|
Post by Andrew on Oct 3, 2016 7:41:38 GMT
The air in the hurricane is warmer because of the release of latent heat. First of all I did not make that representation. Another extremely bizarre response. For the record I said this: "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." Because I was responding to this: "it appears you are asking to prove to you that latent heat exists" Yes plants are warmer than they would be if there was not a release of latent heat to keep them warmer. I thought you finally accepted that. Are you back in denial? Another extremely bizarre response. For the record I have not one single time claimed plants are not 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
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 3, 2016 6:44:49 GMT
For the record I said this: "At the phase change the reduction in kinetic energy that would have happened is perfectly offset by the release of latent heat to maintain the exact same amount of kinetic energy. >>As it is not in a K12 glass of water but high in the atmosphere that energy has to go somewhere 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." Perhaps I don't understand your question but it appears you are asking to prove to you that latent heat exists. If not so perhaps you need to be more specific as to what you want. 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.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 3, 2016 5:53:09 GMT
>>As it is not in a K12 glass of water but high in the atmosphere that energy has to go somewhere 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. Icefisher do you have dyslexia or some other mental impairment that prevents you from reading correctly and/or causes you to selectively quote what I say so you can fabricate an argument and imagine you have said something intelligent? I am believing you do what you do deliberately only because you are the kind of psychotic person who is happy to lie and cheat, but if there is a medical reason why you behave as you do it is best you share it with me, so I am in a better position to understand what causes your constantly repeated extremely weird behaviour. For the record I said this: "At the phase change the reduction in kinetic energy that would have happened is perfectly offset by the release of latent heat to maintain the exact same amount of kinetic energy. >>As it is not in a K12 glass of water but high in the atmosphere that energy has to go somewhere 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." 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.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 3, 2016 3:13:39 GMT
Energy cannot be destroyed. So when the water molecules give up that latent heat energy it has to go somewhere. And your quoted author Jeff Haby tells you the latent heat energy is perfectly matched to the cooling that would have occured, so there is nothing spare to heat anything other than what was available when the phase change began. You need to think about what he is telling you. There would have been a cooling but there is not one because the latent heat release perfectly offsets the cooling that would have happened, and because it is perfect there is no heating to go anywhere at all other than the heat required to offset the cooling that does not happen. theweatherprediction.com/habyhints2/468/ "When water freezes it gives up some of the water's energy. This energy that is given up is the latent heat of freezing. When the water was freezing latent heat of freezing energy was being released. Heat energy was actually being released. It is this heat energy that prevented the temperature from continuing to cool once the temperature reached 32 F. The way to think of this is that the heat energy does not warm the temperature but rather stops the cooling. The cooling that would have occurred is perfectly offset by the latent heat energy release and thus the temperature remains constant." True if you are a K12 class looking at ice cubes in a glass of water. But the atmosphere is 'cooling' due to the expansion of the volume of air as the pressure drops. This expansion means there are less gas molecules so there is less total kinetic energy. This is why you should stop using temperature as a metric as it is an intensive variable that requires pressure and volume to remain constant. So as air rises the pressure falls and the number of molecules in a fixed volume is reduced, the cooling the reduction in total kinetic energy and collisions between molecules, allows water molecules to start arranging themselves first as liquid and then as ice. (It is more complicated than that but I do not want to confuse things). As the water molecule reduces its vibrational and rotational energy it releases that energy. As it is not in a K12 glass of water but high in the atmosphere that energy has to go somewhere and it is either radiated (to be reabsorbed perhaps or go to space) or it is passed to another gas molecule due to collision raising that gas molecule's kinetic energy and thus the total energy of the volume of air. The increase in energy (a rise in temperature) causes the number of molecules in that volume to reduce (it becomes buoyant) and therefore start (or continues) to convect upward. >> As the water molecule reduces its vibrational and rotational energy it releases that energyAt the phase change the volume of gas does not reduce its kinetic energy, it was only able to do that before the phase change. At the phase change the reduction in kinetic energy that would have happened is perfectly offset by the release of latent heat to maintain the exact same amount of kinetic energy. >>As it is not in a K12 glass of water but high in the atmosphere that energy has to go somewhere 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. 2. We can do everything that happens at thousands of feet in the K12 glass of water simply by reducing the pressure of our experiment so there is no obvious reason why you are saying it is different in the atmosphere. Boulder Colorado university is for example at over 5000 feet altitude which is much higher than your typical cloud formation at only 2,000 feet - we just need to cool the lab to the calculated temperature, based on what it would have cooled from after rising from sea level, and that 5000 feet high atmosphere has no obvious way to know it is at ground level in a lab.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 2, 2016 20:09:23 GMT
Energy cannot be destroyed. So when the water molecules give up that latent heat energy it has to go somewhere. And your quoted author Jeff Haby tells you the latent heat energy is perfectly matched to the cooling that would have occured, so there is nothing spare to heat anything other than what was available when the phase change began. You need to think about what he is telling you. There would have been a cooling but there is not one because the latent heat release perfectly offsets the cooling that would have happened, and because it is perfect there is no heating to go anywhere at all other than the heat required to offset the cooling that does not happen. theweatherprediction.com/habyhints2/468/ "When water freezes it gives up some of the water's energy. This energy that is given up is the latent heat of freezing. When the water was freezing latent heat of freezing energy was being released. Heat energy was actually being released. It is this heat energy that prevented the temperature from continuing to cool once the temperature reached 32 F. The way to think of this is that the heat energy does not warm the temperature but rather stops the cooling. The cooling that would have occurred is perfectly offset by the latent heat energy release and thus the temperature remains constant."
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 2, 2016 19:41:39 GMT
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. Andrew again you are showing that you do not understand latent heat. The water molecules in a vapor have the same kinetic energy on average as the surrounding air i.e. they are at the same temperature. It is as they condense that 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 latent heat is energy carried within the water molecules that is not their kinetic energy of the molecule so they are at the same temperature as the surrounding air. When the latent heat is released it can become kinetic energy of the molecules surrounding the water molecule and thus increase the temperature of the volume of air. That volume is then warmer and continues the convection. This Understanding Latent Heat may assist. The volume of air that is rising is getting colder. You know already there is a dry and a wet adiabatic lapse rate. Ie temperatures decline as the pressure decreases but wet air declines in temperature less quickly >>When the latent heat is released it can become kinetic energy of the molecules surrounding the water molecule and thus increase the temperature of the volume of air. That volume is then warmer and continues the convection. If you contain a volume of air and take it higher it becomes colder. If you cool a volume of air it falls in temperature until the phase change begins, stabilises and then falls in temperature. How are you causing the latent heat to be released during the cooling process so you can observe warming of the volume of air that is being cooled? Please describe a simple experiment to explain what you mean. >>This Understanding Latent Heat may assist. "3. Condensation releases latent heat. This causes the temperature of a cloud to be warmer than it otherwise would have been if it did not release latent heat." I suggest you think about that text and keep thinking about it until you realise it is saying exactly what I am saying. If you understand that text correctly there is no warming involved at all. The rising air gets colder, but is not as cold as it would have been, From the same author here is the text that Numerouno showed to icefisher 3 years ago theweatherprediction.com/habyhints2/468/"When water freezes it gives up some of the water's energy. This energy that is given up is the latent heat of freezing. When the water was freezing latent heat of freezing energy was being released. Heat energy was actually being released. It is this heat energy that prevented the temperature from continuing to cool once the temperature reached 32 F. The way to think of this is that the heat energy does not warm the temperature but rather stops the cooling. The cooling that would have occurred is perfectly offset by the latent heat energy release and thus the temperature remains constant." So he is saying the latent heat energy release is perfectly offsetting the cooling that would have occured. So he believes like I believe, there is no spare heating energy available to heat things other than what 0C water can heat. No spare heating greater than what is available from 0C water is available because there is a perfect offset of the cooling that would have occured
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 2, 2016 13:32:00 GMT
Nautonnier, what percentage of the latent heat do you believe is released as IR photons? And then can you post the link to the information from NOAA where they admit that the electical generation stems from the latent heat? Nautonnier, I'm still awaiting an answer to these questions Duwayne you have misunderstood the electrical generation comment. It was just a comparison of the amount of latent heat energy that does get "released" into the atmosphere, with the amount of power generated by the usual electricity generation methods
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 2, 2016 7:59:38 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.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 2, 2016 7:14:56 GMT
Just for the record. My comment in red: Not sure why you posted this but using your own chart shows Sigurdur is correct. At the moment I am not that motivated to spend money to enable people to realise that when freezing water is cooled by a colder environment it produces fewer BTU's per instant of time than warmer water produces when being cooled by the colder environment. As Numerouno pointed out, no novel heating techniques for home heating can be created by freezing water, no puffs of warm air can be created as ice freezes and so forth. As can be clearly seen on the above chart, freezing ice (black line) is providing more energy per unit time than water would without freezing (red line). A diverting strawman. That produces the puff of warmer air. Puff of warmer air??? When you lost this argument before you decided to insert the words "than warmer air". Obviously Andrew do you take us for a bunch of morons? Nobody ever said that the heat emitted by ice was more than "hotter" water another strawman, people are not talking about ice emitting more BTU's per second but rather the act of water freezing when it forms ice you just did one of your patented attempts at strawman Sigurdur is claiming freezing water produces more BTU's per instance of time, than warmer water and he says that is why the temperature stabilises at 0C and Icefisher is supporting him, talking about puffs of warmer air when water freezes, and falsely accusing me of changing goal posts. Meanwhile this whole sorry saga began with this: Yes, fine, I can definitely see no cooling. this is the time of year when you start seeing heat spikes in the atmosphere from the release of water heat energy as the water freezes. The following should make it clearer freezing produces fewer btu per second than the warmer water can.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 2, 2016 5:53:13 GMT
I was trying to help with my previous post .... take up its wrongness with North Carolina's State Climate Office. That would be sensible. They could be about to learn a little more about heat exchange from Matthew. Who is Matthew??
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 2, 2016 5:43:34 GMT
[ Snip ]I have now changed the "or a nearby Nitrogen molecule" text to: "or the surrounding 0C atmosphere via radiation" because I was incorrectly mixing macroscopic icey water with a microscopic nitrogen molecule in the same statement. I knew that but I didn't want to butt in to the discussion. But you just did butt in by posting an article about latent heat that is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 2, 2016 5:12:21 GMT
I never did hear back from those biologists even though I got personal replies back from the coordinator and again when I followed it up in september 2015. Just wrote again! This enquiry began in January 2014 However, as the latent heat saga just rolls on and on, and we have yet another incorrect page to deal with, I have written to one of the contributing authors of this latest set of pages who still works at NC University Description of how Latent heat creates cloud bouyancy in K12 Climate pagesaaiyyerXXXXXncsuXXXX Hi Re: climate.ncsu.edu/edu/k12/.lsheatI saw you listed as a contributing author for these K12 climate education pages at NC University This page does not clearly distinquish between latent heat and sensible heat and then goes on to incorrectly say when water vapour cools the released latent heat warms the surrounding atmosphere which creates bouyancy. The release of Latent heat cannot directly produce any sensible heating whatsoever - greater heating was available before condensation began when the water vapour was warmer. The correct view is cooled moist air does not cool as much as the surrounding drier air and therefore it becomes ***relatively warmer*** rather than as the text suggest, latent heat warms the surrounding air by releasing latent heat. Is it possible to have the text changed please? Kind regards Andrew
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 2, 2016 4:45:13 GMT
How many more times do you have to be told I believe latent heat exists? Latent heat is a hidden heat that only manifests itself by the longer time something takes to heat or cool. It provides no sensible heating whatsoever. Freezing water cannot provide sensible heating to a nearby 0C rock via IR radiation, or a nearby Nitrogen molecule in the surrounding atmosphere. These 0C objects are in thermal equilibrium with the freezing water. Please do not keep repeating the same thing you began with. Think about what I am asking you to think about. What!!! You no longer believe backradiation warms stuff!!!! I have now changed the "or a nearby Nitrogen molecule" text to: "or the surrounding 0C atmosphere via radiation" because I was incorrectly mixing macroscopic icey water with a microscopic nitrogen molecule in the same statement.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 2, 2016 3:25:58 GMT
I was learning about latent heat in 1972 If the detecting substrate of an IR detector is 0C it will be heated by water at 0.0000000001C but it will not be heated by icey water at 0C. If the IR detecting substrate is 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001C it will heat the icey water. What you are claiming is against the known principles of heat science going right back to 1804 to Prevosts law of exchanges. >>it does appear that your position is that latent heat does not exist Obviously not. So your claim Andrew is that when water gives up the latent heat of evaporation changing state to liquid from water vapor is that in actual fact no heat is given up by the water molecules - or bluntly - your position is that latent heat does not exist. Is that correct - 'yes or no'? How many more times do you have to be told I believe latent heat exists? Latent heat is a hidden heat that only manifests itself by the longer time something takes to heat or cool. When latent heat is "released" It provides no sensible heating whatsoever. Freezing water cannot provide sensible heating to a nearby 0C rock via IR radiation, or the surrounding 0C atmosphere via radiation. These 0C objects are in thermal equilibrium with the freezing water. Please do not keep repeating the same thing you began with. Think about what I am asking you to think about. I have already demonstrated latent heat text written by climate scientists and biologists is scientifically incorrect even when written by the director of the National Snow and Ice Data centre.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 1, 2016 17:17:47 GMT
Thanks. Are you saying this is a privately held viewpoint in conflict with mainstream science or are you saying this is the mainstream science viewpoint? If you are saying should there be a vote on it then it cannot be a 'science' viewpoint. It was the teaching of the 60's before there was money to be made by altering data. Information was available in books so unlike the Internet era changes and obfuscations could not be made worldwide in a few minutes. If you have a different view on Latent Heat and it does appear that your position is that latent heat does not exist and infrared is quantified as a temperature in degrees F or C; then stop asking questions and present your hypothesis of what happens when water molecules change state. I was learning about latent heat in 1972 If the detecting substrate of an IR detector is 0C it will be heated by water at 0.0000000001C but it will not be heated by icey water at 0C. If the IR detecting substrate is 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001C it will heat the icey water. What you are claiming is against the known principles of heat science going right back to 1804 to Prevosts law of exchanges. >>it does appear that your position is that latent heat does not exist Obviously not.
|
|