|
Post by Andrew on Sept 28, 2015 1:57:27 GMT
Next could we establish how deep that warmed surface layer is?? There is no 'warmed surface' the top molecules of the water layer a couple of microns deep get excited and leave the surface into the air (evaporate) taking _more_ energy with them than they received as IR. Low levels of IR _cool_ the surface to the depth of a few molecules. The problem with this theory is the water is already being cooled by evaporation prior to it being heated by the IR. The only way I can think of for the evaporation rate to increase is by increasing the temperature of the water. What is meant by 'excited'? In the normal sense of the word, IR excitation of water is called heating which cannot cause an increase in the evaporation rate unless the water temperature is significantly raised. There is also the issue of the absolutely mind boggling tiny width of a water molecule compared to the relatively enormous distance the IR passes thru the water before it is 95% stopped. Most of the heated water has no way to escape by evaporation unless it heats other molecules to help those nearer the surface to escape. A water molecule is about 1 Angstrom width and oxygen oxygen distances are about 5 Angstrom. IR penetration of water for the different frequencies varies from 10,000 - 200,000 Angstrom. There are therefore tens of thousands of 'layers' of water above most of the heated water molecules preventing escape of those heated water molecules until the top layer can be 'boiled off'
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 28, 2015 2:24:46 GMT
After you demonstrate your knowledge of the heat of fusion Water does not have a heat of fusion. www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae320.cfmQuestion What is the definition of heat of fusion? Asked by: Ryan Milana Answer 'Heat of fusion' measures the amount of energy needed to melt a given mass of a solid at its melting point temperature. Conversely, it also represent the amount of energy given up when a given mass of liquid solidifies. Water, for example, has a heat of fusion of 80 calories per gram. That means it takes 80 calories of energy to melt 1 gram of ice at 0 degrees C. into water at 0 degrees C. Heat of fusion values differ for different materials. Answered by: Paul Walorski, B.A. Physics, Part-time Physics Instructor
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 28, 2015 2:47:46 GMT
Water does not have a heat of fusion. www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae320.cfmQuestion What is the definition of heat of fusion? Asked by: Ryan Milana Answer 'Heat of fusion' measures the amount of energy needed to melt a given mass of a solid at its melting point temperature. Conversely, it also represent the amount of energy given up when a given mass of liquid solidifies. Water, for example, has a heat of fusion of 80 calories per gram. That means it takes 80 calories of energy to melt 1 gram of ice at 0 degrees C. into water at 0 degrees C. Heat of fusion values differ for different materials. Answered by: Paul Walorski, B.A. Physics, Part-time Physics Instructor Water does not have a heat of fusion.
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Sept 28, 2015 3:32:54 GMT
'Blood Moon' did look pretty cool.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Sept 28, 2015 5:13:00 GMT
Shucks....I was too tired and have work today
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 28, 2015 14:28:26 GMT
Dang I fell asleep too early!
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 28, 2015 15:15:34 GMT
After you demonstrate your knowledge of the heat of fusion Water does not have a heat of fusion. Andrew, I realize you want to play. Your semantical games are actually boring. I have to inform you that the definition of words are defined by common usage, not some dictionary or some committee or some mysterious group of scientists. Dictionaries, the better ones at least, try hard to keep up with common usage of the language and its evolution. Lesser dictionaries become archaic. My recollection is this argument started out whether the latent heat released upon the freezing of water could be utilized for the purpose of heating something. The latent heat in water is about 80 calories per gram of water. Thats a lot of energy. If you have a gram of unfrozen water at zero degrees centigrade and add 80 calories to it the water will heat to 80degrees centigrade (176degrees Farenheit) that will scald you. If you have a gram of ice at 0degC and add 80 calories to it you will have one gram of water at 0degC. Obviously that energy can be used to warm things as the latent heat changes to sensible heat upon release (water freezes). You have argued against that for 2 years without a single reference nor any support from the many scientists you have written seeking support. It might be time for you to give up. But no not you. You would rather be viewed an idiot than admit a scientific error! So now that you know you were wrong you want to play semantical games. I assume you (unless of course you are an idiot) must want to say the heat in water is latent heat not the heat of fusion. It even has the appearance of possibly being correct! I mean can the heat of fusion even exist? After all its is latent heat in water, and sensible heat outside of ice and it changes instantaneously!!! So where is the heat of fusion? Did it ever exist? In the case of the professor I quoted above he called the latent heat in water "the heat of fusion". Is that incorrect? Not in common usage! The professor proves that! Its also not misleading because this energy is locked in the water and only available as "the heat of fusion". It will stay forever in the water, even if it becomes steam. It can only be released via becoming ice. Perhaps modern science someday will discover a way of extracting it otherwise but they have not yet done it as far as I know.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 28, 2015 19:11:12 GMT
this energy is locked in the water and only available as "the heat of fusion". It can only be released via becoming ice. Perhaps modern science someday will discover a way of extracting it otherwise but they have not yet done it as far as I know. Almost every home in the world has a machine that can extract this energy. It is called a fridge.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 28, 2015 23:28:01 GMT
this energy is locked in the water and only available as "the heat of fusion". It can only be released via becoming ice. Perhaps modern science someday will discover a way of extracting it otherwise but they have not yet done it as far as I know. The conversation started because you said words to the effect of 'this was the time of year when air temperatures rise in the arctic as water freezes', Numerouno said Finland would like to be able to use this energy to heat our homes and you then turned to NSIDC and I pointed out the article was bullshit. Magellan then turned to biologists and I pointed out they seemed very confused. No matter how much you attempt to change reality I have never once denied that 0C water is capable of heating something colder, and never once believed the things you claim I have believed. From day one you have had some kind of objection to the idea that latent heat cannot be used to heat anything other than via whatever sensible heat amount the 0C water has where it has to be made clear there are no beams of energy coming from latent heat other than via sensible heat at 0C. No puffs of warm air and no bangs as water freezes. You were the one who claimed no victory was achieved with Mark Serreze and you were the one who celibrated the day when the confused biologists turned up. You are still claiming that Sigurdur is not confused! You are mistaken. My comments regarding the Arctic was that the heat spikes seen in the cold months might be the result of the unusual high amount of freezing going during the winter. I brought Mark Serreze into the discussion because he and NSIDC at one time claimed the anonymously cool summers in the arctic was due to the melting of ice. Numerouno and yourself took great exception to that going so far as to write Serreze to tell him his ideas regarding latent heat were all screwed up. I offered a possible mechanism for the spikes in the form of latent heat polynyas something that you and Numeruno and you believed to be a myth. Anything else I may have said was in defense of that notion. So rather than rehash everything which is a waste of time perhaps you could tell us what is wrong with the notion of the release of latent heat in the Arctic winter warming the atmosphere when clearly during all the time significant heat spikes in the Arctic only occur when the temperatures are well below zero. The same case exists for when Sigurdur entered the conversation on the protection of crops. Nobody I ever heard said the orchard ends up above freezing from the spraying of water into a sub freezing orchard. We even told you that overnight temperatures of zero centigrade did not represent a threat to most crops, its temperatures that drop several degrees below that is what must be prevented. As far as the home heating was concerned I have built many passive systems to save energy. The simplest and most common is storing solar warmed water to feed a water heater and reduce energy in heating the water. My comment was that if you could figure out how to deal with the ice without expending too much energy you could heat or assist heating homes in Finland using the heat of fusion. This all harkens back to the "will throwing a blanket over a dead body cause the body to warm?" goal posts switcheroo once the point was lost to "throwing a blanket over a dead cooling body will cause the surface of the dead body to warm". Your style of arguing is to continue to argue beyond where your point is stone dead in hopes of finally causing somebody to make a minor error then you can jump on that and claim victory and pretend that was the only point ever in contention. But lets get back to those Arctic heat spikes and you tell me what is wrong with suggesting that the heat of fusion might be fully or partly responsible for them. p.s. I see you erased your original response. and trying to play semantics games because you have nothing else to offer.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 29, 2015 5:19:17 GMT
The conversation started because you said words to the effect of 'this was the time of year when air temperatures rise in the arctic as water freezes', Numerouno said Finland would like to be able to use this energy to heat our homes and you then turned to NSIDC and I pointed out the article was bullshit. Magellan then turned to biologists and I pointed out they seemed very confused. No matter how much you attempt to change reality I have never once denied that 0C water is capable of heating something colder, and never once believed the things you claim I have believed. From day one you have had some kind of objection to the idea that latent heat cannot be used to heat anything other than via whatever sensible heat amount the 0C water has where it has to be made clear there are no beams of energy coming from latent heat other than via sensible heat at 0C. No puffs of warm air and no bangs as water freezes. You were the one who claimed no victory was achieved with Mark Serreze and you were the one who celibrated the day when the confused biologists turned up. You are still claiming that Sigurdur is not confused! You are mistaken. My comments regarding the Arctic was that the heat spikes seen in the cold months might be the result of the unusual high amount of freezing going during the winter. I brought Mark Serreze into the discussion because he and NSIDC at one time claimed the anonymously cool summers in the arctic was due to the melting of ice. Numerouno and yourself took great exception to that going so far as to write Serreze to tell him his ideas regarding latent heat were all screwed up. I offered a possible mechanism for the spikes in the form of latent heat polynyas something that you and Numeruno and you believed to be a myth. Anything else I may have said was in defense of that notion. So rather than rehash everything which is a waste of time perhaps you could tell us what is wrong with the notion of the release of latent heat in the Arctic winter warming the atmosphere when clearly during all the time significant heat spikes in the Arctic only occur when the temperatures are well below zero. The same case exists for when Sigurdur entered the conversation on the protection of crops. Nobody I ever heard said the orchard ends up above freezing from the spraying of water into a sub freezing orchard. We even told you that overnight temperatures of zero centigrade did not represent a threat to most crops, its temperatures that drop several degrees below that is what must be prevented. As far as the home heating was concerned I have built many passive systems to save energy. The simplest and most common is storing solar warmed water to feed a water heater and reduce energy in heating the water. My comment was that if you could figure out how to deal with the ice without expending too much energy you could heat or assist heating homes in Finland using the heat of fusion. This all harkens back to the "will throwing a blanket over a dead body cause the body to warm?" goal posts switcheroo once the point was lost to "throwing a blanket over a dead cooling body will cause the surface of the dead body to warm". Your style of arguing is to continue to argue beyond where your point is stone dead in hopes of finally causing somebody to make a minor error then you can jump on that and claim victory and pretend that was the only point ever in contention. But lets get back to those Arctic heat spikes and you tell me what is wrong with suggesting that the heat of fusion might be fully or partly responsible for them. p.s. I see you erased your original response. and trying to play semantics games because you have nothing else to offer. I erased the original response because it did not seem worth rehashing the earlier conversation when you have been falsely telling me for many many years I change goal posts and I am a liar. I have not changed any goal posts. The farmers sound totally muddled up and you have supported their stupid versions of reality for years. You brought in supercooling, you told me i needed to buy a better thermometer. You have spent years foaming at the mouth over Numerounos perfectly reasonable responses to you. There was no switcheroo, no goal posts were changed. It has always been honestly assumed you are scientifically a moron. It is as simple as that. If you have integrity you can help me to understand what Sigurdur is talking about where to me he seems totally confused and yet time and time again you step into to defend what he says! No games are being played here. No goal posts have been changed, There is no f**k**g switcheroo. Are these people muddled up or what? They appear to be muddled up. You appeared to be muddled up. I still have no idea if in fact you do now understand the f**k**g topic. It really is that simple.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 29, 2015 5:30:46 GMT
You are mistaken. My comments regarding the Arctic was that the heat spikes seen in the cold months might be the result of the unusual high amount of freezing going during the winter. I brought Mark Serreze into the discussion because he and NSIDC at one time claimed the anonymously cool summers in the arctic was due to the melting of ice. Numerouno and yourself took great exception to that going so far as to write Serreze to tell him his ideas regarding latent heat were all screwed up. I offered a possible mechanism for the spikes in the form of latent heat polynyas something that you and Numeruno and you believed to be a myth. Anything else I may have said was in defense of that notion. So rather than rehash everything which is a waste of time perhaps you could tell us what is wrong with the notion of the release of latent heat in the Arctic winter warming the atmosphere when clearly during all the time significant heat spikes in the Arctic only occur when the temperatures are well below zero. The same case exists for when Sigurdur entered the conversation on the protection of crops. Nobody I ever heard said the orchard ends up above freezing from the spraying of water into a sub freezing orchard. We even told you that overnight temperatures of zero centigrade did not represent a threat to most crops, its temperatures that drop several degrees below that is what must be prevented. As far as the home heating was concerned I have built many passive systems to save energy. The simplest and most common is storing solar warmed water to feed a water heater and reduce energy in heating the water. My comment was that if you could figure out how to deal with the ice without expending too much energy you could heat or assist heating homes in Finland using the heat of fusion. This all harkens back to the "will throwing a blanket over a dead body cause the body to warm?" goal posts switcheroo once the point was lost to "throwing a blanket over a dead cooling body will cause the surface of the dead body to warm". Your style of arguing is to continue to argue beyond where your point is stone dead in hopes of finally causing somebody to make a minor error then you can jump on that and claim victory and pretend that was the only point ever in contention. But lets get back to those Arctic heat spikes and you tell me what is wrong with suggesting that the heat of fusion might be fully or partly responsible for them. p.s. I see you erased your original response. and trying to play semantics games because you have nothing else to offer. I erased the original response because it did not seem worth rehashing the earlier conversation when you have been falsely telling me for many many years I change goal posts and I am a liar. I have not changed any goal posts. The farmers sound totally muddled up and you have supported their stupid versions of reality for years. You brought in supercooling, you told me i needed to buy a better thermometer. You have spent years foaming at the mouth over Numerounos perfectly reasonable responses to you. There was no switcheroo, no goal posts were changed. It has always been honestly assumed you are scientifically a moron. It is as simple as that. If you are not changing the goal posts its easy to prove. . . .simply tell me what is wrong with the notion that some of the heat spikes in the winter arctic being the result of the heat of fusion from massive refreezes of water and why you think it is numerunos objections to that notion were so reasonable. Of course you can continue to try to switch the goal posts and we can get to the farmer's later but even that was a change of topic (change of goal posts) in what appeared to be an effort to not continue to argue Numerunos claim that the heat of fusion can warm anything.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 29, 2015 5:42:59 GMT
I erased the original response because it did not seem worth rehashing the earlier conversation when you have been falsely telling me for many many years I change goal posts and I am a liar. I have not changed any goal posts. The farmers sound totally muddled up and you have supported their stupid versions of reality for years. You brought in supercooling, you told me i needed to buy a better thermometer. You have spent years foaming at the mouth over Numerounos perfectly reasonable responses to you. There was no switcheroo, no goal posts were changed. It has always been honestly assumed you are scientifically a moron. It is as simple as that. If you are not changing the goal posts its easy to prove. . . .simply tell me what is wrong with the notion that some of the heat spikes in the winter arctic being the result of the heat of fusion from massive refreezes of water and why you think it is numerunos objections to that notion were so reasonable. Of course you can continue to try to switch the goal posts and we can get to the farmer's later but even that was a change of topic (change of goal posts) in what appeared to be an effort to not continue to argue Numerunos claim that the heat of fusion can warm anything. To the best of my knowledge and belief Numerouno in those earlier days never said anything to you at all that could have caused somebody who knew what latent heat was to object in the way you continue to object to his attempts to explain latent heat, where to me it seemed once again you were unable to understand something fairly simple scientifically speaking. The fact you continue to object and continue to call me a liar is describing something. The heat passes to the source of cooling. If you cool water with a cold wind to produce ice you warm the air that passes over the icey water. However, if you cool liquid water that is not freezing, ie the water is warmer than icey water, you warm the air more than if you cool air to produce ice. Yes energy is released but it only stops the temperature decline. I think part of the problem is the useage of the word 'released'. Instead the heat can only flow out of the water like any heat flows from an object in the presence of a lower temperature to enable that. 'Release' implies it floats off somewhere like a packet of energy that can be used elsewhere. solarcycle24com.proboards.com/post/93521/threadI am not the kind of person to lie cheat and change goal posts. You can keep repeating the same stupidity for ever and nothing this end of the conversation will change. You used the same idiot tactics in pretty well every conversation we ever had. These things do not describe me. They describe you. The person who called Steve a liar simply because he was trying to help you understand something. And you are still baiting me because I object to the way you treated him. >>simply tell me what is wrong with the notion that some of the heat spikes in the winter arctic being the result of the heat of fusion from massive refreezes of water It sounds muddled. Prior to the massive increase in freezing there were massive amounts of warmer water able to cause more massive amounts of heating. It sounds like the same muddled thinking that permeated the NSIDC and biologists texts. Text that you have consistantly baited me with by saying it says none of the things I am claiming it says - even after I got a letter from serreze himself. You specifically objected to Numerouno telling you that the latent heat could not heat anything and it was only being changed into sensible heat to stabilise the temperature. You baited him continually in a mocking infantile manner because he emphasised sensible heat. You are still mocking him and me in the same idiot infantile manner.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Sept 29, 2015 8:22:35 GMT
The temperature spikes are quite small and are likely to be the result of wind driving plumes of relatively warm air into the region from the flanks of the arctic. The energy of fusion is only able to buffer or plateau the temperature decline during freezing I think your graph some days ago depicted this effect quite well.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 29, 2015 14:32:46 GMT
To the best of my knowledge and belief Numerouno in those earlier days never said anything to you at all that could have caused somebody who knew what latent heat was to object in the way you continue to object to his attempts to explain latent heat, where to me it seemed once again you were unable to understand something fairly simple scientifically speaking. The fact you continue to object and continue to call me a liar is describing something. Besides the fact I do not see myself using the word liar in regards to this part of the discussion. But you do have a history of saying what is not so and claiming that the deadbody blanket change from warming of the body to warming the surface of the body was not a change in goal posts when clearly it was, unless of course you wish to go back and argue once again that placing a blanket over a dead body will heat that dead body. Thats fine Andrew I will accept a concession to the point unless of course you really want to reargue that point. The heat passes to the source of cooling. If you cool water with a cold wind to produce ice you warm the air that passes over the icey water. However, if you cool liquid water that is not freezing, ie the water is warmer than icey water, you warm the air more than if you cool air to produce ice. Obviously then the notion of polynyas causing the warm spikes in the Arctic is a sensible notion then. Why did Numeruno and yourself object? As we have seen in the use of this phenomena in farmers crop fields a testimony to the stamina inherent in the process via latent heat. In the arctic where temps may be minus 20 to 60 degrees blowing over ice the ice may slightly warm the wind but due to conduction through ice being slow it has little comparative effect to the same wind blowing over openings in the ice. Whether the opening starts out as a sensible heat polynya with upwellings of waters warmer than freezing, water a few degrees above zero has access to far more latent heat than sensible heat before turning into relatively impotent ice. I think part of the problem is the useage of the word 'released'. Instead the heat can only flow out of the water like any heat flows from an object in the presence of a lower temperature to enable that. 'Release' implies it floats off somewhere like a packet of energy that can be used elsewhere. LOL! Andrew release of latent heat into a wind does mean energy leaving the ice and entering the air where it goes elsewhere. So what is wrong with that implication? Further: nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/polynyas.htmlThis explanation from the NSIDC uses the word "release" in its first sentence on latent heat polynyas. I realize you wrote a storm of letters to the NSIDC in hopes of correcting them because it had completely annihilated your position on the matter. For that effort as you can see years later the text remains unchanged. So who is the idiot? I am not the kind of person to lie cheat and change goal posts. You can keep repeating the same stupidity for ever and nothing this end of the conversation will change. You used the same idiot tactics in pretty well every conversation we ever had. These things do not describe me. They describe you. The person who called Steve a liar simply because he was trying to help you understand something. And you are still baiting me because I object to the way you treated him. Well since Steve disappeared probably a year before my having an exchange with you I have to assume that Steve was one of your many sock puppets. >>simply tell me what is wrong with the notion that some of the heat spikes in the winter arctic being the result of the heat of fusion from massive refreezes of water It sounds muddled. Prior to the massive increase in freezing there were massive amounts of warmer water able to cause more massive amounts of heating. Massive? A -20C wind over 5C water which probably is not untypical can harvest 80calories of latent heat per gram of water and 5calories of sensible heat per same gram if the wind warms to 0C and the water freezes. Massive seems more appropriately applied to the latent heat by a factor of 16 to 1. Heck if you had boiling water upwelling (which would require an underwater volcano to boil the water) the sensible heat capability would be greater than the latent heat capability by a ratio of 1.25 to 1 (hardly massive even with such a stretch as boiling water upwelling in the arctic which clearly would be an extremely rare exception). Basically Andrew you are going to look a lot smarter admitting to a mistake than continuing this ridiculous objection of yours. It sounds like the same muddled thinking that permeated the NSIDC and biologists texts. Text that you have consistantly baited me with by saying it says none of the things I am claiming it says - even after I got a letter from serreze himself. You specifically objected to Numerouno telling you that the latent heat could not heat anything and it was only being changed into sensible heat to stabilise the temperature. You baited him continually in a mocking infantile manner because he emphasised sensible heat. You are still mocking him and me in the same idiot infantile manner. You will need to support that because you are arguing that my position that warm spikes in the arctic were caused at least in part by latent heat means I thought that latent heat could be measured with a thermometer. Obviously now that you are educated on the topic you want to assume my side of the argument. That seems natural for somebody who lost and argument badly and does not want to admit it. Numeruno never said the latent heat was converted into sensible heat and instead said it remained latent heat outside of the ice and was not capable of warming anything. Now Numerouno was partly correct in that evaporation does take latent heat from freezing water and converts it to latent heat for water vapor but he was stone incorrect in objecting to my proposition that latent heat was converted to sensible heat to cause the temperature spikes. Next Andrew you will be claiming that Numerouno was arguing for the proposition that latent heat causes the heat spikes in the Arctic. Actually Numerouno stated that latent heat remains latent. But the -5 to -60 degree air is also being warmed by the 0 degree water converting while converting to ice while not cooling in a sensible way. That warmed air then hits a rare temp station and you can get a warm spike. Now you want to slither into this argument like a greasy dog and try to claim the essence of it. If that doesn't make you a liar it makes you totally out of touch with reality.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 29, 2015 18:11:10 GMT
you do have a history of saying what is not so and claiming that the deadbody blanket change from warming of the body to warming the surface of the body was not a change in goal posts when clearly it was, unless of course you wish to go back and argue once again that placing a blanket over a dead body will heat that dead body. Newsflash for you. Two years ago, in response to your relentless infantile stupidity I proved, using text included in other peoples commments, that I never said what you two clowns claimed I said. >>Now you want to slither into this argument like a greasy dog and try to claim the essence of it. If that doesn't make you a liar it makes you totally out of touch with reality. You make things far too complicated. The simple truth is I think you are scientifically illiterate and when you tell me to get a better thermometer and i repeatedly tell you of course water can heat colder objects and you keep telling me I am wrong I am bound to assume you have no f**king idea about latent heat. Do you understand latent heat? To this day i have no f**king idea. >>LOL! Andrew release of latent heat into a wind does mean energy leaving the ice and entering the air where it goes elsewhere. So what is wrong with that implication? As exhaustively explained the latent heat keeps the water from freezing. Once frozen it is all gone. The latent heat cannot go anywhere it cannot be released and float off somewhere. All it can do is keep the water at 0C so that the water can heat things. If you keep talking about the release of latent heat without acknowledging it is the 0C water that is doing the heating I will assume you are confused. I made it totally clear two years ago the water can heat things, and you objected no matter what I said. You and Magelland continually baited me and Num because we pointed out the latent heat could only heat things via the sensible heat of 0C water. Why? What is your explanation?? At the time you two were claiming that Num and me were claiming some kind of higher authority to be right just because we emphasised the only heating possible was via the sensible heat of the water. What the f**k are you talking about? Come on sunshine spell it out for grandpa before I die. When this saga began I was saying this in response to you: DMI measures the temperature of the air where the latent heat is released to. The latent heat exits the water/ice at that transition point but the exit of the latent heat does not change the temperature of the water/ice. However, it does change the temperature of the air. The ice can only freeze either by radiating energy to a colder air layer or space or by warming the very cold air that blows across the water ice mixture. So yes the ice is releasing energy to the atmosphere and the ice is a source of heat which can warm the atmosphere, but the unfrozen water is also a source of heat that can warm the atmosphere and is actually a greater source of heat because it has a higher temperature. It is called the latent heat of fusion of water for a good reason. You cannot observe the release of heat because it is hidden. The two of you are like two peas in a pod! How about a source that addresses the effect on air temperature, yea or nay? I gave you guys one and both of you are standing their waving your arms!! So now Serreze is your authority? A child can understand that a warmer sea heats the even colder atmosphere more than a colder sea can heat the even colder atmosphere The reason for the anomaly in figure 3 is because you have an open warmer sea and you do not have an ice bound colder sea. If you understand what latent heat is and you can read, your replies are just totally weird. You are objecting to everything I am telling you and there is no justification for that whatsoever if you understand latent heat. Yet page after page you keep objecting even while I go to great lengths to stress the water is heating something colder than the water. What the f**k are you talking about??? Come on lad spell it out for Gods sake!
|
|