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.