In recent days I have been chasing information in old archives.
Many strange things have turned up. Here is one of them, a page as PDF as found by a search engine but alas the wonder of hashing, discovering the document from whence it came is a tangle of mystery.
Here are a few words copy typed from image
Anchor ice never forms under a cloudy sky either by day or night, no matter how severe the weather, but it forms very rapidly under a clear sky at night. Anchor ice is readily melted off under a bright sun.
…
Thus the loosening of the anchor ice under bright sun is simple enough from the fact that water is transparent to heat-waves up to 1u.
It then goes on to point out that water is “exceedingly opaque” to longer heat rays and therefore a bit of a problem arises over how long wave gets out to space to freeze the bottom water in the first place.
Water being what it is, ice floats. Wonder how long before Rog goes, hang on a minute.
I’d never heard of bottom ice like this before, bizarre.
The text might come from an old copy of MWR (Monthly Weather Review), is just this single page, from 1907 or later, probably 1910s.
MWR contains many gems, probably long forgotten or ignored. Eg. during 1902/3 it seems solar radiation was noticeably lower, why?
A great deal of caution is wise, early knowledge and measurements are often poor.
Vol 1 to Vol 101 are freely available, 1873 .. 1973, index as best they can
NOAA Central Library
Monthly Weather Review
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/data_rescue_monthly_weather_review.html
And PDF from AMS (link from above), later copies you need a login and pay
[update] Jeff Krob kindly points out in comments
Jeff Krob says:
May 30, 2013From the NOAA Central Library page: “…The site provides access to issues of the Monthly weather review prior to 1974 for free; access to issues from 1974 onwards requires a subscription. ”
This is a bit dated & incorrect. If you go to the AMS Journals Online page http://journals.ametsoc.org/loi/mwre
You will find that the ‘locked’ journals only go back 3 years & everything from 2010 & older are freely available to view & download. I only checked the MWR but I believe it applies to all their publications
Jeff
This is very welcome. On looking Jeff is correct although there might be a few locked articles (I found one) where it seems there is a distinction, with some content being served by NOAA and later items by AMS servers.
[/update]
I have some other novel links, such as the one million book archive. Great. Or it would be if I knew the author, title, date and category.
Post by Tim Channon
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Many organisms synthesise anti-freeze peptides/proteins. I’ve not read whether any research links these to environmental (ex-vivo) super-cooled water, but I wouldn’t be surprised if someone told me they are significant in the polar oceans freezing rates.
I read the implication as an IR window in water where eg. rock is able to do the equivalent of forming frost at night or more importantly emit all the time to space, not restricted to cold regions.
I didn’t expect this.
Is it true?
From the NOAA Central Library page: “…The site provides access to issues of the Monthly weather review prior to 1974 for free; access to issues from 1974 onwards requires a subscription. ”
This is a bit dated & incorrect. If you go to the AMS Journals Online page http://journals.ametsoc.org/loi/mwre
You will find that the ‘locked’ journals only go back 3 years & everything from 2010 & older are freely available to view & download. I only checked the MWR but I believe it applies to all their publications
Jeff
There is a Wiki on this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_ice
Also this is an ongoing problem with anchor ropes snapping as they freeze in such conditions. (Google Anchor rope freezes)
Also another highly counter intuitive water effect is the Mpemba effect, named after Tanzanian student Erasto Mpemba, is the assertion that warmer water can freeze faster than colder water.
It’s Wiki is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mpemba_effect
I’m not sure what you mean by “not restricted to cold regions” Tim.
Once the bulk is supercooled crystallisation can, in principle, commence at any location given the right trigger. Surfaces or, more generally, interfaces, are favoured locations for a variety of reasons.
Thinking a bit more about it, the problem can be viewed as a case of heterogeneous (surface) catalysis. Which is not an easy thing to experimentally investigate.
If the effect is purely a thermal one due to the solid surface being a better SB radiator than the bulk or air/water interface, then one could postulate that the temperature dependence of the initial crystallisation (freezing) rate might be expected to be proportional to T^4. [Exploring different surfaces by varying their SB black-body properties is all well and good, but I see no easy way to change this aspect of the surface without changing other properties.]
If the mechanism is postulated as being some other non-thermal low-order mechanism then, after Eyring, the temperature dependence of the initial rate might follow the ln(k) vs 1/T relationship of the Arrhenius equation. [He got about, he did, that Arrhenius]. Getting reproducible experimental data still seems a bit of a nightmare though.
The experimental details of producing supercooled water/aqueous solutions, willing to crystallize/freeze on demand, when the researcher is ready, is probably the hardest part. Measuring the initial rate of production, only at the surface before extensive ice propagation into the bulk phase is not quite as hard as it might appear. In fact, not that long ago, I was working with a surface plasmon resonance spectrometer/microscope that is probably ideally suited to do so. A few $hundredK is all it would cost a well lubricated climate-scientist.
Tim C,
You seem to be in the middle of a century-old discussion about properties of water and anchor ice. Once scientist proposed hypotheses about the formation and melting of anchor ice. The other disagreed with his hypothesis about the formation, but tended to agree with the hypothesis about melting/release from the bottom. .
I’d go to more modern sources for information about the absorption of EM waves by water (http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/images/watopt.gif) or the nature of anchor ice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_ice).
Thank you Jeff. I’ve edited the article to include your comment.
I notice how the content in relatively recent years has changed to be mostly about large scale computer models as though nothing concrete remains. In one field I know rather better there are whole domains where people run away, looks hard, is hard yet a few have explored coming out with gems.
Good find, Tim – the good old days before climate data came out of computer models.
I think the quoted passage comes from here – “ICE FORMATION WITH SPECIAL REFENCE TO ANCHOR ICE AND FRAZIL.” – Author: Howard Turner Barnes
PDF of Monthly Weather Review article referenced above is here…
Click to access mwr-035-05-0225.pdf
Well done, so it was 1907. The whole item is fascinating, all done without electronics or computers, plain speaking too.
Very recently I came across a current report which showing the work on water lines is still not complete.
TJF,
A spot of archaeology where for many techs this has some interest. It is an aside to what I am doing. (which is likely to bring comment from you, you’ll be able to help out)
The wiki articles seems to do a youngster gush. Sure there are other things around yet this particular idea does not seem to be mentioned.
The blog is in a transitional state, where to I do not know.
tchannon says: May 31, 2013 at 1:05 am
“TJF,
A spot of archaeology where for many techs this has some interest. It is an aside to what I am doing. (which is likely to bring comment from you, you’ll be able to help out)”
I’ve had a passing interest with this phenomenon Tim. IMHO it’s the ‘transmissible’ frequencies that are of interest and not the ‘absorptivity’ at all.
Ice that’s in contact with a ‘river/sea bed’ can’t be cooled by the flow of cold water beneath because it isn’t there (in ‘other logic’, the ‘bed’ can’t be cooled), thus, the ‘river/sea bed’ is warmed by ‘transmissible insolation’. In turn, this ‘warming’ of the terrestrial substrate is conducted to ‘bottom ice’ where convection begins within sealed pockets until the ‘river/sea bed’ is released from ice contact.
Again, IMHO, this isn’t an IR wavelength. That Planck rating only permits a ‘direct’ energy transfer. However, UVa (and UVb, when it’s apparent) is of a Planck rating that dissociates molecules and gives a ‘bi-product’ (attractor) of heat by way of accelerating the motion of the ‘end product’ to ‘dissociation’.
Best regards, Ray.
The release isn’t a mystery, UV would do, plenty of possibilities.
It’s the forming in the first place which is odd. The implication is dark bottom rock is able to lose heat to space through water.
Unless I have misunderstood.
I think that is one of the offered explanations, Tim, but supercooling of well mixed water is also on the table, as I read it (and a bit of other reading around). I would also guess that in places that experience harsher winters, water at ~zero Celsius occasionally running over colder ground is a more frequent occurrence.
tchannon says: June 2, 2013 at 3:57 am
“It’s the forming in the first place which is odd. The implication is dark bottom rock is able to lose heat to space through water.”
Doesn’t seem odd to me, but the ‘implication’ that “dark bottom rock is able to lose heat to space through water.” must be a ‘very’ remote possibility.
‘Dark bottom rock’ is a better candidate for thermal radiation than its ‘lighter shaded’ counterparts and may well exhibit different conduction properties as well, but the major radiant spectra must surely be absorbed by the water and the thermal signature carried away to ‘somewhere else’ by advective forces. Not ‘to space’ per se. That may be a point of confusion.
Water ‘phase change’ temps are not ‘set in stone’ (pardon the pun). 🙂 The gas>liquid phase change can cause supersaturation of WV in the absence of condensation nuclei and the liquid>solid phase change can cause supercooling of water in the absence of crystallisation nuclei.
I draw your attention to part of your submission:
“The author found that during rapid ice formation the water becomes slightly undercooled to the order of a few thousandths of a degree, and the ice which is found is in a very adhesive state.”
This strongly suggests to me that the temp quoted is close to the ‘bottom rock’ and that the ‘bottom rock’ was the ‘catalyst’ (crystallisation nucleus) for phase change. Thus, the adhesive property to the ice crystal formation that bonded to the bottom rock (all ‘crystallisation foci’ point towards the bottom rock).
Does this make better sense? 🙂
Best regards, Ray.
That matches what I suspect it’s just that there is a possibility of more being involved which intrigues me. Very strange stuff is water, typical in’it, so we are made of the stuff, he says leaning back supercooled.
tchannon says: June 3, 2013 at 2:22 am
“That matches what I suspect it’s just that there is a possibility of more being involved which intrigues me.”
You’ve piqued my interest. Please name your intrigue. 🙂
Best regards, Ray.
Name intrigue, an invitation.
If it is the case rock bottom can emit IR at all this adds a lot of area. The mere fact a lot of chins wobble saying impossible when there is an observation cuts no ice so to speak. Unlikely but needs a weather eye.
Wonderful post Tim
Sorry I am late to the party but I originally missed this gem amongst all the party political drivel…
The formation of ice is fascinating…
The work of Dr Gerald Pollack is fascinating…
Especially his concept that ice is formed by protons invading crystalline [structured] water…
The invasion of protons can be very rapid…
It also explains the expansion of water as it freezes.
Book information:
tchannon says: June 4, 2013 at 2:52 am
“If it is the case rock bottom can emit IR at all this adds a lot of area.”
I see I’ll need to be careful when using my usual acronyms, we have two TCs on the page.
Every mass emits IR, including mass particles in deep space, unless the mass possesses an almost absolute zero temperature (Bose-Einstein condensate for example, where all ‘observations’ become ‘confused’ to say the least). Whatever led you to think that ‘bottom rock’ may not emit IR? It does.
Also, what do you mean by “adds a lot of area”? Do you mean this in the sense of ‘physical area’ for consideration within data sampling, or ‘area of scope’ for other interpretation? I’ll take it to imply ‘area of scope’ for now. Here goes, we’ll look at a few scenarios. 🙂
To start with, if; the ave temp in the ‘bottom rock’ conduction layer is ~4C, in the ‘boundary layer’ the water temp averages ~3.5C, ‘the void’ between the ‘boundary layer’ and the bottom of the ‘surface ice’ ranges between ~3C at the ‘boundary layer’ and the ‘freezing point’ of the water (the freezing point is open to interpretation dependant on the salinity of the water under observation, so let’s say ~ -0.5C), at the surface the ‘surface ice’ may well exhibit a temp of -40C whilst the lower reaches of its depth match the ‘freezing point’ temperature that’s in contact with ‘the void’ that’s still in a liquid phase (the ‘void’ may also, in turn, exhibit a ‘boundary layer’ [with its implication for turbulent activity] for its contact with the bottom of the surface ice dependant on the ‘ice-water current’ activity).
Reality check! Liquid water, at atmospheric pressure, ceases to ‘contract’ with reducing temps at ~4C where it begins to ‘expand’ once again. The result is a ‘temperature inversion’ where ‘near zero C’ conditions prevail, much like the temp inversion ‘weather phenomenon’ in the stratosphere, but at different temps, media, and pressures. Thus, no ‘convection’, no ‘thermals’ and no ‘weather’ between the ~4C to freezing temp range.
BTW, the links from Tim Cullen emphasise the ‘exothermic’ property of the ‘phase change’ from water to ice. As the water ‘freezes’, the temperature ‘increases’! This is the ‘latent heat of solidification’ under the observational microscope. There are ‘other’ lessons here, but my time is short just now.
Best regards, Ray.
Clearly a high Temperature Coefficient (TC).
This is one reason why I use such an awkward handle, somewhat unlikely to conflict, also why I like threading, stops a lot of crossups. Folks don’t want it here so we don’t.
Same goes with putting my name at the bottom of articles, doesn’t actually matter but saves some confusion, still get called tallbloke and rog gets it the other way.
Water is possibly the strangest chemical.
[faint voice at the back] You are mostly water
I didn’t answer the question on what I meant by extra area.
This is very much an if there is an effect. If dark bottom can actually emit through the water to space, even slightly, the area of shallow water in the world is huge and this would slightly upset assumptions about what happens when there is water cover.
tchannon says: June 6, 2013 at 2:49 pm
“This is one reason why I use such an awkward handle, somewhat unlikely to conflict, also why I like threading, stops a lot of crossups.”
Exactly why I maintain my ‘original handle’ (suricat), but ‘sign off’ with my true identity signature (Ray Dart). It helps towards the quest for ‘open and franc/honest communication’.
Your “[faint voice at the back]” is getting louder. There IS NO ‘fourth state’ for water! “Water is possibly the strangest chemical.” may be true, but, more aptly, water is a ‘compound’ and not an ‘element’. Thus, ‘water’ (H2O) CAN NOT achieve the ‘fourth state’ of ‘plasma’! Its elemental constituents may well achieve the ‘fourth state’ of plasma, but the compound, per se, can’t! It becomes dissociated into its elemental constituents of oxygen and hydrogen long before this ‘phase change’ can proceed.
However, the chemical interactions of water are so diverse as to put CO2 to shame. These are ‘ionic interactions’ and aren’t anything to do with the ‘fourth state’ of ‘plasma’! The ‘ionic’ states of H2O are so diverse as to be unexplainable here. CO2 is only ‘one’ of the routes possible for the ‘chemical’ dissociation of water by ‘ionic interaction’. Need I say more?
tchannon says: June 6, 2013 at 2:55 pm
“I didn’t answer the question on what I meant by extra area.
This is very much an if there is an effect. If dark bottom can actually emit through the water to space, even slightly, the area of shallow water in the world is huge and this would slightly upset assumptions about what happens when there is water cover.”
Whilst you are looking for a radiative ‘window’ that can facilitate OLR I think your options are too selective. The OLR sig from ocean cooling is mostly due to evaporation criteria. The scenario that leads up to this must be, from my previous post, advection of mass that overturns the ‘temperature inversion’ imposed by the characteristic behaviour of water.
I’m beginning to fall behind the ‘logic thread’ here. 😦
Best regards, Ray Dart.