User talk:William M. Connolley/Old Talk 1
I've been here long enough now to have archived talk, hurrah for me
[edit]Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit Wikipedia:How does one edit a page and experiment at Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149
- How kind. Thank you. Sometime I'll work out how to reply... (William M. Connolley 22:54 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)).
I see that the user 62.211.220.232 who added that entire paragraph to Climate change which you subsequently removed had disguised it as a "minor edit". Be on your guard! --Trainspotter 14:19 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I guess you may be interested in the Ozone hole page; looking at the page history, one user, User:Ed Poor has kept editing it to exaggerate the importance of a view opposed to most current scientific understanding. I see that Ed Poor has on his user page a quote from Sun Myung Moon. Interesting -- the skeptic scientist whom he quotes (Fred Singer) has alleged Moonie connections...
If you're interested, compare the versions before and after my (extensive) revisions, and keep an eye on the page.
--Trainspotter 12:14 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Please explain why water does not dissolve in air. -Smack 04:05, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- Well, mostly because it just doesn't. If you take a beaker of water, and place it in a closed container with vacuum above, a certain amount of water will evaporate until the water is in equilibrium with the vapour, at the given temperature (assuming the water reservoir is large enough, and the vacuum vessel small enough, that not all water evaporates). Do the same thing, but put air in the vacuum container first, and exactly the same amount of water evaporates. The air is irrelevant. Try http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadClouds.html
- What that page says makes sense. If a system containing water has a certain amount of thermal energy, there's enough energy to maintain part of the water in the vapor phase and part in the liquid phase. Decrease the amount of energy, and some of the molecules will slow down enough to condense into droplets. However, providing an alternative to a theory does not disprove the theory. Mr. Fraser discounts solubility as "some mystical holding capacity," among other rhetorical devices unworthy of a scientist. It deserves a more thorough treatment than that. Furthermore, I'm skeptical of anyone who brands "a legion of teachers (from grade school to university), TV weather broadcasters, and endless textbook writers" as idiots. -Smack 01:56, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- OK, good, you agree with the page's basic idea. F does *not* however dismiss solubility in general as mystic: just in the context of water in air.