Jump to content

Talk:Water vapor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Suma rongi (talk | contribs) at 06:57, 30 May 2011 (→‎Metal is NOT waterproof !??: .). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

To upgrade Classification to "A" status

Article needs to be well written, reasonably complete and referenced; possible featured article candidate. Moslty, this may be true, however, references may need the most attention. -- Hard Raspy Sci 02:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this comment is outdated, the next step is "GA" status...see status comments below.—Will research for food (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes and References added

I added the references I had, but I think other major contributors may have more... Also, I put notes out of the main article and into the notes/refs section. -- Hard Raspy Sci 20:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think so too. 24.11.7.108 00:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Kat[reply]

Still needs more references. —Will research for food (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion of merge from steam

See discussion at Talk:Steam#Article_split_into_.22steam.22_and_.22water_vapor.22. Nurg 04:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is actually no discussion of a merge there, or here, I assume that this suggestion of merge is a joke, and have removed reference to it from the article. --75.49.222.55 03:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No merge. —Will research for food (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bad wording

This sentence under "General Discussion" needs a complete overhaul: "Dew point temperature and relative humidity act as guidelines for the process of water vapor in the water cycle." As written, it's just about meaningless. Lincmad 19:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree somewhat...however it reads more like cliff notes for a physicist. It has too much meaning in too few words, and needs to be expanded. — HRS IAM 02:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flammability

Is water vapor flammable? There's an oxidizer (oxygen) and a fuel (hydrogen), why isn't there at least some information as to whether or not there's a temperature at which water vapor is flammable? James Callahan 00:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the hydrogen has already been oxydized? Carbon is flammable in an oxygen atmosphere, but carbon dioxide is not flammable. (SEWilco 02:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
That makes sense, thank you. Any chance this could be added to the article? James Callahan 04:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, because oxy[---] does not mean flammable or not. Sorry, that is beyond the scope of the article. - HRS IAM 01:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extraterrestrial water vapor

There are some problems with the discussion of extraterrestrial water vapor -- _some_ of the water at Mars' polar caps sublimates in the summer, but the vast majority of it is perennial. I think the person who wrote this before was getting it confused with CO2, which sublimates completely from the NP of Mars in summer. — [previously unsigned by anonymous IP, and badly placed originally on 18:08, 15 February 2007 by User:128.148.116.135 ]
Not really, I read the article, its more about what the original hypothesizes and not what you are saying. Other than that, I don't know what you are referring to. — HRS IAM 02:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This subpart needs to be its own subheading. —Will research for food (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lightning Generation

Most or all of what was written about the role of water vapor in lightning generation appears to me to have been written by someone with no actual knowledge of the process of thunderstorm electrification. Many statements are either questionable or simply irrelevant. In particular, reference is made to the insulating properties of water vapor, when in fact water vapor is a poorer insulator than dry air. I would argue that the connection between water vapor and lightning generation is sufficiently indirect as to not warrant a section in this article at all. Rather it is appropriate to address the role of water vapor, and of latent heat release due to phase changes, in the occurrence of deep convective cloud systems, while the occurrence of lightning in those cloud systems is far more directly related to the process of precipitation formation. My instinct is to simply delete the section in question rather than to take the effort to massage it into something correct and useful, but I'll defer until there's been an opportunity for comments. Gpetty (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please discuss the finer points you are not clear about. I already see that this section needs some expanding to qualify for wide-readership.—Will research for food (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this observation. In fact, the person who wrote this has several misconceptions. It is stated that static discharge is quick and easy in dry air. This is based on the misconception that dry air is a conductor of electricity. It is precisely the opposite. Static charge builds up more easily in dry air because it is not conducted away. In humid air, the charge is conducted away before it builds up to a high enough voltage to cause a noticeable spark.Rocket Laser Man (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, in discussing lightning, several statements are wrong, because they are based on this same misconception.Rocket Laser Man (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PLEA TO SENIOR EDITORS

as of 17March2008> WikiProject-Chemistry, WikiProject-Physics and WikiProject-Meteorology EACH rate this article at "mid-importance" -surely this makes a CUMULATIVE HIGH IMPORTANCE for this article !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.201.58 (talk) 05:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I believe this is rated as High importance for Meteorology, and mid- for the others, which is probably ok. However, Physics and Chemistry has been used heavily to clarify many issues. —Will research for food (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading image

While I'm sure the locale pictured in File:St_Johns_Fog.jpg did indeed contain water vapor, it isn't visible. All that appears in the (admittedly lovely) image is liquid water in the river and suspended in the air as fog. There is already widespread confusion about "steam" being visible, so leading off this article about an invisible gas with an image of visible water seems... unwise. Perhaps an image of a whistling tea kettle, so that the contrast between the actual vapor and the mist can be pointed out? --Steve-o Stonebraker (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. Water vapor is an invisible gas, so showing a picture of fog is misleading. Spiel496 (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, as well, its misleading to use fog or a steam system (open or closed) as an example. The best bet is to try to acquire a pair of photos with an object in the far background under two different atmospheric conditions--ie. dry day vs. humid day. Water vapor over long distances is visible, but not nearly as visible as clouds, steam, or fog. Will research for food (talk) 07:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There should have been a satellite link that addresses this issue by example as well ... —Will research for food (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SEEKING SUPPORT for reinstatement of a sub-section that originally existed for the entire duration of 2008

79.76.195.166 (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Discrepancies, Confounding factors and limits of knowledge

Since water vapor is very common, it has been studied and written about from many perspectives. As working knowledge has grown and developed within apparently unrelated fields several discrepancies in understanding may be encountered. These discrepancies often arise from an inability to rigidly determine either a volumetric or gravimetric basis of study; and/or use of constants inappropriate for the conditions being observed.

Many scientific studies view water vapor as a Confounding variable (preventing Ceteris paribus, also 'lurking variable') due to its complex nature; this becomes especially true when the study observes significant variation in water vapor quantities, over time and/or location.

It is for the reasons above that this remains a particularly tricky and sometimes controversial factor in many fields of science, whether storage of foods or ancient artefacts, thermodynamics or climate change.

The above section survived over 400 days and 195 edits,
but has now been crudely edited (removed entirely on three occasions) by three editors.

Evidence to support the inclusion are...

  • the many companies providing equipment and calibration involved in the metrology of water vapor
  • the many industries attempting to manage changes in water vapor within their processes/services
  • the many academic papers attempting to elucidate the boundaries of existing knowledge

Comments...

I know nothing about this subject, though I have experience in writing articles, and I did add the FAB image in the infobox at the top. Regardless of how long the information has lasted, it should be cited to reliable sources. I don't know if it is being removed for inaccuracy or just for the fact that it's not cited, or for some other reason, but the first action to be taken is full citations. If you need help with the wiki code and citations, let me know. --Moni3 (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add please that the editors who are removing and replacing the information are in danger of edit warring. The discussion on the talk page is the way to go to get around this. There is no quibbling about edit warring. Any editor will be blocked for doing it. --Moni3 (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's uncited, and it's gobbledegook. What is is supposed to mean? It should certainly remain out until fixed up William M. Connolley (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I second it, uncited and gives no positive worth to the article...In fact this type of speech has been deleted from this article numerous times in the past for its excessive vagueness. It is of no use to mystify "water vapor". Will research for food (talk) 07:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section to be excluded--Reasons: vague, uncited, or already covered by the article

The above section, as written is a stub article. Water vapor, as currently written, is already beyond this section and already addresses issues contained in the section. Yes, it is true water vapor is an extremely difficult subject matter to address. If anyone feels that some finer points are not covered by the article, please place those comments in talk as we are attempting to take this article to the next step, then those concerns will be appropriately addressed in this forum.

Discussion:

The section will remain deleted as it is not "GA status" material. Any further arguments should be listed here, and must contain valid citations. Re-wording of the section is not applicable, as it repeats material already covered by the article. If no discussions follow this after 2 weeks, the decision will remain final as consensus. —Will research for food (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No discussion has occured to support the above article, up to the time of this posting, so by consensus it remains deleted. —Will research for food (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

global warming

why has the fox news told me water vapor is the major greenhouse gas? is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.101.190 (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is the major greenhouse gas. Q Science (talk) 07:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. —Will research for food (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IR absorption

Dry air is transparent to infrared while moist air is absorbent of IR. This fact is important in weather production and should be mentioned.Water Vapor is very interesting.

Arydberg (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point for several reasons, dry air is mostly Nitrogen and Oxygen. But, also, moist air, is also absorbent of a broadband of EM radiation as well..refractive, reflective, etc...see one of the notes concerning radar on the main page. Will research for food (talk) 07:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, forgive the double post, IR spectrum is used already by Weather Satellites to identify areas of water vapor in the atmosphere... See GOES ... and as a matter of fact there used to be a link to an example of this on the main page. -- Will research for food (talk) 07:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dry air is not transparent to IR. It contains CO2, methane, ozone, and other radiatively active gases. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, lets stop this one, please review the full spectrum analysis of Earth's atmosphere before proceeding. Air's level of transparency is directly related to the frequency of the specific EM transmission[1][2][3].
Dry air is the least 'reactive' to EM radiation, so therefore it is largely transparent to most of the IR spectrum. It just so happens that our atmosphere is most transparent to visible light. —Will research for food (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, looks like we've got crosstalk between two topics, radar and IR. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, the references include full spectrum analysis. Only 2 of the books have "radar" in their title, but they both deal with remote sensing and LIDAR...which also includes the IR band as well. The other is an EM signals variety, it also includes the full spectrum analysis. These are a few amongst a ton of remote sensing and antenna design books/journals, and are 3 that I know are readily available at most libraries for people to peruse. —Will research for food (talk) 14:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So the statement "Dry air is not transparent to IR." is a false statement. Otherwise this would not be possible...see Satellite Image Comparison. —Will research for food (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please go read greenhouse gas. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More explicitly, please see this image which clearly shows that some frequencies are blocked and that others are transparent. Q Science (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, first, thank you for the reference, it helps. Second, I can address the issue more clearly. Actually, thanks for both references (article and image). The Image is correct, while the article "greenhouse gas" is incorrect. GHG discussions are usually screwed up. For instance the first lines of the article, GHG, is a false statement and needs to be fixed. (I will tackle GHG next.)
Now compare what the Image is telling us and what the article says in the first two sentences. They don't "jive". Really the article should say or be more general by saying something like:
GHG's are broad spectrum absorbers of light energy from the sun (see this image)...as a result of molecular degrees of freedom of each variety of GHG, they each, disproportionately, aid in the subsequent green house effect. The green house effect should not be seen as a bad effect.......
I don't subscribe to the sky is falling attitude. But please understand that "water vapor" holds an extremely difficult to understand role in our atmosphere, a terribly complex factor in many seemingly unrelated ways. Many people for no reason, other than fright factor, would readily believe that carbon dioxide was the major GHG, when water vapor is the most significant player. Water vapor has the major control in environmental factors, CO2 is a minor player.
Ok, that part was beside the point. The question here is about IR. The significant gases in our atmosphere play THE role in what lives on the surface of the planet. WHY? By perusing the graphic we see that not all frequencies are as readily transmitted by our "air". The visible spectrum is the least blocked, while others are more blocked, but NOT entirely blocked. Very key point here. Otherwise we would fry due to UV radiation. Also, please understand that all light (photon) energy is energy and can be converted to heat...I repeat ALL light. The statement that only IR is responsible for heating is false, but not exclusive. —Will research for food (talk) 18:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  1. ^ Skiolnik, Radar Handbook, 1990, McGraw-Hill, Inc.
  2. ^ Paul, Introduction to Electromagnetic Compatibility, 1992, John Wiley & Sons
  3. ^ Peebles, Radar Principles, 1998, John Wiley & Sons

Water Clusters

I really think someone with more knowledge than me should mention something about water clusters; little groupings of water molecules floating around in the air. Seams to fit the water vapor definition pretty well ;) 79.76.178.241 (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, however, it seems that the article talks about clusters in solids, it may be out of the scope of this article, but could warrant a link to water clusters. —Will research for food (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
article here about Atmospheric Water Clusters > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/02/040225073100.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.115.178 (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Metal is NOT waterproof !??

http://www.ima.co.uk/technical/transpiration.pdf

The link above has an article that states that water can pass through plastic and metal, if this is true it would be an excellent fact to include in this wiki article.79.76.155.85 (talk) 08:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but I don't think that argument holds water. Will research for food (talk) 07:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
here's a little moisture for anyone who missed that dry humor 79.67.115.178 (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Debunked

I read the article, it is not a valid source article. While the article claims many 'sciency' factoids, it has no references itself and is one that merely expresses business interests, not true facts. Its classification is internet junk source. —Will research for food (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very much junk, as water vapor is composed of small droplets of LIQUID water suspended in the air. The gaseous phase of water is steam. How in the world can Wikipedia have such a laughable article calling water vapor a gas???130.111.163.179 (talk) 03:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC) suma rongi. cast aluminium is permeable to both water and cooking oils. We had in our lab someone's attempt at Cast aluminium fishing floats for deep sea use. They filled with water when dragged under. (Don't know how deep). And the black gunge on the base of a cast aluminium frypan is oils/fat that has migrated through the casting/spun aluminium. [BTW we used a Palladium leak in our van der Graaf accelerator, between the gas cylinder source, and the Belt of the machine. This Pa was heated gently to allow more H through the Pa. So some metals are permeable to gas as well. All part ofthe erason for the use of the Pt group for H catalysis.Suma rongi (talk) 06:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)][reply]

Next level - GA status

The 6 B status requirements seem to be fulfilled at this time. Discussion to outline needed requirements for GA. —Will research for food (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graph and Empirical Formula

The graph of "saturation fraction of water in air at sea level" should have units on the y axis. I'm not sure if that's mass fraction or mole fraction. I guess its probably mass, but I'm not sure. Also, does the red line have an empirical formula; including that would make it more practically useful.

Also regarding the empirical formula listed in the "general discussion" section: do the other formulas mentioned have their own pages? If so it would be good to include links.

I'll try to find the formulas myself, but I'm new to this subject. Michael ages (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The annual mean global concentration?

From the article: "The annual mean global concentration of water vapor would yield about 25 mm of liquid water over the entire surface of the Earth if it were to instantly fall as rain." This looks strange to me.

What is an annual concentration!?

Shouldn't it rather be "The total content of water vapor in the atmosphere would yield about 25 mm of liquid water over the entire surface of the Earth if it were to instantly fall as rain."!?Krille Katalog (talk) 05:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Water_vapor&oldid=431610254"