Understanding Water, Yes, it is quite complex

[Ufasuperstorm]

Water makes up .05 percent of the earths entire mass. If recent studies are accurate, the number may need to be revised up, as there are now hypothesized oceans worth of water in the mantle. Having so much of the water on the surface, means water is a moderator of our climate. It can be found in abundance in multiple states here on earth. I want to discuss some unique chemical/physical properties of water.

Let's start with the enthalpy of fusion. If you have 1 gram of water at 50 degrees Celsius and 1 gram of ice at 50 degrees Celsius you produce 2 grams of water at 0 degrees Celsius. It takes a lot of energy to break bonds on an atomic level and overcome ambient pressure in response to a change in volume. This is why water has an incredibly high enthalpy of fusion.

1) To heat 1 kg (1.00 liter) of water from 283.15 K to 303.15 K (10 °C to 30 °C) requires 83.6 kJ. However, to melt ice also requires energy. To heat 1kg of ice from 273.15 K to water at 293.15 K (0 °C to 20 °C) requires:

(1) 333.55 J/g (heat of fusion of ice) = 333.55 kJ/kg = 333.55 kJ for 1 kg of ice to melt
PLUS
(2) 4.18 J/(g·K) × 20K = 4.18 kJ/(kg·K) × 20K = 83.6 kJ for 1 kg of water to increase in temperature by 20 K
= 417.15 kJ
Thus one part ice at 0 °C will cool almost exactly 4 parts water from 20 °C to 0 °C.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy_of_fusion


Since, we now brought up the enthalpy of fusion we must now discuss the Mpemba effect. Warm/hot water actually freezes faster than colder water at certain conditions. This effect has been well know since Aristotle's time but even today, I have seen various papers claiming a different central mechanism for this effect.

We observed hot water freezing before cold water 28 times in 28 attempts under the conditions
described here.

arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1003/1003.3185.pdf

In retrospect, when water absorbs heat, covalent molecules get smaller and release there energy. This energy release is equal to cooling. You could say water has a built in temperature balancing mechanism?


Furthermore, I would also like to point out the density of supercooled water at -38 degrees Celsius is the same as 98 degrees Celsius. Additionally, as supercooled water reaches 228 Kelvin it approaches the density of ice.



When you look on the atomic level physically/chemically what has to happen for water to possess these properties it is actually quite complex and not fully understood.

Water in various states exhibits a "retrograde behavior" and is indeed quite complex and worth discussing.

[nautonnier]

As important is the ignored effect of atmospheric enthalpy. The heat content of air as in the above post should be measured in kilojoules per kilogram. When that metric is used the mathematical stupidity of 'averaging' temperatures becomes apparent.

See www.engineeringtoolbox.com/enthalpy-moist-air-d_683.html

So the amount of energy in kilojoules per kilogram to raise the air temperature at the poles where humidity is close to zero is significantly less than the energy required to raise the air temperature of humid air at the equator. It should be noted that the overall humidity has been dropping - this alone could account for the rise in temperature as the drier air has lower enthalpy and therefore requires less heat (joules) to raise the temperature.

Climate 'scientists' (cough), however seem to think that CO2 traps temperature as that is what they are measuring and getting wound around the axle about TOBS etc. Demonstrating their abject ignorance.

[sigurdur]

Interesting. I actually started thinking about this as I was working a field yesterday as I drove through water.

[icefisher]

Sept 16, 2016 10:51:56 GMT nautonnier said:

As important is the ignored effect of atmospheric enthalpy. The heat content of air as in the above post should be measured in kilojoules per kilogram. When that metric is used the mathematical stupidity of 'averaging' temperatures becomes apparent.

See www.engineeringtoolbox.com/enthalpy-moist-air-d_683.html

So the amount of energy in kilojoules per kilogram to raise the air temperature at the poles where humidity is close to zero is significantly less than the energy required to raise the air temperature of humid air at the equator. It should be noted that the overall humidity has been dropping - this alone could account for the rise in temperature as the drier air has lower enthalpy and therefore requires less heat (joules) to raise the temperature.

Climate 'scientists' (cough), however seem to think that CO2 traps temperature as that is what they are measuring and getting wound around the axle about TOBS etc. Demonstrating their abject ignorance.

Reminds me of Forrest Gump. . . .stupid is as stupid does. Over at Steve Goddards site he characterizes the TOBs adjusters (academics?) as "they think the station operators (NOAA civil service?) are complete idiots". I can tell you climate isn't the only place that happens.

I will mention my ongoing frustration with that. If weather stations are going to form the basis of global warming measurement, each person working on TOBs adjustments should have a minimum 2 years of time spent reading the equipment in a weather station. This is no doubt the droneless remote management from Washington DC problem manifested at your local weather station.

[nautonnier]

Sept 16, 2016 14:03:53 GMT icefisher said:

Sept 16, 2016 10:51:56 GMT nautonnier said:

As important is the ignored effect of atmospheric enthalpy. The heat content of air as in the above post should be measured in kilojoules per kilogram. When that metric is used the mathematical stupidity of 'averaging' temperatures becomes apparent.

See www.engineeringtoolbox.com/enthalpy-moist-air-d_683.html

So the amount of energy in kilojoules per kilogram to raise the air temperature at the poles where humidity is close to zero is significantly less than the energy required to raise the air temperature of humid air at the equator. It should be noted that the overall humidity has been dropping - this alone could account for the rise in temperature as the drier air has lower enthalpy and therefore requires less heat (joules) to raise the temperature.

Climate 'scientists' (cough), however seem to think that CO2 traps temperature as that is what they are measuring and getting wound around the axle about TOBS etc. Demonstrating their abject ignorance.

Reminds me of Forrest Gump. . . .stupid is as stupid does. Over at Steve Goddards site he characterizes the TOBs adjusters (academics?) as "they think the station operators (NOAA civil service?) are complete idiots". I can tell you climate isn't the only place that happens.

I will mention my ongoing frustration with that. If weather stations are going to form the basis of global warming measurement, each person working on TOBs adjustments should have a minimum 2 years of time spent reading the equipment in a weather station. This is no doubt the droneless remote management from Washington DC problem manifested at your local weather station.

Trudge out at just before 3am along a barely visible path that is a few inches deep in wet snow/sleet with sleet blowing past horizontally at 25kts with higher gusts, painfully freezing your ears in a way snow can never do. Unlatch the door with numb hands and holding a flashlight try to read thermometers while the wind is shaking the Stevenson screen trying to slam the door back shut and melted sleet is dripping into your eyes and down the back of your neck...

Accurate to a tenth of a degree???