|
Post by mrsonde on May 22, 2013 11:57:22 GMT 1
No, it doesn't. Please read a physics textbook before making such assertions. It's a basic matter of molecular thermal agitation and Brownian motion. Heat liquid water and its volume expands. Well, I'd be delighted to discuss with you in great depth the properties and behaviour of water. It has many fascinating anomalies - but outside of the phase shifts between ice and liquid and the different forms of ice, contracting upon heating isn't one of them. There are other ways of measurably increasing the density of liquid water, on the other hand - but nothing that applies to this question, I'm afraid. I don't get the relevance of this. It's true that all manner of adjustments are made to achieve a continuous baseline, of course - tides, winds, currents, ocean oscillations, the time of year and phases of the moon, etcetera. Are you saying there's some intractible problem hidden somewhere in this fairly basic methodology?
|
|
|
Post by principled on May 22, 2013 17:05:12 GMT 1
Mr S I've always understood that the density of water does decrease either side of its maximum at 276.984K. Given that, it would be true to say that as the temp of water rises, its density increases until 3.984C is reached. I seem to remember that it is related to the molecular formations that occur as thermal energy is removed and the water turns to a solid. P
|
|
|
Post by buckleymanor1 on May 22, 2013 17:28:36 GMT 1
No you have not grasped what I have said and it is not incorrect. Or maybe you have but won't admit you are wrong. Lets look at your take on the density of water. When it's frozen it's less dense it is expanded. When it's a liquid and heated up it is also less dense and expanded.
So you tell me where between being frozen and less dense and heated up and less dense it is at it's most dense. Come on there must be somewhere between the two states that water is at it's densest.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on May 22, 2013 21:12:13 GMT 1
Mr S I've always understood that the density of water does decrease either side of its maximum at 276.984K. Given that, it would be true to say that as the temp of water rises, its density increases until 3.984C is reached. Liquid water, I said. But actually, even that's not strictly true, if we're going to get ultra-pedantic. There is a form of ice that is denser, at a necessarily much colder temp. There's also a form of liquid water that's even denser, at room temp - actually it's strictly speaking a quasi-crystal. Vicinal water. Mostly that occurs only in living organisms, but theoretically it's perfectly possible to form that in bulk - that's almost certainly how we're going to end the Oil Age, (because in that stae it's extremely simple to split in a chain reaction) when we work out how to do that. Hmmm...no, that's back to front. Water doesn't freeze at 4 degrees - that's why we start the scale at zero! It thaws. The bulk formation does, anyway - actually there are ice structures even in boiling water. Why it's denser just before it thaws is to do with molecular agitation, again - it's merely that in ice the covalent bond struture (ionically arranged in the familiar hexagonal network) strictly limits that movement, and so the density change around the phase shift between solid and liquid (we're talking about very slight differences here) is slightly higher due to small bendings of the hydrogen bonds.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on May 22, 2013 21:18:20 GMT 1
No you have not grasped what I have said and it is not incorrect. ;D Phew, that's a relief. Hey, listen, you believe what you like; I don't care. If you believe the ocean level is falling, and presumably has been since the end of the last glacial, then feel free. What does science matter? Yes, we all know that. Except alan, but never mind him. No one's disagreeing with that point, buckley. What you need to explain is how you move from that piece of everyday knowledge to your claim this must mean the ocean level is falling when it melts. Along the way you have to also account for the measurements over the past two centuries or so that have so fooled everyone who's been making them - how is it that they've all made the mistake of making measurements that are rising? On the face of it, it's a mystery, isn't it? On the other hand, you might just prefer to face up to the possibility that it's you who's got it wrong. No shame in it.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on May 22, 2013 23:47:39 GMT 1
Not just me, but NASA, the International Civil Aviation Organisation, and anyone else whose life or living depends on knowing where they are with respect to the surface of the planet. The intractable problem is that the damn thing isn't stable. Or perhaps you think tsunamis are caused by original sin?
...and anyone else who knows anything about the subject, has actually measured the density of water, conducted experiments on melting and convection, or bothered to read physics textbooks. I would suggest that you peruse Kaye and Laby "Tables of Physics and Chemical Constants" as a reasonably accessible text, but you may be uncomfortable in the presence of facts, so I won't insist.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on May 23, 2013 2:00:45 GMT 1
So for some mysterious reason water is so anomalous that it circumvents the laws of thermodynamics, and its molecules stay in the same place, whatever the heat applied - it's not a liquid at all, but in this respect at least even more solid than the most solid substance ever discovered. Is that right? Okay - as I say, believe what you want, it's no skin off my nose. Between you and me, I'm beginning to think all you extreme lefties have some sort of cot-derived personality disorder. You simply cannot bear reality as it is. There's a bit of cognitive dissonance that must have occurred even to you though. If you're right, why isn't this astonishing fact about the world all over the net? Wiki, for example? Not that I've looked - I don't need to, because I know I'd have read of such a bizarre twist in the laws of physics many times before now! But - you haven't looked either, have you? Else you'd have linked us to all the articles discussing it. Sea level rises a hoax! Arctic ice melt leads to lower oceans!
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on May 23, 2013 10:39:37 GMT 1
My, my! Such arrogance! Such ignorance! Such prejudice! Such inaccuracy! You should be a politician, or a priest, perhaps. Then at least we would know what to expect from you without having to wait for you to make a fool of yourself in writing.
I won't bother to argue with you. Rot in the stench of your delusions.
|
|
|
Post by buckleymanor1 on May 23, 2013 17:33:15 GMT 1
You know you realy are just full of it. Why then has everyone been trying to point this out to you and all you do is reply with this type of comment.
Might have been everyday knowledge to some but certainly not to you. I fail to see any merit in your water research if you don't understand the basics.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on May 25, 2013 19:03:58 GMT 1
My, my! Such arrogance! Such ignorance! Such prejudice! Such inaccuracy! Utter bollocks. All that applies to you, my friend. Fraid so. If not - just give us one link, anywhere, supporting your nonsense. Just one. I'm willing to bet I can find a wiki link in under a minute supporting my analysis. Many more given more time. You give us just one, please. Otherwise - accept that it's you who's being arrogant, and ignorant, and inaccurate. Prejudice - no idea how that comes into it. But then I don't tend to make up claims about what science has found about how the world works according to my political beliefs. You won't "bother" because you can't. You've made a mistake and you don't have the maturity or humility to admit it. You're not a "scientist", alan. You might have somehow managed to get a science degree - that's altogether a different matter. I don't know what you are - some sort of businessman, I gather. By no stretch of the imagination a "scientist". You don't even know what "science" means. You're as much a "scientist" as fascinating is. That is: not at all.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on May 25, 2013 19:16:21 GMT 1
You know you realy are just full of it. No, I don't know. I might, if you simply gave any evidence or link to support your ludicrous claims. Then I might realise I was misinformed. But you can't, because I'm not - you are. Everyone has been trying to point out to me that sea level is falling. But it's not, and it hasn't been for thousands of years. Fool. If you want to disagree with measurements made for hundreds of years, and a thoroughly understood set of physical principles explaining those measurements perfectly adequately, then it's up to you to present a persuasive argument explaining how everyone else has got it wrong. You can't simply say: this is the way I believe it is, and anyone who disagrees with me is full of it, even if it is the enitre scientific community: I'm right, and that's all there is to it! Of course, you'll always be able to find other arrogant ignorant scientific illiterates like alan to agree with you - all that means is that you don't need me to tell you that you're a fool: just look around you to see what company you're sharing. What? That ice is less dense than water? You think there's anyone in the world that hasn't noticed ice floats on water? You're that deluded that you think this is some sort of specialised knowldge, are you?
|
|
|
Post by buckleymanor1 on May 25, 2013 21:41:08 GMT 1
For a start you were disagreeing with the point that water was at it's densest at 4 degrees without a shadow of a doubt.Every one who commented apart from you was in agreement.It was with this realisation that you suddenly decided that maybe you were wrong and decided to call it common knowledge to cover your apparent ignorance. So I ask you for what reason should I inform you or give evidence as to the mechanism by which the sea levels fall with a temperature rise. Even with the evidence it's not likely you will be able or want to understand. These last posts of yours are basically a damage limitation exercise on your behalf with no real interest in the science behind falling sea levells. If you were really interested you can go back over the posts as the evidence has been allready posted.I don't imagine you are capeable nor want to understand this, if you were you would not be asking you would have grasped it first time round.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on May 25, 2013 23:50:06 GMT 1
If not - just give us one link, anywhere, supporting your nonsense. Just one. Well, since you seem not to have the ability or inclination to pick up a standard physics textbook, you could try googling "density of water" and reading the entry in Wikipedia. But I doubt that you will. You could also review my scientific credentials via Google, but I'd hate to puncture your arrogance by giving you chapter and verse in front of our friends here, so I'll take your retraction as read. Don't waste my time with an apology.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on May 26, 2013 5:38:32 GMT 1
For a start you were disagreeing with the point that water was at it's densest at 4 degrees without a shadow of a doubt. Not at all. Go back and read what I've said. Ice is less dense than liquid water - that's your point, right? I certainly haven't disagreed with that trivial point (though I've pointed out that it's not always absolutely true.) You've merely misunderstood. ;D Do try not to be such a complete prat, old chap! Do you seriously believe there is anyone in the Western world over the age of six who does not realise that ice is lighter than water? Well, they don't, it's as simple as that. If you believe they do for some obscure reason to do with ice being less dense than water, you'll have no difficulty finding endless confirmations of this commonplace fact, will you? For my part, I couldn't care less what you believe, or what you want or don't want me to believe; but you're putting forward an extraordinary theory, on an open access public science forum, and you should at least be prepared to provide your readers with some rationale for it. Shouldn't you? As I say, forget about me. It's not a personal matter, is it? What sea levels do or don't do? Oh no - on the contrary. I'm very interested in that matter, and all the related questions to do with global warming. Otherwise I wouldn't be bothering myself addressing your claims. There is no evidence. There can be no evidence. It would contravene fundamental laws of physics. That's not to say such things are impossible: the laws of physics might be wrong, and need revision. But when such "evidence" is discovered, it makes headlines, and generates endless debate, not least in every scientific journal. No such debate has ever occurred, no such evidence has ever been found. Instead, what happens is in accord with what physics tells us will happen. What I've grasped is that you and alan have made a simple mistake, that's all. One that either of you could have corrected in a minute if either of you had the humility or curiosity to do a quick google.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on May 26, 2013 5:54:04 GMT 1
If not - just give us one link, anywhere, supporting your nonsense. Just one. Well, since you seem not to have the ability or inclination to pick up a standard physics textbook, you could try googling "density of water" and reading the entry in Wikipedia. But I doubt that you will. You could also review my scientific credentials via Google, but I'd hate to puncture your arrogance by giving you chapter and verse in front of our friends here, so I'll take your retraction as read. Don't waste my time with an apology. No apology is warranted, alan. It's your knowledge and approach to science I'm questioning, not your "credentials". Someone who believes colours exist in a retina, and denies that water expands when heated! Okay - I'll follow your link. My, my. What's this? Density of water at 1 atm pressure:
Temp (°C) Density (kg/m3) 100 958.4 80 971.8 60 983.2 40 992.2 30 995.6502 25 997.0479 22 997.7735 20 998.2071 15 999.1026 10 999.7026 4 999.9720 0 999.8395 −10 998.117 −20 993.547 −30 983.854 It would appear, to my untrained eyes at least, to be a table confirming my ignorant idea that water expands as it gets warmer! Shome mishtake, shoorly?
|
|