Hunter’s Dilemma: via Roger Tall Bloke’s Blog

solvingtornadoes says:

http://wp.me/p4JijN-3d

hunter says:

The kook has a poll out to prove that meteorology is wrong. He relies on a poll to give his ideas credibility while he claims that reliance on a consensus means the science is wrong. His poll offers literally no science, math or physics to back it up. But of course his arguments offer no science, goofy delusional science, and certainly no physics.

solvingtornadoes says:

The purpose of the poll is to expose science groupies, like yourself. The fact that your thinking is based on a consensus isn’t a problem as much as the fact that you wish to conceal this fact from your audience.  The stark reality is that, like many other science groupies, you have no empirical basis for your BELIEF that H2O remains monomolecular in the atmosphere at temperatures below the boiling point of H2O.

Answer my question you evasive twit: Do you have any reproducible experimental evidence that H2O remains monomolecular in the atmosphere at temperatures below the boiling point of H2O? Remember: 1) Your imagination is not evidence; 2) Opinions of your fellow AGW cultists are not evidence; 3) Opinions of so-called experts (even those that have sciencey sounding names, like Oppenheimer) is not evidence; 4) References to people that lived over a hundred years ago is not evidence: 5) References to documents that express the same sentiment are not evidence.

(Note: what follows has been cleaned up for readability.)

Roger Tattersal:
Jim, maybe until a better controlled experiment is done with more definite results, more circumspection with regards to strong claims might be in order?

Jim McGinn:
Roger, circumspection is appropriate when you are not sure about underlying physical principles. See chapter 4 of my book for details.

However, if you need something more tangible you might consider looking into the some of the history of the steam engine. The first practical steam engine, the Newcomen atmospheric engine, actually used the atmosphere to do the work (power stroke). It used steam as a means of creating a vacuum by lowering its temperature below the boiling point (using chilled water to assist). If H2O stayed mono-molecular below boiling point of H2O it could not possibly have worked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomen_atmospheric_engine

“When the regulator valve V was opened, steam was let out of the boiler filling the space in the cylinder beneath the piston. The regulator valve was then closed and the water injection valve V’ briefly snapped open and shut sending a spray of cold water into the cylinder. This condensed the steam and created a partial vacuum under the piston. Pressure differential with the atmosphere then drove the piston down making the power stroke . . .”

Lucia Liljegren:
Nonsense. Condensation of a mono-molecular gas to liquid will result lowered pressure (i.e. partial vacuum) just as required to run this engine.

Roger Tattersal:
Doesn’t that prove Jim’s point Lucia? That water vapor below boiling point is actually suspended micro droplets, not gas?

Jim McGinn (in response to Roger Tattersal):
Doesn’t that prove Jim’s point Lucia? That water vapor below boiling point is actually suspended micro droplets, not gas?

Of course it proves my point.  It proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.  What you will find, however, is that there is no shortage of people that will attempt to obfuscate the issue–just like the notion of CO2 Forcing in climatology. Moreover, the fact is that this evidence has been around for over 200 years.  That the whole discipline of meteorology chooses to ignore it is proof positive that meteorology is a cult and not a science.

Will Janoschka:
Jim McGinn insists that monomer H2O as a real but not ideal gas cannot exist below 100 Celsius. This is nonsense and would “prevent” the kind of evaporation from water and leaves below 100 Celsius. Jim, however, is correct in that the meteorologists have never actually learned how the atmosphere actually works, and they refuse to learn.

Jim McGinn (in response to Will Janoschka):
Jim McGinn OTOH insists that monomer H2O as a real but not ideal gas cannot exist below 100 Celsius.

Right. Because individual H2O molecules are at full polarity when they are not (yet) attached to other H2O molecules. (Note: only when H2O molecules become attached to other H2O molecules is their polarity neutralized.)

This is nonsense and would “prevent” the kind of evaporation from water and leaves below 100 Celsius .

Wrong. It’s not nonsense. (Pay attention, Will.  That people mistakenly assume it to be nonsense is the point being discussed.)  It does mean, however, that evaporation also involves clumps and not individual molecules of H2O. (Here is something to consider that will give you a sense of the quirkiness of H2O’s hydrogen bond. The amount of force associated with pulling one molecule of H2O off the surface of a body of water is something like 15 to 25 times greater than that associated with pulling a clump of 10 to 20 molecules in size. Think about that for a while.)

Jim however is correct in that the meteorologists have never actually learned how the atmosphere actually works, and they refuse to learn.

Yes, regrettably, Meteorologists are mostly concerned with the appearance that meteorology is a sound science and the appearance that they understand it.  The reality is that they are deeply ignorant about concepts like that being discussed here? We can expect them to be very deliberate about avoiding this topic, as is the case with Hunter, above.

Roger Tattersal (in response to Will Janoschka):
1). How do we know whether water evaporating below its boiling point is evaporating as single molecules not in dimers? Or very rapidly becoming a dimer with another nearby water molecule immediately after evaporation?

2). Doesn’t the fact that steam contracts rapidly below boiling point demonstrate that Jim is correct about water not existing as an ideal gas below boiling point?

3). In any case, a single evaporated water molecule amongst a crowd of O2 and N2 molecules is not gaseous water, it is humid air.

Please note I am only addressing this single issue. I have not had time to study Jim’s broader thesis and have no judgement of it yet.

Will Janoschka (in response to Roger Tattersal):
3). In any case, a single evaporated water molecule amongst a crowd of O2 and N2 molecules is not gaseous water, it is humid air.

I doubt that any chemist or engineer would agree. <snip>

Still the Meteorologists seem to not shive a git! Just look at Anthony WUWT!

Jim McGinn (in response to Roger Tattersal):
There are positive and negative forces involved–as with everything. But with water the physics get real strange the more we conceptually drill down to the molecular level. I won’t attempt to explain it in any great detail here. I’ll just say that the electromagnetic forces, EMF (literally magnetism) that bring water molecules together are instantaneously neutralized with completion of a hydrogen bond with another water molecule (and each H2O molecule can share a bond with up to 4 other H2O molecules [but only one bond with each]).

the clumping seems to be have a component of electrostatic attraction

Well, the “clumping” is (according to my understanding) dictated by hydrogen bonding of H2O (again, see chapter 4 for details). But there is always some residual charge–surface tension–left over for each clump. (BTW, the surface tension of water–unlike any other substance that I am aware of–goes up exponentially with increase in surface area. Things get real confusing at this point, [again, see chapter 4] but what it comes down to is that the smaller the clump the greater will be the charge to weight ratio. [and this is why there can be no monomers in atmosphere]) And this residual charge, along with electrostatic factors of air (N2, O2) are involved with how the clump/droplet is suspended in air and with how it originally becomes suspended (evaporation). (Note: a popular misconception is that evaporation involves individual molecules of H2O breaking away from a surface. Once you understand hydrogen bonding of water you will realize that this is impossible. Evaporation involves clumps being pulled [largely as a result of electrostatic forces, but also kinetic factors play a role] off the surface.)

Wouldn’t that give us a max clump size of two molecules? A dimer?

Actually, no. (This is an excellent question, BTW.) The reason the answer to this question is no is somewhat complicated, but it has to do with some of the things I mentioned above: “each H2O molecule can share a bond with up to 4 other H2O molecules [but only one bond with each]” The point being that there is actually an incremental aspect to the polarization neutralization that results from the hydrogen bonding and it is not until the clumps get to be about 10 molecules in size that the clumps residual EMF is significantly neutralized. (The reason for this are, again, complicated and have to do with the geometry of how water molecules become entangled, completing hydrogen bonds, neutralizing polarity.)

Jim McGinn OTOH insists that monomer H2O as a real (but not ideal) gas cannot exist below 100 Celsius. This is nonsense and would “prevent” the kind of evaporation from water and leaves below 100 Celsius.

Wrong. Evaporation can only involve clumps. (See above for details.)

1). How do we know whether water evaporating below its boiling point is evaporating as single molecules not in dimers? Or very rapidly becoming a dimer with another nearby water molecule immediately after evaporation?

Not even dimers or trimers are possible. Evaporation can only involve clumps of at least 10 molecules. (See above for details.)

Jim McGinn (in response to Will Janoschka):
I doubt that any chemist or engineer would agree. <snip>

LOL.  I could care less whether or not any, so-called, expert agrees or disagrees unless then can explain how/why.

Still the Meteorologists seem to not shive a git! Just look at Anthony WUWT!

Blind leading the blind.

Lucia Liljegren (in response to Roger Tattersal):
1). How do we know whether water evaporating below its boiling point is evaporating as single molecules not in dimers? Or very rapidly becoming a dimer with another nearby water molecule immediately after evaporation?

I’m not sure what you are asking nor why it matters.  <snip>

2). Doesn’t the fact that steam contracts rapidly below boiling point demonstrate that Jim is correct about water not existing as an ideal gas below boiling point?

No. Especially not if he defines ‘the boiling point’ as 212F. <snip>

Jim McGinn (in response to Lucia Liljegren):
I’m not sure what you are asking nor why it matters.

It’s the subject under discussion.  Pay attention.

No. Especially not if he defines ‘the boiling point’ as 212F. 

LOL.   You are a typical science troll.  I purposely used the phrase “boiling point” so that evasive twits like yourself could not make the dumb-ass argument that you went ahead and made anyway.  You perfectly exemplify the intellectual dishonesty we see in meteorologists.  I purposely removed the ambiguity from my argument and you are so desperate to pretend you have a valid point that you pretended to speak for me.

Lucia, here’s the problem your simplemindedness. If you are ignorant of the H2O’s hydrogen bonding and its implications to neutralization of polarity you are going to draw conclusions based on “largish” numbers and extrapolated down to “smallish” numbers. This kind of reasoning works fine for molecules whose bonds are dictated by covalent factors, let’s say silica for example. But it is very different when hydrogen bonding and polarity neutraization is involved. In largish numbers the H2O molecules EMF is almost completely neutralized. (EMF stands for Electro Magnetic Force.) In smallish numbers the H2O molecules EMF is, essentially, activated. Consequently, for a singular (unattached) H2O molecule the charge to weight ratio is very high, almost as high as that in some solids (ie. silica) but once hydrogen bonds are completed (as H2O molecules become entangled) the polarity that underlies this charge is neutralized. (Note: this explains why water gets more fluid [and not more solid] as it becomes more dense, more entangled.) And so, what does this all mean? It means that with H2O you can’t extrapolate from “largish” to “smallish” because the properties of H2O change dramatically (and exponentially) the more “smallish” it becomes.

David Howe: (in response to Jim McGinn):
Here is something to consider that will give you a sense of the quirkiness of H2O’s hydrogen bond. The amount of force associated with pulling one molecule of H2O off the surface of a body of water is something like 15 to 25 times greater than it is to pull off a clump of 10 to 20 molecules in size. Think about that for a while.

OK I get what you’re saying. The fewer bonds that must be broken the easier it is for that clump to escape. Can you provide a reference (other than Conlan) that observes water evaporating in clumps?

Jim McGinn (in response to David Howe):
OK I get what you’re saying. The fewer bonds that must be broken the easier it is for that clump to escape.

No, that’s exactly what is not happening. The only way a water molecule can maintain EMF neutrality is to maintain connection with other water molecules. And the only way they could achieve evaporation (separation) is if they maintain EMF neutrality. Consequently the only way evaporation could take place is if relatively EMF neutral clumps break free from other relatively neutral EMF clumps and/or surfaces. (Note: EMF stands for Electro Magnetic Force.)

Can you provide a reference (other than Conlan) that observes water evaporating in clumps?

No. Can you provide a reference that observes water evaporating in monomers?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: