|
Post by Andrew on Oct 1, 2016 16:46:57 GMT
You have not answered my question. If we are observing water vapour cooling at a constant rate using an IR detector, does the rate of IR detection increase as water condenses? Yes or No? Again you ask a question that does not have sufficient information. But I will play the game and see where you want to take it. As a volume of humid air cools the number of molecules of water condensing (assuming sufficient condensation nuclei and no other perturbation) will start to increase reach a peak then reduce. Each will emit latent heat of condensation. Therefore, I would expect to see the same pattern in IR radiation an increase to a peak then a reduction. What additional information does my question require??
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 1, 2016 5:16:04 GMT
Bullshit and I spent months with you while you played the exact same stupid game years ago so you could avoid admitting what you said was wrong. We were looking at falling temperatures over a week or so, and then they go up suddenly, and you claim that is caused by water freezing. Next thing you are talking about exothermic reactions and Magellan is linking to badly written farming articles. Well Andrew if you admit that zero c air can warm 60 c air that opens the possibility that latent heat of fusion is responsible for the heat spikes in the Arctic. And I will remind you that what I said was it was only a possibility that latent heat was responsible. And I recall saying at the time that NSIDC attributed cool summer temperatures to the absorption of the latent heat of fusion as ice melts so why not it being possible for the spikes to be from the release of latent heat of fusion as ice freezes. A latent heat polynya is an opening in the ice whereby freezing is occurring and as the ice goes through a slushy partly frozen state it is blown by the winds down wind and this slush is pushed below the surface melting and cooling the water instead of the atmosphere and allowing for more and more freezing to go on in a relatively small area. It operates a lot like your refrigeration equipment operates using the wind to power the engine. Its emitting heat via the heat of fusion into the air, getting pushed under water where it melts absorbing heat from the water, resurfacing to freeze again and warm the air more, sinking and melting absorbing more heat from the water, surfacing and releasing that latent heat. What it is is a large engine cooling the ocean and warming the air except thats it random if the same water circulates back up to the surface or its other ocean water ready to emit its latent heat of fusion into the air as it freezes. Which ever it is doesn't matter. You claimed that was impossible but to be impossible then 0C airs can not warm -60 degree airs. Your argument of falling temperatures for a week does not wash because a polynya's are openings in the ice often created via offshore winds that can bring a lot of latent heat into the atmosphere. Your argument of weeks on end of super cold temperatures only holds water if nothing else changes, but thats not the way of the world. There is more going on than a simplistic cold frozen arctic statically freezing ice daily at exactly the same rate. Now you never did point out anything wrong with the farming articles and the discussion went on about that until you were calling all the farmers using latent heat to protect their crops as being a bunch of superstitious suckers. Now you claim it was a single badly written article. But in the process of the discussion many articles were introduced and you naysayed on all of them. You even got on the horn to NSIDC to dispute something they wrote as being wrong. As I recall they were polite to you as would be expected but they didn't do anything with any of your corrections to their article either. I find great satisfaction as I have watched your learning though over the course of these discussions and you get a little smarter as time goes on. . . .and so no doubt do I as I find your naysaying an inspiration to learn more about these topics and question some of the stuff I have doubts about. If it weren't for that reason I would not be engaging in those discussions at all. Lets just say I don't have a sensitive ego over being questioned and enjoy either answering the question or going and learning it then answering the question. 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. You can have the final word. I am too old to deal with your inability to admit you said something stupid and there is no way you are going to sucker me back into any more of your idiot games, where you invent what I said and did, so you can produce pages of off topic face saving distractions.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 1, 2016 4:43:23 GMT
Why do you need to bring in the complication of supercooling when I have no idea what you are talking about and we are talking about one of the simplest ideas imaginable?? Water vapour has a temperature. Water has a temperature. The phase change has a temperature. Why can you not answer my question number 2 as written?? I will ask you again. Are you claiming even though the temperature does not fall, as the phase change begins, that there is an increase in IR? Please answer this yes or no Why does that question have to be rewritten?? What are you claiming is true that is beyond me to understand?? What you do not appear to understand is water is carrying energy as latent (meaning it is hidden) heat (energy that is not related to temperature). So as the molecules begin to align into ice they give up the hidden heat and the temperature does not change (initially) but photons of heat are radiated. So as I said before _yes_ you will see IR photons from the water as the hidden heat is released ass the water molecules progressively change phase to ice Do NOT confuse these IR photons released from latent heat with those released from your lead bar which follow Stefan Boltzmann subject to emissivity will radiate in a ratio of the 4th power of the temperature of the lead. You have not answered my question. If we are observing water vapour cooling at a constant rate using an IR detector, does the rate of IR detection increase as water condenses? Yes or No?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 30, 2016 21:08:47 GMT
Sigh, The farmers articles were making unscientific claims and Sigurdur was supporting those articles with his stupid 'the farmers would not be using water if it did not work' How many more times does this have to be explained to you people? >>So the freezing of water can only produce heat spikes in mean airs well below the level of freezing, Oh my God. Surely to god you are not still peddling this monsterously stupid idea of cooling creating heat spikes? ? We were looking at falling temperatures over a week or so and then they go up suddenly and you claim that is caused by water freezing. Next thing you are talking about exothermic reactions and Magellan is linking to badly written farming articles. I honestly do not have the strength to go through all of that monunmental stupidity another time. I thought we had moved on from those dark days............... So now we have the claim from Andrew that water at zero degrees cannot warm water at -60 degrees Bullshit and I spent months with you while you played the exact same stupid game years ago so you could avoid admitting what you said was wrong. We were looking at falling temperatures over a week or so, and then they go up suddenly, and you claim that is caused by water freezing. Next thing you are talking about exothermic reactions and Magellan is linking to badly written farming articles.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 30, 2016 19:53:45 GMT
Correction for you. The only thing that was bogus on the crop protection thread was the logic used. I will now say for the 21st time farmers are using water because it works. The question however is how does it work? That was always the question ever since you said the temperature spike in the arctic atmosphere in september was due to water freezing. All you had to say at the time was yeah sure it was a silly thing to say. Instead you have been chasing me for years because of your error. Yeah right Andrew. So why were you calling the farmers stupid? Additionally, I have never said that the freezing of water can raise the mean temperature of the envirnoment above the temperature of the water freezing. . . .0C. And you never see heat spikes except when the temperatures are several degrees below freezing and you never see any large spikes that extend above the level of freezing. So the freezing of water can only produce heat spikes in mean airs well below the level of freezing, unless you think that there is some physical law that prevents 0C airs from warming -60C airs. Sigh, The farmers articles were making unscientific claims and Sigurdur was supporting those articles with his stupid 'the farmers would not be using water if it did not work' How many more times does this have to be explained to you people? >>So the freezing of water can only produce heat spikes in mean airs well below the level of freezing, Oh my God. Surely to god you are not still peddling this monsterously stupid idea of cooling creating heat spikes? ? We were looking at falling temperatures over a week or so and then they go up suddenly and you claim that is caused by water freezing. Next thing you are talking about exothermic reactions and Magellan is linking to badly written farming articles. I honestly do not have the strength to go through all of that monunmental stupidity another time. I thought we had moved on from those dark days...............
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 30, 2016 19:47:54 GMT
Andrew you are asking multipart questions based on false assumptions and say answer yes or no. Photon release from water changing state is not proportional to temperature. I see no relevance to discussing photon release from lead as it has nothing to do with the atmosphere and I have not studied it but I would presume that for a substance that does not change state there may be some kind of proportionality although it may well not be linear. I shall reword that to "When there is a phase change (condensation or freezing) in an unchanging ambient temperature does water emit the latent heat of that state change?" Yes You must realize that IR does not have a "temperature" an IR photon is heat energy. If water vapor is supercooled it can be well below freezing and a minor disturbance or a condensation nucleus can trigger a change of state to ice. The energy emitted by the water vapor is the latent heat of condensation and fusion. Unless that emitted heat is absorbed it does not raise ambient atmospheric temperature, it is not affected by Stefan Boltzmann equations. Why do you need to bring in the complication of supercooling when I have no idea what you are talking about and we are talking about one of the simplest ideas imaginable?? Water vapour has a temperature. Water has a temperature. The phase change has a temperature. Why can you not answer my question number 2 as written?? I will ask you again. Are you claiming even though the temperature does not fall, as the phase change begins, that there is an increase in IR? Please answer this yes or no Why does that question have to be rewritten?? What are you claiming is true that is beyond me to understand??
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 30, 2016 18:50:56 GMT
let me try to tie it together a little. It seems Naut and Andrew are still on a bit different chain of thought. We had a great deal of discussion about this in the crop protection thread that Andrew still thinks is bogus. What Andrew is saying isn't how much energy is released due to the condensation of one gram of water, what he is asking is how fast will that gram of water condense. And that is related as near as I can tell to the difference between the kinetic energy level of the water molecule and the thing it is radiated at. . . .not the temperature of the parcel of air. . . .where kinetic energy emissions of the water molecule have not yet caught up with the adiabatic cooling of the air which is a process that gives out zero energy. So what we see from the satellite is the "effective temperature" of the radiation and not the temperature of the air. . . .and since all this radiation is going to space it probably does not fully account for all the radiation being emitted by the water vapor condensing into water as some of that may be absorbed by colder molecules surrounding the condensing water. So Andrew has a thread of truth in his thought process regarding the "rate" at which the water vapor is condensing being linked to temperatures surrounding the water vapor, which obviously from the satellite picture a vast amount of those surroundings must be the temperature of outerspace. What is new here is that rate of emissions is a lot higher than what one would expect the air parcel should be emitting based upon its ambient temperature and that is explained by the gap between the kinetic energy in the water vapor that was not lost by adiabatic cooling. Correction for you. The only thing that was bogus on the crop protection thread was the logic used. I will now say for the 21st time farmers are using water because it works. The question however is how does it work? That was always the question ever since you said the temperature spike in the arctic atmosphere in september was due to water freezing. All you had to say at the time was yeah sure it was a silly thing to say. Instead you have been chasing me for years because of your error.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 30, 2016 18:05:10 GMT
I will ask you again since the answers you have given are not answering my questions. 1. Are you claiming photon release is not proportional to temperature? This question has nothing specifically to do with latent heat. For example does a lump of lead produce photons proportional to temperature? 2. Are you claiming even though the temperature does not fall, as the phase change begins, that there is an increase in IR? Please answer this yes or no 1. Photons output due to emission of latent heat of phase change are not proportional to temperature. It _is_ specifically to do with latent heat. Photons emitted due to heating a metal to a 'red heat' are obviously proportional to temperature. Latent heat of phase change is NOTHING to do with temperature and is a fixed value (Latent heat of fusion of a gram of water ~ 334 joules; vaporization ~2,230 joules). So if you drop a gram of liquid water into liquid nitrogen it will emit 334 joules of heat, if you slowly let it cool in an ice cube tray in the refrigerator it will emit 334 joules of heat, if liquid water in an updraft in a hurricane ends in ambient air of -55C a gram will emit 334 joules of heat. Latent heat of a particular state change is constant and is measured in joules. It therefore follows that the more water changing state the more IR is emitted. 2 If there is a phase change that results in emission of a photon that has nothing to do with ambient temperature. So yes a photon is emitted by a molecule of water changing state. We are talking at crossed purposes. Yes I know the latent heat amount is a fixed quantity. Can you please answer my questions without talking about latent heat being a fixed quantity of heat so I can be clear what it is you are claiming is true. Can you also talk about the lead without it being heated to a red heat. Does lead produce photons proportional to temperature? Please do not elaborate on your answer to 2. Just tell me yes or no or tell me the question cannot be answered as yes or no and give a reason. Please look at my questions and give me answers to what I am asking you rather than what you might think I am asking you. Question 1 is not asking you anything specifically about latent heat whatsoever. So please do not include anything about latent heat in your answer.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 30, 2016 17:31:46 GMT
I will ask you again since the answers you have given are not answering my questions. 1. Are you claiming photon release is not proportional to temperature? This question has nothing specifically to do with latent heat. For example does a lump of lead produce photons proportional to temperature? 2. Are you claiming even though the temperature does not fall, as the phase change begins, that there is an increase in IR? Please answer this yes or no This might help: Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation generated by the thermal motion of charged particles in matter. All matter with a temperature greater than absolute zero emits thermal radiation. When the temperature of a body is greater than absolute zero, inter-atomic collisions cause the kinetic energy of the atoms or molecules to change. This results in charge-acceleration and/or dipole oscillation which produces electromagnetic radiation, and the wide spectrum of radiation reflects the wide spectrum of energies and accelerations that occur even at a single temperature. So my reading of that is that it is the kinetic energy that determines the radiation rate, not the temperature. I would venture to conclude that a variation in the kinetic energy from temperature is only something you see in gases. . . .but I could well be wrong about that. It seems though likely convecting gases are the only place you see wide disparities within a single element. though thinking further this might be a smaller feature of liquids that might help some of the strange behaviors of water. >>my reading of that is that it is the kinetic energy that determines the radiation rate, not the temperature Nautonnier is basically correct that temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy of the molecules, however for some time now we also know some of the temperature energy is not held as a vibrational energy but is stored non-vibrationally.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 30, 2016 16:56:41 GMT
A little clarification. Looking at SSTs for the region of the map they are near 30C maybe 85F so their is some cooling occurring before emission high in the atmosphere but a small amount in comparison to the adiabatic cooling. Looking outside of the hurricane convection zone the temps are about 21C or 70F. These are also cloud tops condensing heat and the heat released does not correspond to air temperature at that altitude where condensation is occurring. I think all this very clearly demonstrates what Naut is saying. What is Nautonnier saying? I still do not know what he believes is true. Are we talking energy beams during the phase change?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 30, 2016 16:46:39 GMT
What actually are you claiming is true? 1. Are you claiming photon release is not proportional to temperature? 2. Are you claiming even though the temperature does not fall, as the phase change begins, that there is an increase in IR? Otherwise what on Earth do you mean by this text?? >>when water vapor changes state to liquid and liquid changes state to ice then the molecules emit a photon 1. The latent heat of condensation and latent heat of fusion do not vary with ambient air temperature. 2. For any one molecule the phase change is effectively instant. The more molecules change the more latent heat is released. You appear to have a problem with heat and temperature again. Heat energy in a photon has no temperature and is measured in joules. Heat energy cannot be measured as a 'temperature' degrees F/C/K until something absorbs it and the energy transforms into kinetic or vibrational energy which is what temperature is. I will ask you again since the answers you have given are not answering my questions. 1. Are you claiming photon release is not proportional to temperature? This question has nothing specifically to do with latent heat. For example does a lump of lead produce photons proportional to temperature? 2. Are you claiming even though the temperature does not fall, as the phase change begins, that there is an increase in IR? Please answer this yes or no
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 30, 2016 16:37:04 GMT
I think it is more likely the calculation I provided only applies to a pixel range of 0-255 whereas the image we are looking at has a much lower range. LOL! Your incorrect world view is taking over your mind Andrew. You produced the formula for determining the temperature of the radiation from NOAA. I shall remind you of what you quoted from NOAA. In an infrared (IR) image cold clouds are high clouds, so the colors typically highlight the colder regions. The bar on the right side of the image indicates the pixel brightness values for the corresponding color. The intensity value represents emitted infrared radiation. The intensity of a pixel is recorded as a digital number (for example, in these images the numbers range from 0 to 255.) You can determine temperatures using one of the formulas below: If B > 176, T = 418 - B; or if B <= 176, T = 330 - (B/2) As you can clearly see Andrew the formula is designed to calculate temperature from the brightness values. . . .and yet you want to pretend it isn't that now because it conflicts with your world view (religion). Right so you think that big red rotating object is the land or sea rather than the top of a storm system tens of thousands of feet in the air and you want me to believe the temperatures I calculated are correct.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 30, 2016 16:11:04 GMT
If you do not see the illogicality of your statements then we may as well stop here. Temperature of a gas is the average kinetic energy of its molecules which is the macroscopic average of microscopic events. A satellite cannot see that. When radiative gases have enough energy they will emit an infrared photon, when water vapor changes state to liquid and liquid changes state to ice then the molecules emit a photon - the satellites _ can_ see the infrared photons. The satellites see photons not temperature. actually i think they do see temperature but not of the parcel of air. The 27c the satellite is reading at maybe 30 to 50 thousand feet is about what the surface temperature of the water was so despite a moist lapse rate temperature drop of -45c to -75c respectively the actual energy drop was near nothing for the water vapor reaching its condensation altitude via the adiabatic process. uh do i have that right naut? I think it is more likely the calculation I provided only applies to a pixel range of 0-255 whereas the image we are looking at has a much lower range.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 30, 2016 15:48:54 GMT
when water vapor changes state to liquid and liquid changes state to ice then the molecules emit a photon What actually are you claiming is true? 1. Are you claiming photon release is not proportional to temperature? 2. Are you claiming even though the temperature does not fall, as the phase change begins, that there is an increase in IR? Otherwise what on Earth do you mean by this text?? >>when water vapor changes state to liquid and liquid changes state to ice then the molecules emit a photon
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 30, 2016 11:44:37 GMT
You are muddling up ideas. When water vapour condenses or water freezes these events associated with cooling cause the environment in their vicinity to be warmer than if those events had not occured. We are therefore talking about temperature differences, where it is more cold elsewhere, rather than energy beams. www.goes.noaa.gov/ECIR4.html"In an infrared (IR) image cold clouds are high clouds, so the colors typically highlight the colder regions. The bar on the right side of the image indicates the pixel brightness values for the corresponding color. The intensity value represents emitted infrared radiation. The intensity of a pixel is recorded as a digital number (for example, in these images the numbers range from 0 to 255.) You can determine temperatures using one of the formulas below:
If B > 176, T = 418 - B; or if B <= 176, T = 330 - (B/2)
Note that the resulting temperatures are in Kelvin."So the warmest temperatures shown in white on your gif www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/TROP/floaters/14L/imagery/rb_lalo-animated.gifAre K = 330 - (61.5/2) which is about 27C and the coldest is K = 330 - (72.5/2) which is about 21C Andrew this is interesting, do you really believe that the latent heat of fusion of water alters dependent on the ambient conditions? Which is what your mathematically but not logically supported claims are. And yes an unabsorbed IR photon does not raise temperature as temperature is kinetic energy in a gas and a photon is not kinetic energy. It seems you have a fundamental problem of confusion of 'heat energy' and temperature. I do not understand what you are saying to me. >>do you really believe that the latent heat of fusion of water alters dependent on the ambient conditions? Why do you believe I am saying the latent heat of fusion of water alters? >>Which is what your mathematically but not logically supported claims are. What do you mean by my mathematically supported claims? Do you mean the GOES temperature estimation method from their web page? >>an unabsorbed IR photon does not raise temperature as temperature is kinetic energy in a gas and a photon is not kinetic energy. To make sense of what is happening we need to consider the substance macroscopically and microscopically. You are looking at a single photon so you are looking at it microscopically, while simultaneously talking about the temperature of the gas which is a macroscopic view. Macroscopically, for any given temperature there are so many emissions and so many absorptions. Microscopically, all emissions are cooling and all absorptions are heating. Macroscopically, immediately prior to water vapour condensing there are more emissions than once the phase change begins - more emissions because the water vapour is cooling towards the condensation temperature and is therefore hotter. >>an unabsorbed IR photon does not raise temperature as temperature is kinetic energy in a gas and a photon is not kinetic energy You are simultaneously taking the microscopic event of the photon, while talking about the macroscopic temperature of the gas. You cannot do that and create any sensible meaning. Microscopically that photon caused a cooling event but we would need to look at the macroscopic picture to know how temperature of the larger mass was changing.
|
|