Response to Pat Obar

http://www.principia-scientific.org/arctic-explorers-or-buccaneers.html#comment-11224

PO:
Water vapor or (technical) steam especially superheated steam is the monomolecular gas phase of H20, nothing else!

Jim:
In common parlance the word vapor is used interchangeably to indicate steam or evaporate. Thus there is a lot of ambiguity in the word. I really don’t care what word is used, as long as it is consistent. If you want to convince the rest of the world that vapor equates to steam I will gladly follow along. Until then, however, I’m going to continue to consider it an evaporate/condensate.

PO:
Such “gas” has low molecular density but specific heat, twice that of gas N2 or O2!

Jim:
It depends, and IDK. I’m not sure how this is relevant.

PO:
Water condensate is the colloid between liquid or solid H2O and the gas phase.

Jim:
So, you’re proposing a new phase of water that is between gas and liquid–and that requires it be mixed in with air molecules? Wouldn’t it be less confusing (and not less accurate) to refer to it as liquid droplets/clusters that are suspended between air molecules (by electro-static forces [more on electro-static forces below])?

PO:
In the atmosphere this condensate is called an aerosol with a higher density than the gas, . . .

Jim:
Well, yes, if it contains liquid droplets/clusters rather than individual molecules of H2O (which is what meteorologists erroneously assume) then it would have to have a higher density than if it was 100% gas–according to gas laws (ie. Avogadro’s Law). And, consequently, it would have to have a higher WEIGHT PER VOLUME than does dry air. So, it can only have negative buoyancy. And, therefore, convection of moist air at ambient temps is impossible. It’s a myth. And it’s a myth that meteorologists refuse to abandon or even to discuss abandoning (The notion is sacred–it’s taboo–in some universities students have been failed or denied employment opportunities if they didn’t recant any statements they made disputing convection/latent heat.) because all of their models depend on its existence (Note: not all of their models involve convection. Some involve the equally ludicrous notion of “latent heat,” which also depends on the fictional existence of “cold steam.”)

PO:
but no one knows by how much, or why

Jim:
I suppose that’s true. And it is highly variable because the size of the droplets/clusters changes as they combine and/or re-separate with changes in pressure, temperature and static electricity (see below for more on static electricity).

PO:
And, no one knows why it remains suspended under the complex fluid dynamics of this compressible fluid called atmosphere, that is within a strong gravitational field.

Jim:
Speak for yourself. I know. What follows is an excerpt from my book entitled Vortex Phase: The Discovery of the Spin that Underlies the Twist: (See link below)
“Being heavier than dry air, moist air, therefore, is assumed to have negative buoyancy. This presents a conceptual challenge: if moist air is heavier and not lighter than dry air then how/why does it not just fall out of the atmosphere? My response is that moisture in our atmosphere is dictated by two processes (neither of which has anything to do with convection/buoyancy): 1) Electrostatic forces: air has a residual negative charge, water droplets have a residual positive charge, together these cause water droplets/clusters to remain suspended in air; and 2) As explained in the first paragraph of this chapter, the jet stream, in the context of creating storms, constantly pulls moist air up into its flow at the top of the troposphere 7 to 12 kilometers above us. Thunderstorms (which have nothing whatsoever to do with convection) are a particularly dramatic example of jet streams–acting as conduits of low pressure–growing down into the lower troposphere to create rapid uplift.”
Source: http://wp.me/p4JijN-aE

Have you ever noticed that atmospheric discharge of electricity (lightning) is highly correlated with rain? Why do you think that is?

More recently I’ve come to the conclusion that the origin of this atmospheric static electricity is, most likely, the solar winds. The northern lights, according to this theory, are visual evidence of this static electricity entering Earth’s atmosphere.

It’s good to see that you are smart enough and skeptical enough to not just take meteorologists word on this. They would have us believe that the only solution to this conundrum is to assume that evaporate is gaseous H2O (to produce buoyancy/convection/latent heat).

PO:
Please be extremely suspicious of anyone that claims they know, especially of yourself!  Anything visible is never steam, only the condensate!

Jim:
Steam is invisible. Always. Evaporate is also, usually, invisible. Evaporate only becomes visible when the diameter of it’s droplets/clusters are greater than the length of a photon.

It’s especially important to be aware that moisture that is invisible is not always gaseous H2O. In fact, most of the evaporate that is in Earth’s atmosphere is just as invisible as gaseous H2O.

PO:
The meteorologists can only lie, as they also have not a clue

Jim:
Don’t assume that all meteorologists believe this nonsense. They have to go along with it if they want to keep their jobs. The upper echelons in meteorology is not that different from that of the Mafia. Except they won’t kill you. They’ll just prevent you from becoming employed or getting research grants–more like the IPCC or Al Gore. And they are much better at suppressing debate and evading challenges from outside the discipline.

7 responses to “Response to Pat Obar”

  1. Tom OregonCity says :

    Jim wrote: “1) Electrostatic forces: air has a residual negative charge, water droplets have a residual positive charge, together these cause water droplets/clusters to remain suspended in air;”

    I would ask for a source for that claim, as positive/negative charges that are persistent must be associated with a process that keeps them that way: chemical ionization division of molecules, electrostatic forces in the global environment (wind shear, etc), or some such. It’s certainly not “just ‘cuz”, it’s certainly not because of a latent deficiency or surplus of electrons in the universe, and this is the first I’ve read about that being a general property, as opposed to a property when under specific forces.

    Further, when a water droplet with a “residual positive charge” is surrounded by air with a “residual negative charge”, the attractive charges — up, down and sideways — cancel… right up until the femtosecond before the water droplet acquires an electron from one of those positively-charged air molecules. Then, of course, the electrostatic attractive forces… are still cancelled.

    A war exists between gravity, surface attraction, partial pressure, turbulence, temperature and kinetic mixing (scattering by collision). Who wins? (shrug) That depends on conditions….

    • solvingtornadoes says :

      Jim:
      1) Electrostatic forces: air has a residual negative charge, water droplets have a residual positive charge, together these cause water droplets/clusters to remain suspended in air;”

      Tom:
      I would ask for a source for that claim, as positive/negative charges that are persistent must be associated with a process that keeps them that way: chemical ionization division of molecules, electrostatic forces in the global environment (wind shear, etc), or some such. It’s certainly not “just ‘cuz”, it’s certainly not because of a latent deficiency or surplus of electrons in the universe, and this is the first I’ve read about that being a general property, as opposed to a property when under specific forces.

      Jim:
      Thanks for the response.
      These are really good points. I’ve been struggling with this issue/question for a long time. As you suggest, if I was to leave it as, “just cuz” then I’d be no different than the meteorologists who I criticize for using, “just cuz,” as their basis for assuming that evaporate must involve gaseous H2O (what I, sarcastically, refer to as “cold steam”).

      I did, kind of, provide an answer to this question:
      Quoting myself:
      “More recently I’ve come to the conclusion that the origin of this atmospheric static electricity is, most likely, the solar winds. The northern lights, according to this theory, are visual evidence of this static electricity entering Earth’s atmosphere.” And: “Have you ever noticed that atmospheric discharge of electricity (lightning) is highly correlated with rain? Why do you think that is?”
      I also, kind of, have a source for all of this:
      How plasma connects the Sun to the climate
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/30/how-plasma-connects-the-sun-to-the-climate/
      This suggests that the sun causes the atmosphere to be kind of a plasma, which I interpret to mean it has a slight negative electric charge. But I really don’t know.

      Tom:
      Further, when a water droplet with a “residual positive charge” is surrounded by air with a “residual negative charge”, the attractive charges — up, down and sideways — cancel… right up until the femtosecond before the water droplet acquires an electron from one of those positively-charged air molecules. Then, of course, the electrostatic attractive forces… are still cancelled.

      Jim:
      Is it possible for the electrostatic forces to be strong enough to keep a miniature cluster/droplet of water molecules suspended but not strong enough to pull and electron? I don’t know.

      Tom:
      A war exists between gravity, surface attraction, partial pressure, turbulence, temperature and kinetic mixing (scattering by collision). Who wins? (shrug) That depends on conditions….

      Jim:
      I don’t disagree. Moreover there is a lot more kinetic energy in calm air than most people realize. (The molecules are moving at 900 miles per hour–the speed of sound.) Dust too can be suspended in air. However it seems to mostly require winds to remain suspended. Moisture, on the otherhand, seems to remain suspended even in calm air. So, it seems to me, there is additional explanation needed. My best guess is that it has something to do with water’s surface tension which has to do with water’s polarity. But I don’t know.

      Mostly I’m concerned that people don’t just assume that if air goes up it must be due to convection/buoyancy and, therefore, we are forced into the assumption that moist air must be lighter than dry air and therefore we have to assume that moist air contains gaseous H2O (in order for it to be lighter than dry air).

  2. peaches says :

    your imagination is unchecked, go read some books, fool

  3. James McRetard says :

    all mcginns disconnected imagination, very poor science fiction

    Stinking pile of poop

  4. Claud the Dink says :

    James McGinn most likely is mentally ill, try to be kind but move on

  5. Robert Clark says :

    Beware James Bernard McGinn of Antioch, CA (aka Solving Tornadoes)…

    he’s a crackpot who denies that convection exists,
    denies that latent heat of evaporation exists,
    claims great heaping clumps of water are leaping into the air as liquid water when evaporation takes place,
    then that water converts to a plasma,
    which the jet stream (which he claims is a giant tornado) uses to send tornados down to the ground…

    he claims what is known about atmospheric science is all wrong because the weathermen are plotting a coup…

    every bit of it laughably incorrect.

    He’ll fill your blog so full of anti-science nitwittery it’ll become unreadable.

    Check TallBloke and Scottish Skeptic for examples. He is strictly plonk-on-sight.

  6. McGinns Mom says :

    Amazon deletes James McGinn’s Troll Book after bad complaints!

    Top Customer Reviews
    1.0 out of 5 stars

    “insane rambling”

    By K. Parker on July 3, 2014

    Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase

    The author believes that elementary concepts, which have been taught to
    and understood by first year Chemistry and Physics students for many
    decades, are some kind of meteorological conspiracy. The author also
    does not understand the very basic physics that drive convective
    updrafts (the positive buoyancy due to warm temperature anomalies that
    result from latent heat release). Instead, apparently based largely on
    reading websites, he proposes a mechanism that makes no physical sense
    and is totally unobserved and unobservable. This text violates even
    basic tenets of logic. Totally without merit.
    5 Comments 14 people found this helpful.

    1.0 out of 5 starsWaste of time,

    “a non-funny joke”

    By hunter on July 16, 2014
    Format: Kindle Edition

    This book misleads the reader on basic physical concepts like density,
    the basics of weather dynamics, and offers a silly idea that confuses
    metaphors about how the jet stream operates with reality. It solves
    nothing but does offer a way to waste time and money buying and reading
    it. This book is an example of the risks posed in the age of inexpensive
    self publishing.

    1 Comment 9 people found this helpful.

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: