|
Post by Andrew on Aug 27, 2013 18:30:54 GMT
Mark Serreze the director of the NSIDC wrote an article claiming that when ice freezes the arctic atmosphere warms up I wrote to NSIDC pointing out that was wrong ------------------------- Hi
You have an online article that has a major error in it.
nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2008/11/an-expected-paradox-autumn-warmth-and-ice-growth/ Contrary to what the article claims, when ice freezes the latent heat that is within the water is not released in any visible manner when ice forms. Instead as the ice forms the temperature fall of the ice is no longer observed until it is fully frozen.
The article is claiming that heat is somehow radiated from the ice into the atmosphere to cause widespread warming during ice formation. If that was so then ice formation would not involve a latent heat of fusion. The word Latent means hidden or not visible.
Is there any chance this article could be removed pleased or have a note added to it to make it clear the article is wrong?
Regards
Andrew----------------------------------------- NSIDC have written back "In regard to your inquiry about the November 2008 Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis post (nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2008/11/an-expected-paradox-autumn-warmth-and-ice-growth/), NSIDC scientists have provided some clarification below.
During ice formation, the ice itself is not releasing the latent heat. However, it is the ocean water beneath the ice that releases latent heat as the water freezes into ice. That heat is then conducted upwards through the ice cover. As a result, the ice surface is warmer than it would otherwise be (without the latent heat release from ice formation), and this represents a heat source to the atmosphere. Ice growth is one of the reasons why near-surface air temperatures are often higher over the Arctic Ocean in winter than over land areas at considerably lower latitudes.
I hope that this information provides clarification." Essentially they have provided something that is not wrong, but not dealt with the article I have replied: Yes the ice would be colder if it were not for the latent heat. However, the rate of heating of the cold atmosphere per unit time by water at 0.0001C is likely to be greater than the rate of heating per unit time of icey water at 0C
We cannot say therefore that there is additional heat available to heat the colder atmosphere once the ice begins forming in the way the incorrect online article is describing
The online article is saying when ice forms, the atmosphere that is cooling the ice, mysteriously gets warmer! :-)
You cannot possibly leave the article online like that.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Aug 27, 2013 18:47:47 GMT
their original article said nothing but it was technically wrong and their rebuttal depended on the poorly described process to allow a sort of a rational.
the long and the short of it is that open water at 0C buffers the air above from temperature fall till it freezes.
but they will never admit a poorly worded statement is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 27, 2013 19:07:11 GMT
Mark Serreze the director of the NSIDC wrote an article claiming that when ice freezes the arctic atmosphere warms up I wrote to NSIDC pointing out that was wrong NSIDC have written back "In regard to your inquiry about the November 2008 Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis post (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2008/11/an-expected-paradox-autumn-warmth-and-ice-growth/), NSIDC scientists have provided some clarification below. During ice formation, the ice itself is not releasing the latent heat. However, it is the ocean water beneath the ice that releases latent heat as the water freezes into ice. That heat is then conducted upwards through the ice cover. As a result, the ice surface is warmer than it would otherwise be (without the latent heat release from ice formation), and this represents a heat source to the atmosphere. Ice growth is one of the reasons why near-surface air temperatures are often higher over the Arctic Ocean in winter than over land areas at considerably lower latitudes. I hope that this information provides clarification." Essentially they have provided something that is not wrong, but not dealt with the article I have replied: Yes the ice would be colder if it were not for the latent heat. However, the rate of heating of the cold atmosphere per unit time by water at 0.0001C is likely to be greater than the rate of heating per unit time of icey water at 0C We cannot say therefore that there is additional heat available to heat the colder atmosphere once the ice begins forming in the way the incorrect online article is describing The online article is saying when ice forms the atmosphere, that is cooling the ice, mysteriously gets warmer! :-) You cannot possibly leave the article online like that. Iceskater what don't you get about "it is the ocean water beneath the ice that releases latent heat as the water freezes into ice. That heat is then conducted upwards through the ice cover." You say that is "essentially not wrong" then turn right around and deny that this heat can warm anything. Thermodynamic laws say it will warm anything that is colder. If the surface of the ice is warming its going to also be warming the "climate surface" which is the air. A key assumption in climate science is the surface is both the radiating ice surface and the temperature of the air in the Stevenson screens our surface temperature stations measure. If so if the surface of the ice warms so must the air. there is no way out of this if you accept the statement you just accepted. If the air is warmer its cooling is going to be reduced, if the air is colder its rate of warming is going to increase. In both cases the air warms. According mainstream science if cooling is reduced warming must result and obviously if the rate of warming goes up it must warm the air too.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 27, 2013 19:12:44 GMT
their original article said nothing but it was technically wrong and their rebuttal depended on the poorly described process to allow a sort of a rational. the long and the short of it is that open water at 0C buffers the air above from temperature fall till it freezes. but they will never admit a poorly worded statement is wrong. I have got another almost immediate response from my recent reply from a fairly well known Scientist at NASA who does not seem to realise my query relates to the NSDIC articles claim that when rapid ice formation occurs the atmosphere warms up quite exciting!
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 27, 2013 19:48:24 GMT
Seems the penny is beginning to drop, but might have a way to go yet before they really get it. I wrote back to NASA: ------------------------------------------------------------ " you dont seem to be aware of the text of the online article which says
"As is normal for this time of year, ice extent increased rapidly through most of October. However, this year, the increase was particularly fast, which contributed to above-average air temperatures near the surface"
"Higher-than-average air temperatures
Over much of the Arctic, especially over the Arctic Ocean, air temperatures were unusually high. Near-surface air temperatures in the Beaufort Sea north of Alaska were more than 7 degrees Celsius (13 degrees Fahrenheit) above normal and the warming extended well into higher levels of the atmosphere. These warm conditions are consistent with rapid ice growth."
"Figure 3. In this image, near-surface air temperatures show strong warming near the surface in the Beaufort sea region, an area with substantial open water at the end of the melt season. The anomalously high temperatures extend well up into the atmosphere, showing that the ocean is transferring heat to the atmosphere as ice forms."
What you were describing was perfectly OK, what the online article is saying is not. The online article is clearly saying unusually rapid ice formation led to unusually high temperatures! :-)
There appears to be a widespread misconception on the internet that when water freezes things can be warmed up, Eg a cold atmosphere that is cooling water suddenly rises in temperature because ice is forming and is releasing latent heat.--------------------------------------------------- And promptly received this directly from NASA " Hi Andrew
Thanks. I think I see your point. The sentence you highlight may be ambiguous, implying that the growth causes the warmth when what is meant is that the rapid growth is a product of the heat transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere.
We'll discuss this further here and see we can suitably rephrase it. Thanks again for your comments." So it seems now they are agreeing the unusually rapid ice growth did not cause the unusual atmospheric warming, where unusual warming is the entire emphasis of the story, and instead they are going to rewrite it so that the unusually rapid growth of the cold ice was due to a large heat transfer to the unusually warm atmosphere!
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 27, 2013 23:45:04 GMT
The reason the atmosphere was warm all started with the formation of ice, and the rapid formation of such.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 28, 2013 0:45:08 GMT
Hi Andrew Thanks. I think I see your point. The sentence you highlight may be ambiguous, implying that the growth causes the warmth when what is meant is that the rapid growth is a product of the heat transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere.We'll discuss this further here and see we can suitably rephrase it. Thanks again for your comments. [/font]" So it seems now they are agreeing the unusually rapid ice growth did not cause the unusual atmospheric warming, where unusual warming is the entire emphasis of the story, and instead they are going to rewrite it so that the unusually rapid growth of the cold ice was due to a large heat transfer to the unusually warm atmosphere! [/quote] I will be anxiously awaiting this new thermodynamic wonder of heat being transferred from the ocean to the atmosphere with zero effect on the unusually warm atmosphere. So how did the atmosphere get unusually warm? My read on their response is a bit different than yours. I think they acknowledged you found the statement confusing so they are going to see if they can fix it so as to not confuse you.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 28, 2013 5:30:03 GMT
The reason the atmosphere was warm all started with the formation of ice, and the rapid formation of such. It will be interesting to see what the Cryospheric Sciences Lab at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center comes up with. So far their response in the context of that NSDIC article is hellishly muddled up. 1. They agree the ice is being cooled by the colder atmosphere 2. They agree that the rapid formation of ice was not the cause of the warming of the atmosphere 3. They agree rapid formation of ice is due to rapid transfer of heat from the cold ice to the colder atmosphere (or some other place) 4. They might see my point, and may be able to produce a clearer description, where so far they are persisting with the wrong headed notion the Arctic air was warmer in October 2008 than is typical, because of rapid formation of ice leading to rapid transfer of heat from the cold ice to the colder but unusually warmer atmosphere! Fairly clearly the unusually warm conditions in the Arctic atmosphere had absolutely squat directly to do with rapid formation of ice and some other, as yet unknown factor, is in play. Probably a blast of warmer dry but still cold air arrived from the South, and the heat in the water just rapidly radiated to space and the two events of warmer air and rapid freezing, while connected, are not directly related one to the other as one causing the other as they are wanting to believe. The whole deal about latent heat polynyas is muddled thinking.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 28, 2013 7:10:04 GMT
The reason the atmosphere was warm all started with the formation of ice, and the rapid formation of such. It will be interesting to see what the Cryospheric Sciences Lab at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center comes up with. So far their response in the context of that NSDIC article is hellishly muddled up. 1. They agree the ice is being cooled by the colder atmosphere 2. They agree that the rapid formation of ice was not the cause of the warming of the atmosphere 3. They agree rapid formation of ice is due to rapid transfer of heat from the cold ice to the colder atmosphere (or some other place) 4. They might see my point, and may be able to produce a clearer description, where so far they are persisting with the wrong headed notion the Arctic air was warmer in October 2008 than is typical, because of rapid formation of ice leading to rapid transfer of heat from the cold ice to the colder but unusually warmer atmosphere! Fairly clearly the unusually warm conditions in the Arctic atmosphere had absolutely squat directly to do with rapid formation of ice and some other, as yet unknown factor, is in play. Probably a blast of warmer dry but still cold air arrived from the South, and the heat in the water just rapidly radiated to space and the two events of warmer air and rapid freezing, while connected, are not directly related one to the other as one causing the other as they are wanting to believe. The whole deal about latent heat polynyas is muddled thinking. My thought is NSIDC is not muddled. I think maybe NSIDC left something out that led you to think the heat of fusion warms the atmosphere to 7C when all they said was such a condition was consistent with the formation of ice. I don't think the ice warmed the atmosphere to 7C either. Earlier I pointed out that temperature inversions are offered as the ordinary condition in the arctic. I suppose that could be wrong, but its claimed repeatedly. An inverted temperature gradient at the surface is caused by the surface cooling the atmosphere. This happens frequently even in temperate zones, in the arctic its supposed to be the condition normal. The air above the inversion is typically much warmer. Its air being pumped into the arctic from lower latitudes, sent there to cool. My explanation provided for the latent heat to potentially warm the surface to 0, from say -2C. I also pointed out this reversal in the flow of heat would breakdown the inverted temperature gradient. So if the air above the gradient is 7 or 8 C and it warms the near surface atmosphere as the temperature inversion disappears that is consistent with the thickening of ice and how the heat of fusion stopped the surface cooling process and maybe even warmed it a little.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 28, 2013 9:00:08 GMT
It will be interesting to see what the Cryospheric Sciences Lab at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center comes up with. So far their response in the context of that NSDIC article is hellishly muddled up. 1. They agree the ice is being cooled by the colder atmosphere 2. They agree that the rapid formation of ice was not the cause of the warming of the atmosphere 3. They agree rapid formation of ice is due to rapid transfer of heat from the cold ice to the colder atmosphere (or some other place) 4. They might see my point, and may be able to produce a clearer description, where so far they are persisting with the wrong headed notion the Arctic air was warmer in October 2008 than is typical, because of rapid formation of ice leading to rapid transfer of heat from the cold ice to the colder but unusually warmer atmosphere! Fairly clearly the unusually warm conditions in the Arctic atmosphere had absolutely squat directly to do with rapid formation of ice and some other, as yet unknown factor, is in play. Probably a blast of warmer dry but still cold air arrived from the South, and the heat in the water just rapidly radiated to space and the two events of warmer air and rapid freezing, while connected, are not directly related one to the other as one causing the other as they are wanting to believe. The whole deal about latent heat polynyas is muddled thinking. My thought is NSIDC is not muddled. I think maybe NSIDC left something out that led you to think the heat of fusion warms the atmosphere to 7C when all they said was such a condition was consistent with the formation of ice. I don't think the ice warmed the atmosphere to 7C either. Earlier I pointed out that temperature inversions are offered as the ordinary condition in the arctic. I suppose that could be wrong, but its claimed repeatedly. An inverted temperature gradient at the surface is caused by the surface cooling the atmosphere. This happens frequently even in temperate zones, in the arctic its supposed to be the condition normal. The air above the inversion is typically much warmer. Its air being pumped into the arctic from lower latitudes, sent there to cool. My explanation provided for the latent heat to potentially warm the surface to 0, from say -2C. I also pointed out this reversal in the flow of heat would breakdown the inverted temperature gradient. So if the air above the gradient is 7 or 8 C and it warms the near surface atmosphere as the temperature inversion disappears that is consistent with the thickening of ice and how the heat of fusion stopped the surface cooling process and maybe even warmed it a little. The NSIDC article makes it totally clear the air in question is much colder than 0C. And the reply from NASA makes it clear that large amounts of heat are flowing from cold ice to the atmosphere. And the NSIDC makes it totally clear that the so called latent heat coastal area polynyanas are caused by a very cold katabatic wind blowing off the land. What aspect of cold air are you unable to understand?? The 7C is the positive anomaly. It is not the temperature of the air. The article says the arctic air is well below 0C by late september and they are discussing ice formation in October. You are muddled up. They are muddled up The NSIDC is clearly not talking about temperature inversions and radiation to space, and instead saying the colder near surface air, which is freezing the water. being warmer than normal nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2008/11/an-expected-paradox-autumn-warmth-and-ice-growth/"While surface air temperatures in the Beaufort Sea region are well below freezing by late September, before sea ice can start to grow, the ocean must lose the heat it gained during the summer. One way the ocean does this is by transferring its heat to the atmosphere. This heat transfer is largely responsible for the anomalously high (but still below freezing) air temperatures over the Arctic Ocean seen in Figure 3. Only after the ocean loses its heat and cools to the freezing point, can ice begin to form. The process of ice formation also releases heat to the atmosphere. Part of the anomalous temperature pattern seen in Figure 3 is an expression of this process, which is generally called the latent heat of fusion." "Figure 3. In this image, near-surface air temperatures show strong warming near the surface in the Beaufort sea region, an area with substantial open water at the end of the melt season. The anomalously high temperatures extend well up into the atmosphere, showing that the ocean is transferring heat to the atmosphere as ice forms." Evidently reading is a problem in America and that is not helping resolve this, but you could probably find paid employment at NSIDC or NASA as their science to public liason officer.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 28, 2013 11:08:42 GMT
Fine a 7C anomaly that is still below zero could be entirely caused by the latent heat of fusion. It could also be caused by what i suggested it could be caused by if it were actual 7C.
I did misread your missive but didn't offer anything not possible. I pointed out in a previous post that the mix between the atmosphere warming from the heat of fusion versus the breakdown of a negative temperature gradient was a deeper matter that might only be constrained by the heat of fusion not warming anything above 0C. But I also pointed out that since its considered an exothermic process that maybe even that limitation was not real.
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Aug 28, 2013 11:28:01 GMT
Thank you Andrew for taking the effort of writing the originators!
Must say I'm still not quite satisfied in how they treat the heat issue.
There's still an amount of "bursts of energy" thinking. Energy during the cooling will be drawn from the water, freezing water, and ice at different times, and the heat in the environment of the cooling body can't be detected and "earmarked" as having come from a specific stage of cooling. A fast water-to-water rate of cooling will be easier to achieve, and the maximum ice-to-water rate will be far more slower. The surroundings will be unable to tell the source of energy in either case.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 28, 2013 11:49:45 GMT
Thank you Andrew for taking the effort of writing the originators! Must say I'm still not quite satisfied in how they treat the heat issue. There's still an amount of "bursts of energy" thinking. Energy during the cooling will be drawn from the water, freezing water, and ice at different times, and the heat in the environment of the cooling body can't be detected and "earmarked" as having come from a specific stage of cooling. A fast water-to-water rate of cooling will be easier to achieve, and the maximum ice-to-water rate will be far more slower. The surroundings will be unable to tell the source of energy in either case. The exothermic bursts are not out of question. I think we all recognize thermodynamic limits on energy transfer. Ice most probably cannot warm anything above 0C simply because to do so would halt the freezing process. but what limit is there on this burst? If say the air temperature was 30C below the surface temperature which was at freezing? Could the heat of fusion cause a burst of 750watt/m2? If not why not? Please show your calculations!
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 28, 2013 11:51:28 GMT
Thank you Andrew for taking the effort of writing the originators! Must say I'm still not quite satisfied in how they treat the heat issue. There's still an amount of "bursts of energy" thinking. Energy during the cooling will be drawn from the water, freezing water, and ice at different times, and the heat in the environment of the cooling body can't be detected and "earmarked" as having come from a specific stage of cooling. A fast water-to-water rate of cooling will be easier to achieve, and the maximum ice-to-water rate will be far more slower. The surroundings will be unable to tell the source of energy in either case. Exactly. Likewise i thank you for bringing the topic to my attention to begin with. I think by the time the dust settles a few heads will have exploded, and so far i have not raised the absurdity of so called Latent Heat Coastal Polynyas. It seems fairly obvious that at the moment they totally do not get it.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 28, 2013 11:55:19 GMT
Could the heat of fusion cause a burst of 750watt/m2? If not why not? Please show your calculations! You need to learn to read! There is no such thing as heat of fusion of ice.
|
|