|
Post by icefisher on Jan 15, 2014 7:03:02 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? The only time I ventured into the "heat bomb" effect was with the experiment of supercooled liquids that suddenly and rapidly warm when they freeze. Its pretty much a high school physics experiment and reveals the wonders of water and its phase changes. A lesson you obviously missed. Yeah its a bomb! It will go off at whatever rate the environment allows. For supercooled water its a massive and sudden warming that is capped by the true freezing temperature. But that example was provided only in attempt to move Numeruno and you past the claim that water when it freezes can heat nothing and can only expand ice and chip away mountains. Now it is the basis of your claim I exaggerated the "bomb" effect of freezing. Of course none of your positions are correct. You just blew this whole multi-month thread. You might be more knowledgeable than Numeruno on the topic but you were more interested in scoring points and thats why you failed.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 15, 2014 8:06:21 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? The only time I ventured into the "heat bomb" effect was with the experiment of supercooled liquids that suddenly and rapidly warm when they freeze. Its pretty much a high school physics experiment and reveals the wonders of water and its phase changes. A lesson you obviously missed. Yeah its a bomb! It will go off at whatever rate the environment allows. For supercooled water its a massive and sudden warming that is capped by the true freezing temperature. But that example was provided only in attempt to move Numeruno and you past the claim that water when it freezes can heat nothing and can only expand ice and chip away mountains. Now it is the basis of your claim I exaggerated the "bomb" effect of freezing. Of course none of your positions are correct. You just blew this whole multi-month thread. You might be more knowledgeable than Numeruno on the topic but you were more interested in scoring points and thats why you failed. Bullshit 6 months ago i was clearly saying that of course the freezing water was heating the colder object and of course latent heat was involved in that proces However i clearly said the previously warmer conditions would be heating the colder object faster so heat spikes were inpossible unless something else was different Dispite my clarity you have been endlessly trying to ridicule me with your endless stupidity, where you have endlessly regurgitated the obvious that a warm object will heat a cold object - which despite your stupid claims no person here has denied. Until about a month ago i was fairly certain you were talking about heat bombs. Then you began claiming a heat spike was possible from any warmer object and how come i was incapable of understanding something so simple. I had to struggle to explain to you the atmosphere was not in an insulated container and in fact it was in the cooling arctic night, where time and time again you wriggled off the obvious hook that your position on this topic was a none starter from day one. The reality is the heat spikes are impossible unless something has changed to enable a greater heating of the cold object. It is impossible for that change to occur at the freezing point of water unless it is just a coincidence. My position has not changed since this stupid thread began. As for numerounu it is stupidity by you to claim that he believes an object that remains at 0C for longer because of latent heat is not able to heat a colder object for longer at 0C. Obviously and clearly to all but the most stupid he was inviting you to provide evidence for puffs of warm air happening only at the freezing point of water which are impossible. Further to that English is not his language of birth. Picking on some things he said when overall his meaning is clear is immature and typically stupid of you. You cannot provide evidence of warm puffs of air happening only at the freezing point and yet endlessly you keep up the stupid toxic attack. For what purpose? ? Obviously both myself and Numerouno thought you were talking about a heat bomb. I also had to struggle with Nautonniers stupid insistance he was correct about a heat bomb and the farmers agreed with nautonnier and you agreed with the farmers. You also produced meterology texts which seemed to be talking about a heat bomb and you used that to jerk off in celibration. The farmers text generally appear to be talking about a heat bomb. Christ knows what Sig is actually talking about because all he does is say farmers would not use water if it did not work. I suspect you are all the same stupid person behaving enormously stupidly and if that is so I wonder if you even know you are the same person. Your behaviour is so totally weird. You have also endlessly defended Serrezes stupid heat bomb text when it suited you, while slamming the emails i received when it did not. 'Weird' is a massive understatement of my experiences with you. Either way with or without a heat bomb you were wrong. No heat spike is possible due to the freezing of water unless it is just only a coincidence happening at the time of another change.Just deal with it.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 15, 2014 12:00:24 GMT
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. False. The atmosphere is already cooling prior to the freezing point being reached. You must have more heat to reverse the decline.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. For heavens sake! Your claimed temperature rise with less heating is only possible if the surface and atmosphere are in an insulated container.The surface heats the atmosphere and the atmosphere heats space. Heat flows from the surface to the atmosphere and heat flows from the atmosphere to space. If less heat flows to the atmosphere which it must be doing as the ocean cools, the atmosphere must become colder. There is absolutely no mechanism for a heat spike unless some other change occurs. The best that can happen is the atmospheric temperature is buffered (ie temperature stable or cools less slowly). This being so because it takes a long time for the ocean/ice surface to continue falling in temperature.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 15, 2014 17:37:32 GMT
For heavens sake! Your claimed temperature rise with less heating is only possible if the surface and atmosphere are in an insulated container.The surface heats the atmosphere and the atmosphere heats space. Heat flows from the surface to the atmosphere and heat flows from the atmosphere to space. If less heat flows to the atmosphere which it must be doing as the ocean cools, the atmosphere must become colder. There is absolutely no mechanism for a heat spike unless some other change occurs. The best that can happen is the atmospheric temperature is buffered (ie temperature stable or cools less slowly). This being so because it takes a long time for the ocean/ice surface to continue falling in temperature. thats an interesting observation and true when the surface and atmosphere are in equilibrium. Then heat just flows from the surface and the atmosphere to space and between the surface and atmosphere. Then any temperature change has to be externally introduced. But as we know the surface and atmosphere are seldom in equilibrium but constantly seeking equilibrium occasionally passing the equilibrium point. Therefore external influences on the Arctic climate is almost ubiquitous. You seek to suggest its uncommon, but one only need to look at the DMI graph and perceive that is pure and unadulterated nonsense. "Unless other change occurs", LOL! Other change is the rule not the exception. In all circumstances where the atmosphere is colder than the surface the surface will warm the atmosphere. In those circumstances if ice is freezing it will heighten the warming over what it would if the water were to cool as it cools when state changes are not occurring. Of course thats purely a theoretical "excess" of warming as water does freeze when it gets to its freezing point instead of the water cooling and transferring less heat. Basic high school physics and contrary to the snake oil you have been pedaling around here. If you want to imagine insulated containers being required for ice to warm the airs when the airs are colder than the surface be my guest but its all just nonsense jabber.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 15, 2014 19:34:55 GMT
thats an interesting observation and true when the surface and atmosphere are in equilibrium. Then heat just flows from the surface and the atmosphere to space and between the surface and atmosphere. There is no equilibrium if there is a one way heat flowThen any temperature change has to be externally introduced. But as we know the surface and atmosphere are seldom in equilibrium but constantly seeking equilibrium occasionally passing the equilibrium point. The equilibrium is nearly always strongly out of balance in favour of the surface heat flowing strongly to the atmosphere and then onwards to spaceTherefore external influences on the Arctic climate is almost ubiquitous. You seek to suggest its uncommon, Bullshit! I never once suggested external influences are uncommon.u but one only need to look at the DMI graph and perceive that is pure and unadulterated nonsense. "Unless other change occurs", LOL! Other change is the rule not the exception. Correct it is common for changes to create differences in atmospheric heatingIn all circumstances where the atmosphere is colder than the surface the surface will warm the atmosphere. False In those circumstances if ice is freezing it will heighten the warming over what it would if the water were to cool as it cools when state changes are not occurring. Of course thats purely a theoretical "excess" of warming as water does freeze when it gets to its freezing point instead of the water cooling and transferring less heat. You are mixing reality with fiction. Water freezes and that is the only reality that needs to be considered in the Arctic. Basic high school physics and contrary to the snake oil you have been pedaling around here. If you want to imagine insulated containers being required for ice to warm the airs when the airs are colder than the surface be my guest but its all just nonsense jabber. >>In all circumstances where the atmosphere is colder than the surface the surface will warm the atmosphere. False The atmosphere has to be insulated from space for the statement you keep repeating to be true When heated, an object warms until the heat gains equal the heat losses. The liquid ocean cools so the heat gains of the atmosphere reduce, so the temperature of the atmosphere falls and therefore so do the heat losses to space fall until heat gains and heat losses are balanced. Freezing is just another amount of ocean cooling followed by atmospheric cooling >>Basic high school physics and contrary to the snake oil you have been pedaling around here. If you want to imagine insulated containers being required for ice to warm the airs when the airs are colder than the surface be my guest but its all just nonsense jabber. Whether you like it or not the atmosphere is surrounded by an enormously cold space and the warm atmosphere will heat that cold space. The cooling surface has no possibility of increasing the temperature of the atmosphere while the atmosphere is heating the enormously cold space. >>>>Basic high school physics and contrary to the snake oil you have been pedaling around here. If you want to imagine insulated containers being required for ice to warm the airs when the airs are colder than the surface be my guest but its all just nonsense jabber. I invite you to pause for a while and think about what you are saying.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 15, 2014 22:30:47 GMT
>>In all circumstances where the atmosphere is colder than the surface the surface will warm the atmosphere. False The atmosphere has to be insulated from space for the statement you keep repeating to be true seems to me you have been stalwart in claiming greenhouse gases insulate. Since greenhouse gases are ubiquitous your condition is met 100% of the time. Seems you have no argument here. But fact is you don't have to have insulation. Heat will simply flow and not warm only if there is no temperature difference at the surface air contact point. In climate science it is assumed that temperature sensor at the height for a surface station is identical to the surface. I am not sure thats true but if its not we have no idea what the greenhouse effect is. Its basic high school physics that a warm surface in contact with cold air will warm that air, insulated or not. What did you do when you took high school physics? Ditch on the day they talked about conduction? The temperature of the surface and the surface airs are not in equilibrium 100% of the time. So you have no support for your claim that the spontaneous release of latent heat cannot warm the air. (golly how do we learn as we go! Spontaneous release! You must be excited!) When heated, an object warms until the heat gains equal the heat losses. Yep! And for conduction at least at the heat transfer point that is only when the temperatures of the surface of the two objects are the same temperature. So your qualification here accomplishes nothing!
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 16, 2014 6:18:32 GMT
>>In all circumstances where the atmosphere is colder than the surface the surface will warm the atmosphere. False The atmosphere has to be insulated from space for the statement you keep repeating to be true seems to me you have been stalwart in claiming greenhouse gases insulate. Since greenhouse gases are ubiquitous your condition is met 100% of the time. Seems you have no argument here. But fact is you don't have to have insulation. Heat will simply flow and not warm only if there is no temperature difference at the surface air contact point. In climate science it is assumed that temperature sensor at the height for a surface station is identical to the surface. I am not sure thats true but if its not we have no idea what the greenhouse effect is. Its basic high school physics that a warm surface in contact with cold air will warm that air, insulated or not. What did you do when you took high school physics? Ditch on the day they talked about conduction? The temperature of the surface and the surface airs are not in equilibrium 100% of the time. So you have no support for your claim that the spontaneous release of latent heat cannot warm the air. (golly how do we learn as we go! Spontaneous release! You must be excited!) When heated, an object warms until the heat gains equal the heat losses. Yep! And for conduction at least at the heat transfer point that is only when the temperatures of the surface of the two objects are the same temperature. So your qualification here accomplishes nothing! >> Its basic high school physics that a warm surface in contact with cold air will warm that air, insulated or not.FalseIt is high school physics that a warm surface in contact with cold air will transfer heat to that air. A temperature rise in the air requires that the heating forces of the air exceed the cooling forces of the air.
>> But fact is you don't have to have insulation. Heat will simply flow and not warm only if there is no temperature difference at the surface air contact point. Yes, heat flows with a temperature difference. To get higher temperatures when that heat flows you need heat gains to be greater than heat losses. To get a temperature gain with less heating you need to reduce the heat losses or have no heat losses. In the case of the warm surface and cold atmosphere there are large temperature gains to be had if the heat losses can be reduced. >>11 hours ago Andrew said: When heated, an object warms until the heat gains equal the heat losses. Yep! And for conduction at least at the heat transfer point that is only when the temperatures of the surface of the two objects are the same temperature. So your qualification here accomplishes nothing!The qualification applies to the higher rate of heating prior to the freezing point being reached. At the freezing point less heating is available. The atmosphere is already warmed to a point of balance between heating forces and cooling forces by the warmer ocean prior to freezing. It cannot then get warmer with less heating because at the higher temperature of the atmosphere due to the previous higher heating, the cooling forces exceed the new lower freezing point heating forces. Anyway, why are you persisting with this line of reasoning?? Nobody can believe the atmosphere will get warmer at the freezing point of water if the sun weakens in intensity. It is the Arctic night. The suns intensity is experienced weaker in the Arctic. The arctic atmosphere was previously warmed by a warmer ocean, a cooling ocean cannot cause the atmosphere to become hotter just because the ocean is warmer than the atmosphere. Obviously the ocean and atmosphere cool with less heating. The ocean is getting colder and approaching the freezing point. Arctic atmosphere temperatures much colder than the water are getting colder as the freezing point is reached. In the circumstances, it would be Voodoo for the atmosphere to become warmer at the freezing point.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 16, 2014 7:58:31 GMT
>> Its basic high school physics that a warm surface in contact with cold air will warm that air, insulated or not.FalseIt is high school physics that a warm surface in contact with cold air will transfer heat to that air. A temperature rise in the air requires that the heating forces of the air exceed the cooling forces of the air.
And of course that means you are advocating that 0C ice cannot warm -20C air. . . .because you need for that to be true to claim that it is impossible for the release of latent heat to spontaneously create a heat spike in the air.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 16, 2014 9:10:16 GMT
>> Its basic high school physics that a warm surface in contact with cold air will warm that air, insulated or not.FalseIt is high school physics that a warm surface in contact with cold air will transfer heat to that air. A temperature rise in the air requires that the heating forces of the air exceed the cooling forces of the air.
And of course that means you are advocating that 0C ice cannot warm -20C air. . . .because you need for that to be true to claim that it is impossible for the release of latent heat to spontaneously create a heat spike in the air. Sigh The air is already heated to a higher temperature by a hotter substance You cannot get a higher temperature by heating iron with a butane torch after you just heated it with an oxyacetylene torch. >>And of course that means you are advocating that 0C ice cannot warm -20C air 6 months ago I told you that of course warm 0C ice can cause -20C air to become warmer if the circumstances allow that. It would be against the laws of physics for that to be impossible, .But obviously in our circumstance the -20C air has already been fully heated by a hotter substance.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jan 16, 2014 13:19:11 GMT
I have been ignoring this thread because of its title. Have I missed anything?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 16, 2014 13:30:29 GMT
I have been ignoring this thread because of its title. Have I missed anything? Nope
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jan 16, 2014 16:35:56 GMT
I have been ignoring this site because of the title of this thread.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 16, 2014 18:17:44 GMT
.But obviously in our circumstance the -20C air has already been fully heated by a hotter substance. You will need to explain why thats obvious to you. Seems to me that the null hypothesis would be that the airs would be fully warmed or more somewhere in the realm of 50% of the time. However, for your claim to be true that its impossible for the release of latent heat to spontaneously create a temperature rise in the atmosphere the airs would have to be fully warmed by the water 100% of the time before freezing commences. I seriously doubt that there is any such relationship in nature of that nature. You a totally and hopelessly muddled up as you cling to this nonsense like a drowning child. I think I am beginning to understand why you have been having so many problems with your home heating system. What do you do when you come home on a very cold day and your heating system is off. Do you quickly flick the switch on and off a dozen times then call a plumber/heating and air guy to come over and fix the system because the house is still cold?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 16, 2014 19:42:34 GMT
for your claim to be true that its impossible for the release of latent heat to spontaneously create a temperature rise in the atmosphere the airs would have to be fully warmed by the water 100% of the time before freezing commences. The realities are very very simple. It is crazy that 6 months have gone by and we are no further advanced than we began. 1.The atmosphere can become hotter or colder if conditions change2. If a change in conditions causes extra heating to be available the atmosphere is likely to become hotter. 3. When water freezes it has less heating ability than it had before it was freezing cold. Therefore the change of freezing cannot create a change to extra heating unless another change occurs where the change to freezing is coincidental to the other change. If you had said that heat spikes are caused in the atmosphere by the change of leads opening up where ice cold water heats the atmosphere, more than the ice covered surface could do and said something about latent heat delaying the total freezing over of the lead we would not be having the difficult conversation we are having. Instead you said that only the change to freezing was causing a heat spike and mentioned no other changes. You also referred via magellan to what appeared to be heat spikes in orchards via the freezing of water, agreed with Nautonnier, talked about explosive releases of exothermic energy, and said it was not confusing to talk about release of latent heat because latent heat was released. Numerouno tried to explain that the latent heat simply prolonged the 0C temperature and nothing was emitted from the water that could be detected by a thermometer other than the water was 0C for longer. Nautonnier argued for months this was wrong, you agreed with Nautonnier, Sig agreed with Nautonnier, you have never once criticised Nautonnier or Sig. You keep saying the farmers are right. What actually are you talking about?? I honestly have no idea because you have said so many different things i am clueless to work out what you are talking about. The clear impression i have is you are prepared to play games forever rather than saying anything which correctly recognises the scientific view on this topic. Clearly and obviously heat spikes cannot be created in orchards by the act of water freezing on a plant unless you come up with one of your silly methods as you did with the home heating example.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 16, 2014 23:42:15 GMT
If you had said that heat spikes are caused in the atmosphere by the change of leads opening up where ice cold water heats the atmosphere, more than the ice covered surface could do and said something about latent heat delaying the total freezing over of the lead we would not be having the difficult conversation we are having. Instead you said that only the change to freezing was causing a heat spike and mentioned no other changes. Thats total BS. I referred to the NSIDC polynya site! nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/polynyas.htmlYou said the site was full of it. Now you have flipflopped and are saying if you were aware of the changes provided by a polynya or something similar you are OK with the claim that the release of latent heat can cause heat spikes in the atmosphere. Keep in mind Andrew, I have been talking about polynyas since last August and here it is January and you just figured out what a polynya is. You also referred via magellan to what appeared to be heat spikes in orchards via the freezing of water, agreed with Nautonnier, talked about explosive releases of exothermic energy, and said it was not confusing to talk about release of latent heat because latent heat was released. Numerouno tried to explain that the latent heat simply prolonged the 0C temperature and nothing was emitted from the water that could be detected by a thermometer other than the water was 0C for longer. Nautonnier argued for months this was wrong, you agreed with Nautonnier, Sig agreed with Nautonnier, you have never once criticised Nautonnier or Sig. You keep saying the farmers are right. More BS just like above. Discussion on heat spikes in orchards only occurred with regard to airs below zero moving into the orchard in exactly the same manner above. There was some brief talk of supercooling and water actually warming when it froze but that was a sidebar and nobody claimed they believed that was occurring in the orchards or in the polynyas and only recognized the possibility of that also occurring. What actually are you talking about?? I honestly have no idea because you have said so many different things i am clueless to work out what you are talking about. Well it took 5 months for you figure out we were talking about polynyas despite the word being used a hundred times or more. I wouldn't expect you to pick up everything in one day.
|
|