# How to get off the ground with nothing but water! (almost)

It seemed paradoxical to me the first time I worked it out , but it is a truth that wet air is less dense than dry air. Yes, if you wet air, it gets less heavy.  For anyone that has fallen in a pool of water or got drenched in the rain, we are used to wet things being much heavier, but honestly

WET AIR IS LIGHTER!

The reason is pretty obvious. Basic physics means that equal numbers of gas molecules occupy pretty much the same volume. So, the density can be calculated from atomic weight. As most of the air is Nitrogen, the average weight of which is (28) and then you have oxygen (32), CO2 (44), its pretty obvious that H2O is very much the lightweight at (18). When water gets taken into the air, it displaces heavier molecules (i.e. causes it to expand) with the result the air mass is less dense.
That is why clouds form … wet air rises!
But, another intriguing possibility came to mind. What about the “moist air balloon”. Not a hot air balloon where the air is made less dense by heating, but a balloon that rises because the air inside is saturated with water.
At 15C, air of a relative humidity of 50% has a density of 1.2051 KG/m3. If that air is kept at 15C and allowed to saturate with water vapour its density reduces to 1.2013 or 38g/m3.
So, how much air would lift say a 100kg person? 100/0.0038 = 26,000 m3 which is a balloon approximately 30meters across. I make this around 5000m2 of material which at around 60gram/m2 means the balloon material will weigh 300kg. Oops.
But, if we double the size, the air volume goes up by 8x, but the balloon material only goes up by 4x as it is the area of the outside. That means the lift is 800kg, but the weight it 1200kg. So, what if I double it again? The life it now 6400kg and the weight is 4800kg giving us 1600kg of lift.
So … now it’s what? 120m across!!! 120m tall, that’s something like 80,000 m2 of material costing at a rough guess £3million?? …but it would fly! (in theory … and bumble bees can’t!)
Of course the trick is that adding water to air causes it to cool down … or more precisely the liquid is cooled resulting in cold moisture entering the air cooling it down. But as there is no heat loss, in theory (if the balloon material can retain the water), the balloon could fly all day … until it rains and the air becomes 100% saturated! … but it’s more practical than time travel!

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

### 214 Responses to How to get off the ground with nothing but water! (almost)

1. futureboy says:

But with this air being 99.7% the weight of surrounding air is there any situation where helium would not be far better.

• I’m sure they said the same thing of the person who invented laughing gas!
If the theory of Manmade global warming can fly, I see absolutely no reason why the wet air balloon shouldn’t.

• Incidentally, do you know why voices sound squeeky in helium gas? I thought it was a higher speed of sound or something, then I wondered whether it’s a lighter air which can oscillate more – do the vocal cords oscillate faster or is it some kind of amplification of higher frequencies?

2. Chuckles says:

SS, Like the curate’s egg, good in parts…
Human speech s not generated solely by the vocal chords, but rather by the resonance in the vocal tract, pharynx, nasal cavity, soft palate, tongue, lips etc.
Helium density is less than that of air, so the speed of sound in He is higher. This causes a change of the resonant frequencies in your vocal tracts, and alters the timbre of your voice. The pitch/vibrational frequency of your vocal chords does not change.
Regarding the transport options, I think I’ll stick to hot air balloons…
🙂

• You do know I’m going to have to buy some helium balloons and try it again. My feeling the last time I did it was that it made talking in a squeaky voice easier – that to start with I had to try to put on the squeaky voice and so I assumed it was the vocal courts being assisted to operate at a higher pitch, rather than a fundamental change so that only a higher pitch could be produced. But that might have been an “onset” of helium.
Of course, it was hardly in laboratory conditions and after a few pints – and only enough helium for one or two breaths.

3. James McGinn says:

“It seemed paradoxical to me the first time I worked it out , but it is a truth that wet air is less dense than dry air.”
You have fallen for a very popular and well-supported urban/scientific myth. H2O is never monomolecular in Earth’s atmosphere. Thus the correct number to put in your equations is 18 x X, X being some number between 54 and 1000 or so. There is no such thing as cold steam. And Earth’s atmosphere is not hot enough to maintain it.
Moist air is heavier than dry air — ALWAYS!
In the 1840’s a quack named Walter James Espy introduced this notion as an explanation of the uplift witnessed in storms. Having no better explanation at the time, the world just went with it.
Ask a meteorologists to explain how it is possible for cold steam to exist. You will never get an answer. They will change the subject and avoid talking to you.
Water in the Atmosphere:

• Scottish-Sceptic says:

Hi thanks for your comments. At first I thought I might have made a massive mistake as H20 does do odd things and does tend to clump together. But when I checked: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/density-air-d_680.html I find “Note! As we can see from (6) increased moisture content reduces the density of the moist air – dry air is more dense than moist air.”.
Are we talking about the same thing? I’m discussing water vapour which is very distinct from the small water droplets in steam.
Also, if in your diagram X were 54 to 1000 it would behave a bit like an oil – so not only a liquid but one with a very low vapour pressure.

• James McGinn says:

It’s part of the cult of meteorology. It’s an urban/scientific myth. It’s nonsense. It doesn’t matter what some website says. It matters what happens under controlled laboratory conditions. Ask engineering toolbox to show you the reproducible experimental evidence that supports their assertion. They can’t and won’t.
There is no gaseous H2O(g) in Earth’s atmosphere. Our atmosphere is far too cool to maintain gaseous H2O(g). All of the moisture in Earth’s atmosphere is liquid H2O(l). Moist air is always heavier than dry air (controlling for all other factors). Request the proof. You won’t find it. Instead you’ll find a lot of game playing from meteorological simpletons. They will never give you a straight answer on this issue. Just like alarmists on CO2 forcing.
Water has been systematically misunderstood. You really can’t trust anybody on this. You have to work it out on your own. It’s worse than CO2. There is a lot of misinformation and false expertise.
I know the source of the confusion. It has to do with the fact that it has long been assumed that H2O polarity is a constant. It’s not a constant, it’s variable. I am the cutting edge on this subject. Read my paper that I linked above.
Lastly, Roger Tall Bloke made a pertinent comment today. Here is my response:
I should warn you, however, that if you really do want to get a better understanding of H2O it is going to take you a long time because this subject is thick with misinformation and academic incompetence. It is worse that global warming.
My diagram refers to molecular weight. I assumed the smallest droplet is a trimer (I won’t explain my reasoning). I think it more likely that the smallest droplet is 10. 10 x 18 = 180. Whatever the case, gaseous H2O is impossible in earth’s atmosphere. So it is always heavier than 18.

• Scottish-Sceptic says:

James, whilst it is not inconceivable that H2O forms complex molecules with a weight greater than a single molecule, there is no doubt there is gaseous H2O – otherwise my clothes on the line would not dry. Nor would we see the sublimation of ice. These both require gaseous H2O.
Moreover, if the “clumps” were as heavy as you suggest, then I don’t even need to look at the tables to know that the vapour pressure and hence rate of drying would be much much lower than it is.
However, I’m still prepared to consider the idea that water vapour is not just single molecules of H2O, but you would need to show some data. Until, then I can only rely on those like the Engineering toolbox – who whilst they could have made a mistake – I’m sure that there’s enough people out there who would have picked it up by now.

• James McGinn says:

Evaporation and sublimation involves liquid H2O not gaseous H2O. Your second paragraph is incomprehensible to me. Your education is not my responsibility. Consensus isn’t science. Cheers.

• James McGinn says:

James, whilst it is not inconceivable that H2O forms complex molecules with a weight greater than a single molecule, there is no doubt there is gaseous H2O – otherwise my clothes on the line would not dry.
Mike, if H2O left your clothes in clumps/droplets would your clothes not become dry? Why does the drying of your clothes require gaseous H2O to form at temperatures lower than has ever been detected in a laboratory?
Nor would we see the sublimation of ice. These both require gaseous H2O.
Why assume gaseous H2O to form at temperatures lower than has ever been detected in a laboratory?
Moreover, if the “clumps” were as heavy as you suggest, then I don’t even need to look at the tables to know that the vapour pressure and hence rate of drying would be much much lower than it is.
You know this how? Be specific.
However, I’m still prepared to consider the idea that water vapour is not just single molecules of H2O, but you would need to show some data.
What data would you find convincing? Do you not find steam tables convincing? Would you consider this convincing:
Until, then I can only rely on those like the Engineering toolbox – who whilst they could have made a mistake – I’m sure that there’s enough people out there who would have picked it up by now.
What if they all are assuming as you do, including Engineering Toolbox?
What if the only reason everybody believes this is because everybody believes it?

• RayC says:

.”……there is no doubt there is gaseous H2O – otherwise my clothes on the line would not dry.”
The moisture laden air in and around your clothes combines with aerosol and is carried away. Assuming you hang them out on a day when the air is carrying dry and hygroscopic / hydrophilic aerosol! It will continue until all the water vapour has been dispersed to aerosol as they pass and interact with the fabric of your clothes. It , the gaseous water vapour, just cannot help itself from condensing on their (aerosols) little flat surfaces (or liquid droplets also) because it is the easiest thing to do, aerosol are ubiquitous. They float away on the wind each carrying a few condensed molecules of water away from your clothes which , when the aerosols are energised by radiation, loose the liquid. It returns to invisible vapour. Isn’t that how your clothes dry?
Isn’t that what steam is? Water condensed on aerosols? So steam isn’t pure water. Steam is liquid water condensed onto an aerosol. Aerosols!!?

• Will Janoschka says:

Hi Mike,
Jimmy M., aka solvingtornadoes, aka Claudius Denk,
is again pedaling nonsense, and his book; much like Doug Cotton!
He is, however, correct about academic meteorologists!
—————————————
As atmospheric WV condenses, and loses most latent heat of evaporation, via EMR exitance to space, it becomes airborne atmospheric H2O water condensate, of shape unknown. The smallest visible 10^9 molecules of cloud H2O condensate, is a wee part of a cloud. Such still has tremendous hydrogen bond attraction to all nearby invisible low density airborne H2O WV molecules.
Please understand this is only my, from the toilet, drunken, fantasy! This is perhaps much more scien-terrific than the 97% meteorological academic religious fantasy about this atmosphere!!
All the best! -will-

• James McGinn says:

JM: Gee golly, Will Janoshka bumpin in here and completely ignoring the issue under discussion. Some things never change. So, Will, all meteorologists are wrong and you are right . . . uh . . . er, . . . about what? Do you still believe in cold steam?
WJ: As atmospheric WV condenses, and loses most latent heat of evaporation, . . .
JM: What are you talking about? What latent heat? How do you measure/detect it? Or does it exist only in your imagination? Seriously, what are you taking about. Be specific.
WJ: . . . via EMR exitance to space, it becomes airborne atmospheric H2O water condensate, of shape unknown.
JM: You mean a droplet/cluster of H2O molecules. Right?
WJ: The smallest visible 10^9 molecules of cloud H2O condensate, is a wee part of a cloud. Such still has tremendous hydrogen bond attraction to all nearby invisible low density airborne H2O WV molecules.
JM: What you are inferring here is that H2O polarity is cumulative. Simple observation and sober reasoning proves that is not the case. If it was the case then larger water droplets would incorporate smaller droplets the same way larger galaxies incorporate smaller galaxies. And all of the water would become too heavy and the electromagnetic forces between air molecules would not be strong enough to keep the droplet/cluster suspended, and all water would fall out of the sky. So, if what you are saying is correct there would be no moisture in the atmosphere.
Not only is H2O polarity not cumulative but hydrogen bonding neutralizes H2O polarity. This explains why/how heavier H2O droplets/clusters are able to stay small enough to remain suspended by the static electricity in the atmosphere.
So, in conclusion Will, let me ask, do you and your buddy Doug Cotton still believe in the magical ability of H2O to remain steam at temperatures well below those ever detected/measure in a laboratory?

• Will Janoschka says:

“So, in conclusion Will, let me ask, do you and your buddy Doug Cotton still believe in the magical ability of H2O to remain steam at temperatures well below those ever detected/measure in a laboratory??”
You [personal insult removed], refuse to define your word “steam”!
If you ever would so define, all would blow your ass from the water in a nanosecond! Monomolecular H2O gas, a trimer, by measurement always exists in this atmosphere down to pressures as low as 2 kPa and temperatures as low as 186 Kelvin. Latent heat of evaporation of liquid water at pressures from 20 kPa to 20 mPA and temperatures from 200 K to 2000K are most carefully measured. Such remains as the most often measured property of anything, by earthlings.

• James McGinn says:

WJ: “Monomolecular H2O gas, a trimer, . . .
JM: A “trimer’ is three H2O molecules. Gas is one
WJ: . . . by measurement always exists in this atmosphere . . . ”
JM: Evidence?
WJ; Latent heat of evaporation of liquid water at pressures from 20 kPa to 20 mPA and temperatures from 200 K to 2000K are most carefully measured.
JM: Relevance?

• James McGinn says:

FYI, the term “latent heat” is inapplicable here. Liquid water (evaporate) does have a high heat capacity. And when it gets pulled up into the upper at atmosphere it does bring heat with it. But it isn’t “latent” heat. It’s just heat. There is no phase transition from gaseous H2O to liquid H2O happening in the atmosphere. And even if there was that would not be latent heat either. Latent heat has to do with chemical reactions, not phase transitions.

• James McGinn says:

I made a mistake here. I meant to say X is always 3 or higher (3 x 18 = 54).

4. James McGinn says:

“Basic physics means that equal numbers of gas molecules occupy pretty much the same volume. So, the density can be calculated from atomic weight.”
Well, it’s Avogadro’s law. And it works for normal gases. H2O is not a normal gas at ambient temps.
You can still employ Avogadro’s law for H2O but you have to go by particle/cluster weight, not molecular weight. And that is highly variable but always greater than 18 for H2O at ambient temps.

• Scottish-Sceptic says:

I’m not saying you are wrong – but where’s the data?

• James McGinn says:

Steam tables.

• Scottish-Sceptic says:

James, please don’t insult me by suggesting I uphold “consensus” as I’m very ready to accept new ideas.
However, you will need to supply a link to something with actual data and not just a vague “go find something under a nominal heading which might mean anything” type come back.

• James McGinn says:

No insult intended. It’s perfectly normal to believe something when there isn’t a plausible alternative. It’s also perfectly unscientific.
I am developing a plausible alternative to the meteorology’s convection model of storm theory. My model pivots off the realization that H2O polarity is variable and hydrogen bonding is the mechanism that neutralizes H2O polarity. My model has no need to play hide and seek with the truth about H2O in the atmosphere.
The realization that H2O polarity is variable solves all of the conundrums that underlie the blatant idiocy that we see in meteorology’s convection model of storm theory. I have no use for their model so if you want confirmation of its underlying assumptions I would suggest you contact them.
I dropped some links above if you are interested in my alternative model.
Cheers,
James McGinn

• James McGinn says:

I just realized, to my horror, that I had not yet dropped a link to my most recent breakthrough:
Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity
or, for a hard copy:
https://zenodo.org/record/37224
Cheers,
James McGinn

5. Scottish-Sceptic says:

James, the real irony about accusing me of fitting some “consensus” is that you posted your comment the day after my article outlining the mechanism for the ice-age.
http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2016/02/09/a-complete-explanation-of-the-ice-age-cycle/
In that article I make not one, but 7 …. yes 7! extremely contentious completely non-consensus suggestions:
It introduces a different model of global warming (one which is highly controversial even amongst sceptics).
It states that global warming in an interglacial is extremely unlikely (probably due to cloud feedbacks – and extremely controversial even amongst sceptics)
It proposes that the delay of the glacial cycle is caused by thermal expansion/contraction of the crust (very controversial)
It proposes that the decomposition of carbonate, hydrocarbon and other rock types lead to gaseous emissions (very controversial)
It suggest that CO2 – is not only a global warming gas (small effect), but in addition it causes “runaway warming” (from plant based H2O – so wouldn’t be liked by sceptics)
I state that atmospheric pressure varies across the ice-age cycle (you are probably chuckling reading this).
I propose a complete change in the Hadley cell structure of the weather. (call for the straight jacket!!)
And of these at least four are ideas I’ve not seen anyone else suggest – so there is no question of any consensus.
http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2016/02/09/a-complete-explanation-of-the-ice-age-cycle/
And on your own proposal – I commend you for considering the possibility that water molecules exist as groups in air, however I would still need to see some numbers to crunch – or at least a graph.

• Will Janoschka says:

Right on Mike;
High time to shitcan all claimed of this atmosphere! This is ‘perhaps’ the most complex scientific situation ever presented to mankind, Earth’s dynamic atmosphere???.
Can we not start by trying to list in detail:
1). What is known of this atmosphere, along with proof of such knowledge.
2). What is unknown of this atmosphere, along with much conjecture as to the difficulty in acquiring such knowledge.
3). What is presented of this atmosphere, as correct, by the discipline of meteorology!
4). The killer!! Why dey do dat???
—————————————————————————-
All the best! -will-

• James McGinn says:

Keep it simple, Will. First tell us what you think about the main premise here. Can/will moist air make a balloon more buoyant? I’ve been very clear than it would involve negative buoyancy.
Start small. And keep in mind anybody can link over and see your extensive contribution to the hot air at Tall Bloke.

6. James McGinn says:

JM: And I commend you for not conforming to the consensus on these points:
SS: It proposes that the delay of the glacial cycle is caused by thermal expansion/contraction of the crust (very controversial)
JM: Not implausible since it is known crust rebounds from ice ages.
SS: It proposes that the decomposition of carbonate, hydrocarbon and other rock types lead to gaseous emissions (very controversial)
It suggest that CO2 – is not only a global warming gas (small effect), but in addition it causes “runaway warming” (from plant based H2O – so wouldn’t be liked by sceptics)
I state that atmospheric pressure varies across the ice-age cycle (you are probably chuckling reading this).
JM: No. I’m not chuckling. I don’t know. But it is interesting.
SS: II propose a complete change in the Hadley cell structure of the weather. (call for the straight jacket!!)
JM: This is not as crazy as you might assume it seems. My understanding is the hadley cell structure has been one, three, and even five per hemisphere in the past. But I don’t know how they determined this.
SS: IAnd of these at least four are ideas I’ve not seen anyone else suggest – so there is no question of any consensus.
JM: Agreed.
SS: Ihttp://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2016/02/09/a-complete-explanation-of-the-ice-age-cycle/
SS: IAnd on your own proposal – I commend you for considering the possibility that water molecules exist as groups in air, however I would still need to see some numbers to crunch – or at least a graph.
JM: I wasn’t being flippant when I suggested steam tables. If you want/need something more than that then you need to be more specific with your request.

• Scottish-Sceptic says:

Whilst it is an intriguing idea – and one which I’m sure some empirical evidence could settle, the greatest contribution of water to the atmosphere would appear to be as a vector to increase heat flow from the ground (particularly important is plant transpiration over land surface) – and perhaps as importantly in forming a cloud layer that tends to block out incoming solar heat (during day) and reduce outgoing (at night).

• James McGinn says:

Static electricity is what keeps heavier moisture droplets suspended in the atmosphere. It has nothing whatsoever to do with convection. Ten cents worth of observation–the fact that (indisputably) heavier clouds don’t drop out of the sky like bricks–is all one needs to refute the silly convection conjecture. That such an absurd notion has persisted for so long just shows how gullible people are.
The solar wind is the source of the electricity that charges Earth’s atmosphere and this is what causes the evaporation and dispersion of clumps of water droplet/clusters off the surface of water. At no point does it involve gaseous H2O(g). Evaporate or vapor isn’t gaseous H2O(g). It is droplets of liquid H2O(l) that are suspended by negative electric charges that exist in abundance between air molecules. Water molecules have little positively charged hydrogen atoms stick out of their surface. These are like little velcro hooks that get pulled up by negatively charged static electricity.

7. Scottish-Sceptic says:

James: I just realized, to my horror, that I had not yet dropped a link to my most recent breakthrough:
Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity
or, for a hard copy:
https://zenodo.org/record/37224
Are you sure this is new – not that I’ve seen it, but it”s pretty obvious. Water behaves as a combination of small atoms and large clumps. I’ve never looked, but I assume that the ratio of such will change with temperature.

• James McGinn says:

When I made this discovery about three years ago I was very sure that it couldn’t possibly be new. As you suggest, it seemed so obvious. In fact I was so sure that it couldn’t possibly be new that I put the idea aside for a while, fully expecting that I would come across it. After a year or two passed and I didn’t encounter it I started to describe it more explicitly to people on the internet. Everybody assured me that I must be wrong and that H2O polarity is a constant and not the variable that I was suggesting. In response I assured them that if they were to look at the literature in the discipline of physical chemistry on H2O that it would confirm my point. I was so confident that it was, surely, already fully explicated in the literature that I didn’t even bother to look.
Then one day, in the early part of November last year (2015) I was messing around on YouTube and I came across this video by Anders Nilsson, a researcher on water in the field of physical chemistry:
https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=29m16s
Note that Ander’s is referring to a controversy between themselves at Stanford and another research group at Berkeley. I realized from watching this that my discovery resolves this controversy. The phenomena they are arguing about is predicted by my model. After seeing this I did further research that confirmed that, sure enough, the whole paradigm of water science is stuck on this notion that H2O polarity is a constant. So, I went ahead a wrote the paper, finishing it a few days before Christmas. I immediately began sending it to experts in H bonding and water science. I have since had no less than five conversation with Phd educated scientists that represent themselves as experts on water and or experts in hydrogen bonding. Not one of them has expressed the slightest indication that H2O polarity is variable. Every last one of them is arrogantly dismissive of my assertion and, therefore, every last one of them is arrogantly ignorant about what is really going on with H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding. Here is a link to a conversation I had with Alan Soper after he had read my paper. Take note of how he completely misses the main point and goes babbling on about how proficient the science is:
So, to answer your question, yes I am very sure that nobody has thought of this before.
Here are some additional links along these lines:
http://www.danielcelton.com/2016/01/21/an-introduction-to-the-water-structure-problem/#comment-62
Cheers,
James McGinn

8. James McGinn says:

Allow me to point out an overwhelmingly obvious observation that plainly demonstrates how absurd is the premise here and, by association, how absurd is meteorology’s notion that moist air is lighter than dry air. Most of the warm moist air in the troposphere exists very close to the surface at the lowest part of the troposphere. Most of the cold dry air exists toward the top of the troposphere. If it was true that warm moist air is lighter than cold dry air and if it was true that convection was the predominant process for air movement then there could only be a constant ongoing exchange of air at all parts of the troposphere on an ongoing basis. The reality is that warm moist air is heavier than cold dry air and storms have nothing to do with convection because if these falsehoods were true then storms would happen everywhere constantly.
The more I come to understand the atmosphere the more I realize how absurdly incompetent humans are at comprehending it.

9. dm says:

This is a laughably fatuous argument that fails to consider the difference in pressure between the top and the bottom of the atmosphere.
If this is what McGinn thinks of as an “overwhelmingly obvious observation” in support of his assertions he has a lot to learn about high school physics, never mind the atmosphere.

• James McGinn says:

LOL. Really? (Surreal.) Go ahead. What are you waiting for? Present your argument. Tell us what difference the difference in pressure makes–after you’ve removed your foot from your mouth. IOW, address the issue [personal insult removed]. Show us your high school physics.

10. dm says:

Okay.
At the ground assume the pressure is 1000 hPa and the temperature is 20 C (293 K).
At 5000 m above the ground, assume the pressure is 500 hPa and the temperature is about -20 C (253 K).
(Can we agree that these are reasonable assumptions if we base our argument on weather data collected in, say, springtime in the Midwest United States?)
If we assume that dry air acts as an ideal gas (Can we agree this a reasonable assumption for dry air?) then:
Pressure = density*R*T
So the densities become:
density(1000) = (1000/293)*R = 3.41*R
density(500)=(500/253)*R = 1.98*R
and
density(500) = 0.63*density(1000).
So for air that has the same constituents at 1000 hPa and 500 hPa, air at 500 hPa will be less dense by a factor of about .6 or 60%.
If the air at the ground is saturated with water vapor, up to about 4% of its mass can be made up of water vapor according to observations (both in the atmosphere and in a laboratory setting). So the density of air at the ground could only differ by up to 4% compared to the density of completely dry air at 500 hPa, which is small compared to the 60% figure above.
So in this example, the pressure varies by about 50% over a depth of 5000 m while the temperature varies only by about 13% and the mass of water vapor varies by at most 4%. From this we can conclude that the effect of water vapor on the density of air in the atmosphere is quite minor compared to the effect of pressure.

• James McGinn says:

Complete your argument. Go ahead. Tell us why the, supposedly, lighter, warm, moist air isn’t constantly convecting up through the, supposedly, heavier, dry air. Go ahead, explain why this “lighter”, moist air hugs the surface of our planet along the tropics and middle latitudes on our planet despite an abundance of “heavier” dry air a few hundred meters above. Go ahead. What are you waiting for? Complete your argument.
Or, you could just make a retraction.
I have a simpler explanation. There is no gaseous H2O (steam) in earth’s atmosphere. All of the H2O in our atmosphere exists in the form of microdroplet (usually too small to be seen). These microdroplets are suspended by static electric charges that are constantly flowing in through the solar wind. Since these microdroplets are collectively heavier than any air molecules they replace moist air is heavier than dry air. Thus the reason the heavier moist air tends to hug the surface–it is heavier than the dry air above.
Convection plays little or no role at all in the atmosphere.
Storms explain why moisture sometimes flows upward, up to the top of the troposphere.
Convection plays no role in storms either. So something else must be involved in storms.
What do you think that might be?
Cheers,
James McGinn

• dm says:

Air near the ground is not lighter, on average, it’s heavier. In a column of fluid in equilibrium, higher density air will be at the bottom and lower density air will be at the top. And pressure is the overriding reason for this in a compressible fluid like air (moist or dry), based on the high school physics argument above.

• James McGinn says:

Air near the ground is not lighter, on average, it’s heavier.
We aren’t talking about averages. Address the issue you evasive twit.
In a column of fluid in equilibrium, higher density air will be at the bottom and lower density air will be at the top.
So, you agree convection plays no role in our atmosphere?
And pressure is the overriding reason for this in a compressible fluid like air (moist or dry), based on the high school physics argument above.
I think this is about the most inane argument imaginable. Did you graduate from high school?

• dm says:

I disagree. The manner in which you presented your argument refers to average conditions.. Your statement was this:
“Most of the warm moist air in the troposphere exists very close to the surface at the lowest part of the troposphere. Most of the cold dry air exists toward the top of the troposphere.”
Most of the warm moist air in the troposphere is near the ground and most of the cold dry air exists higher in the troposphere because, on average, warm moist air near the ground is more dense than the cold dry air above it. In other words, the average state of the column is a stable equilibrium with the more dense air at the bottom and the less dense air above. And the reasons for this are clear and evident to anyone with a basic knowledge of high school physics.

• James McGinn says:

The reason warm, moist air isn’t constantly rushing up through the abundance of cool, dry air that is but a few hundred meters above is because it is heavier. The reason it is heavier is because it contains microdroplets of H2O and not the gaseous H2O that meteorologists, absurdly, have assumed.
In other words, meteorology’s notion of moist air convection is a hoax, not unlike climatology’s notion of greenhouse effect.
It’s really that simple. It’s just bad science. And a minimal amount of fact checking reveals it.
Don’t be gullible.
James McGinn

11. James McGinn says:

” . . . the reasons for this are clear and evident to anyone with a basic knowledge of high school physics.”
Over at Tallbloke’s Talkshop they have been discussing convection for over a year now, with two threads and over 4,000 posts. You would fit in real well over there. It would even seem that you might have all attended the same high school.

12. Scottish-Sceptic says:

First convection does play an enormous part in moving air: it is afterall the fundamental force driving all weather systems with rising warm-moist air in the low pressure regions and descending cold-dry air in the high pressure zones.
And the main reason the rising moist air “tops out” is because of the condensation of water droplets when the pressure/temperature drops so that these droplets come out of the gas. At that point the density massively increases. That condensation releases energy (and we see a drying of the air) which is then sufficient to cool the air and increase density so that it does not continue upward – thus creating the tropopause barrier between the turbulent troposphere and the relatively calm stratosphere.

• James McGinn says:

SS: First convection does play an enormous part in moving air:
When you examine it with even a moderate degree of scrutiny the notion fails. So this fairy tale about convection persists because people refuse to scrutinize it. People refuse to do the math on it. People become real emotional and dishonest on this issue because they don’t want to deal with the implications of it not being valid. So it is very hard to pin them down. It’s like dealing with supernatural beliefs. People’s minds shut down. They become irrational. They become self-righteous and claim that its the convection deniers responsibility to produce evidence that prove it mistaken (sound familiar?). These are the same tactics we see in people that believe in extraterrestrials, bigfoot, and global warming.
SS: . . .it is afterall the fundamental force driving all weather systems with rising warm-moist air in the low pressure regions and descending cold-dry air in the high pressure zones.
This is just rhetoric, like somebody quoting a passage from the bible. You are regurgitating the standard anecdotal observations that are standard narrative of this myth. You are willfully surrendering to confirmation bias.
SS: And the main reason the rising moist air “tops out” . . .
It doesn’t “top out”. There is a tremendous amount of energy and activity taking place at the top of the, seemingly benign, thunderclouds. This is explained by the fact that the thunderhead is, actually, caused by low-pressure energy delivered from jet streams (usually invisible) that tend to run along the top of the troposphere.
SS: . . . is because of the condensation of water droplets when the pressure/temperature drops so that these droplets come out of the gas.
The air cools as it rises. Cooler air has a lower capacity to hold moisture. Micro-droplets (there is never genuine gaseous H2O in earth’s atmosphere) combine into larger droplets producing larger droplets, rain.
SS: At that point the density massively increases.
This is absurd speculation complete unsupported by facts
SS: That condensation releases energy
Total lunacy.
SS: (and we see a drying of the air) which is then sufficient to cool the air
Pure nonsense.
SS: and increase density so that it does not continue upward – thus creating the tropopause barrier between the turbulent troposphere and the relatively calm stratosphere.
Mike, your explanation has devolved into complete science fiction.
Do you really believe this?
Honestly?
Do you ever find yourself frustrated talking to AGW advocates? Do you ever find yourself amazed by the degree of blatant dishonesty thinly veiled in their arguments? Do you ever wonder how such otherwise decent people can be reduced to such desperation?
Well then you know how I feel.

13. James McGinn says:

First convection does play an enormous part in moving air:
It plays no part at all. It’s a silly notion that got accepted without ever being tested.
it is afterall the fundamental force driving all weather systems
It is, afterall, but a group delusion, not unlike the notion that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is a belief. It isn’t an empirically determined fact.
with rising warm-moist air in the low pressure regions and descending cold-dry air in the high pressure zones.
Nonsense. Low pressure areas have cold, moist air. And the source of the low pressure is the vacuum effect of jet stream, creating updrafts. High pressure regions have warm dry air and relativley calm conditions.
And the main reason the rising moist air “tops out”
Moist air is heavier, it doesn’t rise on its own. It can only be pulled up by low pressure provided by jet streams from above. Additionally, another absurdity here is this notion of warmer, expansive, convecting moist air topping out and somehow, magically I suppose, causing widespread low pressure and cold winds at low elevations. Your story doesn’t make any sense.
is because of the condensation of water droplets when the pressure/temperature drops so that these droplets come out of the gas.
Gaseous H2O is impossible. Consult steam tables. (And don’t expect me to educate you on this. You have to take responsibility for your own education.)
At that point the density massively increases. That condensation releases energy
Pure pseudoscience. Latent heat, I suppose?
(and we see a drying of the air) which is then sufficient to cool the air
So. energy is released and that cools the air? Do you really think this makes any sense at all?
and increase density so that it does not continue upward – thus creating the tropopause barrier between the turbulent troposphere and the relatively calm stratosphere.
Science fiction. You obviously don’t genuinely understand any of this. You are just repeating the mantra of the brain-dead meteorological narrative.

• Scottish-Sceptic says:

What do you think drives the jet streams?
It’s all part of the circulatory system of the atmosphere – driven by convective currents.
It is in short a form of heat engine – the source of heat is the surface heating (and latent in water vapour) and the sink is high up.
And we even get turning motions – as the cyclones turn. Similarly the Hadley cell structure is also a form of circulatory structure.
The jet streams are a by product of this convectively powered heat engine.

• James McGinn says:

I give you credit for not dodging the question/issue. Your answer isn’t correct or even close to being correct. I know the correct answer and am currently developing its presentation. Sorry that I don’t have time to discuss it further with you here and now.
Cheers,
James McGinn

• James McGinn says:

Scottish-Sceptic:
What do you think drives the jet streams? It’s all part of the circulatory system of the atmosphere – driven by convective currents.
James McGinn:
There is no such thing as a convection current. And convection has nothing to do with Hadley cell circulation (see below for details) in my opinion. Why this notion is so popular is a mystery since the science is so incredibly poor–it’s as bad or worse than that of AGW.
Scottish-Sceptic:
It is in short a form of heat engine – the source of heat is the surface heating (and latent in water vapour) and the sink is high up.
James McGinn:
Heat engine? Do you honestly believe this? Where is the heat? How is it an “engine” exactly? Where are it’s mechanics? Or are you just talking figuratively?
Scottish-Sceptic:
And we even get turning motions – as the cyclones turn. Similarly the Hadley cell structure is also a form of circulatory structure. The jet streams are a by product of this convectively powered heat engine.
James McGinn:
There is no gaseous H2O in earth’s atmosphere. Consequently, moist air is actually heavier than dry air. Convection is a failed theory. Discard it.
The “engine” (I mean this figuratively, not literally) of atmospheric flow is air pressure (not differential air pressure, actual air pressure). The energy that is readily available in air pressure is abundant and proficient, effectively limited only by the speed of sound.
Air friction is the obstacle. It is possible to overcome this obstacle through aerodynamics. Aerodynamics provides isolation from air friction, as happens on the top surface of a wing.
Another aerodynamic entity is a tube. A tube provides isolation from air friction to any of the contents moving through the tube.
A surface that rolls around itself in the context of a stream flow can become a tube.
A plasma has a surface.
As a result of solar winds, our atmosphere is a slight plasma. This slight plasma causes evaporation
Evaporation results in microdroplets being pulled up into the slight plasma. In conjunction with the surface tension of H2O, this produces a slightly stronger and heavier plasma that we generally refer to as moist air. (Moist air contains microdroplets of H2O, not gaseous H2O.)
Neither of these two slight plasmas is strong enough to produce a surface that is significant enough to achieve the aerodynamic isolation from air friction that would underly the winds that are observed here on our planet.
However, under calm weather condition the heavier of the two plasmas (moist air) tends to pool up under the lighter of the two plasmas in extensive flat layers. This produces a naturally occurring flat, lateral boundary between these two slight plasmas, an extensive, flat surface. It normally forms about 1,000 meters above us.
Differential pressure produces winds. Winds can accelerate along this surface as energy is reflected into a stream flow allowing for gradually accelerating winds
Along the surface molecules in the dry layer collide with microdroplets along the surface of the moist layer, causing them to spin. As the spin, faster and faster, the droplets begin to elongate as a result of centrifugal force. As the microdroplets elongate their surface area is maximized. (Also the breaking of hydrogen bonds activates their polarity [See my paper, Hydrogen Bonding Neutralized H2O Polarity, for details]. This provides tensional forces that maintain the integrity of the spinning polymers of H2O.)
A quality of H2O is that if you maximize its surface area you maximize its surface tension. This provides the basis for a kind of super-plasma based on the electromagnetic characteristics of the high polarity of the H2O molecule.
Once the super-plasma occurs a kind of positive feedback ensues. Stronger plasma enables stronger surfaces, reflecting more energy into a stream flow producing faster and faster winds.
Eventually, the Bernoulli effect and the Coriolis effect conspire to cause a surface of this super-plasma to role into a tube.
Once we have a tube we have isolation from atmospheric friction. Any slight difference in air pressure from one end of the tube to the other will allow the contents of the tube to accelerate as a result of the abundant energy that is available through air pressure. This can produce some high wind speeds down the tube, effectively limited only by the speed of sound and incidental friction.
This produces jet streams. Once created, jet streams will tend to consume the surface (between moist air and dry air) from which they grow. They will tend to be located at the place on our planet where we find the most extensive and smoothest surface, at the boundary of the troposphere and the stratosphere. But if this boundary becomes desiccate they will trend downwards, causing storms, pulling moisture higher in the atmosphere, re-hydrating the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere.
The ability of H2O-based plasmas to provide isolation from atmospheric friction is what underlies all atmospheric flow, including that of Hadley cells, and storms. Convection plays no role whatsoever.
James McGinn

• James McGinn says:

The fact that you can’t push a jet stream into existence is all the evidence a REAL scientists needs to discard the convection model. It takes intellectual guts to discard what everybody assumes is true and look for a new theory. Sheep never stop being sheep. Sheep spend all their time trying to fit anecdotal observations to fit with what everybody believes. A real scientists ignores what everybody believes and develops a new theory.
When you understand jet streams first everything else falls into place. There is no convection in our atmosphere. That is just superstition based on observation of thunderstorms in the 19th century. This is the 21st century. Move on sheep.

14. James McGinn says:

Mike, I predict your response will be similar to that of a global warming alarmist. You will dodge the substantive issues and rely on propanda and group think. Prove me wrong.

• Scottish-Sceptic says:

Science fiction. You obviously don’t genuinely understand any of this. You are just repeating the mantra of the brain-dead meteorological narrative.
… I didn’t read it anywhere – it’s not the application of simple physics and available data.
For example, if you have something like the jet-stream, they have to be driven by some energy source. Likewise if you have oceanic currents – they have to have some energy source. So, just follow the energy flows and you’ll understand atmospheric physics.

• James McGinn says:

I’ll give you a hint which you won’t understand and which I don’t have time to try to explain here and now. The engine of jetstreams and atmospheric flow is air pressure (not differential air pressure, even though this plays a role in initiating/starting the engine). And the principles involved with extracting the energy from air pressure involve aerodynamics and an advanced understanding of ambient temperature plasmas.
Cheers,
James McGinn

• James McGinn says:

” . . . if you have something like the jet-stream, they have to be driven by some energy source. ” . . . just follow the energy flows and you’ll understand atmospheric physics.”
Okay, but so what. Yes, I agree, the jet streams must have an energy source. Everybody knows this. But you state this as if it is a forgone conclusion that leads to an obvious and simple answer like, “convection or heat engine.” That kind of thinking is pseudoscientific.
There is a huge source of energy in our atmosphere and it is highly energetic and abundant. It is air pressure. Pseudoscientific notions like convection and heat engines are not necessary. What is necessary is understanding the physical factors that can tap into the abundant energy in air pressure. And that get complicated. It involves an advanced understanding of boundary layers, plasma physics, and aerodynamics. The correct answer isn’t simple, but it is correct. Meteorologists and climatologists will provide you a simple answer but their answer breaks down upon even slight scrutiny.

• James McGinn says:

Mike:
For example, if you have something like the jet-stream, they have to be driven by some energy source. Likewise if you have oceanic currents – they have to have some energy source. So, just follow the energy flows and you’ll understand atmospheric physics.
James:
I don’t disagree. The flow of the jet streams must be in compliance with fundamental physics. Moreover, it is indisputable, IMO, that the up-down nature of convection cannot explain the lateral and highly focused flow of the jet streams.
Do you not agree with this last statement?
And if a that is true, there must be some other source of flow in the atmosphere that is independent of convection. Given the jet streams magnitude–supporting wind speeds upward of 300 mph–is it not undeniable that this unnamed alternate source of flow is much more energetic than is that of convection? Moreover, is it not possible that this unnamed form of flow might on occasion be oriented vertically to explain some, or even most all, of the observations that have been attributed to convection.
Do you dispute any of this, Mike?
Do you have any explanation for this, “other source of flow in the atmosphere that is independent of convection?” How would you describe it?
How does your description compare with those that I describe in my two videos herein: (see below)
Convection Versus Plasma
and
Alternative to Spiritualistic Thinking in the Atmospheric Sciences
Cheers,
James McGinn

15. Will Janoschka says:

Test mike please delete
text
———————————————————————————————
``` using System; class IntgAtmMass { static void Main() { double gravAccel = 9.80665 /* m/s² */; double areaOfEarth = 510.07e12 /* m² */; double density = 1.225 /* kg/m³ */; double lowerPressure = 101325 /* Pa */; double colMass = 0 /* kg/m² */; for (double altitude = 0; altitude < 100000 /* m */; altitude += 0.01) { double upperPressure = lowerPressure - density * gravAccel; double pressureChangeRatio = upperPressure / lowerPressure; colMass += density; // accum mass for some very thin layer of unit area density *= pressureChangeRatio; lowerPressure = upperPressure; } Console.WriteLine("mass of unit area column of the atm. = {0:f1} kg/m²", colMass); Console.WriteLine("mass of entire atm. = {0:e3} kg", colMass * areaOfEarth); Console.ReadKey(); } } /* * OUTPUT: WHEN INTEGRATED EVERY CENTIMETER UP TO 100 KM * * mass of unit area column of the atm. = 10332.3 kg/m² * mass of entire atm. = 5.270e+018 kg * */ ```
———————————————————
more text

• Scottish-Sceptic says:

It reminds me of the “good old days” when I had to declare the class of variables.

16. James McGinn says:

Here is the correct answer:

• suricat says:

Jim. The energy level requirement for the ‘plasma effect’ that you expect just isn’t there! ‘Electrolytic action’ is, but this isn’t what you’re looking for.
‘Compounds’ don’t ‘change’ when a ‘phase/state’ change occurs. Only the ‘solid/liquid/gas’ phases change for the compound. The ‘molecule’ is ‘extant’ throughout ‘phase change’ and any ‘alteration’ to ‘the molecule’ can only be an ‘electrostatic’ ‘alteration’ at this level of energetics.
Best regards, Ray.

• James McGinn says:

suricat says:
2nd March 2016 at 2:34 am
Ray:
Jim. The energy level requirement for the ‘plasma effect’ that you expect just isn’t there!
Jim:
I’m not referring to a plasma based on a higher energy ionic bond. I’m referring to a much lower energy plasma involving the much weaker hydrogen bond. Also, just as you would not be dogmatic about what is or is not a solid, liquid, or gas, there is no reason to be dogmatic about what is a plasma. Other phases of matter can occur at different temperature, so there is no reason to be so dogmatic with plasma. It’s just a phase of matter. As I explain in my videos, the exact nature of my hypothesized plasma is peculiar. Don’t get hung up on the word plasma. It’s just a word. Ultimately a plasma is just a gas that has some degree of internal forces holding it together. That is the best word I could think of to fit what I envisioned. When you see a tornado the structural aspect of it is striking. Plasma is the closest word I could find that fit the phenomena. Do solids occur at one temperature, one set of conditions? liquids? Gases? No, then why be so dogmatic with plasma?
Ray:
‘Electrolytic action’ is, but this isn’t what you’re looking for.
Jim:
I prefer not to obsess over terminology too much. You are having an natural (and common) aesthetic reaction to the word plasma. I can only suggest that you suspend disbelief long enough until you understand the molecular dynamics of the phenomenon. I discuss it more explicitly in my videos, but that doesn’t do it justice. Graphics are in order. (For the time being just consider the principle that if you maximize H2O surface area you maximize H2O surface tension.) But, also, until you have an advanced understanding of H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding as the underlying basis of surface tension this is not going to make a lot of sense to you. In other words, I would suggest being more concerned about getting an understanding of H2O polarity and H-bonding than whether or not the word plasma is exactly applicable. Toward this end I would suggest getting familiar with this paper:
BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity
Ray:
‘Compounds’ don’t ‘change’ when a ‘phase/state’ change occurs. Only the ‘solid/liquid/gas’ phases change for the compound. The ‘molecule’ is ‘extant’ throughout ‘phase change’ and any ‘alteration’ to ‘the molecule’ can only be an ‘electrostatic’ ‘alteration’ at this level of energetics.
Jim:
I don’t disagree. Obviously you are stating this in reference to ionic plasmas. There is no breaking of ionic or covalent bonds in this plasma. So you are adopting a dogmatic stance, from my perspective. Again, don’t get hung up on the exact denotation of what is or is not a plasma. Think more along the lines of how a plasma behaves, and consider the possibility that this behavior might/can be effectuated under certain conditions–as specified in my video: Alternative to Spiritualistic Thinking in the Atmospheric Sciences (see link on this page).
Cheers,
James McGinn

17. James McGinn says:

Mike,
Oops, I only intended to put a link in here. I didn’t know it would embed the video. My apology.
It’s not a problem for me. But if it’s a problem for you then just delete it and instead I will suggest that people to to YouTube and do a search under:
James McGinn Convection Versus Plasma
Cheers,
James McGinn

18. James McGinn says:
• James McGinn says:
19. James McGinn says:
20. James McGinn says:

DM: I disagree. The manner in which you presented your argument refers to average conditions.
JM: Yeah, so?
DM: “Most of the warm moist air in the troposphere exists very close to the surface at the lowest part of the troposphere. Most of the cold dry air exists toward the top of the troposphere.”
DM: Most of the warm moist air in the troposphere is near the ground and most of the cold dry air exists higher in the troposphere because, on average, warm moist air near the ground is more dense than the cold dry air above it. In other words, the average state of the column is a stable equilibrium with the more dense air at the bottom and the less dense air above. And the reasons for this are clear and evident to anyone with a basic knowledge of high school physics.
JM: Maybe you can find a high school student who can explain to you that convection involves things that are relatively heavier falling as a result of gravity, causing things that are relatively lighter to rise.
Moist air is heavier than dry air. This is a fact that is proven by this common observation that most moist air stays close to the surface. If it was not then it would continually replace dry air in its vicinity. It would happen constantly. Not just in storms. Or we could say storms would be constant.
Your argument that moist air is higher on average and that means we can ignore relative differences is the height of inanity. This is the same kind of logic we get from the global warming crowd. You should be embarrassed, but I suppose your high school training insulated you from feeling that emotion.

21. James McGinn says:

Anybody reading this forum will have, undoubtedly, noticed the ferocious stupidity of those striving to maintain their poorly considered beliefs. Here is what is is really all about:
There is a huge source of energy in our atmosphere. It is highly energetic and abundant. It is air pressure. Pseudoscientific notions like convection and heat engines are not necessary. What is necessary is understanding the physical factors that can tap into the abundant energy in air pressure. And that gets complicated and simple people fear complexity. They fight to maintain their simple beliefs. Correctly conceptualizing atmospheric flow involves an advanced understanding of boundary layers, plasma physics, and aerodynamics. The correct answer isn’t simple, but it is correct. Meteorologists and climatologists will provide you a simple answer but their answer breaks down upon even slight scrutiny–as has been demonstrated vividly right here in this forum.

• Scottish-Sceptic says:

Whatever the reason for it, the fact is that I’ve seen numerous data sheet showing that moist air is less dense than dry air and you have as yet provided no data to dispute that. I am however hoping that you might back up your assertions with some data as only the data can tell me whether your assertions are correct.

• James McGinn says:

I’m not interested in debating your imagination, Mike. I’m not running a hand holding service here. If you can’t distinguish between a group delusion and an empirical fact don’t expect me to do it for you. As I’ve told global warming advocates, you need to take responsibility for what you believe. It’s not my job to educate you on scientific methodologies.
Why do you think it is you can’t find any empirical verification of your belief in gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures/pressures, Mike? Do you think this evidence is being hidden from the public? What motivation would anybody have for such?

22. James McGinn says:

Scottish-Sceptic says:
21st February 2016 at 3:39 pm
Whatever the reason for it, the fact is that I’ve seen numerous data sheet showing that moist air is less dense than dry air
James McGinn:
I know of what you’ve seen. It is not data it is derivations base on indirect data. Most everybody is fooled by this. Most everybody thinks its data (measured). It’s not. The derivations include (hide) the assumption that clear, moist air contains gaseous H2O. That is the card up the sleeve. This is the smoke and mirrors. Once you understand this trick you understand that, in reality, moist air is heavier than dry air at ambient temps, always (all other factors being the same). There is no gaseous H2O in our atmosphere.
Even if we did assume steam it amounts to a 1% difference in weight–at sea level. It lessens at colder temps. The convection model has always been rather dubious speculation. It’s never been tested. It is just believed, like a passage in the bible. It is just a story told by meteorologists. It isn’t really science. It’s just what they’ve been trained to tell the public.
Scottish-Sceptic:
and you have as yet provided no data to dispute that.
James McGinn:
If you believe in bigfoot there is no data that I can bring to you to prove to you that bigfoot does not exist. Likewise, if you believe that H2O can be gaseous at ambient temps there is no data I can bring to you that will disprove that.
Scottish-Sceptic:
I am however hoping that you might back up your assertions with some data as only the data can tell me whether your assertions are correct.
James McGinn:
I wouldn’t waste my time with that. There is already a wealth of data that indicates the boiling point of H2O. This is common knowledge. If you are able to ignore that then nothing I’m going to provide will stop you from believing what you want to believe. You have to take responsibility for what you believe/understand. It’s really not my job to educate you on how to think rationally.
Can you provide data that substantiates the existence of gaseous H2O at ambient temps?

23. James McGinn says:

Ultimately history will look on this notion of moist air convection as an example of human intellectual sheepishness, not unlike that that preceded the Copernican model of planetary motion. People forget that Galileo introduced evidence that plainly refuted the notion that the earth is the center of the universe. But it took hundreds of years to overcome the momentum of belief. That is the same thing with moist air convection. It’s plainly nonsensical. The boiling temperature/pressure of H2O is common knowledge and it plainly refutes the notion that moist air contains gaseous H2O. The evidence that supports the notion of moist air convection is anecdotal, vague, and inconsistent. The professionals that, supposedly, maintain this notion refuse to discuss in publicly–not unlike climatology’s notion of CO2 forcing. Amateurs that do support it won’t discuss details–again, not unlike climatology’s notion of CO2 forcing.
The data that, supposedly, substantiates it doesn’t involve direct measurement but derivations base on indirect data. Most everybody is fooled by this. Most everybody thinks its data is directly measured. It’s not. The derivations include (hide) the assumption that clear, moist air contains gaseous H2O. That is the card up the sleeve. This is the smoke and mirrors. Once you understand this trick you understand that, in reality, moist air is heavier than dry air at ambient temps, always (all other factors being the same). There is no gaseous H2O in our atmosphere.
The convection model has always been rather dubious speculation. It’s never been tested. It is just believed, like a passage in the bible. It is just a story told by meteorologists. It isn’t really science. It’s just what they’ve been trained to tell the public.
James McGinn

24. James McGinn says:

So, Mike, are you aware of any data based on a controlled experiment that demonstrates the existence of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures? You claim to have seen “numerous data sheet showing that moist air is less dense than dry air.” However, you have as yet provided no data based on controlled experiments to support that assertion. I am however hoping that you might back up your assertions with some data as only the data can tell me whether your assertions are correct.

• Will Janoschka says:

James McGinn says: 22nd February 2016 at 12:47 am
“So, Mike, are you aware of any data based on a controlled experiment that demonstrates the existence of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures? You claim to have seen “numerous data sheet showing that moist air is less dense than dry air.””
Indeed as has anyone else that has actually measured anything. This does not include one Claudius Denk who clearly demonstrates via his internet spam that he has neither sufficient knowledge nor sufficient skill to measure anything whatsoever! The term moist air refers only to parts of this atmosphere that have 100% relative humidity and also supports a variable airborne water condensate, part of the atmosphere but not a gas. not subject to the gas laws and of density unknown.
What is known and well measured is that all gaseous atmospheric water vapor at temperature above the triple point of H2O carries with it an additional accumulation of power with a magnitude of 2500 Watt seconds per gram. This storage of power is measurably isentropic between the states of liquid and vapor. At temperatures below that triple point, atmospheric water vapor(gas), caries with it 3000 Watt seconds per gram above that of solid H2O, also well measured. Density of airborne solid H2O is also highly variable.
Mike courteously requested your evidence to back up your fantasy claim that these measurements are in error. You presented none, you have none, you cannot present any such. Any such measurement must clearly demonstrate that only the Claudius Denk fantasy is in error. This is significant and relevant to all except you!
“However, you have as yet provided no data based on controlled experiments to support that assertion. I am however hoping that you might back up your assertions with some data as only the data can tell me whether your assertions are correct.”
Mike repeated only the assertions of those that have measured! Likely those assertions are physically, mathematically, and geometrically correct! You demand, of others, but provide nothing but fantasy. Where is your evidence of error? Are you a “momback”?

• James McGinn says:

WJ: Indeed as has anyone else that has actually measured anything . . .
JM: Blah, blah, blah. Nobody cares, Will.
WJ: What is known and well measured is that all gaseous atmospheric water vapor at temperature above the triple point of H2O carries with it an additional accumulation of power with a magnitude of 2500 Watt secos per gram.
JM: Really? So, you yourself measured this? Did you write a paper on it? Is your paper available? Are your methods explicit? Is it reproducible? Are your notes available? Data?
WJ: This storage of power is measurably isentropic between the states of liquid and vapor.
JM: Really? Did you determine this under laboratory conditions, or Coors conditions?
WJ: At temperatures below that triple point, atmospheric water vapor(gas), caries with it 3000 Watt seconds per gram above that of solid H2O, also well measured. Density of airborne solid H2O is also highly variable. Mike courteously requested your evidence to back up your fantasy claim that these measurements are in error.
JM: You lost me. I don’t know what you are talking about.
WJ: You presented none, you have none, you cannot present any such. Any such measurement must clearly demonstrate that only the Claudius Denk fantasy is in error. This is significant and relevant to all except you!
JM: Steam tables. (That is 100% more evidence than you or Mike have presented.)
WJ: (quoting me) “However, you have as yet provided no data based on controlled experiments to support that assertion. I am however hoping that you might back up your assertions with some data as only the data can tell me whether your assertions are correct.”
WJ: Mike repeated only the assertions of those that have measured!
JM: I think my characterizaiton of Mike’s argument is accurate. And I think you know that.
WJ: Likely those assertions are physically, mathematically, and geometrically correct! You demand, of others, but provide nothing but fantasy. Where is your evidence of error?
JM: I will make a deal with both you and Mike. If both of your will apologize to all of the global warming alarmists/advocates that you’ve berated for presenting arguments based on anecdote, consensus, strained analogy, appeal to authority and other desperate pleadings I will apologize to both of you for having berated you for doing the same. Fair enough?
There is no gaseous H2O in earth’s atmosphere. It is physically impossible for H2O to exist as gas at ambient temperatures/pressures. What people choose to believe is irrelevant. The truth of atmospheric flow isn’t obvious. But it isn’t so difficult that we have to resort to pretending it is what it isn’t. The role that water plays in the atmosphere is tricky. But that too becomes approachable once you understand the underlying dynamics of polarity and H bonding. And air pressure, boundary layers, and wind shear play larger roles that most anybody imagined. But the pieces of the puzzle do come together. But first you have to discard convection. It plays no role at all in the atmosphere. Same with latent heat. Sorry to burst you bubble.

25. James McGinn says:

These are simple questions, Mike. You should have answered by now. Let me ask you another question:
Question: What is the difference between somebody that believe man’s contribution to CO2 can/will cause catastrophic global warming and somebody that believes water can become gaseous at temperatures below its boiling temperature/pressure?

26. Will Janoschka says:

James McGinn says: 22nd February 2016 at 4:50 pm
“These are simple questions, Mike. You should have answered by now. Let me ask you another question:”
Why!
“Question: What is the difference between somebody that believe man’s contribution to CO2 can/will cause catastrophic global warming and somebody that believes water can become gaseous at temperatures below its boiling temperature/pressure?” Answer: Absolutely nothing.”
So what?. You dwell on some illusionary difference between the ‘is’, and your belief that pigs can fly? Even Roaches exhibit a higher level understanding and integrity, than Jimmy can possibly demonstrate!
bn,lllllh

• James McGinn says:

Will, try not to take this personally. Try to stay dispassionate. I know I’m being provocative. But I have a really good excuse/rationale. I have something to sell. I have a reason to cajole people into reconsidering assumptions they wouldn’t normally reconsider. You don’t have that. You have a ways to go. You are still struggling with the gaseous H2O myth. (And currently you are trying to force the square peg of latent heat into the round hole of reality.) I’ve been there. So I can sympathize with your struggle. But, to be honest, that was like ten years ago for me. My advice is don’t waste time with dumb stuff. Never assume that what everybody believes to be true is actually true. Always strive to verify through reproducible evidence. You’ll find that so often people believe nonsense and they refuse to stop believing it, like religious beliefs.

• Will, thanks, but it is an interesting theory but unless or until James comes up with some data to support his data, there’s not much more I can say except that it is interesting but not at all supported by the data.

• Sorry that’s data to support the theory.

• James McGinn says:

The data is at your fingertips. It is a matter of the public record. I bring no new data. We all have access to the same data. My theory fits the data. Your theory fits your imagination–just like a global warming believer.
Scientific pretenders don’t understand the importance of a level playing field to scientifically weigh the benefits of competing theories. They think it’s the job of the person presenting the new theory to talk them out of what they imagine. That is impossible because you probably don’t even know why you believe what you believe–just like a global warming believer.
Believers never stop believing because to stop believing requires thought and believers don’t think, they just believe.
So, Mike, are you aware of any data based on a controlled experiment that demonstrates the existence of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures? You claim to have seen “numerous data sheet showing that moist air is less dense than dry air.” However, you have as yet provided no data based on controlled experiments to support that assertion. I am however hoping that you might back up your assertions with some data as only the data can tell me whether your assertions are correct.

• James McGinn says:

It’s supported by all the data.

• Mike,
I try not to feed the troll. I guess I was bored!! Sorry.
It is not the subject of airborne water in all its states. This is very important, understudied, and misrepresented by disgraced meteorology. It is strictly the way Jim goes about it. 🙂
From his own reference on Google groups.

I’ve stopped wasting my time and have plonked him.
His mode of operation is to:
1. Believe something unusual.
2. Demand that others present evidence to the contrary.
3. Dismiss any evidence presented.–
Odd Bodkin — maker of fine toys, tools, tables

All the best! -will-

• James McGinn says:

As a long-time skeptic of global warming I used to debate with the adherents of global warming. But I gave up because I came to realize they didn’t really understand the cause and effect underlying their beliefs. They just had beliefs. That’s what I’m seeing from both you and Mike, Will. You just have beliefs.
When you have beliefs you have something to hide. When you have something to hide you can’t be explicit, honest. When you can’t be explicit, honest, you can’t learn. You are stuck. You get emotional. You think your beliefs are obvious. That is the trap. I ask people to explain their beliefs because I want to help them get free from the trap. Very often they take this personally.
Psychologically humans have a very difficult time distinguishing between what they genuinely understand and what they just believe. If somebody asks you to explain something and you get emotional then most likely you don’t understand it, you just believe it. If you assume it is obvious then you will never escape the trap.
Water is the trickiest thing of all. It seems simple but it is very counterintuitive. If you get emotional discussing water you have zero chance of making any progress.
Water takes no prisoners.

• James, the truth is that I have very little interest as I’ve yet to find any significance difference between “hot air rises because it is warm” and “hot air rises because it is moist and warm”.
So, what I’m looking to see produced is any data that contradicts the tables that are readily available showing moist air is less dense than dry air.

• James McGinn says:

SS: James, the truth is that I have very little interest as I’ve yet to find any significance difference between “hot air rises because it is warm” and “hot air rises because it is moist and warm”.
So, what I’m looking to see produced is any data that contradicts the tables that are readily available showing moist air is less dense than dry air.
JM: Well, you’re just and idiot then. You are just following what dumb people are telling you just because it is in a table and because it’s “readily available”, whatever that means, by your own declaration.
You should be embarrassed.
Did you realize that the idiots that made the tables just assumed gaseous H2O. Do you know what an assumptions is? Do you lack critical reasoning skills. Do the fucking math. Use your fucking brain.
Moist air is heavier than dry air. Warmer air absorbs more moisture, and so it too is (usually) heavier too.
Convection plays no role in our atmosphere.
Like a moron you keep asking for data to contradict nonsense. Nonsense is nonsense. Convection notions of atmospheric flow are pseudoscience. You might as well be asking me to present data that contradicts the existence of ghosts.
The energy that causes uplift in our atmosphere comes from above. It is delivered in vortices. It is delivered in the form of low pressure. Vortices suck. Literally. Vortices are extensions of jet streams, and their tributaries.
What freekin data could I possibly supply. I can’t. I can just provide a theory that conforms to what is actually observed. If you aren’t a critical thinker that is not something I can help you with.

27. James McGinn says:
28. James convection is the predominant force causing our weather. On regional scales it causes the Hadley cells, at a “national” level it causes the high/low pressure systems. Within each weather system you can almost ascribe some clouds specifically to thermals.
It’s just a fact that convection exists.
Where I think you have an arguable case is whether water vapour makes the air less or more dense. If there were a fundamental discrepancy between the actual weight of moist air and tables, I would assume it would have been found by now – indeed I assume the tables were produced by careful measurement – so I’ve no reason to doubt them.
But you seem to strongly disagree with these tables. However, unless or until you present some data that shows the tables are wrong, I can’t see how you disagree.

29. James McGinn says:

Convection is non-existent on our planet. Its a belief system. A religion. Nobody can address it factually because it is factually nonsensical. It’s just dumb people following dumb people, like sheep. Everybody follows, nobody can describe why. Nobody will even try. Like global warming. You and Will demonstrated this brain-dead approach right here. Will gets emotional. You repeat the same thing, over and freekin over. Neither of you address the blatant contradictions of the convection model.
Believers dodge contradictions. Scientists embrace them, explain them. If contradictions exist your theory is wrong or flawed. The convection model maintains huge contradictions. Hell, even the observation that most moist air is along the surface and most dry air is a few thousand feet above is an observation that kills the convection model. I pointed that out right here in this thread. DM provide an absurd explanation. And you didn’t notice it. That alone tells me you are not a scientist.
You say we can ascribe some clouds to thermals. That is just dumb confirmation bias. Dumb people assume humans are less prone to confirmation bias collectively. Actually humans are more prone to confirmation bias collectively. Sheep follow bigger herds. Do the math on cloud convection. Nobody ever does. Math doesn’t lie. People lie. People are easily fooled by observations that appear to confirm what they believe.
The dynamics of our atmosphere–including Hadley cells–have to do with boundary layers (between moist air and dry air) where flow/energy accumulates, and water-based plasma forming vortices along these boundaries, causing storms and jet stream. Convection plays no role at all. Electricity actually plays a larger role that anybody has been assuming, especially with respect to keeping heavier moist air suspended, it causes evaporation. The solar wind is the source for this electricity.
I’ve challenged you many times to explain what you claim you understand. You refuse. You will not attempt to explain. You do not understand. You just believe. You just keep repeating the brain-dead mantra of believers.
This is what you sound like to me:
Idiocracy – Electrolytes – YouTube
The data in the tables isn’t directly measured. It is derived using assumptions. I have refuted the assumptions. That is all that is necessary. I’m not able to chase the ghosts of your imagination. Stop asking me to do the impossible. Take responsibility for what you claim you understand.

30. James McGinn says:

Mike:
I assume the tables were produced by careful measurement – so I’ve no reason to doubt them.
Jim:
Surreal.

31. James McGinn says:

Just like the “greenhouse” effect, believers in the convection model maintain vagueness in order to evade falsification. That is why one can never get them/you to discuss details. Just like global warming advocates, they evade falsification by being careful not to reveal that they don’t really understand the details. That is why you keep falling back on the tables. These are the only non-vague details you are conscious of. The rest is a blur. That is the case for all convection believers, like greenhouse believers.
What facts could emerge that would falsify it for you? The answer is none. There are no facts that could falsify it because it is but a vage, unfalsifyable belief, like greenhouse effect.

• James, you don’t seem to be understanding the very simplest requirement of science. What validates or invalidates a theory is not some elaborate argument or your view as to how it sounds, but whether or not it fits the data.
You have singularly failed to show that the current models don’t fit the data. Indeed, you haven’t provided even one bit of evidence to show that even the sign is wrong.

• James McGinn says:

You talk like an engineer, not a scientist. For a scientific notion to be valid it must be falsifiable. Compare this statement with your statement above about “fitting the data.”
The Ptolemaic theory of celestial motion fit the data. But it was invalid science. Even when data emerged (Galileo) that, clearly, refuted it people kept believing in it for hundreds of years.
“It must be possible to conceive of evidence that would prove the claim false. It may sound paradoxical, but in order for any claim to be true, it must be falsifiable. The rule of falsifiability is a guarantee that if the claim is false, the evidence will prove it false; and if the claim is true, the evidence will not disprove it (in which case the claim can be tentatively accepted as true until such time as evidence is brought forth that does disprove it). The rule of falsifiability, in short, says that the evidence must matter, and as such it is the first and most important and most fundamental rule of evidential reasoning.”
The convection model is vague. It is unfalsifiable. You yourself have demonstrated this vividly and repeatedly. The observation that warm, moist air stays along the surface and does not constantly rush up through the cool, dry air above IS evidence. This IS data. This data has been put before you, and you have ignored it. So, why do you keep asking me for data? Why don’t you ask Toolbox to supply you there data? Guess what. They don’t have any. All they have is what they presented on their site, which isn’t measured.
Do you know the difference between something measured and something derived?
“The rule of falsifiability is essential for this reason: If nothing conceivable could ever disprove the claim, then the evidence that does exist would not matter; it would be pointless to even examine the evidence, because the conclusion is already known — the claim is invulnerable to any possible evidence. This would not mean, however, that the claim is true; instead it would mean that the claim is meaningless. This is so because it is impossible — logically impossible — for any claim to be true no matter what. For every true claim, you can always conceive of evidence that would make the claim untrue — in other words, again, every true claim is falsifiable.”
Like greenhouse effect, the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience in that the people that promote it, meteorologists, refuse to test it. The weight of moist air vs. dry air has never been tested.
It is just believed.
What facts could emerge that would falsify it for you? The answer is none. There are no facts that could falsify it because it is but a vague, unfalsifyable belief, like greenhouse effect.
Source:
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/field_guide_to_critical_thinking/

• James McGinn says:

Atmospheric flow isn’t pushed, it is pulled. Expansiveness and buoyancy play no role. Kinetic energy running along distinct boundaries at the top of the troposphere create the flows–jet streams–that create the LOW PRESSURE that pulls the rest of the atmosphere along. Moisture in the atmosphere facilitates the kinetic energy and provides the leverage by which the upper atmosphere maintains its grip on the lower atmosphere through storms.
One simple observation that proves I’m right and the convection model is wrong:
The fact that storms and low pressure are correlated. Specifically, if the convection model was correct then storms would have to be correlated with high pressure. But they aren’t. As predicted by my model storms are associated with low pressure.
Convection model is vague, meaningless, pseudoscience. It can never be proven wrong because it is not capable of generating a specific prediction that can be compared to observation. Like the notion of greenhouse effect it just provides people comforting explanation.

32. James McGinn says:

Science is confused about water because they are confused about polarity. They see polarity as a function of “polar’ bonds (a “polar” bond is a covalent bond that has an electronegativity difference). It’s not that simple. Many molecules have “polar” bonds but are not polar (they are not dipoles). A polar molecule is asymmetrical in addition to having electronegativity differences. And where it really gets confusing is when you consider that with water (and only with water) symmetry is variable–AND ACTUALLY VARIES AS A CONSEQUENCE OF HYDROGEN BONDING!
In water polarity drops to zero when symmetry is achieved through coordinated tetrahedral bonds. The failure to comprehend this and its implications is the reason they are so perplexed by water and its many anomalies. For example, once you understand this it becomes immediately apparent why H2O has its high heat capacity. Strangely, the professionals have no ability to grasp the importance of symmetry to polarity. They write paper after paper and do video after video that demonstrates their ignorance of the intricacies of polarity and then they make lists of water’s anomalies, pretending they have explained something that they have not explained. The following paper tries to get beyond that same ground hog day, over and over again, glossing over, inability to grasp what is really happening at the molecular level that is so typical of the study of water:
https://zenodo.org/record/37224

• Sorry Mike, got bored again! 🙂
Now little Jimmy claims to have discovered the 4 molecule irregular tetragonal shape of a H2O colloid that reduces H2O polarity somewhat after 25 years. How long do you think it will take only he to discover the tri-level hexagonal form of 6 middle H2O molecules and another seven molecules on either side of the 6; all creating 12 irregular tetragonal shape, 20 interconnected H2O molecules, that are the very beginning of a snowflake, and the gas, liquid airborne colloid the he claims is the only form of airborne H2O, (see the steam tables). Of course Jimmy claims that no one was smart enough to study this 98 years ago. Are you now so happy that Jimmy was finally shit on the top of a post and left in the Sun to hatch!!! So only he can enlighten us. 🙂
All the best! -will-

• James McGinn says:

WJ: Sorry Mike, got bored again!
JM: I can’t imagine how you got bored with all the excitement at RTB as they discuss, for the twentieth time, all the fine details of the emperor’s new clothes.
WJ: 4 molecule irregular tetragonal shape of a H2O colloid
JM: Surreal. You aren’t even beginning to make sense here.
WJ: that reduces H2O polarity somewhat after 25 years.
JM: Actually, I made the discovery about 3 years ago. At the time I assumed I had discovered something that was already known–it seemed so obvious (see upthread). Now I realize it is novel.
JM: This discovery is the key to resolving all of the anomalies of H2O–a big deal in the obscure subject of water science. It also provides an explanation for why the evidence underlying the group delusion that moist air contains gaseous H2O is, well, just that, a group delusion. Water is very deceptive. Everybody gets extremely emotional. Everybody thinks water is or should be simple and obvious. And it’s just not. So, go ahead, keep throwing your little hissy fit. I’m used to it by now.
JM: This is a big discovery, bigger than you can begin to imagine.
WJ: How long do you think it will take only he to discover the tri-level hexagonal form of 6 middle H2O molecules and another seven molecules on either side of the 6; all creating 12 irregular tetragonal shape, 20 interconnected H2O molecules, that are the very beginning of a snowflake,
JM: Don’t be putting words in my mouth. I’ve made no specific claims on structure of snowflakes. However, according to my model the notion that ice involves a lattice structure (Bernal and Fowler, 1933) is mistaken. Or, I should say, my theory and their notion that ice forms a lattice are mutually incompatible. If one is right the other must be wrong. The reasons for this are hard to explain, I suggest reading my paper very carefully.
WJ: and the gas, liquid airborne colloid the he claims is the only form of airborne H2O, (see the steam tables).
JM: Right. Gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures in our atmosphere is kind of like the notion that CO2 causes global warming. It’s a popular belief for which there is no empirical support. It’s pseudoscience.
WJ: Of course Jimmy claims that no one was smart enough to study this 98 years ago.
JM: Obviously I’m suggesting they missed something–something big. But, in retrospect, that hardly seems surprising in that it is well know that there are upwards of 60 “anomalies” associated with H2O. (Do some research.) An anomaly is an anomaly when theory fails to predict it. So the fact that the theory had shortcomings is hardly an extravagant claim. (Do some research.)
JM: The mistake they made is, in retrospect, is fairly obvious. They assumed that H2O polarity is a constant. That was the mistake. It turns out H2O polarity is a variable, and here is where it really gets tricky, the mechanism that effectuates the variability is hydrogen bonding!!! And polarity determines the strength of hydrogen bonds!!! (And this last mentioned fact sets the stage for the plasma phase of water in the atmosphere.)
JM: All of this is way, way, way over your head, Will.
WJ: Are you now so happy that Jimmy was finally shit on the top of a post and left in the Sun to hatch!!! So only he can enlighten us. 🙂
All the best! -will-
JM: So, Will, are you angry with Mike that he is not censoring my message? Don’t blame him. He’s not condoning any of this. Do you lack confidence in the scientific method to weed out bad thinking? If my theory is as bad as you suggest it would hardly seem necessary to censor it? So, what’s the problem? I’m open to testing it. In fact I even have a simple experiment that could refute the notion that ambient air contains gaseous H2O:
Get a grip.
James McGinn

• James McGinn says:

Also, snowflakes are a mystery not only because of the repeatable pattern (hexagonal) but because each repeatable pattern is unique.

• James McGinn says:

Here are some better procedures:
Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air

• Science is full of things that nobody knows and it just takes one person to ask a simple question and it is possible to make progress. So e.g. I asked the question “how much does the ground expand with the change in inter-glacial temperatures”. I worked out the answer was a couple of kilometres around the circumference of the earth. There’s also very good evidence we see this expansion and contraction from the variation of magnetic anomalies either side of the Atlantic mid-ocean ridge.
So, my “theory” is just the application of known physical relationships and there is clear evidence the movement of plates are modulated by the ice-age cycle.
But even so, even though I have clear evidence and well known physics backing my theory – I don’t expect everyone else to suddenly accept the theory.
So, when James comes along and demands we immediately accept his theory – despite any data to prove it – it’s just unrealistic.

• James McGinn says:

You can’t prove a theory with data. But you can disprove a theory with data, if the theory is falsifiable. For a theory to be falsifiable it has to be able to produce specific predictions that can be refuted or fail to be refuted by the data.
Other than myself, nobody will produce specific predictions for convection theory. It is unfalsifiable, vague, pseudoscientific. It’s just something people want to believe.
In the past people used to look up, see the stars moving overhead and use that as evidence that earth is the center of the universe. Now they view clouds and conclude, there’s convection.
Any idiot can see that if the convection model was true that the abundance of warm, moist air that exists along the surface of our planet would be constantly and ubiquitously rushing up and through the cool, dry air that exists in abundance a few hundred meters above our heads.
I don’t know if you’ve ever noticed that climatologists will refer to the greenhouse effect but they won’t discuss it’s details. It’s a taboo subject for them. They guard or preserve the vagueness of the theory by refusing to discuss its details. Because the last thing they want to do is generate any kind of specific prediction that can be tested. The same is true for the believers in convection. You won’t find, for example, meteorologists discussing the math of convection. As I explained in one of my videos, when the math of convection is done properly–even if we bend over backwards and allow for the absurd assumption that moist air contains gaseous H2O–it shows at most a 1% difference in the weight of moist air versus dry air. Meteorologists guard the vagueness of the convection model because they want to maintain the public’s confidence. It’s not because they are deliberately conning us, it’s because keeping the public’s confidence is considered their duty. And convection pseudoscience is just a means to that end.
I don’t expect you to accept my theory rapidly. But I do expect you to be able to reject convection as you would greenhouse effect, because they are both on about the same level.
By the way, I’m fairly well educated in geomorphology. I know about the the theorized importance of high relief to kickstart ice ages, albedo, the depression/erosion caused by glaciation, and the rebound of continental crust associated with gravity anomalies, in Canada for example. In fact this very subject was once suggested to me as a thesis topic. But I lose interest on things that involve a vast timescale.

33. Scottish-Sceptic says:

Re the idea that water dries by aerosols – how do you explain how clumps of water break out of the surface tension.
… and no, I’m not really that interested in the answer until I see some data that suggests the current explanation involving gaseous water fails in some way that requires “clumped” H2O.

• James McGinn says:

Do you have any data that confirms the existence of gaseous H2O at temperatures far lower than the known boiling temperature/pressure of H2O? Or do you expect us to just take your word on it?

• dm says:

How can water vapor have a measurable vapor pressure at a range of temperatures below 100 C if it is not a gas?

• James McGinn says:

This is, actually, two questions:
1) Why does non-gaseous H2O (evaporate) that is suspended in the atmosphere produce vapor pressure?
Answer: Avogadro’s law and standard gas laws are applicable to all particles in the atmosphere, including non-gaseous, multi-molecular particles like water droplets/clusters.
2) Why is the droplet/cluster size of suspended H2O evaporate (clusters/droplets) so wide ranging in relation to temperature and pressure?
Answer: I don’t think anybody can provide you a simple, concise answer to this question. My guess though is that it has something to do with the strange dynamics associated with H2O surface tension, the underlying mechanism for which I attempted to explain in my paper and in my videos, links for both of which can be found here on this thread.
Cheers,
James McGinn

• dm says:

But you do not need an atmosphere to measure the vapor pressure. The apparatus diagrammed in the link above and the graph showing the variation of vapor pressure with temperature does not assume (or require) an atmosphere.

• James McGinn says:

DM:
But you do not need an atmosphere to measure the vapor pressure. The apparatus diagrammed in the link above and the graph showing the variation of vapor pressure with temperature does not assume (or require) an atmosphere.
JM:
This is the second or third time you mentioned this. Previously I asked you to explain its significance. You ignored my requests, so I won’t even ask.

• dm says:

I’m not sure what you are failing to understand. Vapor pressure is measurable with or without an atmosphere. It depends only on temperature, not pressure. So referring to evaporated water “suspended” in an atmosphere to explain the observed/measured vapor pressure makes no logical sense.
And suggesting that standard gas laws apply to non-gaseous particles is also pretty dubious.
The standard theory of gases answers this question. If your theory does not provide an answer just say so. But it is simply not true that vapor pressure measurements assume (or require) an atmosphere in which to suspend the water molecules (or particles, according to your theory).

• James McGinn says:

DM: Vapor pressure is measurable with or without an atmosphere.
JM: Obviously. Why do you keep repeating the same non-point?
DM: It depends only on temperature, not pressure.
JM: Say what? Obviously it depend on both, always. The atmosphere does have pressure. Right? Why in the world would you ever assume otherwise? So, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I can only assume you have some other point that I have missed.
DM: So referring to evaporated water “suspended” in an atmosphere to explain the observed/measured vapor pressure makes no logical sense.
JM: You lost me. I honestly don’t see how it doesn’t make sense. Sorry. Your assertion that the atmosphere has zero pressure seems plainly dumb to me. So I don’t think I can help you with that.
DM: And suggesting that standard gas laws apply to non-gaseous particles is also pretty dubious.
JM: LOL. Why? What alternative would you recommend? Imagination? It’s perfectly valid as long as we account for multi-molecular particles. (The only complicating factor would be if H2O was slightly attracted to air, but that would skew the results to create even denser air.)
DM: The standard theory of gases answers this question.
JM: Right, and standard theory is applicable to NORMAL gases. H2O–by definition–is NOT A NORMAL GAS AT TEMPERATURES BELOW ITS KNOWN BOILING POINT. So, by taking a dogmatic stance you have essentially killed your whole argument. Unlike yourself, I am not taking a dogmatic stance, I am adjusting the stipulations of the theory to account for what happens in reality. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. (Go ahead, throw your little hissy fit.) You are choosing part of the theory that conforms with your imagination and rejecting the part that does not. That is just foolish.
DM: If your theory does not provide an answer just say so.
JM: My theory is intended to comply with reality. It is not intended to comply with your imagination. If you are too dull-witted to account for H2O being multi-molecular don’t complain to me that I do. And if, as you stated above, your imagination does not allow for the fact that the atmosphere has pressure that is not something I can help you with. Sorry.
DM: But it is simply not true that vapor pressure measurements assume (or require) an atmosphere in which to suspend the water molecules (or particles, according to your theory).
JM: You have issues with the fundamental logic associated with applying the laws and principles of a scientific analysis. You choose what conforms to your imagination and, without consideration, reject what does not.
JM: That’s not the way it works.

• dm says:

Your lack of familiarity with the molecular theory of gases is undermining your argument. Vapor pressure does not depend on atmospheric pressure. It only depends on temperature. It is not an assumption. It is a fact. Look it up if you do not believe me. It is a well-known and accepted characteristic of water vapor that is demonstrated to all high school physics students (ever hear of the Clausius Clapeyron Equation)?
Your model assumes otherwise, and therefore your model is not in agreement with established measurements both in the atmosphere and in the laboratory.
That is my point. That is why it is relevant.
Do you understand now?

• James McGinn says:

dm says:
2nd March 2016 at 12:18 am
Your lack of familiarity with the molecular theory of gases is undermining your argument.
That’s funny because I consider myself an expert on the subject.
Vapor pressure does not depend on atmospheric pressure.
I have no idea what you mean by this. Sorry. You do realize that without air the term vapor pressure is irrelevant, don’t you? (Or are you that clueless.)
It only depends on temperature.
Again, I have no idea what you mean by this. Sorry. Do you think there might be any possibility that your inability to explain it might be because you really don’t understand it? Think about it.
It is not an assumption. It is a fact. Look it up if you do not believe me.
Reference?
It is a well-known and accepted characteristic of water vapor that is demonstrated to all high school physics students
You lost me. Sorry. I can’t figure out your point.
(ever hear of the Clausius Clapeyron Equation)?
Uh huh. Do you have a point?
Your model assumes otherwise, and therefore your model is not in agreement with established measurements both in the atmosphere and in the laboratory.
Uh, my model assumes the atmosphere has pressure. Apparently, yours does not? Or did I miss something?
That is my point. That is why it is relevant.
You aren’t making sense, AFAICT.
Answer one question for me, does the atmosphere have pressure? Yes or no?
Do you understand now?
Apparently not. Honestly. I don’t know what your point is. Sorry. Maybe somebody else can explain it to me.

• dm says:

I’m not sure how I can be more clear. If you google “does vapor pressure depend on pressure” there is a very clear and succinct answer that can be understood by anyone. It does not.
If you follow the link below to ChemWiki at UC Davis (which is the first link for me when I do that search), a more detailed explanation of the phenomenon is provided with multiple references.
http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Core/Physical_Chemistry/Physical_Properties_of_Matter/States_of_Matter/Liquids/Vapor_Pressure1

• dm says:

And to answer your question, yes the atmosphere has pressure. But the vapor pressure of water in the atmosphere does not depend on atmospheric pressure.

• James McGinn says:

DM: It is a well-known and accepted characteristic of water vapor that is demonstrated to all high school physics students
JM: Did you high school teach you that the atmosphere has no pressure?

• James McGinn says:

dm says:
2nd March 2016 at 1:01 am
“And to answer your question, yes the atmosphere has pressure.”
Okay.
“But the vapor pressure of water in the atmosphere does not depend on atmospheric pressure.”
I can’t make sense of this. Let me ask you a question, atmospheric pressure is a consequence of the particles in the atmosphere. Do you agree? If H2O is amongst these particles it will have an effect. Do you agree?
Why do you think it is that all of your arguments conclude with claims about what is obvious to a high school student? Might it be because you really don’t understand what you think you understand?

• James McGinn says:

DM:
“I’m not sure how I can be more clear. If you google “does vapor pressure depend on pressure” there is a very clear and succinct answer that can be understood by anyone.”
JM:
I did as you suggest, and this is what I found:
“The vapor pressure of a liquid does not depend on the amount on the liquid in the container, be it one liter or thirty liters; at the same temperature, both samples will have the same vapor pressure.”
Now explain to us how/why you think this indicates that the H2O in the atmosphere must be gaseous. And if that is not your point then what is your point? And what you think is obvious to a high school student isn’t relevant. Answer the question.

• dm says:

If you will not read the reference provided above, I’m not sure I can help you (I’m not a physics teacher/professor). Look for Raoult’s Law in that reference. In the example you’re asking about (the atmosphere), the pressure of the combined gases is the sum of the partial pressures of each constituent (proportional to their respective amounts). But the individual partial pressures do NOT rely upon each other.
This is basic physics taught in high school. Anyone who studies fluids should have no difficulty understanding this.

• James McGinn says:

DM:
If you will not read the reference provided above,
JM:
I read it. You don’t have a relevant point.
DM:
I’m not sure I can help you (I’m not a physics teacher/professor). Look for Raoult’s Law in that reference. In the example you’re asking about (the atmosphere), the pressure of the combined gases is the sum of the partial pressures of each constituent (proportional to their respective amounts). But the individual partial pressures do NOT rely upon each other.
JM:
Yes, this was never not obvious. So I couldn’t figure out why you kept bringing it up. And I still can’t. Obviously you were just confused into thinking you had a relevant point.
DM:
This is basic physics taught in high school. Anyone who studies fluids should have no difficulty understanding this.
JM:
Obviously you are just a nitwit whose only argument is based on an inability to distinguish between what he understands from what he only believes.
The real tragedy here is that you apparently lack the intellectual honesty to admit that you really never had a point.
Unfortunately, people like you are typical.

• dm says:

I’m honestly trying to understand how you can argue that a measured vapor pressure is not evidence that vapor…rather than clusters of molecules…is present. But clearly this is not a problem for you. So I guess I now understand your viewpoint, flawed though it is.

• James McGinn says:

dm says:
2nd March 2016 at 2:10 am
I’m honestly trying to understand how you can argue that a measured vapor pressure is not evidence that vapor…rather than clusters of molecules…is present.
JM:
And its incomprehensible to me that anybody would assume that it does.
I think, maybe, your confusion might be resolved simply by using the correct terminology. Try eliminating ambiguous terminology from your lexicon. For example, eliminate the word, “vapor” from your lexicon since this can mean gaseous H2O and/or clusters/droplets of H2O.
DM:
But clearly this is not a problem for you. So I guess I now understand your viewpoint, flawed though it is.
JM:
You never had a point. You had confusion, on many different levels. Take responsibility to your own confusion.

34. RayC says:

I’m not meaning to suggest “clumping” or lumps of water jumping about. I agree water has a gaseous phase. I just think its lifetime within the atmosphere is limited by and because aerosols are present and water prefers being liquid if possible. Just saying it is a mechanism whereby water transfers via phase change within the atmosphere.
Wouldn’t the air around wet clothes become saturated with water vapour, a gaseous saturated zone where molecules have broken free from the surface tension of water by energy excitation? Evaporated. Not in clumps but single molecules of gas.
But the clothing would dry even on a totally calm day simply because there are so many aerosol present in air , hundreds to thousands in every cubic centimetres of air, and the vapour readily condenses back to liquid on them and is carried away. The surface area of the clothes must be interacting with a ‘shed load’ of aerosols every second.
Point I’m trying to make is there may only be one percent of water vapour in the air but ‘shed loads’ of aerosols carrying liquids

• Scottish-Sceptic says:

It’s an interesting theory. As you suggest there is likely to be a thin surface layer which is 100% saturated – I think you are then implying that water could condense out in this layer so that it is more than 100% saturated. That’s unlikely to occur, because the clothes will be slightly cooler than the air, so if anything the air would condense on the clothes. But I suppose if you had clothes in the sun – replacing the lost heat – then you might just get condensation into the colder atmosphere where particles would be significant.

• James McGinn says:

With all due respect, neither one of you has the slightest idea what you are talking about. The thermodynamics of boiling have nothing to do with the thermodynamics of evaporation. The former have to do with kinetic energy, the latter have to do with static electricity. Apples and oranges.

• James McGinn says:

I am just now realizing that when you refer to aerosols you are referring to what I call particulate. Also to me it seems strange how their are so many people that refer to vapour as being gaseous. I equate vapor to evaporate, clumps of H2O, not monomolecular, gaseous H2O. And I always thought it obvious that steam is monomolecular, but I’m finding some that equate steam and fog. It’s a whirlwind of confusion. Maybe this underlies why so many people have bought in to the plainly crazy notion that H2O can exist as a gas (monomolecular H2O) at temperatures/pressures below its boiling points. It’s a plainly unscientific notion that has been popularized by meteorologists for reasons that can best be described as propagandistic and not scientific. But so many people just blindly accept that.

• RayC says:

James says;- “I am just now realizing that when you refer to aerosols you are referring to what I call particulate.”
Yes, particulate or aerosol, my point is every cubic centimetre of air has hundreds to thousands of these particulates ,which are solid and/or liquid material buoyant in air and the very important point is this has profound implications especially where water is concerned. Stream is never just water. As soon as it becomes visible ( just after the small zone between spout and aerosol where it is invisible vapour) it is water on an aerosol.
So although water molecules may have a polarity, or infinity, for each other it is never just water when it is in liquid phase. So driven snow is never pure!
Consequently the aerosol has a very important and dynamic role to play in atmospheric chemistry.
Consider the implications if , as is the case, a large percentage of those aerosol are salt. Would that alter the behaviour of the water molecules within a different species of hydride? Say making the gas phase a more realistic prospect.
“”
In nature water can naturally occur in three states; it can exist as a liquid (water), a gas (water vapour) and as a solid (ice). At standard temperatures and pressures, water exists in a state of dynamic equilibrium between it’s liquid and gaseous states. Ice, the solid form of water, only exists at relatively low temperatures (below water’s freezing point of zero degrees Celsius).
Although under standard conditions water in its liquid state is the most commonly recognised form, it is not, theoretically the predicted state for water to exist in. If water’s similarity to other analogous hydrides is considered then water should exist as a gas under standard conditions, and not as a liquid. For example hydrogen sulphide, which is chemically very similar to water, and is also a hydride, does not exist as a liquid under standard conditions, but as a gas. This property is a result of the polarity of water, described below, which leads to hydrogen bonding and strong interactions between water molecules. “”
http://www.fastbleep.com/biology-notes/40/116/1166
So although water on its own has hydrogen bonding and so strong interactions between like molecules does the fact that water is always ‘contaminated ‘ ,for want of a better word, alter your ‘theory of clumping’.

• James McGinn says:

I must say, Ray, I’m pretty impressed with your response here. I wasn’t expecting this. Much of your thinking on water is very advanced in comparison to most people I encounter. For example, you make the following statement: ” . . . water should exist as a gas under standard conditions, and not as a liquid.”
And you support this statement with specific and relevant examples, revealing that you understand the significance of H2O polarity and H bondiing. This level of comprehension is EXTREMELY rare!!!
Your level of understanding is equivalent to the level that most professionals that study water. But there is actually another level. I actually made it to the next level, a level above that of the professionals in the field. I did so about three years ago. And here is the funny thing. It wasn’t until just this last November that I fully realized (admitted to myself) that my breakthrough was/is a breakthrough.
Here is what it comes down to. There is a lot of quirkiness associated with H2O. Much of this quirkiness can be explained by its polarity. For example, as you indicated, it’s high boiling point can be explained by its polarity. But there is a whole bunch of quirkiness that is not fully resolved with reference to polarity, its high heat capacity and its surface tension being examples thereof. As explained in my videos, in an effort to resolve the quirkiness of H2O in the atmosphere I accidentally figured out that H2O polarity is actually neutralized by H bonding. The new understanding that emerged from this has the potential to resolve all of the quirkiness of H2O, starting with surface tension and heat capacity.
In other words, polarity neutralization through H bonding is the key to resolving all of the anomalies of H2O.
Enough said for now. I would suggest becoming real familiar with the paper that is referenced in this thread and watching all of my videos. Here is a link to my YouTube channel:
Regards,
James McGinn

• James McGinn says:

Ray: . . . air has hundreds to thousands of these particulates ,which are solid and/or liquid material buoyant in air and the very important point is this has profound implications especially where water is concerned.
Jim: I agree and I disagree, but mostly I agree. I disagree, for example, that there is a large amount of particulate in the air. But I do understand the underlying basis for why you might assume that there is particulate. I think the reason you assume that is because you believe, as do many, that without a point of nucleation gaseous H2O cannot form into liquid in the atmosphere. I think this notion is mistaken. I also think it is physically impossible for gaseous H2O to exist at the temperatures/pressures available in earth’s atmosphere.
Ray: Steam is never just liquid water. As soon as it becomes visible ( just after the small zone between spout and aerosol where it is invisible vapour) it is water on an aerosol.
Jim: I agree that as it becomes visible it is liquid, aerosol. But no particulate is necessary. Also, if you continue watching the aerosol cloud it will, often, disappear. Many people interpret the disappearance as evidence that it has returned to the gaseous state. Im my opinion, that never happens. There is zero gaseous H2O in the atmosphere. Consequently moist air convection, as claimed by meteorologists, is physically impossible. That is a big deal because all models of atmospheric flow depend on moist air convection. And these models depend on moist air convection to not only describe the flow of the atmosphere and why it, for example, results in Hadley cells, but also to describe why the main component of that flow, storms, are so wet. (As I explain in one of my videos, Wizard of Oz, I’ve known that meteorology’s convection notions were/are invalid for a long time, over 25 years. And, in fact, one of my meteorology teachers confirmed that exact point–as explained in my video.)
Ray: So although water molecules may have a polarity, or affinity, for each other it is never just water when it is in liquid phase.
Jim: Well, H2O has a high affinity before it becomes liquid. Once it becomes liquid the completion of H-bonds neutralize the polarity that underlies its “high affinity.” See this paper for explication of the mechanism that underlies this: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity https://zenodo.org/record/37224
Ray: Consider the implications if, as is the case, a large percentage of those aerosol are salt. Would that alter the behaviour of the water molecules within a different species of hydride? Say making the gas phase a more realistic prospect.
Jim: In my opinion, no. But I understand why one would strive to assert that H2O is gaseous in the atmosphere in that it appears as such. In other words, the fact that H2O is so often invisible would seem to indicated, to many, that this must mean that it is often in a gaseous state when it is mixed in with the air. But this contradicts the known boiling point of H2O. So there cannot be any gaseous H2O in the atmosphere. And, altogether, this kind of leaves us hanging, trying to explain why it is so invisible under so many conditional factors. The best way to explain this is, again, with reference to one of my videos where I indicated that it is a pseudo gas and a pseudo liquid: https://youtu.be/LwSyalcoRAk?t=23m5s
Jim: In other word, the tendency of H2o to be invisible in the atmosphere is another of the implications of Polarity Neutralization through H bonding.
Ray: In nature water can naturally occur in three states; it can exist as a liquid (water), a gas (water vapour) and as a solid (ice). At standard temperatures and pressures, water exists in a state of dynamic equilibrium between it’s liquid and gaseous states.
Jim: Excellent comment! Very perceptive.
Ice, the solid form of water, only exists at relatively low temperatures (below water’s freezing point of zero degrees Celsius).
Ice is tricky. Because if not for some polarity its freezing point would be somewhere below minus 15o celsius. And, according to my theory, its polarity is neutralized in its liquid state. So there MUST be some breaking of hydrogen bonds to explain why it becomes ice at 0 degrees Celsius. So the standard model of being a consequence of a lattice of fully coordinated H bonds must be mistaken. This notion–that ice forms into more fully coordinated lattice of H bonds–might be the biggest conceptual obstacle to the acceptance of my model because this notion is so completely undisputed among the people that study water.
Although under standard conditions water in its liquid state is the most commonly recognised form, it is not, theoretically the predicted state for water to exist in. If water’s similarity to other analogous hydrides is considered then water should exist as a gas under standard conditions, and not as a liquid.
Jim: Yes, if not for polarity, it would be a gas at STP. But what is strange is that I am saying that its polarity actually becomes neutralized in the liquid form and yet it doesn’t turn to gas. I think that is an extremely difficult concept for most people to grasp.
For example hydrogen sulphide, which is chemically very similar to water, and is also a hydride, does not exist as a liquid under standard conditions, but as a gas. This property is a result of the polarity of water, described below, which leads to hydrogen bonding and strong interactions between water molecules. “”
http://www.fastbleep.com/biology-notes/40/116/1166
So although water on its own has hydrogen bonding and so strong interactions between like molecules does the fact that water is always ‘contaminated ‘ ,for want of a better word, alter your ‘theory of clumping’.
Jim: Not really. They assume polarity is a constant, and I don’t:
https://youtu.be/WSGv08Rb_Lo

• James McGinn says:

Ray:
This property is a result of the polarity of water, described below, which leads to hydrogen bonding and strong interactions between water molecules. “”
http://www.fastbleep.com/biology-notes/40/116/1166
Jim:
This website does a good job of representing the standard model of water that is currently popular. But it doesn’t reflect my breakthrough, so it carries a number of conceptual shortcomings.
They do discuss electronegativity, and that is an important concept to understand polarity. But they fail to discuss symmetry. Without an understanding of symmetry you can’t understand how the completion of symmetry, through hydrogen bonding, actually neutralizes polarity. And that is my breakthrough.
Impact of Polarity Neutralization on the Water Sciences

35. RayC says:

Yes in favourable drying conditions I think there is a reducing zone (as it dries) of sufficient humidity, with a readily available supply of favourable surfaces on aerosols, for condensation to take place as they move through and away from that zone.
So ok I’m at a very basic level of understanding when it comes to the atmospheric dynamics of aerosols. Just trying to state what I assume to be happening. The air has large quantities of aerosol. Salt makes up a huge proportion of them. It is particularly hygroscopic or hydrophilic and consequently is able to ‘take on’ water, below saturation. Dust and carbonaceous material floating in the air has flat surfaces onto which water vapour finds it easier to return to liquid than to form clusters of pure water molecules. The air would need to be supersaturated to 400% to enable pure liquid water to form. This cannot happen in the atmosphere because there are so many aerosol with suitable surfaces. Easier to form a dome of clustered liquid water molecules than a droplet on their own. So liquid water forms on aerosols foremost. They are ubiquitous and in huge quantity so water vapour will return to liquid whenever possible.
If it isn’t turned to hydroxyl radicals first!! Then the chemistry gets interesting!! And too complex for me!!

36. James McGinn says:

Being very strong, H2O polarity prevents the existence of gaseous H2O at the temperatures that are available in our ambient environment. Hydrogen bonds neutralize (consume) the polarity of H2O molecules allowing for polarity neutralized droplets/clusters of H2O molecules to be pulled up into and between air molecules by static electric charges that are much less energetic than would be necessary to produce gaseous H2O. Thus, the thermodynamics of evaporation and thermodynamic of gaseous H2O are very different. But most people don’t realize this. The thing that really confuses them is they see that the results of evaporation is often just as invisible as if it was gaseous H2O and they assume that if it is invisible it must be gaseous, and that just ain’t so.
There is no gaseous H2O in earth’s atmosphere:

37. James McGinn says:

In response to this:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean/comment-page-8/#comment-114224
suricat says: March 1, 2016 at 2:21 am
Ray: Are you putting the ‘cart before the horse’ here . . .
Jim: I am putting the horse (jet streams) in front of the cart (Hadley cells):
By way of isolating its contents from the friction of the atmosphere, powered by differential pressure, spanning thousands of miles, the jet streams facilitate and conserve the momentum of atmospheric flow. The energy thereof is what pulls the rest of the atmosphere along with storms being the proximate mechanism that distributes the low pressure energy that itself is a consequence of the Bernoulli effect in conjunction with the high wind speeds of jet streams. Accordingly, Hadley cells are delineated by jet streams and the internal flow of Hadley cells is pulled along by the storm producing tributaries of jet streams–and that even includes storms in the tropics and severe weather, like hurricanes.
Ray: Jet streams-vortices???
Jim: Jet steams and vortices (tornadoes) are the same thing. The reason we don’t notice the vortices of the jet stream as much is because vortices require wind shear (between moist bodes of air and dry bodies of air) and 99.9% of the wind shear on this planet exists at the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere, which is far above us. Moisture is intrinsic to the process, that is why storms are wet. Convection plays no role at all.
Ray: Let’s get at least one thing straight! ‘Surface tension’ is only apparent in the ‘liquid’ phase of H2O!
Jim: I agree. And, as I’m sure you realized, there is no shortage of liquid (aerosol) H2O in the atmosphere. But the tricky part is figuring out how its surface becomes maximized to produce a strong plasma that can subsequently be rolled into the tubes that effectuate the, above mentioned, isolation from the friction of the atmosphere. The solution that I came up with involves wind shear along moist/dry and flat, smooth boundaries like we find at the top of the troposphere–specific details of which are available in my book on Amazon:
If you are interested, you could find my book by doing a search on the following:
James McGinn Vortex Phase Tornado Twist
Cheers,
James McGinn

38. NOY says:

Still demonstrating your inability to grasp how water can be gaseous phase below its boiling point, James? It’s already been fully explained to you, and in the process, your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly demolished.
You postulate the following:
1) There is a “plasma not-a-plasma” that exists in the troposphere, which you have admitted is merely a hypothetical construct so you can continue to blather on about your kooky discredited conspiracy theory.
2) This magical “plasma not-a-plasma” is plasmized by an energy source that is somehow magically plasmizing water in the troposphere without dissociating it, given that the dissociation energy and nuclear binding energy of water are identical at 940.8 kJ/mol, and thus water will dissociate rather than plasmize, unless hit with an extremely energetic laser.
3) That your kooky energy source is somehow plasmizing only atmospheric water while not plasmizing or dissociating Earth-bound water, and is not killing off all life on the planet. Given that the *minimum* energy necessary to even *begin* to plasmize water would be equivalent to photons at a *maximum* wavelength of 103.32 nm, just 3.32 nm away from the x-ray range, I’m sure even you can see the problem inherent in your contention, James.
4) That this magical energy source exists in the troposphere. Except it cannot exist in the troposphere. Photons of shorter wavelength than ~121 nm are absorbed far above the troposphere due to their ability to ionize air, thus they are not present in the troposphere, where the overwhelming majority of all water is.
5) That warm air is heavier than cooler air… tell me, Jim… which direction does air flow from a flame? Oh, that’s right, upward. Why? Because warm air is lighter and less dense than cooler air and thus convects upward.
6) That air with gaseous phase water in it is heavier than dry air, except you forget that science has long known about molar mass and molar volume…
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Air temperature is a much greater determiner of air density than humidity.
The molar mass of water is 18.02 g/mol, as calculated from the sum of the atomic masses of its constituent atoms.
The average molar mass of air (approximately 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 1% other gases) is 28.57 g/mol at STP.
Thus using Avogadro’s Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous phase and air have a molar volume of 22.414 L/mol at STP. IOW, a molar mass of air and a molar mass of water in its gaseous phase occupy the same volume of 22.414 liters at STP.
The density of water in its gaseous phase at STP is 0.804 g/L, whereas the density of dry air is 1.27 g/L at STP.
Therefore that 22.414 liters molar volume would weigh:
18.02 grams for water in its gaseous phase
28.57 g for dry air
Therefore, water in its gaseous phase is lighter than air. Therefore air containing water in its gaseous phase is lighter than dry air.
Therefore, drier air *must* sink through air laden with water in its gaseous phase, because it is less buoyant.
Except that’s not all, Jim. Because air becomes denser as the altitude decreases.
At any given altitude, air of the same temperature and gaseous water partial pressure will have the same density.
At any given altitude, air of lower temperature but similar gaseous water partial pressure will have higher density.
At any given altitude, air of the same temperature but greater gaseous water partial pressure will have lower density.
For air of the same temperature and gaseous water partial pressure, air at a higher altitude will have lower density.
(1) For instance, at sea level, 20 C temperature, and 0% relative humidity, the air density is 1.204 kg/m^3.
Keeping all other factors in (1) the same but increasing relative humidity to 100%, or elevation to 74 meters, or temperature to 22.4 C, the air density is 1.194 kg/m^3.
Thus in order for the air at sea level to rise 74 meters due to increased buoyancy, it must have 100% more relative humidity than the air 74 meters above (IOW, the air at sea level must be at 100% RH, the air 74 meters above must be at 0% RH), given the same temperature; or the temperature of that sea level air must be at least 2.4 C greater than the air at 74 meters, given the same relative humidity.
Given that temperature can change much more than 2.4 C, whereas relative humidity can only max out at 100%, one can see that temperature-induced convection is the predominant driver of weather systems, destroying yet another of your kooky contentions.
IOW, in order for air to rise, it must overcome gravity, which requires energy (said energy in the form of temperature of the air itself decreasing air density or the latent heat of vaporization of monomer water in its gaseous phase replacing a certain percentage of higher molar weight air molecules and thus decreasing air density).
It’s not because of your blather that the air at a lower altitude is “heavier” due to “water droplets”, Ko0okTard.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
And before you begin blathering on again about the Ideal Gas Law not applying to the atmosphere, let me remind you that I’ve done the calculations for the van der Waal’s equation, as well. It is in agreement with the Ideal Gas Law to a great degree of accuracy even with the molar volume I used. As air volume increases for the same relative humidity, air with gaseous phase water in it acts more and more like an ideal gas, Jim. Compare the Ideal Gas Law to the van der Waals Equation with all parameters the same except for volume, and increase the volume through several iterations, then plot the difference between the results of the Ideal Gas Law and the van der Waal equation… notice the converging trend?
Do you think for an Earth-atmosphere-sized container, the air with
gaseous phase water in it would be within a very small margin of error
to an ideal gas, Jim? Sure it is. But that’s something else you don’t
understand because you’re a low-information uneducated oaf.
7) Your kooky contention that water polarity changes upon H bonding… which would also cause random changes in water’s solvent properties, and we know water’s solvent properties do not change randomly, Jim. You didn’t know about the two spin isomers of water, which means there are two hybrids of water with different H bonding strengths:
https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156
They used x-ray spectroscopy to determine photon energy from electron
orbital shell descent. You’ll note the gaseous phase water molecule’s
photon spectra peaks at a much lower photon energy than ice. This is
due to differences in hydrogen bonding strength between the two
phases.
https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2304
You’ll note the double peak of liquid water.
Professor Anders Nilsson, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory:
====================================================
Two peaks, what does that mean? Could it be two different types of
water molecules then, in the liquid? And if you look at it, one of the
peaks is very close to the gas phase and the other peak is closer to
the ice. So it looks like water contains two types of molecules.
====================================================
You betcha… para and ortho-form water.
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/ortho_para_water.html
====================================================
Each hydrogen atom in water has a magnetic moment, which is associated
with the proton’s spin of 1/2. As is found in molecular hydrogen (H2),
the protons (within the hydrogen atoms) in water (H2O) may possess
parallel or antiparallel nuclear spin (see right). When the spins are
parallel, there is a paramagnetic state called ortho-H2O with a
magnetic moment = 1. This is the high spin (triplet) state with three
symmetric spin states +1 , 0 , -1 (^^, ^v+^v, vv) where the three
states have equal energy in a zero magnetic field. This spin state
always possesses positive energy with a minimum energy level of 284.7
J mol-1 (23.794352 cm-1) H216O, [607c], 284.4 J mol-1 (23.773510 cm-1)
H217O [607a] or 284.2 J mol-1 (23.754902 cm-1) H218O [607a].
When the spins are opposed there exists the nonmagnetic state called
para-H2O with magnetic moment = 0 with just one antisymmetric spin
state (^v-^v) and magnetic moment = 0. Some of the water molecules in
this low spin (singlet) state will not be rotating even at room
temperature.
Para-H2O does not interact with an external magnetic field, but
ortho-H2O does. Conversion between these isomers is symmetry forbidden
for isolated water molecules and they act as different molecular
species. They can change spin state on interaction with another
particle, including other water molecules. The equilibrium ratio of
these nuclear spin states in H2O is all para- at zero Kelvin, where
the molecules have no rotational spin in their ground state, shifting
to the most stable ratio [1694] of 3:1 ortho:para, in the relative
amounts of the number of magnetic states, at less cold temperatures
(>50 K, see left [2478]); the equilibrium taking months to establish
itself in ice (or gas) and nearly an hour in ambient water [410]. It
is now thought that the ratio lies far from equilibrium and much
closer to 1:1 in liquid water due to hydrogen bond formation [2076].
This means that liquid H2O effectively consists of a mixture of
non-identical molecules and the properties of pure liquid ortho-H2O or
para-H2O are unknown. The differences in the properties of these two
forms of water are expected to be greater in an electric field [1186],
which may be imposed externally, from surfaces or from water
clustering itself. Many materials preferentially adsorb para-H2O due
to its non-rotation ground state [410, 835].
The apparent difference in energy between the two states is a
significant 1-2 kJ mol-1, far greater than expected from spin-spin
interactions (< μJ mol-1) [835]. It has been suggested that structural
rearrangements may be induced by ortho-H2O : para-H2O conversion
[1430], as it is possible that hydrogen bonds between para-H2O,
possessing no ground state spin, are stronger and last longer than
hydrogen bonds between ortho-H2O [1150]. It is thus possible that
ortho-H2O and para-H2O form separate hydrogen bonded clusters [1150]
with para-H2O being preferred in the low density tetrahedrally
coordinated clusters and ortho-H2O being preferred in the high density
clusters [2070], where their rotation is more easily accommodated.
Picoliter samples of pure ortho-H2O and para-H2O may be separated in a
strong dc electric field [2156].
====================================================
The two spin isomers of water cause a different H bond strength when
water molecules of like spin isomers engage in H bonding to form water
clusters, Jim. Thus the weaker ortho-H2O hydrogen bond is more easily
broken, so most of the gaseous phase water being evaporated should be
ortho-H2O. You'll note above that ortho-H2O even in its liquid form is
very close to the same properties as gaseous phase water under x-ray
spectroscopy, the difference accountable by taking into consideration
temperature and phase.
Remember when I said the surface layer of water was more viscous than
the bulk water? Yeah, that's because the ortho-H2O being evaporated
removes heat from the water, which makes the para-H2O in the ~1.7 nm
thick surface layer act nearly the same as ice.
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html
=====================================================
Analysis of simple thermodynamics c shows the surface has considerable
structuring, having identical density to that of bulk water at just
under 4 °C. In addition, the surface water structuring varies less
with temperature than the bulk. Refractive index study of the
water-air surface reveals it to be about 1.7 nm thick at 22 °C and
more dense than the bulk liquid (that is, it behaves like water at a
lower temperature).
=====================================================
As for condensation? Well, it's been found that under circumstances in
which relative humidity is less than ~25%, a four-molecule thick layer
of ice forms on the condensation surface… so apparently what is
happening is that the ortho-H2O being evaporated is colliding with
other molecules in the air, changing their spin isomer and thus giving
off energy, becoming para-H2O, and those are the ones preferentially
condensing, forming that four-molecule thick layer of ice. You'll note
above that para-H2O even in its liquid form is very close to the same
properties as solid phase water (ice) under x-ray spectroscopy, the
difference accountable by taking into consideration temperature and
phase.
For conditions of greater than ~25% relative humidity and thus greater
water gaseous-phase partial pressure in the air, apparently the
condensation process is fast enough to allow even ortho-H2O
gaseous-phase water to condense, thus the four-molecule thick layer of
ice is melted.
So you see, James, it's not because of your kooky contention that the
water molecule's polarity changes upon hydrogen bonding, it's because
there are two spin-isomer hybrids of the water molecule with two
different hydrogen bonding strengths.
Yet again, your kooky conspiracy theory is ripped to shreds by
scientific fact… made especially delicious because it was done
utilizing a link *you* provided. LOL
http://phys.org/news/2014-09-para-ortho.html
==============================================
A hydrogen nucleus (proton) can adopt two different states, comparable
to rotation clockwise and counterclockwise. In the case of water, the
nuclear spins of the two — indistinguishable — protons can be combined
in four different ways: one antisymmetric and three symmetric
wavefunctions. Water adopting the antisymmetric wavefunction is called
para water, whereas water adopting one of the symmetric ones is called
ortho water. Because switching from one state to the other is
"forbidden" due to quantum-mechanical symmetry rules, the two spin
isomers cannot interconvert without external influences such as
collisions.
==============================================
Were you not aware that hydrogen has two spin isomers, ortho- and
para-, and thus water, comprised of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen
atoms, also has two spin isomers?
https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f24e171918d462fac89b809dccaa7c3e
http://cdn.phys.org/newman/csz/news/800/2014/201434press.gif
In pure hydrogen, ortho-hydrogen is thermodynamically unstable even at
low temperature and / or high pressure and it thus spontaneously
converts to para-hydrogen upon molecular collision, which has
implications for liquefied hydrogen storage, as energy is given off by
this spin isomer conversion.
In water, the oxygen atom slows the already slow conversion process to
para-hydrogen by preserving spin state of the hydrogen atom via
partially shielding the hydrogen atom from molecular collision which
would cause spin isomer conversion.
Now, let's you get to answering those questions you've been ducking,
Jim…
How are your kooky atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're
plasma, Jim?
How is your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" forming if the nuclear binding
energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the
water is dissociating into hydrogen and oxygen, Jim?
Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm, extremely
strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays… except photons
with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the
troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?
How is the energy to plasmize your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?
Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding, and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules
account for the different H bonding strengths which account for
evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your kooky
conspiracy theory is workable, Jim?
Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?
Your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly destroyed, Jim. It does
not and cannot reflect reality. Deal with that reality as you will,
Jim.
Most Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards like you, when presented with
the proof that they are delusional, tend to 'circle the wagons' to
protect their delusions, driving themselves ever deeper into insanity.
I note you are doing the same.
I also note that, despite being driven *so* insane by their Usenet
Lord and Master that some kooks forget their own name, they never
forget mine… it haunts them for as long as they live.
{snicker}

• James McGinn says:

Putting words in my mouth again?
This is a rather obvious attempt at straw-baiting. All of this has been discussed ad infinitum in sci.physics, If anybody is interested I suggest going to google groups sci.physics and then just do a search using my name James McGinn. Then, maybe, do another using Solving Tornadoes
Regards,
James McGinn

• James McGinn says:
39. NOY says:

I have no need to put words in your mouth, Jim. You’re doing a bang-up job all by your lonesome proving that your encroaching insanity does so at an accelerating pace.
James McGinn:
“Liquid water (evaporate) does have a high heat capacity. And when it
gets pulled up into the upper at atmosphere it does bring heat with
it. But it isn’t “latent” heat. It’s just heat. There is no phase
transition from gaseous H2O to liquid H2O happening in the atmosphere.
And even if there was that would not be latent heat either. Latent
heat has to do with chemical reactions, not phase transitions.”
Bwahahahaa! KookTard James McGinn denies latent heat! A value that has
been empirically measured time and again, and the delusional moron
denies it exists. He goes on to further blather that “latent heat has
to do with chemical reaction, not phase transitions.”, which is wrong.
Latent Heat Values (-25 to 40 C):
=================================
Melting: -79.7 cal/g, -330,000 J/kg
Freezing: +79.7 cal/g, +330,000 J/kg
Evaporation: -597.3 cal/g, -2,500,000 J/kg
Condensation: +597.3 cal/g, +2,500,000 J/kg
=================================
Latent Heat Values (-40 to 0 C):
=================================
Sublimation: -677.0 cal/g, -2,830,000 J/kg
Deposition: +677.0 cal/g, +2,830,000 J/kg
=================================
You’ll note that evaporation has ~7.5 times the latent heat, aka
enthalpy, than ice melting, thus water evaporation carries away ~7.5
times more heat than ice does when melting.
Yeah, folks, James McGinn is *so* delusional that he denies well-known
physical phenomena in order to keep his kooky conspiracy theory (and
his delusions) alive.
Ok, Jim… prove your kooky contention. Measure the heat being carried
away by evaporation. If it amounts to 2,500,000 J/kg, then your kooky
theory is wrong.
But if the water being evaporated only carries away 2326 J/kg, then
you’ll know you are right, and that your kooky conspiracy theory
thereby reflects reality.
Who wants to lay odds that James McGinn will run away from doing that
simple experiment which will either verify or null his kooky
conspiracy theory, because he knows it’ll null.
Now, Jim, get right on answering those tough questions you’ve been
avoiding like a coward… keep that up, and people will start thinking
you don’t have a plausible defense of your kooky discredited
conspiracy theory…
How are your kooky atmospheric “water droplets” forming if they’re
plasma, Jim?
How is your kooky “plasma not-a-plasma” forming if the nuclear binding
energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the
water is dissociating into hydrogen and oxygen, Jim?
Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays… except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your kooky “plasma not-a-plasma”, Jim?
How is the energy to plasmize your kooky “plasma not-a-plasma” not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?
Now that it’s been proven that water molecule polarity doesn’t change
upon H bonding, and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules
account for the different H bonding strengths which account for
evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your kooky
conspiracy theory is workable, Jim?
Why can’t you answer those questions, Jim?

• James McGinn says:

Latent Heat Values (-25 to 40 C):
=================================
Evaporation: -597.3 cal/g, -2,500,000 J/kg
Condensation: +597.3 cal/g, +2,500,000 J/kg
Can you describe the reproducible experimental evidence that underlies these numbers?

• NOY says:

Sure, Jim. Yet again you ask for the well-known and long-obvious as means of diverting attention away from the fact that you have absolutely no defense of your kooky conspiracy theory.
That PDF file not only contains details of Joseph Black’s experiments way back in the 1700s, but a modern reproduction of those experiments, complete with references to past experiments of a similar nature.
1. S.C. Brown, “The caloric theory of heat,” Am. J. Phys . 18, 367 (Sept. 1950).
2. L.W. Taylor, Physics: The Pioneer Science. Volume I. Mechanics Heat, Sound (Dover Publications, New York), Ch. 20, p. 267. This reproduces the original Lectures on Elements of Chemistry, given by
Black at the University of Edinburgh, published from his manuscripts by John Robinson (Longman & Rees, London, 1803).
3. H.S. Allen and H. Moore, A Textbook of Practical Physics (MacMillan, London, 1965), p. 296.
4. P.H. Bligh and R. Haywood, “Latent heat — Its meaning and measurement,” Eur. J. Phys. 7, 245 (1986).
5. S.Y. Mak and C.K.W. Chun, “The measurement of the specific latent heat of fusion of ice: two improved methods,” Phys. Educ. 35, 181 (May
2000).
8. H.U. Fuchs, The Dynamics of Heat (Springer, New York, 1996), p. 659.
9. C.D. Galles, “Revival of Black’s experiment,” Am. J. Phys. 47, 1008 (Nov. 1979).
10. J.W. Dewdney, “Newton’s law of cooling as a laboratory introduction to exponential decay functions,” Am. J. Phys. 27, 668 (Dec. 1959).
11. H. Lindeman and A. Lavie, “Instrument for the measurement of the heat of vaporization of water,” Am. J. Phys. 29, 705 (Oct. 1961).
So you can see just from that small handful of replications of Joseph Black’s original experiments, James, that the latent heat of water has been well-known for a long time, empirically observed, experimentally confirmed, corroborated by experiment after experiment over 250+ years.
Now, get right on answering those questions you’ve been dodging, James… you keep ducking and dodging and pretty soon people will start believing that you don’t have any means of defending your kooky conspiracy theory.
How are your kooky atmospheric “water droplets” forming if they’re
plasma, Jim?
How is your kooky “plasma not-a-plasma” forming if the nuclear binding
energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the
water is dissociating into hydrogen and oxygen, Jim?
Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays… except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your kooky “plasma not-a-plasma”, Jim?
How is the energy to plasmize your kooky “plasma not-a-plasma” not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?
Now that it’s been proven that water molecule polarity doesn’t change
upon H bonding, and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules
account for the different H bonding strengths which account for
evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your kooky
conspiracy theory is workable, Jim?
Why can’t you answer those questions, Jim?

• NOY says:
• Scottish-Sceptic says:

I checked that pdf for any mention of “density” and there is none. Could you point me to a paper that does the very simple measurements of density against RH.

• James McGinn says:

Read my question again, carefully. And answer accordingly.

• NOY says:

It was answered, Jim. You’re backpedaling. You have absolutely no defense of your kooky little theory, because even in the depths of your insanity, you realize your kooky little theory is nothing more than the mad ranting of a broken brain, Jim.

• James McGinn says:

NOY:
It was answered, Jim. You’re backpedaling. . . .
James McGinn:
Hmm. Well. I guess we’re at an impasse then. Because unless we can explicate the reproducible experimental evidence that underlies these numbers (below) I don’t see the point in continuing the conversation.
Latent Heat Values (-25 to 40 C):
=================================
Evaporation: -597.3 cal/g, -2,500,000 J/kg
Condensation: +597.3 cal/g, +2,500,000 J/kg
But I’ll tell you what. If it will make you feel any better I will allow you make a retraction.
Even better. I know how embarrassing it must be to have to make a retraction in a public forum, so all you have to do is just not respond to this post and I will consider you to have made a defacto retraction.
Fair enough?
So, all you have to do is not respond.
Don’t do it!
Cheers,
James McGinn

40. NOY says:

I’ll add that it’s not been “discussed ad infinitum” in sci.physics… what’s been going on in sci.physics is my providing scientific proof that you’re [delusional please reframe from attacking people, ideas yes, other commenters no], and you waffling, avoiding, diverting, hemming, hawing, backpedaling and conflating, all while you provide no proof of your kooky contentions, whilst simultaneously demanding proof of the well-known and long-obvious.
In short, James, you're backed into a corner and you're getting your teeth kicked in because you believe your having attended a Basic Meteorology elective class once somehow makes you able to claim to be a physicist, yet you're so uneducated and moronic you can't grasp basic topics.

• Scottish-Sceptic says:

NOY, whilst I agree that James refuses to supply evidence, that doesn’t make his assertions unscientific as they appear to be testable.
And whilst I expect that somewhere there is some data showing measurements on moist air, frustratingly so far no one has produced such results.

• James McGinn says:

Mike:
NOY, whilst I agree that James refuses to supply evidence,
I don’t refuse to supply evidence. When dealing with group delusions there is a natural tendency for the believers to assume dishonest intellectual tactics in order to protect the sanctity of the belief. One of those tactics is to turn the table and subtly suggest (erroneously) that it is the responsibility of the challenger to find evidence that disputes what they believe but have never proven. That was the tactic you were using, Mike. I was careful not to fall for it. It’s impossible to disprove what only exists in the minds of believers. If you were to ask me to provide evidence that crop circles were not produced by alien space craft I would not attempt to supply that evidence either.
There is an adage in science that the burden of proof is on those making extraordinary claims. The belief that H2O can magically become gaseous at temperatures below its known boiling point and upon condensing magically produce latent heat at magnitudes 1,000 times greater than has ever been measured under controlled conditions is an incredibly extraordinary claim.
NOY is using the same tactics. But he is less subtle.

• NOY says:

Liar. You’ve never provided *any* data. All you’ve supplied is your suppositions, which I’ve proven via more than a half-dozen avenues have no basis in reality.
I’ve given you the experiment which will either confirm or null your supposition, James (it’s not a theory, nor even a hypothesis… both of those are supported by data, whereas you’ve admitted you’re operating off of “hunches” and “hypotheticals”).
You’ve made an extraordinary claim, James, that latent heat doesn’t exist, specifically latent heat of vaporization. The onus is upon you to prove your claim. You can do so by performing the experiment I described.
Your failure to do so, instead choosing to continue to lie, backpedal, conflate, divert, demand proof then dismiss it, and use slimy debating tactics will stand as your tacit admission that you know your claims have no basis. And given that tacit admission, you must retract.
I’ll accept a public retraction, James. And an apology to the scientific community, which you damage with your anti-scientific blather just as much as the AGW acolytes do damage to science.
Of course, having met not just one but every single one of the terms of your challenge, your offered \$100,000 for my having done so will have to be paid, Jim. To fail to do so destroys your credibility in the scientific community.
But I’ll accept your donation to a charity of my choice. Verified by the charity, of course.
Now, before I go, James, here are those questions you’ve been dodging.
How are your atmospheric “water droplets” forming if they’re plasma, Jim?
Do you not know what the definition of “plasma” is, James?
How is your “plasma not-a-plasma” (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct so your claims have even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim?
Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays… except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your “plasma not-a-plasma”, Jim?
How is the energy to plasmize your “plasma not-a-plasma” not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?
Now that it’s been proven that water molecule polarity doesn’t change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water… and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your claims are workable, Jim?
Why can’t you answer those questions, Jim?

41. NOY says:

James McGinn:
Hmm. Well. I guess we’re at an impasse then. Because unless we can explicate the reproducible experimental evidence that underlies these numbers (below) I don’t see the point in continuing the conversation.
NOY:
No explication of the reproducible experimental evidence is necessary, James. They’ve been corroborated over 250+ years via experiment after experiment, each of them arriving at the same values.
Your task is to prove your kooky contention that latent heat doesn’t exist.
You’ll remember I said in a prior post:
==========================================================
Ok, Jim… prove your kooky contention. Measure the heat being carried
away by evaporation. If it amounts to 2,500,000 J/kg, then your kooky
theory is wrong.
But if the water being evaporated only carries away 2326 J/kg, then
you’ll know you are right, and that your kooky conspiracy theory
thereby reflects reality.
Who wants to lay odds that James McGinn will run away from doing that
simple experiment which will either verify or null his kooky
conspiracy theory, because he knows it’ll null.
==========================================================
And you’re running, Jim. You won’t do that simple, reproducible experiment to test your supposition (because we all know your kooky claims don’t rise to even the level of a hypothesis, let along a theory… you have absolutely no corroborating data to support your supposition) because you know it’ll null.
Now, Jim, get right on answering those tough questions you’ve been
avoiding like a coward… keep that up, and people will start thinking
you don’t have a plausible defense of your kooky discredited
conspiracy theory…
How are your kooky atmospheric “water droplets” forming if they’re
plasma, Jim?
How is your kooky “plasma not-a-plasma” forming if the nuclear binding
energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the
water is dissociating into hydrogen and oxygen, Jim?
Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays… except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your kooky “plasma not-a-plasma”, Jim?
How is the energy to plasmize your kooky “plasma not-a-plasma” not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?
Now that it’s been proven that water molecule polarity doesn’t change
upon H bonding, and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules
account for the different H bonding strengths which account for
evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your kooky
conspiracy theory is workable, Jim?
Why can’t you answer those questions, Jim? Why are you so cowardly that you run away from defending your kooky claims, Jim? Why are your claims so far away from reality, Jim?

• James McGinn says:

NOY:
No explication of the reproducible experimental evidence is necessary, James.
James McGinn:
It is for me.

42. NOY says:

Then you’ll get right on doing that experiment, James. You refuse to accept any data from anyone smarter or saner than you, and you’ve made an extraordinary claim that latent heat doesn’t exist… the onus is upon you, James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA to prove your contentions or retract.
You’ll remember I said in a prior post:
==========================================================
Ok, Jim… prove your kooky contention. Measure the heat being carried
away by evaporation. If it amounts to 2,500,000 J/kg, then your kooky
theory is wrong.
But if the water being evaporated only carries away 2326 J/kg, then
you’ll know you are right, and that your kooky conspiracy theory
thereby reflects reality.
Who wants to lay odds that James McGinn will run away from doing that
simple experiment which will either verify or null his kooky
conspiracy theory, because he knows it’ll null.
==========================================================
And you’re running, Jim. You’re backpedaling like mad… it’s what kooktards do when irrefutable scientific data is used to prove they’re delusional, Jim. And you are delusional, Jim.

• Scottish-Sceptic says:

I would be very pleased if you could point me to someone who has done the actual measurements. Because if I see a table, I’ve no way if this has been calculated from the assumption that H2O in its gaseous form consists of separate molecules (so the “data” proves nothing) or whether it is actual measurements.

• NOY says:

The experiment described above will prove the issue.
If, as all of science has said for 250+ years, monomolecular water is evaporating, thus stripping latent heat of evaporation away from the bulk water at a rate of 2,500,000 J/kg,, then scientific inquiry over the past 250+ years has been proven correct.
If, as James McGinn claims, the water is evaporating in clusters and thus there is no phase change, the water will only strip specific heat away from the bulk water at a rate of 2326 J/kg. Because remember, Mr. McGinn claims there is no phase change taking place upon evaporation… so all that *can* be stripped away from the bulk water is specific heat.
Of course, that latent heat of evaporation value for water has been experimentally confirmed likely tens of thousands of times over the past 250+ years, with increasing accuracy as modern equipment allows, to such an extent it’s been modeled mathematically. Quantum physics has taken the concept even further, describing water evaporation completely. So it’s laughable to even entertain Mr. McGinn’s notion.
But do the experiment yourself, then you can join the rest of the world laughing at Mr. McGinn.
You’ll note below that Mr. McGinn employs many tactics as a form of defending his delusions (because he cannot defend his claims, defending his delusions is the only thing left to him)… you’ve already seen him ask for long-known and experimentally obtained data that has been corroborated and confirmed again and again and again, now you can see his tactic whereby he asks question that you agree with, and conflates that those questions somehow support his theory.
Ask him the same questions I’ve been asking, and you’ll see him employ a variety of similar tactics… but never will he ever do a controlled experiment to null his supposition, nor will he ever admit he is wrong, He’ll keep writhing and changing his theory to desperately try to make it work… as we just saw recently with his forced admission in sci.physics that his “plasma not-a-plasma” was “hypothetical” (Mr. McGinn’s word… in reality, it’s not even hypothetical, as a hypothesis is supported by data… Mr. McGinn’s entire ‘theory’ is nothing more than a supposition built up into an even ‘theory’), that plasma was “just a word’, and the fact that his “plasma not-a-plasma” didn’t exist destroyed his theory was just “semantics”.
Words have meaning. When you see someone changing the meanings of words to make their supposition, hypothesis or theory work, you can be assured that person is wrong and clutching at straws, as Mr. McGinn is doing.

• James McGinn says:

NOY says: 14th March 2016 at 2:16 pm
The experiment described above will . . .
So, all I’m seeing here, NOY, is one sentence where you make general reference to an experiment followed by five paragraphs that devolve into a semantic dispute with my use of the word “plasma” and otherwise insinuating that I am crazy. I suggest you flip that approach on its head. Call me crazy in your first sentence then spend the rest of the post explaining how the experimental evidence substantiates your claims that water turns gaseous at temperatures much lower than has ever been measured under controlled conditions and then upon condensing produces latent heat at magnitudes 1,000 times greater than has ever been detected.

• NOY says:

See? James McGinn claims the use of the word “plasma” to describe his hypothetical construct (which he’s admitted is merely hypothetical) as means of making his claims appear to work is merely “semantics” because he doesn’t want to acknowledge that words have meaning, and changing the meanings of words makes it apparent that you’re wrong and clutching at straws to make your claims appear to work… except your claim of “plasma not-a-plasma” make is even more difficult for you to get your claims to be plausible, as is evidence by your inability to answer those tough questions:
So you really have only two choices left to you, James.
1) Do the experiment and prove yourself wrong.
2) Continue to avoid those tough questions, avoid doing that experiment because you know it’ll null, and continue to employ slimy debating tactics… thereby tacitly admitting your claims have no basis in reality.
You’ve made the extraordinary claim that latent heat doesn’t exist, specifically latent heat of vaporization. The onus is upon you to provide proof of your claim, James, no one else.
Now to those tough questions you’ve been ducking, James:
How are your atmospheric “water droplets” forming if they’re plasma, Jim?
Do you not know what the definition of “plasma” is, James?
How is your “plasma not-a-plasma” (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct so your claims have even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim?
Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays… except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your “plasma not-a-plasma”, Jim?
How is the energy to plasmize your “plasma not-a-plasma” not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?
Now that it’s been proven that water molecule polarity doesn’t change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water… and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your claims are workable, Jim?
Why can’t you answer those questions, Jim?

• James McGinn says:

As a state of matter, plasma is a category. It’s not a thing. Other states of matter can occur at different temperatures and have different specific qualitities. So, there is no need to throw a temper tantrum over the use of the word plasma.

• NOY says:

Wrong, James. Plasma is a state of matter. It is “a thing”.
That’d be akin to you claiming that water can plasmize despite the fact that its nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy are identical at 940.8 kJ/mol, and thus it preferentially dissociates into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser.
Or you claiming that plasma can form “droplets”.
Or you claiming that this plasma is somehow magically created with an energy source that does not and cannot exist in the troposphere. Such an energy source would also dissociate or plasmize all water on the planet and kill all life, given that the energy necessary to even *begin* to plasmize water would be equivalent to maximum 103.32 nm wavelength photons, extremely energetic ultraviolet only 3.32 nm away from x-ray range… except photons of wavelength shorter than ~121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well.
Or your claiming that latent heat, specifically latent heat of evaporation, does not exist, despite it being empirically, experimentally measured time and time and time again for more than 250 years, with more and more accuracy as science progressed, to the point that it is modeled mathematically to several decimal points accuracy and indeed is now even fully explained via quantum physics.
Oh, wait. You *do* claim all the above. LOL
Plasma is the most abundant state of matter in the universe, by both mass and volume, as a matter of fact, Jim. It has a specific scientific definition. Your attempt to hijack the word so you can make your implausible claims work, while admitting this substance you’re relying upon to lend the thinnest patina of plausibility to your claims is “hypothetical” (your word, Jim), means you have no scientifically rigorous proof nor any data to back up your claims.
Scratch the surface of your claims even the slightest and all sorts of oddness, implausibilities and impossibilities come gushing forth, as I’ve shown. And you have no way of explaining any of this except to backpedal, conflate, divert, hem, haw, duck, dodge and run away… and use slimy debating tactics rather than substantively addressing the problems inherent in your claims.
All you have is your suppositions built upon suppositions built upon suppositions, all a product of your lack of education leading to your misunderstanding of common physical phenomena.
Your claims don’t even rise to the level of hypothesis, let alone a theory, since even a hypothesis is supported by some data, and a theory is well-tested and proven to work.
You have suppositions, James. Nothing more. Suppositions that scientific reality disprove.

• James McGinn says:

Scottish-Sceptic says: 14th March 2016 at 8:09 am
Mike:
“I’ve no way if this has been calculated from the assumption that H2O in its gaseous form consists of separate molecules (so the “data” proves nothing) or whether it is actual measurements.”
James:
Obviously NOY is never going to come through for you/us on this. I don’t think we should be putting this on him anyway. He’s obviously just a guy who watches the Discovery Channel on cable. He isn’t the one making the claim anyway. You will never find the origins of the 2.5 million J/kg. It probably started when somebody mistook (maybe not by accident) a common for a decimal, we’ll never know.
You won’t find anybody in meteorology that will own up to it or even acknowledge it.
Did you hear the one about the guy that goes to buy a suit?
http://wp.me/p4JijN-3j

• James McGinn says:

NOY says: 14th March 2016 at 6:21 am
Then you’ll get right on doing that experiment, James. You refuse to accept any data from anyone smarter or saner than you, and you’ve made an extraordinary claim that latent heat doesn’t exist…
James McGinn:
Well, if it is any consolation, your reluctance to discuss the details of “latent heat” is not unique to yourself. I’ve been trying tor 25 years–starting with college professors of meteorology, to whom through which I was taking classes–to find somebody that would explain the details of the convection and latent heat that, supposedly, underlie storms. I’ve scoured the internet, and every bookstore I could find. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. So don’t feel that you are atypical or inadequate in that respect.
Since you don’t want to talk about your theory, maybe you wouldn’t mind answering a few questions in regard to my theory:
1) Do you agree that there are boundary layers in the atmosphere?
2) Do you agree that we can characterize these boundary layers on the basis of differences in the composition of the bodies of air that lay on either side of the boundary layer?
3) Do you agree that some will be moister, some drier, some warmer, some cooler and that they can often have unique vectors (directions of flow) and velocities?
4) Do you agree that the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere would?generally be a long flat boundary?
5) Do you agree that the stratosphere would generally be cooler and drier’?
6) Do you agree that the troposphere would generally be warmer and moister?
7) Do you agree that the jet streams are generally located along this boundary between troposphere and stratosphere?
Thanks in advance for your response. It will help me get a better understanding of what other people do and don’t think about the atmosphere and storms.

43. NOY says:

[I’ve had to heavily edit this comment because it was filled with personal attacks]
Awww, look at James McGinn asking questions he knows to be true, then conflating that those questions somehow support his kooky claims.
But in order for your [snip] claims to be true, Jim, you would have to be able to explain in detail, with the mathematics to model your ‘theory’ all those questions I’ve been asking.
I’ve destroyed your ‘theory’ using more than a half-dozen different avenues, Jim, to which you have no defense. All you’ve done is blathered non sequiturs, repeatedly asked for data which has been confirmed again and again over centuries, conflated, backpedaled, moved the goalposts, and employed every slimy tactic you could [snip] you think you know better than every single scientist studying the topic over the past 250+ years.
But which do you think is more likely…
That every single scientist studying the topic over the past 250+ years got their experiments wrong, or;
That [snip] someone (who has done *no* experiments; has *no* math to model your theory; who has admitted you’re using “hypothetical” (your word, Jim) constructs to get your ‘theory’ to work; who has *no* corroborating experimental data, and who employs slimy debating tactics rather than answering tough questions) [snip]
Here, Jim, take another crack at refuting scientific reality… or run away from it, [snip]
==========================================================
Still demonstrating your inability to grasp how water can be gaseous
phase below its boiling point, James? It’s already been fully
explained to you, [snip]
You postulate the following:
1) There is a “plasma not-a-plasma” that exists in the troposphere,
which you have admitted is merely a hypothetical construct [snip]
2) This magical “plasma not-a-plasma” is plasmized by an energy source
that is somehow magically plasmizing water in the troposphere without
dissociating it, given that the dissociation energy and nuclear
binding energy of water are identical at 940.8 kJ/mol, and thus water
will dissociate rather than plasmize, unless hit with an extremely
energetic laser.
3) That your energy source is somehow plasmizing only
atmospheric water while not plasmizing or dissociating Earth-bound
water, and is not killing off all life on the planet. Given that the
*minimum* energy necessary to even *begin* to plasmize water would be
equivalent to photons at a *maximum* wavelength of 103.32 nm, just
3.32 nm away from the x-ray range, I’m sure even you can see the
problem inherent in your contention, James.
4) That this magical energy source exists in the troposphere. Except
it cannot exist in the troposphere. Photons of shorter wavelength than
~121 nm are absorbed far above the troposphere due to their ability to
ionize air, thus they are not present in the troposphere, where the
overwhelming majority of all water is.
5) That warm air is heavier than cooler air… tell me, Jim… which
direction does air flow from a flame? Oh, that’s right, upward. Why?
Because warm air is lighter and less dense than cooler air and thus
convects upward.
6) That air with gaseous phase water in it is heavier than dry air,
except you forget that science has long known about molar mass and
molar volume…
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Air temperature is a much greater determiner of air density than
humidity.
The molar mass of water is 18.02 g/mol, as calculated from the sum of
the atomic masses of its constituent atoms.
The average molar mass of air (approximately 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen,
1% other gases) is 28.57 g/mol at STP.
Thus using Avogadro’s Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous
phase and air have a molar volume of 22.414 L/mol at STP. IOW, a molar
mass of air and a molar mass of water in its gaseous phase occupy the
same volume of 22.414 liters at STP.
The density of water in its gaseous phase at STP is 0.804 g/L, whereas
the density of dry air is 1.27 g/L at STP.
Therefore that 22.414 liters molar volume would weigh:
18.02 grams for water in its gaseous phase
28.57 g for dry air
Therefore, water in its gaseous phase is lighter than air. Therefore
air containing water in its gaseous phase is lighter than dry air.
Therefore, drier air *must* sink through air laden with water in its
gaseous phase, because it is less buoyant.
Except that’s not all, Jim. Because air becomes denser as the altitude
decreases.
At any given altitude, air of the same temperature and gaseous water
partial pressure will have the same density.
At any given altitude, air of lower temperature but similar gaseous
water partial pressure will have higher density.
At any given altitude, air of the same temperature but greater gaseous
water partial pressure will have lower density.
For air of the same temperature and gaseous water partial pressure,
air at a higher altitude will have lower density.
(1) For instance, at sea level, 20 C temperature, and 0% relative
humidity, the air density is 1.204 kg/m^3.
Keeping all other factors in (1) the same but increasing relative
humidity to 100%, or elevation to 74 meters, or temperature to 22.4 C,
the air density is 1.194 kg/m^3.
Thus in order for the air at sea level to rise 74 meters due to
increased buoyancy, it must have 100% more relative humidity than the
air 74 meters above (IOW, the air at sea level must be at 100% RH, the
air 74 meters above must be at 0% RH), given the same temperature; or
the temperature of that sea level air must be at least 2.4 C greater
than the air at 74 meters, given the same relative humidity.
Given that temperature can change much more than 2.4 C, whereas
relative humidity can only max out at 100%, one can see that
temperature-induced convection is the predominant driver of weather
systems, destroying yet another of your contentions.
IOW, in order for air to rise, it must overcome gravity, which
requires energy (said energy in the form of temperature of the air
itself decreasing air density or the latent heat of vaporization of
monomer water in its gaseous phase replacing a certain percentage of
higher molar weight air molecules and thus decreasing air density).
It’s not because of your blather that the air at a lower altitude is
“heavier” due to “water droplets”, Ko0okTard.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
And before you begin blathering on again about the Ideal Gas Law not
applying to the atmosphere, let me remind you that I’ve done the
calculations for the van der Waals equation, as well. It is in
agreement with the Ideal Gas Law to a great degree of accuracy even
with the molar volume I used. As air volume increases for the same
relative humidity, air with gaseous phase water in it acts more and
more like an ideal gas, Jim. Compare the Ideal Gas Law to the van der
Waals Equation with all parameters the same except for volume, and
increase the volume through several iterations, then plot the
difference between the results of the Ideal Gas Law and the van der
Waals equation… notice the converging trend?
Do you think for an Earth-atmosphere-sized container, the air with
gaseous phase water in it would be within a very small margin of error
to an ideal gas, Jim? Sure it is. But that’s something else you don’t
understand because you’re a low-information uneducated oaf.
7) Your contention that water polarity changes upon H bonding…
which would also cause random changes in water’s solvent properties,
and we know water’s solvent properties do not change randomly, Jim.
You didn’t know about the two spin isomers of water, which means there
are two hybrids of water with different H bonding strengths:
https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156
They used x-ray spectroscopy to determine photon energy from electron
orbital shell descent. You’ll note the gaseous phase water molecule’s
photon spectra peaks at a much lower photon energy than ice. This is
due to differences in hydrogen bonding strength between the two
phases.
https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2304
You’ll note the double peak of liquid water.
Professor Anders Nilsson, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory:
====================================================
Two peaks, what does that mean? Could it be two different types of
water molecules then, in the liquid? And if you look at it, one of the
peaks is very close to the gas phase and the other peak is closer to
the ice. So it looks like water contains two types of molecules.
====================================================
You betcha… para and ortho-form water.
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/ortho_para_water.html
====================================================
Each hydrogen atom in water has a magnetic moment, which is associated
with the proton’s spin of 1/2. As is found in molecular hydrogen (H2),
the protons (within the hydrogen atoms) in water (H2O) may possess
parallel or antiparallel nuclear spin (see right). When the spins are
parallel, there is a paramagnetic state called ortho-H2O with a
magnetic moment = 1. This is the high spin (triplet) state with three
symmetric spin states +1 , 0 , -1 (^^, ^v+^v, vv) where the three
states have equal energy in a zero magnetic field. This spin state
always possesses positive energy with a minimum energy level of 284.7
J mol-1 (23.794352 cm-1) H216O, [607c], 284.4 J mol-1 (23.773510 cm-1)
H217O [607a] or 284.2 J mol-1 (23.754902 cm-1) H218O [607a].
When the spins are opposed there exists the nonmagnetic state called
para-H2O with magnetic moment = 0 with just one antisymmetric spin
state (^v-^v) and magnetic moment = 0. Some of the water molecules in
this low spin (singlet) state will not be rotating even at room
temperature.
Para-H2O does not interact with an external magnetic field, but
ortho-H2O does. Conversion between these isomers is symmetry forbidden
for isolated water molecules and they act as different molecular
species. They can change spin state on interaction with another
particle, including other water molecules. The equilibrium ratio of
these nuclear spin states in H2O is all para- at zero Kelvin, where
the molecules have no rotational spin in their ground state, shifting
to the most stable ratio [1694] of 3:1 ortho:para, in the relative
amounts of the number of magnetic states, at less cold temperatures
(>50 K, see left [2478]); the equilibrium taking months to establish
itself in ice (or gas) and nearly an hour in ambient water [410]. It
is now thought that the ratio lies far from equilibrium and much
closer to 1:1 in liquid water due to hydrogen bond formation [2076].
This means that liquid H2O effectively consists of a mixture of
non-identical molecules and the properties of pure liquid ortho-H2O or
para-H2O are unknown. The differences in the properties of these two
forms of water are expected to be greater in an electric field [1186],
which may be imposed externally, from surfaces or from water
clustering itself. Many materials preferentially adsorb para-H2O due
to its non-rotation ground state [410, 835].
The apparent difference in energy between the two states is a
significant 1-2 kJ mol-1, far greater than expected from spin-spin
interactions (< μJ mol-1) [835]. It has been suggested that structural
rearrangements may be induced by ortho-H2O : para-H2O conversion
[1430], as it is possible that hydrogen bonds between para-H2O,
possessing no ground state spin, are stronger and last longer than
hydrogen bonds between ortho-H2O [1150]. It is thus possible that
ortho-H2O and para-H2O form separate hydrogen bonded clusters [1150]
with para-H2O being preferred in the low density tetrahedrally
coordinated clusters and ortho-H2O being preferred in the high density
clusters [2070], where their rotation is more easily accommodated.
Picoliter samples of pure ortho-H2O and para-H2O may be separated in a
strong dc electric field [2156].
====================================================
The two spin isomers of water cause a different H bond strength when
water molecules of like spin isomers engage in H bonding to form water
clusters, Jim. Thus the weaker ortho-H2O hydrogen bond is more easily
broken, so most of the gaseous phase water being evaporated should be
ortho-H2O. You'll note above that ortho-H2O even in its liquid form is
very close to the same properties as gaseous phase water under x-ray
spectroscopy, the difference accountable by taking into consideration
temperature and phase.
Remember when I said the surface layer of water was more viscous than
the bulk water? Yeah, that's because the ortho-H2O being evaporated
removes heat from the water, which makes the para-H2O in the ~1.7 nm
thick surface layer act nearly the same as ice.
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html
=====================================================
Analysis of simple thermodynamics c shows the surface has considerable
structuring, having identical density to that of bulk water at just
under 4 °C. In addition, the surface water structuring varies less
with temperature than the bulk. Refractive index study of the
water-air surface reveals it to be about 1.7 nm thick at 22 °C and
more dense than the bulk liquid (that is, it behaves like water at a
lower temperature).
=====================================================
As for condensation? Well, it's been found that under circumstances in
which relative humidity is less than ~25%, a four-molecule thick layer
of ice forms on the condensation surface… so apparently what is
happening is that the ortho-H2O being evaporated is colliding with
other molecules in the air, changing their spin isomer and thus giving
off energy, becoming para-H2O, and those are the ones preferentially
condensing, forming that four-molecule thick layer of ice. You'll note
above that para-H2O even in its liquid form is very close to the same
properties as solid phase water (ice) under x-ray spectroscopy, the
difference accountable by taking into consideration temperature and
phase.
For conditions of greater than ~25% relative humidity and thus greater
water gaseous-phase partial pressure in the air, apparently the
condensation process is fast enough to allow even ortho-H2O
gaseous-phase water to condense, thus the four-molecule thick layer of
ice is melted.
So you see, James, it's not because of your contention that the
water molecule's polarity changes upon hydrogen bonding, it's because
there are two spin-isomer hybrids of the water molecule with two
different hydrogen bonding strengths.
Yet again, your theory is ripped to shreds by
scientific fact… made especially delicious because it was done
utilizing a link *you* provided. LOL
http://phys.org/news/2014-09-para-ortho.html
==============================================
A hydrogen nucleus (proton) can adopt two different states, comparable
to rotation clockwise and counterclockwise. In the case of water, the
nuclear spins of the two — indistinguishable — protons can be combined
in four different ways: one antisymmetric and three symmetric
wavefunctions. Water adopting the antisymmetric wavefunction is called
para water, whereas water adopting one of the symmetric ones is called
ortho water. Because switching from one state to the other is
"forbidden" due to quantum-mechanical symmetry rules, the two spin
isomers cannot interconvert without external influences such as
collisions.
==============================================
Were you not aware that hydrogen has two spin isomers, ortho- and
para-, and thus water, comprised of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen
atoms, also has two spin isomers?
https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f24e171918d462fac89b809dccaa7c3e
http://cdn.phys.org/newman/csz/news/800/2014/201434press.gif
In pure hydrogen, ortho-hydrogen is thermodynamically unstable even at
low temperature and / or high pressure and it thus spontaneously
converts to para-hydrogen upon molecular collision, which has
implications for liquefied hydrogen storage, as energy is given off by
this spin isomer conversion.
In water, the oxygen atom slows the already slow conversion process to
para-hydrogen by preserving spin state of the hydrogen atom via
partially shielding the hydrogen atom from molecular collision which
would cause spin isomer conversion.
Now, let's you get to answering those questions you've been ducking,
Jim…
How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're
plasma, Jim?
How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" forming if the nuclear binding
energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the
water is dissociating into hydrogen and oxygen, Jim?
Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays… except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?
How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?
Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding, and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules
account for the different H bonding strengths which account for
evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your theory is workable, Jim?
Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?
Your theory has been utterly destroyed, Jim. It does
not and cannot reflect reality. Deal with that reality as you will,
Jim.
Most Dunning-Kruger afflicted when presented with
the proof that they are wrong tend to 'circle the wagons' [snip].
I note you are doing the same.

• James McGinn says:

NOY says: 14th March 2016 at 2:35 pm
[I’ve had to heavily edit this comment because it was filled with personal attacks]
When I first read it I assumed NOY might be an acronym. Now I’m fairly sure it is must be an abbreviation.
So, NOY, it would appear that you are not interested in discussing the origins of the table and it’s (absurd) claim that the latent heat of evaporation/condensation involves 2,500,000 J/kg, which is (you claim) based on 250+ years of rigorous empirical evidence. Instead you wish to discuss para and ortho-form water. Right?
Okay, maybe you can discuss your interpretation of the meaning of the following phrases in the passage that follows, a passage that was copied from the same website (Martin Chaplin’s) that you obtained your information on para and ortho-form water:
“It has been suggested . . . ”
” . . . it is possible that . . . ”
“It is thus possible that . . . ”
“It has been suggested that structural rearrangements may be induced by ortho-H2O : para-H2O conversion [1430], as it is possible that hydrogen bonds between para-H2O, possessing no ground state spin, are stronger and last longer than hydrogen bonds between ortho-H2O [1150]. It is thus possible that ortho-H2O and para-H2O form separate hydrogen bonded clusters [1150] with para-H2O being preferred in the low density tetrahedrally coordinated clusters and ortho-H2O being preferred in the high density clusters [2070], where their rotation is more easily accommodated.”
If nothing else, I’m sure your response will be very entertaining.
James McGinn

44. NOY says:

Jim: Jet steams and vortices (tornadoes) are the same thing.
No, Jim. Jet streams and vortices (tornadoes) are not the same thing. One is a vortex, whereas the jet stream is a flat, spread-out stream of fast non-vortex air. If the jet stream were a vortex, planes would find it extremely difficult to fly in the jet stream.
The updrafting air attempts to minimize aerodynamic drag, thus it forms a wedge shape with highest speeds at the center of this wedge, and air speed tapering off further away from the wedge center. As the air rises, the surrounding air temperature falls, intensifying the differential between that updrafting air and the surrounding air. At the top of the troposphere, however, temperature begins climbing with altitude, thus that updrafting air hits a “ceiling” where the air density can no longer drive updraft.
The vertical component of that wedge shape is squashed, the horizontal component is spread out, but the air still attempts to maintain its wedge shape, thus the jet stream is a flat, wide stream of fast air. The Coriolis Effect forces this stream into a circular shape the encircles the globe.
The turbulence (clear air turbulence) directly near the jet stream is a result of that updrafting air spreading out as it hits the tropopause and/or an air front.
http://langleyflyingschool.com/Pages/CPGS%20Meteorology,%20Part%201.html
http://langleyflyingschool.com/Images/CPL%20Weather/5%20Jet%20Stream%20Core.gif
http://kkd.ou.edu/METR%201004/Jet%20St1.gif
http://www.webairlines.com/wa20jetstream.gif
https://climate.ncsu.edu/secc_edu/images/jetstream5.jpg
*Not* a vortex. Merely a “wedge” consisting of higher-speed air in the center of the stream, the speed tapering off with distance from the aerodynamic center of that stream.
Your fundamental misunderstanding of basic physical phenomena is a result of your refusal to accept knowledge from anyone you deem to be “in” on your manufactured conspiracy, James… thus you have very few places to turn with which you can educate yourself and rectify your wrong-headed take on reality.

45. NOY says:

Not at all, James. I’m equally able to converse on para- and ortho- form water (which you knew nothing about, hence your claim that water molecule polarity changes, rather than the scientific reality that water comprises two spin isomers and thus two hydrogen bonding strengths, as empirically measured) and the existence of latent heat, Jim.
As to the latent heat of evaporation, you already have the means by which to confirm or null your suppositions, James. Simple perform an experiment in which you measure the heat being carried away by evaporating water. If it equates to 2,500,000 J/kg, then your suppositions *must* be wrong, as the underlying premise of your suppositions is wrong.
If, however, there is only specific heat being carried away, equal to 2326 J/kg, then your claim that no phase change is taking place will have been proven, and you’ll likely become very famous for overturning more than 250 years of scientifically rigorous experimental data.
Why aren’t you doing that experiment, James? You’ve made extraordinary claims that fly in the face of more than 250 years of scientifically rigorous empirical observation, thus the onus is upon you to prove your claims.
And if you null your claims via your experiment, as everyone knows you will, the onus is also upon you to retract.
Which is likely why you’ve chosen instead to continue to backpedal, lie, conflate, hem, haw, and employ all manner of sleazy debating tactics, rather than addressing the issue scientifically, James.

46. NOY says:

Scottish Skeptic:
I checked that pdf for any mention of “density” and there is none. Could you point me to a paper that does the very simple measurements of density against RH.
Not sure what you’re trying to arrive at here… density? it’s very simple.
If, as James McGinn claims, latent heat of evaporation doesn’t exist because a phase change doesn’t occur upon evaporation and thus clusters of water are launching into the air upon evaporation, then the *only* heat that can be carried away is specific heat, which would be equivalent to 2326 J/kg.
If, however, as Joseph Black and innumerable scientists since the 1700s have proven, latent heat of evaporation *does* exist, there will be 2,500,000 J/kg carried away. This result will null the underlying premise of Mr. McGinn’s claims, thus disproving his entire “theory”.
It’s a simple experiment, and given that Mr. McGinn has made claims that fly in the face of 250+ years of experimentally, empirically measured data, the onus is upon Mr. McGinn to prove his claims.
That Mr. McGinn continues to avoid doing that simple experiment to prove his extraordinary claims speaks volumes, don’t you think?
In the balance hangs Mr. McGinn either likely being nominated for a Nobel Prize for overturning 250+ years of rigorously and empirically measured scientific data, or his being forced to retract his claims and his claims being subsumed into the heap of odd theories that are used as examples of wrong-headedness.
Do you wonder why Mr. McGinn continues to refuse to prove his claims?

• James McGinn says:

The issue here would not be improved by me replicating an experiment because the obstacle here isn’t rational it’s political. No non-meteorologists with any authority is going to risk their position by contradicting a long-held belief (and one that seems rather obscure to anybody that is an outsider to the atmospheric sciences) of the meteorological monopoly. And, for similar reasons, no meteorologist is going to even acknowledge the issue. They are quite comfortable sitting back and letting the NOYs of the world shout down anybody that has the temerity to point out that the emperor is naked.
The only way to get them to acknowledge the issue will be in a court of law as a result of a class action lawsuit–which I am working towards.
James McGinn

47. NOY says:

“the obstacle here isn’t rational it’s political” LOL!
The obstacle here is your denying well-established experimentally-derived empirically-observed science which has been going on with greater and greater accuracy for more than 250 years, James.
Further, your refusal to substantiate your claims with any sort of experimental data (said experiment the responsibility for which falls to you and only you, given that you’ve made claims that fly in the face of that 250+ years of established science) means you know the experiment will null your supposition and thus relegate your unscientific suppositions to the midden heap of history as just another case of someone gone outside the bounds of the scientific method and making up fantastical fairy tales that do not and cannot reflect reality.
Your refusal to substantiate your claims further proves what I said was right… you prefer your delusion, in which you paint yourself as smarter than every scientist in the last 250+ years, to reality.
You were provided the means to substantiate your claims, James. If, as you claim, latent heat of evaporation doesn’t exist because a phase change doesn’t occur upon evaporation and thus clusters of water are launching into the air upon evaporation, then the *only* heat that can be carried away is specific heat, which would be equivalent to 2326 J/kg.
If, however, as Joseph Black and innumerable scientists since the 1700s have proven, latent heat of evaporation *does* exist, there will be 2,500,000 J/kg carried away. This result will null the underlying premise of your claims, James, thus disproving your entire “theory”.
Your being wrong is painful to you, isn’t it, James? Knowing you are wrong and that you are being called to account for your being wrong is perturbing you to the point that you’re “working towards” “class action lawsuits”… what we on Usenet know as kooksoots… yet another prototypical manifestation of Dunning-Kruger afflicted individuals refusing to believe they could ever be wrong.
Do you really believe any “class action lawsuit” will be allowed to proceed without that experimentally-derived empirically-observed scientifically-rigorous data, James? You’d best get right on performing that experiment if you want your “class action lawsuit” to have any chance whatsoever, James.

48. NOY says:

James McGinn: Jet steams and vortices (tornadoes) are the same thing.
No, Jim. Jet streams and vortices (tornadoes) are not the same thing. One is a vortex, whereas the jet stream is a flat, spread-out stream of fast non-vortex air. If the jet stream were a vortex, planes would find it extremely difficult to fly in the jet stream.
The updrafting air attempts to minimize aerodynamic drag, thus it forms a wedge shape with highest speeds at the center of this wedge, and air speed tapering off further away from the wedge center. As the air rises, the surrounding air temperature falls, intensifying the differential between that updrafting air and the surrounding air. At the top of the troposphere, however, temperature begins climbing with altitude, thus that updrafting air hits a “ceiling” where the air density can no longer drive convective updraft.
The vertical component of that wedge shape is squashed, the horizontal component is spread out, but the air still attempts to maintain its wedge shape, thus the jet stream is a flat, wide stream of fast air. The Coriolis Effect forces this stream into a circular shape which encircles the globe.
http://langleyflyingschool.com/Pages/CPGS%20Meteorology,%20Part%201.html
http://langleyflyingschool.com/Images/CPL%20Weather/5%20Jet%20Stream%20Core.gif
http://kkd.ou.edu/METR%201004/Jet%20St1.gif
http://www.webairlines.com/wa20jetstream.gif
https://climate.ncsu.edu/secc_edu/images/jetstream5.jpg
*Not* a vortex. Merely a “wedge” consisting of higher-speed air in the center of the stream, the speed tapering off with distance from the aerodynamic center of that stream.

• James McGinn says:

NOY says:15th March 2016 at 3:54 am
James McGinn:
Jet steams and vortices (tornadoes) are the same thing.
NOY:
*Not* a vortex. Merely a “wedge” consisting of higher-speed air in the center of the stream, the speed tapering off with distance from the aerodynamic center of that stream.

• NOY says:

Again, Mr. McGinn, referring back to your own fallacious reasoning is akin to you standing in an echo chamber screaming incoherently, and considering the echos as confirmation of what you’re screaming.
I suggest you study the Navier-Stokes Equations and determine for yourself why air fronts of different densities form different shapes in attempting to minimize aerodynamic drag. I further suggest that you study aerodynamics in depth. You’ll discover just how wrong you are.
But of course, you won’t. You’re convinced you’re right.. Dunning-Kruger afflicted individuals, after they’ve convinced themselves they are right, seldom self-correct, often leading them into full-blown psychosis.
You’re being given the chance to save yourself from that unfortunate fate, Mr. McGinn, and all it takes for you to begin is to prove one of your claims.
You have made the extraordinary claims that convection doesn’t exist, that latent heat doesn’t exist, that all water in the troposphere is plasma, that plasma can form droplets, that these plasma droplets cause air with humidity to be *heavier* than dry air, that the jet stream is a giant tornado just waiting to stretch down to the planet’s surface and wreak havoc…. you’ve run away from substantiating any of those claims, James.
Now is your chance to prove yourself and one of your claims, James… ======================================================
If, as you claim, latent heat of evaporation doesn’t exist because a phase change doesn’t occur upon evaporation and thus clusters of water are launching into the air upon evaporation, then the *only* heat that can be carried away is specific heat, which would be equivalent to 2326 J/kg.
If, however, as Joseph Black and innumerable scientists since the 1700s have proven, latent heat of evaporation *does* exist, there will be 2,500,000 J/kg carried away. This result will null the underlying premise of your claims, James, thus disproving your entire “theory”.
======================================================
It’s a simple experiment, and given that you, James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, have made claims that fly in the face of 250+ years of experimentally, empirically measured data, the onus is upon you to prove your claims.
In the balance hangs Mr. McGinn either likely being nominated for a Nobel Prize for overturning 250+ years of rigorously and empirically measured scientific data, or his being forced to retract his claims, and his claims being subsumed into the heap of odd theories that are used as examples of wrong-headedness. And in the process, his being forced to admit he is wrong… which those afflicted with Dunning-Kruger find nearly impossible to do, often going to ridiculous lengths to avoid doing so.
Does anyone wonder why Mr. McGinn continues to refuse to prove his claims?
Your refusal to substantiate your claims, Mr. McGinn, further proves what I said was right… you prefer your delusion, in which you paint yourself as smarter than every scientist in the last 250+ years, to reality.
If your “class action lawsuit” against 250+ years of rigorous scientific inquiry has any hope of prevailing, James, you will be forced to perform that experiment. Your continued evasion of performing that experiment speaks volumes toward just how trapped you are by your illogic.

• James McGinn says:

NOY says:15th March 2016 at 8:27 pm
I suggest you study the Navier-Stokes Equations and determine for yourself why air fronts of different densities form different shapes in attempting to minimize aerodynamic drag. I further suggest that you study aerodynamics in depth. You’ll discover just how wrong you are.
James McGinn:
I’m an expert in aerodynamics and know enough about Navier-Stokes Equations to know how useless it is except to those pretending to understand more than they actually do.

• NOY says:

No, James, you’re not an expert at anything. You’ve taken the sum total of a single elective class on Basic Meteorology and now you proclaim yourself an expert on the water molecule, atmospheric science, aerodynamics and a plethora of other topics, to include your claiming yourself to be a physicist.
Your various proclamations which are at odds with reality put truth to your claims of being an expert in these fields, James… you demonstrate your lack of understanding at every turn.
Which universities did you attend, what degrees did you earn, and what was your PhD thesis, Mr. McGinn?

49. James McGinn says:

NOY says: 15th March 2016 at 3:31 am
Do you really believe any “class action lawsuit” will be allowed to proceed without that experimentally-derived empirically-observed scientifically-rigorous data, James? You’d best get right on performing that experiment if you want your “class action lawsuit” to have any chance whatsoever, James.
As you’ve suggested, the experimental data is extensive. It is just a matter of revealing the details that have been deliberately ignored and misrepresented.
But if an experiment needs to be done it can be done right in front of the judge/jury:
Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air

50. NOY says:

Bwahahaaa! Your fourth-grade level uncontrolled experiment which you keep touting, James? Do you really believe continually referring back to your own “research not-research” is somehow *not* akin to screaming at the top of your lungs in an echo chamber, then considering the echos as confirmation of what you’re screaming, James?
You don’t control for the weight of water added, you don’t control for atmospheric humidity, you don’t control for exposure time of the humid air inside the jars to the atmosphere as you remove those “aluminum foil, cotton, fishing line thingies” (your words), you don’t control for the weight of the individual jars or lids, you don’t control for temperature, you don’t control for lid seal, and your margin of error is going to be huge with such a small volume, unless you’ve got a scale that can measure in the tens of thousandths of a gram.
Hey, here’s an idea… how about we go back and look at the experiments that *real* researchers did, Jim… you know, starting with Saussure, Gay-Lussac and Dalton onward to modern times.

• James McGinn says:

“Hey, here’s an idea… how about we go back and look at the experiments that *real* researchers did, Jim… you know, starting with Saussure, Gay-Lussac and Dalton onward to modern times.”
Go ahead. Maybe you can get Mike to help you with this. It’s nice to see that the burden of proof is finally being carried by the people making the extraordinary claims.

• NOY says:

There are no “extraordinary claims” on the part of established science, Mr. McGinn. The extraordinary claims come from you.
You have made the extraordinary claims that convection doesn’t exist, that latent heat doesn’t exist, that all water in the troposphere is plasma, that plasma can form droplets, that these plasma droplets cause air with humidity to be *heavier* than dry air, that the jet stream is a giant tornado just waiting to stretch down to the planet’s surface and wreak havoc…. you’ve run away from substantiating any of those claims, James.
Now is your chance to prove yourself and one of your claims, James… ======================================================
If, as you claim, latent heat of evaporation doesn’t exist because a phase change doesn’t occur upon evaporation and thus clusters of water are launching into the air upon evaporation, then the *only* heat that can be carried away is specific heat, which would be equivalent to 2326 J/kg.
If, however, as Joseph Black and innumerable scientists since the 1700s have proven, latent heat of evaporation *does* exist, there will be 2,500,000 J/kg carried away. This result will null the underlying premise of your claims, James, thus disproving your entire “theory”.
======================================================
It’s a simple experiment, and given that you, James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, have made claims that fly in the face of 250+ years of experimentally, empirically measured data, the onus is upon you to prove your claims.
In the balance hangs Mr. McGinn either likely being nominated for a Nobel Prize for overturning 250+ years of rigorously and empirically measured scientific data, or his being forced to retract his claims, and his claims being subsumed into the heap of odd theories that are used as examples of wrong-headedness. And in the process, his being forced to admit he is wrong… which those afflicted with Dunning-Kruger find nearly impossible to do, often going to ridiculous lengths to avoid doing so.
Does anyone wonder why Mr. McGinn continues to refuse to prove his claims?
Your refusal to substantiate your claims, Mr. McGinn, further proves what I said was right… you prefer your delusion, in which you paint yourself as smarter than every scientist in the last 250+ years, to reality.
If your “class action lawsuit” against 250+ years of rigorous scientific inquiry has any hope of prevailing, James, you will be forced to perform that experiment. Your continued evasion of performing that experiment speaks volumes toward just how trapped you are by your illogic.

• James McGinn says:

NOY says: 15th March 2016 at 8:18 pm
There are no “extraordinary claims” on the part of established science, Mr. McGinn.
James McGinn:
Isn’t that what we’d expect somebody to say if they don’t have a counterargument?

• NOY says:

You’re the one making the claims that fly in the face of more than 250 years of rigorously-collected scientific data, James. And you’re backpedaling like mad in attempting to divert attention away from your continued refusal to back your claims up with scientific proof.
You have made the extraordinary claims that convection doesn’t exist, that latent heat doesn’t exist, that all water in the troposphere is plasma, that plasma can form droplets, that these plasma droplets cause air with humidity to be *heavier* than dry air, that the jet stream is a giant tornado just waiting to stretch down to the planet’s surface and wreak havoc…. you’ve run away from substantiating any of those claims, James.
Now is your chance to prove yourself and one of your claims, James… ===========================================If, as you claim, latent heat of evaporation doesn’t exist because a phase change doesn’t occur upon evaporation and thus clusters of water are launching into the air upon evaporation, then the *only* heat that can be carried away is specific heat, which would be equivalent to 2326 J/kg.
If, however, as Joseph Black and innumerable scientists since the 1700s have proven, latent heat of evaporation *does* exist, there will be 2,500,000 J/kg carried away. This result will null the underlying premise of your claims, James, thus disproving your entire “theory”.
===========================================
It’s a simple experiment, and given that you, James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, have made claims that fly in the face of 250+ years of experimentally, empirically measured data, the onus is upon you to prove your claims.
In the balance hangs Mr. McGinn either likely being nominated for a Nobel Prize for overturning 250+ years of rigorously and empirically measured scientific data, or his being forced to retract his claims, and his claims being subsumed into the heap of odd theories that are used as examples of wrong-headedness. And in the process, his being forced to admit he is wrong… which those afflicted with Dunning-Kruger find nearly impossible to do, often going to ridiculous lengths to avoid doing so.
Does anyone wonder why Mr. McGinn continues to refuse to prove his claims?
Your refusal to substantiate your claims, Mr. McGinn, further proves what I said was right… you prefer your delusion, in which you paint yourself as smarter than every scientist in the last 250+ years, to reality.
If your “class action lawsuit” against 250+ years of rigorous scientific inquiry has any hope of prevailing, James, you will be forced to perform that experiment. Your continued evasion of performing that experiment speaks volumes toward just how trapped you are by your illogic.

51. NOY says:

Or perhaps we could merely think in terms of a two boxes, James. Both at the same temperature and pressure, each box weighing the same, each box having an interior volume of 22.414 liters. Let’s use STP, James, to make it easier on you. And lets say each box weighs 100 grams.
One box has 1 mole of dry air. The other box has 1 mole of gaseous phase water.
Compute the total weight of each box, James. You do know how to calculate molar mass and molar volume, yes?
Or do you also claim molar mass as part of your conspiracy theory, James?

• James McGinn says:

I have a better idea. Let’s do two calculations. One, as you suggest, where we assume that the H2O therein is gaseous and one in which we assume the H2O molecules cluster in groups of ten. Then let’s ask ourselves a rhetorical question. Which of these two is most consistent with the observation that the vast majority of warm, moist air maintains a passive existence within an elevation of no more than 1,000 meters of the surface despite the fact that stretching another 6,000 to 11,000 meters above is a vast quantity of much cooler, drier air?
Also, I generally think it best to not attribute to deliberate conspiracy what can so easily be explained by collective dimwittedness.

52. NOY says:

You have absolutely no mechanism by which to model your contention that water is evaporating in groups of ten except for your fallacious claim that water molecule polarity changes upon H bonding, which would also entail that water solvent properties randomly change with that randomly changing H bonding and thus randomly changing water molecule polarity, James.
Further, evaporation of multiple clustered water molecules would entail a higher energy requirement than monomolecular evaporation, an energy level that simply doesn’t exist in the bulk water’s thermal kinetic energy unless it is at its boiling point.
Further, given that the phenomenon is fully explained as shown above by the two spin isomers of water (para-H2O and ortho-H2O), and thereby two water molecule hybrids, and thereby two H bond strengths, and thus two separate properties for bulk liquid water, one near the properties of ice, one near the properties of gaseous-phase water, your contention would need to null that scientifically-rigorous empirically-observed experimentally-derived fact without introducing any deleterious side effects such as randomly changing solvent properties of water. And in so doing, you’d overturn not only all of conventional science, but quantum physics, as well… that’s quite a task you’ve made for yourself. Personally, I don’t think you’re up to it.
Your ‘theory’ doesn’t accomplish any of this, and in fact introduces several other inconsistencies which you have thus far found yourself utterly unable to explain, instead choosing to lie, conflate, duck, dodge, bob, weave and utilize every means of dishonest debating tactic such as out-of-context snipping, when this whole thing would be definitively resolved by your merely addressing the issue scientifically and performing that experiment to prove or disprove one of your claims.
If you can perform the experiment and prove that claim, then your ‘theory’ stands (until you can prove or disprove your other claims)… and all of conventional science *and* quantum physics falls… but if that experiment nulls your claim, it destroys your entire theory.
You have made the extraordinary claims that convection doesn’t exist, that latent heat doesn’t exist, that all water in the troposphere is plasma, that plasma can form droplets, that these plasma droplets cause air with humidity to be *heavier* than dry air, that the jet stream is a giant tornado just waiting to stretch down to the planet’s surface and wreak havoc…. you’ve run away from substantiating any of those claims, James.
Now is your chance to prove yourself and one of your claims, James… ======================================================
If, as you claim, latent heat of evaporation doesn’t exist because a phase change doesn’t occur upon evaporation and thus clusters of water are launching into the air upon evaporation, then the *only* heat that can be carried away is specific heat, which would be equivalent to 2326 J/kg.
If, however, as Joseph Black and innumerable scientists since the 1700s have proven, latent heat of evaporation *does* exist, there will be 2,500,000 J/kg carried away. This result will null the underlying premise of your claims, James, thus disproving your entire “theory”.
======================================================
It’s a simple experiment, and given that you, James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, have made claims that fly in the face of 250+ years of experimentally, empirically measured data, the onus is upon you to prove your claims.
In the balance hangs Mr. McGinn either likely being nominated for a Nobel Prize for overturning 250+ years of rigorously and empirically measured scientific data, or his being forced to retract his claims, and his claims being subsumed into the heap of odd theories that are used as examples of wrong-headedness. And in the process, his being forced to admit he is wrong… which those afflicted with Dunning-Kruger find nearly impossible to do, often going to ridiculous lengths to avoid doing so.
Does anyone wonder why Mr. McGinn continues to refuse to prove his claims?
Your refusal to substantiate your claims, Mr. McGinn, further proves what I said was right… you prefer your delusion, in which you paint yourself as smarter than every scientist in the last 250+ years, to reality.
If your “class action lawsuit” against 250+ years of rigorous scientific inquiry has any hope of prevailing, James, you will be forced to perform that experiment. Your continued evasion of performing that experiment speaks volumes toward just how trapped you are by your illogic.

53. James McGinn says:

NOY:
You have absolutely no mechanism by which to model your contention that water is evaporating in groups of ten except for your fallacious claim that water molecule polarity changes upon H bonding, which would also entail that water solvent properties randomly change with that randomly changing H bonding and thus randomly changing water molecule polarity, James.
JM:
If that is what you believe then one can only wonder why you don’t make a detailed argument to that effect.

54. NOY says:

That’s exactly what I have done, James. You’ll remember I utterly destroyed your claims via more than a half-dozen different avenues, providing links to corroborating scientific research to back it all up (there are now 2991 peer-reviewed studies in the corpus of evidence proving you wrong, James, on just your one claim that H bonding affects water molecule polarity).
Destroying even one of your claims destroys your entire theory, James. I’ve destroyed *all* of them.
Everyone can read further up-thread to ascertain that fact for themselves… one disadvantage for you of a web-based discussion is that you cannot snip out-of-context and claim no evidence had been provided, James. Your dishonest debating tactics are nullified here.
Conversely, all you’ve done is backpedal away from doing that experiment, James, as you continue to make more and more outrageous claims.
If you can perform the experiment and prove your claim that latent heat of evaporation does not exist, then your ‘theory’ stands (until you can prove or disprove your other claims)… and all of conventional science *and* quantum physics falls… but if that experiment nulls your claim, it destroys your entire theory.
You have made the extraordinary claims that convection doesn’t exist, that latent heat doesn’t exist, that all water in the troposphere is plasma, that plasma can form droplets, that these plasma droplets cause air with humidity to be *heavier* than dry air, that the jet stream is a giant tornado just waiting to stretch down to the planet’s surface and wreak havoc…. you’ve run away from substantiating any of those claims, James.
Now is your chance to prove yourself and one of your claims, James… ======================================================
If, as you claim, latent heat of evaporation doesn’t exist because a phase change doesn’t occur upon evaporation and thus clusters of water are launching into the air upon evaporation, then the *only* heat that can be carried away is specific heat, which would be equivalent to 2326 J/kg.
If, however, as Joseph Black and innumerable scientists since the 1700s have proven, latent heat of evaporation *does* exist, there will be 2,500,000 J/kg carried away. This result will null the underlying premise of your claims, James, thus disproving your entire “theory”.
======================================================
It’s a simple experiment, and given that you, James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, have made claims that fly in the face of 250+ years of experimentally, empirically measured data, the onus is upon you to prove your claims.
In the balance hangs Mr. McGinn either likely being nominated for a Nobel Prize for overturning 250+ years of rigorously and empirically measured scientific data, or his being forced to retract his claims, and his claims being subsumed into the heap of odd theories that are used as examples of wrong-headedness. And in the process, his being forced to admit he is wrong… which those afflicted with Dunning-Kruger find nearly impossible to do, often going to ridiculous lengths to avoid doing so.
Does anyone wonder why Mr. McGinn continues to refuse to prove his claims?
Your refusal to substantiate your claims, Mr. McGinn, further proves what I said was right… you prefer your delusion, in which you paint yourself as smarter than every scientist in the last 250+ years, to reality.
If your “class action lawsuit” against 250+ years of rigorous scientific inquiry has any hope of prevailing, James, you will be forced to perform that experiment. Your continued evasion of performing that experiment speaks volumes toward just how trapped you are by your illogic.

• James McGinn says:

NOY says: 16th March 2016 at 1:45 am
That’s exactly what I have done, James. You’ll remember I utterly destroyed . . .
It seems like we’ve been at this a while and we haven’t found any common ground and the conversation has become increasingly repetitive. We should be thankful to the moderator, Mike, for having put up with this as long as he has.
It would seem the best you and I could ever hope for is to agree to disagree.
Regards,
James McGinn

• NOY says:

No, James. There is no “agree to disagree” in science. You’ve been given the means by which you can either substantiate one of your implausible claims which fly in the face of 250+ years of good science, or null it.
If you substantiate, you overturn all of conventional science *and* quantum physics. You’ll likely be very famous, and would be a shoe-in Nobel nominee.
But if you null your supposition, as anyone with even a high school education knows you will, that nulls your underlying premise, which nulls your entire “theory not-a-theory”, and you *must* retract.
In addition, given that I’ve presented you the means by which you can substantiate your extraordinary claim (and remember, the onus is upon only *you* to present proof of your claims), should you null your supposition and thus your premise and thus your “theory not-a-theory”, that meets the terms of your \$100,000 challenge.
I’ll accept a public retraction and a donation of the \$100,000 prize to either Anders Nilsson or Martin Chaplin… both legitimate researchers whose research I’ve used to utterly crush your claims, James.
But there is no “agree to disagree”. Your running away from performing that simple experiment stands as your tacit admission that you know it’ll null your claims. If you thought you stood even the slightest chance of redeeming yourself, you’d have performed that experiment post-haste.
Instead, you’ve run away, ducked, dodged, conflated, hemmed, hawed, changed your “theory not-a-theory”, been caught in even more logical inconsistencies, and completely ignored the research which proves you wrong.
So this continues, either on the web or Usenet, until you acknowledge reality, James.
Now, you’ve got even more logical inconsistencies to explain, James… why are you running away from those question?
=======================================================
Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?
How do your “jet stream vortices” travel hundreds of miles away from the jet stream, without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is your “jet stream / giant tornado in the sky” sentient, James?
Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That’s convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn’t exist means you’re further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James?
How are your atmospheric “water droplets” forming if they’re plasma, Jim?
Do you not know what the definition of “plasma” is, James?
How is your “plasma not-a-plasma” (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct so your claims have even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim?
Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays… except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your “plasma not-a-plasma”, Jim?
How is the energy to plasmize your “plasma not-a-plasma” not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?
Now that it’s been proven that water molecule polarity doesn’t change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water… and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim?
=======================================================
Why can’t you answer those questions, Jim?

• James McGinn says:

NOY says: 16th March 2016 at 5:10 am
No, James. There is no “agree to disagree” in science. You’ve been given the means by which you can either substantiate one of your implausible claims which fly in the face of 250+ years of good science, or null it.
James McGinn:
You want something simple and familiar and you’ve made it very apparent that you don’t possess the intellectual or emotional ability to deal with something that is unavoidably complex and unfamiliar.
When I ask you to demonstrate the logic and math of moist air convection or the logic and math of latent heat it is not because I actually expect you to be able to do so. Nobody can. These are nonsense notions. What I had hoped was that in making the effort to explain these notions you would realize they are nonsense and, most importantly, acknowledge in publicly.
I’d be glad to teach you my hypothesis, but intellectual honesty is a prerequisite, and that is not something that can be taught.
James McGinn

• NOY says:

No, James, it is you who has demonstrated that in order to try to make your ‘theory’ work, you must keep slapping patches on it as your logic holes are uncovered. Thus it becomes more complicated and implausible with each passing day.
As for the “logic and math of moist air convection” and “math of latent heat”, I’ve already demonstrated that math and explained the underlying mechanism by which it happens, in detail.
But you deny molar volume, which means you deny the Periodic Table of the Elements. And you deny convection, which means you deny the very mechanism by which fire feeds oxygen to itself as it burns… if convection didn’t occur, Jim, the air would spread out radially from the fire as it does in space, and the fire would go out from lack of oxygen.
Your continued denial of reality is proof that it is *you* who cannot grasp the simple… you’re compelled to concoct your wholly impossible ‘theory’, making it more and more complicated and implausible when your logic holes are exposed, in order that you can sustain your claim that you know better than every single scientist in the past 250+ years.
But you don’t, James. I’ve proven that, and you’ve been utterly unable to raise even the meekest of defenses. Your claims are not just implausible, they are wholly impossible. Your ‘theory’ does not reflect reality.
You’ll now be given yet another chance to demonstrate that what I state is correct, by your avoiding providing answers to those tough questions, James…
=======================================
If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet, James?
Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue horizontally for hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly.
Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?
How do your “jet stream vortices” travel hundreds of miles away from the jet stream, without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is your “jet stream / giant tornado in the sky” sentient, James?
Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That’s convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn’t exist means you’re further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James?
How are your atmospheric “water droplets” forming if they’re plasma, Jim?
Do you not know what the definition of “plasma” is, James?
How is your “plasma not-a-plasma” (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in order that your claims have even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim?
Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays… except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your “plasma not-a-plasma”, Jim?
How is the energy to plasmize your “plasma not-a-plasma” not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?
Now that it’s been proven that water molecule polarity doesn’t change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water… and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim?
=========================================

• James McGinn says:

NOY says: 17th March 2016 at 12:01 am
As for the “logic and math of moist air convection” and “math of latent heat”, I’ve already demonstrated that math and explained the underlying mechanism by which it happens, in detail.
James McGinn:
Have a nice life.

55. James McGinn says:

When proof is obscure humans tend to, collectively, choose the path that seems most obvious. I’ll give you an example. At one time it was generally assumed that the earth was the center of the universe. Was there any proof of this? No. Starting with Ptolemy a model had been developed. The model evolved over time to produce some amazingly accurate predictions. Collectively humans had come to the firm conclusion that the earth was the center of the universe. Galileo came along and introduced convincing evidence that this was mistaken. Did that change people’s minds? Not only did it not change people’s minds but they ended up putting him on house arrest and other scientists refused to even look through his telescope.
Are you interested in looking through my telescope:

56. NOY says:

And your “theory not-a-theory” would take us back to the equivalent of a Ptomemaic version of atmospheric physics, James. Your claims do not and cannot reflect reality. They are so off-the-wall that they don’t even make sense, which is likely why you’ve been avoiding answering those tough questions… even more of which there are now, given that you’ve made even more off the wall claims today such as that the jet stream is a giant “tornado in the sky” which sends its tendrils down to the surface of the planet in the form of tornadoes.
You continue to refer back to your own ramblings without providing any proof, James. Because you have none. You have nothing but a passel of suppositions which scientific reality disproves.
Further, you refuse to address the topic scientifically by performing the experiment which would definitively substantiate or null your suppositions. If substantiated, you would turn all of conventional science and quantum physics on its head, and would be famous for having done so…. but if you null that one supposition, it destroys your underlying premise, which destroys your entire “theory”, James… large stakes indeed.
So it’s little wonder that you’ve run away from performing that experiment, the same as you’ve run away from answering those tough questions…
============================================================
Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?
How do your “jet stream vortices” travel hundreds of miles away from the jet stream, without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is your “jet stream / giant tornado in the sky” sentient, James?
If these jet stream-originated tendrils are reaching hundreds of miles away from the edge of the jet stream to drop down as tornadoes, why can’t we detect them long before they touch down via satellite or Doppler radar, and thus have hours of warning prior to tornadic activity, James?
Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That’s convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn’t exist means you’re further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James?
How are your atmospheric “water droplets” forming if they’re plasma, Jim?
Do you not know what the definition of “plasma” is, James?
How is your “plasma not-a-plasma” (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct so your claims have even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim?
Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays… except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your “plasma not-a-plasma”, Jim?
How is the energy to plasmize your “plasma not-a-plasma” not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?
Now that it’s been proven that water molecule polarity doesn’t change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water… and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim?
============================================================
Why can’t you answer those questions, Jim?

• James McGinn says:

NOY:
the jet stream is a giant “tornado in the sky” which sends its tendrils down to the surface of the planet in the form of tornadoes.
James McGinn:
That’s right.

• NOY says:

No, James. Your claim is at odds with everything known about the jet stream.
If, as you claim, the jet stream is a “giant tornado in the sky”, then you’ll get right on answering those questions, James.
1) Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James.
Reference from real storm trackers, James… those who have used Doppler radar to peer inside the cloud to see how high the tornadic vortex extends above the cloud base:
2) Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?
3) How do your “jet stream vortices” travel hundreds of miles away from
the jet stream, without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and
know where and when to touch down so they always hit clouds, rather
than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is
your “jet stream / giant tornado in the sky” sentient, James?
4) If the jet stream is a vortex, why can planes fly in it, and why is the ride so smooth in the jet stream, James? Have you ever flown in a plane in the jet stream, James?

57. Scottish-Sceptic says:

NOY & James, whilst I’m sure it would not resolve your own debate, I’m sure there’s a lot of people who if the argument were presented to them in a way they could understand, would be interested to hear a summary of the theory from James and that of counter argument from NOY.
So, James, would it be possible to summarise your theory in a way that a science graduate from a non-chemistry background would understand? If so, I’d like to present the theory on the blog.
Likewise, NOY, can you could summarise the arguments against the theory?

• NOY says:

I am quite sure I’ve not seen the full extent of anti-science nitwittery encompassed within McGinn’s theory. Thus, despite having utterly destroyed every single one of his contentions that I have knowledge of, I’ll wait until Mr. McGinn posts the full extent of his break from reality, so I can comprehensively refute it, complete with references, as I have done from the beginning.
Knowing Mr. McGinn, were I to re-post (again, for what must be the 100th time) the references to the rigorously-collected, empirically-observed, carefully controlled scientific experiments upon which our modern scientific knowledge is based, Mr. McGinn would yet again alter his theory, come up with more implausible claims without evidence, then claim that his having done so negates all past refutations of his uneducated take on science… rinse and repeat.
It’s what Mr. McGinn does as means of trying desperately to maintain himself as more intelligent than every single scientist of the past 250+ years.
Eventually, he’ll slap so many patches on his “theory” and alter it to such an extent as its logic holes and contradictions are uncovered that he’ll run into an irresolvable contradiction, as happens to all fabrications that are told, eventually, and the whole mess will collapse under the weight of its own contradictions.
So, in short, let’s see what Mr. McGinn’s got. I just pray that, yourself having been set as referee, you’re prepared for the many revisions Mr. McGinn will undoubtedly submit to his “theory” to try to keep it alive just one more day.

• James B McGinn says:

The first step is for NOY to concede that he has been unable to substantiate the myth that moist air is lighter than dry air or that moisture provides the huge input of latent heat that he imagines and that he is similarly incapable of explaining the origins of the jet streams.
My theory is very advanced. We have to start from a clean slate. Otherwise people’s imaginations and emotions run wild.
So, NOY, you’ve been given an opportunity to substantiate the convection model and you’ve failed. My theory is much too complicated for you to comprehend if you don’t first get the tenets of the silly convection model out of your head.

• NOY says:

The onus is not upon me to defend well-established science that has been rigorously empirically observed via carefully controlled experimentation for 250+ years, Mr. McGinn.
You have made outrageous, implausible, wholly impossible and extraordinary claims which fly in the face of that well-established science, and would necessitate having to throw out most of the accumulated scientific knowledge we have, going as far back as having to throw out the Periodic Table of the Elements, because you deny molar mass and molar volume.
Thus, the onus is upon *you*, James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, to prove your contentions. That you have thus far not only failed to do so, but have *avoided* doing so, speaks volumes as to your being unable to do so.
Do you really believe spamming Usenet, utilizing non sequitur evasion, attempting to divert attention away from your inability to prove your claims and using all manner of dishonest debating tactics is suitable substitute for your addressing the issue scientifically, performing that experiment, and thus being forced to null your central premise, James?
Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in your “theory”:
==============================================
You make a supposition that a “plasma not-a-plasma” is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your “wind shear” to create your “plasma not-a-plasma” if the “plasma not-a-plasma” cannot exist and thereby “transport energy” by driving that wind to create the “wind shear” which creates your “plasma not-a-plasma”, unless there is “wind shear” to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you’re going in circles. You’ve created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James.
If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James?
Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly.
Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?
How do your “jet stream vortices” travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your “jet stream / giant tornado in the sky”, without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is your “jet stream / giant tornado in the sky” sentient, James?
Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That’s convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn’t exist means you’re further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James?
How are your atmospheric “water droplets” forming if they’re plasma, Jim?
Do you not know what the definition of “plasma” is, James?
How is your “plasma not-a-plasma” (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim?
Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of *maximum* 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays… except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your “plasma not-a-plasma”, Jim?
How is the energy to plasmize your “plasma not-a-plasma” not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?
Now that it’s been proven that water molecule polarity doesn’t change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water… and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim?
==============================================
Why can’t you answer those questions, Jim?

58. James McGinn says:

Scottish-Sceptic says: 16th March 2016 at 7:45 am
So, James, would it be possible to summarize your theory in a way that a science graduate from a non-chemistry background would understand?
Yes, I have something that I think would be sufficient. What email address should I submit it to?
Here is my email where you can send me the submission email address:
jimmcginn9 at gmail dot com
James McGinn

59. Damian Scott says:

Kristian Birkeland performed experiments with a terrella during his investigations into the Auroras. The terrella experiments consisted of a magnetised sphere in a vacuum chamber which had cathode rays beamed into it.
One of his findings was that two parallel bands formed around the northern and southern hemispheres of the globe. When the magnetisation of the globe was increased the lines moved towards the equator and a decrease in magnetisation caused the lines to move away from the equator.
My belief is that these lines were analogous to what is driving the jet streams. In 2010, at the depth of the Solar minimum, the jet streams moved North, away from the equator (or South in the Southern Hemisphere) causing our extreme winter in Scotland and a cold dry summer in South Africa during the World Cup.
I believe the Earth’s atmosphere is a plasma sheath and everything that happens in the atmosphere is a result of the relationship between the Sun and the Earth, the Earth is orbiting within the Heliosphere which is the atmosphere of the Sun and clearly a plasma sheath i.e. plasma physics predicted the heliosphere would be spherical whereas the standard model predicted a teardrop.
Plasma is matter which is actively conducting electricity which is why the Universe is 99.999999999% plasma. “Plasma which is not a plasma” would be matter which is not conducting electricity and would therefore just be matter.
If you are curious about water I would strongly recommend Gerard Pollack whose work is fascinating http://faculty.washington.edu/ghp/

• James McGinn says:

Damian Scott says: 17th March 2016 at 2:23 pm
DS: When the magnetisation of the globe was increased the lines moved towards the equator and a decrease in magnetisation caused the lines to move away from the equator.
DS: My belief is that these lines were analogous to what is driving the jet streams.
JM: I think it plausible. I think–as I’ve eluded to–that even if such cannot be fully implicated in being the driving force of the jet streams it can be instrumental in effectuating a plasma (as I describe in my videos) that–especially with the inclusion of H2O–effectuates a surface through which aerodynamics play a role with respect to tapping into the huge amount of energy that is available in air pressure.
DS: In 2010, at the depth of the Solar minimum, the jet streams moved North, away from the equator (or South in the Southern Hemisphere) causing our extreme winter in Scotland and a cold dry summer in South Africa during the World Cup.
JM: I don’t know if this is relevant, but as I was reading this it reminded me of the following which I came across recently:
Large Plasma Tubes Confirmed to Exist *Above* The Earth’s Atmosphere
DS: Plasma is matter which is actively conducting electricity which is why the Universe is 99.999999999% plasma. “Plasma which is not a plasma” would be matter which is not conducting electricity and would therefore just be matter.
JM: I agree. Ultimately, the claim that the earth’s atmosphere is a slight plasma is not all that big of a deal. Here is something along those lines:
Bob Johnson:
DS: If you are curious about water I would strongly recommend Gerard Pollack
JM: Yes, I’m well aware of Pollack. (I actually had a phone conversation with him about a year ago.) I think the problem with his exclusion zone notions isn’t that it is fallacious, as some suggest, but that it is too vague and otherwise doesn’t go far enough:
James McGinn

60. NOY says:

Birkeland was studying the auroras. He didn’t have a finding that “two parallel bands formed around the northern and southern hemisphere of the globe”, he had a finding which replicated the auroras, a spiral of charged particles toward a magnetic pole. You’ll note the difference. One is a stable band of plasma, the other is a constantly replenished spiral of charged particles toward the magnet, viewable as a band due to Birkeland using dopants.
A magnet has two predominant magnetic domain directions due to the magnetic material having insufficient strength to resist internal magnetic forces. Thus approximately half the magnetic domains unpin and flip to minimize magnet internal energy. This creates a midline region known as the Bloch Wall, where these two predominant magnetic domain directions and thus fluxes meet and mutually cancel. Magnetic force is mediated by virtual photons. Thus on each pole face of a magnet, there is an inbound virtual photon flux at the center of the pole face, and an outbound virtual photon flux at the perimeter in accordance with quantum physics. Thus there is a field radiation pressure profile across each pole face with a contour much like a squashed donut.
For lower strength magnetic fields, the two bands observed by Birkeland were far apart, the result of the bands of highly charged particles seeking the lowest energy point as they spiraled toward the magnetic pole face, which was between the virtual photon flux inbound and outbound on each face of the magnet. Birkeland found that as he increased magnetic field strength, the two parallel bands of charged particles moved toward the Bloch Wall region, a natural consequence of the virtual photon flux of the two pole faces expanding and thus pushing that low energy point more toward the midline (Bloch Wall) of the magnet.
If he had had a finding of two stable parallel bands formed around the northern and southern hemisphere of the globe, rather than a spiral of charged particles toward the magnet, that would have violated Faraday’s Law of Induction, which states that an electromotive force is generated between a magnetic field and charged particles. That electromotive force thereby generated compels the charged particles toward the magnetic poles, just as we see with the auroras.
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSmMDqTwaC505GCW5-Kxoo4Bcu8QdRTlgI0OA2Vsb3_ifQYlF0C3w
Further, when simulating the auroras in the laboratory Birkeland had to give the terrella some sort of atmosphere. This problem was solved in various ways. In the early weak discharges the surface of the terrella was covered with a phosphorescent paint that produced visible light when hit by the cathode rays. Later he described another method that made it easier to observe rays in the surrounding space. By running a high current through the magnetizing coil, the terrella surface became hot and gave off gas. He then reduced the magnetic field to the desired value, ignited the discharge, and took pictures. A third method was to cover the surface with a thin layer of pump oil, which evaporated during the discharge. Birkeland was photographing phosphorescent paint and smoke which was ionized by the high energy cathode rays as they spiraled toward the magnet pole face.
His later experiments which purport to show stable plasmic rings were conducted with radium bromide coating the region of the terella in which he wanted to show a ring… likely the first ever example of electronic sputtering, but not analogous to any atmospheric phenomenon.
Birkeland went on from his wrong-headed experiments to analogize that the planets somehow throw off tons of matter each passing minute which produced these rings, using Saturn as an example. We know today that Birkeland was wrong. The auroras are merely charged particles spiraling toward the pole of the planet’s magnetic field, fully in accordance with Faraday’s Law of Induction. It is not stable, it does not cause the jet stream, the jet stream is not plasmic in nature, it is not a vortex. It is a flat stream of fast air created by updrafting air hitting the tropopause and thus being unable to convect upward any further. This air, in attempting to minimize its aerodynamic drag against the surrounding air, forms a wedge shape with the fastest winds at the leading point of the wedge, and the speed profile tapering off with distance from this point. When that air hits the tropopause and cannot convect upward anymore, the vertical component of this wedge squashes, the horizontal component flattens out, creating a vertically-thin but horizontally-wide band of fast air.
Your confusion over the jet stream likely arises because of this picture:
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/global/images/jetstream5.jpg
You’ll note it sort of looks like a vortex, but it’s an air speed profile.
Further, Earnshaw’s theorem states that a collection of point charges cannot be maintained in a stable stationary equilibrium configuration solely by the electrostatic interaction of the charges. Configurations of classical charged particles orbiting one another are unstable due to losses of energy by electromagnetic radiation. Thus, no matter what method you try to use to generate your “plasma not-a-plasma”, Mr. McGinn, it cannot form the “plasma / jet stream / tornado in the sky” that you claim to exist. According to your “theory”, your “plasmic jet stream / giant tornado in the sky” should collapse nightly on the dark side of the planet due to insufficient incoming radiation from the sun to sustain it… and we know that does not occur.
Your theory is wholly impossible, which you would know had you bothered to educate yourself on the fundamentals of reality. Now we find you’re attempting to bolster your position by bringing in sock puppets to “agree” with you.
Now, on to those questions you keep ducking which highlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions in your “theory”:
============================================================
If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James?
Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly.
Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?
How do your “jet stream vortices” travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your “jet stream / giant tornado in the sky”, without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is your “jet stream / giant tornado in the sky” sentient, James?
Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That’s convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn’t exist means you’re further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James?
How are your atmospheric “water droplets” forming if they’re plasma, Jim?
Do you not know what the definition of “plasma” is, James?
How is your “plasma not-a-plasma” (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in order that your claims have even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim?
Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays… except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your “plasma not-a-plasma”, Jim?
How is the energy to plasmize your “plasma not-a-plasma” not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?
Now that it’s been proven that water molecule polarity doesn’t change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water… and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim?
============================================================
Why can’t you answer those questions, Jim?

• James McGinn says:
• NOY says:

Again, Mr. McGinn, referring back to your own discredited suppositions without providing third-party corroborable proof of your contentions proves nothing other than the fact that your “theory” has absolutely no experimental data to back it up to which you can refer. You’ve gathered together bits and pieces of information from the internet and slapped them together into a makeshift and constantly shifting “theory” which necessitates your slapping even more complexity on your “theory” as your logic holes and inconsistencies are exposed and proven wrong via well-established science.
Hence, your “theory” has displayed the same attributes as any other fabrication ever told… as it is exposed to the light of truth, it must shift and squirm to patch those contradictions, becoming more complicated and implausible, and eventually collapses when an irresolvable contradiction is brought to light, as I have done with your “theory”.
You’ve provided no proof, you’ve run away from answering those tough questions, you’ve refused to perform that simple scientific experiment which would null your “theory” despite the onus of proof being upon no one but you, you continually refer back to your own fallacious “reasoning” and dismiss that growing mountain of thousands of instances of scientific articles and experiments proving you wrong.
You’re desperate to save your “theory” because it allows you to claim yourself more intelligent than all other scientists in the past 250+ years. You’ve likened yourself to Einstein and Archimedes, you’ve claimed you’re a physicist, then admitted you have nothing but Bachelor’s degrees and that your scientific background in the atmospheric sciences consists of the sum total of a single elective class on Basic Meteorology. Your delusions of grandeur range far and wide, Mr. McGinn.
You cannot answer those tough questions which highlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions within your “theory”, and as you desperately slap more and more patches on your theory to cover up your logic holes, your theory becomes more and more complicated and implausible, as all fabrications must do as they are exposed to the light of truth.
================================================
You make a supposition that a “plasma not-a-plasma” is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your “wind shear” to create your “plasma not-a-plasma” if the “plasma not-a-plasma” cannot exist and thereby “transport energy” by driving that wind to create the “wind shear” which creates your “plasma not-a-plasma”, unless there is “wind shear” to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you’re going in circles. You’ve created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James.
If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James?
Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly.
Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?
How do your “jet stream vortices” travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your “jet stream / giant tornado in the sky”, without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is your “jet stream / giant tornado in the sky” sentient, James?
Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That’s convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn’t exist means you’re further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James?
How are your atmospheric “water droplets” forming if they’re plasma, Jim?
Do you not know what the definition of “plasma” is, James?
How is your “plasma not-a-plasma” (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim?
Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of *maximum* 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays… except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your “plasma not-a-plasma”, Jim?
How is the energy to plasmize your “plasma not-a-plasma” not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?
Now that it’s been proven that water molecule polarity doesn’t change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water… and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim?
================================================
Why can’t you answer those questions, Jim?

• James B McGinn says:

Even though nothing could be farther from the truth, let’s suppose, for purposes of argument, that this was a rational argument between two people of equal capacity both devoted to empirical methods. We would eventually realize that the full crux of our conceptual differences had to do with differences in how we conceptualize water’s role in atmospheric flow. For you it has to do with water providing the energy of atmospheric flow through convective uplift and latent heat. For me water is instrumental because plasma provides a surface from which aerodynamics can begin to extract energy from the atmosphere and as a conduit for the transfer of air, water, and energy.
Your understanding has one advantage over mine: it is simple and therefore appeals to a wider audience. My understanding has one advantage of yours: it actually makes sense.
Tell us again why we should believe that moist air contains gaseous H2O if such has never been detected.
Tell us again why we should believe moist air is lighter than dry air if such has never been measured.
Tell us again how the undetected gaseous H2O released 1,000 times the latent heat than has ever been measured in a laboratory upon condensing from a gaseous H2O that has never been detected.
Tell us how this undetected latent heat pushes the atmosphere and, somehow, causes the emergence of distinct bands of flow–jetstreams–along the tropopause.
Tell us how this explains the highly structured entities, tornadoes, that have been observed descending down from the sky.
Tell us all of these things and keep telling us, over an over again, until you are so sick of telling us that you have no choice but to admit that what you’ve been telling us is complete nonsense.

• NOY says:

For crying out loud, Jim, if all you’re going to do is continue on in your wrong thinking while dismissing that mountain of evidence that you’re wrong and denying that all the references to that research proves you wrong, that’s a tacit admission on your part that you know, deep down, that your “theory” has no defense except for you to put your fingers in your ears and scream “LALALALA I can’t hear you!” rather than addressing the topic scientifically, fulfilling the onus of proving your claims, and performing that experiment which will definitively null the central premise of your “theory”.
Your denial of molar volume and molar mass has wide ranging implications… the Periodic Table of the Elements would have to thrown out… except we know that careful research over a very long time proves it right.
Your denial of convection, an offshoot of your denial of molar volume and molar mass, means that fire wouldn’t be able to get oxygen, and hot air balloons wouldn’t work. We know they do, James.
Your claim that the jet stream is a “giant plasmic tornado in the sky” implies it has a sentience that allows it to send its tendrils hundreds of miles, and it knows to only touch those tendrils down to create tornadoes where there are clouds, and it knows to avoid aircraft, And it can somehow evade detection by satellite and Doppler radar. That’s so utterly ridiculous as to be laughable, Jim. It also means that aircraft could not fly inside the jet stream without being ripped to shreds, yet we know that riding inside the jet stream provides a smooth ride, Jim.
So using empiricism, James, which do you think is more likely… that all of reality is wrong, and there’s a wide ranging covert attempt to cover that up, extending to every single scientist and every single scientific concept over the past 250+ years… or that your brain is badly in need of meds.
Now, James… don’t go running away from those questions… they highlight the fatal contradictions within your “theory”, thereby proving that reality is not in need of a “reboot”, you’re brain is.
================================================
You make a supposition that a “plasma not-a-plasma” is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your “wind shear” to create your “plasma not-a-plasma” if the “plasma not-a-plasma” cannot exist and thereby “transport energy” by driving that wind to create the “wind shear” which creates your “plasma not-a-plasma”, unless there is “wind shear” to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you’re going in circles. You’ve created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James.
If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James?
Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly.
Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?
How do your “jet stream vortices” travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your “jet stream / giant tornado in the sky”, without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is your “jet stream / giant tornado in the sky” sentient, James?
Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That’s convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn’t exist means you’re further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James?
How are your atmospheric “water droplets” forming if they’re plasma, Jim?
Do you not know what the definition of “plasma” is, James?
How is your “plasma not-a-plasma” (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim?
Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of *maximum* 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays… except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your “plasma not-a-plasma”, Jim?
How is the energy to plasmize your “plasma not-a-plasma” not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?
Now that it’s been proven that water molecule polarity doesn’t change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water… and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim?
================================================
Why can’t you answer those questions, Jim?

• James B McGinn says:

Tell us again why we should believe that moist air contains gaseous H2O if such has never been detected.
Tell us again why we should believe moist air is lighter than dry air if such has never been measured.
Tell us again how the undetected gaseous H2O released 1,000 times the latent heat than has ever been measured in a laboratory upon condensing from a gaseous H2O that has never been detected.
Tell us how this undetected latent heat pushes the atmosphere and, somehow, causes the emergence of distinct bands of flow–jetstreams–along the tropopause.
Tell us how this explains the highly structured entities, tornadoes, that have been observed descending down from the sky.
Tell us all of these things and keep telling us, over an over again, until you are so sick of telling us that you have no choice but to admit that what you’ve been telling us is complete nonsense.

61. NOY says:

This may very well be the irresolvable contradiction which finally causes Mr. McGinn’s fabrication to collapse under the weight of its contradictions. All fabrications which do not reflect reality must eventually have their logic holes exposed… the fabricator often tries to patch the logic hole by expanding and further complicating the fabrication, until finally the fabricator is trapped by an irresolvable contradiction. I believe I’ve found the “final straw” contradiction for Mr. McGinn’s fabrication of a “theory”.
Mr. McGinn postulates that a “plasma” is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere. This is Mr. McGinn’s attempt to overthrow all of known science, to include the known scientific realities of specific gravity, molar volume, molar mass, convection, latent heat, etc.
Unfortunately, Mr. McGinn is going around in circles.
Now, Mr. McGinn, you’ll get right on answering the following question. Your inability to do so stands as your tacit admission that your “theory” has no legs.
Where does the energy come from to create your “wind shear” to create your “plasma not-a-plasma” if the “plasma not-a-plasma” cannot exist to create the wind shear, thereby “transporting energy” to create the “wind shear”, unless there is “wind shear” to begin with, James?
Thus sounds the death knell for McGinnism.

• James B McGinn says:

NOY:
Maybe you can get these university students to help you explain the origins of the 2.5 million j/kg of latent heat that you’ve been unable to explain.
Latent Heat:
https://youtu.be/SEnVe0fGTbQ

62. NOY says:

Your non sequitur answer is note, although it was not unexpected, James. Non sequitur evasion is the *best* you’ve got.
You cannot answer those tough questions which highlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions within your “theory”, and as you desperately slap more and more patches on your theory to cover up your logic holes, your theory becomes more and more complicated and implausible, as all fabrications must do as they are exposed to the light of truth.
============================================================
You make a supposition that a “plasma not-a-plasma” is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your “wind shear” to create your “plasma not-a-plasma” if the “plasma not-a-plasma” cannot exist and thereby “transport energy” by driving that wind to create the “wind shear” which creates your “plasma not-a-plasma”, unless there is “wind shear” to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you’re going in circles. You’ve created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James.
If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James?
Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly.
Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?
How do your “jet stream vortices” travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your “jet stream / giant tornado in the sky”, without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is your “jet stream / giant tornado in the sky” sentient, James?
Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That’s convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn’t exist means you’re further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James?
How are your atmospheric “water droplets” forming if they’re plasma, Jim?
Do you not know what the definition of “plasma” is, James?
How is your “plasma not-a-plasma” (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim?
Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of *maximum* 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays… except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your “plasma not-a-plasma”, Jim?
How is the energy to plasmize your “plasma not-a-plasma” not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?
Now that it’s been proven that water molecule polarity doesn’t change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water… and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim?
============================================================
Why can’t you answer those questions, Jim?

• James B McGinn says:

Like a global warming advocate, you want to hide behind consensus. You want this to be a propaganda war because propaganda wars are always won by the side whose theory has the most popular appeal and that mostly has to do with keeping it simple.
The hard facts are that you failed to substantiate the most fundamental basis of your theory that water has these amazing attributes (gaseous at ambient temps and huge latent heat) that have never been detected under controlled conditions.
The game is over. You have lost.
James McGinn

• NOY says:

You’re projecting, James. Don’t do that, it proves you know you’re losing the argument… as does your spamming Usenet with your fallacious “theory”.
Now, the evidence of monomolecular water has been posted (see my other posts today), utilizing a link *you* *provided*, James… and it destroys large swaths of your “theory”.
You’ll run away from that proof again, of course, so here it is again, James. Prove to the world that you cannot defend your “theory” because it is a fabrication that does not reflect reality.
Water In The Gas Phase –
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3350649/
Not ab initio… direct measurement of monomolecular water in the gaseous phase. 16 referenced papers.
Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research
http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation
Direct empirical observation of monomolecular evaporation.
http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/
Active Long Path Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy to directly observe monomolecular gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere
And that’s not to mention that we see a perfect example of this each and every time we go to a weather website… the weather satellites and ground stations can differentiate between monomolecular gaseous-phase water (humidity) in the atmosphere, and liquid-phase water (clouds) in the atmosphere, Jim, because each absorbs and emits at a different wavelength, just as that video *you* *provided* featuring Anders Nilsson’s work on x-ray spectroscopy of water in its three phases shows.
Remember?
===============================================
https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156
They used x-ray spectroscopy to determine photon energy from electron orbital shell descent. You’ll note the gaseous phase water molecule’s photon spectra peaks at a much lower photon energy than ice. This is due to differences in hydrogen bonding strength between the two phases.
https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2304
You’ll note the double peak of liquid water.
Professor Anders Nilsson, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory:
“Two peaks, what does that mean? Could it be two different types of water molecules then, in the liquid? And if you look at it, one of the peaks is very close to the gas phase and the other peak is closer to the ice. So it looks like water contains two types of molecules.”
===============================================
That was a reference *you* *provided*, Jim, and it proves you *wrong*… that you didn’t and don’t realize that fact is testament that you lack the requisite educational background to even be attempting to form a model of the atmosphere… hence the reason your “theory” is so wrong in so many ways.
And as I explained to you, the dual peak of liquid water, one near the gaseous-phase monomolecular water peak (remember, you’ve claimed that all water must be liquid in the atmosphere, thus if a different spectral peak is observed from liquid water, it *must* be gaseous phase monomolecular water, not liquid water, which would have the same spectral peaks as bulk liquid water), and one near the solid-phase water peaks are due to the two spin isomers of water. There are two water molecule hybrids.
This also happens to utterly destroy your contention that water molecule polarity changes upon H bonding (which would mean that water solvent properties randomly change… and we know that’s not the case, James). The water molecule polarity isn’t changing upon H bonding, thereby lending a variable strength H bond, there are two spin isomers of water with two different H bond strengths. This is well-established and rigorously-studied science, James, corroborated by study upon study upon study.
Now on to those questions you continue ducking, James. They highlight the contradictions and inconsistencies in your “theory”, which you cannot explain, so it’s little wonder you’ve evaded addressing them… note the first one is a circulus in probando causality dilemma, making your “theory” wholly impossible.
================================================
You make a supposition that a “plasma not-a-plasma” is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your “wind shear” to create your “plasma not-a-plasma” if the “plasma not-a-plasma” cannot exist and thereby “transport energy” by driving that wind to create the “wind shear” which creates your “plasma not-a-plasma”, unless there is “wind shear” to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you’re going in circles. You’ve created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James.
If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James?
Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly.
Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?
How do your “jet stream vortices” travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your “jet stream / giant tornado in the sky”, without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is your “jet stream / giant tornado in the sky” sentient, James?
Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That’s convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn’t exist means you’re further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James?
How are your atmospheric “water droplets” forming if they’re plasma, Jim?
Do you not know what the definition of “plasma” is, James?
How is your “plasma not-a-plasma” (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim?
Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of *maximum* 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays… except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your “plasma not-a-plasma”, Jim?
How is the energy to plasmize your “plasma not-a-plasma” not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?
Now that it’s been proven that water molecule polarity doesn’t change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water… and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim?
==================================================
Why can’t you answer those questions, Jim?

• James B McGinn says:

Tell us again why we should believe that moist air contains gaseous H2O if such has never been detected.
Tell us again why we should believe moist air is lighter than dry air if such has never been measured.
Tell us again how the undetected gaseous H2O released 1,000 times the latent heat than has ever been measured in a laboratory upon condensing from a gaseous H2O that has never been detected.
Tell us how this undetected latent heat pushes the atmosphere and, somehow, causes the emergence of distinct bands of flow–jetstreams–along the tropopause.
Tell us how this explains the highly structured entities, tornadoes, that have been observed descending down from the sky.
Tell us all of these things and keep telling us, over an over again, until you are so sick of telling us that you have no choice but to admit that what you’ve been telling us is complete nonsense.

• NOY says:

[snip] not adding to the debate and full of personal attacks

63. NOY says:

Ok, the posting mechanism ate my link, and when I attempted to include the link in a follow-up, it ate the original post *and* the follow-up, so It’s being posted again.
Your “theory” holds no water, James. Especially in light of all that ongoing research into monomolecular water in the atmosphere:
Water In The Gas Phase –
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3350649/
Not ab initio… direct measurement of monomolecular water in the gaseous phase. 16 referenced papers.
Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research
http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation
Direct empirical observation of monomolecular evaporation.
http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/
Active Long Path Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy to directly observe monomolecular gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere
And that’s not to mention that we see a perfect example of this each and every time we go to a weather website… the weather satellites and ground stations can differentiate between monomolecular gaseous-phase water (humidity) in the atmosphere, and liquid-phase water (clouds) in the atmosphere, Jim, because each absorbs and emits at a different wavelength, just as that video *you* *provided* featuring Anders Nilsson’s work on x-ray spectroscopy of water in its three phases shows.
Remember?
===============================================
https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156
They used x-ray spectroscopy to determine photon energy from electron orbital shell descent. You’ll note the gaseous phase water molecule’s photon spectra peaks at a much lower photon energy than ice. This is due to differences in hydrogen bonding strength between the two phases.
https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2304
You’ll note the double peak of liquid water.
Professor Anders Nilsson, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory:
“Two peaks, what does that mean? Could it be two different types of water molecules then, in the liquid? And if you look at it, one of the peaks is very close to the gas phase and the other peak is closer to the ice. So it looks like water contains two types of molecules.”
===============================================
That was a reference *you* *provided*, Jim, and it proves you *wrong*… that you didn’t and don’t realize that fact is testament that you lack the requisite educational background to even be attempting to form a model of the atmosphere… hence the reason your “theory” is so wrong in so many ways.
And as I explained to you, the dual peak of liquid water, one near the gaseous-phase monomolecular water peak (remember, you’ve claimed that all water must be liquid in the atmosphere, thus if a different spectral peak is observed from liquid water, it *must* be gaseous phase monomolecular water, not liquid water, which would have the same spectral peaks as bulk liquid water), and one near the solid-phase water peaks are due to the two spin isomers of water. There are two water molecule hybrids.
This also happens to utterly destroy your contention that water molecule polarity changes upon H bonding (which would mean that water solvent properties randomly change… and we know that’s not the case, James). The water molecule polarity isn’t changing upon H bonding, thereby lending a variable strength H bond, there are two spin isomers of water with two different H bond strengths. This is well-established and rigorously-studied science, James, corroborated by study upon study upon study.
Now on to those questions you continue ducking, James. They highlight the contradictions and inconsistencies in your “theory”, which you cannot explain, so it’s little wonder you’ve evaded addressing them… note the first one is a circulus in probando causality dilemma, making your “theory” wholly impossible.
================================================
You make a supposition that a “plasma not-a-plasma” is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your “wind shear” to create your “plasma not-a-plasma” if the “plasma not-a-plasma” cannot exist and thereby “transport energy” by driving that wind to create the “wind shear” which creates your “plasma not-a-plasma”, unless there is “wind shear” to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you’re going in circles. You’ve created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James.
If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James?
Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly.
Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?
How do your “jet stream vortices” travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your “jet stream / giant tornado in the sky”, without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is your “jet stream / giant tornado in the sky” sentient, James?
Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That’s convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn’t exist means you’re further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James?
How are your atmospheric “water droplets” forming if they’re plasma, Jim?
Do you not know what the definition of “plasma” is, James?
How is your “plasma not-a-plasma” (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim?
Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of *maximum* 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays… except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your “plasma not-a-plasma”, Jim?
How is the energy to plasmize your “plasma not-a-plasma” not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?
Now that it’s been proven that water molecule polarity doesn’t change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water… and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim?
==================================================
Why can’t you answer those questions, Jim?

• James B McGinn says:

Your argument is not an honest argument. You sidestep the issue and flood your response with references knowing that most people won’t actually follow the references and will assume the validity of your position based on the perceived consensus that your references create. This is the same tactic that global warming advocates employ.

64. NOY says:

LOL! Not an honest argument?! I’m the one providing link after link to research proving your “theory” wrong, whereas you’re backpedaling, lying, conflating, hemming, hawing, denying all that evidence presented while presenting *none* of your own, refusing to fulfill the onus of backing up your claims with evidence by refusing to perform that experiment which will resolve this whole topic by nulling your central premise and thus your entire “theory”, and rapid-fire slapping patch after patch onto your wholly fabricated “theory” when its logical contradictions are exposed to the light of scientific truth, James.
Except the more you patch your “theory”, James, the more convoluted and implausible it becomes. You’ve already got a circulus in probando causality dilemma to contend with, and just *one* of those destroys your theory, James, especially considering that it pertains to the source of the energy to power your “plasma-driven winds”. You’ve got the wind creating the plasma and the plasma creating the wind! Do you not see the problem with that, James?
In addition, you’ve denied such everyday realities such as hot air balloons working on the principle of density differential, because you deny molar volume and molar mass. Thus you deny convection, so you deny that fires can burn because your “theory” holds that the air around that fire won’t convect, thus the fire will become starved for oxygen, just as happens in zero gravity.
Because you deny molar volume and molar mass, your “theory” *must* deny the Periodic Table of the Elements, from which molar mass is derived…
You’ll remember I’d said that a fabrication, when exposed to the light of truth, must expand and become more convoluted until an irresolvable contradiction is reached… this is happening with your fabricated “theory”, James, we see it becoming more and more convoluted, we see your invention of your “plasma not-a-plasma”, we see your invention of your sentient “plasmic tornado in the sky / jet stream”, we see you accuse every single scientist in the past 250+ years of colluding to subvert reality for some murky and unknown reason… and we see you claim yourself to be a physicist, the most brilliant physicist of all time, the One With All The Answers.. despite your denying reality at every turn and having the sum total of scientific education of a single elective class on Basic Meteorology.
You’ve expanded your wholly fabricated, unsupported by research or reality “theory” to the point that you *have* hit an irresolvable logic contradiction… the worst kind of logic contradiction, no less… a circulus in probando causality dilemma. Yet you continue… and that indicates something much deeper than just a strange “theory” that does not and cannot reflect reality, James.
You’ll remember I said those afflicted with Dunning-Kruger often convince themselves of their ‘rightness’, then proceed to form complex “theories” whilst dismissing any evidence that proves them wrong, and when those “theories” are challenged by reality, they expand upon the “theory”, making it more complicated until they hit that brick wall of an irresolvable logical contradiction, whereupon they either abandon their wrong-headed thinking, or descend into full-blown psychosis.
You have reached that brick wall, James.
Your theory is dead, Jim. Deal with that reality.
Now before you go, do take a glance at those tough questions you’ve been running away from, James… they highlight just how far wrong you’ve gone.
================================================
You make a supposition that a “plasma not-a-plasma” is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your “wind shear” to create your “plasma not-a-plasma” if the “plasma not-a-plasma” cannot exist and thereby “transport energy” by driving that wind to create the “wind shear” which creates your “plasma not-a-plasma”, unless there is “wind shear” to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you’re going in circles. You’ve created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James.
If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James?
Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly.
Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?
How do your “jet stream vortices” travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your “jet stream / giant tornado in the sky”, without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is your “jet stream / giant tornado in the sky” sentient, James?
Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That’s convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn’t exist means you’re further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James?
How are your atmospheric “water droplets” forming if they’re plasma, Jim?
Do you not know what the definition of “plasma” is, James?
How is your “plasma not-a-plasma” (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim?
Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of *maximum* 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays… except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your “plasma not-a-plasma”, Jim?
How is the energy to plasmize your “plasma not-a-plasma” not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?
Now that it’s been proven that water molecule polarity doesn’t change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water… and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim?
==================================================
Why can’t you answer those questions, Jim?

• James B McGinn says:

NOY says: 18th March 2016 at 11:09 pm
LOL! Not an honest argument?! I’m the one providing link after link to research proving your “theory” wrong
James McGinn:
Surreal. Dropping links to people that have made the same mistaken assumption that you have made is not proof of anything. Claiming that it is proof is evidence of your intellectual incompetence..
Tell us again why we should believe that moist air contains gaseous H2O if such has never been detected.
Tell us again why we should believe moist air is lighter than dry air if such has never been measured.
Tell us again how the undetected gaseous H2O released 1,000 times the latent heat than has ever been measured in a laboratory upon condensing from a gaseous H2O that has never been detected.
Tell us how this undetected latent heat pushes the atmosphere and, somehow, causes the emergence of distinct bands of flow–jetstreams–along the tropopause.
Tell us how this explains the highly structured entities, tornadoes, that have been observed descending down from the sky.
Tell us all of these things and keep telling us, over an over again, until you are so sick of telling us that you have no choice but to admit that what you’ve been telling us is complete nonsense.

65. NOY says:

Jim, it was a link that *you* *provided* which provided the means by which your entire premise is destroyed.
Remember?
They measured a spectral peak that was *not* from liquid water, James. If the spectral peak measured was not solid-phase water, and it was not liquid-phase water, that leaves only one other phase, Jim.
You claim that water remains in the liquid phase when it evaporates, thus its spectral peak would be the same as liquid water, James. That different spectral peak proves they were measuring gaseous-phase water, *not* liquid-phase water.
===============================================
https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156
They used x-ray spectroscopy to determine photon energy from electron orbital shell descent. You’ll note the gaseous phase water molecule’s photon spectra peaks at a much lower photon energy than ice. This is due to differences in hydrogen bonding strength between the two phases.
https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2304
You’ll note the double peak of liquid water.
Professor Anders Nilsson, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory:
“Two peaks, what does that mean? Could it be two different types of water molecules then, in the liquid? And if you look at it, one of the peaks is very close to the gas phase and the other peak is closer to the ice. So it looks like water contains two types of molecules.”
===============================================
That was a reference *you* *provided*, Jim, and it proves you *wrong*… that you didn’t and don’t realize that fact is testament that you lack the requisite educational background to even be attempting to form a model of the atmosphere… hence the reason your “theory” is so wrong in so many ways.
And as I explained to you, the dual peak of liquid water, one near the gaseous-phase monomolecular water peak (remember, you’ve claimed that all water must be liquid in the atmosphere, thus if a different spectral peak is observed from liquid water, it *must* be gaseous phase monomolecular water, not liquid water, which would have the same spectral peaks as bulk liquid water), and one near the solid-phase water peaks are due to the two spin isomers of water. There are two water molecule hybrids.
This also happens to utterly destroy your contention that water molecule polarity changes upon H bonding (which would mean that water solvent properties randomly change… and we know that’s not the case, James). The water molecule polarity isn’t changing upon H bonding, thereby lending a variable strength H bond, there are two spin isomers of water with two different H bond strengths. This is well-established and rigorously-studied science, James, corroborated by study upon study upon study.
Now on to those questions you continue ducking, James. They highlight the contradictions and inconsistencies in your “theory”, which you cannot explain, so it’s little wonder you’ve evaded addressing them… note the first one is a circulus in probando causality dilemma, making your “theory” wholly impossible.
================================================
You make a supposition that a “plasma not-a-plasma” is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your “wind shear” to create your “plasma not-a-plasma” if the “plasma not-a-plasma” cannot exist and thereby “transport energy” by driving that wind to create the “wind shear” which creates your “plasma not-a-plasma”, unless there is “wind shear” to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you’re going in circles. You’ve created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James.
If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James?
Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly.
Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?
How do your “jet stream vortices” travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your “jet stream / giant tornado in the sky”, without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is your “jet stream / giant tornado in the sky” sentient, James?
Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That’s convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn’t exist means you’re further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James?
How are your atmospheric “water droplets” forming if they’re plasma, Jim?
Do you not know what the definition of “plasma” is, James?
How is your “plasma not-a-plasma” (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim?
Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of *maximum* 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays… except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your “plasma not-a-plasma”, Jim?
How is the energy to plasmize your “plasma not-a-plasma” not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?
Now that it’s been proven that water molecule polarity doesn’t change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water… and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim?
==================================================
Why can’t you answer those questions, Jim?

• James B McGinn says:

NOY:
That different spectral peak proves they were measuring gaseous-phase water, *not* liquid-phase water.
JM:
What is being measured here is, indirectly, the strength/distance of the H bonds. Right? Well, now think about that . . . if it was genuinely gas then . . . think about it . . . there would be no peak at all . . . BECAUSE IF IT WAS GENUINELY GASEOUS H2O THERE WOULD BE NO H BONDS! (Specifically, the data would not indicate a peak it would indicate a flat line because there would be no variation in bond strength/distance to cause a statistical distribution.)
Keep trying NOY.

66. NOY says:

It is quite apparent, James, that you lack fundamental understanding of how photons are created and absorbed. No H bonding is necessary to release a photon as electrons descend in orbit, James. Do you not know even the basics of quantum mechanics?
You’re attempting to claim that a water molecule cannot give off a photon so one of its electrons can descend in orbit, unless that water molecule has an inter-molecular H bond… that’s just silly, Jim, and indicative of how desperate you are to twist reality to conform to your “theory” so you can proclaim yourself “not wrong”… yeah, Jim, the option of you proclaiming yourself “right” has been off the table for a very long time.
The H bonding of solid-phase and liquid-phase water affects the photon energy released, the more closely-held are the H bonds, the greater the photon energy, exactly as Anders Nilsson shows here:
https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156
That Anders Nilsson et. al. were measuring a spectral peak that did not coincide with solid-phase water nor with liquid-phase water, a spectral peak with *lower* photon energy than liquid-phase water, means they were measuring gaseous-phase water, Jim. No H bonding, monomolecular.
You’ll note the gaseous-phase water’s photon energy was *lower* because it was monomer water, and thus had no inter-molecular H bonds. If it had had any H bonds, it would have been liquid water, and thus would have had a spectral peak identical to that of liquid water.
This is, after all, James, how humidity and liquid water (in the form of droplets in clouds) is differentiated… we see this every time we visit a weather website and look at their weather charts. Or do you deny that the weather charts are legitimate now, too, Jim?
Hence, Anders Nilsson et. al. proved via x-ray spectroscopy that gaseous phase water exists, and hence evaporation is a molecule-at-a-time process, exactly as the two previous studies I’ve posted (and you’ve run away from) prove, Jim.
Now, lest anyone forget, you claim that when evaporation takes place, clusters of H-bonded water are leaping into the air, that no phase change is taking place, which is your attempt to justify your further claiming that latent heat of evaporation doesn’t exist.
So the existence of two studies empirically observing evaporation occurring on a per-molecule basis, combined with Anders Nilsson measuring the spectral peak of gaseous-phase water, combined with the everyday usage of that technology to differentiate between humidity and clouds in predicting weather… why that destroys your claim of there being no phase change on evaporation, which destroys your claim of there being no latent heat of evaporation, which destroys your claim of there being no gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere, which destroys your claim of water being a “plasma not-a-plasma” in the atmosphere, which destroys your claim of your “plasma not-a-plasma” being responsible for driving winds (and your circular fallacy of claiming the wind creates the “plasma not-a-plasma”), which destroys your claim that the jet stream is a “giant sentient plasma not-a-plasma tornado in the sky”, etc., etc… your whole fabrication just came unwound, Jim.
You’ve been found to be a scientific fraud, Jim. You’ve twisted facts to fit your agenda, you’ve refused to provide proof to back up your claims, you’ve denigrated the hard work and intelligence of every single scientist over the past 250+ years all so you could ego-trip and claim you were better and smarter than them… but you’re not, Jim. You’re merely a scientific fraud. Nothing more, and certainly a great deal less.
That is reality, Jim. Deal with it.
Now before you run away again, James, do get right on addressing those tough questions you’ve been running from… they highlight the gaping logic holes in your “theory not-a-theory”. Your continuing failure to address them stands as your tacit admission that you know your theory is indefensible.
============================================================
Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that’s right… gaseous phase water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.
You make a supposition that a “plasma not-a-plasma” is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your “wind shear” to create your “plasma not-a-plasma” if the “plasma not-a-plasma” cannot exist and thereby “transport energy” by driving that wind to create the “wind shear” which creates your “plasma not-a-plasma”, unless there is “wind shear” to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you’re going in circles. You’ve created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James.
If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James?
Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly.
Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?
How do your “jet stream vortices” travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your “jet stream / giant tornado in the sky”, without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is your “jet stream / giant tornado in the sky” sentient, James?
Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That’s convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn’t exist means you’re further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James?
How are your atmospheric “water droplets” forming if they’re plasma, Jim?
Do you not know what the definition of “plasma” is, James?
How is your “plasma not-a-plasma” (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim?
Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays… except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your “plasma not-a-plasma”, Jim?
How is the energy to plasmize your “plasma not-a-plasma” not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?
Now that it’s been proven that water molecule polarity doesn’t change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water… and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim?
============================================================
Why can’t you answer those questions, Jim?

67. Scottish-Sceptic says:

I’ve decided to close the comments in this article as it’s just got into a pointless slanging match and I’m fed up of removing ad hominem attacks from NOYs posts.