McGinn has his own definition of water vapor,
Right. It's a liquid in the atmosphere. Microdroplets. It's never, ever, gaseous. And these microdroplets (often so small they are just as invisible as gas) are suspended by electrostatic forces, an implication of the solar wind. Buoyancy and convection play no roll in the atmosphere. (Actually, there is an exception to this rule. See below.)
webolife wrote: that supposes all the actions of water vapor pressure, air density and humidity attributed to gaseous water vapor are being accomplished by his water aerosol
Right. Maximization of H2O surface area (a consequence of moist/dry wind shear) maximizes its surface tension, resulting in a plasma that is the structural element in jet streams and storms. it is, normally, most directly observable as the sheath of tornadoes.
webolife wrote:[read McGinn's link to the storm theory thread,
webolife wrote: and note in particular Charles Chandler's quote from standard language of science].
Excellent advice, again.
webolife wrote:Never mind that McGinn has no experimental proof that his hydrogen bonded "droplets" at the microscopic level do not behave exactly as a gas,
H2O is not a gas at ambient temperatures. We know this because all of the laboratory evidence indicates just that and none of the laboratory evidence indicates otherwise. Consult steam tables if you don't trust me on this.
By the way, I don't completely disagree with what you are saying here. H2O vapor does behave a lot like a gas. The following was copied from the Discussion section of my "Breakthrough" paper that I put out a year ago. Here is a link to the full paper (I have to warn you, though. The second half of this short excerpt is very hard to comprehend if you have not read and studied the full paper):
*** Begin cut and paste ***
Some Resolution to The Strangeness of Water
Among those that study it, common parlance on the strangeness of water tends to focus on the fact that the H2O molecule is a polar molecule. These explanations don’t go far enough. To truly capture its paradoxical nature we have to take into consideration the fact that proximity to other H2O molecules is the mechanism that neutralizes its polarity. Therefore, the more molecules of water have the collective properties of a liquid (close proximity to each other) the more they have the individual properties of a gas (electromagnetic neutrality) and vice versa. Consequently, molecules of liquid H2O, unlike those of any others substance, just kind of float, banging into each other, bouncing away, producing a pendulumic conservation of energy as, with distance, the charges return that bring them back again, spreading energy through the matrix as a consequence of their high degree of connectivity. And this is just to set the stage for more strangeness that emerges in conjunction with the geometry of the H2O molecule that dictate limitations on its collective ability to neutralize its own polarity, which occurs in a highly stable form along the surface of liquid water, producing surface tension, and in a much less stable form below it’s surface, producing low-density anomalies. Additionally, we have to take into consideration the tendency of H2O molecules to collectively form a mechanical matrix that, if the temperature is low enough and the matrix is energetically unbalanced, will facilitate a cascading chain reaction that will produce a widening general interruption in their collective ability to neutralize their own polarity, producing ice; or, if the matrix is energetically balanced and mechanically synchronized (as will be the the case if cooled slowly under calm conditions) will effectuate a threshold that acts as a barrier to its ability to initiate any such cascading chain reaction, producing supercooled water. And, as has been well documented by others, all of this is just a drop in the bucket of the strangeness engendered by this seemingly simple molecule.
*** End cut and paste ***
webolife wrote: nor has he evidence that water vapor is not a gas below its sealevel boiling temperature of 100deg C;
Hmm. Well, we have the laboratory evidence (no gaseous H2O, sorry). And your statement is one more piece of a huge body of evidence that many, many, many humans have a deeply subconscious belief that H2O is a gas at ambient temperatures. And so . . . well, we can safely dismiss it as group think, or even a group delusion. That is what I'm seeing.
webolife wrote: but do pay attention to his admission in that thread that he has no idea what size his alleged microdroplets are ["not my field of study," he says].
Anybody's guess is a good as mine on that one.
What ...[the rest of us]... recognize is that water has latent heat, an electrical property
Say what? Latent heat? Like a chemical reaction? Another group delusion? Electrical property?
Actually, LIQUID H2O has a high heat capacity (not latent heat). I will be expanding on this.
webolife wrote: well known from basic meteorology and chemistry that enables water to evaporate into a gaseous [by usual language of science, not McGinn's] form from either liquid or frozen state [sublimation] under the right conditions of atmospheric pressure. Now it may be conceded that sublimation involves a transient interphase of liquid microdroplets between the frozen and gaseous phases, and I'll not argue that point. But if McGinn's alleged liquid microdroplets behave as one would expect a gas to behave [which I contend to be the case], what's the point of saying that convection theory is wrong?
Well, even though I have always considered meteorology's notion that convection of "lighter" moist air powers storms to be strained, contrived, and artificially idealized, it wasn't until i discovered the plasma phase of H2O that I considered it to be worth the trouble to stand in opposition to the spiritualistic fervor of what people want to believe about water and moist air.
webolife wrote:Whether moist air is less dense because of the electric repulsion of immeasurably tiny liquid microdroplets or conventionally understood water vapor becomes moot. Convection in fact happens! And it causes storms!
Well, storms do happen. But the energy of storms comes from jet streams, not convection. (Strangely, convection actually is involved. But not in the way you think. The negative buoyancy of moist air is instrumental in the creation of long, flat boundary layers. These boundary layers are prerequisites to the vortices that deliver the energy of storms from the jet streams.)
webolife wrote:Jimmcginn, we've heard your theory and your diatribe against standard models of humidity... tell us how you know [ie. what evidence demonstrates] that the tiny corpuscles of atmospheric water in a moist parcel of air are in fact in a liquid state, and how that somehow makes those moist parcels of air more dense than dry air?
Us humans have been lying to ourselves for the longest time about the complexity of water. We pretend its simple, and its not. A consequence of this pretense has been that science has mis-characterized its genuine nature. And, worst of all, by pretending it is simple we have forced a lot of the rest of nature to be more complicated than it need be.
I will be releasing the first chapter of my next book which will explicate ALL of this. I hope to do that before the end of January.
Happy New Year,
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes