|
Post by icefisher on Oct 4, 2018 14:28:37 GMT
"Water vapor and clouds are among the most important components of the atmosphere that modulate the Earth radiation budget by means of the strong contributions to the greenhouse effect and the planetary albedo. They trap a significant amount of the longwave thermal infrared radiation emitted by the underlying atmosphere and the surface (greenhouse effect) and ref lect back to space the shortwave solar incoming radiation (albedo effect)." journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00286.1 Blocking of longwave thermal infrared emissions radiation emitted by the underlying atmosphere So in summary, a huge amount of heat 'is released' by water molecules changing state. There is no clear way that the heat 'released' can increase the kinetic energy of N2 or O2 molecules by 'conduction/collision' - (aka sensible heat - non-radiative energy transfer), in any case the specific heats of those gases being so very low compared to the heat released would mean a huge increase in their temperature that has not been observed. Release of infrared is observed and the N2/O2 are transparent to infrared while water vapor by definition is not so presumably water vapor, droplets and ice absorb some of the infrared attenuating the signal but at the cloud tops there is less water and only transparent N2/O2 so infrared from latent heat 'release' in the cloud tops will be visible. In my experiment there probably was conductive transfer of heat within the water bottle and to the bottle. It would be enabled by two factors, one being that the water was super cooled. It measured 18F. After freezing the bottle measured 32F. This all happened in perhaps a split second and some residual water remained in the otherwise frozen bottle. The question is where did the rest of the latent heat go as 14F warming is only a small piece of it. It actually calculates to about 10% of the latent heat that is supposed to be released. As I said my scanner jumped instantaneously as the bottle froze, once reading 50 for an instant just long enough to actually read it. Other attempts the numbers flashed on the readout but was so quick it was hard to read. Some was absorbed by the plastic bottle. Not sure but it might be the bottle is transparent to infrared or if not the mystery deepens. Further, the IR releases to space at the top of the thunderstorms represents temperatures far below freezing yet is still likely in a water vapor state. Enter the concept of condensation nuclei. . . ., impurities in water that enable it to freeze explaining how the Costco water does not as it is distilled to a very pure state, etc. In clouds sometimes it has been said that supercooling occurs and changes occur straight from water vapor to ice. That releases several times as much latent heat. And since lightning is generated by collisions of water and ice perhaps some of the energy is converted to electricity. The rapid ascent of water vapor in clouds is an earmark of a thunderstorm. An interesting fact in that regard is normally hurricanes don't have lightning because of horizontal winds as opposed to vertical winds. Bottom line this relates to the need for data mentioned above. People only generally carefully study stuff to solve problems someone has who is going to pay for the work. Climate science claims to have all the numbers they need.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Oct 4, 2018 21:09:39 GMT
Icefisher, I asked whether a mixture of gases stratifies hoping you would see the error in your scenario.
It might seem logical that lighter gases “float” upward in gas mixtures but there is another force (I forget its name) which is stronger that causes “like” gases to disperse in the atmosphere (I’m referring here to the troposphere which is where weather occurs). The result is that the atmosphere equilibrates toward the well-mixed state. Water vapor often is not well-mixed, but not because it has a lower molecular weight. Large quantities of water evaporate from the ocean and it takes time to equilibrate. Also, water vapor condenses and this causes disequilibriums. But over time, especially with a little help from the wind, water vapor will mix in rather than rise to the top of the heavier gases.
Since you start your scenario with incorrect science, the scenario can’t be accurate. I think Nautonnier, who reportedly understood the gas laws when he was 10 years old will agree with what I’ve said here.
On whether IR emissions change during a thunderstorm, consider this. Thunderstorms remove large quantities of water vapor from the atmosphere by condensing the vapor and letting it fall to the surface as rain. Water vapor is an IR emitter. Less IR emitter, less IR?
I don’t know all the mechanics involved in thunderstorm- related IR emissions, but offhand I don’t see a reason to doubt the claim in the Madden-Julian article that IR emissions in a thunderstorm are lower and I note the statement doesn’t limit the IR to any specific wavelength within the IR spectrum.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Oct 4, 2018 21:28:52 GMT
Without trying to be a participant in this discussion, my understanding is that solutions will not separate under gravitational force. The mixed gas is a solution.
As such CO2 is rapidly mixed evenly as per the Nulschool site CO2 map once mixed its done.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Oct 4, 2018 23:47:57 GMT
Nautonnier, I mentioned several months ago that at 20,000 feet a typical molecule in the earth's atmosphere will collide with another molecule several million times per second. That will allow for a lot of heat transfer and if that is not enough to remove the heat then the condensation rate will just go a little slower. As I’ve said before distillation is a process used extensively in the refining and chemical industries. It involves evaporation and condensation of a wide range of chemicals and water. Every chemical engineer like myself has run heat balances on these processes and they always balance and there is no “missing” energy due to a conversion of energy to photons. There is not a shred of evidence that I know of that would support your speculation that the heat of condensation is not dissipated by normal (non-radiative) heat transfer.
Having said that, there is always a low level of “natural” photon emissions from almost any molecule with a temperature above absolute zero.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 5, 2018 2:37:13 GMT
Icefisher, I asked whether a mixture of gases stratifies hoping you would see the error in your scenario. It might seem logical that lighter gases “float” upward in gas mixtures but there is another force (I forget its name) which is stronger that causes “like” gases to disperse in the atmosphere (I’m referring here to the troposphere which is where weather occurs). The result is that the atmosphere equilibrates toward the well-mixed state. Water vapor often is not well-mixed, but not because it has a lower molecular weight. Large quantities of water evaporate from the ocean and it takes time to equilibrate. Also, water vapor condenses and this causes disequilibriums. But over time, especially with a little help from the wind, water vapor will mix in rather than rise to the top of the heavier gases. Since you start your scenario with incorrect science, the scenario can’t be accurate. I think Nautonnier, who reportedly understood the gas laws when he was 10 years old will agree with what I’ve said here. On whether IR emissions change during a thunderstorm, consider this. Thunderstorms remove large quantities of water vapor from the atmosphere by condensing the vapor and letting it fall to the surface as rain. Water vapor is an IR emitter. Less IR emitter, less IR? I don’t know all the mechanics involved in thunderstorm- related IR emissions, but offhand I don’t see a reason to doubt the claim in the Madden-Julian article that IR emissions in a thunderstorm are lower and I note the statement doesn’t limit the IR to any specific wavelength within the IR spectrum. I have no idea what you are talking about. The ONLY suggestion of stratification was between water vapor and condensed water and liquid water is not a gas. As to having no reason to doubt the Madden-Julian wikipedia article goes there is always good reason to doubt wikipedia articles. One of the biggest problems in the climate debate is being clear about what one is talking about. Very clearly convection cools the surface by transferring energy to the sky. Most of that heat transferred is via latent heat of vaporization. Strong water vapor convection transfers far more surface energy to the sky than dry air convection. Once water is up in the sky it may well be true that seasonally both total surface and sky IR emittance is reduced, but from the clouds produced by thunderstorms solar insolation is even more dramatically reduced. That eliminates large portions of the energy available for emittance even while huge amounts of heat from the surface is being transferred into the sky. In the atmosphere that heat transferred from the ground is released to such a large extent it extends the lapse rate by about double the height literally warming the air by a huge amount. The source of the heat added to the atmosphere is latent heat according to every energy budget I have seen. Further its a net value estimated at 80watts/m2 which makes it larger than any other single source warming the atmosphere. You made a claim that latent heat isn't released by radiation because you can't see it from the satellites and that instead you see less IR. I would venture to say if you could see it there probably isn't any greenhouse effect at all because if you could see it that would mean water vapor wasn't blocking it. For obvious reasons the higher water vapor reaches into the atmosphere the further apart its molecules become the less the pressure becomes and the less ability it has to condense. For that reason it takes less heat to boil water to steam in the mountains than in the flat lands. So my explanation was there could well be vast amounts of IR being emitted mid-atmosphere where water is more rapidly condensing but it doesn't show up on water vapor scanners nearly as well as it shows up on IR scanners for measuring clouds because the water vapor is at a higher elevation than the clouds. I suggested that by running the two side by side loops with the IR satellite and water vapor views provided to local weather pages will verify that the cloud IR scanners run a lot warmer than the water vapor IR scanners. This inability to see it through the water vapor channels is evidence of that heat being absorbed below and attenuated by the water vapor from simply passing it through to space. The fact is that since the sky radiates about a mean of 200watt/m2 there needs to be a replenishment of that heat. I certainly see no reason nor have seen any study suggesting otherwise that that transfer of latent heat from condensing water isn't being delivered by both radiation and conduction and in fact my cheap IR scanner said it was at least being delivered by radiation.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Oct 5, 2018 4:48:49 GMT
Icefisher, check this out: OM-CP-IRTC101A You'll need one for your new crowdfunded IR scanner.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 5, 2018 5:15:15 GMT
Icefisher, check this out: OM-CP-IRTC101A You'll need one for your new crowdfunded IR scanner. Hows my go fund me page doing?
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Oct 5, 2018 10:58:32 GMT
Icefisher, check this out: OM-CP-IRTC101A You'll need one for your new crowdfunded IR scanner. Hows my go fund me page doing? It's slow, hasn't covered overheads yet.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 5, 2018 12:09:52 GMT
Nautonnier, I mentioned several months ago that at 20,000 feet a typical molecule in the earth's atmosphere will collide with another molecule several million times per second. That will allow for a lot of heat transfer and if that is not enough to remove the heat then the condensation rate will just go a little slower. As I’ve said before distillation is a process used extensively in the refining and chemical industries. It involves evaporation and condensation of a wide range of chemicals and water. Every chemical engineer like myself has run heat balances on these processes and they always balance and there is no “missing” energy due to a conversion of energy to photons. There is not a shred of evidence that I know of that would support your speculation that the heat of condensation is not dissipated by normal (non-radiative) heat transfer. Having said that, there is always a low level of “natural” photon emissions from almost any molecule with a temperature above absolute zero. So your position is that there is always radiative heat loss from molecules except that there wasn't any when you were working in refining? Also that the MJO report of lowered radiation from water but you feel water doesn't radiate infrared. (Despite the references of water vapor being a radiative gas that I presented earlier.) I accept that there will be collisions between gas molecules I queried how a single vibrating hydrogen atom with atomic weight 1 could impart kinetic energy (sensible heat) to a nitrogen molecule weight 28 or oxygen molecule weight 32. Hand waving and saying 'sensible heat' does not answer the question. I also pointed out the huge amount of energy that is involved if it is solely transferred by conduction/collision. I am not saying anything is wrong - but the current explanations are of the 'and here a miracle occurs' and heat is 'released' (release to me does not mean conducted away - but YMMV)
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 5, 2018 13:04:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Oct 6, 2018 1:46:02 GMT
Nautonnier, I mentioned several months ago that at 20,000 feet a typical molecule in the earth's atmosphere will collide with another molecule several million times per second. That will allow for a lot of heat transfer and if that is not enough to remove the heat then the condensation rate will just go a little slower. As I’ve said before distillation is a process used extensively in the refining and chemical industries. It involves evaporation and condensation of a wide range of chemicals and water. Every chemical engineer like myself has run heat balances on these processes and they always balance and there is no “missing” energy due to a conversion of energy to photons. There is not a shred of evidence that I know of that would support your speculation that the heat of condensation is not dissipated by normal (non-radiative) heat transfer. Having said that, there is always a low level of “natural” photon emissions from almost any molecule with a temperature above absolute zero. So your position is that there is always radiative heat loss from molecules except that there wasn't any when you were working in refining? Also that the MJO report of lowered radiation from water but you feel water doesn't radiate infrared. (Despite the references of water vapor being a radiative gas that I presented earlier.) I accept that there will be collisions between gas molecules I queried how a single vibrating hydrogen atom with atomic weight 1 could impart kinetic energy (sensible heat) to a nitrogen molecule weight 28 or oxygen molecule weight 32. Hand waving and saying 'sensible heat' does not answer the question. I also pointed out the huge amount of energy that is involved if it is solely transferred by conduction/collision. I am not saying anything is wrong - but the current explanations are of the 'and here a miracle occurs' and heat is 'released' (release to me does not mean conducted away - but YMMV) I should have said the radiation heat losses from refinery and chemical distillations are so small that they are not considered in heat balance calculations. I hear you loud and clear that there are lot of these things that you don't understand if that was your point.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Oct 6, 2018 2:20:07 GMT
Icefisher, there are several things in your posts that I question, but I don't have time to speak to all of them.
I asked about stratification because of your statement in an earlier post that said "Water vapor is lighter than air and water is heavier than air. Water vapor rises and water falls in the air, in general."
If "water vapor rises" because it has a lower molecular weight, then wouldn't other gases rise and fall based on molecular weight? And, if so, wouldn't the gases tend to stratify based on molecular weight?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 6, 2018 4:35:06 GMT
Icefisher, there are several things in your posts that I question, but I don't have time to speak to all of them. I asked about stratification because of your statement in an earlier post that said "Water vapor is lighter than air and water is heavier than air. Water vapor rises and water falls in the air, in general." If "water vapor rises" because it has a lower molecular weight, then wouldn't other gases rise and fall based on molecular weight? And, if so, wouldn't the gases tend to stratify based on molecular weight? In a perfectly still condition they will stratify. Its kind of like adding some instant ice tea mix to water. Spoon it in and you don't even have to stir the water for it to diffuse throughout water in the glass. But leave sit undisturbed for a few days and you begin to see stratification. agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009RG000301The above reference goes into how water vapor acts to initiate convection and how its not the case that the water vapor reaches some altitude where it all condenses. Essentially it attempts to sum up the state of science and the monitoring going on. It also talks about falling condensed water (hydrometeors)
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 6, 2018 5:08:44 GMT
Hows my go fund me page doing? It's slow, hasn't covered overheads yet. Sounds like this operation needs a Trumpian tweet!
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Oct 6, 2018 5:24:12 GMT
It's slow, hasn't covered overheads yet. Sounds like this operation needs a Trumpian tweet! Do you WANT funding or not?
|
|