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?

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

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

wrote in message
...
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.

So according to you if the theoretical perspective of anthropogenic global warming is real
then it is impossible for the earth to be as warm as it is?


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.

Evaporation and condensation depend on the temperature and the pressure of water vapor.
If the atmosphere were 100% water vapor, evaporation and condensation would still depend
on the temperature and the pressure of water vapor. If the atmosphere were 99.99% nitrogen
and .01%, evaporation and condensation would still depend on the temperature and the
pressure of water vapor. Heat is the transfer of energy by radiation, conduction and
convection. If the gases are well mixed then the temperture of the atmosphere will be very
close to the temperature of the individual gases. The atmosphere's pressure is a sum of
the pressures of the gases.




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

On Dec 10, 5:19 am, wrote:
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?"

[...]
S
...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.

*scratches head*

So...because the dominant components of the atmosphere are transparent
to a range of frequencies that water absorbs, it is impossible for
water to absorb them and thus evaporate?

Yea, I'll admit to not understanding what the hell you are talking
about.


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.

I'd hate to interrupt the beating of the straw man, but who ever said
convection of heat by the atmosphere was the dominant means by which
water is heated?

Think of the consequences of what you just spewed. The dominant
components of the atmosphere are transparent to the wavelengths of
light that water _loves_ to absorb. What would be the consequence of
that? I'm thinking evaporation, but I'm sure you have a deeper truth
in mind.


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.

Thank you for the freshman thermodynamics lecture.


This is proved by the heat capacities of gases. Monatomic gases all
have exactly the same heat capacity of 3/2 R.

This is only approximately true.

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.

Again, only approximately true.


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.

Wake me when you are able to demonstrate an understanding of the
material you routinely spew.


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

KD