Talk:Water vapor/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Common vs Technical Definition; "Vapor" & "Steam"

I'm not so sure it's right to equate water vapor with steam. At least in the case of "vapor pressure," the word "vapor" implies a gas--not a foggy suspension of droplets, such as steam. I think in common usage steam counts as water vapor, but I'm not so sure about the usage in physics and chemistry. Wherever the article references the phyical chemical constants that apply to water vapor, I think the substance should not be described in way that that does not apply to whatever substance physical chemists mean when they title a column in a book of constants "water vapor" 168...

Common usage of "steam"

It is easy to confuse a condensate with a vapor in saturation: ie. steam. RadarCzar

What Steam Is Technically

168..., The actual physical description of steam may exceed the purpose and nature of this article. Its not merely a description of a vapor, but more of an example of a thermodynamic process. Steam is a gaseous vapor in an excited state and may be in a locally super-saturated state. In other words, collisions are occuring so frequently, that molecules can collide and stick together temporarily. The the psuedo-condensates then fly apart because of their energy levels (temperature). I say 'pseudo' because a vapor condensing can imply an overall temperature exchange. Ok, that can sound like a loose argument, but if steam were a condensate, then it would 'rain' around a boiling pot of water, and not vanish into the air. Of course this is a room temperature process I just described with a very simplified explanation. For a more thorough derivation, look into a book on thermodynamics of gases. Also, steam can occur during sublimation processes at temperatures close to or below freezing. Maybe an article on steam should be written?

As far as my previous comment, there was no blame directed anywhere, just a comment directed at the difficulty in describing steam, clouds, fog, etc. RadarCzar

Also, beware of my term 'temperature exchange', as the energy of the steam comes from kinetic as well as internal energies of the molecules. According to the Equipartition Theorem, energy and temperature are related. And there is an exchange of energy upon collision with other molecules. The molecules involved in this process are Nitrogen, Oxygen, and unseen water vaper all at room temperature and other water molecules at boiling temperature. RadarCzar

Thanks for the elaboration, RadarCzar, which gives me a much better idea where you're coming from. On the other hand, you haven't quite won me over to your choice of wording. I take your point that steam's microdroplets are made from fleeting aggregates of molecules, and your point that there's hot vapor in the mix too, and your point that the atmosphere above the pot is supersaturated with water; but to me all this implies is that above the pot we have a heterogenous phase, one component of which is visible droplets, however short-lived, and yet still it's only the droplets that the ordinary person sees when he or she looks above the pot and calls it "steam" ("steam" is the visible stuff, in common speach is what I think). Meanwhile, I'm sorry I did an instantaneous revert of one of your edits, which I wouldn't have done if I'd seen you were here at the talk page discussing things. Your edit removed content, but you justified it as for the sake of accuracy and to eliminate redundancy, which as I said in the heading of my revert I don't see at all. Would you mind saying what was wrong and repetitive? 168... 00:10, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

I Thought Old Version Much Better

Golly, it's amazing views can differ so much. I thought it was MUCH better before you went to work on it. Unfortunately I don't have time now to go at it. I'd rather just revert, but I guess that's not kosher. 168... 03:40, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ambiguity Issue

But, I also took the phrasing, "...one of three basic states in which water molecules can stably exist en masse and in pure form... " as being ambiguous. RadarCzar

What do you think it might be understood to mean that's wrong? 168... 05:26, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Reversion or Discussion

168..., As you have stated "I'd rather just revert", and done so without discussion or mention of validation, I have edited mercilessly on a point by point basis correcting inaccuracies as I go. I am basing all corrections on the Natural Laws of the Universe. As such, I will not discuss those physical laws on a point by point basis with someone who reverts without realizing their own mistake or first without discussing it in this forum first when the thermodynamics are obviously misunderstood by yourself. But, if you can't tell, I find that annoying. RadarCzar

Yes, I can tell you're annoyed, but you also seem to be criticizing me for things you started, which is to change scientific points without making a case for them. What are these ambiguities you mentioned without spelling them out, for example? You seem to accuse me of simply reverting, when actually I worked painstakingly with what you'd done. The only reverting I did was of specific portions that you had deleted without any real justification (e.g. never spelling out the ambiguities you alleged). You're also acting like you're the only person whose studied thermodynamics around here, which is audacious, not to mention wrong. We're disagreeing about the right way to _simplify_ something and you're assuming that's simply because the person you disagree with is an ignoramus with no idea the truth is more complicated. It may be I'm ignorant about something you have in mind, but show me the courtesy of explaining it. I can tell you right off from looking at your first paragraph that one of our differences of opinion comes down to different senses of the word "state." You obviously understood it in the sense of "equation of state", while I was using it as a plain-speech substitute for the more jargony "phase." In this sense water at it's triple point is three states and not one, as you counted it. We could work such stuff out if you were willing to take the time. 168... 06:26, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Focus on Water Vapor

I think some of this info should be in the water page, and some in the water cycle page. A little more focus on water vapor is needed here.
The "water vapor in the atmosphere" section should stay here, so the info about the size of WV contribution to the greenhouse effect is gathered in one place and umpteen estimates of percent of contribution are not splattered across many other pages. (SEWilco 07:37, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC))

Limit to 3 phases of water

If you mean the recent stuff that goes beyond the 3 phases, I agree. I assume that RadarCzar put that there to make a point, by way of reductio ad absurdum. 168... 22:13, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

First Paragraphs of 2 Versions

I edited:

"Water vapor is the gas phase of water, one of three basic states in which water molecules can stably exist en masse and in pure form (ice and liquid water are the others). The gaseous form is water's thermodynamically stable state at temperatures above 100 °C or 212 °F and at pressures equal to or below standard atmospheric pressure (see water (phase diagram)). Water vapor can be produced either by evaporation or sublimation."

To read:

"Water vapor is the gas phase of water. Ice, solid phase, and water, liquid phase, are the others. Water vapor can be produced either by evaporation or sublimation." RadarCzar

Water Vapor P-T Conditions

The above paragraph I edited is ambiguous because:

it implies water vapor only exists in one region of the P-T graph stably, but that is not true, you should check with a valid P-T phase graph RadarCzar

I disagree. Strictly it implies only that a pure collection of water molecules exists stably in as vapor and in neither of the other two phases under the conditions stated. Is that false? I notice that more or less the same sentence has remained unchanged through your many recent edits. 168...

I came to agree about this point. I'm pasting here my post about that (below). After posting it I made a change to the wording of the article, which reflected my appreciation of the point. It didn't take a big change. 168... 21:16, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ahh. But I see one way I was thinking fuzzily. In my water in the jar example you have pure water in two states in equilibrium, so of course you have two states "stable" under the one condition, it's just the liquid is more stable. So that sentence I wrote does have a problem. 168... 05:54, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Lay Person Audience or Thoroughly Precise Phrasing

"en masse" is jargony and non-specific

I find that a preposterous opinion. So far that's just you against me.168...

"three basic states" implies confusion between macrostates and matter phases or even microstatesRadarCzar

In my case it implied writing for the lay person. I don't think most readers would be confused as you were, and I don't think even the technically versed would suffer more than a momentarily furrowed a brow. Of course, in the process of writing there's a temptation to be a stickler for the technical meanings, which is what I take you to be doing in this case. 168...

==== Purity ====

the topic of purity is non-relevant unless it is defined exactly, it also creates confusion of non-pure states of gas, liquid, and solid phase which exist in the real world RadarCzar

That's another one that's just your opinion against mine so far. "Pure" is a common word that I used in a common sense and I don't see any need for a definition. Perhaps the meaning of the sentence wasn't crystal clear, but calling for an elaborate definition of "purity" seems like a funny way to express that view.168...

Do you mean "pure" as a system of only water molecules?

That's how I took its meaning. RadarCzar

Yep, that's what I meant. So what's the problem?168... 04:03, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

OK, do you mean the phases only exist in pure form of water? RadarCzar

I meant pure water can exist stable as ice, liquid water and water vapor, depending on the circumstances. I'm also happy to admit that dilute aqueous solutions look a lot like liquid water and that sea ice is a lot like ice and that humid air is a lot like water vapor, but I'd belive some caution is appropriate in referring to these mixtures by the name of the pure phases. 168... 04:40, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Visibility of Water Vapor

Concerning the visibility of water vapor--it is visible in high concentrations, RH >90%, and it is still a gas. RadarCzar

What do you mean visible? Do you mean schlieren? Or do you mean the vapor has color and/or opacity? 168...

Steam is a Gas

Also, steam is a gas, otherwise steam engines would not work.RadarCzar

Or steam engines produce not only steam but vapor. When I changed the text to call steam a mixture of vapor and microscopic droplets, you did not object that this is inaccurate.168...

Right, can you analyze steam? RadarCzar

I don't know what you're getting at. Why analyze steam? 168... 21:04, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The article steam and water think that steam is the gas phase of water. The current meanings are that 100% water vapor is "steam", while diluted mixtures of water in air is various concentrations of "water vapor". Or should the meanings be changed for steam being common usage for water vapor under one condition? (SEWilco 05:52, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC))

No, it's not correct to say pure water vapor is steam. Basically, steam is a mixture of liquid and vapor. Mixtures of water vapor in air are, you might say, impure water vapor. Put that air in a jar and, strictly what it contains is a mixed gas. It's "water vapor" only in a manner of speaking. 168... 01:38, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Actually, according to the dictionary "steam" is not a mixture, it's one of two things, either the vapor or the mist, depending on the sense in which it's meant. I or we should have gone to the dictionary sooner. I wouldn't have been so confident though were it not for the explanations of a certain self-described expert, which led me astray. 168... 15:27, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Let's Get Technical

Also, see Gibbs phase rule concerning the state of Triple point. Try not to confuse macrostate, microstate, phase, and degrees of freedom. RadarCzar

See my comments above about "state." As I expected you to understood from my earlier post, I know what the triple point is, and it's more accurate to say that you were confused about the sense in which I meant it, and not I who need a lesson about triple point and technical terms. 168... 02:51, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well? How is one to tell without getting into technical terms? RadarCzar

A reasonable point out of context. But in this context, I had already used a technical term in proposing my theory of how our disagreement rested on two senses of "state." I said you were reading it in the sense of "equation of state." You seem to have accepted my theory of our disagreement, and so I take your reference to additional technical terms as gratuitous and an attempt to establish yourself a) as the author of the theory and b) as the dominant authority on the science, which I found irritating. Thanks for asking. 168... 21:04, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Pressure and Temperature Influence

Perhaps most of the initial paragraph, which is an overly detailed definition of the conditions under which water vapor exists, should be in a "Pressure and Temperature Influence" section. SEWilco 16:47, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I don't think the technicality is excessive given the subject. Would you talk about ice without referencing 0 degrees Celsius? I think it's apt to tell readers in effect when and where they'll find this substance they've come to learn about, and it only takes a couple numbers to do that. I think the average person who dares to ask what "water vapor" is isn't numerophobic. 168... 21:04, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Suggested Changes

(William M. Connolley 10:57, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)) The clouds description is embarrassingly poor and needs improvement sometime.

I suggest striking that because I radically changed the clouds content shortly after that post.168... 21:04, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

No, I don't think this deserves striking...just yet. RadarCzar 23:01, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

So for now let the record state that you consider the parts about clouds embarrassingly poor. I encourage you to have a go at it, since it still bothers you. I did my bit.168.150.238.72 01:23, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Removal of Old Discussion

I struck out material which seems to be no longer needed on this page. Consider whether it should be removed. SEWilco 17:43, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Your choices are fine with me. I guess they don't deserve archiving, although I think that's the custom. 168... 21:04, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

My intent was to archive, then remove strikeouts so the remaining discussions can continue in a less cluttered fashion. By showing the changes people have been making adjustments before alterations. SEWilco

Archived. Old material removed. SEWilco 15:26, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Space Water

I think the material about water vapor in space might be interesting, but I find it unclear and it doesn't seem at all oriented to water vapor. I think it needs some work, but since I don't understand it well, I'll leave that to others.168...

Hmmm, water vapor is not associated to water vapor...are you in some way alluding to say that water molecules are fermions?? RadarCzar 06:36, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I know what fermions are, but not what you're getting at. Anyway, since you seem not to have understood my criticism or request, I made my own changes to fix the problem. As a result, water vapor is now the subject of both paragraphs, whereas it wasn't before. The point the comet paragraph makes about carbon monoxide is a little mysterious for my tastes. I didn't know what kind of measurement you were alluding too, so I couldn't elaborate. (Does CO not emit a signature detectable wavelength, so that you have to deduce its presence from water emission?) Also, I've been forced to assume that this is visible emission you were talking about and not radar measurements (such as are used to observe the shapes of asteroids). It troubles me that the paragraph presents water spectroscopy as if it is the primary or only tool that scientists have to study the chemical composition of comets. Is it really? 168... 23:54, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Should we mention in the articles for each element, chemical, and mineral the fact that it is present in space in various ways? Seems that should be in articles about facets of astronomical physics and chemistry. (SEWilco 06:05, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC))

Civility

I suggest to William M. Connolley that you resist the temptation to characterize other people's written explanations as insane, as you did in the heading of a recent post. It's not civil, and it doesn't teach anything to the allegedly crazed author, assuming you do have something to teach. 168... 01:23, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC) 01:23, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 19:49, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)) I said "try for some sanity" or somesuch. Possibly too provocative: I apologise if I've offended you or anyone else. I *thought* I was objecting to edits made by RadarCzar actually. See below for omre comments.

O.K.. Thanks very much for the apology. I wouldn't still be here if I were really thin-skinned, but I think a little diplomacy makes the place a lot more pleasant and isn't a lot to ask for. 168... 00:01, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Cloud Effect Complexity

I changed "complex" to "warming and cooling," because that made the paragraph more readable. Is that accurate? I suppose clouds also add a lot of heat capacity, so perhaps "warming, cooling and buffering" might be appropriate. If at all possible, I think it's best to avoid "complex" and to be explicit, even if only about the generalities. 168... 01:23, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Actually, "complex" is correct. Clouds, not only shield (mostly), they also blanket (mostly). Heat capacity?? No, the thermal energies are moved vertically and clouds are formed, thus adding more complexity. RadarCzar 06:36, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Actually, if you read me closely, you'll see that I didn't ask whether "complex" is correct. In effect I asked if it's avoidable, or if their isn't some explicit generality or net effect that couldn't be said as well. "Complex" doesn't convey anything concrete to the reader, whereas "blocking" and "insulating" do. Your statement about thermal energies is unintelligible to me. 168... 15:05, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Actually, if you re-read yourself more closely, I was answering your question more closely than the unintelligle response you have given. Especially, concerning the article matter of the time. And complex is absolutely corrrect. So why change it, for idiomatic rhetorical purposes? RadarCzar 05:54, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Alterations Suggestion

I suggest that as issues are resolved, use <s>..</s> to mark items which are believed to be obsolete. Thank you. SEWilco

---

On "reflection"

(William M. Connolley 20:31, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)) The "atmos water" section is very poor. Fortunately, its so obviously poor that it won't confuse too many people. But who reverted to longwave radiation being *reflected* from the earths surface, please don't do this again, its not reflected, its emitted. Good grief.

Good grief indeed. Have you really never heard of "albido" or of "reflectivity"? Do you think the big blue marble that astronauts see when they look back from space is lit by a giant lightbulb beneath Earth's mantle? Well, a good way to avoid planting that idea in the minds of school kids is to avoid using "emitted," especially when there's nothing wrong with "reflected." 168... 01:24, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sigh. I've heard of Albedo, yes. But the Albedo for longwave radiation is so low that for all practical purposes its zero, for the earths sfc. Hence, upwelling LW radiation is *emitted* not reflected. SW radiation is (partially) reflected.

Well, I can believe you've heard how to spell albedo, since you've taught me I spelled it wrong, but I can't figure out what this "upwelling" is that you're talking about. I associate it with weather, but I'm sure that's not it, so you'd have to tell me more. I doubt you're talking about black body radiation from Earth's interior, because I wouldn't have lumped that in with the greenhouse effect, which I understood to be the subject of the sentence in question. So if it isn't geothermic radiation that you want to talk about being retained by atomspheric water, I assume it must be (as I was talking about) energy that arrived on Earth just moments earlier from the sun. I can't figure out why you don't want to call the space-ward motion of this radiation a "reflection" from the Earth, even if the bounce occurred deep beneath the surface. And anyway, isn't the peak of solar energy in the visible range of wavelengths? I'm prepared to believe that the "greenhouse effect" extends to very long wavelengths, but it seems to me the meat and potatoes has to pertain to the incident visible rays. Am I wrong about that? Else, why do the climate modellers fuss about snow and clouds and things that reflect in the visible?168...

(William M. Connolley 19:00, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)) In fact in my first draft I included "I've heard of it and can even spell it" but decided that would be too gratuitously offensive, esp since I make numerous typos :-). Anyway. You seem to be fairly sure that you don't know wahts going on, and thats a good start. This is an odd place to write an atmospheric radiation primer, but here goes: short wave (SW) radiation arrives from the sun. Some is relfected from the atmos; some absorbed by it. The rest hits the earths surface. Some is again reflected, some absorbed. The absorbed fraction warms the surface directly (more heat comes from long wave (LW) radiation from the atmos; geothermal is trivial). The sfc, being a warm body, emits LW radiation appropriate to its temperature (planck (sp?), etc). But the LW radiation emitted by the sfc is *not* just the SW reflected; it is absorbed, then (later) re-radiated at a different frequency, etc. To speak of it as the SW reflected is quite wrong. The SW albedo varies, up to 0.9 for fresh snow. AFAIK the LW albedo is always very close to 0. I hope thats clear.

Yes, very clear, and thanks. It sounds like our issue is that you don't like the word "reflection" being applied to what a physicist would call the inelastic scattering of a photon.

(William M. Connolley 09:29, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)) Because it isn't. The photon is absorbed. It warms the surface. It sits around for an indeterminate period of time and then something that cannot meaningfully be traced back to the original photon is emitted as LW, probably not even by the same molecule as absorbed the original photon. Its unphysical and unhelpful to call it reflecting.

(William M. Connolley 13:54, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)) Hmm, I may have allowed my enthusiasm to run past my certain knowledge above. Let me rephrase it: in terms of upwelling (ie, going upwards; nothing to do with geothermal, thats negligible) radiation, at the earths surface, there is reflected SW radiation and there is emitted LW radiation. The SW is thermal radiation from the sun. The LW is thermal radiation from the earth, and corresponds to a (nearly) black body at the sfc temperature. Thus, it is most physically useful to describe the LW up at the sfc in terms of emitted black body radiation.

What you call the "reflected SW" I expect we're both happy to ignore as irrelevant to the greenhouse effect, because it's no more filtered heading back out towards space than it was coming in, being the same wavelength as ever. I take your point about the "indeterminate period of time" and how that makes "reflection" seem inapt. Your point "the LW ... corresponds to a (nearly) black body at the sfc temperature" registered only on a second read, but I find that hard to resist--maybe even harder to resist than the wrongness I would feel in saying that a fluorophore can "reflect." So your intuition (and/or "knowledge") may be right.

OK, good. We are in agreement at last! [WMC]

Well, strictly, one would have to read farther to reach the point of agreement (I'm not sure about the above line of reasoning), but overall yes. 168...

Regarding energy bouncing around before being emitted, that doesn't bother me so much. Perhaps it should. It seems conceivable to me, if we're talking about a material like sand (which I assume doesn't absorb nearly so broad a range of energies as a pure metal), that the rate at which energy is conducted away from Earth's surface nonradiatively may be insufficient to prevent saturation of the excited states of either a) the atoms/molecules that are absorbing the incident photons or b) the atoms/molecules that are absorbing the less energetic photons the initial absorbers absorb. In that case, at steady state, while on the one hand you will be getting BB radiation in accordance with the steady state temperature, you will also be getting a kind of "rejection" of photons and energy that wouldn't be rejected out of steady state, such as when the clouds first part above a cold patch of Earth. I don't think I'd mind say that was "reflection."

But maybe these points are too fine to bear on the rightness of "reflection." On rereading it occurred to me that in this discussion I was conflating (as you sensed) the (unarguable) reflection of SWs that gives astronauts their blue-marble image of Earth with the (dubiously titled) "reflection" of LWs that is retained by the atmosphere. The two reflections are obviously different processes, as you say, and I think I wouldn't want to conflate them in the article. 168... 20:57, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It's been my intuition all along that a physicist would not mind this application, but not being one, I can't say for sure.

Don't trust your intuition until you know some of the facts. And not even then.

"Intuition" is a word I sometimes use in place of "know" when it's been a long time since I learned pertinent facts. I don't "trust" it, but I often put stock in it--especially when there's little else to go on that looks authoritative. Since you caught yourself speaking beyond what you were later prepared to claim to know for a fact, I'd say you too are prepared to put stock in your intuitions at times. Good for you. 168... 21:10, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I know I wouldn't want to say that a fluorescent material "reflects" the incident light it absorbs--probably because it seems to miss the point about fluorescence (whereas the point is a different one in the greenhouse-effect context). But it's true that fluorescence lifetimes are long, which makes me hesitate to say "reflect," and yet I suspect it wouldn't be incorrect to do so in the right context. I'm sorry I didn't I realize until just before your latest post that you probably thought I was talking about absorption and emission of the same wavelength (elastic scattering). Maybe my invocation of albedo was misleading. I don't know that it applies to situations where light is absorbed and reemitted at a longer wavelength. I assumed it did apply, because for most things with less than perfect albedo, I assume they're reemitting part of what they absorb at longer wavelengths. 168... 23:55, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I've been trying to find evidence on the Web to support my intuition that "reflectance" includes inelastic backscatter (not being able to find an unambiguous definition of reflectance), because I think that suggests the verb "reflect" would be O.K. to apply to inelastically backscattering photons. Haven't had a whole lot of luck, but did find this:

"The analytic oceanic reflectance model is based on the work of Sathendranath and Platt (1998). ... the model is based on several assumptions ...(iii) VRS contributes to the wavelength of interest through various source wavelengths... (v) only first order VRS is computed."

where "VRS" they seem to define as "inelastic Vibrational Raman Scattering (VRS)" That's from "Inelastic scattering in ocean water and its impact on trace gas retrievals from satellite data. M. Vountas, A. Richter, F. Wittrock, and J. P. Burrows. 2 June 2003"

To me that 'suggests' "reflectance" includes fluorescence and other inelastic backscatter, but I dunno. Clearly it's at least rare to use the word "reflect" in the context of inelastic scattering. But then how much spectroscopy gets written for popular consumption? 168... 00:43, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

But you don't know? Then why are you trying to copy edit here?? "Clearly"?? On what basis?? RadarCzar 05:57, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)