From the INSTITUTE OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY OF THE POLISH ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
Evaporation for review — and with it global warming
The process of evaporation, one of the most widespread on our planet, takes place differently than we once thought – this has been shown by new computer simulations carried out at the Institute of Physical Chemistry of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Warsaw. The discovery has far-reaching consequences for, among others, current global climate models, where a key role is played by evaporation of the oceans.
They all evaporate: oceans and seas, microdroplets of fuel in engines and the sweat on our own skin. For every one of us evaporation is of paramount importance: it shapes the climate of the planet, it affects the cost of car travel, and is one of the most important factors controlling the temperature of the human body. So common is it that it seemed that evaporation was a phenomenon that had been stripped of any more secrets. In the renowned scientific journalSoft Matter physicists from the Institute of Physical Chemistry of the Polish Academy of Sciences (IPC PAS) in Warsaw, Poland, prove that this belief was erroneous and the mechanism of evaporation must operate differently than had previously been assumed.
“Science copes badly with descriptions of processes occurring in nature. We are perfectly able to describe the states at the beginning of the process and at its end. But what happens in between? How does the given process really take place? For so many years we have been asking ourselves this question in relation to the phenomenon of evaporation – and we are coming to ever more interesting conclusions,” says Prof. Robert Holyst (IPC PAS).
In scientific and technical deliberations we use the Hertz-Knudsen equation, known for over a hundred years, to describe the evaporation rate. What follows from it is quite an intuitive prediction: that at a given temperature the rate of evaporation of the liquid depends on how different the actual pressure at the surface is from the pressure which would be present if the evaporating liquid were to be in thermodynamic equilibrium with its environment.
“The further the system is from equilibrium, the more dynamically it should return to it. It’s so intuitive! So we checked the Hertz-Knudsen equation – because we like to check. In order to do this we prepared exceptionally accurate computer simulations which allowed us for the first time to take a closer look at the process of evaporation,” explains Dr. Marek Litniewski (IPC PAS).
Advanced computer simulations carried out using molecular dynamics showed that the values of some parameters describing evaporation are even several times larger than those predicted by the Hertz-Knudsen equation. However, an even more interesting effect was noted: the stream of gas being liberated from the surface of the liquid during evaporation changed very little despite significant fluctuations in pressure.
“There could only be one conclusion from this observation: the rate of evaporation and the vapour pressure, that is, the physical quantities that were previously considered to be closely related, were not so. For more than a century we had all been making a serious error in the theoretical description of the phenomenon of evaporation!,” says Dr. Litniewski.
The hitherto model of evaporation was based on the principle of conservation of mass: the mass of molecules released from the surface of a liquid had to respectively increase the mass of the gas in its surroundings. Physicists from the IPC PAS noticed, however, that since the particles released from the surface have a certain velocity, in order to describe this phenomenon what should be applied is the principle of conservation of momentum.
“We realized that to some extent evaporation resembles shooting from a cannon: the missile flies in one direction, but the overall momentum of the system must be maintained, so the gun recoils in the opposite direction. The same happens with the molecules of evaporating liquid. Since there is an increase in momentum, there must be recoil, and if there is recoil, the pressure felt by the molecules on the surface of the liquid will be different,” says Prof. Holyst.
The new computer simulations were also used to measure the velocities of the molecules released from the liquid surface. They proved to be small, of the order of hundreds of micrometres per second, which corresponds to only a few kilometres per hour. This fact means that practically any naturally occurring flow over the surface of the liquid has to strongly interfere with the evaporation process. The evaporation cannot thus be described by an equation derived for a very specific case, for liquid that is in thermodynamic equilibrium with the environment.
The discovery of the IPC PAS researchers is of the utmost importance for, among others, the understanding of the real mechanisms responsible for global warming. Contrary to common belief, the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere of our planet is not carbon dioxide but water vapour. At the same time, it is known that the speed of flow of air masses over the oceans can significantly exceed one hundred kilometres per hour and therefore they will certainly affect the rate of evaporation. The hitherto evaluation of the rate of evaporation of the oceans must therefore be subject to error, which will certainly affect the accuracy of the predictions of contemporary models of the Earth’s climate.
###
The researchers from the IPC PAS are investigating evaporation in collaboration with the Institute of Physics of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Warsaw, where experiments are being carried out to verify the correctness of the simulations.
Statement by statement:
“…This fact means that practically any naturally occurring flow over the surface of the liquid has to strongly interfere with the evaporation process.”
1a) “…This fact means” No facts were interrogated for this model. -sheer assumption
1b) “…practically any naturally occurring flow…” – and impractically? What about unnatural flows?
1c) “…has to strongly interfere with the evaporation process…” -“has to” That is a strange assertion, no proof, all assumption. “strongly interfere” -assumption presumptive? Couldn’t the model display this interaction? Exactly why should they assume “flows” interfere?
“…The evaporation cannot thus be described by an equation derived for a very specific case, for liquid that is in thermodynamic equilibrium with the environment…”
2a) Based on what? Model incompatibilities programmed by goofs that build models that do not mimic experiments and observations?
“…The discovery of the IPC PAS researchers is of the utmost importance for, among others, the understanding of the real mechanisms responsible for global warming. Contrary to common belief, the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere of our planet is not carbon dioxide but water vapour…”
3a) Shhhh! This top secret amongst the CAGW deluded.
“…At the same time, it is known that the speed of flow of air masses over the oceans can significantly exceed one hundred kilometres per hour…”
4a) Yup! Definitely CAGW alarmist research. Phrase common average sea surface weather in the most alarming terms possible.
“…can significantly exceed one hundred kilometres per hour and therefore they will certainly affect the rate of evaporation. The hitherto evaluation of the rate of evaporation of the oceans must therefore be subject to error, which will certainly affect the accuracy of the predictions of contemporary models of the Earth’s climate…”
5a) “…certainly affect the rate of evaporation…” Well, no sh** Sherlock. Did it ever occur to anyone in your team to compare this to experiment and observations?
5b) “…hitherto evaluation of the rate of evaporation of the oceans must therefore be subject to error…” – Oh! Good grief, wasn’t any member of your team in line when brains were handed out? Surely, your team could’ve pooled digits and verified this, or was running a simple program or Excel spreadsheet too challenging?
5c) “…certainly affect the accuracy of the predictions of contemporary models of the Earth’s climate…” – I’m not harboring any expectations that your team is going to improve those model’s accuracy any.
PS Perhaps you and your team should keep their ‘day jobs’…
Simple planetary mechanics good News for Star Wars / Trek fans.
Water Vapour is the natural regulating mechanism in nature.
Hubble Space Telescope start looking for other planets with big oceans to find extra terrestrial life.
Too hot causes water precipitation reflects back the local sun light which cools things down then it all heats back up again precipitation etctill finds its normal operating temperature.
That process also equalizes the heating effect of man made and naturally occurring C02
As stated above, if everyone wants to have your mind blown about the mechanics of water – evaporation, chemistry, explanations of why water has a reflexive density change at 4 C, Gerald Pollack’s book and theory, The fourth phase of water, rates right up there with the simplicity of Einsteins book, Relativity, and matches Einsteins weight of implications.
Why does water evaporate in tendrils and not uniformly?
Why is the effect of H2O ignored, atomically, when analyzing biochemistry?
What is the explanation of Lord Kelvin’s Lightning experiment?
Basically, Pollack suggests that water at boundary layers does not organize randomly, but in 2 dimensional Sheets, causing interesting effects that explain observational differences from current theoretical models
Worthy of a read
Pollack is stuck on this one notion. He has one insight and he tries to turn it into more than it is. There is a lot of confusion and a lot to be learned surrounding H2O bonding and polarity and their implications. Meteorologists are dunces on this subject–worse than climate scientists.
Note that the person that wrote the this article, Anthony Watt, is a meteorologist. He is using global warming as a way to deflect attention from meteorological incompetence.
J. McGinn says:
…Anthony Watt, is a meteorologist. He is using global warming as a way to deflect attention from meteorological incompetence.
And yet, all McGinn does is emit endless pixels, meaning nothing.
Try making some testable predictions. Or try to produce a verifiable, testable, empirical measurement, quantifying the fraction of AGW out of global warming from all sources. That will get peoples’ attention. Either one would show you know what you’re talking about.
But throwing out an endless stream of insults just means you’ve got nothin’.
(Deleted. Please don’t feed the troll. -mod)
Try making some testable predictions.
So far… *crickets*
dbstealey October 29, 2015 at 7:03 pm
Try making some testable predictions.
So far… *crickets*
Okay, I predict the droughts in US, Australia, Brazil, India, China, New Zealand will continue until they take the wind farms down. And the more wind farms they build the worse it is going to get. I also predict that there will continue to be a tornado drought downwind from wind farms.
I predict that world wide crisis of farmers committing suicide because of drought, leaving their families destitute, will continue, until the wind farms are taken down.
I predict that if California, Oregon, or Texas ban wind farms that their drought will end. Same is true for Australia, Brazil, India, China, New Zealand.
I predict that meteorology will never test their convection model of storm theory and they will go on pretending to understand storms in order to keep the public complacent–just like climatologists with CO2 Forcing.
I predict that meteorology will never test their theory.
Those are very vague predictions. This is the only one that is even worth discussing:
I …predict that there will continue to be a tornado drought downwind from wind farms.
We need more parameters, and a baseline. If Mr. McGinn is interested in actually making a testable prediction, Sir Karl Popper explains what’s necessary:
It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations.
Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.
Every “good” scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.
Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of “corroborating evidence.”)
Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a “conventionalist twist” or a “conventionalist stratagem.”)
One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.
Popper’s definitions/requirements are the basis of the modern Scientific Method. They must be adhered to by anyone who wants to be a credible scientist. This is not a criticism of Mr. McGinn’s prediction attempt, it is an example of how to be scientifically rigorous.
McGinn needs to produce definitive measurements showing that droughts in very specific areas are exacerbated by windmills. They may be; I don’t know. But for that prediction to be valid (or at least worthwhile), he needs to provide a baseline, and much better parameters.
Every Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory, or Law has one thing in common: it must be capable of producing repeated and accurate predictions. The higher on that hierarchy, the more accurate the predictions must be. When Mr. McGinn or anyone else puts forth a conjecture, hypothesis, or theory, the onus is on them to rigorously define any predictions made, per Popper’s criteria.
I sincerely hope that McGinn re-defines his drought prediction so we can accurately measure any subsequent changes in drought or precipitation. McGinn may be on to something. But based on his intial prediction, it is impossible to know.
dbstealey:
A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
Jim McGinn:
You are preaching to the choir. Since I am an expert on this subject, your suggestions would be more useful if you directed them at meteorologists who appear to have no understanding of this subject whatsoever.
Do Google searchs using the following:
China wind farm map
China drought map
Do the same for other countries/regions. Draw your own conclusion.
James McGinn,
That’s no answer. I am asking you to make a prediction that can be tested.
Popper gives the parameters. Really, I’m intersted to see if you are onto something, or not. A correct prediction would be very convincing. But just saying “do a google search” and “draw your own conclusions” is not helpful. It’s nothing more than the ‘appeal to authority’ fallacy. If you are the expert you claim to be, show us. I’m willing to accept anything that is scientifically convincing. But no less.
Finally, it’s clear that you’re fixated on Meteorologists for some reason. Whatever that reason is, try to forget it, and either concentrate on the article, or make a testable prediction that Popper would approve of. At this point, I see no difference between your claims, and what you think of Meteorologists. You can rise above that by making a rigorous prediction that can be tested. Or not. It’s up to you.
dbstealey:
Finally, it’s clear that you’re fixated on Meteorologists for some reason.
jimmcginn:
Actually, I kind of feel sorry for them. They are somewhat pitiful. As per this:
https://goo.gl/n4SPQN
The weight of moist air in comparison to dry air (controlling for all other factors) is easily testable. Unfortunately, meteorology is a consensus science, and so they would never acknowledge the validity of the test or its results. It is like getting a climatologist to do a test on CO2 Forcing. Consensus sciences don’t do tests. They just agree to agree. And mostly they agree to whatever can be easily conveyed to a gullible public.
James McGinn,
I wrote upthread:
I sincerely hope that McGinn re-defines his drought prediction so we can accurately measure any subsequent changes in drought or precipitation. McGinn may be on to something. But based on his intial prediction, it is impossible to know.
I would really like to find out if there’s something to your somewhat vague conjecture. I asked you to define your prediction in a way that has a clear baseline and measurable parameters, so we could determine for certain whether wind farms cause more severe droughts. But above you’ve just given excuses.
I’m still interested in that conjecture. There are certainly ample records measuring precipitation for every area, so it shouldn’t be hard to show any measurable droughts since the wind farms were built.
So once again I ask for a Popper-style experiment. You have the necessary data, or access to it. Support your conjecture in a way that is scientifically and logically convincing.
But if you can’t (or won’t), then as Prof. Richard Feynman famously observed:
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.“
The experiment here is the before and after precipitation records downwind from as many wind farms as you can find. There are wind farms world-wide, so rigorously proving your conjecture shouldn’t be difficult.
I personally hope you’re on to something. But so far, you haven’t been convincing. Try harder. I’d like to see you succeed.
dbstealey:
The experiment here is the before and after precipitation records downwind from as many wind farms as you can find. There are wind farms world-wide, so rigorously proving your conjecture shouldn’t be difficult.
James McGinn:
I don’t think that kind of an argument would be convincing no matter how much extra rigor one put into it. Moreover, anybody can go to google and search on drought maps and wind farm maps and come to their own conclusions, and then I won’t have to deflect accusations that I had allowed my interpretation of the evidence to influence the presentation.
Only through understanding is there any chance for somebody to be convinced of this theory. And this theory is hard to understand. Moreover, much of what you have to understand can only be understood through meteorology and therefore, the psychological pull of meteorology’s seductively simple mythology is inescapable. Consequently, in order to be successful at understanding my theory you first need to be aware that meteorology’s mythology is the nonsense that it actually is.
And that is just the first step to understanding. There are many other steps. And only after you had gained the understanding would the results of any experiment be meaningful or convincing.
Most people want to be convinced before they will take the time to fully understand. Unfortunately that won’t work with this theory. There are no shortcuts with this. Sorry.
I can picture how windmills could disturb weather patterns down wind. What I don’t see is having enough detailed weather data from the past to know what it use to be like at those same location, as you really need most of a complete ocean cycle to tell whether it’s the windmills or changes from the ocean cycles.
James McGinn,
All I see are excuses as to why you can’t, or won’t, do a very simple experiment using data that is readily available. You could easily demonstrate it, if downwind from a windmill farm there were unusual droughts. You could make verifiable predictions.
As you wrote: “There are no shortcuts with this. Sorry.”
I had high hopes that you were onto something. Now I know it’s only bluster. But thanx for playing ‘I’m a scientist’…
dbstealey November 1, 2015 at 9:22 pm
All I see are excuses as to why you can’t, or won’t, do a very simple experiment using data that is readily available. You could easily demonstrate it, if downwind from a windmill farm there were unusual droughts. You could make verifiable predictions.
Jim McGinn:
As I explained, I wouldn’t be convinced by this. If you think it would be productive then you do the work
dbstealey:
As you wrote: “There are no shortcuts with this. Sorry.”
Jim McGinn:
That’s right. I’m not running a hand holding service here, If you aren’t willing to work at it there isn’t much I can do for you.
dbstealey:
I had high hopes that you were onto something. Now I know it’s only bluster. But thanx for playing ‘I’m a scientist’…
Jim McGinn:
If you want simple stick with standard theory. If my understanding was simple somebody would have discovered it before. People that are intellectually lazy are best advised to avoid my theory.
Science is complex. Find another hobby.
micro6500
. . . you really need most of a complete ocean cycle to tell whether it’s the windmills or changes from the ocean cycles.
James McGinn:
I agree. There is too much randomness in data for maps to be very convincing. Only when people are able to conceptualize the importance of boundary layers in the lower atmosphere as being the pathways for the delivery of the energy from the jet streams is there any chance that they will be convinced. And, unfortunately, that is not simple or easy.
Vapor is not steam. Evaporation is not boiling. Moist air does not contain steam. It contains vapor.
It’s not clear that these researchers even got that right.
Why Water is Weird
http://wp.me/p4JijN-49C
It’s funny, but when I first set out to tell the world of my new theory I expected people to be thankful that I was reviving an intellectually dead subject. Convection theory was so ephemeral and vague that I knew nobody would or could defend it, as has been the case. However, I never expected the depth of emotions that people have for what is such a non-starter of a theory. I now realize that this is just normal for humans. When a scientific theory is devoid of details and facts people’s minds just naturally fill-in those details with their imagination, like children do with fairy tales. And they are more emotionally attached to these created details than they would be if the details were conveyed to them by somebody or if they had read them in a book.
Unlike any of my fellow students, when I took meteorology classes I was already well educated in physics, chemistry, math and geology. So the brain-washing aspects of meteorological indoctrination didn’t have the effect on me that it had on my classmates and that it, apparently, has had on all other meteorologists. Even then I was skeptical. I had gone out of my way to take the class because I was deeply curious about severe weather. I remember sitting there as the professor explained that convection was what powered all storms. “That couldn’t be right,” I said to myself, “how could such a benign process as convection underlie the power and majesty of thunderstorms, tornadoes and hurricanes? There has got to be something more to it than just that.”
My interest in severe weather began when I was twelve when I was given a book on meteorology from my uncle. Therein was a section, with pictures, that discussed frogs and fish falling from the sky having been sucked up by a tornado and carried for miles. Over the years I had tried to imagine how it was possible for atmospheric gases to, seemingly, conspire to cause such. Even if you could, somehow, imagine strong winds that, somehow, initially lift frogs and fish from a pond it didn’t seem conceivable that it would be coordinated enough to juggle them for miles and plop them down in one area. In my mind there had to be something structural involved. So when my professor had begun and ended our discussion of storm theory with that one word, convection, I was more than a little bit dissatisfied.
I’m not dissatisfied any more. These are my books currently available on Amazon:
Vortex Phase: http://goo.gl/JFbXQr
What Goes Up: http://goo.gl/R6798E
Other Books on the horizon:
Why Wind Farms Cause Drought
Meteorology of the Future
James McGinn
This is a corollary to my comment to James McGinn above. It’s not intended as a criticism, but as an example of what scientific skeptics are dealing with.
Prof. Irving Langmuir studied what he called “pathological science”. There is a fascinating series of speeches here that Prof. Langmuir gave in the 1950’s. Anyone reading them would see that “dangerous man-made global warming” is no different from Langmuir’s description of ‘N-Rays’, the ‘Allison Effect’, ‘Mitogenic Rays’, ‘Flying Saucers’ (very big in the ’50’s), or any of the other subjects that Langmuir deconstructs. “Dangerous AGW” (DAGW) is the modern equivalent.
Here are Langmuir’s Symptoms of Pathological Science:
• The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
(The putative effect: ‘AGW’, is too small to even measure, while CO2 — the supposed cause of AGW — continues its steady rise.)
• The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability; or, many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.
(Think: DAGW, and the ridiculous climate alarmism over a very small fluctuation in global T of only ±0.7ºC — over a century and a half! And there are still no measurements quantifying AGW, which is still completely undetectable in any verifiable, testable, empirical measurements.)
• Claims of great accuracy.
(Think: Claims of “dangerous AGW”, and the wild-eyed arm waving over tenths, or even hudredths of a degree of temperature fluctuation — far outside of any error bars.)
• Fantastic theories contrary to experience.
(There is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening with global temperature.)
• Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment.
(Think: DAGW, and the endless ad hoc excuses made for the lack of any global warming for many years.)
• Ratio of supporters to critics rises up to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to oblivion.
We seem to be entering the final phase, as the number of critical comments in the mass media has been rising fast, and the number of defenders of DAGW has been dwindling just as fast.
Only money — and lots of it — keeps the DAGW scare alive. If not for the immense piles of grant money, DAGW would long ago have gone the way of N-Rays and flying saucers.
Thanks for making me aware of the works by Prof. Irving Langmuir studied what he called “pathological science”.
I think you can add to it that the global warming theory put forward by United Nations isn´t falsifiable. Consequently it isn´t a valid scientific theory.
Ref: Contribution from Working group I; On the scientific basis; to the fifth assessment report by IPCC)
“Ocean warming dominates the total energy change inventory, accounting for roughly 93% on average from 1971 to 2010. The upper ocean (0-700 m) accounts for about 64% of the total energy change inventory. Melting ice (including Arctic sea ice, ice sheets and glaciers) accounts for 3% of the total, and warming of the continents 3%. Warming of the atmosphere makes up the remaining 1%.”
The heat capacity of the oceans is about 1000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere. This means that an amount of energy, which would be sufficient to warm the atmosphere by 1 K, would only be sufficient to warm the oceans by 0.001 K.
This further means that any lack of warming of the atmosphere can be excused by claiming a minuscule change in the temperature of the oceans. A change so miniscule that it cannot be measured. If we add to it that there does not exists a reliable historical temperature record of the oceans, it becomes very clear that the Global Warming theory put forward by United Nations isn´t falsifiable.
It is then time to turn to Karl Popper for a take on the stratagem by United Nations climate panel. Karl Popper was the mastermind behind the modern scientific method – Popper´s empirical method. Quotes are from his book “The logic of Scientific Discovery”
“But I shall certainly admit a system as empirical or scientific only if it is capable of being tested by experience. These considerations suggest that not the verifiability but the falsifiability of a system is to be taken as a criterion of demarcation. In other words: I shall not require of a scientific system that it shall be capable of being singled out, once and for all, in a positive sense; but I shall require that its logical form shall be such that it can be singled out, by means of empirical tests, in a negative sense: it must be possible for an empirical scientific system to be refuted by experience.»
In short – if it isn´t falsifiable it isn´t science.
Regarding Ad Hoc excuses, Karl Popper also has a taken on such excuses:
“… it is always possible to find some way of evading falsification, for example by introducing ad hoc an auxiliary hypothesis, or by changing ad hoc a definition. It is even possible without logical inconsistency to adopt the position of simply refusing to acknowledge any falsifying experience whatsoever. Admittedly, scientists do not usually proceed in this way, but logically such procedure is possible”
Consequently, ad hoc excuses was ruled out from the scientific method:
“the empirical method shall be characterized as a method that excludes precisely those ways of evading falsification which … are logically possible. According to my proposal, what characterizes the empirical method is its manner of exposing to falsification, in every conceivable way, the system to be tested. Its aim is not to save the lives of untenable systems but … exposing them all to the fiercest struggle for survival.»
Clearly United Nations climate panel IPCC isn´t familiar with the norms of modern scientific methods.
Regarding ad hoc excuses, Dr. Kevin Trenberth was a lead author of the IPCC’s 2nd, 3rd and 4th Assessment Reports. Kevin Trenberth introduced the ad hoc hypothesis that the expected warming of the atmosphere went into the oceans:
“Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming?…The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
– Kevin E. Trenberth
In his paper, Trenberth and collaborators argue that the ‘missing’ heat is sequestered in the ocean, below 700 m. His paper was called: “Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content”
(Geophysical research letters – first published 10 May 2013)
In my opinion, this was very clearly an ad hoc hypothesis. The ad hoc hypothesis was to claim that the reason why the troposphere had not warmed, as anticipated by the global warming theory, was that the energy, which by United Nations climate theory should have been trapped by CO2 in the atmosphere, had gone into the deep oceans.
At this moment the Global Warming theory put forward by United Nations ceased to be be a scientific theory. It became unfalsifiable. So by the ad hoc excuse it ceased to be a valid scientific theory.
Add to it that the mechanism isn´t explained, and it isn´t reasonable. By the United Nations climate theory, energy is supposed to be trapped by CO2 in the atmosphere, but fails to warm it, then passes the upper oceans without warming it, and then is supposed to warm the deep oceans where it cannot be measured.
United Nations is responsible for an enormous waste of resources based on scientific misconduct.
Thanks for the link – valuable experience and perspective by Irving Langmuir.
«The characteristics of this Davis-Barnes experiment and the N-rays and the mitogenetic rays, they have things in common. These are cases where there is no dishonesty involved but where people are tricked into false results by a lack of understanding about what human beings can do to themselves in the way of being led astray by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions. These are examples of pathological science. These are things that attracted a great deal of attention. Usually hundreds of papers have been published upon them. Sometimes they have lasted for fifteen or twenty years and then they gradually die away.»
– Irving Langmuir
Irving Langmuir was a chemist and physicist. He received the Nobel prize in chemistry.
dbstealey:
No, idiot. There is no steam in earth’s atmosphere. That’s not even wrong; it’s too vague. But I think I know what you mean, since you’ve repeatedly claimed that gaseous H2O cannot exist in the Earth’s atmosphere.
James McGinn:
You freekin idiot. After all this time you still haven’t bothered to be definitive about the nomenclature? This is why you loons never learn. You use terms like steam, moisture, moist air, evaporate, boiling, vapor, gaseous H2O interchangeably and ambiguously. You are a fool. This is why you can’t properly interpret a simple phase diagram.
dbstealey:
You actually seem to believe that water vapor cannot exist there, because it would require boiling water. heh
James McGinn:
If the semantic weren’t clear to you up to this point why didn’t you say something? Are you really that stupid? Do you know what a gas is? Do you know what a liquid is? Do you have the slightest idea how to read a phase diagram? Do you know that the words vapor and steam are used ambiguously in common parlance? Do you know what ambiguous means?
dbstealey:
So, what’s your definition of steam? If it’s ‘steam = H2O
James McGinn:
Yes, of course. Was this not obvious? If this wasn’t clear to you before why are you only asking this now? Why would you risk ambiguous interpretation? Are you a fool?
dbstealey:
in its gaseous state’, then yes, there’s plenty of water vapor in the atmosphere.
Where are you getting you misinformation from, anyway? Do you just invent it?
James McGinn:
As I just explained, these words are used ambiguously in common parlance. There is no one source. The words are ambiguous. How dimwitted must you be to not have realized this?
dbstealey:
You insult people and call them names because . . .
James McGinn:
I insult you because until I do you dimwits won’t make any effort at all to root out the ambiguity in your choice of verbiage, and then we go around in circles forever. Now do you get it? Evaporate is a liquid. Evaporate = Vapor; Steam = Gaseous H2O. Steam and Gaseous H2O can only exist at temperatures above 212F. No part of our atmosphere is that hot. THUS, THERE IS NO STEAM (GASEOUS H2O) IN EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE. All of the moisture in earth’s atmosphere is vapor (evaporate). That is the case even when the moisture in moist air is invisible. It exists in the liquid state. See the phase diagram if you don’t believe me. All the moisture in earth’s atmosphere is liquid. It consists of little droplets/clusters, most of which are too small to be seen. The process of evaporation doesn’t produce steam. It produces vapor (evaporate). Boiling produces steam. Steam is invisible. The white stuff that comes out of trains isn’t steam, or you wouldn’t be able to see it. It is vapor. The process of evaporation doesn’t produce steam, it produces evaporate (vapor). But vapor that is smaller than a photon is just as invisible as steam.
Frikin pay attention!
McGinn,
In your fabricated quote I never wrote “You idiot”. Why did you misquote me? You obviously did that to try and bring me down to your level. I’ve never called you an idiot, and your fabricated quote is dishonest.
I don’t need to call you names, because I have correct facts that support my argument. But your invented “facts” are totally wrong, so you need to keep calling others insulting names in order to try and make your argument. But you fail: there is plenty of gaseous H2O in the atmosphere. No intelligent, educated person disagrees with that well established fact.
And when Prof Richard Feynman’s explanation was provided for you, your response was:
I would love to see that Feynman had an understanding of H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding… Because the world is full of dumb sheep like yourself that only believe what comes from big name scientists. And I was hoping to find some support from him. But it just isn’t there. Go back to watching cartoons.
Other times you’ve said essentially the same thing: that you are right, and Feynman is wrong. Who should we believe? You? Or one of the greatest minds in the twentieth century? (Don’t answer that, for your own sake.)
Next, you say:
THERE IS NO STEAM (GASEOUS H2O) IN EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE.
That is so wrong it makes me roll my eyes and LOL. Just like your assertion that there is no convection in the atmosphere. But you never answer my question: where do you get your misinformation from??
Your mind has been colonized by nonsense like that, and it is closed so tight that common sense cannot enter. So there’s no sense in rational folks continuing this pointless argument. We might as well be arguing with a Jehovah’s Witness. No, that’s not even right; a Jehovah’s Witness might possibly see the light, after enough schooling. But obviously the scales will never fall from your eyes. I supppose the next step for you is handing out leaflets on the street corner, still trying to convince your first proselyte that your New Physics™ is better at explaining reality than your epicycles. The great author Leo Tolstoy had you pegged:
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth, if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
You’ve argued your pseudo-scientific nonsense for so long now that you can’t possibly admit that mainstream physics found out long ago that water vapor (steam) is always present in the atmosphere. Because if you admitted that, all your arguing about your ridiculous beliefs would be time wasted.
Finally: I would be happy to try to help school you in the basics anyway, even if you were never able to learn them. I’ve learned a lot here myself, from people who know more than I do (and don’t kid yourself, you’re not one of them). I have an open mind like most skeptics, and I’m open to new information. So I was interested in your conjecture that droughts increase downwind from wind farms. But when I asked you for evidence, you did a fast climbdown, using a series of unconvincing and lame excuses for cover.
So you are unteachable; a parody of the pompous know-it-all who knows nothing. When another commenter wrote: “McGinn persists in pretending he is a scientific genius”, you replied with three words: “I’m not pretending.” (By the way, you never did answer my questions: Who elected you President of your organization? Who were the candidates? When were nominations? What was the vote count? Was it a tough election fight? &etc. ☺)
Still, I’d be happy to give you the basic education you so desperately need — except for one thing. Because you are relying on misinformation, you try to cover up your inadequate knowledge by emitting endless insults and name-calling, like:
You freekin idiot… Are you really that stupid?… you made a complete jackass out of yourself, shut off your computer and go back to watching cartoons… the world is full of dumb sheep like yourself… You are a bunch of politically motivated nitwits… Stop blabbing, you loon… Frikin pay attention!… you delusional loon… No, idiot… You are a kook… Are you a fool?… Listen you ignorant SOB… you retards… How dimwitted must you be… …dumb Phil. … I insult you… you fruitcake… you loon… You are too stupid for science… you evasive twit… you dimwits… etc., etc., & etc.
Are you proud of your juvenile insults and name-calling? Someone who has the correct facts has no need to use tactics like that in order to try and win an argument. Those tactics only make it clear that you’ve lost the argument. Anyone who asserts that there is no gaseous H2O, or convection in the atmosphere is starting out with provably wrong assumptions. So naturally your conclusions will be wrong. And they are, as evidenced by your climbdown regarding your wind farm/drought claim.
Generous guy that I am, I’m still willing to help school you in the basics of physics. That’s something you desperately need. But if you keep insulting everyone and calling them names like you have been, maybe a moderator can just snip out those comments. That’s fair, no?
James McGinn:
Evaporate is a liquid. Evaporate = Vapor; Steam = Gaseous H2O. Steam and Gaseous H2O can only exist at temperatures above 212F. No part of our atmosphere is that hot. THUS, THERE IS NO STEAM (GASEOUS H2O) IN EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE. And, therefore, convection is refuted
All of the moisture in earth’s atmosphere is vapor (evaporate). That is the case even when the moisture in moist air is invisible. It exists in the liquid state. See the phase diagram if you don’t believe me. All the moisture in earth’s atmosphere is liquid. It consists of little droplets/clusters, most of which are too small to be seen.
The process of evaporation doesn’t produce steam. It produces vapor (evaporate). Boiling produces steam. Steam is invisible. The white stuff that comes out of trains isn’t steam, or you wouldn’t be able to see it. It is vapor. The process of evaporation doesn’t produce steam, it produces evaporate (vapor). But vapor that is smaller than a photon is just as invisible as steam.
Now, using the chart that Phil bought into the conversation can you now see that our atmosphere is far too cool for steam? And then using Avogadro’s law and STP can you now see that moist air in our atmosphere can only be heavier than dry air and, therefore, Meteorology’s notion of moist air convection is revealed as the pseudoscience that it actually is (and always has been).
You see, I figured this out. I don’t have a PhD. If I had tried to get a PhD I never would have been allowed to consider this. Consensus is for suckers. And people that are concerned with credibility have their hands tied behind their backs when it comes to making breakthroughs.
Now it’s time for you to start making some retractions.
For you to go read those chapters from Feynman’s lectures. To evaporate it has to have enough kinetic energy to boil out of the liquid, but once it’s evaporated, it has the same distribution of energy the original liquid has (some of which is a gas while still in the liquid).
Read the chapters idjit.
See my response at the end of this thread.
dbstealey:
Prof. Irving Langmuir studied what he called “pathological science”.
• The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
Jim McGinn:
According to this definition meteorology’s storm theory is a pathological science. Unfortunately they don’t care nor does most of the rest of the populace.
All the things you are saying here are true but they don’t matter if people don’t apply them. Consensus sciences, like meteorology and climatology, don’t care about any of this stuff. They think anybody that doesn’t blindly accept their authority is pathological.
J. McGinn,
Meteorology is a lot closer to the hard sciences than Sociology, English Lit, Psychology, etc. But you’re fixated only on Meteorology. Why?
Meteorologists are trying to understand how to better predict the weather. That’s a worthwhile goal, no? And just because their local foreecasts are not much more than 50% accurate beyond a week out only indicates the complexity of all the parameters involved.
Finally, I quoted Dr. Langmuir…
The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
…because that definition is as close to the claims of “dangerous AGW” (DAGW) as any of the nonsense that Prof Langmuir addressed: the Davis Barnes effect, flying saucers, the Allison Effect, N-Rays, etc.
The ‘causative agent’ is a tiny trace gas that we would not even be aware of without sensitive instruments. And of course, the magnitude (or really, the lack of magnitude: no global warming for many years now) and the supposed cause are obviously independent of each other.
Thus, the DAGW claim is no different from Langmuir’s other examples.
dbstealey:
Meteorology is a lot closer to the hard sciences than Sociology, English Lit, Psychology, etc.
James McGinn:
You could say the same for climatology.
dbstealey:
But you’re fixated only on Meteorology. Why?
James McGinn:
You are fixated on climatology. Tell us why you think the rules of science don’t apply to Meteorology.
dbstealey:
The ‘causative agent’ is a tiny trace gas that we would not even be aware of without sensitive instruments. And of course, the magnitude (or really, the lack of magnitude: no global warming for many years now) and the supposed cause are obviously independent of each other.
James McGinn:
For Meteorology’s storm theory, the ‘causative agent’ is a 1% difference in the weight of moist air in comparison to the weight of dry air that has never been detected empirically (and that can’t exist unless water magically turns to steam below its boiling point) and that is easily refuted by casual observation (clouds that are calculated to be 10% heavier than dry air don’t drop out of the sky).
dbstealey:
Thus, the DAGW claim is no different from Langmuir’s other examples.
James McGinn:
As you demonstrate vividly, facts are irrelevant to try believers.
I asked about the kinetic energy of evaporated water because I’ve read that for water to evaporate, it is effectively boiling (kinetic energy equal to or greater than 100C), and that’s the same reason I asked about the water boiling out of the ocean, it is effectively boiled out. This is how evaporation cools things during evaporation, it’s removing a lot of kinetic energy.
Basically it does magically turn to steam.
James McGinn:
You say to dbstealey
Well, meteorology gets predictions of storms right better than chance would suggest so it is NOT pathological science and, anyway, if it were then it would not cost much so there is no reason for anybody to “care” about it.
More importantly, your fixation on meteorology has no relevance to dbstealey’s observation that the AGW-scare is pathological science and that climatological scare threatens immense costs; e.g. the “Climate Fund” intended to be adopted at the Paris CoP next month is hoped to be $100billion per year.
Richard
micro6500:
I’ve read that for water to evaporate, it is effectively boiling (kinetic energy equal to or greater than 100C),
Jim McGinn:
You are one of many people that believe that–even though it is completely crazy.
micro6500:
Basically it does magically turn to steam.
Jim McGinn:
You must be a meteorologist.
Actually quantum mechanics is the applicable science.
micro6500 November 2, 2015 at 2:19 pm
Actually quantum mechanics is the applicable science.
Jim McGinn:
There is no limit to the lies people will tell when their scientific beliefs are on the line.
Then explain evaporation and the amount of kinetic energy of the water molecule has when it leaves a liquid form and becomes vapor?
micro6500:
Actually quantum mechanics is the applicable science.
Jim McGinn:
There is no limit to the lies people will tell when their scientific beliefs are on the line.
micro6500:
Then explain evaporation and the amount of kinetic energy of the water molecule has when it leaves a liquid form and becomes vapor?
Jim McGinn:
Okay. I get where you are coming from now. You are referring to Brownian motion. That isn’t inaccurate. It is incomplete, very incomplete. But not inaccurate.
1) Vapor is not a gas. It is a liquid. It is droplets/clusters of H2O.
2) Electric charges (static electricity) and negative (N2, O2) and positive (H2O) charges play a role also.
Water only becomes a gas above its boiling point. Even this is not a complete explanation. Sorry.
I would suggest, as well as many others that you are completely wrong on this subject.
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/%28Gh%29/guides/mtr/cld/dvlp/wtr.rxml
Water vapor in the atm, is a gas, but the other two states are also present in the atm as well.
Mike says:
Water vapor in the atm, is a gas, but the other two states are also present in the atm as well.
Glad you added that last sentence.
micro6500:
Water vapor in the atmosphere, is a gas, . . .
James McGinn:
Not possible.
It’s very possible, because it is a gas. And it can be explained by quantum mechanics. So you just saying it isn’t possible carries no weight, you are going to have to do a lot more, and the fact that you don’t know or describe the kinetic energy of an evaporating water molecule proves to me you don’t know what you’re talking about.
But, at least for now, give me proof I’m wrong, I don’t mind being wrong if it improves my knowledge, but you do have a high bar to pass.
micro6500:
It’s very possible, because it is a gas.
James McGinn:
It’s impossible for H2O to become a gas at temps below its boiling point/pressure.
micro6500:
And it can be explained by quantum mechanics. So you just saying it isn’t possible. It is carries no weight, you are going to have to do a lot more, and the fact that you don’t know or describe the kinetic energy of an evaporating water molecule proves to me you don’t know what you’re talking about.
But, at least for now, give me proof I’m wrong, I don’t mind being wrong if it improves my knowledge, but you do have a high bar to pass.
James McGinn:
Each, highly polar, H2O molecule can be attached to two other H2O molecules on its negative (oxygen) end. The first breaks off fairly easy. That is the one associated with evaporation. The second does not. It is a hard bond. (Strangely, it is the bond that is associated with ice.) It only breaks at temps above 100 C. From this understanding we an deduce that evaporation can only involve clumps of H2O (vapor), not steam (not gas). For details see the link I posted entitled, “Why Water is Wierd.”
Water is very confusing. It is very counterintuitive. But at least you are asking the right questions.
Just to be thorough I dug out my Feynman Lectures and read the section on evaporation (Vol 1 42-1). If I understood it correctly, it has to have a high enough kinetic energy to become a gas, but as a collection of gas it will have the same distribution of kinetic energy as the liquid it came from. But in previous chapter, he describes that even a liquid will have gaseous molecules.
James McGinn:
You are incorrigible! It seems you post ridiculous nonsense solely as a method to disrupt threads.
You have here written
Earlier today I explained to you that your assertion is plain wrong.
I wrote on another thread this post addressed to you.
***********************************
James McGinn:
You continue to waste space in threads by posting nonsense.
For example, you write this twaddle
Bollocks!
Just so you know in future
The American Heritage® Science Dictionary
Copyright © 2002. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved.
Richard
*****************************
Please stop posting nonsense. And take note of corrections to your nonsense.
Richard
micro6500:
Just to be thorough I dug out my Feynman Lectures and read the section on evaporation (Vol 1 42-1).
James McGinn:
Very interesting! I think I heard it or read it somewhere that Feynman had lectured on the peculiarities of the H2O molecule. But I could never find it. Thanks for the reference. I’m going to see if I can find it online somewhere. If you have a more refined reference that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for this!
I just read it at:
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_42.html
It would appear that Feynman had no understanding of H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding (and implications thereof) whatsoever. But, to his credit, he did give proper disclaimer and he did make his assumptions explicit. And he did limit the discussion to the Brownian motion aspect.
I had also vaguely remember him stating something in regard to atmospheric flow, but I haven’t found anything comprehensive from him on that subject.
Thanks again for the reference.
J. McGinn says:
It would appear that Feynman had no understanding…
OK, that’s enough.
Somebody, get the hook!
I reject this out right, Feynman created another variation on how to solve quantum mechanical equation. If there’s anyone who understands H2O polarity and bonding it’s Feynman.
This is prior to the previously quoted section, but I think it is important too.
James McGinn:
Vapor is not a gas. It is a liquid. It consists of miniature droplets suspended in air. But not gaseous H2O. Our atmosphere is too cool for steam.
richardscourtney:
Bollocks! Just so you know in future:
water vapor
Water in its gaseous state, especially in the atmosphere and at a temperature below the boiling point. Water vapor in the atmosphere serves as the raw material for cloud and rain formation. It also helps regulate the Earth’s temperature by reflecting and scattering radiation from the Sun and by absorbing the Earth’s infrared radiation. See also vapor.
The American Heritage® Science Dictionary
Copyright © 2002. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved.
James McGinn:
Richard, it would appear that The American Heritage® Science Dictionary has conflated the concepts of vapor and gas. Unfortunately, this is typical. If you are so inclined, maybe you can contact them and ask for their source. I bet the source is a meterologist or a meteorological text of some sort. I guarantee you it is not based on anything empirical or substantive.
Unfortunately, books often reinforce the prejudices of the people that write them. Learn to be critical of everything that is in print. Books are created by humans, not gods.
J. McGinn says:
It would appear that Feynman had no understanding…
dbstealey:
OK, that’s enough. Somebody, get the hook!
J. McGinn says:
LOL. His lectures are online, birdbrain. If what I am saying is wrong it should be easy enough for you to demonstrate otherwise.
Obviously if you could have you would have.
(Reply: he could have, but everyone gets to post their views on science here, no matter how unusual their comments are. -mod)
@J. McGinn:
Am I the birdbrain? Or is it Mike? You don’t make it clear. It would be good if you followed the site style, and used either quotation marks or italics to differentiate comments. Do you understand how to create italics? If not, quote marks work too.
Anyway, individual water molecules in the atmosphere are a gas. They are no different in that respect from CO2, or Nitrogen, or Oxygen, which are other atmospheric gases. No boiling is needed to produce any of them.
Water droplets are different. That’s where you’re confused. Clouds are not a gas. Water vapor is a gas.
Even birdbrains know that.
And you say:
…it should be easy enough for you to demonstrate otherwise.
Yet, you won’t step up and demonstrate your own conjecture about droughts from wind farms. The more I read your comments, the more I see your massive psychological projection: imputing your own faults onto everyone else. You do it constantly.
James McGinn November 3, 2015 at 12:33 am
1) Vapor is not a gas. It is a liquid. It is droplets/clusters of H2O.
Not true, water vapor is the gas phase of water, see for example:
http://www.chem.ucla.edu/harding/IGOC/W/water.html
Water only becomes a gas above its boiling point. Even this is not a complete explanation. Sorry.
Also not true, see the phase diagram:
http://startswithabang.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/water-phase-diagram.jpg
Water vapor exists everywhere in the yellow portion of this diagram, to the high temperature side of the liquidus and the line separating solid and vapor phase (where sublimation takes place).
James McGinn:
1) Vapor is not a gas. It is a liquid. It is droplets/clusters of H2O.
Phil:
Not true, water vapor is the gas phase of water
James McGinn:
Your chart doesn’t indicate that. Your chart doesn’t indicate the word, “gas,” whatsoever. Obviously they are using the word vapor in place of the word gas. Right? (How was this not obvious?)
Phil, either you are not following this discussion or you don’t understand the chart you posted. Strangely, the chart actually makes my point. According to this chart gaseous H2O (what they, mistakenly, call vapor) does not exist at ambient temperature. It indicates that water is a liquid at ambient temps. Right? Did you not notice this?
Water only becomes a gas above its boiling point.
Phil:
Also not true, see the phase diagram:
Water vapor exists everywhere in the yellow portion of this diagram,
James McGinn:
Right. Look at the 1 ATM line. Tell us what you see. It clearly indicates water is a liquid all the way up to 100 C. Right?
So, according to this chart, there can be zero gaseous H2O in Earth’s atmosphere. I agree with this.
The only thing I disagree with, as I explained above, is that they are using the word “vapor” where they should be using the word “gas”. But the H2O that comprises clouds and humid air is, ACCORDING TO THE CHART THAT YOU PROVIDED, in the liquid phase of H2O. Right?
How is it you didn’t see this?
Think carefully before you respond.
James McGinn:
It would appear that Feynman had no understanding of H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding
Micro6500:
If there’s anyone who understands H2O polarity and bonding it’s Feynman.
James McGinn:
Reference?
You left off the part where he on his own created another unique method of solving quantum mechanics.
BTW, as air temps get close to dew point, water vapor does start collecting into larger liquid groups, this shows up in the night time cooling rate(it changes).
dbstealey:
Anyway, individual water molecules in the atmosphere are a gas.
James McGinn:
Not possible. Our atmosphere is too cool. See the chart posted by Phil below.
The chart by Phil. is very familiar to me. It shows the triple point of water, and one of those parameters makes it clear that H2O is also a gas at certain temperature/pressure points.
This is basic physics. The triple point of hydrogen is used in many instruments as a primary calibration standard. And so on.
But why am I trying to explain this? I’m just a “birdbrain” who worked in a metrology lab for more than thirty years. And MiCro has shown that he understands physics (plus he’s a N.E. Ohio boy, so he gets extra points ☺). And Phil. is also quite knowledgeable about physics, as is Richard Courtney. Between us there are a lot of years of experience in basic science. So I’m wondering where you got your misinformation from?
When you disagree with everyone, don’t you ever think it’s possible that maybe you’re wrong about water vapor being a gas? Or are you that certain that H2O can’t be a gas unless water is boiled?
micro6500 November 3, 2015 at 3:31 pm
You left off the part where he on his own created another unique method of solving quantum mechanics.
James McGinn:
Relevance?
Maybe you’d feel more comfortable if you made a retraction?
” Maybe you’d feel more comfortable if you made a retraction?”
Why? Are you saying I should take your word over Feynman? That’s funny.
James McGinn:
”Maybe you’d feel more comfortable if you made a retraction?”
Micro6500:
Why?
James McGinn:
Read upthread.
Micro6500:
Are you saying I should take your word over Feynman?
James McGinn:
I’m saying you shouldn’t pretend to put words in Feyman’s mouth.
Micro6500:
That’s funny.
James McGinn:
Is it? How so?
I think the couple pages of his own words do fine on their own.
dbstealey:
The chart by Phil. is very familiar to me.
James McGinn:
Me too.
dbstealey:
It shows the triple point of water, and one of those parameters makes it clear that H2O is also a gas at certain temperature/pressure points. This is basic physics. The triple point of hydrogen is used in many instruments as a primary calibration standard. And so on.
James McGinn:
Relevance?
dbstealey:
But why am I trying to explain this? I’m just a “birdbrain” who worked in a metrology lab for more than thirty years. And Micro6500 has shown that he understands physics (plus he’s a N.E. Ohio boy, so he gets extra points ☺). And Phil. is also quite knowledgeable about physics, as is Richard Courtney. Between us there are a lot of years of experience in basic science. So I’m wondering where you got your misinformation from?
When you disagree with everyone, don’t you ever think it’s possible that maybe you’re wrong about water vapor being a gas? Or are you that certain that H2O can’t be a gas unless water is boiled?
James McGinn:
Consensus is for suckers.
James McGinn asks:
“Relevance?”
The relevance is that you stated that water cannot be a gas in the atmosphere, and I pointed out that the graphic posted by Phil. shows that is wrong.
Next:
“Consensus is for suckers.”
I said nothing about consensus. By that evasion, you imply that teachers should simply be disregarded no matter how knowledgeable they are, because you know more than anyone else here, and thus you are unwilling to consider several decades more knowledge and experience than yours.
You’re flat wrong about H2O not being a gas without reaching the boiling point of water, and you’re not willing to support your belief that droughts increase downwind from windmill farms; a very testable experiment. So when you write that “consensus is for suckers”, it shows that you’ve got nothing more than your usual insults.
What’s your education or work experience background, anyway? It’s doubtful that it is anything related to the hard sciences, particularly physics. I am not trying to be insulting, I really want to know: where do you get your misinformation from? If it’s from some .edu factory, they owe you a refund.
James McGinn asks:
“Relevance?”
dbstealey:
The relevance is that you stated that water cannot be a gas in the atmosphere,
James McGinn:
Right. Our atmosphere would have to be over 212 F. I learned this in junior high. Did you, maybe, not make it past the sixth grade?
dbstealey:
and I pointed out that the graphic posted by Phil. shows that is wrong.
James McGinn:
I wonder why only you can see it?
dbstealey:
You’re flat wrong about H2O not being a gas without reaching the boiling point of water,
James McGinn:
I can’t even imagine how frustrating it must be to be so sure you are right and so completely unable to say how or why.
” James McGinn:
I can’t even imagine how frustrating it must be to be so sure you are right and so completely unable to say how or why.”
How does it feel to read the explanation of why you’re wrong, written about as simple as possible by an equal of both Newton, Einstein and Hawking and to still think you’re right, and then make another equally stupid comment that was also explained in the same document you linked?
” both”
I started with Newton and Einstein and then added Hawking at the last minute.
dbstealey:
When you disagree with everyone, don’t you ever think it’s possible that maybe you’re wrong about water vapor being a gas?
James McGinn:
When everybody agrees and nobody can explain why it is almost always a brain-dead consensus. It’s just group think. Intellectually, people are sheep. Once they believe something they don’t change their minds unless the whole herd changes its mind.
J. McGinn, everyone has been explaining to you, chapter and verse, why you’re wrong. But all you do is argue. You even argue with zombie Feynman. You have some fantastic notions about water, including your repeatedly debunked belief that H2O cannot exist as a gas in the atmosphere. As I asked you before:
Where do you get your misinformation from?
You’re a newbie here, arguing with folks who at least know the basics. We all have extensive experience, but you? Who knows? That’s why I asked you:
What’s your education or work experience background, anyway? It’s doubtful that it is anything related to the hard sciences, particularly physics.
I think I know why you ignored that question. So why don’t you tell us, without deflecting onto something else as usual? So, who taught you the nonsense you’re trying to argue here? Where did you get all that misinformation? Where did you get your preposterous ideas from? So please, inform us. What’s your technical/edu background? It isn’t meterorology, is it? ☺
micro6500:
. . . read the explanation of why you’re wrong, written about as simple as possible by an equal of both Newton, Einstein and Hawking . . .
James McGinn:
Where do you go from here? Will you be copying passages from the bible, quoting God?
Nah, but I did put you in the clueless category. You are telling us, we need to change our mind, but give no science to support that, I gave you one of the greatest scientist of our time, and you can’t answer a simple question on something you claim to know that everyone else is wrong. You’re just a fool.
James McGinn:
It would appear that Feynman had no understanding of H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding
micro6500:
If there’s anyone who understands H2O polarity and bonding it’s Feynman.
James McGinn:
It’s a pity he never mentioned such in any of his lectures. Why would he conceal this from the public? What would be his motive?
Wouldn’t it make more sense that you are delusional?
” James McGinn:
It’s a pity he never mentioned such in any of his lectures. Why would he conceal this from the public? What would be his motive?
Wouldn’t it make more sense that you are delusional?”
Except the section I referenced, and you looked at and I then quoted was about evaporating water. He also defined the kinetic energy as liquid, as it evaporated and after.
Friends:
All onlookers can now see that whoever or whatever is posting as James McGinn is disrupting threads by only posting ridiculous nonsense which he/she/they/it refuses to retract when repeatedly shown to be wrong. This is now blatantly clear to all onlookers.
Therefore, I suggest that any further interactions with James McGinn can only assist him/her/them/it to disrupt threads.
In my opinion we have reached the stage where it is desirable to ‘not feed the troll’.
Richard
James McGinn:
1) Vapor is not a gas. It is a liquid. It is droplets/clusters of H2O.
Phil:
Not true, water vapor is the gas phase of water
James McGinn:
Your chart doesn’t indicate that. Your chart doesn’t indicate the word, “gas,” whatsoever. Obviously they are using the word vapor in place of the word gas. Right? (How was this not obvious?)
Phil, either you are not following this discussion or you don’t understand the chart you posted. Strangely, the chart actually makes my point. According to this chart gaseous H2O (what they, mistakenly, call vapor) does not exist at ambient temperature. It indicates that water is a liquid at ambient temps. Right? Did you not notice this?
James McGinn:
Answer the question you evasive twit. Why did you post a chart that plainly refutes what you claim it proves?
James McGinn:
Water only becomes a gas above its boiling point.
Phil:
Also not true, see the phase diagram:
Water vapor exists everywhere in the yellow portion of this diagram,
James McGinn:
Right. Look at the 1 ATM line. Tell us what you see. It clearly indicates water is a liquid all the way up to 100 C. Right? So, according to this chart, there can be zero gaseous H2O in Earth’s atmosphere. I agree with this.
The only thing I disagree with, as I explained above, is that they are using the word “vapor” where they should be using the word “gas”. But the H2O that comprises clouds and humid air is, ACCORDING TO THE CHART THAT YOU PROVIDED, in the liquid phase of H2O. Right?
How is it you didn’t see this?
James McGinn:
Answer the question you evasive twit. Why did you post a chart that plainly refutes what you claim it proves?
What we are seeing here is that meteorology really isn’t a science. It’s a belief system that appeals to people that have very low scientific skills/standards. Take note of the fact that meteorologists won’t participate in these discussions. They know that the only thing that can come of it is loss of credibility.
Friends:
All onlookers can now see that whoever or whatever is posting as James McGinn is disrupting threads by only posting ridiculous nonsense which he/she/they/it refuses to retract when repeatedly shown to be wrong. This is now blatantly clear to all onlookers.
Therefore, I suggest that any further interactions with James McGinn can only assist him/her/them/it to disrupt threads.
In my opinion we have reached the stage where it is desirable to ‘not feed the troll’.
Richard
Well, let’s just say that the time has come for you loons to get together and fly away to some safe place where you won’t be bothered by facts from a hawk like me.
Meteorologists are bamboozled by storms and are trying to save face with the public by keeping their worthless theory vague. Just like climate scientists, they realize that as long as they keep it vague the public won’t realize how ignorant they really are. And there is a endless supply of dunces who will swear to the very end that they can see the emperor’s new clothes.
Hmm. Let me see. What do we have here. Gee golly. We have Micro6500 quoting Feynman at length and putting forth arguments based on what Feynman allegedly stated but that aren’t evident in anything the loon posted. Hmm. Then we have Phil posting a chart and then making claims that are, clearly, refuted by the very chart the loon posted. Hmm. And we have dbstealey making arguments based on consensus and then claiming that his consensus isn’t a consensus. This thread is perfect evidence that meteorology is a religion, not a science.
Meteorology’s storm theory is a pathological science. Many meteorologists realize this. Unfortunately they don’t care nor does much of the rest of the populace, many of whom are aware of this. The convection model fails under the slightest scrutiny. The weight of moist air in comparison to dry air (controlling for all other factors) is easily testable. But they would never acknowledge the validity of the test or its results. It is like getting a climatologist to do a test on CO2 Forcing. Consensus sciences don’t do tests. They just agree to agree. And mostly they agree to whatever can be easily conveyed to a gullible public.
When everybody agrees and nobody can explain why it is almost always a brain-dead consensus. It’s just group think. Intellectually, people are sheep. Once they believe something they don’t change their minds unless the whole herd changes its mind. Or, in this case, the whole flock.
Fly away loons!
micro6500
Except the section I referenced, and you looked at and I then quoted was about evaporating water. He also defined the kinetic energy as liquid, as it evaporated and after.
JM:
Your claims were about H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding, you delusional loon.
No a$$but it was about the kinetic energy of evaporating molecule, you moved the goal post, what I said was Feynman was an expert on those topics, as they are all examples of quantum mechanics, and He was the giant in our time on the topic.
I’m not going to do your work for you, go start with Vol I chapter 40, and Vol II chapter 11. But you didn’t even understand the first chapter I pointed to, you’re just another troll.
You’re right Richard, I’m done.
JM:
Your claims were about H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding, you delusional loon.
micro6500
No a$$but it was about the kinetic energy of evaporating molecule,
JM:
It’s right there in black and white. Read the freeking thread, you delusional loon.
micro6500:
Nah, but I did put you in the clueless category. You are telling us, we need to change our mind, but give no science to support that,
James McGinn:
None of you loons has a firm enough grasp of the evidence to be capable of having a firm opinion. You are a bunch of politically motivated nitwits that just blow in the wind of whatever is fashionable for people of your political perspective.
dbstealey:
The chart by Phil. is very familiar to me. It shows the triple point of water,
James McGinn:
We weren’t discussing the triple point of water, you loon. Frickin stick to the point.
dbstealey:
and one of those parameters makes it clear that H2O is also a gas at certain temperature/pressure points.
James McGinn:
Stop blabbing, you loon. Address the issue.
dbstealey:
This is basic physics. The triple point of hydrogen is used in many instruments as a primary calibration standard. And so on.
James McGinn:
Who cares. Address the issue or go away.
McGinn asserts:
The weight of moist air in comparison to dry air (controlling for all other factors) is easily testable.
Yes, it is. But you never answered when I pointed out that the N2 (Nitrogen) molecule is heavier than H2O, and that the O2 (Oxygen) molecule is also heavier than H2O.
You wrote upthread:
Moist air at ambient temps ALWAYS weighs more than dry air.
If you believe that, no wonder you’re so thoroughly confused.
The atmosphere comprises about 78% N2 (atomic weight: 28) and about 21% O2 (weight: 32). I’m not a chemist, but that shows that dry air is heavier than air containing H2O gas (weight: 18). There’s also Avogadro’s Law, which makes the number of molecules equal at STP. So aside from your claim that gaseous water doesn’t exist in the atmosphere, it is obvious that air containing water vapor is lighter than dry air.
No wonder you engage in so much juvenile name-calling. You’re getting demolished by facts.
James McGinn:
It’s a pity he never mentioned such in any of his lectures. Why would he conceal this from the public? What would be his motive? Wouldn’t it make more sense that you are delusional?”
Micro6500:
Except the section I referenced, and you looked at and I then quoted was about evaporating water. He also defined the kinetic energy as liquid, as it evaporated and after.
James McGinn:
You claimed that he understood H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding, you fruitcake.
You call people who don’t agree with your preposterous notions “you loon”, “you fruitcake”, “you birdbrain”, you “politically motivated nitwits”, you “twits”, and several other pejoratives. Those are your arguments.
If you had credible facts to support your pseudo-science, there would be no need to keep insulting everyone. Your facts would speak for themselves.
But the nonsense you’re peddling is so ridiculous that I suspect you’re just trying to get some eyeballs over to your very low-traffic blog. Why else? The things you’re asserting are plainly ridiculous, and don’t withstand even the mildest scrutiny.
Finally, I see from your bio that you are self-taught, and it looks like you don’t work in a scientific field. There’s nothing wrong with not having a PhD, or having no degree in the hard sciences, or not working in a science-related career. But for every Einstein, there are about ten thousand astrologers, Scientologists, and phrenologists. From your contrary to reality beliefs, I’d suspect you belong in the latter subset.
Friends:
I write to point out that although James McGinn persists in pretending he is a scientific genius who refutes basic physical principles he refuses to answer any specific questions put to him.
I repeat my suggestion that we have reached the point of not feeding the troll and write to make a further suggestion.
McGinn claims to be President of the strangely named organisation ‘Solving Tornadoes’. So, whenever McGinn makes another of his posts (all of which are daft) he is again asked questions put to him by dbstealey about that Presidency; viz.
Who elected him President?
When was the election held?
And no responses other than those questions should be made to James McGinn until he answers those questions. Otherwise he can be anticipated to persist in his disruption of threads.
Richard
micro thanks for this Feynman quote, which also confirms the gravito-thermal effect and that gravity continuously does thermodynamic work upon air parcels:
“It is like the atmosphere in equilibrium under gravity, where the gas at the bottom is denser than that at the top because of the work mgh needed to lift the gas molecules to the height h.”
” which also confirms the gravito-thermal effect and that gravity continuously does thermodynamic work upon air parcels:”
I thought it delightfully ironic the fake and not pretending genius AB didn’t recognize it’s the physics that describes convection that he can’t find because it’s not real and no one can explain it.
dbstealey
There’s also Avogadro’s Law, which makes the number of molecules equal at STP.
James McGinn:
No, idiot. There is no steam in earth’s atmosphere.
Avogadro’s Law is not strictly based on molecular weght, it deals with particle weight to account for the fact that some molecules (like H2O) clump together. For H2O the correct number is 18 x X. X being highly variable but never less than 10. 10 x 18 = 180. 180 is heavier than 28 or 32.
You obviously have no clue what Avogadro’s law is about.
You are too stupid for science. Stick with the politics of global warming. Science isn’t for you. Sorry.
richardscourtney
I write to point out that although James McGinn persists in pretending he is a scientific genius who refutes basic physical principles he refuses to answer any specific questions put to him.
James McGinn:
I’m not pretending.
dbstealey:
There’s nothing wrong with not having a PhD, . . .
James McGinn:
In and of itself having a PhD isn’t a bad thing. But if you are trying to do cutting edge work it can be severely limiting. As you stated below, in order to have any credibility in meteorology (or climatology) you have to believe certain “facts.” If, for example, you happen to believe that the notion that moist air at ambient temperatures contains steam is absurd, as do I, you have no chance of even getting accepted to a PhD program. You also have no chance of making any breakthroughs.
I had the chance to go that route. I chose not to. And I am extremely glad I did not. Because if I had I would have been beholden to the brain-dead paradigm and their brain-numbing, pretend, “facts.”
For those interested in making scientific progress, a PhD program is a trap from which few escape.
J. McGinn,
Wow, three comments in a row! And three in a row before that. And another 3 in a row before that! It’s amusing to see you get spun up like this. Here, I’ll spin you up some more. You say:
For somebody that is sure I am mistaken you sure are spending a lot of time on this.
Wrong again. I’m not sure you’re wrong; I’m certain of it.
I also remind you: three comments in a row from you. Repeatedly. And you say I’m spending a lot of time here?? Your biggest failing, after your wacky pseudo-science beliefs is your psychological projection. We can see it in almost every insulting comment you make. I’ll bet there are no mirrors in your mom’s basement. Amirite? ☺
Next, you kindly claim:
No, idiot. There is no steam in earth’s atmosphere.
That’s not even wrong; it’s too vague. But I think I know what you mean, since you’ve repeatedly claimed that gaseous H2O cannot exist in the Earth’s atmosphere. You actually seem to believe that water vapor cannot exist there, because it would require boiling water. heh
So, what’s your definition of steam? If it’s ‘steam = H2O in its gaseous state’, then yes, there’s plenty of water vapor in the atmosphere.
Where are you getting you misinformation from, anyway? Do you just invent it?
Admit it: you’re just making up your preposterous nonsense to get a rise out of folks. That would make far more sense than any of your anti-science beliefs.
And for good measure you add:
You are too stupid for science.
You don’t have many friends, do you? You are more insulting, and call people more names than everyone else here put together. Doubled and squared. And I know the reason:
You insult people and call them names because you are getting zero traction here on the internet’s “Best Science” site. You are extremely frustrated because you can’t get anyone to buy into your pseudo-scientific claptrap. What else do you have, but your impotent name-calling? You have no credible education, and your conjectures are based on a complete misunderstanding and/or rejection of basic physics. You regularly make statements that make other folks think, “That’s crazy!”
You’re good for a laugh though, James. You remind rational readers that people like you actually exist out there. What’s really scary is that you’re old enough to vote… you are, aren’t you?
richardscourtney:
All onlookers can now see that whoever or whatever is posting as James McGinn is disrupting threads by only posting ridiculous nonsense which he/she/they/it refuses to retract when repeatedly shown to be wrong.
James McGinn:
If you think I’m wrong on a particular point why not make an argument to that effect instead of whining.
I think people that lack the ability to think independently tend to resent those that don’t.
richardscourtney:
Well, meteorology gets predictions of storms
James McGinn:
Meteorology’s storm theory plays no role in the synoptics that underlie their forecasts. So, your argument pivots off an apples and oranges comparison.
Ptolemaic theory of celestial motion could predict eclipses. Galileo’s observations showed that it was a nonsense theory. Unfortunately, many of its adherents simply refused to look through Galileo’s telescope. Consequently it took hundreds of years for Galileo’s truths to be accepted.
richardscourtney:
More importantly, your fixation on meteorology has no relevance to dbstealey’s observation that the AGW-scare is pathological science and that climatological scare threatens immense costs; e.g. the “Climate Fund” intended to be adopted at the Paris CoP next month is hoped to be $100 billion per year.
James McGinn:
Belief in climate change runs very deep. But, apparently, not as deep as those for Meteorology’s convection notion of storm theory.
A pathological science is pathological based on facts, not based on a price tag.
James McGinn:
I am amused by your pathetic wriggling in response to the several refutations of your daft assertions by several people.
Your most recent pathetic wriggle is in response to my having pointed out one silliness you have provided.
You wrote
I answered
and you have responded
No,dear boy, I said PRICE TAG IS A REASON TO CARE.
Which is why your claim that people not caring about failings of meteorology is “unfortunate” is plain daft.
I await your next pathetic wriggle.
Richard
Hmm. How about if we refer to climatology as an expensive pathological science and meteorology as a cheap pathological science? Fair enough?
James McGinn :
Hmm. How about if we refer to the comments of James McGinn as being nonsensical waste of space in the thread? Fair enough?
Richard
James McGinn November 3, 2015 at 2:36 pm
James McGinn:
1) Vapor is not a gas. It is a liquid. It is droplets/clusters of H2O.
Phil:
Not true, water vapor is the gas phase of water
James McGinn:
Your chart doesn’t indicate that. Your chart doesn’t indicate the word, “gas,” whatsoever. Obviously they are using the word vapor in place of the word gas. Right? (How was this not obvious?)
Exactly, as the reference I quoted showed water vapor is the correct terminology for the gas phase of water,
here it is again:
http://www.chem.ucla.edu/harding/IGOC/W/water.html
Phil, either you are not following this discussion or you don’t understand the chart you posted. Strangely, the chart actually makes my point. According to this chart gaseous H2O (what they, mistakenly, call vapor) does not exist at ambient temperature. It indicates that water is a liquid at ambient temps. Right? Did you not notice this?
Like a former poster on here, Steve Goddard, you don’t understand phase diagrams, the pressure scale is the partial pressure of water, not the atmospheric pressure!
Water only becomes a gas above its boiling point.
No water exists as a gas at any temperature in that yellow zone. The boiling point is defined as the temperature at which the vapor pressure of water equals one atmosphere, at the triple point the vapor pressure of water is 0.006 atm at a temperature of 0.01ºC. Below the triple point temperature water can only exist in two phases, solid and vapor.
Phil:
Also not true, see the phase diagram:
Water vapor exists everywhere in the yellow portion of this diagram,
James McGinn:
Right. Look at the 1 ATM line. Tell us what you see. It clearly indicates water is a liquid all the way up to 100 C. Right?
No it doesn’t, it indicates that the vapor pressure of water at 100ºC is 1 atm!
So, according to this chart, there can be zero gaseous H2O in Earth’s atmosphere.
No, the chart shows that water vapor can exist anywhere in the earth’s atmosphere, at -50ºC the vapor pressure is 1Pa (1µatm), at 100ºC the vapor pressure is 100kPa (1 atm)
Think carefully before you respond.
Something you should have done before starting this nonsense.
Phil., who made the comment above that “No water exists as a gas at any temperature in that yellow zone.”? It’s hard to tell. But it’s wrong, so I assume it’s a McGinn quote.
Also, check out the reader comments under McGinn’s e-book. They seem to echo everyone else’s comments here.
McGinn’s own bio says:
I am a serial science theorist. I’m obsesses (sic) with finding what people think is true but really isn’t and then using knowledge from other disciplines to reveal what is actually true. The two books I’ve authored here for kindle are in the field of meteorology. And even though I took classes in meteorology (as an Earth Sciences Major) I don’t consider myself a Meteorologist. My other interests include Paleoanthropology, Climatology, and Complexity Theory, and Physics.
That could explain his hatred of meteorology and meteorologists.
And who is Claudius Denk? He seems equally nuts. Is he another “serial science theorist”?
Phil. November 4, 2015 at 11:01 am
James McGinn November 3, 2015 at 2:36 pm
“Water only becomes a gas above its boiling point.”
No, water exists as a gas at any temperature in that yellow zone. The boiling point is defined as the temperature at which the vapor pressure of water equals one atmosphere, at the triple point the vapor pressure of water is 0.006 atm at a temperature of 0.01ºC. Below the triple point temperature water can only exist in two phases, solid and vapor.
Sorry for the typo (the missing comma), it completely changed the meaning on the sentence, corrected version above.
Phil. November 4, 2015 at 11:01 am
Phil:
No water exists as a gas at any temperature in that yellow zone.
James McGinn:
Right. Just as a said. They use the word vapor. Which is what has you confused.
Phil:
Water vapor exists everywhere in the yellow portion of this diagram,
James McGinn
Make up your fricking mind.
James McGinn:
Right. Look at the 1 ATM line. Tell us what you see. It clearly indicates water is a liquid all the way up to 100 C. Right?
Phil:
No it doesn’t, it indicates that the vapor pressure of water at 100ºC is 1 atm!
James McGinn:
Wrong. They just used the wrong word in their chart. This is just semantics.
James McGinn:
So, according to this chart, there can be zero gaseous H2O in Earth’s atmosphere.
Phil:
No, the chart shows that water vapor can exist anywhere in the earth’s atmosphere,
James McGinn:
The temperature in earths atmosphere is never over 100 degrees C!
You are worse than a global warming advocate.
James McGinn
“Water only becomes a gas above its boiling point.”
Phil:
No, water exists as a gas at any temperature in that yellow zone.
James McGinn:
The line between blue and yellow (pink on my computer) is the boiling points at different temperatures. According to this chart there is zero gaseous H2O (for some strange reason they use the word vapor when they should us the word gas) in earth’s atmosphere.
BTW: the chart refers to atmospheric pressure, not vapor pressure. (Vapor pressure cannot be measured outside of a closed container, for the most part.)
dbstealey:
Phil., who made the comment above that “No water exists as a gas at any temperature in that yellow zone.”? It’s hard to tell. But it’s wrong,
James McGinn:
LOL. Now you retards are putting words in my mouth. Phil made that dumbass comment.
You are worse that a global warming advocate.
McGinn,
Phil. explained it. Stop being so juvenile, it was just a typo.
James McGinn:
The line between blue and yellow (pink on my computer) is the boiling points at different temperatures.
Oops. I meant to say it is the boiling point at different pressures.
Phil:
Exactly, as the reference I quoted showed water vapor is the correct terminology for the gas phase of water,
here it is again:
http://www.chem.ucla.edu/harding/IGOC/W/water.html
James McGinn:
The nomenclature is used interchangeably. Which appears to have left you permanently confused.
Phil, either you are not following this discussion or you don’t understand the chart you posted. Strangely, the chart actually makes my point. According to this chart gaseous H2O (what they, mistakenly, call vapor) does not exist at ambient temperature. It indicates that water is a liquid at ambient temps. Right? Did you not notice this?
Phil:
Like a former poster on here, Steve Goddard, you don’t understand phase diagrams, the pressure scale is the partial pressure of water, not the atmospheric pressure!
James McGinn:
Steve is correct. It’s the atmospheric pressure. You are a kook who is easily confused by semantic ambiguity. Find a new hobby. Science is full of these little land mines.
James McGinn November 4, 2015 at 12:18 pm
Phil:
Exactly, as the reference I quoted showed water vapor is the correct terminology for the gas phase of water,
here it is again:
http://www.chem.ucla.edu/harding/IGOC/W/water.html
James McGinn:
The nomenclature is used interchangeably. Which appears to have left you permanently confused.
I’m not the one who’s confused!
Phil, either you are not following this discussion or you don’t understand the chart you posted. Strangely, the chart actually makes my point. According to this chart gaseous H2O (what they, mistakenly, call vapor) does not exist at ambient temperature. It indicates that water is a liquid at ambient temps. Right? Did you not notice this?
No, not right. It indicates that at ambient temperature water vapor and liquid water co-exist.
Phil:
Like a former poster on here, Steve Goddard, you don’t understand phase diagrams, the pressure scale is the partial pressure of water, not the atmospheric pressure!
James McGinn:
Steve is correct. It’s the atmospheric pressure. You are a kook who is easily confused by semantic ambiguity. Find a new hobby. Science is full of these little land mines.
Indeed, and like Steve you’ve stepped on one! The phase diagram represents all the physical states of a single substance under different conditions of temperature and pressure. In the case of water the pressure axis is PH2O.
James McGinn:
Steve is correct. It’s the atmospheric pressure. You are a kook who is easily confused by semantic ambiguity. Find a new hobby. Science is full of these little land mines.
Phil:
Indeed, and like Steve you’ve stepped on one! The phase diagram represents all the physical states of a single substance under different conditions of temperature and pressure.
James McGinn:
Obviously. Do you have a point?
Phil:
In the case of water the pressure axis is PH2O.
James McGinn:
It’s a phase diagram, dumbass. Do you know what 1 ATM means? On that 1 ATM line draw a circle half way between the 0 and the 100. Make it about as big as a dime. Then label that circle with the words, Earths Atmosphere. Take note of the fact that the circle is completely in the blue area of the diagram. Take note of the fact that no part of that circle is in the white or the yellow part of the diagram.
Once you have realized that you made a complete jackass out of yourself, shut off your computer and go back to watching cartoons.
James McGinn November 4, 2015 at 10:15 pm
James McGinn:
Steve is correct. It’s the atmospheric pressure. You are a kook who is easily confused by semantic ambiguity. Find a new hobby. Science is full of these little land mines.
Phil:
Indeed, and like Steve you’ve stepped on one! The phase diagram represents all the physical states of a single substance under different conditions of temperature and pressure.
James McGinn:
Obviously. Do you have a point?
Phil:
In the case of water the pressure axis is PH2O.
James McGinn:
It’s a phase diagram, dumbass. Do you know what 1 ATM means?
Yes it means that the pressure of water is equal to 1 atm (100kPa)
On that 1 ATM line draw a circle half way between the 0 and the 100. Make it about as big as a dime. Then label that circle with the words, Earths Atmosphere.
Since the vapor pressure of water in the earth’s atmosphere is much less than 1atm that’s incorrect, ‘surface waters of the ocean’ would be more accurate.
Once you have realized that you made a complete jackass out of yourself, shut off your computer and go back to watching cartoons.
Good idea, I suggest you do so.
James McGinn November 4, 2015 at 10:15 pm
On that 1 ATM line draw a circle half way between the 0 and the 100. Make it about as big as a dime. Then label that circle with the words, Earths Atmosphere. Take note of the fact that the circle is completely in the blue area of the diagram. Take note of the fact that no part of that circle is in the white or the yellow part of the diagram.
For correct use of the phase diagram do the following.
Let’s say that the temperature of the atmosphere near the surface ranges from -50ºC to 40ºC.
On the phase diagram draw a vertical line from -50 to the line separating the white and yellow zones, then draw a vertical line from 40 to the line separating the blue and yellow zone. The yellow region bounded by those two lines represents the Earth’s Atmosphere, if the atmosphere goes above that region water vapor will condense out (i.e. clouds and fog).
James McGinn:
Do you know what 1 ATM means?
Phil:
Yes it means that the pressure of water is equal to 1 atm (100kPa)
James McGinn:
Wrong. It is the atmospheric pressure at the surface of our planet. As you go up in altitude the pressure goes down. (It is very confusing that they refer to gaseous H2O [steam] as, “water vapor.” Undoubtedly this was constructed by some dumbass meteorologists.)
No part of earth’s atmosphere is in the yellow (orange) area.
You don’t understand the diagram.
James McGinn November 5, 2015 at 9:35 am
James McGinn:
Do you know what 1 ATM means?
Phil:
Yes it means that the pressure of water is equal to 1 atm (100kPa)
James McGinn:
Wrong. It is the atmospheric pressure at the surface of our planet. As you go up in altitude the pressure goes down. (It is very confusing that they refer to gaseous H2O [steam] as, “water vapor.” Undoubtedly this was constructed by some dumbass meteorologists.)
No it was used in a geosciences website from Carleton university but the terminology ‘water vapor’, ‘vaporization’, ‘vapor phase’, etc. is used throughout chemistry. As used in this diagram, atm is just a unit of pressure and has no meaning other than that. Here’s another version of the Phase diagram using SI units, perhaps you won’t find it so confusing:
http://www.phy.duke.edu/~hsg/363/table-images/water-phase-diagram.gif
This one is from the Physics Dept at Duke university.
No part of earth’s atmosphere is in the yellow (orange) area.
On the contrary, it all is!
You don’t understand the diagram.
Actually I understand it very well, you, however, don’t have a clue.
J. McGinn says the diagram shows that water cannot be a gas at the indicated pressures and temperatures.
Phil. replied:
On the contrary, it all is!
Phil. is correct. Global T is a little under 15ºC. That’s ≈287º K .
There have been millions of empirical (real world) measurements made, confirming that water vapor (gaseous H2O) is a component of the atmosphere; a major component, higher than Argon or CO2. But James McGinn says that water vapor does not exist in the atmosphere. He is so certain that he shouts it in ALL CAPS.
Readers can decide for themselves who is right, and who is wrong.
James McGinn:
Do you know what 1 ATM means?
Phil:
Yes it means that the pressure of water is equal to 1 atm (100kPa)
James McGinn:
It is the atmospheric pressure at the surface of our planet.
Phil:
No it was used in a geosciences website from Carleton university
James McGinn:
Yeah, so. It is the atmospheric pressure at the surface of our planet. This isn’t debatable. This is an established and agreed upon convention.
Why don’t you provide a link so that the audience can see the legend and any accompanying caption?
Phil:
but the terminology ‘water vapor’, ‘vaporization’, ‘vapor phase’, etc. is used throughout chemistry.
James McGinn:
No duh. Unfortunately this terminology is not used consistently. Thus there is a lot of potential for ambiguity. Amateurs constantly make errors as a result. And this often leads to them drawing ridiculous conclusions.
Phil:
As used in this diagram, atm is just a unit of pressure and has no meaning other than that.
James McGinn:
That is an absurd claim.
dbstealey:
J. McGinn says the diagram shows that water cannot be a gas at the indicated pressures and temperatures.
Phil. replied:
On the contrary, it all is!
dbstealey:
Phil. is correct. Global T is a little under 15ºC. That’s ≈287º K.
James McGinn:
You lost me. This whole conversation is more and more starting to resemble a conversation with the AGW whackos. I can’t keep up with your lunacy.
dbstealey:
There have been millions of empirical (real world) measurements . . .
James McGinn:
These are the kind of lunatic claims that global warming advocates make all the time.
dbstealey:
Readers can decide for themselves who is right, and who is wrong.
James McGinn:
I’m afraid you will leave our readers confused. (I know I am.) But, to your benefit, that tactic seems to have worked very well for Al Gore and his merry band of environmental pirates.
McGinn,
Every one of your counter “arguments” is nothing more than a baseless assertion. Your opinion, nothing more.
You’re not really “confused” as you say (I could have fun with that, but I won’t). You just lack any credible arguments.
At this point it’s up to any readers who want to step up and defend your belief system: that there is no water vapor in the atmosphere. I would sincerely like to hear from anyone else who believes that. Because it’s so preposterous that it may be you’re just having fun trolloing this thread with that kind of pseudo-science.
J. McGinn says:
…clouds that are calculated to be 10% heavier than dry air don’t drop out of the sky
I thought water vapor was lighter than dry air (H2O, vs N2 + O2).
Next:
You are fixated on climatology.
Umm-m, maybe I’m interested because this is the internet’s #1 climate site? I’m interested in the subject because it is science being perverted into a political movement. There’s little comparison between that, and your singling out of meteorology.
OK, I’ve answered you; your turn now:
Why haven’t you shown via experiment that your windmill/drought hypothesis is valid? That’s what got me interested. That’s what I’ve been asking you about. But you keep deflecting onto other things.
Your hypothesis (that downwind from windmill farms there should be increasing droughts) is very easy to confirm — if it’s true. There are wind farms all around the world, and precipitation records are available almost everywhere.
So it shouldn’t be difficult at all to validate your hypothesis. In fact, it’s one of the easiest I can think of. All the data is there, most for free, and it’s just waiting for you to demonstrate conclusively that droughts increase downwind after wind farms are built. With literally hundreds of locations available to you, I’m surprised you haven’t done the experiment yet. You could really leave a mark — if you wanted to. And, of course, if you’re right.
As I wrote upthread, I had high hopes for your hypothesis. It was interesting and provacative. But ever since then you’ve done nothing but change the subject, deflect, and as usual, attack meteorology and Meteorologists.
Isn’t it time to put up? The ball is in your court. You made the claim. Now show us.
Your hypothesis (that downwind from windmill farms there should be increasing droughts) is very easy to confirm — if it’s true. There are wind farms all around the world, and precipitation records are available almost everywhere.
JM:
It would still be anecdotal. It would not be immune to accusations of cherry picking. It would not be a controlled experiment. So it wouldn’t be very convincing.
JM,
I give up. I know dodging, weaving, and deflection when I see it. The excuses you give could apply just as easily to any scientific hypothesis. They are lame excuses. That’s all they are.
The precipitation data is freely available (in other words, it’s free of cost). It is ubiquitous, and it is not questioned by other scientists. So your hypothesis would be very easy to test, and to prove — if you believed it yourself.
But you don’t believe it, do you? That’s OK, you’ve now convinced me that it is a failed hypothesis, because of the weak excuses you use to avoid confronting your own fear that it isn’t true.
Too bad. I had high hopes you were onto something there.
dbstealey:
I know dodging, weaving, and deflection when I see it.
James McGinn:
Me too.
So, put up or shut up. The ball is in your court, not mine.
I just found a very relevant recent comment in a newspaper:
======================
My colleagues are silent because they realized the futility of reasoning with you more quickly than I did.
I thought references pointing out that you are completely and totally wrong in virtually everything you post might just get through to you.
But it didn’t.
-LipperF in response to …. James McGinn
http://www.mercurynews.com/milpitas/ci_29064730/milpitas-second-accident-blocks-southbound-i-880-lanes
====================
14 days ago.
🙂
More evidence that meteorology is an endless parade of dunces quoting dunces.
I did a quick search and found McGinn’s e-book. Notice the two reader comments.
(Note: I had nothing to do with those comments. Mr. McGinn should realize that when he labels everyone else “delusional”, he is once again projecting.)
dbstealey:
Mr. McGinn should realize that when he labels everyone else “delusional”, he is once again projecting.)
James McGinn:
The convection model fails under the slightest scrutiny. The weight of moist air in comparison to dry air (controlling for all other factors) is easily testable. But they would never acknowledge the validity of the test or its results. It is like getting a climatologist to do a test on CO2 Forcing. Consensus sciences don’t do tests. They just agree to agree. And mostly they agree to whatever can be easily conveyed to a gullible public.
When everybody agrees and nobody can explain why it is almost always a brain-dead consensus. It’s just group think. Intellectually, people are sheep. Once they believe something they don’t change their minds unless the whole herd changes its mind.
J. McGinn, says:
When… nobody can explain why…
McGinn, everyone here has been trying to explain basic physics to you. It’s just that you are blind to any facts that don’t confirm your bias.
Re-read the comments. You will see that numerous explanations and sources have been posted. But your response to the basic facts that contradict your belief system is just like some of the climate alarmist crowd, who insist against plenty of verifiable evidence that global warming never stopped.
And your constant projecting of your own faults onto everyone else gets tiresome. There is a reason that society employs teachers and professors, so your discounting them as a mere “consensus” is simply your way of refusing to acknowledge standard physics. Calling someone a “birdbrain” and a “loon” for a difference of opinion doesn’t get you a lot of supporters, either.
I tried to be supportive at first, because your proposed hypothesis intrigued me. But your excuses for not testing it are a clear admission that you strongly suspect what the results would be: that there would be no observation of droughts consistently increasing downwind from windmill farms.
No problem there, most hypotheses turn out to have problems. The real problem is your attitude that everyone else is completely wrong about everything. But in your case here, a lot of what you’re arguing against is trivially provable. For example, the atmosphere has ≈1% – ≈4% water vapor, meaning H2O as a gas. No freshman Physics professor would disagree that the atmosphere contains much more water in gaseous form than CO2, or even Argon.
So that isn’t in dispute anywhere else; it’s an accepted fact. And convection is an accepted fact. By continuing to argue that they’re not true just erases your credibility. Why would you want to do that?
db what gets me is, I don’t really care if he thinks I’m wrong, I’ve been wrong before, and I’ll be wrong again, but when I point to Dr Feynman’s lecture on his topic that proves he’s wrong, he must either think he’s more versed in physics, or he doesn’t know who he is, and well if you claim to know physics, and don’t know of the guy who invented his own method of solving QM’s (and got a Nobel prize for it, one of only 3 methods), and it directly provides the physics that he denies, which is all explained by QM, well I’m not responding to him anymore, and it explains his stellar reviews of his books.
micro6500:
db what gets me is, I don’t really care if he thinks I’m wrong, I’ve been wrong before, and I’ll be wrong again, but when I point to Dr Feynman’s lecture on his topic that proves he’s wrong, he must either think he’s more versed in physics, or he doesn’t know who he is, and well if you claim to know physics, and don’t know of the guy who invented his own method of solving QM’s (and got a Nobel prize for it, one of only 3 methods), and it directly provides the physics that he denies, which is all explained by QM, well I’m not responding to him anymore, and it explains his stellar reviews of his books.
James McGinn:
Listen you ignorant SOB. I would love to see that Feynman had an understanding of H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding. I’ve been looking for it. Because the world is full of dumb sheep like yourself that only believe what comes from big name scientists. And I was hoping to find some support from him. But it just isn’t there. Go back to watching cartoons.
(Please stop calling people names just because they have a different point of view. -mod)
Bwhahahahahahaha
snort, snort
Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
dbstealey:
For example, the atmosphere has ≈1% – ≈4% water vapor,
James McGinn:
True.
dbstealey:
meaning H2O as a gas.
James McGinn:
The chart that dumb Phil introduced and that you subsequently endorsed clearly and unambiguously indicates that H2O is a LIQUID at the temperatures of the atmosphere. Open your eyes and look you dumb SOB. The H2O suspended in our atmosphere is liquid, droplets. (And as long as the droplets are smaller than a photon they are invisible.)
dbstealey:
No freshman Physics professor would disagree
James McGinn:
On this point I agree with you–sadly.
dbstealey:
So that isn’t in dispute anywhere else
James McGinn:
Correct. In fact it has never been in dispute anywhere. Ever!
Consensus sciences don’t contest anything. They just agree to agree. And mostly they agree to whatever can be easily conveyed to a gullible public. The reason they won’t test this notion (a notion which is plainly contradicted by the chart Phil introduced and you endorsed) is because then they would have to abandon the convection model of storm theory altogether.
When everybody agrees and nobody can explain why it is almost always a brain-dead consensus. It’s just group think. Intellectually, people are sheep. Once they believe something they don’t change their minds unless the whole herd changes its mind.
dbstealey:
it’s an accepted fact. And convection is an accepted fact. By continuing to argue that they’re not true just erases your credibility. Why would you want to do that?
James McGinn:
LOL. And if you want to be credible as a climatologist you have to accept that CO2 is causing climate change. Right? I have no interest in that kind of credibility.
In science people that are concerned with credibility and consensus have a ball and chain that will prevent them from ever making progress.
For somebody that is sure I am mistaken you sure are spending a lot of time on this. Hmm.
(Snip. Try re-posting without all the name calling. -mod)
James McGinn:
Evaporate is a liquid. Evaporate = Vapor; Steam = Gaseous H2O. Steam and Gaseous H2O can only exist at temperatures above 212F. No part of our atmosphere is that hot. THUS, THERE IS NO STEAM (GASEOUS H2O) IN EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE. And, therefore, convection is refuted (see below). And meteorology’s notions of storm theory are revealed as the pseudoscience they have always been.
(You have no substantive dispute with this assertion. All you have is an authority based dispute based on a guy, Feynman (who had no understanding of H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding), who would have advised you against authority based disputes/assertions.)
All of the moisture in earth’s atmosphere is vapor (evaporate). That is the case even when the moisture in moist air is invisible. It exists in the liquid state. See the phase diagram if you don’t believe me (upthread). All the moisture in earth’s atmosphere is liquid. It consists of little droplets/clusters, most of which are too small to be seen.
The process of evaporation doesn’t produce steam. It produces vapor (evaporate). Boiling produces steam. Steam is invisible. The white stuff that comes out of trains isn’t steam, or you wouldn’t be able to see it. It is vapor. (It is steam originally, but quickly cools) The process of evaporation doesn’t produce steam, it produces evaporate (vapor). But vapor that is smaller than a photon is just as invisible as steam. (This is why the white vapor that comes out of trains [usually] disappears within 30 seconds or so.)
Now, using the chart that Phil bought into the conversation can you now see that our atmosphere is far too cool for steam? And then using Avogadro’s law and STP can you now see that moist air in our atmosphere can only be heavier than dry air and, therefore, Meteorology’s notion of moist air convection is revealed as the pseudoscience that it actually is (and always has been).
(If you can’t see this there is no hope for you ever breaking away from the brain-numbing effects of the meteorological paradigm.)
You see, I figured this out. I don’t have a PhD. If I had tried to get a PhD I never would have been allowed to consider this. Consensus is for suckers. And people that are concerned with credibility have their hands tied behind their backs when it comes to making breakthroughs.
Now it’s time for you to start making some retractions.
Also, stop whining. If you have a substantive dispute then present it. Otherwise, kindly go away.
There are thoroughly substantive disputes to the assertion that water cannot exist as a gas below 212F in the atmosphere. Metrologists have measured the weight/density of moist vs dry air to extreme accuracy and found that moist air is lighter/less dense. Radiative transfer measurements in the atmosphere indicate that the overwhelming majority of water molecules in the atmosphere are in a gaseous state. Experimental data comparing differences between the measured diffusion coefficient and the predicted diffusion coefficient by monomolecular water vapor and by microdroplets of water in cool air clearly indicate that water vapor is present.
This argument is fanciful nonsense.
McGinn keeps digging his hole deeper:
THERE IS NO STEAM (GASEOUS H2O) IN EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE.
There is no university Physics department that would agree with that. McGinn also asserts:
All you have is an authority based dispute based on a guy, Feynman (who had no understanding of H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding), who would have advised you against authority based disputes/assertions…. You see, I figured this out… Consensus is for suckers. &etc.
First, ‘consensus’: McGinn misunderstands the ‘appeal to authority’ logical fallacy, which only applies to an ‘authority’ that is not speaking from expertise in a particular field (like a movie star explaining “climate change”), or an ‘authority’ that has been corrupted by outside influence, or otherwise compromised.
Prof Feynman was none of those things, thus he is a universally accepted authority in physics. But McGinn contradicts Feynman. Therefore, one of them is right, and the other one must ipso facto be wrong. Readers can make up their own minds which is which.
Next, McGinn asserts:
All of the moisture in earth’s atmosphere is vapor (evaporate). That is the case even when the moisture in moist air is invisible. It exists in the liquid state.
That statement ( that water in the atmosphere is only found in its liquid state) is contradicted by many thousands, if not millions of empirical measurements over many decades. Water in its gaseous state is found almost everywhere in the atmosphere, in typical concentrations of ≈1% to 4%+, depending on location (some Polar regions are very dry). To be very clear: water as a gas is a component of the atmosphere.
Next, McGinn asserts that:
…moist air in our atmosphere can only be heavier than dry air
To better define that vague statement: when we compare dry air (air without any H2O) vs air containing water vapor (air containing H2O as a gas), the dry air will weigh more per volume.
Finally, McGinn once again projects his own foibles onto others:
For somebody that is sure I am mistaken you sure are spending a lot of time on this.
No one has commented on this thread more than McGinn. I won’t presume to ask for a ‘retraction’, because that is just more juvenile game playing; similar to McGinn’s usual ‘gotcha’ attempts. The central issue here (there are others) is McGinn’s complete misunderstanding of basic physics.
McGinn’s comments are astonishing, in that they are not something dubious or questionable, but nevertheless possibly still arguable; like ‘dangerous AGW’, for example, which is possible, but unlikely.
But no one here agrees with McGinn’s physics model, in which he denies the existence of any water vapor in the atmosphere, or the existence of convection as a factor in weather.
To put it simply, McGinn’s beliefs are preposterous.
dbstealey:
McGinn keeps digging his hole deeper:
THERE IS NO STEAM (GASEOUS H2O) IN EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE.
There is no university Physics department that would agree with that.
James McGinn:
I have two responses to this:
1) Yes, you are absolutely right, no university Physics department that would agree.
2) Consensus is for suckers.
dbstealey:
McGinn also asserts:
All you have is an authority based dispute based on a guy, Feynman (who had no understanding of H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding), who would have advised you against authority based disputes/assertions…. You see, I figured this out… Consensus is for suckers. &etc.
First, ‘consensus’: McGinn misunderstands the ‘appeal to authority’ logical fallacy, which only applies to an ‘authority’ that is not speaking from expertise in a particular field (like a movie star explaining “climate change”), or an ‘authority’ that has been corrupted by outside influence, or otherwise compromised.
James McGinn:
LOL. Really? I disagree with you on this point. And, apparently, so would Feynman. I suggest reading his quote again. Commit it to memory.
dbstealey:
Prof Feynman was none of those things, thus he is a universally accepted authority in physics. McGinn disputes Feynman. Therefore, one of them is right, and the other one must ipso facto be wrong. Readers can make up their own minds which is which.
James McGinn:
So, let me get this straight, if Feynman had appeared in a movie we would be required to ignore him? Hmm.
dbstealey:
Next, McGinn asserts:
All of the moisture in earth’s atmosphere is vapor (evaporate). That is the case even when the moisture in moist air is invisible. It exists in the liquid state.
That statement (that water is only found in its liquid state) is contradicted by many thousands, if not millions of empirical measurements over many decades.
James McGinn:
Why do you think it is that they are hiding the data from your alleged “empirical measurements” from us? I mean, what would their motive be for concealing it from the public? Doesn’t it make more sense that you are delusional? Be honest.
Also, if what you are saying is true, why don’t you contact that authors of that Phase Diagram that you endorsed (upthread) and inform them that they need to revise it.
dbstealey:
Water in its gaseous state is found almost everywhere in the atmosphere, in typical concentrations of ≈1% to 4%+ depending on location (some Polar regions are very dry). To be very clear: water as a gas is a component of the atmosphere.
James McGinn:
If this is really what you believe then why not make a substantive argument to this effect? It should be really easy for you to find the results of one of the, “thousands, if not millions of empirical measurements over many decades,” that you claim took place. Right?
dbstealey:
Next, McGinn asserts that:
…moist air in our atmosphere can only be heavier than dry air
To better define that vague statement: when we compare dry air (air without any H2O) vs air containing water vapor (air containing H2O as a gas), the dry air will weigh more per volume.
James McGinn:
If this is really what you believe then why not make a substantive argument to that effect?
dbstealey:
Finally, McGinn once again projects his own foibles onto others:
“For somebody that is sure I am mistaken you sure are spending a lot of time on this.”
No one has commented on this thread more than McGinn. I won’t presume to ask for a ‘retraction’, because that is just more juvenile game playing; similar to McGinn’s usual ‘gotcha’ attempts. The central issue here (there are others) is McGinn’s complete misunderstanding of basic physics.
McGinn’s comments are astonishing, in that they are not something dubious or questionable, but nevertheless possibly still arguable; like ‘dangerous AGW’, for example, which is possible, but unlikely.
But no one here agrees with McGinn’s physics model, in which he denies the existence of any water vapor in the atmosphere, or the existence of convection as a factor in weather.
James McGinn:
Consensus is for suckers. (Oh, and I don’t deny the existence of “water vapor” [evaporate] in earth’s atmosphere. I deny the existence of gaseous H2O [steam] in Earth’s atmosphere. You need to get this distinction straight in your mind. If you have trouble dealing with ambiguous terminology I suggest avoiding science in general and meteorology in particular.)
dbstealey:
To put it simply, McGinn’s beliefs are preposterous.
James McGinn:
Well, if it is any consolation, I will still allow you to make a retraction.
I know that would be somewhat embarrassing for you. And I don’t want you to feel embarrassed. How about this. All you have to do is not respond to this comment and I will consider you to have made a full retraction! Fair enough?
Don’t do it . . . don’t do it . . . think carefully before you click the “Post Comment” button. Don’t do it . . .
dm:
There are thoroughly substantive disputes to the assertion that water cannot exist as a gas below 212F in the atmosphere.
James McGinn:
Why do you think it is that they are hiding the data from us? I mean, what would their motive be for concealing it from the public?
dm:
Metrologists have measured the weight/density of moist vs dry air to extreme accuracy and found that moist air is lighter/less dense.
James McGinn:
Why do you think it is that they are hiding the data from us? I mean, what would their motive be for concealing it from the public?
dm:
Radiative transfer measurements in the atmosphere indicate that the overwhelming majority of water molecules in the atmosphere are in a gaseous state.
James McGinn:
Why do you think it is that they are hiding the data from us? I mean, what would their motive be for concealing it from the public?
dm:
Experimental data comparing differences between the measured diffusion coefficient and the predicted diffusion coefficient by monomolecular water vapor and by microdroplets of water in cool air clearly indicate that water vapor is present.
James McGinn:
Why do you think it is that they are hiding the data from us? I mean, what would their motive be for concealing it from the public? (BTW, “water vapor” is not a gas. It is a liquid.)
dm:
This argument is fanciful nonsense.
James McGinn:
Intellectually, people are sheep. Once they believe something they don’t change their minds unless the whole herd changes its mind. There is no steam (gaseous H20) in earth’s atmosphere. (Even when it is invisible it is liquid [evaporate, vapor]. The notion that invisible moist air contains steam is a myth.) It is far too cool. Don’t believe the sheep. Sheep don’t think. They just follow.
dbstealey
I have correct facts that support my argument. There is plenty of gaseous H2O in the atmosphere.
James McGinn:
Why not make an argument to that effect?
dbstealey:
No intelligent, educated person disagrees with that well established fact.
James McGinn:
Consensus is for suckers.
dbstealey:
And when Prof Richard Feynman’s explanation was provided for you, your response was:
I would love to see that Feynman had an understanding of H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding… Because the world is full of sheep like yourself that only believe what comes from big name scientists. And I was hoping to find some support from him. But it just isn’t there. Go back to watching cartoons.
Other times you’ve said essentially the same thing: that you are right, and Feynman is wrong. Who should we believe? You? Or one of the greatest minds in the twentieth century? (Don’t answer that, for your own sake.)
James McGinn:
I will let Feynman answer that question for me:
http://amiquote.tumblr.com/post/4463599197/richard-feynman-on-how-we-would-look-for-a-new-law
dbstealey:
Next, you say:
THERE IS NO STEAM (GASEOUS H2O) IN EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE.
That is so wrong it makes me roll my eyes
James McGinn:
You have no dispute. Right?
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth, if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
dbstealey:
Anyone who asserts that there is no gaseous H2O, or convection in the atmosphere is starting out with provably wrong assumptions.
James McGinn:
It’s regrettable that you appear to be incapable of making a substantive argument to this effect. (I wonder why . . . Hmm.)
dbstealey:
Generous guy that I am, I’m still willing to help school you in the basics of physics.
James McGinn:
Really?
dbstealey:
What’s your education or work experience background, anyway? It’s doubtful that it is anything related to the hard sciences, particularly physics. I am not trying to be insulting, I really want to know:
James McGinn:
I’m just your ordinary, everyday, run of the mill, garden-variety genius.
WordPress seems to misplace comments on occasion. My response to McGinn’s comment @12:28 pm here appeared above his comment, not below, which is what I replied to. I’ve answered most of McGinn’s points there.
One that I didn’t answer was McGinn’s assertion:
Other times you’ve said essentially the same thing: that you are right, and Feynman is wrong.
Citations, needed. Cut and pasted verbatim, please.
McGinn is new here, but Prof Feynman’s quote has been posted in text and on video dozens of times here, at least. We’re all familiar with them, and I am in full agreement.
dbstealey:
McGinn is new here, but Prof Feynman’s quote has been posted in text and on video dozens of times here, at least. We’re all familiar with them, and I am in full agreement.
James McGinn:
It’s great that we found something that we agree on.
Reminds me of this u.k.(us) comment:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/04/ap-poll-americans-increasingly-unconcerned-about-climate-change/#comment-2063733
dm:
There are thoroughly substantive disputes to the assertion that water cannot exist as a gas below 212F in the atmosphere.
James McGinn:
You sound like pompous jerk. What you believe is irrelevant. Put up or shut up.
dm:
Metrologists have measured the weight/density of moist vs dry air to extreme accuracy and found that moist air is lighter/less dense.
James McGinn:
You are a fool who can’t distinguish between reality and your imagination.
dm:
Radiative transfer measurements in the atmosphere indicate that the overwhelming majority of water molecules in the atmosphere are in a gaseous state.
James McGinn:
This isn’t even remotely possible. You obviously don’t know what radiative transfer is you silly twit.
dm:
Experimental data comparing differences between the measured diffusion coefficient and the predicted diffusion coefficient by monomolecular water vapor and by microdroplets of water in cool air clearly indicate that water vapor is present.
James McGinn:
It is clear that you are clueless.
*************************
[Reply: You were warned before to stop your name-calling and insulting of other readers who simply have a different point of view than you. This is your second warning. If you wish to continue posting here, stop all your insults and name calling. ~mod.]
” It is clear that you are clueless.”
Seek help, those voices aren’t your genius inner voice.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QFjAAahUKEwiyiNDn8_rIAhUBLB4KHc0QCbQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeynmanlectures.caltech.edu%2FIII_12.html&usg=AFQjCNHu544tEHPbZoVitN0nFRynTtAEeA&sig2=ovObHrElFJFX7e2t_o_kMQ the hyperfine structure of hydrogen was one of the first physical effect that required quantum mechanics.
micro6500:
It’s very possible, because it is a gas.
James McGinn:
It’s impossible for H2O to become a gas at temps below its boiling point/pressure.
micro6500:
And it can be explained by quantum mechanics.
James McGinn:
And your hero worship of Feynman isn’t an argument. Feynman had no understanding of hydrogen bonding.
I wouldn’t pretend to try to educate you in hydrogen bonding. There is a lot to it. But here is a ballpark explanation:
Each, highly polar, H2O molecule can be attached to two other H2O molecules on its negative (oxygen) end. The first breaks off fairly easy. That is the one associated with evaporation. The second does not. It is a hard bond. (Strangely, it is the bond that is associated with ice.) It only breaks at temps above 100 C. From this understanding we an deduce that evaporation can only involve clumps of H2O (vapor), not steam (not gas). For details see the link I posted entitled, “Why Water is Wierd.”
Why Water is Weird http://t.co/nJkR1HE5UI
Try this link instead:
Why Water is Weird
http://t.co/AtYiUUhTwA
After seeing the regular links to his blog being posted, I’m starting to think that McGinn is trolling here for traffic. I won’t click on his links, because I have no trust or confidence that McGinn understands even basic physics.
But if McGinn can get the head of even one accredited colllege or university’s head of their physics or chemistry department to post here, agreeing with his belief that water vapor does not exist in the atmosphere, then I’ll retract and apologize.
I note that McGinn has not been able to get even one other reader to agree with him. That’s not a consensus, that is being totally demolished.
dbstealey:
After seeing the regular links to his blog being posted, I’m starting to think that McGinn is trolling here for traffic. I won’t click on his links, because I have no trust or confidence that McGinn understands even basic physics.
James McGinn:
Nobody, certainly not me, is suggesting you are under any obligation to think if you don’t want to.
dbstealey:
But if McGinn can get the head of even one accredited college or university’s head of their physics or chemistry department to post here, agreeing with his belief that water vapor does not exist in the atmosphere, then I’ll retract and apologize.
James McGinn:
There is already enough consensus nonsense stinking up this thread. Appeals to consensus and appeals to authority are not something I want to be associated with, if it’s all the same to you. However, I would be interested in some reproducible experimental evidence–this being the one and only true arbiter of science.
What happened to the millions of experiments you keep eluding to? Did they, maybe, take place in some far-away land that has yet to gain access to the internet? LOL. Can you tell us how you know about these experiments? Or is that your special secret?
dbstealey:
I note that McGinn has not been able to get even one other reader to agree with him. That’s not a consensus, that is being totally demolished.
James McGinn:
Galileo, Newton, Einstein and Wegner were similarly “demolished.” So I think I’m in good company.
You are becoming a bore.
McGinn, everyone else you cited (Galileo, Newton, Einstein and Wegner) had lots of support. Maybe the establishment of the time was opposed to them. But a lot of scientists were in agreement with them. But you have zero supporters.
There are thousands of colleges and universities. All I ask is that you have ONE verifiable department head post here, agreeing with you that water vapor/steam does not exist in the atmosphere. Just cite one, out of thousands.
You seem to be living in your own world. And if I’m boring you, no problem; you have no obligation to respond. Just move on.
dbstealey:
McGinn, everyone else you cited (Galileo, Newton, Einstein and Wegner) had lots of support. Maybe the establishment of the time was opposed to them.
James McGinn:
Your understanding of science history seems not much better than your understanding of H2O in the atmosphere.
James McGinn November 5, 2015 at 7:42 pm
I wouldn’t pretend to try to educate you in hydrogen bonding. There is a lot to it. But here is a ballpark explanation:
Judging by your ‘explanation’ you don’t understand it yourself, so it’s just as well that you don’t pretend to educate anyone on the subject.
Each, highly polar, H2O molecule can be attached to two other H2O molecules on its negative (oxygen) end.
Actually each water molecule links to four other water molecules via hydrogen bonds, each of which has an attractive force of ~23 kJ/mol compared with the covalent OH bonds which have a bond strength of 492 kJ/mol
The first breaks off fairly easy. That is the one associated with evaporation. The second does not. It is a hard bond.
This is nonsense, all the hydrogen bonds are of equal strength
(Strangely, it is the bond that is associated with ice.) It only breaks at temps above 100 C. From this understanding we an deduce that evaporation can only involve clumps of H2O (vapor), not steam (not gas).
From this total lack of understanding one can deduce nothing of value.
This is what the actual phases of water look like:
http://www.scottsmithonline.com/interests/medicalschool/biology/110a/Midterm1Materials/Notes/graphics/figure%2002-15.jpg
James McGinn:
I wouldn’t pretend to try to educate you in hydrogen bonding. There is a lot to it. But here is a ballpark explanation:
Phil:
Judging by your ‘explanation’ you don’t understand it yourself, so it’s just as well that you don’t pretend to educate anyone on the subject.
James McGinn:
Each, highly polar, H2O molecule can be attached to two other H2O molecules on its negative (oxygen) end.
Phil:
Actually each water molecule links to four other water molecules via hydrogen bonds,
James McGinn:
Right, but two are on its negative (oxygen) end, as I stated
Phil:
each of which has an attractive force of ~23 kJ/mol compared with the covalent OH bonds which have a bond strength of 492 kJ/mol
James McGinn:
It’s not that simple, powderpuff. (That may be what it says in your source. But that doesn’t mean is is right.)
James McGinn:
The first breaks off fairly easy. That is the one associated with evaporation. The second does not. It is a hard bond.
Phil:
This is nonsense, all the hydrogen bonds are of equal strength
James McGinn:
Wrong. Here is why:
http://t.co/AtYiUUhTwA
James McGinn:
(Strangely, it is the bond that is associated with ice.) It only breaks at temps above 100 C. From this understanding we an deduce that evaporation can only involve clumps of H2O (vapor), not steam (not gas).
Phil:
From this total lack of understanding one can deduce nothing of value.
James McGinn:
I don’t doubt your sincerity in the least.
Phil:
This is what the actual phases of water look like:
James McGinn:
One of those three is accurate: the one on gas. The other two are nonsense. Read my webpage (link above) for details.
H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding are extremely counterintuitive. You aren’t going to get it without a considerable amount of effort. And internet soures will only leave you confused. Sorry I can’t be more helpful in this regard, at this juncture.
Phil. November 5, 2015 at 8:18 pm
BTW, to give you a sense of how strange the H2O molecule is, if you were to switch the labels in a) Solid water (ice) and b) Liquid water it would actually be, in many but not all respects, more accurate.
James McGinn November 5, 2015 at 9:28 pm
James McGinn:
I wouldn’t pretend to try to educate you in hydrogen bonding. There is a lot to it. But here is a ballpark explanation:
Phil:
Judging by your ‘explanation’ you don’t understand it yourself, so it’s just as well that you don’t pretend to educate anyone on the subject.
James McGinn:
Each, highly polar, H2O molecule can be attached to two other H2O molecules on its negative (oxygen) end.
Phil:
Actually each water molecule links to four other water molecules via hydrogen bonds,
James McGinn:
Right, but two are on its negative (oxygen) end, as I stated
Phil:
each of which has an attractive force of ~23 kJ/mol compared with the covalent OH bonds which have a bond strength of 492 kJ/mol
James McGinn:
It’s not that simple, powderpuff. (That may be what it says in your source. But that doesn’t mean is is right.)
Actually it is that simple! Looking at any individual H2O molecule there are two hydrogen bonds associated with the O end of the molecule (where the slight negative charge exists) and the H ends of neighboring H2O molecules, there are also two hydrogen bonds associated with the H ends of the molecule and the O ends of neighboring, clearly these bonds are identical!
James McGinn:
The first breaks off fairly easy. That is the one associated with evaporation. The second does not. It is a hard bond.
Phil:
This is nonsense, all the hydrogen bonds are of equal strength
James McGinn:
Wrong. Here is why:
http://t.co/AtYiUUhTwA
Again, totally wrong, hydrogen bonds in the liquid phase are constantly being broken and remade due to the motion of the molecules. To reiterate there are no differences between the H-bonds, it doesn’t matter which molecule the O is on, they are all weak compared with covalent bonds.
James McGinn:
(Strangely, it is the bond that is associated with ice.) It only breaks at temps above 100 C. From this understanding we an deduce that evaporation can only involve clumps of H2O (vapor), not steam (not gas).
H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding are extremely counterintuitive.
I find it to be very straight forward, but then I’m a physical chemist. My students don’t seem to have any problems understanding it, although the entropy component due to H-bonding in protein folding sometimes causes problems. But then they have an excellent teacher.
You aren’t going to get it without a considerable amount of effort. And internet soures will only leave you confused.
Internet sources such as your totally incorrect one could indeed cause confusion, fortunately I don’t need to use internet sources for my understanding. It bothers me that flawed sites such as yours might be read by someone who would be misled by them.
James McGinn:
All of the moisture in earth’s atmosphere is vapor (evaporate). That is the case even when the moisture in moist air is invisible. It exists in the liquid state.
dbstealey:
That statement ( that water in the atmosphere is only found in its liquid state) is contradicted by many thousands, if not millions of empirical measurements over many decades.
James McGinn:
Try to imagine how ridiculous you sound. These are the kinds of arguments global warming advocates make in regard to CO2 Forcing or the greenhouse effect. They too claim to have done millions of measurements and thousands of experiments. But they can’t ‘provide a direct reference to even one.
And then there is the constant claims of consensus:
97% of all scientists agree. Every scientific institution on the planet agrees. On and on and on. It is endless. Everyone agrees . . . Nobody disputes . . .
The difference between pseudoscience and science is that science has its limits.
J. McGinn,
You have already made your beliefs clear: you believe that water vapor — H2O in its gas state — cannot exist in the atmosphere.
Both Phil. and I replied, contradicting you. I wrote that readers can make up their own minds. As I said, you’ve already stated your own beliefs. Repeating what you believe doesn’t make it any more true. What I am interested in is seeing if any other reader is in agreement with you. Because either you are right, or you are wrong. There is no middle ground here.
Oh great and clueless one, let’s see you write out the math to describe the electro magnetic interactions of hydrogen?
micro6500:
Oh great and clueless one, let’s see you write out the math to describe the electro magnetic interactions of hydrogen?
James McGinn:
Anybody with a computer, internet access, and half a brain could do that. You at least have two out of three. Why not take a shot at it. You might surprise yourself.
James McGinn November 5, 2015 at 10:32 pm
dbstealey:
You have already made your beliefs clear: you believe that water vapor — H2O in its gas state — cannot exist in the atmosphere.
James McGinn:
Right. And my belief is supported by a wealth of laboratory evidence, not the least of which being confirmed in charts presented by Phil and endorsed by you yourself.
The phase diagrams which I posted do not support your view, unfortunately you don’t understand the phase diagram. You appear to think that the phase diagram refers to the atmosphere, it does not it refers to water alone, that seems to be the source of your error.
dbstealey:
Both Phil. and I replied, contradicting you.
Both of you expressed different opinions. And you failed to provide any empirical support for your opinions.
Phase diagrams are the summary of a vast number of empirical measurements, so I did provide empirical support.
(Which surprised me not in the least.) Instead you provided all the anecdotal observations, imaginary experiments (complete with claims of data that nobody can find) and consensus claims that are typical of pathological sciences. (All of which is also, strangely, typical of all sciences that deal with the atmosphere. [Why this is the case, I don’t know. It might have something to do with the fact that humans consider the sky to be sacred, like heaven. I don’t know. But it is incredibly strange how irrational people are when it comes to the atmosphere.])
The data I produced is not specific to the atmosphere it’s basic physical chemistry data which is used successfully by engineers on a daily basis, were you correct steam turbines the world over would not be working as designed!
dbstealey:
You have already made your beliefs clear: you believe that water vapor — H2O in its gas state — cannot exist in the atmosphere.
James McGinn:
Right. And my belief is supported by a wealth of laboratory evidence, not the least of which being confirmed in charts presented by Phil and endorsed by you yourself.
dbstealey:
Both Phil. and I replied, contradicting you.
James McGinn:
Both of you expressed different opinions. And you failed to provide any empirical support for your opinions. (Which surprised me not in the least.) Instead you provided all the anecdotal observations, imaginary experiments (complete with claims of data that nobody can find) and consensus claims that are typical of pathological sciences. (All of which is also, strangely, typical of all sciences that deal with the atmosphere. [Why this is the case, I don’t know. It might have something to do with the fact that humans consider the sky to be sacred, like heaven. I don’t know. But it is incredibly strange how irrational people are when it comes to the atmosphere.])
dbstealey:
I wrote that readers can make up their own minds.
James McGinn:
I don’t think they can. Honestly. In my experience, most people are incapable of being rational when it comes to the atmosphere. It might harken back to our religious mindset and the fact that many people believe (instinctually) that that is where we go when we die. I don’t know. Maybe this is why the most recognized authority for the atmosphere on our planet is not a scientist, its a former divinity student who got D’s in all of his science classes: Al Gore.
dbstealey:
As I said, you’ve already stated your own beliefs. Repeating what you believe doesn’t make it any more true. What I am interested in is seeing if any other reader is in agreement with you.
James McGinn:
Be it as it may.
dbstealey:
Because either you are right, or you are wrong. There is no middle ground here.
James McGinn:
I am right. But it’s no great thing. Or, at least, not scientifically. What I mean is that the scientific aspects of what I’ve achieved (which you don’t know much about — yet) are actually kind of mundane. The talent I brought to the subject was being really good at being agnostic, which I obtained from years of debating evolutionary theory. I’m not saying that reverse engineering storms was simple or easy. Hell, it took four years. But it was a lot easier for me since — from the outset — I did not have the slightest doubt that the convection model was nonsense.
James McGinn:
dbstealey is stating his knowledge and not his “belief”.
So, instead of repeatedly demonstrating your ignorance, please say something you do know. You claim to be “President” of an organisation with the strange name of “Solving Tornadoes”.
dbstealey asked you
when were you elected President of Solving Tornadoes and who elected you?
Please answer dbstealey’s questions that directly pertain to a claim you made.
Additionally, I would be interested to know how tornadoes can be “solved”.
Tornadoes – like rain – are an atmospheric effect that is potentially capable of observation, measurement, explanation, and prediction, but how can they be “solved”: do you dilute them?
Richard
Hi Richard,
McGinn won’t post a verifiable answer to any of those election questions. We know that whole “President” claim is a farce.
And in observing McGinn’s latest collection of pixels, I see nothing that I would change in my previous comment:
Every one of your counter arguments is nothing more than a baseless assertion. Your opinion, nothing more.
dbstealey:
You rightly say to me
Yes, but I point out the following.
Two days ago I suggested we had reached the stage of ‘don’t feed the troll’, but people persisted in putting comments in the troll trough and McGinn relished them.
So, yesterday I pointed out I had suggested we had reached the stage of ‘don’t feed the troll’, and I added the suggestion that only your earlier questions about McGinn’s ‘Presidency’ should be put in the trough because – I thought – McGinn would be unable to digest them.
People continued to put comments in the troll trough and he continued to relish them. So, today I repeated your questions about McGinn’s ‘Presidency’ and I note that – so far – he has not made a post after that.
I am writing this post to explain and repeat my suggestion that only your earlier questions about McGinn’s ‘Presidency’ should be put in the troll trough because I think McGinn will be unable to digest them and, therefore, he will stop wasting space with his nonsense.
Richard
Just had a look in here, and the level of delusion exhibited by James McGinn is astounding. Clothes dry when left on the line, condensdation forms on a cold window. Gaseous water in the atmosphere is the best explanation for these. The boiling point of water increases with pressure. At 1 barg the boiling point is 121°C. Boiling point is simply the temperature at which vapor pressure equals applied pressure – usually 1 atm. Anyway, I won’t post anything else on this post, but it does illustrate the difficulty of persuading with evidence.