticed that gaseous H2O
>>> at ambient temperatures/pressures also violates Laws
>>> of Thermodynamics.
>> That's because it doesn't, Jim.
> The steam tables indicate otherwise. If you want to contradict the
> steam tables we need something more than anecdote based peer-review.
Mollier diagram.
<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Mollier.pdf>
But then, you can't read a steam table *or* a Mollier diagram, Jim.
> Here is the thing that I know that you don't know. The fact that
> everybody believes something is not evidence that it is true. It
> is, however, evidence that nobody ever bothered to test/measure it.
> Think about that.
completely explored, Jim. Hence the Mollier diagram. That you refuse
to acknowledge that fact doesn't change that fact, Jim.
> This is something that isn't true but that everybody believes to
> be true.
> Why? Because everybody made the same mistake that you are making
> to ask the opinion of other people before they actually
> measured/tested it.
> The fact that you have to resort to arguments based on,
> "peer-review," indicates that you have lost the argument.
the way back to the 1800s, which led to the development of the Mollier
diagram in 1904, which has been updated and improved and made more
accurate as additional empirical experiments were performed.
You're just a kooktard desperately backpedaling as means of attempting
to defend your kooky conspiracy theory. But you should know
backpedaling isn't a defense, Jim. It's your admission of your failure
to defend your kooky conspiracy theory.
> You will never find evidence of gaseous H2O at ambient
> temperatures/pressures because it is just a myth.
of "myth"... it's just the mad ranting of your utterly broken brain,
Jim.
> It's just something people chose to believe. It doesn't actually exist.
> There is a story by Hans Christian Andersen called, The Emperor's
> New Clothes.
kooky conspiracy theory, Jim.
> It explains better than I can why you will never, ever find
> evidence of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures/pressures.
a magical "plasma not-a-plasma" made from water, which can still form
droplets, and which is "plasmized not-plasmized" by an energy source
which, if it existed in the troposphere, would dissociate all water on
the planet and kill off all life. And a children's book explains it
all. Because James McGinn *isn't* utterly insane, right?
Are you ready to pay me the $100,000 you owe me now, Jim? If not, we
can continue this forever. I'm far younger, far saner and far smarter
than you... I'll hound you to the grave if you don't pay what you owe,
Jim.
How are your kooky atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're
plasma, Jim?
How is your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" forming if the nuclear binding
energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the
water is dissociating into hydrogen and oxygen, Jim?
Where is the energy coming from to form your kooky "plasma
not-a-plasma", Jim?
Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?
<snicker>
--
Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know:
=====================================
The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier
Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create
*sinusoids*);
That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms;
That superposition is the same as wave interference;
That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves;
That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things;
That RMS isn't a DC voltage;
That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207
volts RMS L-L;
That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1;
The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave;
That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical
engineering, physics and control systems engineering;
What a positive or negative vector is;
That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per
Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero;
That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic";
That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2
positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron.
That water does not have negative poles. The oxygen has an
electronegativity of 8+, the hydrogens 1+.
That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* nucleal charge.
What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.
That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples.
That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the
atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law to within 1.337842%
margin of error *worst* *case* at 70 F.
That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of
a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does
*not* equal zero, as Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames.
That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes
into account molar volume.
That "within 10% error" does not equal "10% error".
That water can be plasmized.
That atomic number does not equal effective nuclear charge.
That nuclear charge does not equal effective nuclear charge.
And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph.
=====================================
SPNAK!
<snicker>
James McGinn
Mar 13, 2016, 1:20:51 AM3/13/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Mar 13, 2016, 1:32:42 AM3/13/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in
<news:19e7eblms6eaesch8...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
first into the wood chipper again:
> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:
>> You also didn't know that the dissociation energy and nuclear binding
>> energy of water is identical at 940.8 kJ/mol, thus water will
>> preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen rather than ionize.
>> That's one of the anomalous properties of water, Jim.
>>
>> How is your "water plasma" forming your purported "droplets" if it's
>> plasma, Jim? And given that the dissociation energy and nuclear
>> binding energy of water are identical at 940.8 kJ/mol, you're saying
>> that your water has actually dissociated into hydrogen and oxygen...
>> so how is this hydrogen and oxygen forming your purported "droplets",
>> Jim?
> as a plasma, as i told you before, k00ktard.
>
> You're welcome.
Awww, kooktard persists in his stupidity. LOL
Some *moron* blither-blathered:
"Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature."
<https://www.quora.com/Can-liquids-be-turned-into-plasma>
=========================================================
Owen Jones, Physics graduate, postdoctoral researcher in magnetic
confinement fusion.
In order to jump straight from a liquid to a plasma, you need to
supply sufficient energy to remove the electrons from the atoms over a
large enough volume that the material can be classified as a plasma
(see my answer to this question for more details on what constitutes a
plasma). The easiest way of doing this is with an extremely powerful,
intense laser pulse. Some of the world's most powerful short-pulse
lasers are capable of producing power densities of a billion trillion
(10^21) watts per square centimetre. The electric fields generated by
these lasers are strong enough to rip electrons from the atoms in any
material, be it solid, liquid or gas, in much less than a trillionth
of a second. The material doesn't even get a chance to go through the
normal solid-liquid-gas phase transitions; it's completely vaporized
and ionized almost as soon as the laser pulse hits it.
So in answer to your question about converting a liquid straight to a
plasma, it's possible as long as you have a big enough laser!
=========================================================
<https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_possible_to_create_a_plasma_from_water_vapour_in_a_laboratory>
=========================================================
Is it possible to create a plasma from water vapour in a laboratory?
Christophe O Laux · Ecole Centrale Paris
We did exactly that, create a plasma in pure water vapor. We published
a first paper on the topic: Sainct, F.P., Lacoste, D.A., Kirkpatrick,
M.J., Odic, E., and Laux, C.O., Experimental study of nanosecond
repetitively pulsed discharges in water vapor, International Journal
of Plasma Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 6, no. 2, Sep.
2012. More publications should follow soon.
=========================================================
SPNAK! on the backpedaling bleating lying blither-blathering moron.
LOL
Now you backpedal again and k'lame that "once it's heated to the
plasma phase, there are no longer any water molecules." again.
Except a blither-blathering *moron* wrote:
"Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature."
So you've caught yourself in your own stupidity, and you're
backpedaling by k'laming that plasmized water is no longer water...
but what were the originating molecules, Moron? Oh yeah... water.
So you're just a backpedaling bleatfarting blither-blathering lying
moronic kooktard.
SPNAK!
Why are you so stupid, Shiny Tinfoil Brain? LOL
I bet you wish you could be right just once, huh, Moron.
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Mar 13, 2016, 3:20:04 AM3/13/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James McGinn, in
<news:f6fb430b-cf27-4a9b...@googlegroups.com> did
perturbed, Jim. Why are you perturbed, Jim?
<snicker>
> gaseous H2O and vapor. So this is just more anecdote, dumbass.
means of attempting to salvage your kooky discredited conspiracy
theory in order to maintain your delusion that you know something
everyone else, all of them smarter and saner than you, knows, Jim?
Do you really think the entire world has been wrong for a century and
a half, and *you*, the kooktard who cannot answer my tough questions,
is right, Jim?
Or do you think the Occam's Razor explanation is that you're a
delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted schizophrenic paranoid kook who's
concocted a kooky conspiracy theory that is laughably wrong?
Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, Jim?
Why are there *no* corroborating papers that back up your kooky
contentions, Jim? The ones you've provided I've used to prove you and
your kooky conspiracy theory *wrong*.
How are your kooky atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're
plasma, Jim?
How is your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" forming if the nuclear binding
energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the
water is dissociating into hydrogen and oxygen, Jim?
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 kooky "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?
How is the energy to plasmize your kooky "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, 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 kooky
conspiracy theory is workable, Jim?
Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?
not and cannot reflect reality. Deal with that reality as you will,
Jim.
Most Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards like you, when presented with
the proof that they are delusional, tend to 'circle the wagons' to
protect their delusions, driving themselves ever deeper into insanity.
I note you are doing the same.
James McGinn
Mar 13, 2016, 4:59:44 AM3/13/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 11:20:04 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> So you throw out 150 years of substantive and in-depth research?
It's been longer than that. It's literally all of human history.
> Or do you think the Occam's Razor explanation is that you're a
> delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted schizophrenic paranoid kook who's
> concocted a kooky conspiracy theory that is laughably wrong?
>
> Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
> process, Jim?
Hmm. Maybe I should claim that it confirms global warming.
> Why are there *no* corroborating papers that back up your kooky
> contentions, Jim?
So, either I'm very, very crazy or . . . or . . . or, not.
The funny thing is that when I made the discovery, about 3 and a half years ago, I didn't even think it was a big deal. I kind of just assumed that it was something known but obscure. It was not until just this last November that I came to grips with the fact that not only would academia not be an ally in my attempt to introduce this thinking to the world but they would be an obstacle. That is when I wrote the paper.
I'd known for a long time that the notion that H2O is gaseous in the atmosphere is nonsense. Yet I didn't have any explanation for why the evidence thereof is so paradoxical (as you are noticing). If not for the fact that I was trying to find substantiation for my hunch that H2O could produce a plasma under wind shear conditions and, also, if I did not suspect that surface tension, by way of H bonding, played a role therein, I never would have had a reason to theorize that H bonds neutralize H2O polarity. And that discovery turned out to be the big discovery. Because it not only resolved my hunch about the plasma but also explained (or, at least, set the stage for eventually explaining) why moisture in the atmosphere appeared to be gaseous when it was not. (The exact explanation for which is still not 100% clear in my mind.)
> So you throw out 150 years of substantive and in-depth research?
> Do you really think the entire world has been wrong for a century and
> a half, and *you*, are right, Jim?
It's been longer than that. It's literally all of human history.
> Or do you think the Occam's Razor explanation is that you're a
> delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted schizophrenic paranoid kook who's
> concocted a kooky conspiracy theory that is laughably wrong?
>
> Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
> process, Jim?
> Why are there *no* corroborating papers that back up your kooky
> contentions, Jim?
The funny thing is that when I made the discovery, about 3 and a half years ago, I didn't even think it was a big deal. I kind of just assumed that it was something known but obscure. It was not until just this last November that I came to grips with the fact that not only would academia not be an ally in my attempt to introduce this thinking to the world but they would be an obstacle. That is when I wrote the paper.
I'd known for a long time that the notion that H2O is gaseous in the atmosphere is nonsense. Yet I didn't have any explanation for why the evidence thereof is so paradoxical (as you are noticing). If not for the fact that I was trying to find substantiation for my hunch that H2O could produce a plasma under wind shear conditions and, also, if I did not suspect that surface tension, by way of H bonding, played a role therein, I never would have had a reason to theorize that H bonds neutralize H2O polarity. And that discovery turned out to be the big discovery. Because it not only resolved my hunch about the plasma but also explained (or, at least, set the stage for eventually explaining) why moisture in the atmosphere appeared to be gaseous when it was not. (The exact explanation for which is still not 100% clear in my mind.)
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Mar 14, 2016, 12:05:10 AM3/14/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James McGinn, in
<news:43708ba7-4812-4d3c...@googlegroups.com> did
James McGinn, in
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 11:20:04 PM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>> So you throw out 150 years of substantive and in-depth research?
>> Do you really think the entire world has been wrong for a century and
>> a half, and *you*, are right, Jim?
> It's been longer than that. It's literally all of human history.
So you admit you throw out all scientific advancement in all of human
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>> So you throw out 150 years of substantive and in-depth research?
>> Do you really think the entire world has been wrong for a century and
>> a half, and *you*, are right, Jim?
> It's been longer than that. It's literally all of human history.
history as means of justifying your kooky conspiracy theory which does
not and cannot reflect reality. And you still believe yourself to be
sane, James?
>> Or do you think the Occam's Razor explanation is that you're a
>> delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted schizophrenic paranoid kook who's
>> concocted a kooky conspiracy theory that is laughably wrong?
>>
>> Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
>> process, Jim?
> Hmm. Maybe I should claim that it confirms global warming.
you've just admitted your kooky conspiracy theory is also a fairy
tale, James.
>> Why are there *no* corroborating papers that back up your kooky
>> contentions, Jim?
> So, either I'm very, very crazy or . . . or . . . or,
> not.
You're not sane in the slightest, James.
> The funny thing is that when I made the discovery,
uncovering of information, usually via empirical observation or
mathematical derivation, but always based upon reproducible evidential
experimental observation of some sort.
What you did was to make a supposition, pulled straight from your ass
in the most literal usage of the etymology of that word's root ever,
based upon nothing more than your lack of education, stupidity and
paranoid insanity, James.
> about 3 and a half years ago, I didn't even think it was a big deal.
> I kind of just assumed that it was something known but obscure. It
> was not until just this last November that I came to grips with the
> fact that not only would academia not be an ally in my attempt to
> introduce this thinking to the world but they would be an obstacle.
> That is when I wrote the paper.
> I'd known
No, you'd supposed, Jim. You have no evidence, no proof, of your
supposition, and you'll never have any evidence or proof... because
your supposition of a theory is a fairy tale that has been proven to
not reflect reality, via more than a half-dozen different avenues.
> for a long time that the notion that H2O is gaseous in the
> atmosphere is nonsense.
derived from an incorrect supposition, as has been proven that you
have done, your entire theory is wrong, Jim.
Go back and review what I've written. If you do so honestly, you'll
find your original supposition and thus your premise and thus your
entire kooky conspiracy theory is flawed, and thus cannot reflect
reality. The implication of the above reality is that you've gone
insane, Jim... so I'm betting you *won't* go back and review the path
you took to reach your current insane state.
> Yet I didn't have any explanation for why the evidence thereof is
> so paradoxical (as you are noticing).
corroborable third-party research (peer-reviewed, no less) that
explains it all.
> If not for the fact that I was trying to find substantiation for
> my hunch that H2O could produce a plasma
straight from your ass with no evidence or proof whatsoever, in direct
contradiction to a mountain of evidence that you are delusional. Do
you think that's a rational course to take, James?
> under wind shear conditions and, also, if I did not suspect that
> surface tension, by way of H bonding, played a role therein, I
> never would have had a reason to theorize that H bonds neutralize
> H2O polarity.
phenomenon, has been empirically observed, experimentally proven and
actually exists, whereas your kooky k'lame that H bonding affects
water molecule polarity would also imply that water's solvent
properties are variable by some other mechanisms than temperature or
electromagnetic inducement of molecular alignment. We know it is not,
therefore your kooky theory is nothing more than the mad ranting of a
delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktard who refuses to go back
and review his supposition and subsequent premise because he knows
it'll prove he's gone so far off the rails of reality that he is now
quite insane.
> And that discovery turned out to be the big discovery.
upon your earlier suppositions, with no evidence or proof, as even you
admit. The reason insane people are insane is because they compound
one wrong supposition upon another until they're so twisted around
they can't even recognize reality, then become emotionally invested in
being 'right' in their insanity and thus refuse to unwind their
suppositions to get back to the root of their divergence from reality,
as you have done, Jim.
But you should know that insane people are never right, Jim. Never.
> Because it not only resolved my hunch about the plasma but also
> explained (or, at least, set the stage for eventually explaining)
> why moisture in the atmosphere appeared to be gaseous when it was
> not. (The exact explanation for which is still not 100% clear in
> my mind.)
mind, Jim. You're rapidly approaching the point where your insanity
will be self-perpetuating, and you'll find yourself unable to
backtrack to your original mistake and self-correct. You should do so
now, before it's too late, Jim.
Now, get right on answering those questions you've been running away
from, Jim. They highlight the incorrect suppositions you've made on
your way to your blathering, babbling insanity...
So you throw out 150+ years of substantive and in-depth research as
means of attempting to salvage your kooky discredited conspiracy
theory in order to maintain your delusion that you know something no
one else, all of them smarter and saner than you, knows, Jim?
Do you really think the entire world has been wrong for a century and
a half, and *you*, the kooktard who cannot answer my tough questions,
are right, Jim?
Or do you think the Occam's Razor explanation is that you're a
concocted a kooky conspiracy theory that is laughably wrong?
Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, Jim?
Why are there *no* corroborating peer-reviewed papers that back up
Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, Jim?
your kooky contentions, Jim? The ones you've provided I've used to
prove you and your kooky conspiracy theory *wrong*.
How are your kooky atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're
plasma, Jim?
How is your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" forming if the nuclear binding
energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the
water is dissociating into hydrogen and oxygen, Jim?
Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm, extremely
strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons
with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed far above the
prove you and your kooky conspiracy theory *wrong*.
How are your kooky atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're
plasma, Jim?
How is your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" forming if the nuclear binding
energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the
water is dissociating into hydrogen and oxygen, Jim?
Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm, extremely
strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons
troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?
How is the energy to plasmize your kooky "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, 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 kooky
conspiracy theory is workable, Jim?
Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?
Your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly destroyed, Jim. It does
not and cannot reflect reality. Deal with that reality as you will,
Jim.
Most Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards like you, when presented with
the proof that they are delusional, tend to 'circle the wagons' to
protect their delusions, driving themselves ever deeper into insanity.
I note you are doing the same.
I also note that, despite being driven *so* insane by their Usenet
troposphere to form your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?
How is the energy to plasmize your kooky "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, 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 kooky
conspiracy theory is workable, Jim?
Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?
Your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly destroyed, Jim. It does
not and cannot reflect reality. Deal with that reality as you will,
Jim.
Most Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards like you, when presented with
the proof that they are delusional, tend to 'circle the wagons' to
protect their delusions, driving themselves ever deeper into insanity.
I note you are doing the same.
Lord and Master that some kooks forget their own name, they never
forget mine... it haunts them for as long as they live.
<snicker>
--
Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know:
=====================================
The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier
Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create
That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms.
That superposition is the same as wave interference.
That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves.
That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things.
That RMS isn't a DC voltage.
That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207
That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1.
The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave.
That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical
What a positive or negative vector is.
That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per
That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic".
That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2
positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron.
nuclear charge.
What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.
That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples.
That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the
atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law to within 1.337842%
margin of error *worst* *case* at 70 F.
That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of
a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does
*not* equal zero, as Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames.
That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes
into account molar volume.
That "within 10% error" does not equal "10% error".
That water can be plasmized.
That atomic number does not equal effective nuclear charge.
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Mar 14, 2016, 12:33:05 AM3/14/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in
<news:ik5aebl5rutban8le...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in
first into the wood chipper again:
> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:
> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:
>> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in
>>> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:
>>>> You also didn't know that the dissociation energy and nuclear binding
>>>> energy of water is identical at 940.8 kJ/mol, thus water will
>>>> preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen rather than ionize.
>>>> That's one of the anomalous properties of water, Jim.
>>>>
>>>> How is your "water plasma" forming your purported "droplets" if it's
>>>> plasma, Jim? And given that the dissociation energy and nuclear
>>>> binding energy of water are identical at 940.8 kJ/mol, you're saying
>>>> that your water has actually dissociated into hydrogen and oxygen...
>>>> so how is this hydrogen and oxygen forming your purported "droplets",
>>>> Jim?
>>> It's good to see you have recognized that water cannot exist
>>> as a plasma, as i told you before, k00ktard.
>>>
>>> You're welcome.
>>>> You also didn't know that the dissociation energy and nuclear binding
>>>> energy of water is identical at 940.8 kJ/mol, thus water will
>>>> preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen rather than ionize.
>>>> That's one of the anomalous properties of water, Jim.
>>>>
>>>> How is your "water plasma" forming your purported "droplets" if it's
>>>> plasma, Jim? And given that the dissociation energy and nuclear
>>>> binding energy of water are identical at 940.8 kJ/mol, you're saying
>>>> that your water has actually dissociated into hydrogen and oxygen...
>>>> so how is this hydrogen and oxygen forming your purported "droplets",
>>>> Jim?
>>> It's good to see you have recognized that water cannot exist
>>> as a plasma, as i told you before, k00ktard.
>>>
>>> You're welcome.
>> <https://www.quora.com/Can-liquids-be-turned-into-plasma>
>> =========================================================
>> Owen Jones, Physics graduate, postdoctoral researcher in magnetic
>> confinement fusion.
>>
>> In order to jump straight from a liquid to a plasma, you need to
>> supply sufficient energy to remove the electrons from the atoms over a
> Did you understand that, fakey? When you remove the
>> =========================================================
>> Owen Jones, Physics graduate, postdoctoral researcher in magnetic
>> confinement fusion.
>>
>> In order to jump straight from a liquid to a plasma, you need to
>> supply sufficient energy to remove the electrons from the atoms over a
> electrons, there is no longer any bonding.
Are you backpedaling away from your kooky contention that water has no
plasma phase, when in reality any material heated sufficiently will
plasmize, Shiny Tinfoil Brain? LOL
> Why are you so stupid?
Why are you so stupid, Shiny Tinfoil Brain? LOL
> admit you are wrong, and i'm right.
Says the moron who's been proven wrong. Again. LOL
> RO<SMACKAKOOK!>
Why are you so stupid, Shiny Tinfoil Brain? LOL
>> <https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_possible_to_create_a_plasma_from_water_vapour_in_a_laboratory>
>> =========================================================
>> Is it possible to create a plasma from water vapour in a laboratory?
> Yes, just like it's possible to create steam from ice.
>> =========================================================
>> Is it possible to create a plasma from water vapour in a laboratory?
Some blither-blathering backpedaling bleatfarting moron wrote:
"Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature."
> But, fakey... when it's steam, it's not ice any more, is it?
It's still water, Moron. And given that the plasma comes from water,
it is plasmized water. Moron.
SPNAK!
>> Now you backpedal again and k'lame that "once it's heated to the
>> plasma phase, there are no longer any water molecules." again.
>>
>> Except a blither-blathering *moron* wrote:
>> "Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature."
>> So you've caught yourself in your own stupidity, and you're
>> backpedaling by k'laming that plasmized water is no longer water...
>> but what were the originating molecules, Moron? Oh yeah... water.
> There are no molecules in the plasma phase.
>> backpedaling by k'laming that plasmized water is no longer water...
>> but what were the originating molecules, Moron? Oh yeah... water.
> Sux to be you, dunnit?
Awww, look at the spankard backpedaling. You're even outdoing Gargles
on his best day... did getting SPNAK!'d so hard really hurt your
fragile little psyche so badly that you can't admit you're *wrong*,
Moron?
SPNAK!
> Can i quote you as saying water has a plasma phase?
> Oh, wait...
Sure you can. Everything has a plasma phase. Moron. It is, after all,
the most abundant form of matter in the universe, by both mass and
volume.
SPNAK!
> --
> "What is the plasma temperature of H2O, Jim? 12000 K."
> --Fakey claims water can exist as a plasma
<https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_possible_to_create_a_plasma_from_water_vapour_in_a_laboratory>
=========================================================
Is it possible to create a plasma from water vapour in a laboratory?
Christophe O Laux · Ecole Centrale Paris
We did exactly that, create a plasma in pure water vapor. We published
a first paper on the topic: Sainct, F.P., Lacoste, D.A., Kirkpatrick,
M.J., Odic, E., and Laux, C.O., Experimental study of nanosecond
repetitively pulsed discharges in water vapor, International Journal
of Plasma Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 6, no. 2, Sep.
2012. More publications should follow soon.
=========================================================
SPNAK! on the backpedaling bleating lying blither-blathering moron.
LOL
I bet you wish you could be right just once, huh, Moron.
<snicker>
--
Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know:
=====================================
The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier
Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create
*sinusoids*).
<snicker>
--
Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know:
=====================================
The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier
Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create
That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms.
That superposition is the same as wave interference.
That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves.
That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things.
That RMS isn't a DC voltage.
That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207
That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1.
The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave.
That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical
What a positive or negative vector is.
That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per
That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic".
That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2
positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron.
nuclear charge.
What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.
That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples.
That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the
atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law to within 1.337842%
margin of error *worst* *case* at 70 F.
That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of
a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does
*not* equal zero, as Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames.
That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes
into account molar volume.
That "within 10% error" does not equal "10% error".
That water can be plasmized.
That atomic number does not equal effective nuclear charge.
Skeeter
Mar 14, 2016, 8:34:19 AM3/14/16
to
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Mar 14, 2016, 11:34:30 AM3/14/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
Tr!pe the Hypoxic ChickenFucker (aka Steve Hall), in
<news:1mk3vyh.1p27msb1snqco6N%snip...@gmail.com> squawked as he
pulled it to poultry porn:
> A<SMACKAKOOK!>
ChickenFucker.
<snicker>
--
---------------------------------------------
Tr!pe the Hypoxic ChickenFucker squawked, in
<news:1l9enri.1boemg21mhmo5lN%sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk>:
"If you want to know about bird sex, just ask me."
Steve Hall (G8DGC, snip...@gmail.com, snip...@gmail.com,
sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk, sn...@notforspam.fsnet.co.uk) fucks birds.
LOL
http://i.imgur.com/f0euFil.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/pR0mX95.jpg
Slow bird sex... if Tr!pe chickenfucks fast, he turns blue. LOL
Too much chickenspooge clogging up his lungs. LOL
That's why he's too stupid to do simple math. Lack of oxygen. LOL
That also explains his rampant paranoia. Hypoxic brain damage. LOL
And his segue to human penis... birds aren't enough for him now. LOL
Maths Fail:
Message-ID: <07f2598e7078240c...@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <444e1cce007418ec...@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <1aefd4d212571584...@dizum.com>
Paranoia Will Destroy Ya:
Message-ID: <6620b273ab1a048a...@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <9db516a6a4494305...@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <0793f311af986182...@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <6b28ba3566b3f36f...@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <aa840a32fa3dc705...@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <938a2d9957c61a78...@dizum.com>
Tr!pe The Penis Obsessed Poof:
Message-ID: <48bc243b312b3999...@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <0eb75ae7a93df2df...@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <9a5d3b92c9841c7e...@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <a4c326b191a39afe...@dizum.com>
---------------------------------------------
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Mar 14, 2016, 1:14:05 PM3/14/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
Tr!pe the Hypoxic ChickenFucker (aka Steve Hall), in
<news:1mk3y8c.122cku4vx3fmeN%snip...@gmail.com> squawked as he
Tr!pe the Hypoxic ChickenFucker (aka Steve Hall), in
pulled it to poultry porn:
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
> <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> drop-kicked a retard:
Sam Wormley
Mar 14, 2016, 3:20:13 PM3/14/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On 3/13/16 3:59 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> So, either I'm very, very crazy or . . . or . . . or, not.
Or just an untutored fool. But I think we can find common ground and
> So, either I'm very, very crazy or . . . or . . . or, not.
work back to the was of scientific observation.
> http://www.aviationweather.gov/adds/metars/?station_ids=KAMW&std_trans=translated&chk_metars=on
Skeeter
Mar 14, 2016, 10:56:50 PM3/14/16
to
On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 15:42:46 +0000, snip...@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
>Fake Neighborhood Vote Wanker Ersatzus <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx>
>>
>
>And there it is again, Fakey's favoured tactic of last resort: delete
>the question that he can't answer and run away, casting trite insults
>and aspersions over his shoulder as he retreats in confusion.
>
>Pffft, what a fake.
What a coward he is.
>Fake Neighborhood Vote Wanker Ersatzus <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx>
>(Snickerturd) furiously wielded his eraser when he wrote:
>
>> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>>
>> Tr!pe the Hypoxic ChickenFucker (aka Steve Hall), in
>> <news:1mk3vyh.1p27msb1snqco6N%snip...@gmail.com> squawked as he
>> pulled it to poultry porn:
>>
>> > A<SMACKAKOOK!>
>>
>> ChickenFucker.
>>
>> <snickerturd>
>
>> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>>
>> Tr!pe the Hypoxic ChickenFucker (aka Steve Hall), in
>> <news:1mk3vyh.1p27msb1snqco6N%snip...@gmail.com> squawked as he
>> pulled it to poultry porn:
>>
>> > A<SMACKAKOOK!>
>>
>> ChickenFucker.
>>
>>
>
>And there it is again, Fakey's favoured tactic of last resort: delete
>the question that he can't answer and run away, casting trite insults
>and aspersions over his shoulder as he retreats in confusion.
>
>Pffft, what a fake.
What a coward he is.
James McGinn
Apr 22, 2016, 1:15:04 PM4/22/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Apr 23, 2016, 2:06:22 AM4/23/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:82743084-4640-4597...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>>>>>> Um, Jim? You're talking to the guy who proved that CO2-driven AGW
>>>>>> violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and thus is a fairy tale. CO2 has
>>>>>> been proven by NASA to be a global *cooling* gas.
>>>>> So, you noticed that CO2-driven AGW violates Laws of
>>>>> Thermodynamics but you never noticed that gaseous H2O
>>>>> at ambient temperatures/pressures also violates Laws
>>>>> of Thermodynamics.
>>>>>> violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and thus is a fairy tale. CO2 has
>>>>>> been proven by NASA to be a global *cooling* gas.
>>>>> So, you noticed that CO2-driven AGW violates Laws of
>>>>> Thermodynamics but you never noticed that gaseous H2O
>>>>> at ambient temperatures/pressures also violates Laws
>>>>> of Thermodynamics.
>>>> That's because it doesn't, Jim.
>>> The steam tables indicate otherwise. If you want to contradict the
>>> steam tables we need something more than anecdote based peer-review.
>> One doesn't use the steam tables for the atmosphere, Jim. One uses a
>> Mollier diagram.
>>
>> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Mollier.pdf>
> According to this Mollier didn't rigorously distinguish betwenen
Ah, spelling errors... the first indication that you're becoming
perturbed, Jim. Why are you perturbed, Jim?
<snicker>
> gaseous H2O and vapor. So this is just more anecdote, dumbass.
So you throw out 150 years of substantive and in-depth research as
>>> The steam tables indicate otherwise. If you want to contradict the
>>> steam tables we need something more than anecdote based peer-review.
>> One doesn't use the steam tables for the atmosphere, Jim. One uses a
>> Mollier diagram.
>>
>> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Mollier.pdf>
> According to this Mollier didn't rigorously distinguish betwenen
Ah, spelling errors... the first indication that you're becoming
perturbed, Jim. Why are you perturbed, Jim?
<snicker>
> gaseous H2O and vapor. So this is just more anecdote, dumbass.
means of attempting to salvage your kooky discredited conspiracy
theory in order to maintain your delusion that you know something
everyone else, all of them smarter and saner than you, knows, Jim?
theory in order to maintain your delusion that you know something
Do you really think the entire world has been wrong for a century and
a half, and *you*, the kooktard who cannot answer my tough questions,
Or do you think the Occam's Razor explanation is that you're a
delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted schizophrenic paranoid kook who's
concocted a kooky conspiracy theory that is laughably wrong?
Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, Jim?
concocted a kooky conspiracy theory that is laughably wrong?
Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, Jim?
Why are there *no* corroborating papers that back up your kooky
contentions, Jim? The ones you've provided I've used to prove you and
your kooky conspiracy theory *wrong*.
your kooky conspiracy theory *wrong*.
Your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly destroyed, Jim. It does
not and cannot reflect reality. Deal with that reality as you will,
Jim.
Most Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards like you, when presented with
the proof that they are delusional, tend to 'circle the wagons' to
protect their delusions, driving themselves ever deeper into insanity.
I note you are doing the same.
<snicker>
not and cannot reflect reality. Deal with that reality as you will,
Jim.
Most Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards like you, when presented with
the proof that they are delusional, tend to 'circle the wagons' to
protect their delusions, driving themselves ever deeper into insanity.
I note you are doing the same.
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
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
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?
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
Why are you not taking your meds, James?
============================================================
Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
James McGinn
Jun 11, 2016, 5:00:57 PM6/11/16
to
On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 8:31:28 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1
Jun 12, 2016, 1:01:32 AM6/12/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:a9a6f764-07e7-4bca...@googlegroups.com> did
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>> Oh, Jim didn't realize that
>> water in its gaseous phase, water in its liquid phase and water in its
>> solid phase would reflect and refract different wavelengths, did he?
>>
>> Water in its gaseous phase reflects and refracts microwave radiation
>> at a far lower rate than does, say, the water vapor in clouds. Thus
>> the differential tells researchers cloud depth as well as humidity.
> If you think it definitive then why not make an argument to that effect?
I just did, Jim. The multi-frequency split-window technique to
determine cloud optical depth and atmospheric humidity has been used
for years by NASA, Jim.
> But it has to be definitive. No Global-warming-reasoning will be accepted.
Um, Jim? You're talking to the guy who proved that CO2-driven AGW
violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and thus is a fairy tale. CO2 has
been proven by NASA to be a global *cooling* gas.
>> phase exists primarily in the troposphere, whereas carbon dioxide and
>> nitrogen, for example, can rise far above the troposphere, Jim?
> Yes: https://www.youtu<SMACKAKOOK!>
Referring back to your own kooky conspiracy theory blather is like
standing in an echo chamber screaming at the top of your lungs and
taking the echoes as confirmation of your kooky blathering, Jim. It's
an indication of mental instability and a burgeoning schizoid
paranoiac insanity. Seek immediate professional psychiatric
intervention, Jim.
>> Did you never stop to consider why water can go *below* its freezing
>> temperature after being updrafted into the upper troposphere, yet not
>> immediately fall out of the sky (hint: because it's in its gaseous
>> phase... individual molecules...
> Wrong. It' is always liquid or solid (ice). It is never gaseous.
Wrong. I've presented *four* peer-reviewed studies proving the
existence of monomolecular gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere, Jim.
Is water "speshul", James? Does it not have a gaseous phase like every
other molecule?
Nilsson's study:
<https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156>
If water molecules are H bonded together, it's liquid water, James.
Photon energy from electron orbital descent is dependent upon H
bonding strength (given that it's an electrostatic bond), the stronger
the H bond, the lower the photon energy. Nilsson measured a higher
photon energy from electron orbital descent in gaseous-phase water
than that of liquid-phase water. If it'd been liquid-phase water as
you claim, the photon energy would have been identical to that of
liquid-phase water. It wasn't, hence gaseous phase water is
monomolecular with no H bonding.
Water In The Gas Phase -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3350649/
Not ab initio (which you stupidly call "ab initro" in your videos
LOL)... direct measurement of monomolecular water in the gaseous
phase. 16 referenced papers.
Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research
http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation
Direct empirical observation of monomolecular evaporation.
http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/
Active Long Path Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy to
directly observe monomolecular gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere.
Now you can run away from reality all over again, James. You
delusional reality-denying kooktard.
Now let's contrast that with what you've got, James... you've
*retracted* the central premise for your entire delusion as you
writhed and squirmed in trying to escape being proven wrong, then when
you realized that your having done so destroyed your entire delusion,
you quickly picked up your "variable polarity of the H2O molecule"
claim from the ground, dusted it off, slapped it back onto your
delusion and duct-taped it in place. That had to be embarrassing for
you, eh? LOL
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
That was an embarrassing gaffe on your part, wasn't it, TornadoTard?
LOL
>> According to you, since you k'lame
>> all water in the atmosphere is clustered, it would be heavier than air
>> and would thus all fall out of the air once its mass exceeded its
>> downward-facing combined radius holding it up due to updraft...
> I address this point in my videos.
Your kooky conspiracy theory videos are merely the outgrowth of your
kooky written conspiracy theory, Jim. The same retarded tripe in a
different form. IOW, you have nothing in your arsenal to refute the
peer-reviewed studies I presented with utterly *destroyed* your kooky
conspiracy theory.
>> thus rainfall would be next to impossible, the lower troposphere would
>> perpetually be enveloped in falling mist, and every horizontal surface
>> would be perpetually covered with a film of water.
> Right. Based on meteorology's assumptions clouds should drop out of
> the sky like bricks. Right? But they don't. Why do you think that is?
Wrong, that's according to your wrong interpretation of meteorology's
precepts. The reality of physical phenomena such as clouds has been
explained to you, including links to corroborable data. You snipped it
out and ran away from it because you're a delusional paranoiac
suffering from the crippling effects of Dunning-Kruger.
>> Are you beginning to understand that you don't understand much at all,
>> Jim? Are you beginning to see that you conceived of your kooky little
>> theory and ran off half-cocked, crowing about your "discovery" without
>> fully testing its premises, Jim?
> You exemplify the dimwittedness of meteorological assumptions.
That must be why you find yourself utterly unable to refute any of
that peer-reviewed data, right, Jim? Everyone else is crazy and *you*
are the only sane one. Everyone else who has years of training and
experience is wrong, but *you*, a high school dropout kooktard who has
demonstrated his stupidity repeatedly, are the only one who is right.
Yeah, that makes sense, Jim. Right?
Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
>>>> Then you'll have no problem providing a microscopy printout of these
>>>> so-called "small droplets", Jim. Do you even own a microscope?
>>> So, now you are conceding that you don't have counterevidence?
>> I've just provided yet another peer reviewed study
> Yet you are conceding that it is not conclusive, right?
I "conceded" no such thing, Jim. It is a peer-reviewed study which
utterly decimates your kooky conspiracy theory. Do you not understand
what the peer-review process entails, Jim? Oh, of course you don't...
you can't get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, nor can you even get your kooky conspiracy theory published
on any pre-print servers. Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy
theory through the peer-review process, Jim? Answer the question, you
evasive twit.
>>> Ever heard of the scientific method?
>> Sure I have, which is why I've been offering evidence consisting of
>> peer reviewed studies...
> Peer review is consensus. Consensus is politics. (I am not a
> climate scientist.) Only empirical evidence is valid if you
> want to collect the money. Sorry to burst your bubble. I thought
> this was obvious. Sorry if you got the wrong idea.
Ah, another goalpost move from the evasive twit James McGinn. Well,
it's a good thing I've presented empirical evidence such as you taking
a trip from sea level to the top of Mt. Everest with a container of
water, eh, Jim? That also disproves your kooky theory. So you'll be
paying up. Now.
>>>> Wrong, but nice CAPSscreed, Jim. The two acceptor bonds are to two
>>>> *different* water molecules.
>>> No duh.
>> Then breaking one will not affect the other, KookTard.
> It affects the symmetry on the Oxygen molecule, dumbass.
No, it doesn't. It affects the diametrically-opposed covalent bond,
shortening it, as I've proven via two peer-reviewed studies, which you
snipped out and ran away from, Jim.
<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
"There is a trade-off between the covalent and hydrogen bond
strengths; the stronger the H路路路路O hydrogen bond, the weaker the O-H
covalent bond, and the shorter the O路路路路O distance"
Note the graph... the covalent bond remains shorter (and stronger)
than the inter-molecular H bond. Because the inter-molecular H bond is
~1/20th the strength of the covalent bond, the diametrically-opposite
covalent bond will preferentially shorten and strengthen when one of
the inter-molecular bonds is broken, Jim. That's why, when using high
frequency AC to dissociate water, you target the short covalent bond
frequency, as the long covalent bond frequency is too close to the H
bond frequency, and if you break that, you strengthen the covalent
bonds.
You are *wrong*. Your kooky theory is *wrong*. The entire underlying
premise of your kooky theory is fallacious. I've just destroyed your
kooky theory, Jim. Now what will you do?
<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
"The movement of electrons from the oxygen atom to the O-H antibonding
orbital on a neighboring molecule (HO-H-路路路路OH2) both weaken the
covalent O-H bond (so lengthening it ) and reduces the HO-H路路路路OH2
'hydrogen' bond."
Hence, when that inter-molecular H bond is broken, the diametrically
opposed covalent bond is shortened and strengthened, Jim. This has
been known and is well-exploited when building HHO welders for a great
number of years, Jim. That's why, when dissociating water, you don't
target the long covalent bond, as the resonant frequency required to
break that covalent bond is too close to the inter-molecular H bond
resonant frequency, and breaking that would strengthen the covalent
bond opposite, thereby costing more energy in dissociating the water.
Again, your lack of understanding of physical processes stems in part
from your broken delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted brain rejecting
any information from those you deem to be of higher authority than you
(which would be pretty much everyone), and in part from your lack of
education. Both conditions together lead you off into the brambles of
your kooky discredited conspiracy theory, and both can be ameliorated
by subjecting yourself to those very same psychiatric and educational
authorities your broken brain rejects... hence you'll remain
delusional for the remainder of your pathetic life, Jim... but you'll
find your delusion and hence your insanity grows until it destroys
your life. Fix yourself, Jim, or suffer the same fate of every other
D-K sufferer.
<snicker>
>>> You are ignoring symmetry, to no good effect.
>> You don't even know what 'symmetry' means, Jim,
> Look into VESPR theory.
Oh, trust me, Jim. I know about VSEPR theory. You're still misusing
the word 'symmetry', Jim. Liquid water has no symmetry. Gaseous-phase
water has absolutely no symmetry. You're 180 degrees out from reality.
>>> I understand polarity better than anybody
>> No, you don't. You're a moronic delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted
>> kooktard who believes himself to know polarity better than anybody,
>> but you demonstrate daily that in reality you know squat, Jim.
> Actually I do.
Actually, you don't, as the data above proves, Jim.
>>>> In fact, the H bonding gets *weaker* when one is knocked loose.
>>> Surface tension proves you wrong and me right.
>> You've already been proven wrong below, Jim.
> Explain surface tension using your model. Go ahead.
> What are you waiting for?
The surface condition is a special case, Jim, so I'm not surprised you
don't know about it.
<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html>
=====================================================
Analysis of simple thermodynamics c shows the surface has considerable
structuring, having identical density to that of bulk water at just
under 4 掳C. In addition, the surface water structuring varies less
with temperature than the bulk. Refractive index study of the
water-air surface reveals it to be about 1.7 nm thick at 22 掳C and
more dense than the bulk liquid (that is, it behaves like water at a
lower temperature).
=====================================================
So the "surface tension" is a result of the increased viscosity of the
interfacial water, Jim. Did you not know this, Jim? What kind of loon
would hold themselves out as the 'premiere expert' on water, and yet
not know a single fact *about* water, Jim?
> Your explanation of surface tension is ad hoc. It's not intrinsic.
> You just tacked it on. It's worthless.
That explanation is backed up by 2517 peer-reviewed studies, you
fecking nong. It's been vetted and proven to reflect reality.
Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
>>> That's a model, dumbass. That is not reality.
>>> That is a (poorly considered) attempt to explain what is observed.
>>> So, only a loon would employ that as proof.
>> That model happens to be the model that is accepted
> It's still just a model, dumbass. Model's are not evidence.
> That you use a model as evidence reveals your dimwittedness.
It is a model which explains all physical phenomenon of water, Jim.
Backed up by 2517 peer-reviewed studies. How many studies back up your
kooky conspiracy theory, Jim?
Oh, that's right, ZERO. In fact, you can't even get your kooky
conspiracy theory itself through the peer-review process. Why is that,
Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit.
>>> Descriptive models don't dispute reality, dumbass.
>>> Then do the experiment that prove it.
>> Kooktard keeps asking for "experiments", when that data has been known
>> for a very long time...
> As you are revealing, none of it is definitive.
It is, you're just backpedaling away from the fact that your kooky
conspiracy theory has been utterly destroyed, Jim.
>> I'll let you do this experiment, Jim. Carry a beaker of water to sea
>> level, heat it to 100 C. You'll note the water gaseous pressure is
>> sufficient to overcome the 760 mm Hg atmospheric pressure.
>>
>> Now allow the water to cool to 70 C, you'll note the vapor pressure is
>> insufficient to overcome the 750 mm Hg atmospheric pressure, so
>> boiling does not occur,
> Boiling stops below 100, dumbass.
Very good, Jim! At least you can acknowledge reality when it suits you
to do so. So we know you're not fully delusional... yet.
>> yet evaporation does occur.
> Evaporation occurs all the way do to freezing, dumbass.
Very good again, Jim! In fact, it occurs even *below* the freezing
point, Jim. Or are you going to now deny sublimation?
>> Now, while maintaining that water at 70 C, carry it to the top of Mt.
>> Everest. You'll note that as you rise in altitude, the water will
>> again begin boiling, despite the temperature of the water only being
>> 70 C.
> You're an idiot.
I've proven your kooky theory is *wrong*, Jim. You're the idiot.
>> Hence, boiling and evaporation are the same process,
> Surreal.
I'm sure you do find reality to be "surreal", Jim... Dunning-Kruger
sufferers often do. It's part and parcel of your burgeoning insanity.
You can fix yourself, it's not too late. All it requires is
acknowledging that your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly
destroyed, and thereby escaping its insanity-inducing grip.
I don't think you're strong enough to do that, Jim.
James McGinn
Jul 10, 2016, 3:11:41 PM7/10/16
to
On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 8:31:28 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1
Jul 11, 2016, 2:59:12 AM7/11/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:e0b8aa55-675f-44e7...@googlegroups.com> did
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>> Oh, Jim didn't realize that
>> water in its gaseous phase, water in its liquid phase and water in its
>> solid phase would reflect and refract different wavelengths, did he?
>>
>> Water in its gaseous phase reflects and refracts microwave radiation
>> at a far lower rate than does, say, the water vapor in clouds. Thus
>> the differential tells researchers cloud depth as well as humidity.
> If you think it definitive then why not make an argument to that effect?
I just did, Jim. The multi-frequency split-window technique to
determine cloud optical depth and atmospheric humidity has been used
for years by NASA, Jim.
> But it has to be definitive. No Global-warming-reasoning will be accepted.
>> Oh, Jim didn't realize that
>> water in its gaseous phase, water in its liquid phase and water in its
>> solid phase would reflect and refract different wavelengths, did he?
>>
>> Water in its gaseous phase reflects and refracts microwave radiation
>> at a far lower rate than does, say, the water vapor in clouds. Thus
>> the differential tells researchers cloud depth as well as humidity.
> If you think it definitive then why not make an argument to that effect?
I just did, Jim. The multi-frequency split-window technique to
determine cloud optical depth and atmospheric humidity has been used
for years by NASA, Jim.
> But it has to be definitive. No Global-warming-reasoning will be accepted.
Um, Jim? You're talking to the guy who proved that CO2-driven AGW
violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and thus is a fairy tale. CO2 has
been proven by NASA to be a global *cooling* gas.
violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and thus is a fairy tale. CO2 has
been proven by NASA to be a global *cooling* gas.
James McGinn
Nov 10, 2016, 9:21:20 AM11/10/16
to
On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 8:31:28 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
Friendly Neighbourhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1
Nov 10, 2016, 9:54:29 PM11/10/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James 'Slobbering Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:9499c0ce-1fb3-4535...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>> Oh, Jim didn't realize that water in its gaseous phase, water in its
>> liquid phase and water in its solid phase would reflect and refract
>> different wavelengths, did he?
>>
>> Water in its gaseous phase reflects and refracts microwave radiation
>> at a far lower rate than does, say, the water vapor in clouds. Thus
>> the differential tells researchers cloud depth as well as humidity.
> If you think it definitive then why not make an argument to that effect?
I just did, Jim. The multi-frequency split-window technique to
determine cloud optical depth and atmospheric humidity has been used
for years by NASA, Jim.
> But it has to be definitive. No Global-warming-reasoning will be accepted.
>> Oh, Jim didn't realize that water in its gaseous phase, water in its
>> liquid phase and water in its solid phase would reflect and refract
>> different wavelengths, did he?
>>
>> Water in its gaseous phase reflects and refracts microwave radiation
>> at a far lower rate than does, say, the water vapor in clouds. Thus
>> the differential tells researchers cloud depth as well as humidity.
> If you think it definitive then why not make an argument to that effect?
I just did, Jim. The multi-frequency split-window technique to
determine cloud optical depth and atmospheric humidity has been used
for years by NASA, Jim.
> But it has to be definitive. No Global-warming-reasoning will be accepted.
Um, Jim? You're talking to the guy who proved that CO2-driven AGW
violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and thus is a fairy tale. CO2 has
been proven by NASA to be a global *cooling* gas.
violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and thus is a fairy tale. CO2 has
been proven by NASA to be a global *cooling* gas.
noTthaTguY
Nov 13, 2016, 11:31:18 PM11/13/16
to
was that s med-I-cal use of alpha-beta
noTthaTguY
Nov 14, 2016, 2:18:35 PM11/14/16
to
of course,
there are an infinite number of arithmetic sequences of primes,
including any number of them
that are every hundredth number, or
every humdredth odd number, or <ellipsis
there are an infinite number of arithmetic sequences of primes,
including any number of them
that are every hundredth number, or
every humdredth odd number, or <ellipsis
James McGinn
Jan 31, 2017, 10:37:15 AM1/31/17
to
On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 8:31:28 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 10:40:59 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 10:40:59 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>
> > Um, Jim? You're talking to the guy who proved that CO2-driven AGW
> > violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and thus is a fairy tale. CO2 has
> > been proven by NASA to be a global *cooling* gas.
>
> > violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and thus is a fairy tale. CO2 has
> > been proven by NASA to be a global *cooling* gas.
>
James McGinn
Feb 3, 2017, 12:33:25 PM2/3/17
to
The Party Of Trump (The Party For Winners)
Feb 3, 2017, 10:08:32 PM2/3/17
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James Bernard 'Slobbering Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, in
<news:e3bf2e54-0c7f-46ab...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>> Oh, Jim didn't realize that water in its gaseous phase, water in its
>> liquid phase and water in its solid phase would reflect and refract
>> different wavelengths, did he?
>>
>> Water in its gaseous phase reflects and refracts microwave radiation
>> at a far lower rate than does, say, the water vapor in clouds. Thus
>> the differential tells researchers cloud depth as well as humidity.
> If you think it definitive then why not make an argument to that effect?
I just did, Jim. The multi-frequency split-window technique to
determine cloud optical depth and atmospheric humidity has been used
for years by NASA, Jim.
> But it has to be definitive. No Global-warming-reasoning will be accepted.
>> Oh, Jim didn't realize that water in its gaseous phase, water in its
>> liquid phase and water in its solid phase would reflect and refract
>> different wavelengths, did he?
>>
>> Water in its gaseous phase reflects and refracts microwave radiation
>> at a far lower rate than does, say, the water vapor in clouds. Thus
>> the differential tells researchers cloud depth as well as humidity.
> If you think it definitive then why not make an argument to that effect?
I just did, Jim. The multi-frequency split-window technique to
determine cloud optical depth and atmospheric humidity has been used
for years by NASA, Jim.
> But it has to be definitive. No Global-warming-reasoning will be accepted.
Um, Jim? You're talking to the guy who proved that CO2-driven AGW
violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and thus is a fairy tale. CO2 has
been proven by NASA to be a global *cooling* gas.
violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and thus is a fairy tale. CO2 has
been proven by NASA to be a global *cooling* gas.
James McGinn
Apr 4, 2017, 2:26:45 PM4/4/17
to
On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 8:31:28 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 10:40:59 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 10:40:59 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>
> > Um, Jim? You're talking to the guy who proved that CO2-driven AGW
> > violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and thus is a fairy tale. CO2 has
> > been proven by NASA to be a global *cooling* gas.
>
> > violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and thus is a fairy tale. CO2 has
> > been proven by NASA to be a global *cooling* gas.
>
Libtards Are Retarded Spankards
Apr 4, 2017, 9:30:41 PM4/4/17
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James Bernard 'Slobbering Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, in
<news:01a04855-c00e-4717...@googlegroups.com> did
James Bernard 'Slobbering Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, in
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>> Oh, Jim didn't realize that water in its gaseous phase, water in its
>> liquid phase and water in its solid phase would reflect and refract
>> different wavelengths, did he?
>>
>> Water in its gaseous phase reflects and refracts microwave radiation
>> at a far lower rate than does, say, the water vapor in clouds. Thus
>> the differential tells researchers cloud depth as well as humidity.
> If you think it definitive then why not make an argument to that effect?
I just did, Jim. The multi-frequency split-window technique to
determine cloud optical depth and atmospheric humidity has been used
for years by NASA, Jim.
> But it has to be definitive. No Global-warming-reasoning will be accepted.
>> Oh, Jim didn't realize that water in its gaseous phase, water in its
>> liquid phase and water in its solid phase would reflect and refract
>> different wavelengths, did he?
>>
>> Water in its gaseous phase reflects and refracts microwave radiation
>> at a far lower rate than does, say, the water vapor in clouds. Thus
>> the differential tells researchers cloud depth as well as humidity.
> If you think it definitive then why not make an argument to that effect?
I just did, Jim. The multi-frequency split-window technique to
determine cloud optical depth and atmospheric humidity has been used
for years by NASA, Jim.
> But it has to be definitive. No Global-warming-reasoning will be accepted.
Um, Jim? You're talking to the guy who proved that CO2-driven AGW
violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and thus is a fairy tale. CO2 has
been proven by NASA to be a global *cooling* gas.
violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and thus is a fairy tale. CO2 has
been proven by NASA to be a global *cooling* gas.
James McGinn
Apr 7, 2017, 12:25:47 AM4/7/17
to
On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 8:31:28 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 10:40:59 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 10:40:59 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>
> > Um, Jim? You're talking to the guy who proved that CO2-driven AGW
> > violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and thus is a fairy tale. CO2 has
> > been proven by NASA to be a global *cooling* gas.
>
> > violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and thus is a fairy tale. CO2 has
> > been proven by NASA to be a global *cooling* gas.
>
Libtard Snowflakes Are Laughingstocks
Apr 8, 2017, 3:58:31 PM4/8/17
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James Bernard 'Slobbering Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, in
<news:0a401fbd-d796-4954...@googlegroups.com> did
James Bernard 'Slobbering Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, in
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>> Oh, Jim didn't realize that water in its gaseous phase, water in its
>> liquid phase and water in its solid phase would reflect and refract
>> different wavelengths, did he?
>>
>> Water in its gaseous phase reflects and refracts microwave radiation
>> at a far lower rate than does, say, the water vapor in clouds. Thus
>> the differential tells researchers cloud depth as well as humidity.
> If you think it definitive then why not make an argument to that effect?
I just did, Jim. The multi-frequency split-window technique to
determine cloud optical depth and atmospheric humidity has been used
for years by NASA, Jim.
> But it has to be definitive. No Global-warming-reasoning will be accepted.
>> Oh, Jim didn't realize that water in its gaseous phase, water in its
>> liquid phase and water in its solid phase would reflect and refract
>> different wavelengths, did he?
>>
>> Water in its gaseous phase reflects and refracts microwave radiation
>> at a far lower rate than does, say, the water vapor in clouds. Thus
>> the differential tells researchers cloud depth as well as humidity.
> If you think it definitive then why not make an argument to that effect?
I just did, Jim. The multi-frequency split-window technique to
determine cloud optical depth and atmospheric humidity has been used
for years by NASA, Jim.
> But it has to be definitive. No Global-warming-reasoning will be accepted.
Um, Jim? You're talking to the guy who proved that CO2-driven AGW
violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and thus is a fairy tale. CO2 has
been proven by NASA to be a global *cooling* gas.
violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and thus is a fairy tale. CO2 has
been proven by NASA to be a global *cooling* gas.
James McGinn
Apr 8, 2017, 4:18:54 PM4/8/17
to
Bleat, Snowflake Libtards, Bleat.
Apr 8, 2017, 5:53:28 PM4/8/17
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James Bernard 'Slobbering Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, in
<news:0a401fbd-d796-4954...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>> Oh, Jim didn't realize that water in its gaseous phase, water in its
>> liquid phase and water in its solid phase would reflect and refract
>> different wavelengths, did he?
>>
>> Water in its gaseous phase reflects and refracts microwave radiation
>> at a far lower rate than does, say, the water vapor in clouds. Thus
>> the differential tells researchers cloud depth as well as humidity.
> If you think it definitive then why not make an argument to that effect?
I just did, Jim. The multi-frequency split-window technique to
determine cloud optical depth and atmospheric humidity has been used
for years by NASA, Jim.
> But it has to be definitive. No Global-warming-reasoning will be accepted.
James Bernard 'Slobbering Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, in
<news:0a401fbd-d796-4954...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>> Oh, Jim didn't realize that water in its gaseous phase, water in its
>> liquid phase and water in its solid phase would reflect and refract
>> different wavelengths, did he?
>>
>> Water in its gaseous phase reflects and refracts microwave radiation
>> at a far lower rate than does, say, the water vapor in clouds. Thus
>> the differential tells researchers cloud depth as well as humidity.
> If you think it definitive then why not make an argument to that effect?
I just did, Jim. The multi-frequency split-window technique to
determine cloud optical depth and atmospheric humidity has been used
for years by NASA, Jim.
> But it has to be definitive. No Global-warming-reasoning will be accepted.
Um, Jim? You're talking to the guy who proved that CO2-driven AGW
violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and thus is a fairy tale. CO2 has
been proven by NASA to be a global *cooling* gas.
violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and thus is a fairy tale. CO2 has
been proven by NASA to be a global *cooling* gas.
Nadegda
Apr 8, 2017, 7:52:32 PM4/8/17
to
On Sat, 08 Apr 2017 21:50:21 +0200, Faketard Snowflakes Are
Laughingstocks, one of the co-winners of March's Unabomber Surprise, wrote
*another* 610-line kooky manifesto containing:
> Referring back to your own kooky conspiracy theory blather is like
> standing in an echo chamber screaming at the top of your lungs and
> taking the echoes as confirmation of your kooky blathering
About time you admitted that, kooky conspiracy blatherer.
--
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Nadegda
Fakey couldn't teach a monkey to eat a banana, much less answer a direct
question posed to him. -- Fakey's Dogwhistle Holder
Laughingstocks, one of the co-winners of March's Unabomber Surprise, wrote
*another* 610-line kooky manifesto containing:
> Referring back to your own kooky conspiracy theory blather is like
> standing in an echo chamber screaming at the top of your lungs and
> taking the echoes as confirmation of your kooky blathering
--
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Nadegda
Fakey couldn't teach a monkey to eat a banana, much less answer a direct
question posed to him. -- Fakey's Dogwhistle Holder
Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛
Apr 8, 2017, 7:53:49 PM4/8/17
to
On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 23:49:27 -0000 (UTC), LO AND BEHOLD; "Nadegda
<nad31...@gmail.invalid>" determined that the following was of great
importance and subsequently decided to freely share it with us in
<ocbsu6$auf$2...@dont-email.me>:
>On Sat, 08 Apr 2017 21:50:21 +0200, Faketard Snowflakes Are
>Laughingstocks, one of the co-winners of March's Unabomber Surprise,
>wrote *another* 610-line kooky manifesto containing:
>
>>Referring back to your own kooky conspiracy theory blather is like
>>standing in an echo chamber screaming at the top of your lungs and
>>taking the echoes as confirmation of your kooky blathering
>
>About time you admitted that, kooky conspiracy blatherer.
democrats are "nazis" 'amember?
--
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB6B8jGSdLA
-
"You just made puppy whistle's sig line longer." - Janithor
-
"If I have a complaint about the (Southern Poverty) Law Center's description (of the alt-right movement), it is the phrase "heavy use of social media," which implies the alt-right is a real-world movement which uses a lot of social media. This is backwards: it is an online movement which occasionally appears in the real world. Where it gets punched." - Jason Rhode
-
"I think we should destroy every last fucking mosque in America." - "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic...@The.Edge> proves for us that white males are violent in Message-ID: <MPG.32c5bfef...@news.altopia.com>
-
Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016
<nad31...@gmail.invalid>" determined that the following was of great
importance and subsequently decided to freely share it with us in
<ocbsu6$auf$2...@dont-email.me>:
>On Sat, 08 Apr 2017 21:50:21 +0200, Faketard Snowflakes Are
>Laughingstocks, one of the co-winners of March's Unabomber Surprise,
>wrote *another* 610-line kooky manifesto containing:
>
>>Referring back to your own kooky conspiracy theory blather is like
>>standing in an echo chamber screaming at the top of your lungs and
>>taking the echoes as confirmation of your kooky blathering
>
>About time you admitted that, kooky conspiracy blatherer.
--
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB6B8jGSdLA
-
"You just made puppy whistle's sig line longer." - Janithor
-
"If I have a complaint about the (Southern Poverty) Law Center's description (of the alt-right movement), it is the phrase "heavy use of social media," which implies the alt-right is a real-world movement which uses a lot of social media. This is backwards: it is an online movement which occasionally appears in the real world. Where it gets punched." - Jason Rhode
-
"I think we should destroy every last fucking mosque in America." - "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic...@The.Edge> proves for us that white males are violent in Message-ID: <MPG.32c5bfef...@news.altopia.com>
-
Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016
Checkmate, DoW #1
Apr 9, 2017, 12:12:43 AM4/9/17
to
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Checkmate! In article <ocbsu6$auf$2...@dont-email.me>, nad318b404
@gmail.invalid says...
>
> On Sat, 08 Apr 2017 21:50:21 +0200, Faketard Snowflakes Are
> Laughingstocks, one of the co-winners of March's Unabomber Surprise, wrote
> *another* 610-line kooky manifesto containing:
>
> > Referring back to your own kooky conspiracy theory blather is like
> > standing in an echo chamber screaming at the top of your lungs and
> > taking the echoes as confirmation of your kooky blathering
>
> About time you admitted that, kooky conspiracy blatherer.
One of Fakey's better PKBs.
--
Checkmate
Copyright © 2017
all rights reserved
In loving memory of The Battle Kitten
May 2010-February 12, 2017
******************************************************
"I'm simply going to focus my efforts. I've dropped my trolling
endeavors in six groups just to help increase the pressure on you."
Message-ID: <3a893ceb...@news.supernews.com>
-Baby Matthew "Mad Hatter" Moulton explains how he plans to "destroy"
me... back in 2001. May he rest in peace. LOL!
Checkmate! In article <ocbsu6$auf$2...@dont-email.me>, nad318b404
@gmail.invalid says...
>
> On Sat, 08 Apr 2017 21:50:21 +0200, Faketard Snowflakes Are
> Laughingstocks, one of the co-winners of March's Unabomber Surprise, wrote
> *another* 610-line kooky manifesto containing:
>
> > Referring back to your own kooky conspiracy theory blather is like
> > standing in an echo chamber screaming at the top of your lungs and
> > taking the echoes as confirmation of your kooky blathering
>
> About time you admitted that, kooky conspiracy blatherer.
--
Checkmate
Copyright © 2017
all rights reserved
In loving memory of The Battle Kitten
May 2010-February 12, 2017
******************************************************
"I'm simply going to focus my efforts. I've dropped my trolling
endeavors in six groups just to help increase the pressure on you."
Message-ID: <3a893ceb...@news.supernews.com>
-Baby Matthew "Mad Hatter" Moulton explains how he plans to "destroy"
me... back in 2001. May he rest in peace. LOL!
James McGinn
May 20, 2017, 4:03:30 PM5/20/17
to
On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 8:31:28 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 10:40:59 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 10:40:59 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>
> > Um, Jim? You're talking to the guy who proved that CO2-driven AGW
> > violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and thus is a fairy tale. CO2 has
> > been proven by NASA to be a global *cooling* gas.
>
> > violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and thus is a fairy tale. CO2 has
> > been proven by NASA to be a global *cooling* gas.
>
James McGinn
Sep 13, 2017, 9:33:10 AM9/13/17
to
James McGinn
Sep 22, 2017, 2:41:07 PM9/22/17
to
James McGinn
Feb 15, 2018, 3:12:46 PM2/15/18
to
James McGinn
Feb 20, 2018, 11:12:58 PM2/20/18
to
James McGinn
Mar 14, 2018, 4:37:24 PM3/14/18
to
On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 12:41:59 AM UTC-8, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> > <news:b0cb369b-c6b5-427a...@googlegroups.com> did
>
> The steam tables indicate otherwise. If you want to contradict the steam tables we need something more than anecdote based peer-review.
>
> Here is the thing that I know that you don't know. The fact that everybody believes something is not evidence that it is true. It is, however, evidence that nobody ever bothered to test/measure it. Think about that.
>
> This is something that isn't true but that everybody believes to be true. Why? Because everybody made the same mistake that you are making to ask the opinion of other people before they actually measured/tested it.
>
> The fact that you have to resort to arguments based on, "peer-review," indicates that you have lost the argument.
>
> You will never find evidence of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures/pressures because it is just a myth. It's just something people chose to believe. It doesn't actually exist.
>
> There is a story by Hans Christian Andersen called, The Emperor's New Clothes. It explains better than I can why you will never, ever find evidence of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures/pressures.
> On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 12:08:04 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> > Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
> >
> > James McGinn, in
> > Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
> >
> > <news:b0cb369b-c6b5-427a...@googlegroups.com> did
> > thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> >
> >
> > > On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 10:40:59 PM UTC-8,
> > > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> >
> > >> Um, Jim? You're talking to the guy who proved that CO2-driven AGW
> > >> violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and thus is a fairy tale. CO2 has
> > >> been proven by NASA to be a global *cooling* gas.
> >
> > > So, you noticed that CO2-driven AGW violates Laws of
> > > Thermodynamics but you never noticed that gaseous H2O
> > > at ambient temperatures/pressures also violates Laws
> > > of Thermodynamics.
> >
> > That's because it doesn't, Jim.
> > > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> >
> > >> Um, Jim? You're talking to the guy who proved that CO2-driven AGW
> > >> violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and thus is a fairy tale. CO2 has
> > >> been proven by NASA to be a global *cooling* gas.
> >
> > > So, you noticed that CO2-driven AGW violates Laws of
> > > Thermodynamics but you never noticed that gaseous H2O
> > > at ambient temperatures/pressures also violates Laws
> > > of Thermodynamics.
> >
>
> The steam tables indicate otherwise. If you want to contradict the steam tables we need something more than anecdote based peer-review.
>
> Here is the thing that I know that you don't know. The fact that everybody believes something is not evidence that it is true. It is, however, evidence that nobody ever bothered to test/measure it. Think about that.
>
> This is something that isn't true but that everybody believes to be true. Why? Because everybody made the same mistake that you are making to ask the opinion of other people before they actually measured/tested it.
>
> The fact that you have to resort to arguments based on, "peer-review," indicates that you have lost the argument.
>
> You will never find evidence of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures/pressures because it is just a myth. It's just something people chose to believe. It doesn't actually exist.
>
> There is a story by Hans Christian Andersen called, The Emperor's New Clothes. It explains better than I can why you will never, ever find evidence of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures/pressures.
0 new messages