TakeYouToTasker Posted December 31, 2013 Posted December 31, 2013 this is something I've been wondering about, because one of the fundamentals of thermodynamics is that warm water should rise, not sink. besides, how can water absorb heat from the atmosphere and store it in pockets deep under the surface without that heat dissipating?
Keukasmallies Posted December 31, 2013 Posted December 31, 2013 Warming, cooling, warming, cooling been happening for millions of years. I'm waiting for the definitive science that ties specific man-made causation to the cycle...and waiting...and waiting.
DC Tom Posted December 31, 2013 Posted December 31, 2013 this is something I've been wondering about, because one of the fundamentals of thermodynamics is that warm water should rise, not sink. besides, how can water absorb heat from the atmosphere and store it in pockets deep under the surface without that heat dissipating? Water is thermodynamically weird, though. Seriously...there's an immediate Nobel Prize in Physics waiting for the first person to explain how water freezes. Which is not to say that "the excess heat is stored in the deep ocean" is correct...just to say that you shouldn't rule it out just because water acts a certain way at standard temperature and pressure. It might act a completely different way under deep ocean pressures (I could look it up...but God, did I hate those equations of state.)
Azalin Posted December 31, 2013 Posted December 31, 2013 Water is thermodynamically weird, though. Seriously...there's an immediate Nobel Prize in Physics waiting for the first person to explain how water freezes. I always thought that water solidified in the same manner that any liquid will solidify when reduced to the necessary temperature, except that water will expand as it freezes as opposed to other liquids, which contract as they solidify. and let's not even mention superfluidity.
4merper4mer Posted December 31, 2013 Posted December 31, 2013 Seriously...there's an immediate Nobel Prize in Physics waiting for the first person to explain how water freezes. When water is surrounded by cold air it gets less liquidy and more solid until it eventually is all solid.
B-Man Posted December 31, 2013 Posted December 31, 2013 When water is surrounded by cold air it gets less liquidy and more solid until it eventually is all solid. Congrats...............
4merper4mer Posted December 31, 2013 Posted December 31, 2013 Congrats............... Sweet. I can't believe nobody else ever figured that out.
3rdnlng Posted December 31, 2013 Posted December 31, 2013 Sweet. I can't believe nobody else ever figured that out. Don't fool yourself, there was a former performer here that was just as smart as you.
DC Tom Posted December 31, 2013 Posted December 31, 2013 I always thought that water solidified in the same manner that any liquid will solidify when reduced to the necessary temperature, except that water will expand as it freezes as opposed to other liquids, which contract as they solidify. and let's not even mention superfluidity. The problem comes in where water and ice can coexist at the exact same temperature...which means the equations of state have a complete discontinuity at that temperature and pressure, which no one can figure out why (which also probably happens for other fluids). And water also expands as it cools from 37 to 32 degrees F, which no one can really explain, either. Water is just strange, basically. Superfluidity is easy by comparison.
Azalin Posted January 1, 2014 Posted January 1, 2014 The problem comes in where water and ice can coexist at the exact same temperature...which means the equations of state have a complete discontinuity at that temperature and pressure, which no one can figure out why (which also probably happens for other fluids). And water also expands as it cools from 37 to 32 degrees F, which no one can really explain, either. Water is just strange, basically. Superfluidity is easy by comparison. I guess what we have here is a clear illustration of exactly where my understanding of thermodynamics ends, and further reading is required. I remember in my more youthful years working in kitchens, filling deep fryers with oil to the fill-line, then turning the machine on and watching the oil rise above the line as it heated. My dad used to partially drain our swimming pool and hang rows of empty milk jugs & clorox bottles containing gravel as ballast by strings across the width of the pool, so that the ice would expand inward on the plastic jugs instead of outward onto the walls of the pool. Things like this fascinated me as a kid, but I never really formally studied thermodynamics....the closest to that I ever did was reading Einstein's writings on Brownian motion. If superfluidity is simple by comparison, then I'll never get it. This forces me to accept TYTT's aliens postulation.
TheMadCap Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 (edited) The problem comes in where water and ice can coexist at the exact same temperature...which means the equations of state have a complete discontinuity at that temperature and pressure, which no one can figure out why (which also probably happens for other fluids). And water also expands as it cools from 37 to 32 degrees F, which no one can really explain, either. Water is just strange, basically. Superfluidity is easy by comparison. Even more simply, water's maximum thermal density is 4 degrees Celsius, not zero. So as water gets colder it gets actually gets lighter, quite unlike almost a every other substance. This is why fish survive in lakes during the winter, because the lake doesn't freeze bottom to top. This has very important implications for the formation of life on Earth... Edited January 3, 2014 by TheMadCap
4merper4mer Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 Even more simply, water's maximum thermal density is 4 degrees Celsius, not zero. So as water gets colder it gets actually gets lighter, quite unlike almost a every other substance. This is why fish survive in lakes during the winter, because the lake doesn't freeze bottom to top. This has very important implications for the formation of life on Earth... Let's let a Nobel prize winner handle this instead of you schlubs barking up the wrong tree. You will find that if you isolated a single molecule of water, it would act like any other substance when it freezes. The difference is that water is the most social of all the molecules, and in inter-molecule scenarios, this shows itself. At certain temperatures, the hydrogens are perfectly happy splitting their time making love to the Oxygen, but as things slow down, they begin to desire more of a family life. This is sort of like a guy getting into his 30s or a woman wanting to have commitment. It is still scientifically unclear, whether the hydrogen is the dude or the chick, but I think it is the chick. Anyway, when there is a lot of water together, the dance first plays itself out intra-molecule. The two hydrogens begin to compete for the oxygen instead of being happy in a threesome. As one of the hydrogen begins to win and the other finally realizes its fate, it tries to leave the molecule for a neighboring oxygen. This never works and as the hydrogen gets further away, the density of the molecule decreases because it has a larger volume. Then wham, it is either 32 degrees or 0 degrees depending on where the water is living and it is too late to move any more. Other molecules don't do this because they are either monogamous or it is like one big orgy.
Azalin Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 Let's let a Nobel prize winner handle this instead of you schlubs barking up the wrong tree. You will find that if you isolated a single molecule of water, it would act like any other substance when it freezes. The difference is that water is the most social of all the molecules, and in inter-molecule scenarios, this shows itself. At certain temperatures, the hydrogens are perfectly happy splitting their time making love to the Oxygen, but as things slow down, they begin to desire more of a family life. This is sort of like a guy getting into his 30s or a woman wanting to have commitment. It is still scientifically unclear, whether the hydrogen is the dude or the chick, but I think it is the chick. Anyway, when there is a lot of water together, the dance first plays itself out intra-molecule. The two hydrogens begin to compete for the oxygen instead of being happy in a threesome. As one of the hydrogen begins to win and the other finally realizes its fate, it tries to leave the molecule for a neighboring oxygen. This never works and as the hydrogen gets further away, the density of the molecule decreases because it has a larger volume. Then wham, it is either 32 degrees or 0 degrees depending on where the water is living and it is too late to move any more. Other molecules don't do this because they are either monogamous or it is like one big orgy. holy crap.....you're like Bill Nye, only smart.
TheMadCap Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 Let's let a Nobel prize winner handle this instead of you schlubs barking up the wrong tree. You will find that if you isolated a single molecule of water, it would act like any other substance when it freezes. The difference is that water is the most social of all the molecules, and in inter-molecule scenarios, this shows itself. At certain temperatures, the hydrogens are perfectly happy splitting their time making love to the Oxygen, but as things slow down, they begin to desire more of a family life. This is sort of like a guy getting into his 30s or a woman wanting to have commitment. It is still scientifically unclear, whether the hydrogen is the dude or the chick, but I think it is the chick. Anyway, when there is a lot of water together, the dance first plays itself out intra-molecule. The two hydrogens begin to compete for the oxygen instead of being happy in a threesome. As one of the hydrogen begins to win and the other finally realizes its fate, it tries to leave the molecule for a neighboring oxygen. This never works and as the hydrogen gets further away, the density of the molecule decreases because it has a larger volume. Then wham, it is either 32 degrees or 0 degrees depending on where the water is living and it is too late to move any more. Other molecules don't do this because they are either monogamous or it is like one big orgy. I lol'ed...
Nanker Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 holy crap.....you're like Bill Nye, only smart. He (our guy - not Nye) was booked to do global warming lectures on the MV Akademik Shokalskiy but the hippies took off without him because they had to get back to Denver in time for the legal pot sale. They got their just deserts... none of 4mer's wisdom, and a frozen tookus apiece to remember their big planet-saving adventure by.
Azalin Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 He (our guy - not Nye) was booked to do global warming lectures on the MV Akademik Shokalskiy but the hippies took off without him because they had to get back to Denver in time for the legal pot sale. They got their just deserts... none of 4mer's wisdom, and a frozen tookus apiece to remember their big planet-saving adventure by.
B-Man Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 John Kerry Brings the Gospel of Global Warming to the World In the 19th century, European colonists set out across the world with Bibles tucked under one arm and blueprints of European parliamentary government under the other to teach the great unwashed the fundamentals of civilization. Today, Secretary of State John Kerry is continuing that tradition — by preaching the Gospel of Global Warming to the rest of the world. “Shortly after Mr. Kerry was sworn in last February, he issued a directive that all meetings between senior American diplomats and top foreign officials include a discussion of climate change,” reported the New York Times this week. “He put top climate policy specialists on his State Department personal staff. And he is pursuing smaller climate deals in forums like the Group of 20, the countries that make up the world’s largest economies.” {snip} So what exactly is the Obama administration doing about climate? Well, it’s outlawing new coal plants and shutting down old ones, putting tens of thousands of people out of work in impoverished parts of America and endangering what’s left of our country’s manufacturing economy. Lucky for them, the unregulated development of gas and oil on private lands is producing other fossil fuels that can take up some of the slack. (NRDC and other environmental groups are doing everything they can to stop that as well.) But what about nuclear energy, the only non-fossil fuel that has a reasonable chance of replacing coal as the world’s source of base-load electricity? Even James Hansen, the original Paul Revere of global warming, sent a letter to the major environmental groups last November telling them it is pointless to talk about reducing carbon emissions without embracing nuclear power. How are we doing on that? Well, oddly enough, the Vietnamese to whom Kerry was lecturing last week have already signed an agreement with the Russians to start construction on their first reactor in 2014. The South Koreans – who may now be the best nuclear technologists in the world — will be providing $1 million in training and equipment. China just agreed to loan Pakistan $6.5 billion to build a new reactor, with several more planned. The Chinese themselves have 26 reactors under construction. The U.S. did sign an agreement last October to share nuclear technology with Vietnam, but the suspicion in Asia is that we may have done it only to prevent the Vietnamese from developing their own nuclear infrastructure. Right now we are in a prolonged, testy negotiation with Korea trying to prevent them from enriching their own uranium and recycling their spent fuel, even though both technologies are readily available to them. In short, despite the licensing of four new reactors in Georgia and South Carolina, the United States is rapidly falling toward the bottom of the pack in developing nuclear technology. (Germany and Japan are out ahead of us.) We closed down two perfectly good reactors at San Onofre, Calif., in 2012 that had 40 years of life left in them, and more reactors will probably close in the next few years than will be completed. Gregory Jaczko, who served long enough as chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to close down the Yucca Mountain nuclear-fuel depository at the behest of Senate majority leader Harry Reid, is now touring the country saying we should close down all our reactors. So just as the missionaries and colonists of the 19th century eventually learned that the backward masses whom they were attempting to civilize were often the inheritors of civilizations far older than their own, so Secretary of State Kerry may eventually learn that his submissive audiences are not as benighted as he imagines. There are now 72 reactors under construction around the world — four of them are in the United States. Maybe they have something to teach us.
TH3 Posted January 4, 2014 Posted January 4, 2014 Warming, cooling, warming, cooling been happening for millions of years. I'm waiting for the definitive science that ties specific man-made causation to the cycle...and waiting...and waiting. So your dismissing the 99 percent plus of climate scientists who link man made CO2 to climate change? The echo chamber on this thread is defeaning.
B-Man Posted January 4, 2014 Posted January 4, 2014 So your dismissing the 99 percent plus of climate scientists who link man made CO2 to climate change? The echo chamber on this thread is defeaning. Your 99% statement is a lie. or should I say lye. .
DC Tom Posted January 4, 2014 Posted January 4, 2014 So your dismissing the 99 percent plus of climate scientists who link man made CO2 to climate change? The echo chamber on this thread is defeaning. Arguments to authority are unscientific.
Recommended Posts