|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 2, 2013 5:52:04 GMT
fanny parks: wanderings of a pilgrim in search of the picturesque. Vol 1 Chapter 9 Residence at Allahabad "The Ice pits January 22nd-—My husband has the management of the ice concern this year. It is now in full work, the weather bitterly cold, and we are making ice by evaporation almost every night. I may here remark, the work continued until 19th of February when the pit was closed with ...80 pounds weight" "The highest temperature at which ice was made in 1846, at Cawnpore, was 43 degrees fahrenheit or 11 degrees above freezing point" Living at the side of the sea I have seen frost appear on my windshield when the temp was around 40F. When I lived in the desert you don't see much of that because the air is so dry. But it gets colder because of that, so if you have a thousand slaves scrapping frost off of slabs of glazed rock you might be able to produce a bit of ice. Wow 80lbs out of how many many days? One manager with 29 man days and how many slave man days? Lad, if you electrically freeze 24 lots of water to create 24 standard ice cubes a day it will take you over 5 months to produce 80 pounds of ice. According to Fanny the workers were paid but yes if you are supreme ruler you can probably pay people less so you can enjoy the typical amount of ice a family produces with electricity before the devices were even invented Did you have a point? And whats this stuff about the desert being colder because of absense of water vapour. That was the first lesson i attempted to get to penetrate your skull. I cannot believe you have learnt anything at all in the last 19 months so no doubt you have some hair brained idea why the desert is colder for having less water vapour? |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 2, 2013 6:37:16 GMT
Living at the side of the sea I have seen frost appear on my windshield when the temp was around 40F. When I lived in the desert you don't see much of that because the air is so dry. But it gets colder because of that, so if you have a thousand slaves scrapping frost off of slabs of glazed rock you might be able to produce a bit of ice. Wow 80lbs out of how many many days? One manager with 29 man days and how many slave man days? Lad, if you electrically freeze 24 lots of water to create 24 standard ice cubes a day it will take you over 5 months to produce 80 pounds of ice. According to Fanny the workers were paid but yes if you are supreme ruler you can probably pay people less so you can enjoy the typical amount of ice a family produces with electricity before the devices were even invented Did you have a point? And whats this stuff about the desert being colder because of absense of water vapour. That was the first lesson i attempted to get to penetrate your skull. I cannot believe you have learnt anything at all in the last 19 months so no doubt you have some hair brained idea why the desert is colder for having less water vapour? You are delusional! I have over 6 years of desert living experience to draw from. Comparing deserts to the coast provides an object lesson in the impotence of the greenhouse effect. Nights are colder in the desert and days are warmer. Also season matters. Desert 24 hour days are warmer than the coast in summer and colder in winter. Net? Probably zero. My take on how we will get over this CO2 causes warming BS is climate science will start conceding one point at a time like you and Numno have been doing since the start of the heat of fusion discussion. That process will continue until climate scientists will be claiming it was their original idea that CO2 does not cause significant warming! It will be like looking back at Galileo as science conquering religion. Some will take the blame and will have no credibility when they seek that kind of cover. It will be Pope Gore and Bishops Jones, Mann, Hansen, and Santer who will suffer the greatest credibility challenges. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 2, 2013 7:02:13 GMT
Lad, if you electrically freeze 24 lots of water to create 24 standard ice cubes a day it will take you over 5 months to produce 80 pounds of ice. According to Fanny the workers were paid but yes if you are supreme ruler you can probably pay people less so you can enjoy the typical amount of ice a family produces with electricity before the devices were even invented Did you have a point? And whats this stuff about the desert being colder because of absense of water vapour. That was the first lesson i attempted to get to penetrate your skull. I cannot believe you have learnt anything at all in the last 19 months so no doubt you have some hair brained idea why the desert is colder for having less water vapour? You are delusional! I have over 6 years of desert living experience to draw from. Comparing deserts to the coast provides an object lesson in the impotence of the greenhouse effect. Nights are colder in the desert and days are warmer. Also season matters. Desert 24 hour days are warmer than the coast in summer and colder in winter. Net? Probably zero. My take on how we will get over this CO2 causes warming BS is climate science will start conceding one point at a time like you and Numno have been doing since the start of the heat of fusion discussion. That process will continue until climate scientists will be claiming it was their original idea that CO2 does not cause significant warming! It will be like looking back at Galileo as science conquering religion. Some will take the blame and will have no credibility when they seek that kind of cover. It will be Pope Gore and Bishops Jones, Mann, Hansen, and Santer who will suffer the greatest credibility challenges. You are essentially agreeing with me With the exception of the lie that a theory of C02 induced warming is some kind of a fabrication produced by climate scientists when it is basic science that has been established for over 160 years. You are antiscience and wish to return us to the dark ages where ignorance had more muscle than brains. No points of relevance have been conceded on latent heat that is just your usual retarded manner of having a conversation Similarly Sigurdur retardedly talks about only semantic differences If you lot had your way Tyndall would have been burnt at the stake |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 2, 2013 7:11:44 GMT
Making ice the old fashioned way is interesting.
As far as Tyndall. Good luck.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 2, 2013 7:30:49 GMT
Making ice the old fashioned way is interesting. As far as Tyndall. Good luck. Icefisher wants to throw Kelvin on the fire too. And evidently you either have contempt for the ancient Greeks or you have not got the decency to concede you were mistaken on the shape of the earth making a signficant difference And that is what it comes down to in this conversation Icefisher Magellan and Sigurdur if they are actually different people all share the same disgusting lack of respect towards other people. Fairly obviously even though you cannot put two ideas together to save your life you think you know better than Tyndall And despite years of honest hard work nobody can get you to be different. Whatever is said to you, you think you know better. The connecting thread of all of this nonesense must surely be that Numerouno said you are a proven liar. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 2, 2013 8:18:36 GMT
Andrew: Get on a plane sometime. You will notice the effect of that round ball called earth. Or watch a ship coming into the harbor. Notice how you see the mast first. And if you ate a flying photon, why heck. You will fly right out to space.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 2, 2013 8:40:44 GMT
You are essentially agreeing with me. On the issue of forming ice on surfaces with ambient temperature above 0C only. With the exception of the lie that a theory of C02 induced warming is some kind of a fabrication produced by climate scientists when it is basic science that has been established for over 160 years. Correction! Established by other than empirical experiment, established in the mind only. Or at least that was the sum total of evidence you were able to bring forth. And my dear friend, I could care less if it was in the mind of some long dead legendary scientist. I see Roger Revelle fitting into that category of legendary scientist. He wrote in the year of his death in 1991: "The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time." His own family is now contending that by that he was not including the actions advocated by Al Gore. The question of course was then who the heck was he talking about? And why? Is Al Gore saying the same thing? You are antiscience and wish to return us to the dark ages where ignorance had more muscle than brains. No doubt the exact same thing was said to Galileo. No points of relevance have been conceded on latent heat that is just your usual retarded manner of having a conversation The original point was latent heat could not become sensitive heat. Numno said it was all deployed in chopping down mountains from the expansion of ice. Now its claimed that was an aside, which of course at that point in time completely left him without anything else for the employment of latent heat. You brainlessly jumped in and defended him. Now both of you are trying to distance yourself from that characterization but neither of you can point to post that expressed a different point of view. You have nothing zip zilch nada to point to anything else you thought was more relevant. Similarly Sigurdur retardedly talks about only semantic differences Sigurdur is simply being his polite usual self. If you lot had your way Tyndall would have been burnt at the stake Why? I am not even advocating you be burnt at the stake. Anyway its easy to prove a greenhouse effect, namely greenhouse gases slow cooling. But slowing cooling does not mean warming and it does not mean a higher average temperature either. For warming you need a warming source capable of equilibrium above the Stefan Boltzmann radiative equilibrium for radiation. You also need for there not to be an offset of slowing of warming. You have yet to provide evidence that Tyndall made the needed proofs. So how could I possibly want a tougher punishment for him than you even while I have not advocated any punishment for you? |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 2, 2013 10:19:11 GMT
Andrew: Get on a plane sometime. You will notice the effect of that round ball called earth. Or watch a ship coming into the harbor. Notice how you see the mast first. And if you ate a flying photon, why heck. You will fly right out to space. Maths and science is not your thing The thickness of the atmosphere is trivial in comparison to the size of the earth Just put your gummies on and muck out for gods sake and leave the science to others |
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Sept 2, 2013 10:21:03 GMT
My take on how we will get over this CO2 causes warming BS is climate science will start conceding one point at a time like you and Numno have been doing since the start of the heat of fusion discussion. Just to make things certain with you, I'm not conceding any point I have made about latent heat. You will need to. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 2, 2013 10:24:30 GMT
slowing cooling does not mean warming and it does not mean a higher average temperature either. For warming you need a warming source capable of equilibrium above the Stefan Boltzmann radiative equilibrium for radiation. You also need for there not to be an offset of slowing of warming. The earth must warm up if cooling is reduced when heated Your reasoning is wrong And nobody can reason with you. >> For warming you need a warming source capable of equilibrium above the Stefan Boltzmann radiative equilibrium for radiation. The statement is meaningless gibberish. And nobody can reason with you You claimed the arctic atmosphere warms up when water begins freezing. Your reasoning is wrong And nobody can reason with you. >>The original point was latent heat could not become sensitive heat. No it was not. You claimed the arctic atmosphere warms up when water begins freezing. Your reasoning is wrong And nobody can reason with you. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 2, 2013 16:23:30 GMT
slowing cooling does not mean warming and it does not mean a higher average temperature either. For warming you need a warming source capable of equilibrium above the Stefan Boltzmann radiative equilibrium for radiation. You also need for there not to be an offset of slowing of warming. >>The original point was latent heat could not become sensitive heat. No it was not. You claimed the arctic atmosphere warms up when water begins freezing. Your reasoning is wrong And nobody can reason with you. the original point was the point you are now arguing on my side against Numno in the other thread, that the latent heat of fusion rises out of the water to maintain the water's temperature in the presence of a colder environment. Originally you agreed with Numno on his side of the argument. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 2, 2013 16:39:28 GMT
>>The original point was latent heat could not become sensitive heat. No it was not. You claimed the arctic atmosphere warms up when water begins freezing. Your reasoning is wrong And nobody can reason with you. the original point was the point you are now arguing on my side against Numno in the other thread, that the latent heat of fusion rises out of the water to maintain the water's temperature in the presence of a colder environment. Originally you agreed with Numno on his side of the argument. Whatever it is you are claiming i am saying, you said that the latent heat could heat the arctic and this only began happening when ice froze. Latent heat is a hidden heat. It cannot rise or appear or be revealed or even be released in any observeable manner whatsoever other than when the slightly more powerful heating source of water gets colder, the latent heat delays the waters ability to become colder still. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 2, 2013 16:39:59 GMT
.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 2, 2013 18:47:29 GMT
the original point was the point you are now arguing on my side against Numno in the other thread, that the latent heat of fusion rises out of the water to maintain the water's temperature in the presence of a colder environment. Originally you agreed with Numno on his side of the argument. Whatever it is you are claiming i am saying, you said that the latent heat could heat the arctic and this only began happening when ice froze. Latent heat is a hidden heat. It cannot rise or appear or be revealed or even be released in any observeable manner whatsoever other than when the slightly more powerful heating source of water gets colder, the latent heat delays the waters ability to become colder still. You continue to confound heat and temperature. The heat of fusion does rise into the atmosphere. The temperature as a result might rise. The temperature will rise if the heat of fusion rising out of the water is greater than the loss of heat by the atmosphere in the first few inches (30cm according the article on boreal region irrigation) to air and space above the near surface air. Basic physics again. In the arctic with water temperature of surface waters and extending down several meters is -2C and still in need of cooling because of the colder air above. Ice begins to form on the surface both releasing the heat of fusion into the air and squeezing cold brines out touching off further freezing below the icecap. These brines become captured in bubbles in the freshwater ice that is forming. That ice rises from the heat of fusion to near 0C (a bit less because of some salts remaining and the very cold brines in the pockets conducting heat out of the ice). Through this process freezing of perhaps even a couple of meters of surface waters could occur very quickly releasing a lot of heat into the atmosphere via the warming of the ice as seen in the supercooled water at -4C warming the ice as it freezes ending up closer to 0C than when the process started. Dr. Serreze and every scientific article brought into this discussion either supports this notion or is silent on this notion. All we have is a couple of Finns waving their arms in desperation claiming its not supported by science and showing no disproof of the science articles that have been provided supporting the notion. That seems to be business as usual around here for you Andrew. At least I provide some supporting science when claiming a scientific fact. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 2, 2013 19:02:17 GMT
Whatever it is you are claiming i am saying, you said that the latent heat could heat the arctic and this only began happening when ice froze. Latent heat is a hidden heat. It cannot rise or appear or be revealed or even be released in any observeable manner whatsoever other than when the slightly more powerful heating source of water gets colder, the latent heat delays the waters ability to become colder still. You continue to confound heat and temperature. The heat of fusion does rise into the atmosphere. The temperature as a result might rise. The temperature will rise if the heat of fusion rising out of the water is greater than the loss of heat by the atmosphere in the first few inches (30cm according the article on boreal region irrigation) to air and space above the near surface air. Basic physics again. In the situations we are talking about there is no heat of fusion. So there can be no heat rising out of the non existing heat of fusion |
|
