ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Convection , meteorology , storms

Reply
Old 17th November 2018, 09:07 AM   #241
fagin
Philosopher
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 6,803
I think the OP(s) has/have left the building.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2018, 11:03 AM   #242
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,388
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Not just in space which is why they are looking at ditching the 'Grand K'
Done.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2018, 11:05 AM   #243
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,388
Originally Posted by fagin View Post
I think the OP(s) has/have left the building.
Via evaporation, sublimation, or what?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2018, 11:12 AM   #244
fagin
Philosopher
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 6,803
Being denser than moist air, it must have been convection.

Or something.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2018, 12:19 PM   #245
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,575
Originally Posted by JamesMcGinn View Post
Hans, moist air is heavier than dry air. Always!!!

Science involves facts. Not your imagination.
Show your math.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2018, 01:05 PM   #246
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,128
Originally Posted by JamesMcGinn View Post
The biggest problem in science ...
An irrelevant and ignorant post, JamesMcGinn.

Humans have a need to understand the world which was formed hundreds of thousands of years or millions of years ago (stone tools date back to 2.5 million years) - well before money even existed!

There is not "lot of money to be made". If it were just a case of money than no scientists would exist, they would all be lawyers or doctors or another high paying profession. Few scientists earn much more than expected for someone with an advanced degree.

Every person who writes on any subject "dumbs down" the subject to fit the audience.

Hot cars are little to do with CO2. That is the actual greenhouse effect. Glass blocks infrared light and does not block visible light. Visible light heats up surfaces inside a car and the glass prevents the heat from escaping. That is what greenhouses do. CO2 also blocks infrared light and does not block visible light thus we get the greenhouse effect.

A "concealed, ignored, or effectively dismissed" lie about "assumptions", e.g. the passage or not of the various wavelengths of light through CO2 has been experimentally verified many times for over 100 years.

It is easy to understand the textbook physics that a body of water left alone will evaporate at ambient temperatures. Evaporation means that the liquid water turns into water vapor. The physics is simple to explain. Water molecules have a range of energies. A body of water has water molecules at the surface. High energy water molecules can escape the surface to become a gas of water molecules.

Last edited by Reality Check; 18th November 2018 at 01:07 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2018, 01:20 PM   #247
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,128
Originally Posted by JamesMcGinn View Post
Humans like simple models....
Scientists like working models no matter how complex they are. It is convenient if the models are simple and working. That makes them easy to understand, explain and work with.

Scientists work with the real world where evaporation happens and water doe become gaseous in the atmosphere. Scientists do not deny the simple fact that not boiling water emits water vapor, e.g. the example of hot tea in that article. People know that evaporation causes puddles to dry up, that entire lakes dry up with no boiling, the Dead Sea exists (evaporation causes the salt content of water to increase), etc.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2018, 01:45 PM   #248
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,128
Question What was Tyndall's "reasoned from experimental observations" radiative properties

Originally Posted by JamesMcGinn View Post
...James McGinn:
I'm an expert on Tyndall's work. at part of it can I help you understand?
The reality still is:
Posting at the obviously deluded Thunderbolts cult besmirches your idea by associating with their delusions.

Irrelevant insults just emphasizes that you do not have any science or evidence to support your idea.

I pointed out that a "where is the evidence" question was a lie (or at least vey ignorant) because the evidence was in my post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
"John Tyndall in 1859, who measured the radiative properties of specific greenhouse gases" and reference 7 is "John Tyndall, Heat considered as a Mode of Motion (500 pages; year 1863, 1873)"

Sceince progresses and from memory (so I may be wrong), the definitive modern experiments were done in the 1950's.
You claim to be an expert on Tyndall's work which seems unlikely because he measured the radiative properties of atmospheric gases that you are denying exists ! But just in case:
JamesMcGinn, what was Tyndall's "reasoned from experimental observations" radiative properties of specific greenhouse gases?

This seems to be Lecture X in his Heat considered as a Mode of Motion book.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2018, 02:04 PM   #249
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,128
Originally Posted by JamesMcGinn View Post
Why always? If the moist air were also warmer and less dense than dry cool air, couldn't it be lighter? ...
It is still not wise to "answer" questions by reference to a deluded web site. Posting at the obviously deluded Thunderbolts cult besmirches your idea by associating their delusions.

The first link is an ignorant "Isaac Newton was a human being" thread. It is about a USA Today article Understanding air density and its effects which is a clear description of textbook physics that was really established after Newton.
Newton tried to explain Boyle's law (pressure is inversely proportional to volume) mathematically. Newton "stated that humid air is less dense than dry air in 1717 in his book, Optics". It took almost a century before the reason for this was fully understood.

Deep "H2O is not a gas at ambient temperatures/pressures" ignorance when we measure H2O as a gas in the atmosphere at ambient temperatures/pressures and evaporation exists !

ETA:
Electromagnetic absorption by waterAtmospheric Water Vapor
Quote:
The absorption of electromagnetic radiation by water depends on the state of the water.

The absorption in the gas phase occurs in three regions of the spectrum. Rotational transitions are responsible for absorption in the microwave and far-infrared, vibrational transitions in the mid-infrared and near-infrared. Vibrational bands have rotational fine structure. Electronic transitions occur in the vacuum ultraviolet regions.

Liquid water has no rotational spectrum but does absorb in the microwave region.
The different spectra allows us to distinguish between water vapor in the atmosphere and water drops.
Atmospheric Water Vapor
Quote:
Over 99% of the atmospheric moisture is in the form of water vapor, and this vapor is the principal source of the atmospheric energy that drives the development of weather systems on short time scales and influences the climate on longer time scales.
...
Microwave Measurement of Atmospheric Water Vapor
Because of the strong water vapor absorption line near 22 GHz, within the microwave range, we can use microwave radiometers to measure columnar (atmospheric total) water vapor. This is a very accurate measurement due to the high signal-to-noise ratio for this measurement. With little diurnal variation, the measurements from different satellites at the same location often agree to within a few tenths of a millimeter

Last edited by Reality Check; 18th November 2018 at 02:52 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2018, 02:17 PM   #250
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,128
Exclamation Replace O2 and N2 molecules with H2O molecules and air gets less dense

Originally Posted by JamesMcGinn View Post
You exemplify why amateurs should avoid science. Avogadro's law proves me right.
A fantasy that he can tell my qualifications from my anonymous posts on a forum! I am not a amateur. If this was solid state physics, I would be an out of date expert (earned a Masters in solid state physics many years ago). This is basic textbook physics that I have known since high school and university which makes me an expert.

Repeated ignorance about Avogadro's law which is about gas molecules, not liquid drops.
Quote:
Avogadro's law (sometimes referred to as Avogadro's hypothesis or Avogadro's principle) is an experimental gas law relating the volume of a gas to the amount of substance of gas present.[1] The law is a specific case of the ideal gas law.
A "Avogadro's law proves me right" lie because he cites a USA Today article Understanding air density and its effects stating otherwise as explained to him several times here.
Quote:
Humidity and air density

Most people who haven't studied physics or chemistry find it hard to believe that humid air is lighter, or less dense, than dry air. How can the air become lighter if we add water vapor to it?

Scientists have known this for a long time. The first was Isaac Newton, who stated that humid air is less dense than dry air in 1717 in his book, Optics. But, other scientists didn't generally understand this until later in that century.

To see why humid air is less dense than dry air, we need to turn to one of the laws of nature the Italian physicist Amadeo Avogadro discovered in the early 1800s. In simple terms, he found that a fixed volume of gas, say one cubic meter, at the same temperature and pressure, would always have the same number of molecules no matter what gas is in the container. Most beginning chemistry books explain how this works.
Replace O2 and N2 molecules with H2O molecules and air gets less dense for constant volume and pressure.

Last edited by Reality Check; 18th November 2018 at 02:20 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2018, 02:40 PM   #251
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,128
Originally Posted by JamesMcGinn View Post
...Would you buy a car that was designed 159 years ago?
Ignorance about science, JamesMcGinn, the quote function of the forum, and more argument by insult.
My post was An irelvant lie about well known physics, JamesMcGinn with a rather obvious "rather obvious pseudoscience" lie.
Quote:
We have had reproducible experimental evidence that CO2 causes atmospheres to warm for 159 years. Note that it is extremely impractical to run reproducible experiments on entire planets! But we are running an experiment on the Earth's atmosphere by recording CO2 and global temperature. The record shows that as CO2 increases, global temperature increases.
We can also measure past CO2 and temperature levels and see the same.
A fundamental part of science is that experiments are repeated. This verifies that the first experiment gave the correct results. Experimental physicists delight in showing that experiments were wrong! You may also want to remember that science and technology advances. Experiments are repeated to test new scientific theories. Experiments are repeated as new techniques to produce results are found. Experiments are repeated as new technology to produce more accurate results is created.

Eventually the technology to do an experiment gets simple, cheap and widespread enough that anyone can do them. Those reproducible experiments are probably done by thousands of undergraduate meteorology students every year.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2018, 03:48 PM   #252
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,128
Originally Posted by JamesMcGinn View Post
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
It is a fact that Linus Pauling published a paper on hydrogen bonding in ice in 1935.
Linus Pauling, “The Structure and Entropy of Ice and of Other Crystals with Some Randomness of Atomic Arrangement,” Journal of the American Chemical Society 57, no. 12 (1935): 2,680–84.
What Pauling contributed to the hydrogen bond was firstly experimental evidence that the bond was not electrostatic with Lawrence Brockway and then an argument that the structure of hexagonal ice is linked to the asymmetry of the bond
Almost gets the quote function of the forum working for a link to another ignorant, crank video
Quote:
Are you confused about hydrogen bonding in water?
Do you think it is because you are stupid?
Guess again . . .
As the description suggests, this is a video about science being stupid about hydrogen bonding. The first 3 minutes are:

Last edited by Reality Check; 18th November 2018 at 03:51 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2018, 09:33 PM   #253
Pacal
Muse
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 983
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Are you joking? No. They leave that particular cubic foot.
I really put my foot in it. I actually selected has stupid one of the bits from that crazy website that was accurate. Mea Culpa!!!
Pacal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2018, 05:25 PM   #254
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,402
You guys will be eating tons of humble pie when he shows the detailed experiments, methodology, equipment, and math of how he came to the conclusion that moist air is heavier than dry air. I'm positive he has empirical evidence of every single one of his claims.
What are you scoffers going to do if he breaks out large fonts in color, or a youtube video?
__________________
"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov
Wolrab is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2018, 01:43 AM   #255
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 17,463
When you look at the value of a theory, you have to take into account how predictive it is. The convection model seems to work pretty well for predicting storms. I used to live in Florida, spent two long, hot summers there (hated it). Meteorologists observed the conditions of warm (okay hot) moist air rising, condensing when it hits cold air and the moisture returning as rain pretty much every day from April to October.

If our intrepid explorer wants to overturn this model, he should probably start by explaining why it works so well in predicting storms. You can test and observe it everyday for almost half the year in our sub-tropical zones.
Craig4 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2018, 07:20 AM   #256
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,883
Originally Posted by Pacal View Post
I really put my foot in it. I actually selected has stupid one of the bits from that crazy website that was accurate. Mea Culpa!!!
No problem. It's easy to see how you made that mistake.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2018, 09:53 AM   #257
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,402
Originally Posted by fagin View Post
I think the OP(s) has/have left the building.
He's just collating and organizing all the tables, procedures, and experimental data from so he can show you dummies what will soon be peer reviewed and published in Nature and The Journal of Hydrometeorology. Right?
__________________
"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov
Wolrab is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 02:45 PM   #258
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,665
Originally Posted by JamesMcGinn View Post
The prize is no longer available. Nobody claimed it.

Of course, I knew nobody would/could.
I wouldn't bet money that the banned one owns two clean shirts.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 06:02 AM   #259
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,402
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
I wouldn't bet money that the banned one owns two clean shirts.
He would have clean shirts but his washed shirts stay wet unless he bakes them at 100degrees C until they dry.
__________________
"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov
Wolrab is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:46 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.