Also please tell everyone what you mean by “isochoric” process. It means “constant volume”. How can a gas , water vapour in your case, remain at constant volume when it is freely diffusing in the atmosphere? Ever watched a weather balloon rising in the atmosphere? Tell me if it behaving in an isochoric manner. As I said above, every one of your posts are so filled with errors they are completely meaningless. Try looking in the mirror before insulting your superiors.

Do you still believe that incoming solar radiation is made up of 45% infra red? Do you still think that you get 0.95 pounds of water by burning ONE cubic foot of natural gas? These are errors you have posted to various blogs in the past. It seems that your posts are so full of errors it is sometimes surprising to find anything that is actually correct in them.

Yet you have the audacity to slander and insult scientists.

You are pathetic.

You are correct on one item Mr Forrester. I meant to say “…liquid-water vapor 2 phase mixture.” My error.

You write: “That is why water falls as rain after it reaches vapor saturation (100% relative humidity)”.

That is incorrect. Rain can fall without the humidity being 100%. And the humidity can measure 100 % without it raining.

While the air has to reach 100% RH before the rain to form, it takes more than saturated air to make rain. There are two processes necessary – there must be sufficient “microscopic” contaminants, solids, in the air in order for the smaller water droplets to form. The drops then collide with each other until they are heavy enough to cease being in suspension, so they fall to the ground. The air may be completely saturated, but the drops are so small that they may remain suspended in the air and not fall as rain. An example: Thick fog. The RH is usually 100 percent, but the fog droplets are so small they to not form raindrops.

Most rain starts from ice crystals in clouds that have drawn moisture from very cold water drops. They grow in size and weight until they are heavy enough to fall from the cloud. But, this is 3rd grade nature study stuff. Please read some very simple engineering thermodynamics on this.

You write: “The amount of water held as vapour in the atmosphere is dependent only on temperature.”

That’s false. It depends on two temperatures, DB & WB, but only at atmospheric pressure. At significantly lower pressures in the atmosphere, It depends, then, on the total atmospheric pressure and the partial pressure of the vapor.

“The concentration[of water] in the atmosphere does not increase from burning of fossil fuels, it only increases if temperature is increased.”

Surely you jest. Does the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increase? Of course. Does water vapor behave as an ‘ideal gas’? Of course. The humidity ratio(of pressures – gas and air) is calculated using the ideal gas laws.

Most of the heat generated to the atmosphere from earth is by convection; the transfer of earth’s sensible and latent heat. It may surprise you to know that heat rises in the atmosphere.

An industrial fan- powered, 10k kg/minute cooling tower typically discharges Industrial Catalogue data) an air/vapor mix at about 32 º C and 98% RH with a surface air temperature and humidity at 20 ºC and 50%. The heated discharged water vapor initially condenses; then rises and “superheats”, changing phase to vapor and continuing to cool and disperse in the atmosphere until it reaches equilibrium through heat transfer and isochoric diffusion to the boundary layers of air.

So, even though the water discharges as 98% initial RH, it does not remain at that value. The humidity of the vapor at it’s atmospheric equilibrium point will be far less than 100%. It won’t rain and your dog won’t hunt.

“….liquid and vapor is a gas?” How does that work?

Truly, sir, have you had any real world experience with these gases?

Water is a liquid at normal temperature and pressure. That is why water falls as rain after it reaches vapour saturation (100% relative humidity). The amount of water held as vapour in the atmosphere is dependent on temperature. Putting in excess from burning oil or natural gas super saturates the atmosphere for a short period of time usually days. Once nucleation nuclei are present it condenses and falls as rain. Thus concentration in the atmosphere does not increase from burning of fossil fuels, it only increases if temperature is increased.

Your comment “liquid water vapor” is completely wrong and shows your lack of simple understanding of science. Liquid is, well liquid and vapour is a gas. You cannot have “liquid water vapour”

Pay no attention to the juvenile sarcasm from this pseudo intellectual boor, Mr. Muddiman. You make a good point. It would be interesting to see the global atmospheric reaction to this water increase in 100 years or so. I suspect that the climate will adjust to maintain the present equilibrium.

Here’s some food for thought:

Obama wants to reduce U.S. “greenhouse gas” emissions by 17% and based on year 2005 US production levels of Carbon. He wants to do this by the year 2020. Assume 10 years.

Why? To “save” the planet from “global warming”, now called “climate change”

Question: how much will this action reduce the atmospheric temperature resulting from the increasing atmospheric CO2 and, how many years would it take to do this?:

According to the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (U.S. Government), here is the data we need to calculate the “savings” in global temperature.

U.S. 2005 Carbon production: 1,59E9 metric tons Carbon. 17% of that is the proposed reduction = 270,824,620 metric tons in 10 years. Dividing that figure by 10 = 27,082,462 (2.71E7) metric tons of Carbon produced each year in order to reach the president’s goal. That amount, if burned in a combustion chamber by all human activity in the United States, will give us the data necessary to compute the Carbon “offset”, i.e. the total increase in atmospheric CO2 each year that is based on human activity; the global temperature savings in degrees Celsius, and how many years it would take to save one degree Celsius as a result of this savings goal.

CO2 ppmv in the atmosphere in year 2005 is 378.4 ppmv.

The calculated values are based on two different methods of thermodynamics analyses of the combustion of Natural Gas +: Orsat and Schack 1973, and on Carbon use and emissions data for two different periods, 1975 through 2006 and the Industrial Revolution 1850 through 2006. These analyses give approximately equal answers, as follows:
The total actual quantities of human produced CO2 created and retained in the atmosphere as a result of the presidents proposed cutbacks
are approximately the same for both approaches. They are averaged:

Yearly increase in atmospheric CO2, ppmv, due to reducing U.S.A. Carbon emissions by 17%: 0.00492 ppmv

The annual temperature savings, averaged: 0.000056 º C.

The number of years required to save an inrease in 1 degree Celsius: about 18,000 years :

If one used the entire 2006 world production as the “offset”; that is, stop all world production and use of Carbon, the annual temperature savings would be between 0.008 and 0.01 degrees C savings annually. So it would take about 100 years to save 1 degree Celsius.

These results might lead one to conclude that it would be useless to try and reduce Carbon (CO2) use, because the desired results don’t exist in any real world sense.
This AGW is truly a fraud. We have seen the e mails showing these so called U.N. scientists to be purposely altering climate data to obtain their desired results. This is criminal. It is a sad day for real scientists who look for the truth. We need to get rid of these people in government who are more interested in controlling our energy use than they are in getting us more energy.

I think it is time that your mother took away the keys to the computer. Come back when you have learned to behave in an adult manner.

I am not “slandering” Michael Mann.

He has slandered himself. He will never again be trusted. Neither will the head of the IPCC.

With Mann’s deliberately false creation of the “hockey stick” temperature graph, in which he “eliminated” the Medieval Warm Period in a sick, political attempt to make current temperature rises appear “greater” than the maximum of the MWP(which they are not), he helped the U. N.’s climate unit, the IPCC, commit a science fraud on the world. They included this graph at least 6 times in their last assessment even though they KNEW it was a fraud.

When the recent e mails, many of which were sent or receive by him, were exposed by the Russian “hackers” – and which showed that he and others were “modifying” real world temperature data sets to falsify NASA and other temperature graphs in order to show that “global warming” was real, he was forced to “step down” at his position at the U. of Pennsylvania, while they are now investigating his conduct.

So BOO-HOO! You got a “ringer”. Go to the girls locker room for the whining towel.

You write that you are not insulting me in one sentence and then you call me “stupid” and a “slimeball” in the next sentences? Bipolar? In what mythical world do YOU live?

Colos writes that I have made “Outrageous claims.” What errors? Which claims? Again, I write: PROVE IT!

If my “claims” are “outrageous”, state the false claims and prove them wrong.

Response– This is getting a little tedious now. I’m not here to list off every mistake you continue to make, why every conspiracy theory is not actually a conspiracy, why every wingnut website claiming that Mann and others are making up data or are distorting the science are in fact wrong, etc, etc. Any semi-educated reader can spot the problems for themselves. If you want to contribute something meaningful, then try posting some real scientific information (if you don’t have the background to sift through fact and fiction, then this should probably include proper citation from reputable sources, such as the academic literature, IPCC AR4, NAS, USCCP, Copenhagen assessment report, etc). If you just want to make up crap like the idea that every atmospheric scientist has magically forgot about water vapor in the air, then go to some other forum to confuse people.– chris