Tom of Oregon City

So, Tom, you seem to think of yourself as a pretty smart guy. Can you tell us why/how it’s possible for moist air to contain steam when it is physically impossible for steam to exist below its boiling point. Let’s see how you deal with a problem that can’t be looked up in a text book.

Sunday 10:48pm

Since temperature is an average of diverse energy states of many molecules, and since kinetic energy varies from molecule to molecule on a collision by collision basis, and since part of the freedom to have those divergent energy states is the absence of binding to other molecules, why can’t you have steam, water vapor, liquid water, ice… coexisting? Homogeneity is an imagined condition in a chaotic atmosphere.

Monday 12:44am

Waters properties prevent it, Wishful thinking isn’t scientifically concise thinking. Base your reasoning on facts, not on your imagination.

Monday 2:31pm

Water’s properties prevent what, Jim? Having different molecules in different states in the same — what? — cubic km? cubic meter? cubic centimeter? And how is what I wrote “wishful thinking”? Care to identify the property of a water molecule that forces some sort of homogeneity? You complain that I am not basing my reasoning on facts. If you disagree with my assessment, then you are forced to show how my information is incorrect. Let’s start with the energy level of water molecules in a free atmosphere. Show me how you find them constrained.

For me the boiling point of water is a function of temperature and pressure (as indicated in steam tables). For you the boiling point of water is a function of temperature and pressure and some unspecified factor that sounds like imagination to me that you described above. And it is this unspecified, imaginative factor that brings you to the conclusion that the moisture in ambient air is steam despite the fact that you and exactly nobody has ever provided any positive evidence of–just your collective imaginations. You might as well refer to it in spiritual terms, because that is all it really is. It’s just something you choose to believe.

Monday 6:02pm

Jim, I think this is not going to go where you would like. Not all molecules of water vapor need to be at the energy state that makes them “HOT”. Latent heat is a function of binding and unbinding, to liquid or to vapor. Steam is unbound — vapor — but also sensibly “hot”. No added thing, unless you call latent heat “imaginary”. It is measurable, you know. I’ve done that myself, decades ago. Evaporation requires energy be transferred to a molecule of water, and that energy transfer causes the surface to cool, because it’s taken from kinetic energy in other molecules. But to escape the surface, and become vapor, the molecule does not have to increase in temperature (though that may also happen), but captures that energy in the motion of the molecule. State changes are not imaginary. They are evidenced by energy measurements, the fact of the conservation of energy, and the observable mass of the solid, liquid and gas under test. As I said, this is observable and measurable, and taught in even high school physics. One should be careful before stating such a thing as “nobody has ever provided any positive evidence” of state change energy. Now, if you’d like to continue, let me see if I have your thinking correctly: you believe that latent heat — the energy of state change — is imaginary?

I never mentioned and am not discussing latent heat. Leave me out of your imagination.

Your belief in steam existing at ambient temperatures is a belief for which you and nobody has presented any evidence. That you choose to pretend otherwise is your imagination.

It’s incredible the imaginative things people come up with when things they believe are challenged. Belief in steam at ambient temperatures is a fairy tale.

“Latent heat” is the new catch-all phrase that science pretenders use when their nonsense is exposed.

Monday 10:11pm

(sigh) Not about “latent heat”, because it’s a pretender’s dodge? OK, Jim, (1) what is “steam”? (2) if the temperature of the air, taken by ordinary thermometer, is 70F, what is the temperature of individual molecules in that location? (3) identify the work being done on a molecule during a collision (specifically, can its temperature change)? (4) describe the meaning of the triple-point temperature for water. And no, you are quite mistaken: “latent heat” is thermal energy which does not manifest itself as kinetic energy. Another example of energy that does not manifest itself with temperature: chemical potential. Like, coal or gasoline. If you knew your molecular physics, you would know that electron energy states, sub-atomic binding energies, rotational energy, vibrational energy, electron sharing… all can hold “energy” without it being seen as temperature. Somewhere, you have taken a left turn off the road, because the state of matter is observable and measurable, and one of the marvels of the organization of matter into collections or structure. Have you studied Physics at a level required to have this discussion? If not, may I suggest you acquire a college level Physics overview (I prefer Halliday / Resnick Fundamentals of Physics, personally. The versions go all the way back into the 60s, with updates through recent publications) If you care to be convincing rather than dogmatic, about a property of matter that is pretty well understood, and a subject of Physics and Chemistry education for as long as I’ve been studying, demonstrate your hypothesis with molecular fundamentals and proper energy flow equations. And please: if this is about climate, drop the discussion. Get back to fundamental molecular understanding, and build up from the ground floor. If you argue that thus and so must be true because the climate does this or the other, you will get nowhere with me: that’s circular reasoning. I get enough of that with the slayers (last, with Pierre Latour, who I sort of “chased off the field” with his ideas on the “temperature of radiation” — another slayer specialty — and he complained about my critique of one of his “papers”).

Tuesday 12:53pm

OK, Jim, (1) what is “steam”? Look it up. (2) if the temperature of the air, taken by ordinary thermometer, is 70F, what is the temperature of individual molecules in that location? 70F, obviously. (3) identify the work being done on a molecule during a collision (specifically, can its temperature change)? Ludicrous. That’s a plainly retarded argument you are pretending to present. (4) describe the meaning of the triple-point temperature for water. You are so desperate. You are grabbing for straws. Triple point is perfectly irrlevant to this discussion. And no, you are quite mistaken: “latent heat” is thermal energy which does not manifest itself as kinetic energy. Do you have a relevant point? Another example of energy that does not manifest itself with temperature: chemical potential. Like, coal or gasoline. If you knew your molecular physics, you would know that electron energy states, sub-atomic binding energies, rotational energy, vibrational energy, electron sharing… all can hold “energy” without it being seen as temperature. Uh, yeah, this is common knowledge. Do you have a point? Somewhere, you have taken a left turn off the road, because the state of matter is observable and measurable, and one of the marvels of the organization of matter into collections or structure. Have you studied Physics at a level required to have this discussion? If not, may I suggest you acquire a college level Physics overview (I prefer Halliday / Resnick Fundamentals of Physics, personally. The versions go all the way back into the 60s, with updates through recent publications) You blabber on pointlessly like an idiot. Are you incapable of arguing a specific point? If you care to be convincing rather than dogmatic, about a property of matter that is pretty well understood, Is it well understood? Then, by all means, go ahead explain to us the physics that underlie your claim that steam can exist at temperatures below its 100C at 1 ATM? IOW, address the issue you evasive twit. Answer the question, powderpuff. Go ahead, make my day. and a subject of Physics and Chemistry education for as long as I’ve been studying, demonstrate your hypothesis with molecular fundamentals and proper energy flow equations. Who cares. Other than the one on your head, do you have a point? And please: if this is about climate, drop the discussion. Get back to fundamental molecular understanding, and build up from the ground floor. If you argue that thus and so must be true because the climate does this or the other, you will get nowhere with me: that’s circular reasoning. I get enough of that with the slayers (last, with Pierre Latour, who I sort of “chased off the field” with his ideas on the “temperature of radiation” — another slayer specialty — and he complained about my critique of one of his “papers”). Well, I saw what you did with Postma. (Not that I hadn’t already done the same many times before.) His notion of one-way flow of EMG was plainly absurd. I pointed this out to Postma about September of 2013. And I did it in PSI. But on this issue you are out of your league. The H2O molecule is EXTREMELY counterintuitive. It has to do with the hydrogen bond, which is distinctly different that the covalent and ionic bonds that you are used to studying. A hydrogen bond is a function of the H2O molecule’s polarity. What this means collectively for H2O is extremely confusing. I am the only person I have ever come across that understands it completely and it is so confusing that I wouldn’t pretend to try to explain this to you over the internet. For you to state that the H2O molecule is well understood is a lie. You are a fool to pretend you understand what you obviously do not. Stop being a fool and I will stop calling you a fool. Fair enough? Jim BTW, there is no steam in our atmosphere. The fact that there are a lot more people that believe such siliness just demonstrates how sheepishly gullible and intellectually dishonest people become when presented with facts that contradict their beliefs.

There are two types of people in science. There are believers in science and there are scientists. Believers in science use science as a means to continue believing, as you demonstrate. Scientists (myself) look to reality for evidence that contradicts what everybody believes.

Scientists have completely different attitude to contradictory observations than do science believer. Science believers always look for somekind of excuse to dismiss contradictory observations. Scientist–real scientists–realize that contradictory observations demarcate the pathway to discoveries.

Tom,

You won’t be able to answer the question I asked you. So, don’t even bother. I can explain it to you in person. But only if you allow me to film me explaining it to you, which I will put on YouTube. If you are interfested you would have to travel to

Sacramento, at your own expense.

If that sounds interesting let me know. It might take place as kind of a group event, through meetups dot com.

Tuesday 4:35pm

OK, this ends with your delusional statement: “I am the only person I have ever come across that understands it completely.” You are even farther off the edge than the slayers, just in a different direction. “So, don’t even bother.” Right. Advice taken. No wonder you haven’t gotten anywhere. Further contact is not productive, and this is notice to you that any attempt to contact me in person will be construed as a willful act of trespass. Put more bluntly: don’t appear on my property.