|
Post by icefisher on Aug 27, 2013 5:34:06 GMT
But there has been a lot of changing of goal posts in this thread. False. The objective is to provide an education about the meaning of latent heat, where: 1. ice cold water has no more heating ability per unit of time than unfrozen water of the same temperature *and* 2. latent heat of fusion cannot raise the temperature of water unless water is supercooled below 0C. *and* 3. Latent heat enables the heating ability available in 1. to be sustained from the warmth of 0C icey water for a longer period of time, without less heating ability becoming present, thru a fall in temperature, until freezing is completed Well number one is true. But the fact is the water was not heating anything before it started to freeze. The ability was there but was not being utilized because the air above was warmer. Once it started to freeze it stopped cooling. The air above was heating the surface because the surface was cooling. Now that it has stopped cooling the air above can only cool by radiation to space (which it was also doing all along). That means the surface stopped cooling and the air continues to cool. So the potential you speak of is a delta between the two surfaces. That delta has changed and flow now runs from the surface into the air. Since this interface is highly conductive it fills the radiation loss by the air to space (in addition to the radiation loss of the surface to space.) number two was never in contention. We intially were talking about water at least at -2C number three is false. An object that does not release latent heat has the same ability to heat something else at the x delta temperature as it always had. All latent heat does flow sensible heat to neutralize cooling. Since the air right above the surface was cooling to the surface it now is blocked and all that is left for the air is to cool to space. Since the surface is held flat by the release of latent heat, the latent heat must now increase to mitigate the loss of heat to the air. Not only is the latent heat mitigating and sustaining the radiation of the surface to space but it is mitigating and sustaining the loss of heat to the air.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 27, 2013 5:48:16 GMT
despite the fact that the 3K of space is made up of stars far hotter than our sun they aren't going to warm 273K air or water even if net cooling goes to zero. False The big bang theory of the universe has been assumed because it was realised there is insufficient hot matter in the universe because the sky at night is not totally white with stars. Hmmmmm, and the day is totally white with stars? So the sun can but the stars can't? BS! Instead energy, as a cooling force originating on Earth, is thought to be travelling outwards beyond the explosion event horizon and there is nothing beyond the event horizon that can be sending energy back to Earth. If all of the energy of this cooling force originating on Earth, that is today passing beyond the event horizon, never left Earth, then Earth would continue to be heated by the white hot stars and would become their temperature or close to it and would have no ability to be colder. Under our current theory of the Universe, the 3K of space represents a balance between enormous heating forces and the far greater enormous ability to cool to the enormous nothingness of totally empty space. Sounds like your typical yimmer yammer of cherry picking when something can warm something else to fully the same temperature vs half the temperature. Its been good discussing this with you because the discrepancies just keep getting bigger and bigger and more real.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 27, 2013 7:09:05 GMT
False. The objective is to provide an education about the meaning of latent heat, where: 1. ice cold water has no more heating ability per unit of time than unfrozen water of the same temperature *and* 2. latent heat of fusion cannot raise the temperature of water unless water is supercooled below 0C. *and* 3. Latent heat enables the heating ability available in 1. to be sustained from the warmth of 0C icey water for a longer period of time, without less heating ability becoming present, thru a fall in temperature, until freezing is completed Well number one is true. But the fact is the water was not heating anything before it started to freeze. False. The ability was there but was not being utilized because the air above was warmer. False Once it started to freeze it stopped cooling. Correct, therefore the ice free water was heating the source of the cooling Water has to be cooled from 1C before it can get to 0C Either the atmosphere or some other source of cooling must be present before water can cool immediately prior to ice forming. 3. Is true. Without latent heat the icey water would cool below 0C and have less ability to heat whatever is cooling it.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 27, 2013 7:11:30 GMT
False The big bang theory of the universe has been assumed because it was realised there is insufficient hot matter in the universe because the sky at night is not totally white with stars. Hmmmmm, and the day is totally white with stars? So the sun can but the stars can't? BS! Instead energy, as a cooling force originating on Earth, is thought to be travelling outwards beyond the explosion event horizon and there is nothing beyond the event horizon that can be sending energy back to Earth. If all of the energy of this cooling force originating on Earth, that is today passing beyond the event horizon, never left Earth, then Earth would continue to be heated by the white hot stars and would become their temperature or close to it and would have no ability to be colder. Under our current theory of the Universe, the 3K of space represents a balance between enormous heating forces and the far greater enormous ability to cool to the enormous nothingness of totally empty space. Sounds like your typical yimmer yammer of cherry picking when something can warm something else to fully the same temperature vs half the temperature. Its been good discussing this with you because the discrepancies just keep getting bigger and bigger and more real. What is observed is that neither the day or the night is white with stars The assumption made is that although there are billions of stars there is a very significant direct view to outside the Universe to beyond the event horizon where the heat of all the stars can flow without heating the universe, which includes the colder stars, all of the planets asteroids and the dust, to the temperature of the hottest stars. There is no cherry picking going on. You either allow the mainstream view to be revealed or you chose some other view that is not based in mainstream science. Your method is to create the view and create the facts to fit it. The scientific method is to observe the facts as best we can and create the view as best we can. There are no discrepancies either, instead what we observe is your errors.
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Aug 27, 2013 9:16:56 GMT
Not only is the latent heat mitigating and sustaining the radiation of the surface to space but it is mitigating and sustaining the loss of heat to the air. Latent heat does not "mitigate and sustain" anything outside the internal molecular forces of the matter. It has zero, nada, zilch influence on the outside temperature. Energy is ONLY transferred INTERNALLY within the matter to DELAY the change, and while this is ongoing the TEMPERATURE CANNOT CHANGE NO MATTER WHAT WE DO AS THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL PROPERTY OF THE MATTER. That is why it is called "latent". Consult you dictionary on what "latent" means, the term is there for a very good reason.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 27, 2013 9:30:56 GMT
Water has to be cooled from 1C before it can get to 0C Either the atmosphere or some other source of cooling must be present before water can cool immediately prior to ice forming. Its cooling by radiating to space. Its cooling faster than the atmosphere as the surface does every night everywhere. the inversion layer is formed by a surface cooling faster than the atmosphere. the air is only cooling at the same speed as the atmosphere at the surface air boundary. At that point the air keeps up by steepening the inversion gradient. the air is sending heat both to the surface and to space. If the water before starting to freeze is conducting heat into the atmosphere there will be no inversion layer in the atmosphere.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 27, 2013 9:38:33 GMT
Not only is the latent heat mitigating and sustaining the radiation of the surface to space but it is mitigating and sustaining the loss of heat to the air. Latent heat does not "mitigate and sustain" anything outside the internal molecular forces of the matter. It has zero, nada, zilch influence on the outside temperature. Energy is ONLY transferred INTERNALLY within the matter to DELAY the change, and while this is ongoing the TEMPERATURE CANNOT CHANGE NO MATTER WHAT WE DO AS THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL PROPERTY OF THE MATTER. That is why it is called "latent". Consult you dictionary on what "latent" means, the term is there for a very good reason. It doesn't delay freezing it stops the water from getting colder. Its not delaying freezing because its the freezing that stops the H20 from getting colder. The freezing will internally convert latent heat to sensible heat to offset the loss of sensible heat (0 degC water continues to lose heat to space so only latent heat can stop it from getting colder). the water does not stop radiating to space Numno! Now the atmosphere which was cooling so rapidly by conducting heat to the water so as to create an inversion layer (the main way an inversion layer is created) no longer has a rapidly cooling cold sink. thus the inversion layer will start to deteriorate. but the cold air against the surface of the water is also radiating heat to space so unless heat conducts out of the water to maintain the air in contact with the surface the air will get colder and it will force the surface to get colder also. But the delay observed is a flat delay, so the conversion of latent heat is the only source of keeping temperatures flat! Freezing water does not stop the world from turning Numno!
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Aug 27, 2013 9:40:10 GMT
in a dynamic climate waters latent heat can buffer change, that is it slows a falling temperature as it passes through zero. Is that altering temperature, semantics I think Numero.
Take the water/ice away and the temperature would be different, so it has.
There is little dispute that humid air is buffered as it releases dew to grass. That is again the same effect different phase change. I don't think you can argue there is no temperature impact. The molecular force harbor the energy but they impinge on the environment through the phase change as a temperature buffer.
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Aug 27, 2013 9:51:35 GMT
in a dynamic climate waters latent heat can buffer change, that is it slows a falling temperature as it passes through zero. Is that altering temperature, semantics I think Numero. No it is not "semantics" in the least, as there would be no ice nor snow for starters if the temperature would not stay internally constant during phase changes. It is fundamentally important to understand what this is about. Consequently, no heat release nor capture. No "spikes of hot air from freezing" in the Arctic temp graph!
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 27, 2013 10:05:34 GMT
What is observed is that neither the day or the night is white with stars The assumption made is that although there are billions of stars there is a very significant direct view to outside the Universe to beyond the event horizon where the heat of all the stars can flow without heating the universe, which includes the colder stars, all of the planets asteroids and the dust, to the temperature of the hottest stars. There is no cherry picking going on. You either allow the mainstream view to be revealed or you chose some other view that is not based in mainstream science. Your method is to create the view and create the facts to fit it. The scientific method is to observe the facts as best we can and create the view as best we can. There are no discrepancies either, instead what we observe is your errors. From you one always sees the retreat to behind the skirt of "mainstream science".
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 27, 2013 11:16:51 GMT
Water has to be cooled from 1C before it can get to 0C Either the atmosphere or some other source of cooling must be present before water can cool immediately prior to ice forming. Its cooling by radiating to space. Its cooling faster than the atmosphere as the surface does every night everywhere. the inversion layer is formed by a surface cooling faster than the atmosphere. the air is only cooling at the same speed as the atmosphere at the surface air boundary. At that point the air keeps up by steepening the inversion gradient. the air is sending heat both to the surface and to space. If the water before starting to freeze is conducting heat into the atmosphere there will be no inversion layer in the atmosphere. The beginning point of this conversation was the claim by you that latent heat was warming the colder atmosphere causing the recently observed Arctic warming. You then linked to an NSIDC article where the cold atmosphere was cooling the warmer water and ice. Also, in the so called latent heat polynya a ferociously cold Katabatic wind is coming off the land and blowing the newly formed ice out to sea. Rather than mixing apples and Pears and talking about conditions in Florida it is better to take this one step at a time and stick with the Arctic and deal with your claim that the arctic air warms up when freezing begins. No "spikes of hot air from freezing" in the Arctic temp graph! Exactly. That is the bullshit claim you made that was supported by your link to NSIDC where DMI data was showing sub zero temperatures of about -2 prior to warming to around 0C
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 27, 2013 11:24:21 GMT
Latent heat does not "mitigate and sustain" anything outside the internal molecular forces of the matter. It has zero, nada, zilch influence on the outside temperature. Energy is ONLY transferred INTERNALLY within the matter to DELAY the change, and while this is ongoing the TEMPERATURE CANNOT CHANGE NO MATTER WHAT WE DO AS THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL PROPERTY OF THE MATTER. That is why it is called "latent". Consult you dictionary on what "latent" means, the term is there for a very good reason. It doesn't delay freezing it stops the water from getting colder. Its not delaying freezing because its the freezing that stops the H20 from getting colder. Sigh If you stir 5 liters of water with a small electric motor and cool it with an ordinary domestic freezer, then ice begins to form at a constant temperature while stirring once the freezing point is reached, and eventually after a considerable period of time the stirring is impossible. If there was no latent heat the ice would more or less suddenly form once the freezing point was reached. Physics 101
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 27, 2013 11:39:21 GMT
What is observed is that neither the day or the night is white with stars The assumption made is that although there are billions of stars there is a very significant direct view to outside the Universe to beyond the event horizon where the heat of all the stars can flow without heating the universe, which includes the colder stars, all of the planets asteroids and the dust, to the temperature of the hottest stars. There is no cherry picking going on. You either allow the mainstream view to be revealed or you chose some other view that is not based in mainstream science. Your method is to create the view and create the facts to fit it. The scientific method is to observe the facts as best we can and create the view as best we can. There are no discrepancies either, instead what we observe is your errors. From you one always sees the retreat to behind the skirt of "mainstream science". All I am doing is pointing out you are talking utter nonsense that is not supported by mainstream science of the last God knows how long. There is no retreat, no change of goal posts, no cherry picking. If i make a mistake i will let you know
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Aug 27, 2013 15:00:08 GMT
It doesn't delay freezing it stops the water from getting colder. Its not delaying freezing because its the freezing that stops the H20 from getting colder. Nope! Once water has reached 0C during the cooling, the temperature will remain at 0C until the freezing has completed. The amount of thermal energy that will be removed from the body of water during the beginning and the end of this phase change will be determined by the mass of the ice to be formed and nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 27, 2013 17:09:47 GMT
From you one always sees the retreat to behind the skirt of "mainstream science". All I am doing is pointing out you are talking utter nonsense that is not supported by mainstream science of the last God knows how long. There is no retreat, no change of goal posts, no cherry picking. If i make a mistake i will let you know you would do better at it if you could relate how the science was established rather than running like a little kid to hide behind the lady's skirt. it suggests you don't understand the science but you only know how to recite it.
|
|