Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
What Drives The Jet Streams?
111 views
Skip to first unread message
James McGinn
Mar 26, 2016, 6:31:35 PM3/26/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2011/08/26/how-to-get-off-the-ground-with-nothing-but-water-almost/#comment-39101
Scottish-Sceptic:
What do you think drives the jet streams? It's all part of the circulatory system of the atmosphere - driven by convective currents.
James McGinn:
There is no such thing as a convection current. And convection has nothing to do with Hadley cell circulation (see below for details) in my opinion. Why this notion is so popular is a mystery since the science is so incredibly poor--it's as bad or worse than that of AGW.
Scottish-Sceptic:
It is in short a form of heat engine - the source of heat is the surface heating (and latent in water vapour) and the sink is high up.
James McGinn:
Heat engine? Do you honestly believe this? Where is the heat? Where is the engine? Or are you just talking figuratively?
Scottish-Sceptic:
And we even get turning motions - as the cyclones turn. Similarly the Hadley cell structure is also a form of circulatory structure. The jet streams are a by product of this convectively powered heat engine.
James McGinn:
There is no gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere. Consequently, moist air is actually heavier than dry air. Convection is a failed theory.
There is a huge source of energy in our atmosphere and it is highly energetic and abundant. It is air pressure. Pseudoscientific notions like convection and heat engines are not necessary. What is necessary is understanding the physical factors that can tap into the abundant energy in air pressure. And that get complicated. It involves an advanced understanding of boundary layers, plasma physics, and aerodynamics. The correct answer isn't simple, but it is correct. Meteorologists and climatologists will provide you a simple answer but their answer breaks down upon even slight scrutiny.
The "engine" (I mean this figuratively, not literally) of atmospheric flow is air pressure (not differential air pressure, actual air pressure). The energy that is readily available in air pressure is abundant and proficient. Air friction is the obstacle. It is possible to overcome this obstacle through aerodynamics. Aerodynamics provides isolation from air friction, as happens on the top surface of a wing. A plasma has a surface.
Another aerodynamic entity is a tube. A tube provides isolation from air friction to any of the contents moving through the tube. A surface that rolls around itself in the context of a stream flow can become a tube.
Where Does The Plasma Come From?
As a result of solar winds, our atmosphere is a slight plasma. This slight plasma causes evaporation. Evaporation results in microdroplets being pulled up into the slight plasma. In conjunction with the surface tension of H2O, this produces a slightly stronger and heavier plasma that we generally refer to as moist air. (Moist air contains microdroplets of H2O, not gaseous H2O.) Neither of these two slight plasmas is strong enough to produce a surface that is significant enough to achieve the aerodynamic isolation from air friction that underlies the winds that are observed here on our planet.
However, under calm weather condition the heavier of the two plasmas (moist air) tends to pool up under the lighter of the two plasmas in extensive flat layers. This produces a naturally occurring flat, lateral boundary between these two slight plasmas, an extensive, flat surface. It normally forms about 1,000 meters above us.
Differential pressure produces winds. Winds can accelerate along this surface as energy is reflected into a stream flow allowing for gradually accelerating winds. Along the surface, molecules in the dry layer collide with microdroplets along the surface of the moist layer, causing them to spin. As the spin, faster and faster, the droplets begin to elongate as a result of centrifugal force. As the microdroplets elongate their surface area is maximized. (Also the breaking of hydrogen bonds activates their polarity [See my paper, Hydrogen Bonding Neutralized H2O Polarity, for details]. This provides tensional forces that maintain the integrity of the spinning polymers of H2O.)
A quality of H2O is that if you maximize its surface area you maximize its surface tension. This provides the basis for a kind of super-plasma based on the electromagnetic characteristics of the high polarity of the H2O molecule. Once the super-plasma occurs a kind of positive feedback ensues. Stronger plasma enables stronger surfaces, reflecting more energy into a stream flow producing faster and faster winds.
Eventually, the Bernoulli effect and the Coriolis effect conspire to cause a surface of this super-plasma to role into a tube. Once we have a tube we have isolation from atmospheric friction. Any slight difference in air pressure from one end of the tube to the other will allow the contents of the tube to accelerate as a result of the abundant energy that is available through air pressure. This can produce some high wind speeds down the tube, effectively limited only by the speed of sound and incidental friction.
This produces jet streams. Once created, jet streams will tend to consume the surface (between moist air and dry air) from which they grow. They will tend to be located at the place on our planet where we find the most extensive and smoothest surface, at the boundary of the troposphere and the stratosphere. But if this boundary becomes desiccate they will trend downwards, causing storms, pulling moisture higher in the atmosphere, re-hydrating the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere.
And so, the ability of H2O-based plasmas to provide isolation from atmospheric friction is what underlies all atmospheric flow, including that of Hadley cells, and storms. Convection plays no role whatsoever.
Scottish Sceptic:
" . . . if you have something like the jet-stream, they have to be driven by some energy source. " . . . just follow the energy flows and you'll understand atmospheric physics."
James McGinn:
Okay, but so what. Yes, I agree, the jet streams must have an energy source. Everybody knows this. But you state this as if it is a forgone conclusion that leads to an obvious and simple answer like, "convection or heat engine." That kind of thinking is pseudoscientific.
Once we have a tube we have isolation from atmospheric friction. Any The fact that you can't push a jet stream into existence is all the evidence a REAL scientists needs to discard the convection model. It takes intellectual guts to discard what everybody assumes is true and look for a new theory. Sheep never stop being sheep. Sheep spend all their time trying to fit anecdotal observations to fit with what everybody believes. A real scientists ignores what everybody believes and develops a new theory.
When you understand jet streams first everything else falls into place. There is no convection in our atmosphere. That is just superstition based on observation of thunderstorms in the 19th century. This is the 21st century. Move on sheep.
Jim Pennino:
Convection currents can be seen in real time with schlieren imaging. Lots of people have done this at home. Yet another fact for you to ignore.
James McGinn:
Note how desperate and emotional you all get. You are like church ladies. Angry sheep, grasping for straws. Name calling. Desperate arguments based on semantics. Yet, not one of you church ladies can contradict my claim about things that I say haven't been measured. What does this tell us?
The facts all fall my way. Meteorology is about as bad as climatology. What we have are groups beliefs, selective facts, confirmation bias. Emotional nitwits defending beliefs. What we don't see is calm, dispassionate scientific thinking.
Thank you all for helping me prove my point.
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
Scottish-Sceptic:
What do you think drives the jet streams? It's all part of the circulatory system of the atmosphere - driven by convective currents.
James McGinn:
There is no such thing as a convection current. And convection has nothing to do with Hadley cell circulation (see below for details) in my opinion. Why this notion is so popular is a mystery since the science is so incredibly poor--it's as bad or worse than that of AGW.
Scottish-Sceptic:
It is in short a form of heat engine - the source of heat is the surface heating (and latent in water vapour) and the sink is high up.
James McGinn:
Heat engine? Do you honestly believe this? Where is the heat? Where is the engine? Or are you just talking figuratively?
Scottish-Sceptic:
And we even get turning motions - as the cyclones turn. Similarly the Hadley cell structure is also a form of circulatory structure. The jet streams are a by product of this convectively powered heat engine.
James McGinn:
There is no gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere. Consequently, moist air is actually heavier than dry air. Convection is a failed theory.
There is a huge source of energy in our atmosphere and it is highly energetic and abundant. It is air pressure. Pseudoscientific notions like convection and heat engines are not necessary. What is necessary is understanding the physical factors that can tap into the abundant energy in air pressure. And that get complicated. It involves an advanced understanding of boundary layers, plasma physics, and aerodynamics. The correct answer isn't simple, but it is correct. Meteorologists and climatologists will provide you a simple answer but their answer breaks down upon even slight scrutiny.
The "engine" (I mean this figuratively, not literally) of atmospheric flow is air pressure (not differential air pressure, actual air pressure). The energy that is readily available in air pressure is abundant and proficient. Air friction is the obstacle. It is possible to overcome this obstacle through aerodynamics. Aerodynamics provides isolation from air friction, as happens on the top surface of a wing. A plasma has a surface.
Another aerodynamic entity is a tube. A tube provides isolation from air friction to any of the contents moving through the tube. A surface that rolls around itself in the context of a stream flow can become a tube.
Where Does The Plasma Come From?
As a result of solar winds, our atmosphere is a slight plasma. This slight plasma causes evaporation. Evaporation results in microdroplets being pulled up into the slight plasma. In conjunction with the surface tension of H2O, this produces a slightly stronger and heavier plasma that we generally refer to as moist air. (Moist air contains microdroplets of H2O, not gaseous H2O.) Neither of these two slight plasmas is strong enough to produce a surface that is significant enough to achieve the aerodynamic isolation from air friction that underlies the winds that are observed here on our planet.
However, under calm weather condition the heavier of the two plasmas (moist air) tends to pool up under the lighter of the two plasmas in extensive flat layers. This produces a naturally occurring flat, lateral boundary between these two slight plasmas, an extensive, flat surface. It normally forms about 1,000 meters above us.
Differential pressure produces winds. Winds can accelerate along this surface as energy is reflected into a stream flow allowing for gradually accelerating winds. Along the surface, molecules in the dry layer collide with microdroplets along the surface of the moist layer, causing them to spin. As the spin, faster and faster, the droplets begin to elongate as a result of centrifugal force. As the microdroplets elongate their surface area is maximized. (Also the breaking of hydrogen bonds activates their polarity [See my paper, Hydrogen Bonding Neutralized H2O Polarity, for details]. This provides tensional forces that maintain the integrity of the spinning polymers of H2O.)
A quality of H2O is that if you maximize its surface area you maximize its surface tension. This provides the basis for a kind of super-plasma based on the electromagnetic characteristics of the high polarity of the H2O molecule. Once the super-plasma occurs a kind of positive feedback ensues. Stronger plasma enables stronger surfaces, reflecting more energy into a stream flow producing faster and faster winds.
Eventually, the Bernoulli effect and the Coriolis effect conspire to cause a surface of this super-plasma to role into a tube. Once we have a tube we have isolation from atmospheric friction. Any slight difference in air pressure from one end of the tube to the other will allow the contents of the tube to accelerate as a result of the abundant energy that is available through air pressure. This can produce some high wind speeds down the tube, effectively limited only by the speed of sound and incidental friction.
This produces jet streams. Once created, jet streams will tend to consume the surface (between moist air and dry air) from which they grow. They will tend to be located at the place on our planet where we find the most extensive and smoothest surface, at the boundary of the troposphere and the stratosphere. But if this boundary becomes desiccate they will trend downwards, causing storms, pulling moisture higher in the atmosphere, re-hydrating the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere.
And so, the ability of H2O-based plasmas to provide isolation from atmospheric friction is what underlies all atmospheric flow, including that of Hadley cells, and storms. Convection plays no role whatsoever.
Scottish Sceptic:
" . . . if you have something like the jet-stream, they have to be driven by some energy source. " . . . just follow the energy flows and you'll understand atmospheric physics."
James McGinn:
Okay, but so what. Yes, I agree, the jet streams must have an energy source. Everybody knows this. But you state this as if it is a forgone conclusion that leads to an obvious and simple answer like, "convection or heat engine." That kind of thinking is pseudoscientific.
Once we have a tube we have isolation from atmospheric friction. Any The fact that you can't push a jet stream into existence is all the evidence a REAL scientists needs to discard the convection model. It takes intellectual guts to discard what everybody assumes is true and look for a new theory. Sheep never stop being sheep. Sheep spend all their time trying to fit anecdotal observations to fit with what everybody believes. A real scientists ignores what everybody believes and develops a new theory.
When you understand jet streams first everything else falls into place. There is no convection in our atmosphere. That is just superstition based on observation of thunderstorms in the 19th century. This is the 21st century. Move on sheep.
Jim Pennino:
Convection currents can be seen in real time with schlieren imaging. Lots of people have done this at home. Yet another fact for you to ignore.
James McGinn:
Note how desperate and emotional you all get. You are like church ladies. Angry sheep, grasping for straws. Name calling. Desperate arguments based on semantics. Yet, not one of you church ladies can contradict my claim about things that I say haven't been measured. What does this tell us?
The facts all fall my way. Meteorology is about as bad as climatology. What we have are groups beliefs, selective facts, confirmation bias. Emotional nitwits defending beliefs. What we don't see is calm, dispassionate scientific thinking.
Thank you all for helping me prove my point.
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
James McGinn
Mar 30, 2016, 12:31:07 AM3/30/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Mar 30, 2016, 12:05:05 PM3/30/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:7d58055c-2b6b-47fc...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> The facts all fall my way.
You run away from facts, Tardnado McGinn. LOL
Why can't you answer those questions in my .sig, TornadoTard?
--
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.
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.
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?
How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
sky" sentient, James?
Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?
How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
you explain that, James?
Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is
*below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory
not-a-theory" can't answer.
Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?
Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
delusions, James?
Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
James?
Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James?
Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions,
James?
Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?
Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being
*deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James?
Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as
"delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?
Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in
which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of
education about now, James?
Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out
of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been
deemed mentally incompetent, James?
Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class
as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist",
James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated,
whereas you're ignorant and uneducated?
What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was
the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then
you're not a physicist, James. LOL
If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?
Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
which would make air travel deadly.
Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?
Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?
How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
Jim?
Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
surface area as you claim?
Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?
How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, Jim?
Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?
How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?
Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
implausible claims are workable, Jim?
Why are you not taking your meds, James?
============================================================
Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:7d58055c-2b6b-47fc...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> The facts all fall my way.
Why can't you answer those questions in my .sig, TornadoTard?
--
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.
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.
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?
How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
sky" sentient, James?
Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?
How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
you explain that, James?
Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is
*below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory
not-a-theory" can't answer.
Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?
Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
delusions, James?
Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
James?
Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James?
Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions,
James?
Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?
Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being
*deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James?
Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as
"delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?
Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in
which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of
education about now, James?
Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out
of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been
deemed mentally incompetent, James?
Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class
as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist",
James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated,
whereas you're ignorant and uneducated?
What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was
the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then
you're not a physicist, James. LOL
If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?
Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
which would make air travel deadly.
Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?
Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?
How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
Jim?
Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
surface area as you claim?
Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?
How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, Jim?
Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?
How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?
Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
implausible claims are workable, Jim?
Why are you not taking your meds, James?
============================================================
Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?
James McGinn
Apr 6, 2016, 1:12:47 PM4/6/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 9:05:05 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
> <news:7d58055c-2b6b-47fc...@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
> > The facts all fall my way.
>
> You run away from facts, Tardnado McGinn. LOL
Why don't you list the facts you think I'm running from and then I will list the ones that you are running from and this will make it easy for other people to wade through this mountain of irrelevant and repetitive banter you have built. Fair enough. So go ahead.
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
> <news:7d58055c-2b6b-47fc...@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
> > The facts all fall my way.
>
> You run away from facts, Tardnado McGinn. LOL
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Apr 7, 2016, 3:56:01 AM4/7/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:e04a0412-fbc5-4a82...@googlegroups.com> did
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 9:05:05 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
>> <news:7d58055c-2b6b-47fc...@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>>> The facts all fall my way.
>> You run away from facts, Tardnado McGinn. LOL
> Why don't you list the facts you think I'm running from
You mean "reality"? LOL
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
>> <news:7d58055c-2b6b-47fc...@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>>> The facts all fall my way.
>> You run away from facts, Tardnado McGinn. LOL
> Why don't you list the facts you think I'm running from
> and then I will list the ones that you are running from
anti-science nitwittery.
> and this will make it easy for other people to wade through this
> mountain of irrelevant and repetitive banter you have built.
> Fair enough. So go ahead.
You, James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, are running
away from:
1) All of reality.
Go.
Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis,
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA?
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
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.
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?
James McGinn
Apr 7, 2016, 5:21:28 PM4/7/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 12:56:01 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
> <news:e04a0412-fbc5-4a82...@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
> > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 9:05:05 AM UTC-7,
> > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>
> >> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
> >> <news:7d58055c-2b6b-47fc...@googlegroups.com> did
> >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
> >>> The facts all fall my way.
>
> >> You run away from facts, Tardnado McGinn. LOL
>
> > Why don't you list the facts you think I'm running from
>
> You mean "reality"? LOL
Seems like a short list.
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
> <news:e04a0412-fbc5-4a82...@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
> > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 9:05:05 AM UTC-7,
> > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>
> >> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
> >> <news:7d58055c-2b6b-47fc...@googlegroups.com> did
> >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
> >>> The facts all fall my way.
>
> >> You run away from facts, Tardnado McGinn. LOL
>
> > Why don't you list the facts you think I'm running from
>
> You mean "reality"? LOL
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Apr 8, 2016, 4:00:05 AM4/8/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:946a3e68-74c7-4be4...@googlegroups.com> did
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 12:56:01 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
>> <news:e04a0412-fbc5-4a82...@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>>> On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 9:05:05 AM UTC-7,
>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>>>> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
>>>> <news:7d58055c-2b6b-47fc...@googlegroups.com> did
>>>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>>>>> The facts all fall my way.
>>>> You run away from facts, Tardnado McGinn. LOL
>>> Why don't you list the facts you think I'm running from
>> You mean "reality"? LOL
> Seems like a short list.
You mean "all of reality"? LOL
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
>> <news:e04a0412-fbc5-4a82...@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>>> On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 9:05:05 AM UTC-7,
>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>>>> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
>>>> <news:7d58055c-2b6b-47fc...@googlegroups.com> did
>>>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>>>>> The facts all fall my way.
>>>> You run away from facts, Tardnado McGinn. LOL
>>> Why don't you list the facts you think I'm running from
>> You mean "reality"? LOL
> Seems like a short list.
Seems like an exceedingly long list, James.
>>> and then I will list the ones that you are running from
>> You mean the ones I'm stomping to paste. And that'd be your delusional
>> anti-science nitwittery.
>>> and this will make it easy for other people to wade through this
>>> mountain of irrelevant and repetitive banter you have built.
>> You mean "this mountain of scientific fact"? LOL
>>> Fair enough. So go ahead.
>> Ok.
>>
>> You, James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, are running
>> away from:
>>
>> 1) All of reality.
>>
>> Go.
is noted as your tacit admission that I have facts, scientific reality
and sanity on my side, whereas all you have is delusional blather,
backpedaling, non sequiturs, lying and various other shitbaggery,
James.
James McGinn
Apr 8, 2016, 9:55:05 AM4/8/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 9:05:05 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
> <news:7d58055c-2b6b-47fc...@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
> > The facts all fall my way.
>
> You run away from facts,
I embrace facts. They just happen to go all my way on this.
>
> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
> <news:7d58055c-2b6b-47fc...@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
> > The facts all fall my way.
>
> You run away from facts,
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Apr 8, 2016, 11:51:19 AM4/8/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:bc9798cc-d9ab-45f1...@googlegroups.com> did
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 9:05:05 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
>> <news:7d58055c-2b6b-47fc...@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>>> The facts all fall my way.
>> You run away from facts, Tardnado McGinn. LOL
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
>> <news:7d58055c-2b6b-47fc...@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>>> The facts all fall my way.
> I embrace facts. They just happen to go all my way on this.
secretly cheering you on from the sidelines as they remaining in
hiding? Are they on vacation in a foreign land? Did you just make them
up and call them facts?
Answer the questions, you evasive shitbag.
Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis,
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA?
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.
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?
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?
James McGinn
Apr 8, 2016, 1:51:37 PM4/8/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 8:51:19 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
> <news:bc9798cc-d9ab-45f1...@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
> > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 9:05:05 AM UTC-7,
> > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>
> >> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
> >> <news:7d58055c-2b6b-47fc...@googlegroups.com> did
> >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
> >>> The facts all fall my way.
>
> >> You run away from facts, Tardnado McGinn. LOL
>
> > I embrace facts. They just happen to go all my way on this.
>
> Where are those "facts", James? Why can't you post them? Are they
> secretly cheering you on from the sidelines as they remaining in
> hiding? Are they on vacation in a foreign land? Did you just make them
> up and call them facts?
I think you've done as good as possible to demonstrate the validity of
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
> <news:bc9798cc-d9ab-45f1...@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
> > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 9:05:05 AM UTC-7,
> > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>
> >> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
> >> <news:7d58055c-2b6b-47fc...@googlegroups.com> did
> >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
> >>> The facts all fall my way.
>
> >> You run away from facts, Tardnado McGinn. LOL
>
> > I embrace facts. They just happen to go all my way on this.
>
> Where are those "facts", James? Why can't you post them? Are they
> secretly cheering you on from the sidelines as they remaining in
> hiding? Are they on vacation in a foreign land? Did you just make them
> up and call them facts?
meteorology's storm theory. In the future, when people ask me to present an
aggregation of the best evidence to support the current paradigm of
meteorology's storm theory I am going to point them to your posts. Because
here's the thing. Meteorologists won't do what you did. They know it's
futile. They know that any attempt to demonstrate the validity of their
understanding of storms (especially with respect to their characterization of
the role of water) will only expose it is absurdly flawed.
I also think you've done as good as is possible to dispute my theoretical
thinking. Of course you are extremely scattered and desperate. But people will
see through that and realize that you actually made some effort. Again, and
for the same reasons, this is not something meteorologists would ever do.
Thank you for your participation. You've been a big help.
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Apr 9, 2016, 4:14:37 AM4/9/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James 'Tarnado' McGinn, in
<news:87b1e1c1-5f30-486c...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 8:51:19 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>>>> You run away from facts, Tardnado McGinn. LOL
>>> I embrace facts. They just happen to go all my way on this.
>> Where are those "facts", James? Why can't you post them? Are they
>> secretly cheering you on from the sidelines as they remaining in
>> hiding? Are they on vacation in a foreign land? Did you just make them
>> up and call them facts?
> I think you've done as good as possible to demonstrate the validity of
> meteorology's storm theory. In the future, when people ask me to present an
> aggregation of the best evidence to support the current paradigm of
> meteorology's storm theory I am going to point them to your posts. Because
> here's the thing. Meteorologists won't do what you did. They know it's
> futile. They know that any attempt to demonstrate the validity of their
> understanding of storms (especially with respect to their characterization of
> the role of water) will only expose it is absurdly flawed.
>
> I also think you've done as good as is possible to dispute my theoretical
> thinking. Of course you are extremely scattered and desperate. But people will
> see through that and realize that you actually made some effort. Again, and
> for the same reasons, this is not something meteorologists would ever do.
>
> Thank you for your participation. You've been a big help.
Your inability to defend your delusion means you've just admitted your
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>>>> You run away from facts, Tardnado McGinn. LOL
>>> I embrace facts. They just happen to go all my way on this.
>> Where are those "facts", James? Why can't you post them? Are they
>> secretly cheering you on from the sidelines as they remaining in
>> hiding? Are they on vacation in a foreign land? Did you just make them
>> up and call them facts?
> I think you've done as good as possible to demonstrate the validity of
> meteorology's storm theory. In the future, when people ask me to present an
> aggregation of the best evidence to support the current paradigm of
> meteorology's storm theory I am going to point them to your posts. Because
> here's the thing. Meteorologists won't do what you did. They know it's
> futile. They know that any attempt to demonstrate the validity of their
> understanding of storms (especially with respect to their characterization of
> the role of water) will only expose it is absurdly flawed.
>
> I also think you've done as good as is possible to dispute my theoretical
> thinking. Of course you are extremely scattered and desperate. But people will
> see through that and realize that you actually made some effort. Again, and
> for the same reasons, this is not something meteorologists would ever do.
>
> Thank you for your participation. You've been a big help.
support of my position, James. Your above concession speech is
accepted as your admission to being an insane, uneducated and ignorant
lackwit.
Don't think your tacit concession ends anything, James. This only ends
when you outright admit in plain and frank text your errors, apologize
to the scientific community for your attempts at twisting their
research and words to support your anti-science halfwittery, take
steps to correct your delusion, and pay what you owe.
I'm prepared to drop-kick you to your grave, James, as I've done to
other deluded kooks. Take that into consideration as to what your
future actions might be.
noTthaTguY
Apr 10, 2016, 12:52:23 AM4/10/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
it is true that meteorologists are beset
with the ideal of partial pressures; so,
that is all that you have to disprove,
with your absolutist ideal of water vapor & boiling water;
there is a very simple relation between a)
temperature of air, and b)
relative humidity
with the ideal of partial pressures; so,
that is all that you have to disprove,
with your absolutist ideal of water vapor & boiling water;
there is a very simple relation between a)
temperature of air, and b)
relative humidity
James McGinn
May 14, 2016, 9:51:20 PM5/14/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 3:31:35 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2011/08/26/how-to-get-off-the-ground-with-nothing-but-water-almost/#comment-39101
> http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2011/08/26/how-to-get-off-the-ground-with-nothing-but-water-almost/#comment-39101
James McGinn
Jul 24, 2016, 9:20:01 AM7/24/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 3:31:35 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
James McGinn
Oct 9, 2016, 3:13:54 PM10/9/16
to
On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 3:31:35 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
noTthaTguY
Oct 16, 2016, 7:40:19 PM10/16/16
to
nor am I an expert in this matter, but
noTthaTguY
Oct 18, 2016, 2:10:25 PM10/18/16
to
is that a brand of hygrometer ... how much
do you want to sell it, for, since
you don't seem to have read the ******* manual
> kjlk
do you want to sell it, for, since
you don't seem to have read the ******* manual
> kjlk
James McGinn
Nov 27, 2016, 1:24:34 PM11/27/16
to
On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 3:31:35 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
James McGinn
Feb 25, 2017, 8:22:54 PM2/25/17
to
On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 3:31:35 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
James McGinn
Apr 26, 2017, 1:54:15 PM4/26/17
to
On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 3:31:35 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
James McGinn
May 18, 2017, 2:59:03 AM5/18/17
to
On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 3:31:35 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
James McGinn
Jun 13, 2017, 11:54:33 AM6/13/17
to
On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 3:31:35 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
James McGinn
Oct 3, 2017, 11:59:59 PM10/3/17
to
On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 3:31:35 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
James McGinn
Nov 16, 2017, 2:59:14 PM11/16/17
to
On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 3:31:35 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
James McGinn
Mar 5, 2018, 11:04:40 PM3/5/18
to
On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 3:31:35 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
James McGinn
Mar 5, 2018, 11:05:14 PM3/5/18
to
On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 3:31:35 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
James McGinn
Mar 27, 2018, 2:58:38 PM3/27/18
to
0 new messages