It doesn't matter what the other gases in the atmosphere are.

Evaporation and condensation depend on the temperature and the pressure of water vapor.
thus evaporation and condensation are happening all the time, there is a point where
evaporation and condensation are equal.

Consider dew point and relative humidity:
Dewpoint:
The temperature to which the water vapor must be cooled at constant pressure in order for
equalization** to occur.

Humidity:
The ratio of the vapor pressure to the equalization** vapor pressure at a given
temperature with respect to water, usually expressed as a percentage.

** "equalization" is sometimes referred to as "saturation" but "saturation" is a hold over
from an 18th century understanding of science when it was thought that air was like a
liquid solution.






wrote in message
...

When water evaporates, it absorbs 40,600 Joules per mole. If the
energy of the temperature of nitrogen gas, is only existent in the
molecular motions of the molecules, and there is not an existent
radiation field absorbed and trapped in the nitrogen gas molecules,
than how quickly will the evaportation of water bring nitrogen gas to
near absolute zero?

Air has the heat capacity of about 29 Joules per mole per degree,
being the symmetrical diatoms with heat capacity near, 7/2 R @cp.
Therefore the entropy of 1 mole of air is about, 8700 Joules at 300K,
(7/2 RT), or the entire quantity of energy that this mole of air must
and will lose in order to change it's temperature to absolute zero.

When one mole of water evaporates, it absorbs 4.7 times the complete
energy of one mole of air. WHERE DOES THIS ENERGY COME FROM???? It
cannot come from either the molecular motions of the air or the liquid
water that remains, this is a scientific fact although it completely
invalidates the theoretical premise of theoretical climatology.

The most basic premise of AGW is that certain gases, 'grenhouse
gases', have particular properties to absorb infrared radiation and
therefore retain energy in the atmosphere by returning this radiation
which they have absorbed to the surface. The energy is supposedly not
absorbed into the atmospheric gases at the point that it encounters a
gas molecule, but is re-radiated at this wavelength resulting in a
quantity that is returned to the surface.

This radiation is supposedly measured by very expensive equipment, and
the value is proclaimed that 3.5Wm-2 of radiation is returned to the
surface due to the increase of trace gases of CO2, methane and N20,
due to human activity since about 1850 or the beginning of the
industrial age.

This theory and the publications of these studies, omit a detailed
analyses of water vapor. Water vapor having much more spectroscopic
properties infered to be the indication of the property of the
grenhouse gases and from which ALL calculations regarding the energy
or 'Wm-2' are determined. But the effect of water vapor in returning
radiation to the surface is disproved by actual scientific study or
even casual study of temperatures of regions or times of different
water vapor content.

To define a 'grenhouse gas', one must define what is not a grenhouse
gas. The spectroscopic bands are used, and the fact that O2 and N2 do
not have the dark bands of low or no transmission in the infrared is
used to infer that these gases are not grenhouse gases.

THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC LABORATORY DATA WHICH SHOWS THIS PROPERTY WITH
ACTUAL DEMONSTRATION OF EFFECT UPON TEMPERATURE. THIS IS ONLY A
THEORETICAL SURMISE FROM THE SPECTROSCOPIC ANALYSIS.

But this theory then must explain that if the infrared passes
tranparently through the N2 or O2 gases, that heat energy from these
gases is delivered ONLY by actual collision of the molecules or
'conduction'.
These concepts are basic and the FUNDAMENTALS of the theory of
grenhouse gases, and the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

By the proper application of direct science, it can be proved that N2
gas traps and maintains a radiation field which is being absorbed and
radiated by each molecule and which covers a continous spectrum in the
infrared. It is completly falsly interpreted that N2 and O2 gas are
transparent to infrareds. The dark spectroscopic bands are bands of
low transmission of these frequencies. There are many many more means
that the direct application of science shows these basic tenents of
this theoretical science invalid. Although the academics and
'professionals' have no interest in this direct science which is not
in line with their contemporary beliefs or literature.

It is extremely false the notion that the particular gases radiate at
these frequencies. There is no direct scientifc evidence of this at
any relevant temperatures.

This means that there is absolutely no validity to the belief that
specific gases, especially in TRACE amounts and even much smaller
trace increase in concentrations, affect existing temperatures, cause
warming or in any way are harmful to the environment due to any
property whatsoever of retaining heat energy and affecting temeratures
of the planet.

This also proves the scientific societies that appove and accept this
belief are invalid, and should be held accountable for their
complicity in this scientific and economic fraud.

KDeatherage
The ship of fools of the BELIEVERS in anthropogenic global warming,
sails on, into the night, regardless of the ice bergs.
Next stop, the marina on 'No Paddle Island, up **** Creek

"Bill Habr" wrote:

It doesn't matter what the other gases in the atmosphere are.

Of course it does, what are you, a confusionist?

Evaporation and condensation depend on the temperature and the pressure of water vapor.
thus evaporation and condensation are happening all the time, there is a point where
evaporation and condensation are equal.

Can you/anybody be sure how much "free" CO2 there is,
water droplets in clouds can hold a lot of CO2. Most CO2 caused
by man is at high temperature along with a lot of water vapor from
burning in the same fuel molecules.

Consider dew point and relative humidity:
Dewpoint:
The temperature to which the water vapor must be cooled at constant pressure in order for
equalization** to occur.

Humidity:
The ratio of the vapor pressure to the equalization** vapor pressure at a given
temperature with respect to water, usually expressed as a percentage.

** "equalization" is sometimes referred to as "saturation" but "saturation" is a hold over
from an 18th century understanding of science when it was thought that air was like a
liquid solution.

Maybe the early scientists talked of carbonic acid because
they were sure that dry CO2 may not even exist in nature, or even
without drying in the production of "pure" CO2.
Comments by people who provide the CO2 to industries might
shed some light on this subject and be helpful to climatologists who
want truth instead of concensus.

"Whata Fool" wrote in message
...
"Bill Habr" wrote:

It doesn't matter what the other gases in the atmosphere are.

Of course it does, what are you, a confusionist?
The question was "Can water evaporate in nitrogen atmosphere?"


Evaporation and condensation depend on the temperature and the pressure of water vapor.
thus evaporation and condensation are happening all the time, there is a point where
evaporation and condensation are equal.

Can you/anybody be sure how much "free" CO2 there is,
water droplets in clouds can hold a lot of CO2. Most CO2 caused
by man is at high temperature along with a lot of water vapor from
burning in the same fuel molecules.

Consider dew point and relative humidity:
Dewpoint:
The temperature to which the water vapor must be cooled at constant pressure in order
for
equalization** to occur.

Humidity:
The ratio of the vapor pressure to the equalization** vapor pressure at a given
temperature with respect to water, usually expressed as a percentage.

** "equalization" is sometimes referred to as "saturation" but "saturation" is a hold
over
from an 18th century understanding of science when it was thought that air was like a
liquid solution.

Maybe the early scientists talked of carbonic acid because
they were sure that dry CO2 may not even exist in nature, or even
without drying in the production of "pure" CO2.
Comments by people who provide the CO2 to industries might
shed some light on this subject and be helpful to climatologists who
want truth instead of concensus.

On Dec 9, 2:50 pm, "Bill Habr" wrote:
"Whata Fool" wrote in message

... "Bill Habr" wrote:

It doesn't matter what the other gases in the atmosphere are.

Of course it does, what are you, a confusionist?

The question was "Can water evaporate in nitrogen atmosphere?"

[...]

....and the answer is: "Yes, and you are stupid if you even have to
ask."

Eric Gisse wrote:
On Dec 9, 2:50 pm, "Bill Habr" wrote:
"Whata Fool" wrote in message

... "Bill Habr" wrote:

It doesn't matter what the other gases in the atmosphere are.
Of course it does, what are you, a confusionist?
The question was "Can water evaporate in nitrogen atmosphere?"

[...]

....and the answer is: "Yes, and you are stupid if you even have to
ask."

Who did you ask? Did they call you stupid too?

Or

Do you profess to having been passed knowledge genetically?

"Bill Habr" wrote:

"Whata Fool" wrote in message
.. .
"Bill Habr" wrote:

It doesn't matter what the other gases in the atmosphere are.

Of course it does, what are you, a confusionist?

The question was "Can water evaporate in nitrogen atmosphere?"

Then your answer should have been Yes, or No.

I didn't reply to the question, I replied to your statement,
the atmosphere of Earth is essentially a nitrogen atmosphere,
but not dry nitrogen.

And the question of the various gases is of some importance,
because the presumption of CO2 existing separate of water and
water vapor in the Earth's nitrogen atmosphere may need to be
re-examined to see why the climate change doesn't seem to
track the CO2 concentration, and why the CO2 concentration
does not reflect the amount emitted by man burning fossil fuel.

On Dec 9, 3:20 pm, Talk-n-Dog wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
On Dec 9, 2:50 pm, "Bill Habr" wrote:
"Whata Fool" wrote in message

. .. "Bill Habr" wrote:

It doesn't matter what the other gases in the atmosphere are.
Of course it does, what are you, a confusionist?
The question was "Can water evaporate in nitrogen atmosphere?"

[...]

....and the answer is: "Yes, and you are stupid if you even have to
ask."

Who did you ask? Did they call you stupid too?

Or

Do you profess to having been passed knowledge genetically?

How about option c: Someone like him who pretends to know more about
climate science than all the climate scientists on Earth should at
least understand why liquids evaporate. Since he does not, he deserves
even more ridicule than he already does.

Eric Gisse wrote in
:

On Dec 9, 2:50 pm, "Bill Habr" wrote:
"Whata Fool" wrote in message

... "Bill Habr"
wrote:

It doesn't matter what the other gases in the atmosphere are.

Of course it does, what are you, a confusionist?

The question was "Can water evaporate in nitrogen atmosphere?"

[...]

...and the answer is: "Yes, and you are stupid if you even have to
ask."

Don't interrupt them just when they are getting hysterically funny.

--
Bill Asher

"Whata Fool" wrote in message
...
"Bill Habr" wrote:

"Whata Fool" wrote in message
.. .
"Bill Habr" wrote:

It doesn't matter what the other gases in the atmosphere are.

Of course it does, what are you, a confusionist?

The question was "Can water evaporate in nitrogen atmosphere?"

Then your answer should have been Yes, or No.

Because you are too much of a fool to understand what I wrote, my answer was yes.


I didn't reply to the question, I replied to your statement,
the atmosphere of Earth is essentially a nitrogen atmosphere,
but not dry nitrogen.

And the question of the various gases is of some importance,

Not to the question "Can water evaporate in nitrogen atmosphere?"


because the presumption of CO2 existing separate of water and
water vapor in the Earth's nitrogen atmosphere may need to be
re-examined to see why the climate change doesn't seem to
track the CO2 concentration, and why the CO2 concentration
does not reflect the amount emitted by man burning fossil fuel.


Irrelevant to the question "Can water evaporate in nitrogen atmosphere?"

On Dec 9, 6:02 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Dec 9, 2:50 pm, "Bill Habr" wrote: "Whata Fool" wrote in message

.. . "Bill Habr" wrote:

It doesn't matter what the other gases in the atmosphere are.

Of course it does, what are you, a confusionist?

The question was "Can water evaporate in nitrogen atmosphere?"

[...]

...and the answer is: "Yes, and you are stupid if you even have to
ask."

The answer is that according to the theoretical perspective of AGW
which is that N2 and O2 are transparent and non-reactive to infrareds,
the answer is NO.

There is not enough energy in the molecular motions of these gases to
transfer the quantitiy of energy that must be absorbed as the water
molecules become independent molecules and absorb the energy of the
bond state of the liquid.

The linear kinetic energy of the velocities of the molecules of 1 mole
of gas is RT. Therefore this denotes the pressure the gas exerts, P =
RT. If one divides this number by the number of molecules, one gets
the 'average kinetic energy' of the moleules which is Boltzman's
constant or kT. The heat capacity of a substance is almost entirely
the kinetic energy of the linear motion and of the other motions of
the mass of the molecules, such as rotational and vibrational.

This is proved by the heat capacities of gases. Monatomic gases all
have exactly the same heat capacity of 3/2 R.
Symetrical diatoms have almost the same heat capacity of 5/2R. Non-
symmetrical diatoms all have unique heat capacity according to their
individual spin and absorption of kinetic energy. CO2 is symmetrical
and has the predictable heat capacity of 7/2 R @cv.

Facts and AGW theoretical science often do not coincide. But this is
not important in theoretical science and the domination of beliefs of
the little brats and liars of academic.

Google, 'When the **** hits the Gdamn fan', dishonest brats.


KD