|
Post by Andrew on Oct 10, 2016 1:09:39 GMT
I agree. But where is the evidence that it came directly from the latent heat from the condensation of water vapor? Where else do you propose that it came from? The patterns of the emissions match the weather patterns and the areas of convection. You are just trolling. It is acknowledged by all educated people that latent heat causes objects to be warmer than they otherwise would be, and an IR detector can see the difference between hotter things and colder things. You must already know that so why are you persisting with the stupid questions and strawmen?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 9, 2016 20:09:12 GMT
Andrew I have been under a hurricane so you will need to be more patient. I would be interested in hearing how the latent heat which is apparently stored as rotational and vibrational motion in the water molecules 'goes away' when the molecule aligns with another and stops vibrating as it becomes ice. Energy cannot be 'used up' or 'dissipate to nothing' After a long search though I have found this on You tube This is a thermal camera picking up the infrared being given off by supercooled water freezing when initiated with an ice cube. You will see the freezing taking place by the increase in infrared radiation. As I said to you already #1 is fine as it is because it exists simultaneously with 2 and 3. #1 does not exist in isolation on its own separated from #3 or #2. What aspect of that is so difficult to understand?? Why are you fixating on #1 while not paying attention to what is said in #3??
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 9, 2016 20:02:30 GMT
As everyone knows an orbiting planet is continually accelerating as its velocity vector is being curved into the orbit by a 'centripetal force' not only that but as the Sun wobbles the Earth wobbles with it. >>an orbiting planet is continually accelerating as its velocity vector is being curved into the orbit by a 'centripetal force' What do you mean by 'its velocity vector is being curved into the orbit'?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 9, 2016 6:12:30 GMT
How much force do you think would be required to move the Earth 1mm off its current vector - and you call that small? What is required to change the Earth's orbit by a half diameter of the Sun? Tiny? Really?? Just consider the inertia 1/ 2MV 2 even in free fall inertia exists and must be overcome to alter velocity. That is my problem - ask a basic question and you are shouted down, almost like being in SkS and asking for evidence of CO2 causing warming . All the planets are being 'accelerated' into orbits around the Sun. And we are told the force of gravity is too weak to do it. But it obviously is strong enough to accelerate gas giants like Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus into orbits. That is patently not a small force. Then the proponents of small force start waffling about 'gravity wells' which is just another way of expressing the strength of the force of gravity without talking about it. As far as I can see the Sun's motion around the barycenter drags Mars, the Earth, Venus and Mercury with it This will not be without effect on those planets. You can waffle about 'free fall' into the gravity well but if someone moves it then your free-fall has a different vector and changing to the new vector requires a force. That vector is in continual motion so there is a continual and varying force. If someone can identify a hole in that logic I will be interested to hear it. I have raised this point before but if the Sun is actually being perturbed by mov ement of the barycenter (I know I know but bear with me) then the bubble of liquid rock with a thin skin we call Earth will also be perturbed. Could the reason for the Solar dynamo malfunctioning and the seismic activity 'during a quiet sun' be due to perturbation in the path of the barycenter through space? The centripetal force that causes the planets to stay in orbit in a continual acceleration has got to be considerable and if its vector changes more rapidly than normal one would expect some distortion of our thin skinned bubble of liquid rock You need to think about what you saying, where over the course of many years, all attempts to reason with you have failed going back to about 2006 or more. If we orbit the Earth, the direction we are accelerating in, is continually changing, and yet we feel nothing other than tidal forces. No matter how complex the orbital shape becomes we cannot detect the continually changing acceleration other than by tidal forces. When we are in orbit we are not fixed to an object with velcro as the object is spun around. In outer space, if we have inertia we travel in a straight line until such time as a force acts upon us - where gravity acts upon us at the level of matter itself. We can feel absolutely nothing in a complex orbit. The forces are not being applied at the edges of objects but at core of the matter - other than the tidal forces. Consider this: You are in orbit around the Earth and at time t you are accelerating directly towards the Sun, but at t+1 your acceleration towards the sun has slowed and after one quarter of an orbit you have no acceleration towards the Sun caused by your orbit. Since time t you now have a totally new acceleration at right angles to your previous course and you experience nothing other than tidal forces. It should be clear a perfectly circular orbit is creating far more changes in acceleration than any orbital perturbations can create and yet we feel nothing other than tidal forces
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 9, 2016 5:31:38 GMT
"When these gas molecules condense into liquid drops, latent heat is released into the atmosphere" 1. The latent heat is totally and perfectly consumed to only maintain the temperature of the previously cooling water molecule 2. Latent heat is not released into the atmosphere. 3. The molecule that is not cooling as fast will continue to add sensible heat to adjacent colder molecules and add to the bouyancy of the air. You will have to rewrite #1. A "temperature" at a molecular level in a gas is its kinetic energy. So you are saying that the latent heat energy is consumed to maintain kinetic energy but the kinetic energy cannot go away. Energy cannot be consumed in this way it has to go somewhere. That takes us to #2. The kinetic energy remains the same (that is the temperature is remaining constant) the energy from latent heat has to go somewhere and you have stated the water molecule is remaining at the same temperature (kinetic energy level) so latent heat must be released in some way - either as radiation or as collision and sensible heat transfer. #3 - Yes, the molecule with higher kinetic energy will have more collisions and therefore transfer more of its energy to other molecules until they reach an approximate equilibrium. Number 1. is fine as it is, because 1 exists with 2 and 3. Bump. Nautonnier I pointed out to you your objection to my point #1 was without any substance . Release of latent heat produces no detectable heating energy of any kind whatsoever that was not already available before the latent heat began to be released - apart from when supercooling is involved. There are no IR energy beams coming from those molecules that were not already present other than the frequencies of the radiation will be different - ice, water and water vapour have different IR spectra.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 7, 2016 3:56:53 GMT
Can we just witness this as an extreme, life threatening, weather event and cut the 'point scoring' pro/con 1.2c warmer/5% more capacity to carry moisture? Graywolf your delight at what you believe is impending doom caused by human created warming is totally obvious to me, even if you are too blind to see it yourself. hopefully, something that allows folk to see what increasing storm strengths will bring to an ever wider area. Just looking at the rainfall rates from the Dominican Rep , over a 12 hr period, is chilling esp. here in our valley as Dec 26th saw a mere 3" of rain over that 12 hr period. As we warm and airmasses trend to N/S exchanges we will begin to see the likes of Dec 26th more and more frequently. As with our town folk will get used to just how useless insurance can be esp. the second or 3 rd time of needing to claim ( higher govt. input for those in need?) so the economic impacts are as worrying as the human costs as the 'local' impact becomes a 'national issue'. ......... For whatever reasons the U.S. leads the Denier grouping folk still need to accept that our planet's weather is becoming increasingly extreme with each year that passes. It is only when a high profile event takes place that Joe P. gets to see just what meeting with one of these events means. As with Australia the denial is govt. lead with Republicans blocking legislation that would moderate extreme impacts. eventually the politic will fail as day to day events wises up Joe P. as to just how quickly changes are occurring I can see you are just loving it so why pretend otherwise? If this thing hits florida as strength 4 it will be the greatest thing to happen to the green movement for decades.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 6, 2016 6:42:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 4, 2016 19:44:08 GMT
You will have to rewrite #1. A "temperature" at a molecular level in a gas is its kinetic energy. So you are saying that the latent heat energy is consumed to maintain kinetic energy but the kinetic energy cannot go away. Energy cannot be consumed in this way it has to go somewhere. That takes us to #2. The kinetic energy remains the same (that is the temperature is remaining constant) the energy from latent heat has to go somewhere and you have stated the water molecule is remaining at the same temperature (kinetic energy level) so latent heat must be released in some way - either as radiation or as collision and sensible heat transfer. #3 - Yes, the molecule with higher kinetic energy will have more collisions and therefore transfer more of its energy to other molecules until they reach an approximate equilibrium. Number 1. is fine as it is, because 1 exists with 2 and 3.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 4, 2016 5:57:42 GMT
Hurricane Matthew currently in the Caribbean The reason convective storms happen in the atmosphere is the release of latent heat of condensation and freezing which makes the wet adiabatic lapse rate different to the dry adiabatic lapse rate. We have shown you NOAA training material that calculates that energy release. I believe it was at this point in the last thread when you were arguing that there was no release of latent heat when that release is fundamental to many atmospheric processes that I decided it was no longer worth discussing the matter with you. The wet adiabatic lapse rate cools more slowly than the dry rate. This warmer air cannot create more bouyancy by losing heat to the surrounding air that is colder. It is bouyant because it is warmer than the drier air. from the reference (note for K-12) "Water vapor is a greenhouse gas located in the atmosphere and a very important component for cloud formation. If the air is dry, or unsaturated, clouds are not likely to form because there is minimal water vapor in the air. If the air is moist, or saturated, the water vapor will condense to form clouds. When these gas molecules condense into liquid drops, latent heat is released into the atmosphere which warms the air surrounding the molecule. This helps to add instability in the atmosphere and this warm air surrounding the molecule will want to rise. Warm air is less dense than cold air because molecules in warm air move around much faster and move further apart." The bolded text is completely wrongly written. If you have a hot air balloon you will not go up faster by pumping in cold air from outside the balloon and allowing the warm air in the balloon to heat it. Nautonnier, My comparison to a hot air balloon is a strawman because there is not a one to one comparison between molecules that are consuming latent heat and the surrounding colder molecules. I am not now sure where this leaves my ideas in comparison to what you are saying. I am not sure what you are saying. The K12 text is still not expressed very well though: "When these gas molecules condense into liquid drops, latent heat is released into the atmosphere" 1. The latent heat is totally and perfectly consumed to only maintain the temperature of the previously cooling water molecule 2. Latent heat is not released into the atmosphere. 3. The molecule that is not cooling as fast will continue to add sensible heat to adjacent colder molecules and add to the bouyancy of the air.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 4, 2016 5:03:41 GMT
I think the following says it all: "Dr. Cess was the leading climate scientist of Intercomparison Project of GCMs for the IPCC Assessment Reports. He wrote: I will try this one more time, and then I will give up. A lot has happened since M&S (1964) and M&W (1967). In modern usage, the no-feedback sensitivity refers to holding all climate parameters fixed except surface temperature. It addresses the question: What would the sensitivity be if there were no interactive climate feedback mechanisms?. Simply stated, it is a hypothetical reference sensitivity. NO ONE HAS EVER CLAIMED THAT THE NO-FEEDBACK SENSITIVITY IS A TRUE INDICATION OF THE REAL SENSITIVITY.“ I added the bolded red to emphasise how Dr Cess is feeling about the number of times he has had to explain himself. In fact he wrote it like this: NO ONE HAS EVER CLAIMED THAT THE NO-FEEDBACK SENSITIVITY IS A TRUE INDICATION OF THE REAL SENSITIVITY
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 3, 2016 19:54:08 GMT
Andrew when the temperature falls to the point of phase change it does not warm as the phase change releases the energy it simply stops falling until such time as the energy has been released then it again begins to fall. This is not an argument fortified by authority. Nonentropic, That text was produced from the reference provided by Nautonnier. Sorry I should have put it in quotes and italics like I normally do. I was suggesting the writer needs a phone call. Perhaps you can clarify what your reply is saying please.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 3, 2016 17:41:20 GMT
From Nautonniers link: "Latent Heat
When water condenses, cools, or freezes, the temperature of the environment around the water rises
When water vapor condenses into liquid water, the hydrogen bonds form, latent heat is converted to sensible heat, and the air temperature rises. "This guy needs a phone call. He has been writing this stuff for about 30 years so emails will not budge him. Degree in mathematics, M.S. Agricultural Climatology, Ph.D. Agricultural Climatology
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 3, 2016 11:55:00 GMT
Sigurdur is claiming more BTU's per second are released when water freezes, you supported his claim, Nautonnier is saying there is some special process whereby IR is released via latent heating that can cause warming. So I am asking where these additional BTU's are coming from if all of the latent is only being used to exactly offset the cooling that would have occurred. The plants are warmer, the atmosphere is warmer, the latent heat was released to exactly offset the cooling that would have occured but did not happen because of the release of latent heat that did happen to cause the plants and the atmosphere to be warmer I produced a graph that should have shown everybody there are not more BTU's per second being released during the phase change. No comment was made by you even though you supported Sigurdurs stupidity. Your interaction with me tells me either you have a medical problem or you are the kind of pyschotic person who is happy to do what you are doing with no regard to the consequences of your actions. Either way you need to get your condition evaluated rather than wasting any more of your time on a forum like this where your behaviour is totally transparently bizarre and can only be explained by brain dysfunction or mental illness. I "support" Sigurdur's claim. I recognize two methods that causes that. 1) that under certain climatic conditions supercooling of water clearly does lead to that. And I am also aware that radiation from a zero degree object can warm a warmer object if the zero degree material has an adequate supply of energy and inserts itself between the warmer object and a colder object. Roy Spencer had a demonstration of that on his website 2 weeks ago and certainly water does sequester a lot of energy. With regards to Nautonnier's claim I support that because of the well known lapse rate is going to clearly cool non-state change gases more than state change gases from all sides. In the case of convecting gases not changing states would be colder than gases changing states and like the farmers crops that had dropped below zero the latent heat release could warm them back up to the temperature of the condensed water or even higher via the blocking of a loss of heat to say space. I am convinced of the backradiation effect of objects with tested and proven conductive resistance, but not thought computed ones as for backradiation models; and for independently heated surfaces; and for processes with greater warming ability than cooling ability. I realize that is probably not as clear as it should be and there is an amount redundancy in the comments and I consider it an insufficient answer and I consider it more of a hypothesis than a belief as it has not been tested. I think your graph is generally good but overly simplified because it does not consider any of the items I mentioned above. So while your graph makes for a good description of the release of latent energy it is quite a bit out of scale and shows maybe the wrong cooling curve to equilibrium after freezing. But its a fair enough approximation to offer as an explanation for the most basic of latent heat effects on the state changing chemical. but i do agree there are limits on those auxilliary effects that those auxilliary effects are not always present p.s. more simply, look at your graph the entire zone between latent heat/freezing line and the "expected" heat availability line is the sensible heat made available to warm other objects via being warmer than those objects or by blocking warmer objects views of colder objects. And if you had drawn the curves correct and had the scale right you would see even more heat. I am sure Sigurdurs plants would love all of that supercooling. Once again you reduce the conversation to stupidity. You are blocked.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 3, 2016 11:46:34 GMT
So there we have it Andrew does not believe that latent heat exists. I have to establish the existence of latent heat for him if not he will have an aha moment and claim that science is wrong and he is right, probably in a large red font. All this while thunderstorms are overhead here fueled by latent heat and hurricane Matthew also fueled by latent heat is about to drop 40+ inches of rain (more than a meter) on Haiti. I suggest Andrew that you create your own ' latent heat does not exist' hypothesis on how the wet adiabatic lapse rate causes thunderstorms. The atmospheric scientists and meteorologists will be amazed at how your hypothesis shows that they have been wrong all these years. If you cannot read and assemble more than one thought at a time and instead you prefer to create inventions about me, even when I have told you repeatedly what you are saying about me is not true then nobody can help you.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 3, 2016 8:19:44 GMT
The air in the hurricane is warmer because of the release of latent heat. Plants are warmer because of the release of latent heat. Your interaction with me tells me either you have a medical problem or you are the kind of pyschotic person who is happy to do what you are doing with no regard to the consequences of your actions. Either way you need to get your condition evaluated rather than wasting any more of your time on a forum like this where your behaviour is totally transparently bizarre and can only be explained by brain dysfunction or mental illness. well first off my last post was being composed when you posted the above so i did not see it. second i was responding to this in your post before your last one i did not see: "1. You need to establish there was any energy available to be released to go somewhere - you need to give a process whereby this can happen - and so far you have not done that." so what did you mean by that? Sigurdur is claiming more BTU's per second are released when water freezes, you supported his claim, Nautonnier is saying there is some special process whereby IR is released via latent heating that can cause warming. So I am asking where these additional BTU's are coming from if all of the latent is only being used to exactly offset the cooling that would have occurred. The plants are warmer, the atmosphere is warmer, the latent heat was released to exactly offset the cooling that would have occured but did not happen because of the release of latent heat that did happen to cause the plants and the atmosphere to be warmer I produced a graph that should have shown everybody there are not more BTU's per second being released during the phase change. No comment was made by you even though you supported Sigurdurs stupidity. Your interaction with me tells me either you have a medical problem or you are the kind of pyschotic person who is happy to do what you are doing with no regard to the consequences of your actions. Either way you need to get your condition evaluated rather than wasting any more of your time on a forum like this where your behaviour is totally transparently bizarre and can only be explained by brain dysfunction or mental illness.
|
|