Current SST:
From the THE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA:
UM researchers document global connections between El Nino events and drought
University of Montana Professor John Kimball is among the team of researchers who published an article on Oct. 30 about their study on Nature magazine’s website titled “Vegetation Greening and Climate Change Promote Multidecadal Rises of Global Land Evapotranspiration.”
Their research shows that during the past 32 years there have been widespread increases in both plant growth and evaporation due to recent global climate trends. The apparent rise in evapotranspiration – the process by which water is transferred from the land to the atmosphere by evaporation from plants and soil – is increasing potential drought risk with rising temperature trends, especially during periodic drought cycles that have been linked with strong El Nino events. El Nino is a disruption of the ocean-atmosphere system in the tropical Pacific with important consequences for weather around the globe.
The researchers produced a long-term global satellite record of land evapotranspiration using remote sensing satellite data. They investigated multi-decadal changes looking at trends between 1982 and 2013. In addition to global evapotranspiration trends, they examined vegetation greenness and general climate data including temperature, precipitation and cloudiness. Collectively, these data show general increasing trends in both plant growth and evaporation with recent climate change mainly driven by vegetation greening and rising atmosphere moisture deficits.
The study predicts that a continuation of these trends will likely exacerbate regional drought-induced disturbances, especially during regional dry climate phases associated with strong El Nino events.
###
The paper can be viewed online at http://www.nature.com/articles/srep15956.
” the process by which water is transferred from the land to the atmosphere by evaporation from plants and soil – is increasing potential drought risk with rising temperature trends”
Climate change… or increased farming and irrigation?
My vote would be on the second one…
Or more CO2 means better growing plants that respire more?
More CO2 leads to more drought resistant plants. Meaning that they would hold moisture longer.
They have it ass about. Hot weather does not cause droughts. Droughts lead to hot weather. They are mixing up cause and effect. Droughts are caused by lack of precipitation.
When it rains the temperature drops and soil moisture increases. Overcast conditions also cool as clouds reflect incoming sunlight back to space. Subsequently, much the energy from the sun that would have increased the temperature is used up in evaporation of that soil moisture which keeps the area cool. That keeps the temperature down.
In a period of little or no precipitation, the cooling effects of the rain, cloud and subsequent evaporation are absent and the temperature rises.
That is the conclusion of an Australian scientist who studied the problem and I feel that he is correct. However, it doesn’t add to the CAGW panic and so is ignored.
John
JPM:
They have it ass about.
JM:
Here in US we call than ass backwards. Oh, and, I agree. They have it ass about/backwards.
JPM:
Hot weather does not cause droughts. Droughts lead to hot weather. They are mixing up cause and effect.
JM:
Once again, I agree.
JPM:
That is the conclusion of an Australian scientist who studied the problem and I feel that he is correct.
JM:
Interesting. I’m doing research on this subject. Any chance I could get a name of this scientist? Or even an email? Thanks in advance.
James McGinn
The Australian scientist in question’s name is Stewart W. Franks. He wrote a section in the book Climate Change The Facts 2014. He is Foundation Chair of Environmental Engineering , University of Tasmania. Sorry that I am late providing this information. I hope it helps.
John
Only the green nuts could turn increased greening of the earth into a bad new story. OMG what do they say to each other on a warm sunny day? Is there disaster every where all the time?
I first smelled a rat back in the UK in the 1990s when, during every warm spell the BBC would hammer the Global Warming meme. In radio advertising we used to call that an ‘ice cream’ package i.e. the advertiser’s message would be carried when the temperature went above a certain agreed point.
So what you said is spot on…’on a warm, sunny day’ the alarmists do indeed resume their relentless song of disaster!
“their relentless song of disaster”: Doombaya, Lord, Doombaya…
So a greening earth means more droughts which means plants don’t have enough water so they die but the earth is greening? Only in climate “science”.
Warmists are not scientists, they are political operatives.
Evapotranspiration ??? Really, did they make that word up !! If the plants didn’t suck up the water from the ground , it would have evaporated from the soil anyways !!! At least the plants used some of that water to create food for vegetarians !!!!
And in the long term, meat eaters like me !!
“If the plants didn’t suck up the water from the ground , it would have evaporated from the soil anyways”
Actually, no, this is not always the case.
Very often plants draw water out of the ground that would otherwise not reach the atmosphere, or at least not as quickly.>
Desert plants have roots which extend far down into the ground where water is available, and bring this moisture to the surface.
All plants do this to some extent, and from time to time.
This word (Evapotranspiration) is a key concept in physical geography.
Regions in which precipitation exceeds potential evapotranspiration in all months are deemed to be moist, while those places and times where PET exceeds precipitation are deemed to be “arid”.
If potential evapotranspiration exceeds actual evapotranspiration, plants are deemed to be under water stress.
Drought and soil moisture indices are based on such calculations.
You said – This word (Evapotranspiration) is a key concept in physical geography. The question was asked, did they make it up? So, obviously, the answer is, yes, they made it up to name a key concept in physical geology.
I thought Marcuso was asking if these authors made up the word.
It has been in use since before they were born.
All words were made up by someone.
Unless you believe in spontaneous literary generation.
I personally draw the line at spontaneous human combustion.
Actually, cacti have SHALLOW roots that suck up the sudden thunderstorm rains in the desert. The great saguaros of Tucson, for example, have roots that are extremely shallow but are like an upside down umbrella. They hold excess water in their limbs and central trunk. As it dries down, they use the internal water and get skinny again.
True, but mesquite trees go way deep.
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MEDIA/nrcs141p2_028234.gif
Menicholas, where’s the mesquite?
The word evapotranspiration has been around a long time before cagw came along. Strangely enough though, I believe that it’s well established fact that increased CO₂ levels mean that the stomata on leaves through which plants breath are getting smaller. This is because the plants are no longer struggling to obtain sufficient CO₂ and thus they breath out less water vapour. Increased plant cover might also reduce soil temperature, which would reduce direct evaporation, so I for one think their claims are a bit off the mark.
Under higher levels of CO2, stomata become fewer rather than smaller.
The increased vapor would have a much greater effect on temperature than the CO2. I rather doubt that any climate model has included the fertilizing effect of CO2 on plants and attendant increases in transpiration as an influence on global climate. The oldest (classical) definitions of climate included not just weather but the entire environment. It would interesting to see a more comprehensive theory of climate emerge. Of course that would require retiring nearly every existing climatologist and watching a large number of politicians back pedaling madly.
Nor has it included the fixing of CO2 because of the greater quantity of plant material being created in the ‘greening Earth’. But then they are required to look for all the negative issues or they would not get any further grants.
Increased water in the atmosphere has mixed effects on temperature: water vapor (increased greenhouse effect) vs. clouds (decreased insolation during daytime; greenhouse effect at nighttime.) I am unaware of a good analysis of this effect.
“The increased vapor…”
– CO2 makes the plants using less water, so CO2 is the source of declining evapotranspiration by each single plant. The plants need less stomata for receiving enough CO2 = less transpiration = less evapotranspiration. Per quantity of biomass.
– More plants can grow on the same amount of rain water, so are “greening” the earth
– More plants will retain rain water better, so preventing rain water for “run off” and diminish the problems of to much fluctuating and “soil filled” (by erosion) rivers
– More plants will produce better soils with their roots and the remnants of the roots. Better soils are necessary for agriculture. And plants are needed for animal life.
This is poor biology, and a silly conclusion. For all C3 photosynthesis (about 85% of all terrestrial plants) more CO2 has two effects:
1. More efficient photosynthesis, resulting in more growth. That is why CO2 is added to greenhouses.
2. Less evapotranspiration, since the stomata do not have to be as open to bring in CO2. This second effect is mainly why the Sahel is greening.
So more CO2 biologically lessens the impact of relative drought, rather than increasing it. Essay Carbon Pollution has more specifics.
True dat!
Also the higher the concertrations of Carbon Dioxide in the air the better plants can handle heat stress.
You are missing #3. More plants. The greening is coming from more plants, and more plants always means more evapotranspiration even if each plant evapotranspirates less.
Anyway this is more bonkers science from physicists who do not understand biology and shouldn’t get into it. More evapotranspiration means that more humidity is put into the air all the time, and more humidity in the air means more precipitation, not less. It is a well known biological positive feedback that more vegetation means more rain and more rain means more vegetation. It works backwards when there is a precipitation deficit and that is why the desertification is so abrupt. The African humid period came to an end in just a few centuries at 5000 yr BP.
We are going in the right direction now. More greening, more evapotranspiration and more precipitations in most places. We should celebrate, not say that this is all going to end badly.
Javier, no one gets paid unless it all ends badly 🙂
However I do believe you’re on the right track here; killing off all those pesky plants seems like an extremely bad idea to me.
Javier,
Yes, more leaves mean more evaporative surface and therefore, an over-all increase in transfer of soil moisture to the atmosphere.
I agree with you that it is bonkers science. I think that what they’re saying is that the more you have, the more you have to lose. A simple analogy would be; if you water a tree for 50 years and then deprive it of water, the tree that dies is a bigger one than if you had never watered it at all.
In the thread, above, the term ‘evapotranspiration’ is called into question. A few minutes with mr. google should clarify that point for those people, but I’m intrigued by the oft-repeated phrase “Land evapotranspiration”. I am unable to imagine “Marine evapotranspiration”, or any non-terrestrial evapotranspiration.
Often, when I read expressions like your “bonkers science from physicists who do not understand biology…”, I deem it a little dismissive, but I think you are correct.
Hello Captain Obvious.
CO2 increasing => Increased Plant Growth (which involves evaporation and respiration of water)
OK
If the planet is warming, then it is warmer, and ,warmer planet => less water in some places.
OK, if the planet is warming, which isn’t proven.
But isn’t El Nino a transient weather-related phenomena? Or is El Nino climate change now only when it makes a popular place hotter & drier?
Right now, some folks in Texas might be forgiven for doubting that the most recent floods are a clear manifestation of drought conditions brought on by the El Nino phenomenon …
I have examined the local consequences (Wyoming) of El Nino since 1947 and have found only one clear indication–that being a warm autumn. I can’t find a clear pattern of precipitation. We have sometimes droughtiness or outright drought and sometimes enhanced precipitation. There are places where the consequences seem clear (west coast for instance) and other places it seems very ambiguous.
“Collectively, these data show general increasing trends in both plant growth and evaporation with recent climate change mainly driven by vegetation greening and rising atmosphere moisture deficits.”
Wait a second…perhaps I am misreading something here, but they seem to be stating that there is more evapotranspiration, in other words, more moisture entering the atmosphere, due to increasingly verdant landscapes, and yet also rising moisture deficits?
This does not add up, IMO.
What bothers me most about this and similar studies these days is that they seem to be incorporating ever rising temperatures in their analysis and data.
Since we know that ongoing warming ceased over 18 years ago, one must wonder what temperature data are they using?
This constant reference to global warming and climate change is now tainting almost all research over wide areas of study.
In this light, one must be very skeptical of any conclusions reached, unless one uncritically buys into the narrative they have incorporated into their work.
Sickening…evidence-based science is being undermined, and in a very general and wholesale way.
Can you make a a natural process sound any more alien and ominous than that? They forgot to mention that it’s part of the thermoregulatory process of the planet and is not caused by us.
Exactly!
They seem to be using a definition of the word “disruption” which is at odds with the fact that this cycle has always existed.
It is like saying that thunderstorms are a disruption of the weather.
Each is and has always been a key component of the systems in which they exist.
A better/more apt word might be just to call it a variation, rather than a disruption.
dis·rupt
(dĭs-rŭpt′)
tr.v. dis·rupt·ed, dis·rupt·ing, dis·rupts
1. To throw into confusion or disorder: Protesters disrupted the candidate’s speech.
2. To interrupt or impede the progress of: Our efforts in the garden were disrupted by an early frost. The noise disrupted my nap.
3. To break apart or alter so as to prevent normal or expected functioning: radiation that disrupts DNA and kills bacteria
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disruption
Disruption
Collapse
Super Storm
Catastrophic
…
“disruption”
=========
El Nino is a disruption in the same fashion night is a disruption of day and day is a disruption of night.
Breathing is a disruption of holding your breath. Living is a disruption of death.
…Can’t wait to see what these eggheads come up with during the upcoming La Nina. I’m sure it will be worse yet.
After a quick review, it seems that the water of the Oceans has been ignored while the heat pattern cycles (nino/nina) are included. I will return to the paper if only to find more tasty morsels such as:
” On the other hand, the global land area has lumped more-than-normal P during strong, negative (i.e. La Niña) ENSO phases (Fig. 4). ”
Maybe a more accurate and Climate Sciency statement would have been: on the other hand, the global land area has very likely lumped…..(lumping is , I assume a physical process known only to an elite group).
LMAO!
+100
Ha ha – I told you that it would be too lumpy, didn’t I?
“We all know that Goldilocks has a lot to say about the Three Bears. Everything they have is either too hot or too cold or too big or too lumpy or too hard or too soft or too completely, absolutely wrong.” – See more at: http://books.simonandschuster.com/The-3-Bears-and-Goldilocks/Margaret-Willey/9781416924944#sthash.sXuutpfo.dpuf
Let see if I have this right. The increasing greening of the planet will result in a more parched and plant-less earth. Isn’t that like claiming more colder weather will make it hotter outside?
Careful Alcheson. for down that path lies The Dark Side!
A team of researchers recently discovered that global climate change is causing general increases in both plant growth and potential drought risk.
Fortunately CO2, besides boosting plant growth, also increases drought tolerance, because the plant needs less <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoma"stomata and needs to open them less often to get feedstock for photosynthesis, so loses less water relative to the amount of CO2 absorbed (and turned into sugar). What is more, increasing rate of evapotranspiration means more precipitable water, which inevitably comes down as rain, eventually. Hahai nō ka ua i ka ululāʻau (the rain follows the forest), as native Hawaiians observed a long time ago.
So no, I do not think “drought risk” is on the rise, it’s rather decreasing, if anything.
They seem to be assuming, incredibly, that once moisture moves through a plant into the air, that it disappears and is never seen nor heard from again.
I am with you Berenyi, in that they seem to have reached the opposite conclusion that their own evidence presents.
Can the authors be unaware of the studies which show that the same molecules of water which leave a plant in places like the Amazon rain forest, fall to earth as rain again and again, many times and in a short span of time.
This is why drought tends to beget drought, and humid conditions beget rain.
And as well, they seem to overlook the increasing atmospheric
moisture feedback loop that is the key component of the entire CO2-leads-to-CAGW meme!
All excellent points Berényi, but I’ve noticed a very distinct opportunistic trend in AGW alarmist tracts that explains this publication completely; there is a high visibility meteorological event in progress and there’s an obvious opportunity to associate it with AGW. Several “authorities” on climate change have denied the drought in California is related to human induced climate change, on defensible grounds there are records of such events that predate increases in atmospheric CO₂.
This paper is just another feeble attempt to counter that finding. If the authors are lucky it’ll be picked up by a sympathetic (from the root word “pathetic”) science editor and touted in an article blaming yet another weather story as an indictment of fossil fuels. Unfortunately few people will recall the frequent claims made by alarmists that “weather is not climate” whenever someone mentions the unusually cold weather experienced by some region and it will turn into cocktail party talking points for the dwindling middle class. No one will critically review the article or actually read the sorry excuse for scientific research it’s based on. If you doubt this analysis I’ll refer you to the works of Michael Mann and his infamous hockey stick; if it happened once it can and will happen again.
I find this statement vague. What “recent climate change” do they mean? The present drought in their area?
It seems paradoxical that drought would result in greening. Are they saying that plant transpiration will put all the water into the atmosphere and it will never condense again due to DAGW?
It just looks like a high schooler wrote it to look impressive.
It is incoherent
No sign of any serious recognition that what they call “trends” are but phases of longer cycles.
That’s always a possibility. It goes without saying.
Ugh. So much twisted logic from the Climatoons… my head hurts.
Yup, I can see the link, El Nino events and droughts happen on the same planet.
So the unmeasured manmade global warming must be causing both.
The magic gas strikes again.
Lord protect us from plant food.
The word for that paper is turgid.
Decide the result.
Design the research.
Conduct research.
Find known results.
Comment on results.
Models within models.
Annd they ignore obvious gorillas in the room; pesky realities couched in weasel terms.
I perused the paper. This will give you the gist:
Last line of the Abstract:
Continuation of these trends will likely exacerbate regional drought-induced disturbances, especially during regional dry climate phases associated with strong El Niño events.
Last lines of the conclusion:
These changes are likely to exacerbate the frequency, extent and severity of drought. Severe droughts serve as environmental triggers for other vegetation disturbances, including productivity decline, mortality, insect epidemics and fire.
So, basically they are saying that droughts are F***ing things up. I don’t disagree.
The time period is the 21 year period between 1982 and 2013. What they don’t mention is that during this time the world experienced a dramatic increase in utilization of wind energy (wind farms). How dramatic has this increase been? I dunno. My guess would be between a 20 fold increase and a 50 fold increase. Whatever the case, humans have significantly increased the amount of turbulence we introduce into the atmosphere (lower troposphere) over this 21 year period.
Might that be what is causing the droughts?
Why Wind Farms Cause Drought
http://wp.me/p4JijN-1RV
James McGinn:
You ask, “Might that be what is causing the droughts?”
There is no reason to think it might be.
And you failed to provide any supporting evidence for your suggestion when dbstealey repeatedly asked you to provide it.
Richard
Right now there is evidence that the US is experiencing the least total area of drought conditions on record…and the record goes back over 100 years.
Tony Heller has extensive documentation on this particular meme of the basic climate propaganda.
richardscourtney:
And you failed to provide any supporting evidence for your suggestion when dbstealey repeatedly asked you to provide it.
JM:
Maybe you and dbstealey can contact the authors of this paper and inform them that they, apparently, suffer from the same delusion that I suffer from.
Nah!
You’ll find them yourself. Birds of a feather and all that.
James McGinn,
You proposed a hypothesis: that droughts will increase downwind from windmill farms.
I had hoped you would take the next logical step, and do the experiment. It’s an easy one to prove or disprove.
You only need past precipitation records downwind from the hundreds of wind farms world-wide. Those are public records available at no cost.
Compare those records with precipitation occurring since the wind farms were constructed. Prove or disprove your hypothesis. Done right, there are journals that would accept such an experiment.
That seems very simple and straightforward. I was rooting for you, because it’s an interesting hypothesis. But you didn’t come through. All you did was give excuses. What good is that?
Just proposing an idea isn’t a hypothesis, it’s just a conjecture; an opinion. And you know what they say about opinions…
There is too much randomness in data for maps to be very convincing. Besides, anybody can go to google and search on drought maps and wind farm maps and come to their own conclusions. The reality is that 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.
Climatology AND meteorology are BOTH consensus sciences. As with all consensus sciences, truth is determined not by empirical methods by whether or not the notion is easily conveyed to a gullible public.
Mostly meteorologists lack the intellectual inclination to properly evaluate many of the notions that have gained acceptance in their field. For example, a notion that is accepted by meteorologists is the notion that “inversion” layers are caused by warmer, mid-level layers of dry (or dryer) air that exert a down force that “caps” the upward movement of moist air below. This is plainly absurd. It is common knowledge that gases have no such abilities. But if anybody challenges them they just ignore them. Just like climatology.
Only through understanding is there any chance for somebody to be convinced of this new 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.
We have to be realistic about the fact that we are dealing with human nature here. 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 hope this link works:
The Fourth Phase of Water
http://t.co/BUKr9d69ig
Thank you for the interest and thank you for the suggestion.
James McGinn
President, Solving Tornadoes
solvingtornadoes AT gmail DOT com
Crikey!
James McGinn claims to be the “President” of some organisation with the strange name “Solving Tornadoes”.
I wonder who appointed him and if they are the same people who are paying for him to post nonsense here.
Richard
richardscourtney:
Crikey! James McGinn claims to be the “President” of some organisation with the strange name “Solving Tornadoes”. I wonder who appointed him and if they are the same people who are paying for him to post nonsense here.
James McGinn:
I can’t even imagine how frustrating it must bet to be so sure you are right and so completely unable to say how or why.
J. McGinn,
So tell us, then: who elected you President?
When were nominations announced?
Who were the candidates?
When was the election held?
What was the total vote count?
Was it a tough election fight?
Just wondering… ☺
Here we are, two days later and J. McGinn still refuses to answer a few very simple questions:
• Who elected you President?
• When were nominations announced?
• Who were the candidates?
• When was your election held?
• What was the total vote count?
• Was it a tough election fight?
McGinn is crowing about being President, as if it was some kind of accomplishment.
Was it?
Or like everything else he’s posted, was it meaningless?
That is 31 years.
Menicholas:
That is 31 years.
JM:
Uh, er, . . . I forgot to include my error bars. I meant to say 21 years give or take 10 years. (I learned this from climate scientists. My interest in global warming has not been in vane!)
Cheat grass has rampantly spread right across the US into Canada and beyond in the last 20 years, the side effects are devastating, more fires, outgrows native species which decimates wildlife.
Cheatgrass does not grow when the conditions are dry.
http://scitechdaily.com/images/cheatgrass-wildfires.jpg
http://scitechdaily.com/an-invasive-grass-species-spreads-wildfires-quicker/
They take a couple of observations over a couple of decades, throw in some ‘perhaps’, ‘maybes’, ‘likelys’ and ‘coulds’, put them in a bucket, shake well and scatter them on the ground before them. Then, the big Kahuna climate shaman comes and reads the future of the planet. ‘BUNGA’ is the future.
‘BUNGA’
That’s what my mom would say to us kids in the 60’s, since she was the preacher’s wife and shouldn’t say what she was really thinking.
It’s actually a word from a very funny joke about the typical ‘white’ explorers in Africa, caught by a tribe and being given the choice of ‘life’ or ‘death by bunga’.
How much of the increased ET was caused by warming and how much was caused by increased plant growth are hard to disentangle. It would be worth knowing the amount by which the surface cooling rate was increased by the increased rate of ET.
“Global climate projections also indicate future changes in ENSO characteristics and increasing occurrence of El Niño events”
That’s the wrong sign for increased forcing of the climate. For example the MWP had increased La Nina, while during glacial periods near permanent El Nino states exist.
All this study has done is look at the drying and warming effects of the transition from a cold AMO to a warm AMO, so it has put the cart before the horse. Qualified by the fact that a warm AMO is driven by increased negative NAO/AO, while increased forcing of the climate increases positive NOA/AO.
How does anyone know what the ENSO was doing way back then?
Serious question…I have never heard this.
Proxy studies, including some of Michael Mann’s better works.
Folks? These people are from Montana. Keep that in mind. Some of them have never even seen an ocean and wouldn’t know an El Nino from a shoe lace. They’re using popular nomenclature that’s almost guaranteed to impress the people handing out grants, it’s a slam dunk. They’ve been trained to blame things on climate change; 97% of all scientists will agree with them, and 68.5% will also suggest they use Crest to whiten their teeth.
You can’t treat this as science. I’m not going to say you can’t criticize it, but you absolutely have to have a well developed sense of humor while you do it or it’s just drowning kittens.
I read this study and have a few comments.
First, there are obviously regional precipitation impacts from the ENSO. During an El Nino, Indonesia and Australia get less rain (and therefore, less evaporation as well). The Amazon rainforest also becomes much dryer. In the current El Nino, Indonesia has been extremely dry and there are huge forest fires going on right now. The US west coast, and southeast get more rain in an El Nino and nowhere gets more rain in an El Nino than the central Pacific where it is now raining hard every day. When it rains more, there is more evaporation. Regional variations, nothing more.
Secondly, the trends from their data indicates land evaporation has increased by 0.88 mms/year (correlated to the ENSO of course). This is peanuts. It is nothing. It is about 0.09% of the annual evaporation rates which is the same thing as Zero.
richardscourtney November 6, 2015 at 1:03 am
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
dbstealey November 6, 2015 at 3:11 am
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.
richardscourtney November 6, 2015 at 3:26 am
dbstealey:
You rightly say to me
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.”
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
Why do the moderators allow this kind of blatantly political attack. Can you not see that by allowing this you are no better than Al Gore?
Will a moderator please give Mr. McGinn a hanky? ☺
dbstealey November 6, 2015 at 9:09 am
Will a moderator please give Mr. McGinn a hanky? ☺
I think I need something to remove the sheep poop from my shoes.
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
Why do the moderators allow this kind of blatantly political attack. Can you not see that by allowing this you are no better than Al Gore?
James McGinn:
I had not thought it possible that you could provide an even more inane post than your usual fare, but your post at November 6, 2015 at 8:30 am achieved that remarkable feat.
It lists the posts about your claim to be “President” of an organisation with the strange name of “Solving Tornadoes”. But it does not answer the questions.
I again repeat the questions first put to you by dbstealey:
when were you elected President of Solving Tornadoes and who elected you?
Richard
I honestly don’t understand why the moderators allow such obviously political nonsense. Why don’t you go start an argument on some website that deals with the Kardashians or something and leave us to our science.
Get a life.
(Reply: Moderators will not disallow questions based on a subject that you originally raised. -mod)
Feel free to respond to the substantive issues I mentioned above. If it is any consolation, you have my deepest sympathy for whatever emotional trauma is causes you that results from my reluctance to address the issues you raise.
James McGinn:
Your wriggling is funny!
Please answer the substantive issues pertaining to your claim to be “President” of an organisation with the strange name of “Solving Tornadoes”.
I again repeat the questions first put to you by dbstealey:
when were you elected President of Solving Tornadoes and who elected you?
Richard
richardscourtney November 6, 2015 at 1:03 am
James McGinn:
Wow! Within all of his political wrangling Richard actually presented a substantive question. I almost missed it. (I tend to not read whining.)
richardscourtney:
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?
James McGinn:
First a disclaimer:
Understanding my solution to tornadoes would require you to first have a comprehensive understanding of my model of storm theory. And that is not something that can be obtained easily or quickly. Nevertheless I can and will provide you an answer to the question. I just want you to not be discouraged by the fact that it, surely, will not make sense to you now. And I apologize for any cognitive dissonance that, undoubtedly, will result.
My response:
No, you don’t dilute them. You alter the conditions in the lower atmosphere that facilitates vortex growth from the jet streams. (BTW, tornadoes are an extension of/from jet streams.)
Here is a link to the first chapter of my book which I am making available to you free of charge.
Discovery of the Spin that Underlies the Twist
Read First Chapter here free.
http://t.co/qKKhX5LcRk
Thank you for asking such an intelligent question.
Kindest Regards,
James McGinn
President, Solving Tornadoes
I hope you don’t mind if my secretary or one of her assistants handles any responses hereafter.
James McGinn:
Among all your whinging and childish complaints you have have failed to answer my substantive and very intelligent question about your repeated boast that you are President of the organisation with the strange name of Solving Tornadoes (which you admit cannot be “solved”).
I yet again ask,
who elected you President and when?
I am willing to accept an answer to my question from your “secretary or one of her assistants” although I doubt imaginary entities can type an answer.
Richard
richardscourtney November 6, 2015 at 10:19 am
richardscourtney:
Among all your whinging and childish complaints you have have failed to answer my substantive and very intelligent question about your repeated boast that you are President of the organisation with the strange name of Solving Tornadoes (which you admit cannot be “solved”).
James McGinn:
What are you talking about?
Other than the one on top of your head, do you have a point?
James McGinn:
What I was “talking about” was your failure to answer my question.
It seems you are incapable of seeing my question because you did not copy it in your quote of me and – instead – you asked what I was talking about. Perhaps you should have asked your secretary or one of her assistants to answer as you said you would.
Anyway, the question is
Who elected you President of Solving Tornadoes and when?
Richard
richardscourtney:
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
James McGinn:
LOL. Yes, and that was especially comical considering you had no participation in the thread whatsoever.
I think it’s the anonymity of the internet what attracts people whose only opinion is to be opposed to people that have an opinion–the self-appointed thought police of the WWW.
Wait, what?? You were just complaining that other commenters are commenting too much here (I understand that was just more of your psychological projection, since you post more than anyone). So now it’s not enough?? You’re nothing if not inconsistent.
More projection: complaining that you only have opinions. And sorry, links to your blog aren’t evidence of anything but your opinion. They aren’t evidence. Everything you post is just your opinion.
Next: what if the heads of M.I.T.’s, and Harvard’s, and Stanford’s, and Berkeley’s Physics and Chemistry departments all told you unequivocally that water vapor (steam) is a component of the atmosphere, exceeding the percentage of CO2? Would you say that’s only a “consensus”, and an ‘appeal to authority’? I’ll bet you wouldn’t accept them, or anyone else who told you that H2O in its gaseous state is found throughout the atmosphere. Amirite, or amirite?
Finally, what was the vote count in your election for President? Was it a landslide, or a cliffhanger? ☺
dbstealey:
Next: what if the heads of M.I.T.’s, and Harvard’s, and Stanford’s, and Berkeley’s Physics and Chemistry departments all told you unequivocally that gaseous H2O (steam) is a component of the atmosphere?
James McGinn:
Sure. I would accept this. I will make it easier on you. You only have to get one of the above and I will accept that. Or you could even get any recognized meteorologists, including Anthony Watts. I will accept that. But they have to be willing to stake their reputation on it. Fair enough?
When you are unable to get any of them to address the issue (and let me assure you, they won’t) will you make a retraction of your claim that there have been millions of experiments that confirm the existence of gaseous H2O (steam) is a component of the atmosphere?
Is that not reasonable?
James McGinn
President, Solving Tornadoes
I am currently accepting donations for my re-election campaign. (Al, call me.)
James McGinn:
The first breaks off fairly easy. That is the one associated with evaporation. The second does not. It is a hard bond. Here is why:
http://t.co/AtYiUUhTwA
Phil:
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:
Until yesterday you never gave this subject a thought. I’ve been working on it for four years. You bring no insight beyond what anybody can find in wikipedia, and you expect me to accept you as an expert? Guess again.
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.
Phil:
I find it to be very straight forward,
James McGinn:
Then you are in denial. There is all kinds of phenomena that clearly indicates that IT IS NOT STRAIGHTFORWARD: ie, ice expands, super-chilled water, Mbasa Effect, non-Newtonian fluids. And there are more. (Evaporation is another one, but that can wait.)
Phil:
but then I’m a physical chemist. My students don’t seem to have any problems understanding it,
James McGinn:
The sheep are following, that’s your criteria? Meteorology students don’t have any trouble following the artificially simple notion that storms are caused by convection either. But that is no indication that it is correct. If you can’t resolve the outlier phenomena (Mbasa effect, for example) your model is but a cartoon.
Phil:
although the entropy component due to H-bonding in protein folding sometimes causes problems. But then they have an excellent teacher.
James McGinn:
You aren’t going to get it without a considerable amount of effort. And internet sources will only leave you confused.
Phil:
Internet sources such as your totally incorrect one could indeed cause confusion, fortunately I don’t need to use internet sources for my understanding.
James McGinn:
Show us something substantive then. For example, tell us how your understanding explains all of the counterintuitve phenomena associated with H2O, such as non-Newtonian fluids.
Solution to the molecular mechanism underlying non-Newtonian fluids?
http://t.co/Uftino7mHm
Put up or shut up.
seaice:
Just had a look in here, and the level of delusion exhibited by James McGinn is astounding.
James McGinn:
Really?
seaice:
Clothes dry when left on the line, condensation forms on a cold window. Gaseous water in the atmosphere is the best explanation for these.
James McGinn:
Really? How so?
seaice:
The boiling point of water increases with pressure. At 1 bar the boiling point is 121°C.
James McGinn:
Uh, yeah, so?
seaice:
Boiling point is simply the temperature at which vapor pressure equals applied pressure
James McGinn:
LOL. Really? Kind of makes one wonder why they came up with the phrase “vapor pressure,” doesn’t it? I suggest you look up the word tautology.
seaice:
– usually 1 atm. Anyway, I won’t post anything else on this post,
James McGinn:
I think this is a good decision.
seaice:
but it does illustrate the difficulty of persuading with evidence.
James McGinn:
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
seaice November 6, 2015 at 5:22 am
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.
James McGinn:
It’s remarkable to me that anybody would present such an inane non-argument.
Why do the moderators allow this kind of blatantly political attack. Can you not see that by allowing this you are no better than Al Gore?
(Reply: This site allows science related comments from all points of view, within the posted guidelines. As noted, you originally raised this subject. Moderators will not disallow follow-up replies. -mod)
(Moderator decisions are final, subject only to Anthony Watts’ overruling. -mod)
McGinn,
You are demanding censorship… for asking questions??
Those questions are in direct response to your bragging that you are the President of your organization..Explain why questions need to be censored. Is it because the answers would show that your title of “President” is a bunch of self-serving, fabricated nonsense, like the rest of your commentary?
You’re new here. To bring you up to speed: this site doesn’t censor questions, as much as you would like it to.
dbstealey:
You are demanding censorship… for asking questions??
Those questions are in direct response to your bragging that you are the President of your organization..Explain why questions need to be censored. Is it because the answers would show that your title of “President” is a bunch of self-serving, fabricated nonsense, like the rest of your commentary?
You’re new here. To bring you up to speed: this site doesn’t censor questions, as much as you would like it to.
James McGinn:
Good point. I wouldn’t want that either, now that I think about it.
Also I’m especially grateful that they are allowing me to drop links (see below) in to the previous discussion so that any new readers can get a sense of the context that underlies all of this emotion.
Kindest Regards,
James McGinn
President, Solving Tornadoes
‘seaice’ gives real world examples, while McGinn as usual makes assertions, which amount to nothing more than his belief.
dbstealey November 6, 2015 at 8:53 am
‘seaice’ gives real world examples, while McGinn as usual makes assertions, which amount to nothing more than his belief.
James McGinn:
Unreal. The sheep are attacking! Run!
I suspected that J. McGinn might be trolling this site with his outlandish pronouncements (‘there is no water vapor in the atmosphere’, etc.).
But in reading his latest reply, I’m beginning to see there might be something seriously wrong with him. That, or he’s just incredibly immature.
This is the internet’s “Best Science” site. We love discussing science here. But McGinn’s responses have steadily devolved into a parody of juvenile, evidence-free rejoinders that add nothing to the topic. In response to some facts posted, McGinn’s response was:
Unreal. The sheep are attacking! Run!
Credibility results from a reasonable response. That was not reasonable.
dbstealey:
I suspected that J. McGinn might be trolling this site with his outlandish pronouncements (‘there is no water vapor in the atmosphere’, etc.).
James McGinn:
LOL. So, if it is so outlandish one can only wonder why you don’t just post the evidence that refutes it (as I have done with you over and over again) and be done with it. You can’t, so you start calling out all of the other sheep to come help scare away the mean dog.
dbstealey:
This is the internet’s “Best Science” site. We love discussing science here.
James McGinn:
Then show some integrity and stick to the science. Your constant whining is annoying–as is your hero worship of Feynman. Present substantive arguments or go find another hobby.
McGinn’s comment above is a classic example of ‘psychological projection’.
Evidence has been posted here repeatedly by other readers, but McGinn ignores it as if it didn’t exist. He has no choice; otherwise he would have to admit that he’s been debunked.
Next, McGinn says:
… show some integrity and stick to the science. Your constant whining is annoying… & etc.
McGinn has zero integrity. But he can prove me wrong by simply answering my series of short questions explaining how he became “President”.
Instead, he whines annoyingly to moderators to save him, by censoring any comments that ask questions about what he’s been bragging about!
Time to ‘fess up, McGinn: the fact is that you fabricated your “President” title. There was never any election, was there? Or any nominations, or vote count, or other candidates, etc. It’s just a lame example of the ‘Appeal to Authority’ logical fallacy: you’re trying to make yourself into an ‘authority’. But everyone here knows it’s bogus. (Prove me wrong. You know how to do that: just answer my questions in a verifiable way, without blubbering to site moderators to rescue you from something that you instigated).
dbstealey:
Time to ‘fess up, McGinn: the fact is that you fabricated your “President” title. There was never any election, or nominations, or vote count, or other candidates, etc. It’s just a lame example of the ‘Appeal to Authority’ logical fallacy: you’re trying to make yourself an authority. But everyone here knows it’s bogus. (Prove me wrong. You know how to do that: just answer my questions in a verifiable way, without blubbering to site moderators to rescue you from something that you instigated).
James McGinn:
Heh heh. Well, I think our readers will correctly surmise that your eagerness to attack me politically stems from your failure to successfully attack me scientifically. (Remember, the people that read this have seen these same tactics repeatedly from AGW advocates.)
For that I have the deepest gratitude to the moderators for allowing me to participate.
Kindest Regards,
James McGinn
President, Solving Tornadoes
Ummm-mm, raising the subject of being made ‘President’ is inherently a political subject.
You really don’t have any mirrors in your apartment, do you?
And whatever ‘readers surmise’, I haven’t seen a single one agree with you yet (cue: “But, but… consensus!”)
And:
Heh heh. Well, I think our readers will correctly surmise…
…that you still haven’t answered the question.
dbstealey November 6, 2015 at 11:18 am
Ummm-mm, raising the subject of being made ‘President’ is inherently a political subject.
You really don’t have any mirrors in your apartment, do you?
And whatever ‘readers surmise’, I haven’t seen a single one agree with you yet (cue: “But, but… consensus!)
James McGinn:
Right. (Now you are catching on.) An appeal to consensus is, essentially, to wave the white flag scientifically. (Remember Feynman’s words?) Yet you keep doing it.
Hmm. I wonder why?
So you still can’t understand the difference between a consensus and an actual authority? I’ve explained it a couple of times now, but for the slow learners here: a consensus is not much different from an opinion. It’s a group opinion that carries little weight in science.
But there are true authorities, and when they are cited it is not a logical fallacy. For example, Richard Feynman was an authority in physics. In fact, he won the Nobel Prize. So if there is a contradiction from you about something that Feyman said regarding physics, the vast majority would agree with Feynman and reject you view. You would only have support from a halfvasst minority, if that.
And I notice that you did disagree with Feynman. There goes whatever credibility you might have had.
Finally, you keep avoiding answering the question:
Time to ‘fess up, McGinn: the fact is that you fabricated your “President” title. There was never any real nominations and election, was there?
Silence, as they say, is concurrance. ☺
dbstealey:
So you still can’t understand the difference between a consensus and an actual authority? I’ve explained it a couple of times now, but for the slow learners here: a consensus is not much different from an opinion. It’s a group opinion that carries little weight in science.
But there are true authorities, and when they are cited it is not a logical fallacy.
James McGinn:
If I was to say that Einstein agreed with me on tornadoes when Einstein never even addressed the subject that would be an invalid argument. Do you agree? And so, when you and Micro6500 claim that Feynman made definitive statements about H2O evaporation and that he did so with explicit reference H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding (as was claimed by Micro6500 and you did not dispute) and especially when Feynman bent over backwards making disclaimers so that nobody would come to the conclusion (as did yourself and Micro6500) that his statements were definitive and when he never stated anything about H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding that too is an invalid argument. Do you agree?
dbstealey:
For example, Richard Feynman was an authority in physics. In fact, he won the Nobel Prize.
James McGinn:
That doesn’t mean you can pretend he addressed issues he didn’t. There is no excuse for putting words in his mouth and thoughts in his head.
dbstealey:
So if there is a contradiction from you about something that Feyman said regarding physics, the vast majority would agree with Feynman and reject you view.
James McGinn:
Yes, I know. It’s a common tactics. Pretend some dead scientist said something he didn’t and declare victory. You should be ashamed.
dbstealey:
And I notice that you did disagree with Feynman. There goes whatever credibility you might have had.
James McGinn:
LOL. I didn’t. But, for purposes of argument, let’s suppose I did. Why would that matter. He was not a God. Are you sheep so brain dead you can’t think for yourselves?
Pseudoscience never surrenders. It has no heart. It has no soul. It’s like a drug addiction, everything is sacrificed for the need to maintain sacred belief.
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.
Phil. November 6, 2015 at 6:40 am
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.
Phil.
The phase diagrams which I posted do not support your view, unfortunately you don’t understand the phase diagram.
James McGinn:
You don’t have an argument. You are like a global warming advocate telling me I don’t understand the greenhouse effect.
Phil:
You appear to think that the phase diagram refers to the atmosphere, it does not it refers to water alone,
James McGinn:
Surreal. You seem to think you have some deep understanding IT’S JUST A SIMPLE PHASE DIAGRAM.
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.
dbstealey:
Phase diagrams are the summary of a vast number of empirical measurements, so I did provide empirical support.
James McGinn:
I have no dispute with the diagram. Pay attention.
James McGinn:
(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.])
Phil:
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!
James McGinn:
LOL. That’s like telling me I should accept CO2 Forcing because if not greenhouses wouldn’t work. Get a clue.
You don’t have an argument. You have an irrational attachment to what you’ve always believed. People like you can never make discoveries. You are stuck in the present.
Phil:
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!
James McGinn:
Were you correct we would have engines that run on the power of evaporation.
dbstealey November 4, 2015 at 9:51 am
J. McGinn,
So tell us, then: who elected you President?
When were nominations announced?
Who were the candidates?
When was the election held?
What was the total vote count?
Was it a tough election fight?
Just wondering… ☺
James McGinn:
Why would you present such an obviously political attack?
Why would the moderator tolerate this?
Can you all not see that you are no different than Al Gore?
Or, maybe, you think that is a good thing?
Attack??
McGinn, YOU bragged about being President. You brought it up in the first place. I’m just asking for a few related details.
You respond by crying for a moderator to save you from those questions. Why not just answer them instead?
I’m sorry. I was under the impression this was an ethical website, focused on scientific issues. Silly me. Why don’t you just attack me on Facebook where lack of substance is expected?
James McGinn:
You ask;
“Why don’t you just attack me on Facebook where lack of substance is expected?”
Nobody is attacking you. People are asking you for the substance of your claim that you are the President of an organisation with the strange name of Solving Tornadoes.
Who elected you as President and when?
Richard
McGinn, this is a very ethical website, and you are the one who is focused on pseudo-science, not the rest of us.
And people like you are the reason I’ve never been on Facebook. You are not the typical commmenter here; far from it.
Once again: you started bragging about being President of your organization. I merely asked for the details. If there’s any ‘lack of substance’, it is your refusal to provide any of those details.
So, once again:
Who elected you President?
When were nominations announced?
Who were the candidates?
When was the election held?
What was the total vote count?
Was it a tough election fight?
Crying for a moderator to save you from questions fits right in with your persona. Instead of whining, why not just man up and answer them? It would only take a minute or two.
richardscourtney November 6, 2015 at 9:22 am
James McGinn:
If it is any consolation, you have my deepest sympathy for whatever emotional trauma is causes you that results from my reluctance to address the issues you raise.
Kindest Regards,
James McGinn
President, Solving Tornadoes
James McGinn
President, Solving Tornadoes
President? You’re the PRESIDENT??
Wow, that is very impressive!
Tell me, was that a tough election battle?
Who were your opponents? Did you win by a landslide, or was it a close call?
I missed the nomination notice, or I might have considered running myself. Where was the notice posted?
And very important: what are the qualifications to be a candidate? I want to know if I would qualify.
Were other positions posted, like Vice President, Treasurer, Board of Directors, etc? If you won in a run-off, maybe I could be one of those.
Who is qualified to vote? Do they have to be a citizen? A landowner?
Please post answers to these important questions. There can be no secrets in a democracy.
☺ ☺ ☺
dbstealey November 6, 2015 at 9:39 am
James McGinn
President, Solving Tornadoes
President? You’re the PRESIDENT??
(snip)
Please post answers to these important questions. There can be no secrets in a democracy.
☺ ☺ ☺
James McGinn:
You lost the argument. The moderator tried to help you save face by closing down that thread.* But it was too late. Appeals to consensus, appeals to authority, over and over, on and on. You repeatedly made claims that there were “millions” experiments. Yet you failed to find direct evidence of even one. These are the kind of arguments we associate with Bigfoot advocates, UFO advocates, Global warming advocates. It didn’t matter how many times I told you that appeals to consensus were invalid, you kept calling out to the other sheep. Yourself and Micro6500 even went so far as to start putting words in Feynman’s mouth.
Pseudoscience never surrenders. It has no heart. It has no soul. It’s like a drug addiction, everything is sacrificed for the need to maintain sacred belief.
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.
(Reply: *please don’t speak for the moderators here. That is not why comments were closed. ~mod.)
(Snipped. Discussion of moderator decisions is off topic. -mod)
Whatever. The discussion has pretty much run its course anyway. (Believers never stop believing.)
If there are any new readers that want to get a better understanding what all of the (unnecessary) excitement is about, I suggest following the link below and scrolling to the end of the comments.
I think when you see what has transpired there you will have some context to better understand the, uh, excitement here.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/22/missing-component-found-in-the-evaporation-process-making-water-vapors-role-even-more-uncertain-in-climate-models/
Kindest Regards,
James McGinn
President, Solving Tornadoes
Kitchen’s gettin’ hot!
Adios, el Presidente. ☺
Kitchen: no food.
James McGinn:
You saying, “The discussion has pretty much run its course anyway” implies you are leaving.
But you have still not told us who elected you President of Solving Tornadoes and when. The discussion cannot “run its course” until you correct this omission.
Richard
James McGinn:
The unfounded attack on dbstealey you posted at November 6, 2015 at 12:34 pm again fails to say who elected you President of the organisation named Solving Tornadoes and when you were elected.
Please correct the failure which you have repeatedly been asked to correct.
Richard
dbstealey November 6, 2015 at 9:39 am
James McGinn
President, Solving Tornadoes
President? You’re the PRESIDENT??
(snip)
Please post answers to these important questions. There can be no secrets in a democracy.
☺ ☺ ☺
James McGinn:
You lost the argument. The moder ator tried to help you save face by closing down that thread. But it was too late. Appeals to consensus, appeals to authority, over and over, on and on. You repeatedly made claims that there were “millions” experiments. Yet you failed to find direct evidence of even one. These are the kind of arguments we associate with Bigfoot advocates, UFO advocates, Global warming advocates. It didn’t matter how many times I told you that appeals to consensus were invalid, you kept calling out to the other sheep. Yourself and Micro6500 even went so far as to start putting words in Feynman’s mouth.
Pseudoscience never surrenders. It has no heart. It has no soul. It’s like a drug addiction, everything is sacrificed for the need to maintain sacred belief.
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.
James McGinn:
My objection to your unfounded attack on dbstealey has appeared in the wrong place. I copy it to here to avoid you needing to find it.
The unfounded attack on dbstealey you posted at November 6, 2015 at 12:34 pm again fails to say who elected you President of the organisation named Solving Tornadoes and when you were elected.
Please correct the failure which you have repeatedly been asked to correct.
Richard
McGinn sez:
You lost the argument.
Who elected you to be the arbiter of who won, and who lost?
The same voters who elected you President? ☺
You say:
You repeatedly made claims that there were “millions” experiments. Yet you failed to find direct evidence of even one.
So, if I post an experiment that was published in a peer reviewed journal demonstrating direct evidence of gaseous H2O in the atmosphere, will you concede the argument?
Or can nothing at all ever convince you you’re wrong?
(BTW, where did I ever “put words in Feynman’s mouth”? Or is that more of your projecting?)
James McGinn:
You lost the argument.
dbstealey:
Who elected you to be the arbiter of who won, and who lost?
James McGinn:
Feynman did a good job of describing the arbiter that I recognize.
James McGinn:
You repeatedly made claims that there were “millions” experiments. Yet you failed to find direct evidence of even one.
dbstealey:
So, if I post an experiment that was published in a peer reviewed journal demonstrating direct evidence of gaseous H2O in the atmosphere, will you concede the argument?
James McGinn:
At ambient temperatures? (No Volcanos or geyser?) Sure. But you won’t have anything definitive: if an experiment had been done that directly addressed this issue and properly controlled for all other factors I would have found it by now, so don’t get your hopes up. Nevertheless, the answer to your question is affirmative. Yes. Absolutely!
But I would not suggest posting any of the mass spectography stuff. Some of that is worse than voodoo when applied to H2O. If that is where you are going might I suggest you take a look at the following and read the comments also. You will recognize at least one of the posters there:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/07/17/unsettled-science-uncertainty-around-the-continuum-absorption-of-water-vapour/
(BTW, Peer review is consensus. [remember, AGW is based on peer-review] I am only concerned that they experiment be reproducible. I honestly don’t trust much of anything that is associated with consensus sciences like meteorology and climatology)
dbstealey:
Or can nothing at all ever convince you you’re wrong?
James McGinn:
When you fail will you concede and make a retraction of your claim that “millions” of experiments have been performed? Or can nothing ever get you to retract that claim? (Answer my question and I’ll answer yours.)
dbstealey:
BTW, where did I ever “put words in Feynman’s mouth”? Or is that more of your projecting?
James McGinn:
Did you protest or object when Micro6500 claimed that Feynman understood H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding? (Answer my question and I’ll answer yours.)
Here is a link to that conversation. It’s kinds towards the end of the thread:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/22/missing-component-found-in-the-evaporation-process-making-water-vapors-role-even-more-uncertain-in-climate-models/
James McGinn
President, Solving Tornadoes
I am currently accepting donations for my re-election campaign.
(Al, call me. I can help you save face. We got them on this one.)
J. McGinn,
Whenever someone takes a measurement and uses it to predict an expected outcome and that outcome occurs, that’s an experiment. It’s been done millions of times since mass spectroscopes and related instruments came on the scene. And how would you suggest doing an experiment without using instruments? They are necessary to take measurements. So you snuck that in, hoping I wouldn’t notice that experiments like those cannot be done without instruments.
I knew you would throw something in that lets you off the hook. By saying you can’t accept those measurements, the bubble you’re living in can’t be popped. You’re safe, at least in your own mind. You still get to believe that H2O cannot exist in the atmosphere as a gas even though that’s complete nonsense, and even though you couldn’t find a single physicist or chemist, as in my challenge to you, who would agree with you. Instruments measure water in its various states, including as a gas. By arbitrarily rejecting them beforehand, you’re safe. Wrong, but safe.
Next, I read about the last 50 of the comments in your WUWT link, and I never “put words in Feynman’s mouth”, as you falsely claimed. I am responsible for my own words, no one else’s. I neither agreed with, nor objected to MiCro’s comment. So either show me where I put words into Feynman’s mouth, or you’ve made a false and misleading claim.
Whether or not I agreed to, or objected to something someone else wrote is a pure BS argument that wouldn’t stand up anywhere. YOU made the specific accusation that I had “put words in” Feynman’s mouth. You lied, but that doesn’t surprise me. Bearing false witness isn’t trivial. It’s a major ethical failure, which goes hand in glove with your pretend self-promotion as a “President”. It’s easy to win an election when there’s no other candidate and no nominations, eh? Making a joke about it at this point is just a lame attempt to cover up what you were trying to do — before we held your feet to the fire and forced you into joking about it.
In fact, it was you who tried to contradict Prof Feynman. As usual, you tried to cover that up by projecting that fault of yours onto me. I never contradicted him or put words into his mouth, and in stating that I did, you are lying.
Next, I read most of Tallbloke’s reader comments. I’m really surprised you linked to that, because you were soundly thrashed there just like you have been here. Konrad the engineer owned you throughout that thread:
You have made a critical mistake. Sceptics are not sceptical of empirically verifiable claims. They are sceptical of BS (blackboard scribbling)… This stuff about saturated air not being lighter than dry air is in complete defiance of empirical evidence…
I’ve tried to explain this to you myself, but your mind is made up and closed tight. You actually believe that lighter air is less bouyant than heavier air. You are forced into that preposterous claim because of your assertion that water cannot exist in the air as a gas.
Konrad said:
Your claims are trash. Instantly disproved by the simplest empirical experiment…
…just like you’ve been repeatedly told here.
(Konrad then posted an experiment he did. He used to post here quite a bit, and one of his hallmarks was the many empirical experiments he personally conducted, and posted here with photographs showing his experimental setup and the results.) Konrad added:
…nothing you can say or do can ever excuse your coming on to this forum and making your claims without empirical results from such an experiment.
As usual, your opinions are contradicted by the real world. There’s plenty more in that thread putting you in your place, but it rolls off you like water off a duck. Your mind is made up and closed, so there’s no reasoning with you. And just like here, your constant name-calling and insults aimed at anyone disagreeing with you takes the place of rational debate.
dbstealey:
So, if I post an experiment that was published in a peer reviewed journal demonstrating direct evidence of gaseous H2O in the atmosphere, will you concede the argument?
James McGinn:
Sure. Knock yourself out. But make sure it controls for all other factors and make sure they are specifically testing for that. Don’t be fooled by that mass spectrometer stuffs. Some of that is worse that voodoo when applied to the H2O molecule.
The simplest experiment would directly measure the weight of moist to dry air. It easy to control the variables and its very simple. And doesn’t require actually looking at the molecules, which is very difficult, maybe impossible (Heisenberg).
When you fail will you retract your claim about “millions” of experiments?
Also, before you post, if you experiment does involve spectrography I suggest you go to Roger Tall Bloke’s site (it’s a bunch of kooky engineers) and look for an article entitled: Unsettled science: Uncertainty around the continuum absorption of water vapour. Read all the comments.
James McGinn
President, Solving Tornadoes
I am currently accepting donations for my re-election campaign. (Al, call me.)
James McGinn:
You have yet again forgotten to say when you were elected and who elected you President of the strangely named Solving Tornadoes.
So, can we assume your request for donations towards your next election campaign is an attempted fr@ud?
Richard
dbstealey:
Whenever someone takes a measurement and uses it to predict an expected outcome and that outcome occurs, that’s an experiment. It’s been done millions of times since mass spectroscopes and related instruments came on the scene.
James McGinn:
Sorry, but, your just nutz. As I stated above:
I would not suggest posting any of the mass spectography stuff. Some of that is worse than voodoo when applied to H2O. If that is where you are going might I suggest you take a look at the following and read the comments also. You will recognize at least one of the posters there:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/07/17/unsettled-science-uncertainty-around-the-continuum-absorption-of-water-vapour/
dbstealey:
And how would you suggest doing an experiment without using instruments? They are necessary to take measurements. So you snuck that in, hoping I wouldn’t notice that experiments like those cannot be done without instruments.
James McGinn:
How would you even calibrate an instrument for such, you birdbrain? That in itself would be a monumental achievement. Did you read the article?
dbstealey:
I knew you would throw something in that lets you off the hook. By saying you can’t accept those measurements, the bubble you’re living in can’t be popped. You’re safe, at least in your own mind. You still get to believe that H2O cannot exist in the atmosphere as a gas even though that’s complete nonsense, and even though you couldn’t find a single physicist or chemist, as in my challenge to you, who would agree with you. Instruments measure water in its various states, including as a gas. By arbitrarily rejecting them beforehand, you’re safe. Wrong, but safe.
James McGinn:
Why bother to get emotional about this? I explained how the experiment could be done easily, cheaply, and unambiguously. Obviously if they had wanted to do the experiment they would have done it a long time ago. It’s comical how emotional you get to defend these nitwits, yet when it comes to climatology you sing a different tune. Why the double standard? Honestly, I don’t get it.
dbstealey:
Next, I read about the last 50 of the comments in your WUWT link, and I never “put words in Feynman’s mouth”, as you falsely claimed. I am responsible for my own words, no one else’s. I neither agreed with, nor objected to MiCro’s comment. So either show me where I put words into Feynman’s mouth, or you’ve made a false and misleading claim.
James McGinn:
Who cares? Why get emotional about this? Why are you defending people that refuse to do these tests and who refuse to talk to you or anybody about any of this? Do you condone that? Surely you wouldn’t condone that for climatologists. Right? Why the double standard? Honestly, I don’t get it.
dbstealey:
You have made a critical mistake. Sceptics are not sceptical of empirically verifiable claims. They are sceptical of BS (blackboard scribbling)… This stuff about saturated air not being lighter than dry air is in complete defiance of empirical evidence…
I’ve tried to explain this to you myself, . . .
James McGinn:
In science when people are in dispute about a fact they do an experiment, right? Except that appears to not be the case for climatology and meteorology. Right?
dbstealey:
but your mind is made up and closed tight. You actually believe that lighter air is less bouyant than heavier air. You are forced into that preposterous claim because of your assertion that water cannot exist in the air as a gas.
James McGinn:
I’ve asked meterologists if they were interested in doing a simple experiment to settle it once and for all and you know what happened? Like you they got all emotional and refuse to talk to me anymore.
Why do you think that is?
ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZ…
dbstealey:
Whenever someone takes a measurement and uses it to predict an expected outcome and that outcome occurs, that’s an experiment. It’s been done millions of times since mass spectroscopes and related instruments came on the scene.
James McGinn:
Did you read that article? It wan’t even clear how you would calibrate the instrument for such.
dbstealey:
And how would you suggest doing an experiment without using instruments?
James McGinn:
I described a simple, cheap, and unambiguous experiment above. It would directly measure weight and therefore would not have the problems that mass spectronomy has with the tiny H2O molecule.
dbstealey:
I knew you would throw something in that lets you off the hook. By saying you can’t accept those measurements, the bubble you’re living in can’t be popped.
James McGinn:
Why are you so emotional defending people that refuse to do an experiment? And why the double standard? You wouldn’t let a climatologist get away with this. Yet, for some strange reason, when it comes to meteorology you get all emotional. Why is that? I don’t get it.
dbstealey:
As usual, your opinions are contradicted by the real world.
James McGinn:
It would appear that this has not yet been determined. And it would appear that the people who should be most concerned about determining it refuse to do the experiment and they refuse to talk about it.
Why do you think that is?
Shall we consider your claims retracted?
ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZ…
You’re out of step with reality. And thread-bombing as usual.
Anthony Watts and Mods:
Please decide if it is appropriate to continue allowing James McGinn to post on WUWT when it seems McGinn has attempted to use WUWT in (part of ?) an internet fraud.
He here claimed he is seeking funds for an election campaign for the Presidency of an organisation with the strange name of Solving Tornadoes and he specifically called for someone named “Al” to take note of his appeal for funds where he wrote.
I strongly doubt there is any organisation for which he is seeking re-election as President and I am certain that his request for funds on WUWT could be misrepresented as being support for his fund raising being provided by WUWT and in particular by Anth0ny W@tts.
If McGinn can do this others could, too.
Richard
richardscourtney November 6, 2015 at 3:08 pm
James McGinn:
You have yet again forgotten to say when you were elected and who elected you President of the strangely named Solving Tornadoes.
So, can we assume your request for donations towards your next election campaign is an attempted fr@ud?
James McGinn:
You have helped me come up with a name for my next book. I will call it: When Sheep Attack. (Or something like that.)
James McGinn:
So, internet fr@udster, you claim to have written a book.
I assume it does not mention when you were elected and who elected you President of the strangely named Solving Tornadoes because you have persistently failed to answer that here. Indeed, you have attempted your internet fr@ud here to deflect attention from that failure.
I yet again ask you, who elected you President of the strangely named Solving Tornadoes and when?
Richard
dbstealey:
Next: what if the heads of M.I.T.’s, and Harvard’s, and Stanford’s, and Berkeley’s Physics and Chemistry departments all told you unequivocally that gaseous H2O (steam) is a component of the atmosphere?
James McGinn:
Sure. I would accept this. I will make it easier on you. You only have to get one of the above and I will accept that. Or you could even get any recognized meteorologists, including Anthony Watts. I will accept that. But they have to be willing to stake their reputation on it. Fair enough?
When you are unable to get any of them to address the issue (and let me assure you, they won’t) will you make a retraction of your claim that there have been millions of experiments that confirm the existence of gaseous H2O (steam) is a component of the atmosphere?
Is that not reasonable?
Well, Mr. dbstealey. You have done it now. You have challenged the professionals to take a stand. They won’t. The, “we have a consensus so we don’t debate,” policy is NOT specific to climatology. In fact it didn’t start with climatology, it started with meteorology a long, long time ago.
What say you now?
dbstealey:
Next: what if the heads of M.I.T.’s, and Harvard’s, and Stanford’s, and Berkeley’s Physics and Chemistry departments all told you unequivocally that gaseous H2O (steam) is a component of the atmosphere?
James McGinn:
Sure. I would accept this. I will make it easier on you. You only have to get one of the above and I will accept that. Or you could even get any recognized meteorologists, including Anthony Watts. I will accept that. But they have to be willing to stake their reputation on it. Fair enough?
When you are unable to get any of them to address the issue (and let me assure you, they won’t) will you make a retraction of your claim that there have been millions of experiments that confirm the existence of gaseous H2O (steam) is a component of the atmosphere?
Is that not reasonable?
James McGinn
Word to the wise:
Dew.
‘Nuff said.
Have you really never camped in a tent and experienced condensation on the ceiling and walls?
How long have you been on this planet?
Gloateus Maximus November 6, 2015 at 6:05 pm
Word to the wise:
Read the thread before you try to be provocative.
Not being provocative.
Please just state your position. What is it?
Do you say that water vapor doesn’t exist in the air, that steam doesn’t exist in the air, or what?
GM,
That’s exactly what he’s claiming. Can you believe it?
dbstealey November 6, 2015 at 7:25 pm
GM,
That’s exactly what he’s claiming. Can you believe it?
James McGinn:
I guess I should be flattered that you are putting words in my mouth just as you did Feyman’s.
You’re wrong, McGinn… as usual:
GM asked you:
Do you say that water vapor doesn’t exist in the air, that steam doesn’t exist in the air, or what?
I replied correctly:
That’s exactly what he’s claiming.
Here is one of your previous comments, cut and pasted verbatim (including all caps):
“THERE IS NO STEAM (GASEOUS H2O) IN EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE.”
In dealing with you I have never been wrong. You have been arguing that pseudo-science for three weeks now. It is no more correct now than when you started.
dbstealey November 6, 2015 at 8:56 pm
You’re wrong, McGinn… as usual:
GM asked you:
Do you say that water vapor doesn’t exist in the air, that steam doesn’t exist in the air, or what?
I replied correctly:
That’s exactly what he’s claiming.
Here is one of your previous comments, cut and pasted verbatim (including all caps):
THERE IS NO STEAM (GASEOUS H2O) IN EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE.
In dealing with you I have never been wrong. You have been arguing that pseudo-science for three weeks now. It is no more correct now than when you started.
James McGinn:
It would appear then that your claim about exactness was, shall we say, mistaken. Right? Is that also what happened with your misattribution of Feynman?
Why do you think it is you are having so much trouble being honest and clear on what seems like such a simple subject?
BTW, you won’t get a meteorologists to talk to you about any of this. Consensus scientists don’t talk to anybody that is not in the consensus, especially not about things they never measured/tested.
McGinn says:
It would appear then that your claim about exactness was, shall we say, mistaken. Right?
Wrong. I’ve shown conclusively, using your own cut and pasted words, that you were bearing false witness (AKA: lying).
And deflecting to meteorology doesn’t make you right. It’s just tap-dancing.
So you’re still fixated on meteorologists, you’re still deflecting, and I proved — using your own cut and pasted words, verbatim — that you lied. You really don’t have any better moral compass than Hillary Clinton, do you?
After I cut and pasted McGinn’s own words, he replied:
It would appear then that your claim about exactness was, shall we say, mistaken.
WTF?? I quoted your own words, verbatim. How can that not be exact??
I’m dealing with an anti-science Jehovah’s Witness here. Even quoting McGinn’s words, he argues about it!
(To be clear, as I’ve said before: It’s not that I like constantly reining in the argument, back to basic physics. I resopnd only to keep any new readers from seeing McGinn’s misinformation, without seeing the other side of the debate. Even though about 97% of all readers here know there’s H2O(g) in the air, I don’t want the occasional neophyte to be misled by McGinn’s pseudo-science.)
McGinn says:
It would appear then that your claim about exactness was, shall we say, mistaken. Right?
dbstealey:
Wrong.
James McGinn:
Why the desperation? Why lie? It’s right there in black and white. Seriously, why get so emotional? Why are you helping meteorologists conceal the fact that they refuse to do an experiment?
More projection from a proven prevaricator.
Cutting and pasting what I correctly wrote about you is a pretty lame tactic. But after being conclusively proved to be a liar, you don’t have anything else but desperate tactics like that.
Anyone reading your failure to corroborate your false claim (that I put words in Feynman’s mouth) can see that you’re lying. The internet never forgets, and it’s right here upthread.
(Deleted. You were warned about your name-calling. -mod)
dbstealey November 7, 2015 at 2:53 am
More projection from a proven prevaricator.
Good science involves prevarication. Bad science involve consensus.
As you’ve demonstrated vividly.
Gloateus Maximus November 6, 2015 at 6:55 pm
Not being provocative.
Please just state your position. What is it?
James McGinn:
Please tell me you are joking.
This is the joke:
“THERE IS NO STEAM (GASEOUS H2O) IN EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE.”
That is indeed a joke.
Steam is hot water vapor. It generally cools when released into the air.
Earth’s air has a lot of water vapor at various temperatures, but of course where the air is coldest, it contains the least. In the warm, moist tropics, there are over 400 water vapor molecules per 10,000 dry air molecules. In the cold, dry polar deserts, the concentration of water vapor drops down to single digits, ie on a par with the four CO2 molecules per 10,000 dry air molecules.
As Dr. Feynman would remind James, the experiment of measuring water vapor levels in the air at various places on the planet destroys his hypothesis.
Gloateus Maximus:
Earth’s air has a lot of water vapor at various temperatures
As Dr. Feynman would remind James, the experiment of measuring water vapor levels in the air at various places on the planet destroys his hypothesis.
James McGinn:
Feynman: “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
Gloateus, if you are unable to conceptualize a distinct difference between water vapor (evaporate) and steam (gaseous H2O) you’d do best to avoid this discussion. It will only leave you confused and discouraged, as is the case for the many others that failed in this respect.
James,
It appears to me that it is you who fails to understand the distinction between water vapor and steam. The latter is water vapor at a high enough temperature to change phase at one atmosphere, ie sea level air pressure. Water vapor from evaporation is no different from steam, except for temperature. Both are water molecules in the gaseous state.
At the moment I’m waiting for the water on my roof to evaporate so that I can seal my skylights. The water on my carport is evaporating before my eyes, ie going into the air molecule by molecule, thus becoming vaporous or gaseous instead of liquid. This phase change can be observed all around you, should you choose to look.
What part of this is hard for you to grasp?
Gloateus Maximus,
Correct, steam (water vapor) comprises about 1% – 4% of the atmosphere. Denying that well established fact is not science, it is merely a wrong assertion.
Gloateus Maximus:
Any rational person could figure out these distinctions for himself or herself, without even having to study chemistry of physics, simply by observation.
James McGinn:
Really?
Gloateus Maximus:
James exists in a pre-scientific world, when it was imagined that God Himself operated the storehouses of rain and snow above the firmament. The hydrological cycle is “settled science” because it is an observation, not an hypothesis, even if we don’t understand every detail, such as all the possible CCNs.
James McGinn:
It’s settled now.
Gloateus, it’s a wonder you modern geniuses don’t build an engine that runs off the power of evaporation. Why are you not doing that? You’ll make billions. You could even just contact motor companies and attempt to get them to license the idea. If nothing else I’m sure they will find your proposal very entertaining.
GM:
water vapor at a high enough temperature to change phase
Water vapor from evaporation is no different from steam, except for temperature.
Both are water molecules in the gaseous state.
James McGinn:
This makes no sense. Do that math. Use precise terminology. Get rigorous.
Your education is not my responsibility.
dbstealey November 7, 2015 at 11:09 am
Correct, steam (water vapor) comprises about 1% – 4% of the atmosphere. Denying that well established fact is not science, it is merely a wrong assertion.
James McGinn:
Vapor (evaporate) comprises about 1% – 4% of the atmosphere. Steam (gaseous H2O) is non-existent in the atmosphere. Denying these well established facts are not science, they are merely wrong assertions.
If this distinction is not clear for you by now you have no business in a scientific discussion.
To help you grasp the distinction between evaporation and boiling:
http://www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-evaporation-and-boiling/
In case you’re British rather than American, as suggested by your interest in tornadoes:
https://www.miniphysics.com/difference-between-boiling-and.html
GM,
I assume your comment was directed at McGinn. I agree wwith your link:
Evaporation occurs on the surface of liquid and it is a vaporization of liquid. It is a state of transition from liquid to gaseous state.
McGinn refuses to accept that water vapor exists in the atmosphere. No one else agrees with his weird belief.
Yes, sir, it was.
Regrets for not addressing James by name.
Any rational person could figure out these distinctions for himself or herself, without even having to study chemistry of physics, simply by observation.
James exists in a pre-scientific world, when it was imagined that God Himself operated the storehouses of rain and snow above the firmament. The hydrological cycle is “settled science” because it is an observation, not an hypothesis, even if we don’t understand every detail, such as all the possible CCNs.
Gloateus Maximus November 7, 2015 at 11:15 am
To help you grasp the distinction between evaporation and boiling:
I have no dispute with any of this. In fact, it confirms everything I’ve been saying.
dbstealey:
McGinn refuses to accept that water vapor exists in the atmosphere. No one else agrees with his weird belief.
James McGinn:
Once again, putting words in my mouth. I’ve never disputed that water vapor exists in the atmosphere. Never. I think this is about the tenth time I’ve told you this.
Are you feeling alright?
The list of things you need to retract just keeps getting longer.
dbstealey:
Evaporation (snip) is a state of transition from liquid to gaseous state.
JM:
Well, that is obvious nonsense. Evaporation involves electromagnetic forces that pull micro-droplets up into the air, suspending them. It does not involve the creation of steam. That requires much higher temperatures.
Why don’t you contact them and have them show you the empirical evidence that demonstrates this assertion. LOL.
DB,
IMO, steam is water vapor at a higher than normal temperature, but it’s just a semantic distinction. I guess water visibly evaporating off pavement in the sun could be considered steam, although to me steam is water vapor produced by boiling liquid water.
DB,
IMO, steam is water vapor at a higher than normal temperature, but it’s just a semantic distinction.
GM, do some research on how steam engine works.
James,
Clearly among the many scientific disciplines in which you’re ignorant are the laws of thermodynamics. The water evaporating off my roof is a low-energy operation. Are you familiar with Boyle’s law?
Please state whence you imagine that dew comes. You’ve been asked repeatedly.
Have you ever been in the moist tropics? Ever experienced mugginess? Are you of this planet?
That water vapor is in the air is a scientific fact, ie an observation. Sorry, but to believe otherwise is delusional.
Can you really be this ignorant, stupid or crazy? Or are you pulling our leg? Are you here to discredit this blog?
Gloateus Maximus:
Clearly among the many scientific disciplines in which you’re ignorant are the laws of thermodynamics.
James McGinn:
Oh brother. You can’t tell the difference between steam and evaporate and you expect to lecture me on thermodynamics. Surreal.
Gloateus Maximus:
The water evaporating off my roof is a low-energy operation.
James McGinn:
LOL. Do you think that is a thermodynamic argument?
Gloateus Maximus:
Are you familiar with Boyle’s law?
James McGinn:
Present an argument, make a point, or kindly go away.
You should find another hobby. Science involve intellectual skills that not everybody possesses.
Gloateus Maximus:
You ask James McGinn
I am astonished that it has taken anybody this long to see that possibility.
Richard
I think I’ve engaged somewhere between 20 and 30 people on the issue of relative weight of moist air to dry air. Each time it has become highly emotional. Each time they have become belligerent. Each time they assured me there is experimental evidence that supported their position. Each time they failed to provide this evidence or any evidence that such an experiment had taken place. Each time they were adamant about insisting that no such experiment should be done. Each time they were personally offended that I was attacking meteorologists. And each time none of them were the slightest bit concerned that meteorologists refuse to discuss any of this. Each time they promised they would provide the requisite evidence. Each time they failed to every provide it. Each time they accused me of being dishonest. And each time they got angry and refused to acknowledge that they were mistaken. Each and ever time they put the blame on me.
I think I see a pattern here.
Friends:
Any responses to James McGinn could be claimed to provide him with credibility.
Therefore, I suggest posts from James McGinn be ignored pending our host, Anth0ny Watts, considering my request that James McGinn be banned from WUWT for McGinn’s apparent attempt to use the credibilty of WUWT and its provider, Anth0ny Watts, in McGinn’s conduct of an internet fraud .
Richard
richardscourtney November 7, 2015 at 12:13 am
Friends:
Any responses to James McGinn . . . .
Richard,
You should get a dog, or something.
Kindest Regards,
James McGinn
I agree, Richard. He’s using WUWT to promote his weird pseudo-science. And he’s certainly been thread-bombing.
dbstealey November 7, 2015 at 2:57 am
I agree, Richard. He’s using WUWT to promote his weird pseudo-science. And he’s certainly been thread-bombing.
James McGinn:
The time has come for you to make some retractions, as we agreed. Get on with it.
richardscourtney:
Any responses to James McGinn could be claimed to provide him with credibility.
James McGinn:
That is the same reason global warming conferences don’t invite “deniers.” And that is why they discourage their adherents from engaging in debate with “deniers.”
I always thought it strangely ironic that the ones labeling their opponents deniers are the ones that are actually practicing it.
McGinn says:
The time has come for you to make some retractions, as we agreed.
We have never agreed about anything.
And:
I think I’ve engaged somewhere between 20 and 30 people on the issue of relative weight of moist air to dry air. Each time it has become highly emotional. Each time they have become belligerent.
Every one of those readers flatly disagrees with McGinn’s pseudo-science that water vapor does not exist in the air, that lighter air is less bouyant than heavier air, and that convection has nothing to do with weather. That’s just crazy talk.
The emo-person here is actually McGinn, whose primary trait is his incessant psychological projection. McGinn is the emotional one; constantly thread-bombing and calling people names — people whose only ‘fault’ is disagreeing with his weird beliefs.
He is angry that no one will buy into his anti-science, so he lashes out with insults and name-calling. And his thread-bombing (several comments for one of each other commenter) is getting tiresom. He posts here far more than anyone else.
McGinn would do better on a non-science blog. He is making zero headway here.
With lidar, water vapor can be measured in the air. The fact that H20 molecules can condense on CCNs to form cloud droplets of liquid water is also IMO irrefutable evidence that water vapor exists in the air. So are rain, snow and other forms of precipitation. Without the hydrological cycle, earth would be in a world of hurt.
Sorry, but to argue that water vapor doesn’t exist in the air is just plain crazy. You don’t need to be a scientist to experience it directly.
PS:
As to the largely semantic distinction between steam and vapor, the other Indo-European languages with which I’m familiar don’t generally make it. Their word for “steam” and “vapor” are the same, as in “steam engine”, for instance. The Spanish word for “steam” is “vapor”, and other Romance languages are similar. German “Dampf” and Russian “gar” mean both terms.
James McGinn:
The time has come for you to make some retractions, as we agreed.
dbstealey:
We have never agreed about anything. McGinn would do better on a non-science blog. He is making zero headway here.
James McGinn:
When it comes to storm theory, meteorology is a non-science. I’m trying to change that. It’s difficult because meteorology so perfectly appeals to the lowest common denominator.
You lost the argument. Make the retraction. As we agreed.
Gloateus Maximus:
Sorry, but to argue that water vapor doesn’t exist in the air is just plain crazy. You don’t need to be a scientist to experience it directly.
James McGinn:
Right. And I never said otherwise. Read the discussion, carefully, before you respond.
Gloateus Maximus
As to the largely semantic distinction between steam and vapor, the other Indo-European languages with which I’m familiar don’t generally make it.
James McGinn:
Even in the english language there is a lot of semantic ambiguity in regard to this notion. Unless and until you can make this distinction you will be continually confused, read the discussion and you’ll see.
(Deleted. You were warned about your name-calling. -mod)
When consensus fails the only altrnative is censorship.
dbstealey November 7, 2015 at 2:57 am
I agree, Richard. He’s using WUWT to promote his weird pseudo-science. And he’s certainly been thread-bombing.
James McGinn:
Actually, I’m not. I’m just a scientist who happened upon a notion that inhabits a severe blind spot in human consciousness. It seems that all human have this deep-seated need to believe that moist air (at ambient temperatures) contains steam. The source of the confusion is H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding. People want to believe that evaporation produces steam. The fact that it is physically impossible is something that humans have collectively managed to suppress. Meteorology has piggybacked on this misconception, building a paradigm that actually makes very little sense–thus the reason they won’t discuss it.
There is a reason why there is no empirical evdence for evaporation producing stream (gaseous H2O). And that reason is because it does not. I repeat, evaporation does not produce steam. It produces evaporate (vapor). It does not produce steam. Moreover our atmosphere is far too cool to support the existence of steam. It is an immutable physical law, steam cannot exist at temperatures below its boiling temperature/pressure. There are so situational factors that alter this immutable law. It doesn’t matter that it is suspended in air. It doesn’t matter that it appears invisible. It is physically impossible for moist air at ambient temperatures to be steam (gaseous H2O). It is small, microdroplets of liquid H2O. And it is all heavier, not lighter, than dry air.
DB Stealey, you lost the argument. (You never had a chance.) You believed something that isn’t true. Don’t waste time griping about it. The boiling temperature/pressure of H2O is immutable. You thought you saw evidence that indcated otherwise. What you saw was a bunch of people that also wanted to believe it so badly that they started thinking they found evidence otherwise. Hundreds of times people thought they saw the same thing. Hundreds of times it didn’t pan out. Stop whining. Don’t blame me. I didn’t create the situation. I just discovered it. In science what you believe is irrelevant. All that matters is what you can prove. Millions of people believe that evaporation produces steam. So what. The consensus is wrong on many things. The consensus once believed that earth is the center of the universe. By constantly and repeatedly calling out to the consensus to come save you from confronting the fact is confirmation that this notion is but an artifact of consensus mentality, it is not an empircally determined truth. You lost the argument. Deal with it.
Ultimately the source of the confusion is hydrogen bonding. (Something your hero, Feynman, knew nothing about.) 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/AtYiUUhTwA
Yourself, Phil, and Micro6500 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.])
Despite this failure you started a political campaign to gain support for what you repeatedly failed to demonstrate empirically, claiming, “The readers can make up their own minds.” Yet all of the evidence indicated otherwise: humans have an intellectual blind spot on this issue. Humans literally incapable of being honest on this issue. And you yourself are the evidence that confirms this. 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.
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.
Intellectually, people are followers. Once they believe something they don’t change their minds unless the whole consensus 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 followers. followers don’t think. They just follow.
Feynman:
“Now I’m going to discuss how we would look for a new law. In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.
If it disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
I echo Feynman: That is all there is to it.
James McGinn
President, Solving Tornadoes
Strong or extraordinary El Niño likelihood drops to 50pc
http://www.fis.com/fis/worldnews/worldnews.asp?l=e&id=80363&ndb=1
richardscourtney:
Any responses to James McGinn could be claimed to provide him with credibility.
James McGinn:
That is the same reason global warming conferences don’t invite “deniers.” And that is why they discourage their adherents from engaging in debate with “deniers.”
I always thought it strangely ironic that the ones labeling their opponents deniers are the ones that are actually practicing it.
James McGinn
President, Solving Tornadoes
I am accepting donations for my re-election campaign. (Al, call me.)