|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 14, 2014 7:51:16 GMT
You should easily be able to work out for yourself that you are wrong By your reasoning if you cool water in the centre of a well mixed sphere of water, which will be at 0 degree for pure water then the sphere will appear to be above 0C when viewed with a radiometer as the ice forms, even though the contents of the sphere remain at 0C. The idea is nonesense. No matter how you design an experiment to produce your expected result the result you would obtain would be nonesensical. Buy a better instrument Andrew! |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 14, 2014 9:11:55 GMT
Buy a better instrument Andrew! You took the above out of context. The context was you were contesting NSIDC and this which was on their website: "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."This is the basics of the latent heat polynya effect. You claimed: solarcycle24com.proboards.com/post/93505/threadThe NSIDC authors and most of the writers on the internet are muddled up. It is not possible to create an engine that can cool water so it freezes that can collect any heat elsewhere whatoever, unless a heat pump is used. All Serreze is looking at is a sea that is warmer because it has less ice than an ice bound sea.You have been claiming NSIDC's statement was nonsense for months! Now finally at last you have admitted that the claims made by Serreze, Sigurdur, and myself are correct! So you are now embarking on trying to rewrite everybody's assertions by taking a sideways comments out of the contextual meat of the discussion. I can't even recall what instrument I was suggesting you replace. Probably your brain! Here I acknowledged the "open water polynyas". "Nice logic Andrew. Only problem is you forgot this is a paradox explaining why its warming when there is LESS warmer open sea available because of the ice growing! Your explanation would only be appropriate for warming when the open sea area is growing."p.s. And thanks for the thread stating I am stupid! I can't think of a better compliment coming from you! Its kind of like hitting the honor roll once again or earning a "gold star".  |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 14, 2014 12:47:05 GMT
You took the above out of context. The context was you were contesting NSIDC and this which was on their website: "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."This is the basics of the latent heat polynya effect. You claimed: solarcycle24com.proboards.com/post/93505/threadThe NSIDC authors and most of the writers on the internet are muddled up. It is not possible to create an engine that can cool water so it freezes that can collect any heat elsewhere whatoever, unless a heat pump is used. All Serreze is looking at is a sea that is warmer because it has less ice than an ice bound sea.You have been claiming NSIDC's statement was nonsense for months! Now finally at last you have admitted that the claims made by Serreze, Sigurdur, and myself are correct! So you are now embarking on trying to rewrite everybody's assertions by taking a sideways comments out of the contextual meat of the discussion. I can't even recall what instrument I was suggesting you replace. Probably your brain! Here I acknowledged the "open water polynyas". "Nice logic Andrew. Only problem is you forgot this is a paradox explaining why its warming when there is LESS warmer open sea available because of the ice growing! Your explanation would only be appropriate for warming when the open sea area is growing."p.s. And thanks for the thread stating I am stupid! I can't think of a better compliment coming from you! Its kind of like hitting the honor roll once again or earning a "gold star". So now the NSIDC article is correct? Man you are so unbelievably dumb! Open waters means more atmospheric heating than when ice is present/forming! What aspect of that simple reality is so utterly beyond you to understand?? Mark Serreze apologised to me personally for his stupidity in creating such a f.ucked up article >>finally at last you have admitted that the claims made by Serreze, Sigurdur, and myself are correct! How can you possibly write such a stupid statement?  |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 14, 2014 16:43:28 GMT
So now the NSIDC article is correct? Man you are so unbelievably dumb! Open waters means more atmospheric heating than when ice is present/forming! Who ever disputed that? The NSIDC article does not say there is more heating when ice is forming than in any other situtation such as when ice openings are increasing! Why are you too stupid to even state NSIDC's position on this matter? Can't you read? NSIDC says positive atmospheric anomalies are formed when ice is forming. In no way shape or form is that a claim there is no other way to have a larger positive anomaly if the ice is opening up! Nor is it a claim that positive atmospheric anomalies are formed always when ice is forming. NSIDC even goes on to explain there are a number of effects in the arctic that can create positive temperature anomalies and you are so block headed you just read past them and make nonsense claims that positive anomalies cannot be formed because previous to the ice formation there was more heat transfer into the atmosphere as if atmosphere and the surface were always in thermal equilibrium when in fact we know they hardly ever are. You are completely and hopeless locked into the concept that in all instances where ice is forming the airs would already have to be warmer than the ice because the water had to open up before the ice began to form. Actually what happens in these latent heat polynyas that cause warming temperature anomalies is the ice opens up and it stays open while freezing ice. It freezes it to the point it releases its latent heat without freezing solid and a frazil ice blows down wind across the open water and it operates like bottling plant constantly moving the bottles down stream all the while pouring heat into a cold atmosphere. NSIDC also talks about "sensible heat polynyas" where upwelling warm water currents open the ice and warm the air. >>finally at last you have admitted that the claims made by Serreze, Sigurdur, and myself are correct! How can you possibly write such a stupid statement? You stated: "Had you said that rising temperatures were due to the wind breaking the ice up to expose the warmer waters under the ice we would never be having this stupid conversation."If there ever was an admission by you that your argument was stupid its that right there that you stated 10 hours ago in the phase change thread. Thats because the argument by me, Sigurdur, and the NSIDC was never anything different. Further the reply you got from Walt Meier very clearly states this and it was Walt Meier that relayed your question to Serreze who essentially answered the same as Meier supporting the idea that yes over all the ice is not responsible for the warming as the warming has a source in water that is already warmer than freezing. As you are doing here, namely applying global arguments to regional and smaller effects; its clear that NSIDC with their abiding interest in global warming thought that the article might be confusing from a "global" climate point of view and very clearly told you the ultimate responsibility for the warm was a source of heat that warmed the waters, that essentially the water is not manufacturing heat out of nothing by freezing. I should note that the NSIDC article you took issue with said precisely the above and has always said precisely the above. Its also what I and Sigurdur have been claiming with the protection of crops from cold airs blowing into an orchard. Nobody has claimed this to be a global effect. Its purely regional or smaller. Thus your global argument about airs always cooling faster than or being warmer than the rate forming ice can transfer heat simply does not apply. You clearly simply lack the brain matter to fully wrap your mind around that without a major missed point. I would suggest multiple ways how the rules of your world can be violated. One was cold air blowing across solid surfaces in the dark arctic getting supercooled and arriving over open waters. This was always the method in the NSIDC paper. Those airs will warm as long as the open water is warmer than the air and latent heat sustains that effect longer thus providing the opportunity for more warming. Another prospect is polar subsidence where upper airs have cooled more than the lapse rate and subside into the arctic as the polar vortez feeds convection in temperate regions. Here open water leads can warm the airs by freezing also. In every instance your arguments apply globally but fail regionally or smaller. And if your home is not a global home you theoretically could use this effect to warm your house. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 14, 2014 17:18:05 GMT
In a field the effect is very regional. As long as the air temp stays mid 20's, there is enough latent heat from applied mist to keep the plants from freezing. This is common knowledge.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 14, 2014 17:49:56 GMT
It is impossible to have a heat spike in the Arctic due to the freezing of water where previously there must have been open water unless some other factor has changed where in any case the heat spike would have been greater for the same factor with warmer water.
No amount of obfuscation by you is going to change that.
To get a heat spike you need some other influence other than freezing.
Heat spikes in the arctic around October are not a sign of freezing as you claimed.
No puffs of warm air and no spontaneous releases of heat at the freezing point. Etc etc etc.
The best you could expect at the freezing point would be a reduction in the cooling rate of the atmosphere.
Heat spikes are totally impossible unless something else also changed which would create bigger heat spikes with warmer water.
You have spent 6 months trying to prove what is impossible.
|
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Jan 14, 2014 18:24:24 GMT
I think I would just have to agree to disagree and move on. I've been known to get and squabbles on here and just had to take a deep breath and walk away.
When you start insulting each other it's probably a sign that it's just that time...
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 14, 2014 21:08:45 GMT
It is impossible to have a heat spike in the Arctic due to the freezing of water where previously there must have been open water unless some other factor has changed where in any case the heat spike would have been greater for the same factor with warmer water. No amount of obfuscation by you is going to change that. To get a heat spike you need some other influence other than freezing. Heat spikes in the arctic around October are not a sign of freezing as you claimed. You are obviously wrong. When a cold wind comes off a continent and opens a lead in the ice, the air is not going to warm instantaneously, if the water is .01C and the air is -10C the air will warm very little before the process of latent heat takes over the job of warming the air. Why can you not understand such a simple concept? Is your ego so huge that you are going to spin out of control and plunge into the ground and look like a total moron to avoid admitting you are wrong? No puffs of warm air and no spontaneous releases of heat at the freezing point. Etc etc etc. This is simple to refute. Simply look into a physics book. Wikipedia definition of spontaneous release of heat: In physics, heating is spontaneous transfer of energy from one body to another, other than by work or transfer of matter. The best you could expect at the freezing point would be a reduction in the cooling rate of the atmosphere. Your claim regarding this is that "anyone" should know this. If anyone should know this you should be able to provide a reference to a beginner science book establishing this fact. If you can't that just makes you a big fat liar in addition to being an idiot. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 15, 2014 1:45:59 GMT
>>You are obviously wrong. When a cold wind comes off a continent and opens a lead in the ice,
In your example something has changed that enables additional heating
The heat spikes must always be related to a change where a higher source of heat is provided from somewhere. Freezing cannot spontaneously provide that change.
>>the air is not going to warm instantaneously, if the water is .01C
The heat spike spontaneously begins when that water begins cooling.
It cannot spontaneously begin when water freezes - a change is needed that creates more heating.
If a lead opens in a cold wind then a cold mass is now exposed to a warmer mass and warming of the cold mass begins immediately.
All cases of heat spikes have to be created by an additional heat source which freezing cannot provide, *or* they are created by less cooling of the atmosphere, *or* they are created by a change in air mass.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 15, 2014 2:24:16 GMT
>>the air is not going to warm instantaneously, if the water is .01C The heat spike spontaneously begins when that water begins cooling. It cannot spontaneously begin when water freezes - a change is needed that creates more heating. You catch on quick. Now that you know latent heat release is a spontaneous release of heat you are all set to run around teaching it to everybody else. Good for you! Except you still have a few problems when the -10C wind opens the lead over the .01C water, the water spontaneously starts transferring heat to the atmosphere. Latent heat however does not spontaneously begins to release and become manifested as sensible heat until the water begins to freeze. Warming of the atmosphere does not stop at that time. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 15, 2014 2:27:12 GMT
>>the air is not going to warm instantaneously, if the water is .01C The heat spike spontaneously begins when that water begins cooling. It cannot spontaneously begin when water freezes - a change is needed that creates more heating. You catch on quick. Now that you know latent heat release is a spontaneous release of heat you are all set to run around teaching it to everybody else. Good for you! Except you still have a few problems when the -10C wind opens the lead over the .01C water, the water spontaneously starts transferring heat to the atmosphere. Latent heat however does not spontaneously begins to release and become manifested as sensible heat until the water begins to freeze. Warming of the atmosphere does not stop at that time. Latent heat is not a detectable spontaneous release of heat. No bomb goes off to release heat. More heat is released before the freezing point is reached. If you cannot detect something it cannot create a spontaneous change To get a heat spike you need extra heat. Freezing provides less heat. Spontaneous 1. performed or occurring as a result of a sudden inner impulse or inclination and without premeditation or external stimulus. "the audience broke into spontaneous applause" Numerounos meaning is pretty clear. Nothing detectable happens at the freezing temperature other than a delay in the cooling process. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 15, 2014 2:33:37 GMT
To get a heat spike you need extra heat. Freezing provides less heat. You only need extra heat when the air has warmed to the same temperature as the water if what you are measuring is a temperature heat spike. If what you are looking for is peak transfer rate say in watts/m2 then that peaks as soon as the ice lead is created. But we have always from day one been talking about temperature heat spikes as the topic of discussion has been the DMI data.  So to put it simply you are just plain wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 15, 2014 2:43:27 GMT
To take it a step further you will note that no temperature spikes in excess of a couple degrees is apparent in the DMI data when the atmosphere is less than about 10C below the freezing temperature of saltwater. Possibly the reason for that is indeed the transfer rate across lesser temperature differences is insufficient to override natural cooling and only when the combined conduction and radiation transfer rates are pumped up to about 10 degree difference do the spikes get tall and sharp. Just sayin! Your arguments are not very sophisticated but I can admit there is probably an element of truth to them. No doubt a lot more than you will ever be able to admit to. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 15, 2014 3:13:59 GMT
Your arguments are not very sophisticated but I can admit there is probably an element of truth to them. No doubt a lot more than you will ever be able to admit to. Sophistication is not required to tell you that a heat spike must involve greater heating and freezing cannot provide that A heat spike must involve a change - such as your example of a lead opening up. Of course there is truth in what i am talking about. It is school boy physics. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 15, 2014 3:29:40 GMT
Reading thru these threads it seems you began saying latent heat was released as a packet of warming energy able to cause a heat spike even though you were aware the icey water remains a constant temperature
1. You never clarified with Numerouno you were not expecting a warming puff of air to come from a bucket of water when it freezed
2. You never disagreed with the Nautonnier personality or the Sigurdur personality who seemed more clearly to be talking about a heat bomb effect
3. I raised the idea that the word 'release' was confusing and you specifically said that was what was happening
4. In the observation I made at the start of this thread 6 months ago, obviously I am saying you are saying some kind of heat bomb effect is created.
5. The talk about novel forms of heating from freezing where i wrote to haby to say i was having difficulty because people were believing freezing created a heating effect as a spike of energy
All you had to do was set the record straight and you never did. Recently somewhat you have.
Only recently have you made it much clearer you realise that freezing cannot create a heat spike unless something happens to expose the warmth of freezing water where previously it was hidden by a colder mass such as ice.
You did the same thing with the green house effect where it was never clear what you actually believed because you never made concessions in a visible manner. You still for example as of september 2013 were making silly comments about me making up heat curves as if you learnt absolutely zero in that entire stupid discussion.
What have you learnt in this one?
|
|
