Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by Beth Cooper

November 9, 2012, 12:36 am

≫ Next: Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by Pekka Pirilä

≪ Previous: Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by WebHubTelescope

$

0

0

Joshua,

I taught in housing commision schools fer years and didn’t
take long ter find out that the best thing I could do fer students
was ter give them skills. encourage them ter trust in their own
capacities and discover that learning is worth while. I threw
everything at them, incorporated drama, not really a drama-
music teacher but what the heck, dare ter make mistakes. We
laughed, crashed and got back on our bikes Helping young
people ter become autonomous is the best thing yer can do fer
them.

And do yer think, Joshua, that people here on Judith’s site don’t
know about living on the littoral? Many here are likely ter be
untenured, out there risk – takers, some self made men
and women.

---

Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by Pekka Pirilä

November 9, 2012, 12:43 am

≫ Next: Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by Chief Hydrologist

≪ Previous: Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by Beth Cooper

$

0

0

Lowering the pressure low enough water evaporates but that does not happen without energy being taken by evaporation. The resulting gas is much colder than the liquid was before evaporation started unless heat is added to the system to compensate for the energy of evaporation.

It’s time that you start to learn some real physics rather than continue to invent your own in your imagination.

Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by Chief Hydrologist

November 9, 2012, 1:11 am

≫ Next: Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by Stephen Wilde

≪ Previous: Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by Pekka Pirilä

$

0

0

ps – I’m waiting for the film noir version.

Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by Stephen Wilde

November 9, 2012, 1:19 am

≫ Next: Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by Edim

≪ Previous: Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by Chief Hydrologist

$

0

0

“Lowering the pressure low enough water evaporates but that does not happen without energy being taken by evaporation”

Of course. That is implicit. But the amount of energy needed by evaporation is pressure dependent.

The resultant gas is colder than the previous liquid because the energy of evaporation was taken from the liquid and diffused into the cold of space.

The energy was released because the reduction of pressure in turn reduced the amount of energy needed to fuel the evaporation to a value below the amount of available energy in the water.

When it gets cold enough any remaining liquid water turns into ice but if the pressure is still declining one gets to the point where the energy required for evaporation is even less than the energy which is contained in the ice so then the ice sublimates directly to vapour until it is all gone.

In the end one just has water vapour molecules floating about in space at the temperature of space with all the previous stored energy having been distributed to the cosmos.

Only pressure had enabled the water to retain its energy in the first place.

Obviously the energy cost of the evaporative process is directly linked to the prevailing pressure and you are wrong as wrong can be.

Are you really a professional scientist ?

Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by Edim

November 9, 2012, 1:25 am

≫ Next: Comment on Systemic thinking on causation by geronimo

≪ Previous: Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by Stephen Wilde

$

0

0

Nice projecting. Again, you said:

“The earth does not have an outlet valve, save for the infrared radiative vent provided by the gray-body that we all live on.”

I agree and add that 90% of that infrared radiative vent is atmospheric radiation and that’s GHGs (and clouds). That’s all.

Comment on Systemic thinking on causation by geronimo

November 9, 2012, 1:30 am

≫ Next: Comment on Systemic thinking on causation by geronimo

≪ Previous: Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by Edim

$

0

0

Was it a category 1. I was under the impression that it wasn’t a hurricane cat landfall and the ferocity of the storm was the result of Sandy meeting a cold front?

Comment on Systemic thinking on causation by geronimo

November 9, 2012, 1:36 am

≫ Next: Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by Chief Hydrologist

≪ Previous: Comment on Systemic thinking on causation by geronimo

$

0

0

So the left broadly opposes pre-empyive wars does it? Would you please define “left” for me else I’ll be forced to fill these pages with lists of pre-emotive wars started by those who I regard to be “left”.

Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by Chief Hydrologist

November 9, 2012, 1:39 am

≫ Next: Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by gbaikie

≪ Previous: Comment on Systemic thinking on causation by geronimo

$

0

0

It happens all the time at transitions between planetary warming and cooling and vice versa.

The instantaneous rate of change is dS/dt – where S is the global energy storage. It can be positive – negative or zero.

dS/dt = Energy in – Energy out

I think Capt Dallas was making a joke.

---

Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by gbaikie

November 9, 2012, 2:00 am

≫ Next: Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by Pekka Pirilä

≪ Previous: Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by Chief Hydrologist

$

0

0

Nice video.
Notice how quickly the water cooled from 90 C to about 60 C.
Notice it wasn’t very good vacuum.
Since it basically stopped boiling and temperature was around 60C,
we know about the pressure it achieved- about 200 Torr:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Water_vapor_pressure_graph.jpg
1 torr = 0.0193367747 pounds per square inch
times 200 is about 3.8 psi.
Mt Everest is about 1/3 of atm or 4.9 psi. And 35,000 feet is
about 3.4 psi. So higher than Mt Everest and lower than 35,000′.

Mars atmosphere’s pressure is around the pressure on Earth at
about 100,000 feet. Or roughly, 1/100th of Earth’s sea level pressure.
So exposed in Mars’ atmosphere it would more rapidly boil and reach around 5 C before it slowed down boiling. Or 90 C water on Mars wouldn’t boil but explode- especially when considering the lower gravity.
Did you notice some of green water that spilled out of container when was rapidly boiling? Less gravity would result more this jumping out of the container- and creating more surface area.
The Moon is much better vacuum than Mars, and with such a vacuum would be similar to Mars but any temperature liquid water boils- so water has freeze. And it requires significant energy to freeze water [therefore more energy to gained for more evaporation/boiling- or exploding:)
Fun.

Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by Pekka Pirilä

November 9, 2012, 2:07 am

≫ Next: Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by Pekka Pirilä

≪ Previous: Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by gbaikie

$

0

0

I believe that it’s time to leave this discussion and give turn to every interested reader (if there still are any) to find the answer from other sources.

Short comments to the above as my last contribution to this thread.

“Lowering the pressure low enough water evaporates but that does not happen without energy being taken by evaporation”

Of course. That is implicit. But the amount of energy needed by evaporation is pressure dependent.

Wrong at the implied level

The resultant gas is colder than the previous liquid because the energy of evaporation was taken from the liquid

Right

and diffused into the cold of space.

?

The energy was released because the reduction of pressure in turn reduced the amount of energy needed to fuel the evaporation to a value below the amount of available energy in the water.

It was released because entropy increases in evaporation when pressure is low enough. Entropy is not the same as energy.

When it gets cold enough any remaining liquid water turns into ice but if the pressure is still declining one gets to the point where the energy required for evaporation is even less than the energy which is contained in the ice so then the ice sublimates directly to vapour until it is all gone.

Right

In the end one just has water vapour molecules floating about in space at the temperature of space with all the previous stored energy having been distributed to the cosmos.

The temperature will be the temperature of the gas (not space) and it remains with the gas (not cosmos).

Only pressure had enabled the water to retain its energy in the first place.

Only pressure made liquid stable as it made the entropy of the liquid lower.

Obviously the energy cost of the evaporative process is directly linked to the prevailing pressure and you are wrong as wrong can be.

Are you really a professional scientist ?

I have retired.

Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by Pekka Pirilä

November 9, 2012, 2:14 am

≫ Next: Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by Stephen Wilde

≪ Previous: Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by Pekka Pirilä

$

0

0

I add a more direct answer for the reason that evaporation occurs when pressure is low. The entropy is a correct answer, but more directly:

The number of molecules exiting the liquid does not depend on the pressure, but the number coming from gas to liquid is proportional to the pressure. The ratio of these determines the net flow of molecules.

Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by Stephen Wilde

November 9, 2012, 2:36 am

≫ Next: Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by Pekka Pirilä

≪ Previous: Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by Pekka Pirilä

$

0

0

Pekka said:

“The number of molecules exiting the liquid does not depend on the pressure, but the number coming from gas to liquid is proportional to the pressure. The ratio of these determines the net flow of molecules.”

The net flow of molecules is therefore pressure dependent.

Isn’t that what I am saying ?

I said:

“Only pressure had enabled the water to retain its energy in the first place.”

Pekka replied:

“Only pressure made liquid stable as it made the entropy of the liquid lower.”

Isn’t ‘making the liquid stable’ the same as ‘retaining its energy’ ?

Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by Pekka Pirilä

November 9, 2012, 2:52 am

≫ Next: Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by Pekka Pirilä

≪ Previous: Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by Stephen Wilde

$

0

0

My comment was incomplete. The pressure I was referring to is the partial pressure of H2O, not the overall atmospheric pressure. That it’s so should have been obvious from the further text.

You have been claiming that the amount of energy taken in evaporation of a fixed amount of material depends on pressure. It doesn’t.

Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by Pekka Pirilä

November 9, 2012, 2:59 am

≫ Next: Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by tempterrain

≪ Previous: Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by Pekka Pirilä

$

0

0

The discussion has got confusing because you bring in totally irrelevant issues related to very low overall pressure and boiling. I don’t know whether you do it by purpose to confuse or whether you cannot yourself stick to relevant issues.

The overall pressure at the ocean surface is always far above the boiling point as I did write many comments ago but that didn’t stop you from keeping on confusing on that point. Is that because you are a lawyer?

Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by tempterrain

November 10, 2012, 3:02 am

≫ Next: Comment on Climate model discussion thread by Erica

≪ Previous: Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by Pekka Pirilä

$

0

0

I just came across this:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2012/11/republicans-consider-welcoming-people-who-believe-in-math-and-science.html?mbid=nl_Borowitz+%2848%29

But, I’m sure its a spoof. Republicans aren’t likely to ever go that far!

---

Comment on Climate model discussion thread by Erica

November 10, 2012, 3:03 am

≫ Next: Comment on Climate model discussion thread by lolwot

≪ Previous: Comment on U.S. Presidential election discussion thread by tempterrain

$

0

0

I did wonder about that. Just another BBC Climate Farce I guess.

On the subject of which, the hopelessly alarmist BBC – a legally privileged recipient of tax funds – has resisted revealing the identities of who the “advisors” it selected give it alarmist arguments, on the grounds that it is a “private” entity. And the mostly unashamedly alarmist judges upheld the decision. A Judicial Climate Farce.

Comment on Climate model discussion thread by lolwot

November 10, 2012, 3:04 am

≫ Next: Comment on Climate model discussion thread by Erica

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate model discussion thread by Erica

$

0

0

Yet Trenberth has since turned out right.

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png

Another case of trying to shoot the messenger?

Comment on Climate model discussion thread by Erica

November 10, 2012, 3:06 am

≫ Next: Comment on Climate model discussion thread by lolwot

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate model discussion thread by lolwot

$

0

0

OK I get it now .lolwot … looking at the temperature trend, is a bad way of assessing the the temperature trend.

Comment on Climate model discussion thread by lolwot

November 10, 2012, 3:07 am

≫ Next: Comment on Climate model discussion thread by lolwot

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate model discussion thread by Erica

$

0

0

<a href="http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/" / rel="nofollow">The oceans are warming</a> The <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/11/short-term-trends-another-proxy-fight/" / rel="nofollow">atmosphere is warming too</a>

Comment on Climate model discussion thread by lolwot

November 10, 2012, 3:08 am

≫ Next: Comment on Climate model discussion thread by lolwot

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate model discussion thread by lolwot

$

0

0

Would you compare last years temperatures to this years and conclude that because it was warmer last year therefore warming has stopped?

I hope not.

The same mistake can still be made with longer periods.