Postma Gets Schooled

solvingtornadoes says:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Arfur Bryant:
Not the most considerate way to answer a request but, ok,

ST:
You ignored my request. You failed to dispute anything I stated. You need to delineate your assumptions first. Explain to us why you assume moist air contains steam. Without that your argument is nonsense.

I’ve had the same conversation over and over again. It always goes the same way. You point me to a bunch of sheep that make the same mistake you make and you think you’ve presented an argument. You haven’t presented an argument. First tell us why you believe that moist air contains steam. The fact that other people make the same assumption is not an intelligent argument. Without that assumption your argument is, obviously, nonsense. If you can’t explain why you think this assumption is reasonable (and I know you can’t) then the discussion is over (so the discussion is over):
http://wp.me/p4JijN-5A

Arfur, answer this one question: Do you or do you not have any direct evidence of gaseous H2O at temperatures below its boiling point? If you do I will send you a check for 10,000 dollars.

Humid air is heavier than dry air, not lighter.

Arfur Bryant:
“Using Avogadro’s Law and the ideal gas law, water vapor and air will have a molar volume of 22.414 L/mol at STP.

ST:
Water vapor is only an ideal gas above it’s boiling point. So this explanation is nonsense.

Arfur Bryant:
Please note that air which has water droplets in it is heavier than dry air, but that’s not what you said…

ST:
Please note that all air that is at temperatures below the boiling point of H2O exists in droplets, not individual molecules of H2O.

Prove me wrong. Science isn’t about what you believe or how many people carry the same belief. It is about reproducible experimental evidence. And you have none.

 

solvingtornadoes says:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Arfur:
No need to get stuffy about this, ST. We’re all just trying to get the facts straight, I’m sure.

I completely understand your distinction between ‘heat and heating’ but you are still wrong when you state: [“A cooler object can and does heat a warmer object.”]

Jim McGinn of Solving Tornadoes:
The devil is in the details of which words each one of us, somewhat arbitrarily, choose to represent different concepts. In the context of the definitions that I provided, it is perfectly reasonable to state that, “A cooler object can and does heat a warmer object.” I think my thinking on this issue is consistent within itself and that is the best any of us can hope for.

Maybe part of the confusion is my use of the word “heat” to describe a process and the word, “heating” to describe the results of a process. I can see how some might suggest that for purposes of conceptual clarity that this could be reversed. We can go around in circles forever debating which word is the right word. The larger point I’m trying to make here is that when people are dogmatic about semantics progress stops and it turns into a shouting match.

Whatever the case, when a packet of energy comes off one entity and is received by another entity the energetic state of the second entity is increased as a result. The temperature and/or relative temperature of the two entities makes no difference. If you think the laws of thermodynamics indicate otherwise I would only suggest that you be cognizant of the fact that the laws of thermodynamics do not contradict this interpretation in that these laws deal with the net Greg House says:

transfer of energy.

Joseph E Postma says: “I don’t know either Greg.”
=================================

I know now: it is all about more energetic photonic vibrators.

solvingtornadoes says:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Joe:
I don’t know either Greg. I think ST says that water vapour can only exist as steam and thus only if T >= 100C. And so the “water vapour” content in the air is actually composed of tiny liquid water droplets, not actual vaporous H2O.

Jim McGinn of Solving Tornadoes:
Right. There is no steam in Earth’s atmosphere. It’s physically impossible. The water in moist air is comprised of little droplets/clusters, often too small to be seen. Consequently meteorologist’s claims that moist air is lighter than dry air are about as reliable as Al Gore’s claims about CO2-caused warming.

Without the belief that moist air contains steam meteorology has no choice but reject the models they depend on to convince the public they know what they are talking about. They will be forced to find new models.

The boiling point of water is determined by pressure and temperature. There is a wealth of laboratory evidence that proves/demonstrates this. There is zero laboratory evidence indicating the existence of gaseous H2O at temperatures and pressures below its boiling point. Zero.

The fact that meteorologists chose to believe nonsense doesn’t mean that the rest of us are obligated to follow blindly.

Joe:
From my own research on the lapse rate question, one requires the latent heat density out of the condensation of vaporous H2O to liquid H2O, not liquid to ice H2O, in order to push the lapse rate down from 9.8 K/km to 6.5 K/km.

Jim McGinn of Solving Tornadoes:
Your own research? What, exactly? Additionally, your explanation seems extremely contrived. Where is your data? How might I reproduce/verify your results? (And I know you don’t have any references.)

The concept of “latent heat” is a nonsense concept. Empirically it’s meaningless (it’s never been measured or even detected). It’s sophistry.

Joe:
So in my opinion ST’s stuff isn’t supported by the evidence

Jim McGinn of Solving Tornadoes:
Yet you can’t clearly explain your opinion. You are confused. And when people become confused they tend to start pretending that they understand what they don’t understand. This is the reason so many people believe in AGW. They become confused and start pretending.  You are no different.

Joe:
I usually don’t let him post his stuff here. Why here anyway ST?

Jim McGinn of Solving Tornadoes:
Because in order to verify a scientific breakthrough you need to get through to people that recognize the importance empiricism over consensus. Is that not you?

Joe:
Bring people to your own site on the question. Don’t make it part of this site.

Jim McGinn of Solving Tornadoes:
You should be flattered that I am presenting you the opportunity to confirm a scientific breakthrough.

Joe:
Interesting too that you recently said that I shouldn’t waste my time anymore on the greenhouse problem…when it is THE ONLY problem that matters right now!

Jim McGinn of Solving Tornadoes:
You have an engineer’s understanding of thermodynamics. You do the math accurately. But you misinform people when it comes to properly conceptualizing what is actually taking place. And since you are so good at the math people tend to assume that you must also understand it conceptually. And, well, you just don’t (as has been demonstrated vividly recently in this blog.) I don’t know the math that well, but I can conceptualize the phenomena and I know how to avoid the semantic confusion that is so common in scientific discourse. You are out of your element in that respect.

BTW, who was it back in September of 2013 that informed the various participants in the “back-radiation” discussion about the fact that the laws of thermodynamics have to do with net flow of energy and not just the flow? It wasn’t you, Joe. It was me. (And, frankly, it still seems you don’t get it.)

The worst thing you can do in science is claim you understand something that you actually do not understand. Because after a while you start believing your own lies. Then you become the thing you are fighting against.

2 responses to “Postma Gets Schooled”

  1. squid2112 says :

    BTW, who was it back in September of 2013 that informed the various participants in the “back-radiation” discussion about the fact that the laws of thermodynamics have to do with net flow of energy and not just the flow? It wasn’t you, Joe. It was me. (And, frankly, it still seems you don’t get it.)

    Careful here Jim, while you are correct about net “energy” flow, you are incorrect about “heat” flow. “Heat” is a result, not a thing. “Energy” is a thing, “Heat” is not. An object can only be “heated” by another object of GREATER energy. This conforms perfectly with the net “energy” statement of the 2nd LoT and conforms perfectly with the heat flow equation. Joseph is perfectly correct in this matter. I would advise you step back a moment and ponder this, as clearly there are some misunderstandings present.

    • solvingtornadoes says :

      Keep in mind the only empirical window we have into all of this is the ability to measure temperature. Let’s see if you still feel the same way after following the first of the two emails I sent you and after you’ve seen the comments by Tom of Oregon City. In my estimation, the only way yourself, Joe and Arfur could salvage what you’ve asserted so far would be to switch from the ambiguous concept of heat to the concept of temperature.

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: