On Dec 9, 6:35 pm, Whata Fool wrote:
"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.

WF. You should see in this also that the water forms calthrates with
CO2. Because of this and many other reasons, a rainforest, it does not
become carbon neutral for the carbon it absorbs and releases with
decomposition, but remains the most effective absrober of CO2 and
converter to oxygen.

It cannot be denied that at least part of the measured yearly CO2
increase is from natural causes. Perhaps even that it is about 900 yrs
since the very intense warming of the medieaval warm period (which is
the normal time that CO2 begins to rise after warming period), or the
natural upswing in temperatures coming after the little ice age which
may affect the vapor equilibrium with the ocean or the greater
metabolism in unfrozen tundra.

That the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere remain the same
regardless of human input, suggests that it is indeed the natural CO2
increase and the deforestation that is responsible for almost all of
this increase. The actual quantities of human contribution are very
small. Nature converts 440 billion tons of CO2 to oxygen each year.
The ocean absorbs 300 billion tons and emits 300 billion tons in
equilibrium of vapor pressure. The overall natural CO2 in the
environment is much higher than this.

Humans contribution is about 26 billion tons (of which nearly 1/4 is
from the actual burning of the tropical jungles), and there is no
measurable change in the increase that reflects the doulbling of human
CO2 within the past 40 yrs or so.

The whole analysis of CO2 from AGW is flawed, deceitful, fraudulent
and criminal. Here is an analysis of AGW and it's academic and
political substance, from one of the very foremost scientists of the
field of ice cores and their chemical analsyis.
http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm

That they even get away with their shifting of the ice core years is a
total joke. People are awfully naive, but at some point very simple
direct science will demonstrate this fraud and the willingness of the
academics and accredited scientific organizations to support this
fraud regardless of actual science or fact.

Here is a spread sheet from which they derive the 'hockey stick' for
CO2 concentrations caused by humans.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2...e.combined.dat

The data is smoothed, but is also chosen from other data for it's
depiction of the curve they are looking for . There is no
justification for the ****f in year for 'mean air age'. The ice is not
permeable for this transfer to the surface of concentrations through
even 1 layer of the ice.

This false representation of CO2, is repeated by everyone. But those
that repeat this as testimony to the government should be held liable
for very serious criminal fraud.

KDeatherage
CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease like rabies.

wrote:

On Dec 9, 6:35 pm, Whata Fool wrote:
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.

WF. You should see in this also that the water forms calthrates with
CO2. Because of this and many other reasons, a rainforest, it does not
become carbon neutral for the carbon it absorbs and releases with
decomposition, but remains the most effective absrober of CO2 and
converter to oxygen.

A young forest, sure, but a mature forest begins to have
as much decay as new growth else it would be obvious that wood
would be seen to increase at the base as fallen limbs.

It cannot be denied that at least part of the measured yearly CO2
increase is from natural causes.

The increase in concentration in the air is not the big question,
do plants in the ocean combine the carbon with other minerals while
releasing oxygen. If so, there should not be an increase of carbon
in the ocean, and the PH should not change drastically.
On TV I saw the bones of a whale, and wonder just where
the calcium comes from, and how much can be available to become
limestone.

Perhaps even that it is about 900 yrs
since the very intense warming of the medieaval warm period (which is
the normal time that CO2 begins to rise after warming period), or the
natural upswing in temperatures coming after the little ice age which
may affect the vapor equilibrium with the ocean or the greater
metabolism in unfrozen tundra.

I am sorry to say I can't be as certain as you, but there seems
to be a lot of unanswered questions about the supposed downward
radiation of GHGs, on the ocean, any thermal energy input to the
top inch should increase evaporation, possibly even causing more
cooling of the water than if there was no downward radiation.

So the AGW trivializing the problem of averaging all radiation
globally appears inadequate to account for the different effects of
GHGs according to local conditions.

That the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere remain the same
regardless of human input, suggests that it is indeed the natural CO2
increase and the deforestation that is responsible for almost all of
this increase.

I think deforestation is not only overstated, but poorly
understood. In Brazil, it is apparently banned, and I don't
see how anybody can clear land for crops without a lot of
very heavy machinery, anybody can check this for themselves
by simply trying to remove the roots of a 2 inch diameter tree.

There is bootleg timber cutting, but those criminals would
have no reason to remove the roots, and if timber is dried and
made into long lasting items, the carbon is sequestered for
longer than if the forest is left undisturbed.

I see the whole premise of AGW as faulty, based more
on gossip and rumor than on facts. In fact, most of the people
that support the idea of AGW are just about the dumbest people
I have ever seen so enthused with something so trivial.
Temperatures in any locale are more dependent on wind
direction than anything else, just look at the weather maps today,
ice all over the northern plains, and 70 degree weather in the
Tennessee valley, solely because of the location of the low
pressure areas and the weather fronts.

How something like that can be included sensibly in any
energy budget is a laugh.