|
Post by icefisher on Jan 19, 2014 8:00:18 GMT
Sigh I have never once claimed that hot things cannot heat cold things and you keep persisting for about 20 times to claim i have!!. You have to see the context of the reality we are talking about instead of the contents of your own mind where you appear fixated by something. I did not start by attacking your position. It was you who attacked me about latent heat being released into the atmosphere in a defense of Numerunos absolute claims of no external release of energy. The fact your attack relies entirely upon you being a physics numbskull certainly isn't evidence that you are, just that you are willing to tread in those waters to pursue an attack. Now its down to you having to put words in my mouth and modify Numerouno's words to make a case to justify your original attack. OTOH, my defense rests on what was actually said.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 19, 2014 8:14:59 GMT
Sigh I have never once claimed that hot things cannot heat cold things and you keep persisting for about 20 times to claim i have!!. I guess it about time for an argument summation. Beginning with the title of this thread the Andrew's argument goes thusly: Icefishers endless stupidity is in not knowing how smart Andrew is. Unless you place cold air in an insulated environment it will not warm up when water freezes or water cools. Then he proves how smart he is by then claiming the surface cannot warm the air unless its in an insulated container. . . .which is nigh near the opposite of the claim in the previous statement. Seems Andrew you want to have your cake and eat it too.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 19, 2014 9:31:15 GMT
Sigh I have never once claimed that hot things cannot heat cold things and you keep persisting for about 20 times to claim i have!!. I guess it about time for an argument summation. Beginning with the title of this thread the Andrew's argument goes thusly: Icefishers endless stupidity is in not knowing how smart Andrew is. Unless you place cold air in an insulated environment it will not warm up when water freezes or water cools. Then he proves how smart he is by then claiming the surface cannot warm the air unless its in an insulated container. . . .which is nigh near the opposite of the claim in the previous statement. Seems Andrew you want to have your cake and eat it too. you are not even reading what i write. This thread begins with my attempt to get you to realise why i think you are wrong. You reply 'get a better thermometer'. Obviously i think you are talking about a heat bomb and i still thought you were talking about a heat bomb when this thread began. That is one thing. To the next thing. If cold air is cooled by space and the cooling of air is cooling the vast heat reserves of the ocean the ocean cannot possibly warm up the average temperature of the air that is cooling the ocean!!!! A coincidental change can increase the heat flow though and can cause heat transfer to be increased to cause the air to warm. On the other hand if the ocean and atmosphere are in an insulated container then sure the atmosphere will always warm up!! Why is it that i have spent about a month with you on the same topic where not one single time have you recognised what I am talking about??? The topic is very simple and for sure i am not a smart human being. I am though able to think scientifically given my limitations as best as i can. I am not arrogant. You are the one defying reality with all of your various nonsenses about thermodynamic violations for GHE, unbelievably stupid claims i am making up heat transfer graphs!!!!!!! and now heat spikes in orchards when water freezes! You behave stupidly. You refuse to be educated even on the most simple of topics. Your current theme is that we were agreeing all of the time, or i have changed to agree with you. Meanwhile in reality you are still fighting me tooth and nail on basic atmospheric heating/cooling during the arctic polar night.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 19, 2014 11:04:10 GMT
If cold air is cooled by space and the cooling of air is cooling the vast heat reserves of the ocean the ocean cannot possibly warm up the average temperature of the air that is cooling the ocean!!!! A coincidental change can increase the heat flow though and can cause heat transfer to be increased to cause the air to warm. On the other hand if the ocean and atmosphere are in an insulated container then sure the atmosphere will always warm up!! Why is it that i have spent about a month with you on the same topic where not one single time have you recognised what I am talking about??? Sorry guy. You are making the argument that the surface can never warm the airs above it as long as those airs are cooling to space. Its an argument without support. Why should I believe it? Because you are so smart?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 19, 2014 18:06:42 GMT
If cold air is cooled by space and the cooling of air is cooling the vast heat reserves of the ocean the ocean cannot possibly warm up the average temperature of the air that is cooling the ocean!!!! A coincidental change can increase the heat flow though and can cause heat transfer to be increased to cause the air to warm. On the other hand if the ocean and atmosphere are in an insulated container then sure the atmosphere will always warm up!! Why is it that i have spent about a month with you on the same topic where not one single time have you recognised what I am talking about??? Sorry guy. You are making the argument that the surface can never warm the airs above it as long as those airs are cooling to space. Its an argument without support. Why should I believe it? Because you are so smart? Lets try to be clear here. My argument is that the arctic days are shortening by end of August and arctic temperatures are cooling as arctic heat is lost to space. So the ocean and air is getting colder and colder. So I am saying if temperatures are falling (or briefly stable in a situation where heating of the air is balanced by equal heat in and heat out) , then it is impossible for the ocean to raise the temperature of the air by freezing unless there is a coincidental change in the weather or ice conditions. What part of that are you saying is false or hard to believe?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 19, 2014 21:51:14 GMT
Sorry guy. You are making the argument that the surface can never warm the airs above it as long as those airs are cooling to space. Its an argument without support. Why should I believe it? Because you are so smart? Lets try to be clear here. My argument is that the arctic days are shortening by end of August and arctic temperatures are cooling as arctic heat is lost to space. So the ocean and air is getting colder and colder. So I am saying if temperatures are falling (or briefly stable in a situation where heating of the air is balanced by equal heat in and heat out) , then it is impossible for the ocean to raise the temperature of the air by freezing unless there is a coincidental change in the weather or ice conditions. What part of that are you saying is false or hard to believe? It would be nice to believe that the arctic simply cooled and never warmed in the winter, but we look at the DMI data and see heat spikes all winter long. The poles are unique in that they have a totally dominant air flow pattern that is barely changed. And we know that in the winter warming does not come from direct solar input. The air subsidence of the polar cells completely dominate the flow of air into the arctic region. This is very cold and dry air that according you does nothing but get colder. . . .an obvious falsehood. So no doubt you just waved your hand over the data and simply conjured up a conclusion that the heat spikes in the observation data are 100% illusory because they violate your common sense. . . .and we are supposed to believe that?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 20, 2014 5:53:53 GMT
Lets try to be clear here. My argument is that the arctic days are shortening by end of August and arctic temperatures are cooling as arctic heat is lost to space. So the ocean and air is getting colder and colder. So I am saying if temperatures are falling (or briefly stable in a situation where heating of the air is balanced by equal heat in and heat out) , then it is impossible for the ocean to raise the temperature of the air by freezing unless there is a coincidental change in the weather or ice conditions. What part of that are you saying is false or hard to believe? It would be nice to believe that the arctic simply cooled and never warmed in the winter, but we look at the DMI data and see heat spikes all winter long. The poles are unique in that they have a totally dominant air flow pattern that is barely changed. And we know that in the winter warming does not come from direct solar input. The air subsidence of the polar cells completely dominate the flow of air into the arctic region. This is very cold and dry air that according you does nothing but get colder. . . .an obvious falsehood. So no doubt you just waved your hand over the data and simply conjured up a conclusion that the heat spikes in the observation data are 100% illusory because they violate your common sense. . . .and we are supposed to believe that? I have not for a single second suggested the arctic air only gets colder and there are no heat spikes. You must be very aware of that. Why are you compelled to play these silly games for months on end?? We should be able to agree after summer fades the air begins cooling and then has heat spikes before cooling is resumed. That is the trend until well into the polar night when most of the area above 80 degrees is frozen over. Therefore we should be able to modify the following text so that we can create a text where we can agree what is happening. Our text has to recognise there is a noisy cooling trend in the DMI data and cooling is present before most heat spikes and cooling until around november december is the dominant trend. >>The poles are unique in that they have a totally dominant air flow pattern that is barely changed. And we know that in the winter warming does not come from direct solar input. The air subsidence of the polar cells completely dominate the flow of air into the arctic region. This is very cold and dry air that according you does nothing but get colder. . . .an obvious falsehood. Your text has been purposefully written so you can pretend to yourself i am an idiot. Why do you behave like that? In science, reality should be the decider of the text rather than the ego. >>So no doubt you just waved your hand over the data and simply conjured up a conclusion that the heat spikes in the observation data are 100% illusory because they violate your common sense. . . .and we are supposed to believe that? What drives you to write such strange statements? The clear impression i have is that you know exactly what I am talking about but you just want to spend more months or years on this stupid conversation that an eight year old can understand. How does that benefit you? Lets be clear. You are either out of touch with reality to the point you have no conscious idea what you are doing, or you are playing a game with me with no objective other than to waste my time. If it is a game with a designed purpose is your life really so unfullfilled that you can get excitement from this? Either way your behaviour is extraordinary strange and is not what people consider to be normal behaviour. Are you really going to spend more months more or less masturbating in public over something that no scientificly literate person can possible disagree with?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 20, 2014 20:04:38 GMT
It would be nice to believe that the arctic simply cooled and never warmed in the winter, but we look at the DMI data and see heat spikes all winter long. The poles are unique in that they have a totally dominant air flow pattern that is barely changed. And we know that in the winter warming does not come from direct solar input. The air subsidence of the polar cells completely dominate the flow of air into the arctic region. This is very cold and dry air that according you does nothing but get colder. . . .an obvious falsehood. So no doubt you just waved your hand over the data and simply conjured up a conclusion that the heat spikes in the observation data are 100% illusory because they violate your common sense. . . .and we are supposed to believe that? I have not for a single second suggested the arctic air only gets colder and there are no heat spikes. You must be very aware of that. Why are you compelled to play these silly games for months on end?? We should be able to agree after summer fades the air begins cooling and then has heat spikes before cooling is resumed. That is the trend until well into the polar night when most of the area above 80 degrees is frozen over. Therefore we should be able to modify the following text so that we can create a text where we can agree what is happening. Our text has to recognise there is a noisy cooling trend in the DMI data and cooling is present before most heat spikes and cooling until around november december is the dominant trend. >>The poles are unique in that they have a totally dominant air flow pattern that is barely changed. And we know that in the winter warming does not come from direct solar input. The air subsidence of the polar cells completely dominate the flow of air into the arctic region. This is very cold and dry air that according you does nothing but get colder. . . .an obvious falsehood. Your text has been purposefully written so you can pretend to yourself i am an idiot. Why do you behave like that? In science, reality should be the decider of the text rather than the ego. >>So no doubt you just waved your hand over the data and simply conjured up a conclusion that the heat spikes in the observation data are 100% illusory because they violate your common sense. . . .and we are supposed to believe that? What drives you to write such strange statements? The clear impression i have is that you know exactly what I am talking about but you just want to spend more months or years on this stupid conversation that an eight year old can understand. How does that benefit you? Lets be clear. You are either out of touch with reality to the point you have no conscious idea what you are doing, or you are playing a game with me with no objective other than to waste my time. If it is a game with a designed purpose is your life really so unfullfilled that you can get excitement from this? Either way your behaviour is extraordinary strange and is not what people consider to be normal behaviour. Are you really going to spend more months more or less masturbating in public over something that no scientificly literate person can possible disagree with? Why do I write like that? Its because you deny that the water can warm the air in the arctic. Your argument has been that the air was cooling to space after permanent night in the arctic set in and thus the water/ice cannot warm the air it had already failed to warm. While that argument would make sense in arctic airs that were static and where the ice/water was static, nobody ever claimed any form of stasis. 5 months ago I referred you to NSIDCs site that explains a polynya is an area of ice that breaks up and pours tremendous amounts of sensible and latent heat into the atmosphere. You just rejected that out of hand and claimed NSIDC is all muddled up. Apparently you never even read it as it appears to have not registered with you. No doubt because you were overly married to the idea people were telling how your imagined static model would operate and no way could you have missed anything! I don't know if NSIDC is all muddled up on anything or not. You have not explicitly footnoted what they were muddled up on, except maybe you perceive their article attacking your static world. You started out here claiming latent heat can't warm anything. "no spontaneous release of energy of any kind", "entirely an internal process where the energy in water is converted to energy to expand ice and chip away at rocks". We got as far as it can warm stuff if the heat losses are out of balance. But you continue to hang your argument on the idea that the heat losses are in balance in the arctic. Of course if that were true there would be no heat spikes. So you need to start assembling a consistent position on this rather than playing sniper and never committing to a single position on this matter. You cannot continue to acknowledge heat spikes then cling to a model that would prohibit them. If you don't like that characterization of your position, don't whine about it! Instead simply explain how you think latent heat is prohibited from warming the arctic and how you think heat spikes are created in the arctic in winter time only and never in the summer.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 20, 2014 20:24:42 GMT
I have not for a single second suggested the arctic air only gets colder and there are no heat spikes. You must be very aware of that. Why are you compelled to play these silly games for months on end?? We should be able to agree after summer fades the air begins cooling and then has heat spikes before cooling is resumed. That is the trend until well into the polar night when most of the area above 80 degrees is frozen over. Therefore we should be able to modify the following text so that we can create a text where we can agree what is happening. Our text has to recognise there is a noisy cooling trend in the DMI data and cooling is present before most heat spikes and cooling until around november december is the dominant trend. >>The poles are unique in that they have a totally dominant air flow pattern that is barely changed. And we know that in the winter warming does not come from direct solar input. The air subsidence of the polar cells completely dominate the flow of air into the arctic region. This is very cold and dry air that according you does nothing but get colder. . . .an obvious falsehood. Your text has been purposefully written so you can pretend to yourself i am an idiot. Why do you behave like that? In science, reality should be the decider of the text rather than the ego. >>So no doubt you just waved your hand over the data and simply conjured up a conclusion that the heat spikes in the observation data are 100% illusory because they violate your common sense. . . .and we are supposed to believe that? What drives you to write such strange statements? The clear impression i have is that you know exactly what I am talking about but you just want to spend more months or years on this stupid conversation that an eight year old can understand. How does that benefit you? Lets be clear. You are either out of touch with reality to the point you have no conscious idea what you are doing, or you are playing a game with me with no objective other than to waste my time. If it is a game with a designed purpose is your life really so unfullfilled that you can get excitement from this? Either way your behaviour is extraordinary strange and is not what people consider to be normal behaviour. Are you really going to spend more months more or less masturbating in public over something that no scientificly literate person can possible disagree with? Why do I write like that? Its because you deny that the water can warm the air in the arctic. Your argument has been that the air was cooling to space after permanent night in the arctic set in and thus the water/ice cannot warm the air it had already failed to warm. While that argument would make sense in arctic airs that were static and where the ice/water was static, nobody ever claimed any form of stasis. 5 months ago I referred you to NSIDCs site that explains a polynya is an area of ice that breaks up and pours tremendous amounts of sensible and latent heat into the atmosphere. You just rejected that out of hand and claimed NSIDC is all muddled up. Apparently you never even read it as it appears to have not registered with you. No doubt because you were overly married to the idea people were telling how your imagined static model would operate and no way could you have missed anything! I don't know if NSIDC is all muddled up on anything or not. You have not explicitly footnoted what they were muddled up on, except maybe you perceive their article attacking your static world. You started out here claiming latent heat can't warm anything. "no spontaneous release of energy of any kind", "entirely an internal process where the energy in water is converted to energy to expand ice and chip away at rocks". We got as far as it can warm stuff if the heat losses are out of balance. But you continue to hang your argument on the idea that the heat losses are in balance in the arctic. Of course if that were true there would be no heat spikes. So you need to start assembling a consistent position on this rather than playing sniper and never committing to a single position on this matter. You cannot continue to acknowledge heat spikes then cling to a model that would prohibit them. If you don't like that characterization of your position, don't whine about it! Instead simply explain how you think latent heat is prohibited from warming the arctic and how you think heat spikes are created in the arctic in winter time only and never in the summer. Spontaneous means no external cause. Freezing creates no spontaneous release of heat. The wiki text is now changed after my observation to wiki it was wrong. Freezing simply represents a delay in cooling of the oceans mass. A delay in cooling cannot heat anything that is already getting colder. As i have said repeatedly a heat spike requires a change in conditions that enables greater heating of the air, such as for example a sensible heat polynya or a change in wind direction, or a strengthening wind to create greater cooling of the ocean and ice to enable the air to become warmer. Freezing is not a change that creates greater heating The NSIDC text was obviously confused and the reasons why have been endlessly explained to you. I have spent hundreds of hours on this stupid topic and all you can do is f**k around and behave like a child or a psycho! Which is it?? NSIDC said the article should be more clearly saying the unusual warmth was created by the amount of heat transfer to the air from the warm summer time ocean, rather than by the rapid freezing - which would be a ridiculous claim no Scientist could possibly support. You have to explain how an air mass that is getting colder can be heated by a mass of H2O that is not getting hotterIf you obfuscate more on that when it is perfectly clear what i am asking you to explain, it will be just more evidence you are only here to jerk off publicly for no purpose whatsoever. Are you learning disabled? Had a serious accident? The subject matter is simple. Why do you behave so stupidly? ?? >>you continue to hang your argument on the idea that the heat losses are in balance in the arctic. I am not saying the heat losses are in balance! The arctic is getting colder!!!! Then there is a heat spike!!! Then it gets even colder than it was before the heat spike!! >>You cannot continue to acknowledge heat spikes then cling to a model that would prohibit them. I have no model that says heat spikes are impossible! Heat spikes are perfectly possible but an ocean that cools and freezes cannot create a heat spike, in an atmosphere that is already cooling! A change in conditions is required for a heat spike where the change to freezing cannot create the heat spikes if the air is already cooling prior to the heat spike - another change is required such as for example a ferocious howling wind to appear. >>5 months ago I referred you to NSIDCs site that explains a polynya is an area of ice that breaks up and pours tremendous amounts of sensible and latent heat into the atmosphere. How many more times has it got to be explained to you that there is only sensible heat poured into the atmosphere via a delay in the water fully freezing solid while it remains at 0C??? And if the atmosphere is already getting colder at 0.00000001C there is no f**king way it can get extra heating from the water being colder!!!! Come on for crying out loud, at least show you are capable of some progress after 6 freeking months of absolute stupidity >>Why do I write like that? Its because you deny that the water can warm the air in the arctic. I am not denying it!!! If conditions change and air blows across the ice or opens up the water below then this change can result in warming of the air. The change to freezing cannot warm the air that is already cooling unless it is coincidental to the other change. Heat spikes are not caused by freezing! They are caused by conditions changing so that greater atmospheric heating is possible or some other change that changes the cold air mass to cause warmer air to arrive. No spontaneous releases of heat from water freezing, no puffs of warm air when a bucket of water freezes, no heat spikes in the atmosphere when the ocean freezes and no heat spikes in orchards when sprayed water freezes!
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 21, 2014 1:56:31 GMT
As i have said repeatedly a heat spike requires a change in conditions that enables greater heating of the air, such as for example a sensible heat polynya or a change in wind direction, or a strengthening wind to create greater cooling of the ocean and ice to enable the air to become warmer. Freezing is not a change that creates greater heating So now you agree with NSIDC? You are going to use the polynya as a means of warming the air? Heck thanks man that was all I have been trying to get you to admit for 5 months. If you have been thinking this for 5 months why didn't you recognize it in one of the hundred posts where I pointed out polynyas rather you continuing to dispute the idea? Clearly this is the right answer and now for the first time you admit it. I have gotten personal messages asking if I was ever going to convince you and at the time I said I don't know. But now I can celebrate now that you have learned something! Also some moron going into wikipedia and erasing a word is not going to change physics. Ice has a lower enthalpy than water, is an exothermic process and therefore the heat is released externally in a spontaneous way. If you wish to continue to claim that the heat of latent heat is retained internally as Numerouno did and you provided support for you will need to provide a physics reference supporting your point of view. As far as I am concerned this thread is done with your admission of the effect of polynyas and you have admitted your errors to a sufficient degree to make it completely unnecessary to discuss it further.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 21, 2014 5:06:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 21, 2014 5:45:03 GMT
Sigh The NSIDC article suggested the impossible. You are just confused and unable to understand me. A mid ocean or sensible heat polynya is an area of open water in deep waters with warm ocean water uprising from hundreds/thousands of meters below the surface of the ocean via convection. You have been talking about a coastal or latent heat polynya. I did not change wiki. The change was made because Numerouno correctly used the word spontaneous and it was incorrectly used on Wiki. Heat is not spontaneously released when water freezes. Heat release when water freezes is only possible because the water was cooled from the higher pre freezing temperature. It is a testament to the education of Numerouno that he was able to use the word spontaneous correctly even though he speaks an entirely different language. No sense continuing to spew your diarrhetic lies when all you would need to do is provide a scientific reference to support your claim that latent heat is only released internally, polynya warming is 100% from sensible heat polynyas, and provide a reference to a 5 month old post that in any way suggests you were agreeing with NSIDC. Simple stuff huh?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 21, 2014 5:51:20 GMT
Sigh The NSIDC article suggested the impossible. You are just confused and unable to understand me. A mid ocean or sensible heat polynya is an area of open water in deep waters with warm ocean water uprising from hundreds/thousands of meters below the surface of the ocean via convection. You have been talking about a coastal or latent heat polynya. I did not change wiki. The change was made because Numerouno correctly used the word spontaneous and it was incorrectly used on Wiki. Heat is not spontaneously released when water freezes. Heat release when water freezes is only possible because the water was cooled from the higher pre freezing temperature. It is a testament to the education of Numerouno that he was able to use the word spontaneous correctly even though he speaks an entirely different language. No sense continuing to spew your diarrhetic lies when all you would need to do is provide a scientific reference to support your claim that latent heat is only released internally, polynya warming is 100% from sensible heat polynyas, and provide a reference to a 5 month old post that in any way suggests you were agreeing with NSIDC. Simple stuff huh? If you cannot understand by now that latent heat is only an internal release of energy that causes the freezing of the mass of water to be delayed via keeping the temperature constantly at 0C until freezing is completed then there is no hope for you. There are no spontaneous releases of heat coming from the freezing process. Benchmarks for Science LiteracyBy American Association for the Advancement of Science books.google.fi/books?id=RyK1RZqxmBgC&lpg=PA337&ots=DV62w3RKUn&dq=Students%20often%20think%20objects%20cool%20down%20and%2For%20release%20heat%20spontaneously%2C%20that%20is%2C%20without%20being%20in%20contact%20with%20a%22%22&pg=PA357#v=onepage&q=Students%20often%20think%20objects%20cool%20down%20and/or%20release%20heat%20spontaneously,%20that%20is,%20without%20being%20in%20contact%20with%20a%22%22&f=false "For example, students often think objects cool down or release heat spontaneously — that is, without being in contact with a cooler object (Kesidou, 1990; Wiser, 1986)" Why do you refuse to be educated?? >>polynya warming is 100% from sensible heat polynyas, I never ever said that for a single second. I said heat spikes required a change in conditions where the act of freeezing was not an example of such a change unless it is coincidental to another change. What aspect of that simple statement is so utterly beyond your ability to understand??? No lies have been told by me. That is just more of your endless stupidity where you refuse to align with reality
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 21, 2014 7:45:32 GMT
If you cannot understand by now that latent heat is only an internal release of energy that causes the freezing of the mass of water to be delayed via keeping the temperature constantly at 0C until freezing is completed then there is no hope for you. There are no spontaneous releases of heat coming from the freezing process. Benchmarks for Science LiteracyBy American Association for the Advancement of Science books.google.fi/books?id=RyK1RZqxmBgC&lpg=PA337&ots=DV62w3RKUn&dq=Students%20often%20think%20objects%20cool%20down%20and%2For%20release%20heat%20spontaneously%2C%20that%20is%2C%20without%20being%20in%20contact%20with%20a%22%22&pg=PA357#v=onepage&q=Students%20often%20think%20objects%20cool%20down%20and/or%20release%20heat%20spontaneously,%20that%20is,%20without%20being%20in%20contact%20with%20a%22%22&f=false "For example, students often think objects cool down or release heat spontaneously — that is, without being in contact with a cooler object (Kesidou, 1990; Wiser, 1986)" Why do you refuse to be educated?? Are Finns related to Poles by any chance? Lets see if I can capture this moronic argument. Latent heat is released internally and replaces the sensible heat being lost by the water. Each cm3 of water loses one calorie per degree C of cooling. Then the cooling stops and 80 calories are lost by the water. Your argument is the latent heat has replaced sensible heat so its still there and internal to the water and will never leave the water even if the water gets to absolute zero? A spontaneous release of energy does not mean there is no interaction. If you create such a hurdle for a spontaneous release of energy can you offer an example of a spontaneous release of energy and explain why freezing water is incapable of it? >>polynya warming is 100% from sensible heat polynyas, I never ever said that for a single second. I said heat spikes required a change in conditions where the act of freeezing was not an example of such a change unless it is coincidental to another change. What aspect of that simple statement is so utterly beyond your ability to understand??? So? Does that mean latent heat cannot be released and be part of the chain of causes that creates a heat spike? Have you resorted so much to word games that you have failed to notice you have confirmed my original contention? When I made the statement it was a simple statement not a statement that no other change is occurring in the series of events. All physical interactions are chains of events. In fact, NSIDC details in the source I gave you 5 months ago the series of events. If you take issue with a step in the NSIDC process but agree with the outcome that is sufficient. If you wish as another topic to discuss what step in the process you are having difficulty with that might even be an interesting discussion assuming of course you can differentiate it from the word games you are playing. Freezing of ice allows for a greater release of energy than would otherwise be possible if freezing did not occur. You continually and ignorantly claim that the atmosphere will be at a temperature in accordance with an instantaneous rate of heating and for the temperature of the atmosphere to be higher it needs an higher instantaneous rate and freezing does not increase the rate of heating. "As i have said repeatedly a heat spike requires a change in conditions that enables greater heating of the air, such as for example a sensible heat polynya or a change in wind direction, or a strengthening wind to create greater cooling of the ocean and ice to enable the air to become warmer. Freezing is not a change that creates greater heating"Freezing of ice will continue to warm an atmosphere that is less than the freezing temperature so you are incorrect in the above statement. [/font]
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 21, 2014 8:00:32 GMT
If you cannot understand by now that latent heat is only an internal release of energy that causes the freezing of the mass of water to be delayed via keeping the temperature constantly at 0C until freezing is completed then there is no hope for you. There are no spontaneous releases of heat coming from the freezing process. Benchmarks for Science LiteracyBy American Association for the Advancement of Science books.google.fi/books?id=RyK1RZqxmBgC&lpg=PA337&ots=DV62w3RKUn&dq=Students%20often%20think%20objects%20cool%20down%20and%2For%20release%20heat%20spontaneously%2C%20that%20is%2C%20without%20being%20in%20contact%20with%20a%22%22&pg=PA357#v=onepage&q=Students%20often%20think%20objects%20cool%20down%20and/or%20release%20heat%20spontaneously,%20that%20is,%20without%20being%20in%20contact%20with%20a%22%22&f=false "For example, students often think objects cool down or release heat spontaneously — that is, without being in contact with a cooler object (Kesidou, 1990; Wiser, 1986)" Why do you refuse to be educated?? Are Finns related to Poles by any chance? Lets see if I can capture this moronic argument. Latent heat is released internally and replaces the sensible heat being lost by the water. Each cm3 of water loses one calorie per degree C of cooling. Then the cooling stops Here we go again. Your car radiator does not stop cooling your engine just because your engine reaches the design temperature. Cooling has to be continuous even though the temperature is constant. Ice cannot form unless the water is being continually cooled. Ie the water is hot relative to the colder environment. Ie The water is continually passing heat to the colder environment. I dont need to explain this to you. It is just another of your idiot games to avoid realities 80 calories are lost by the water. Your argument is the latent heat has replaced sensible heat so its still there and internal to the water and will never leave the water even if the water gets to absolute zero? Obviously that is not my argument and you know damn well it is not my argument. That is another of your idiot games. The water is being cooled and energy is passing to the colder environment. Once the ice is frozen solid all of the latent heat has been passed to the environment via sensible heating of an object releasing heat at 0C. You know that. It has been endlessly explained to you already. You just like f**king around forever, where nothing can become concrete and agreed and instead your original stupidity can be made to seem to you like it was correct.A spontaneous release of energy does not mean there is no interaction. If you create such a hurdle for a spontaneous release of energy can you offer an example of a spontaneous release of energy and explain why freezing water is incapable of it? Spontaneous combustion. water has to be actively cooled to release energy in the same way a lump of iron has to be cooled to release energy. It cannot go bang and produce a release of energy while it freezes - unless it supercools first. Whatever your opinion about it Numerouno used the same meaning as the American Association for the Advancement of Science who evidently are taking an interest in the learning problems students have>>polynya warming is 100% from sensible heat polynyas, I never ever said that for a single second. I said heat spikes required a change in conditions where the act of freeezing was not an example of such a change unless it is coincidental to another change. What aspect of that simple statement is so utterly beyond your ability to understand??? So? Does that mean latent heat cannot be released and be part of the chain of causes that creates a heat spike? Have you resorted so much to word games that you have failed to notice you have confirmed my original contention? This is a delusional comment of course. You were also talking about freezing warming up the groves! You have also consistantly attempted to ridicule me for writing to NSIDC. When I made the statement it was a simple statement not a statement that no other change is occurring in the series of events. All physical interactions are chains of events. Bullshit. So now i am supposed to believe you were talking about heat being provided by the ocean that needed to cool down as for example by mid ocean sensible heat polynyas and there never was a need to spend 6 months talking about water freezing? In fact, NSIDC details in the source I gave you 5 months ago the series of events. If you take issue with a step in the NSIDC process but agree with the outcome that is sufficient. If you wish as another topic to discuss what step in the process you are having difficulty with that might even be an interesting discussion assuming of course you can differentiate it from the word games you are playing. Freezing of ice allows for a greater release of energy than would otherwise be possible if freezing did not occur. You continually and ignorantly claim that the atmosphere will be at a temperature in accordance with an instantaneous rate of heating and for the temperature of the atmosphere to be higher it needs an higher instantaneous rate and freezing does not increase the rate of heating. "As i have said repeatedly a heat spike requires a change in conditions that enables greater heating of the air, such as for example a sensible heat polynya or a change in wind direction, or a strengthening wind to create greater cooling of the ocean and ice to enable the air to become warmer. Freezing is not a change that creates greater heating"Freezing of ice will continue to warm an atmosphere that is less than the freezing temperature so you are incorrect in the above statement. No it will not if the atmosphere is already cooling. It needs another change at the same time.
How much longer are you going to keep up this endless stupidity??
You were obviously talking about heat spikes in the dmi curve when previously the atmosphere was cooling.
You are the game player. It seems you are going to be obfuscating the cooling atmosphere forever with endless stupidity
>>Freezing of ice will continue to warm an atmosphere that is less than the freezing temperature so you are incorrect in the above statement.
Funny how you managed to sneak those words 'continues to warm' into that sentence! Your statement is only true if the water and atmosphere are in an insulated container and the cooling of the isolated mass of air has only relatively recently begun. Yet still you persist with the games. You must be trying to save face and just admitting you were wrong. We are obviously talking about a situation where the atmosphere is cooling and has a temporary heat spike[/font][/quote]
|
|