|
Post by Andrew on Feb 3, 2014 19:26:54 GMT
You are a very strange person. As far as i can see you started off first about the laws of physics, and for shorthand i just copied that text from memory since it seemed to satisfy you and my version would have involved thinking by me and more text. Your text was fine for you, but you objected to mine for no good reason at all. Perhaps you can tell me the laws of physics which were broken in your own text since it was written first, since it is obvious we were both considering exactly the same subject when we wrote the words 'laws of physics'. But are you just strange or is your use of words done deliberately to frustrate and annoy for no purpose at all other than to frustrate and annoy? Are you just a troll? consciously wasting time or something more complicated and devious, or are just just totally mad? I have spent months of my life trying to work out what is wrong with you but just cannot figure it out. One theory is that you took too many drugs or you had a car accident. Why else would an auditor have such a hard time learning simple things? What kind of an auditor can possibly have any objection to the use of mathematical netting?? Evidently you are unreal or phoney or ill or devious or something less than clear and honest. To you a strange person is obviously anybody who does not agree 100% with you. What I did was agree with you that ice heating a cooling atmosphere would be a violation of the laws of physics under certain conditions.If you took that to mean under any conditions and parroted it, I really can't help you much. Since you have already apologised to me for wasting my time with supercooling it is pretty obvious that certain conditions apply to the general theme where farmers are generalising about heat rises in orchards when temperatures are falling. Almost unbelievably you were the one who first raised this bloody topic as some kind of show stopper. Now though it has to have so many caveats that it is totally worthless according to you. That is seriously weird. We even had to endure the totally silly 'nobody said the farmers got heat rises unless they forgot to turn on the sprinklers'!! Do you realise you sound like a total wally? I think the main problem is i try to be polite and deal with the science. The bricks fiasco was just unreal. At the time i just thought you were being stupid. But it cannot be stupidity, it must be just a game of pretence where you are never ever going to be pinned down. How about you give a coherent explanation as to why an auditor could have any objection to the use of mathematical netting? An auditor is a qualified accountant with considerable experience and expertise. No immediately qualified junior accountant can possibly not heard of netting in an ordinary sense that would be perfectly acceptable to them. Are you ever going to be real or forever be just a phoney? You behave like a cheat. You cannot be pinned down. You say once piece of nonsense then move onto the next. Endlessly wriggling off the hook.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 4, 2014 1:21:50 GMT
To you a strange person is obviously anybody who does not agree 100% with you. What I did was agree with you that ice heating a cooling atmosphere would be a violation of the laws of physics under certain conditions.If you took that to mean under any conditions and parroted it, I really can't help you much. Since you have already apologised to me for wasting my time with supercooling it is pretty obvious that certain conditions apply to the general theme where farmers are generalising about heat rises in orchards when temperatures are falling. Almost unbelievably you were the one who first raised this bloody topic as some kind of show stopper. Now though it has to have so many caveats that it is totally worthless according to you. That is seriously weird. We even had to endure the totally silly 'nobody said the farmers got heat rises unless they forgot to turn on the sprinklers'!! Do you realise you sound like a total wally? I think the main problem is i try to be polite and deal with the science. The bricks fiasco was just unreal. At the time i just thought you were being stupid. But it cannot be stupidity, it must be just a game of pretence where you are never ever going to be pinned down. How about you give a coherent explanation as to why an auditor could have any objection to the use of mathematical netting? An auditor is a qualified accountant with considerable experience and expertise. No immediately qualified junior accountant can possibly not heard of netting in an ordinary sense that would be perfectly acceptable to them. Are you ever going to be real or forever be just a phoney? You behave like a cheat. You cannot be pinned down. You say once piece of nonsense then move onto the next. Endlessly wriggling off the hook. According to my recollection temperature spikes from latent heat were never alleged by me in an orchard where a single stationary thermometer would be located and spraying commenced well before freezing. What was alleged was the energy from latent heat being released and rising in the orchard to protect crops from colder atmospheric temperatures moving through the orchard on the wind. I am sure at some point I must have alleged that if supercooling occurs in the orchard and some scientists suggest that supercooling is involved anytime ice freezes that theoretically a temperature spike could be created in a single stationary thermometer even if it had been pre-treated by the spraying of water. Condensation of water in a cold atmosphere theoretically may supercool as a result of it being pure water condensed from steam and lack the materials for ice to nucleate on near the melting point of ice. Here it is a possibility that trillions of small droplets of water could emit bursts of energy as freezing occurs at several degrees below the melting point of ice and create a measurable temperature spike. But I have not seen a study that has observed this. So while I am sure my discussion touched on this I never offered it as a fact. The only temperature heat spikes I alleged were in polynyas. I provided references to peer reviewed science supporting them. Further I recall suggesting that the temperature heat spikes extrapolated by DMI models from variations of numerous thermometers in the Arctic might also be from the same sort of cause as the polynyas, namely both sensitive and latent heat combined with winds and ice movement. I also recall Andrew having a cow over all of the above. Even going so far as to contact NSIDC, NASA, and the University of Florida to tell them they were all muddled up. If anybody else can make more sense of Andrew's frustrations they are welcome to try. Seems to me he has now resorted to beating the bushes of thousands of old posts to come up with a smoking gun and hasn't found one. Knowing Andrew and how much he hates being wrong . . . .frustration is a given.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 4, 2014 6:00:11 GMT
Since you have already apologised to me for wasting my time with supercooling it is pretty obvious that certain conditions apply to the general theme where farmers are generalising about heat rises in orchards when temperatures are falling. Almost unbelievably you were the one who first raised this bloody topic as some kind of show stopper. Now though it has to have so many caveats that it is totally worthless according to you. That is seriously weird. We even had to endure the totally silly 'nobody said the farmers got heat rises unless they forgot to turn on the sprinklers'!! Do you realise you sound like a total wally? I think the main problem is i try to be polite and deal with the science. The bricks fiasco was just unreal. At the time i just thought you were being stupid. But it cannot be stupidity, it must be just a game of pretence where you are never ever going to be pinned down. How about you give a coherent explanation as to why an auditor could have any objection to the use of mathematical netting? An auditor is a qualified accountant with considerable experience and expertise. No immediately qualified junior accountant can possibly not heard of netting in an ordinary sense that would be perfectly acceptable to them. Are you ever going to be real or forever be just a phoney? You behave like a cheat. You cannot be pinned down. You say once piece of nonsense then move onto the next. Endlessly wriggling off the hook. According to my recollection temperature spikes from latent heat were never alleged by me in an orchard where a single stationary thermometer would be located and spraying commenced well before freezing. What was alleged was the energy from latent heat being released and rising in the orchard to protect crops from colder atmospheric temperatures moving through the orchard on the wind. I am sure at some point I must have alleged that if supercooling occurs in the orchard and some scientists suggest that supercooling is involved anytime ice freezes that theoretically a temperature spike could be created in a single stationary thermometer even if it had been pre-treated by the spraying of water. Condensation of water in a cold atmosphere theoretically may supercool as a result of it being pure water condensed from steam and lack the materials for ice to nucleate on near the melting point of ice. Here it is a possibility that trillions of small droplets of water could emit bursts of energy as freezing occurs at several degrees below the melting point of ice and create a measurable temperature spike. But I have not seen a study that has observed this. So while I am sure my discussion touched on this I never offered it as a fact. The only temperature heat spikes I alleged were in polynyas. I provided references to peer reviewed science supporting them. Further I recall suggesting that the temperature heat spikes extrapolated by DMI models from variations of numerous thermometers in the Arctic might also be from the same sort of cause as the polynyas, namely both sensitive and latent heat combined with winds and ice movement. I also recall Andrew having a cow over all of the above. Even going so far as to contact NSIDC, NASA, and the University of Florida to tell them they were all muddled up. If anybody else can make more sense of Andrew's frustrations they are welcome to try. Seems to me he has now resorted to beating the bushes of thousands of old posts to come up with a smoking gun and hasn't found one. Knowing Andrew and how much he hates being wrong . . . .frustration is a given. More obfuscation and time wasting! You and Magellan introduced the idea that temperatures rise when freezing occurs in orchards and from these papers this was a generalised event typically happening in radiation frosts in California and Florida. The farmers are obviously not claiming that cold air becomes warmer when it passes over warm irrigation water and cold ice. . They are claiming the cooling cold air becomes warmer at the freezing point or other latent heat event. They are specifically saying the phase change causes hotter temperatures. Sigurdur also wants to point to this as proof he is right. Either scientific ideas are wrong or the farmers have discovered something unknown to science 7 months after you introduced these papers you are still wanting me to believe the farmers are not muddled up! NSIDC and the farmers were muddled up! I have had to endure months of your stupidity because i took the trouble to write to NSIDC to point out their article was confused and misleading. NSIDC took three emails to agree the suggestions of their article were technically incorrect/misleading and ambiguous. 7 months later we are still where we were 7 months ago! According to you clowns the following are manifestations of your success and correctness! edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ch182They can obtain up to a 4 degF near surface warming in the groves. But they have to be careful in design and use to avoid evaporation as evaporation is 7.5 times as cooling as freezing is warming for a given amount of water. Score: Icefisher 3 Iceskater and Numno 0
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 4, 2014 8:22:27 GMT
According to my recollection temperature spikes from latent heat were never alleged by me in an orchard where a single stationary thermometer would be located and spraying commenced well before freezing. What was alleged was the energy from latent heat being released and rising in the orchard to protect crops from colder atmospheric temperatures moving through the orchard on the wind. I am sure at some point I must have alleged that if supercooling occurs in the orchard and some scientists suggest that supercooling is involved anytime ice freezes that theoretically a temperature spike could be created in a single stationary thermometer even if it had been pre-treated by the spraying of water. Condensation of water in a cold atmosphere theoretically may supercool as a result of it being pure water condensed from steam and lack the materials for ice to nucleate on near the melting point of ice. Here it is a possibility that trillions of small droplets of water could emit bursts of energy as freezing occurs at several degrees below the melting point of ice and create a measurable temperature spike. But I have not seen a study that has observed this. So while I am sure my discussion touched on this I never offered it as a fact. The only temperature heat spikes I alleged were in polynyas. I provided references to peer reviewed science supporting them. Further I recall suggesting that the temperature heat spikes extrapolated by DMI models from variations of numerous thermometers in the Arctic might also be from the same sort of cause as the polynyas, namely both sensitive and latent heat combined with winds and ice movement. I also recall Andrew having a cow over all of the above. Even going so far as to contact NSIDC, NASA, and the University of Florida to tell them they were all muddled up. If anybody else can make more sense of Andrew's frustrations they are welcome to try. Seems to me he has now resorted to beating the bushes of thousands of old posts to come up with a smoking gun and hasn't found one. Knowing Andrew and how much he hates being wrong . . . .frustration is a given. More obfuscation and time wasting! You and Magellan introduced the idea that temperatures rise when freezing occurs in orchards and from these papers this was a generalised event typically happening in radiation frosts in California and Florida. The farmers are obviously not claiming that cold air becomes warmer when it passes over warm irrigation water and cold ice. . They are claiming the cooling cold air becomes warmer at the freezing point or other latent heat event. They are specifically saying the phase change causes hotter temperatures. Sigurdur also wants to point to this as proof he is right. Either scientific ideas are wrong or the farmers have discovered something unknown to science 7 months after you introduced these papers you are still wanting me to believe the farmers are not muddled up! NSIDC and the farmers were muddled up! I have had to endure months of your stupidity because i took the trouble to write to NSIDC to point out their article was confused and misleading. NSIDC took three emails to agree the suggestions of their article were technically incorrect/misleading and ambiguous. 7 months later we are still where we were 7 months ago! According to you clowns the following are manifestations of your success and correctness! edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ch182They can obtain up to a 4 degF near surface warming in the groves. But they have to be careful in design and use to avoid evaporation as evaporation is 7.5 times as cooling as freezing is warming for a given amount of water. Score: Icefisher 3 Iceskater and Numno 0 According to my recollection the 4 degree warming was not recorded by a single thermometer. The 4 degree warming was the difference between the temperature inside the grove and the temperature outside of the grove. Your stupid criticism of the warming is based upon the idea that the spraying in the grove already caused the warming and I agree with you in an extremely narrow and irrelevant sense. Stationary airs and a single stationary thermometer may well have been prewarmed by spraying water and heat rising externally out of the freezing water would only continue to maintain the existing warmth originally created by the water. But that is mostly an irrelevant fact. You started out supporting stupid proclamations like the release of latent heat is an entirely internal process and its energy is consumed in expanding the water. A few days later the story began to change and it became a stupid and narrow point that its against the law of physics for freezing to warm anything that is already warmed. Your logic involves a single thermometer and that water would have warmed it already so the release of latent heat did not warm it. Then you completely turn a blind eye to the real dynamics going in that the airs warmed by the water are drifting down wind and being replaced continuously with new cooler airs jointly being warmed by the spraying and the release of latent heat and that if the spraying is interrupted the latent heat will continue to maintain the temperature if not cause it to rise if the water supercooled before it froze. You did the same thing with the bricks where you claimed to have found a warming occurring on the inside faces of the bricks. However, the thermometer readings you recorded showed continuous cooling. Your experiment failed completely and miserably to capture a single calorie of warming yet you have gone on for over a year continuing to proclaim that you captured such a warming and calling people morons for not agreeing with you as if you could not decipher and a time series of temperature readings you recorded yourself that was continuously getting colder.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 4, 2014 8:54:22 GMT
You started out supporting stupid proclamations like the release of latent heat is an entirely internal process and its energy is consumed in expanding the water. No i did not! I specifically said the ice expansion comment was an aside in typical numerouno fashion
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 4, 2014 9:47:37 GMT
You started out supporting stupid proclamations like the release of latent heat is an entirely internal process and its energy is consumed in expanding the water. No i did not! I specifically said the ice expansion comment was an aside in typical numerouno fashion What is an aside in your view? I would take it as a sidebar for the purpose of providing more details. How do you justify vindicating that. Is it in your view correct or is it in your view wrong?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 4, 2014 10:06:33 GMT
No i did not! I specifically said the ice expansion comment was an aside in typical numerouno fashion What is an aside in your view? I would take it as a sidebar for the purpose of providing more details. How do you justify vindicating that. Is it in your view correct or is it in your view wrong? The fact that ice expands and breaks down mountains is an irrelevant comment
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 4, 2014 14:41:45 GMT
You did the same thing with the bricks where you claimed to have found a warming occurring on the inside faces of the bricks. However, the thermometer readings you recorded showed continuous cooling. Liar! I produced a video showing rising temperatures when the bricks were placed together. The other earlier experiments showed exactly what they were expected to show, the bricks only had to be warmer on the inside faces the fact the bricks were cooling was entirely irrelevant. All the results were entirely predictable from simple scientific ideas! Congratulations! You have now spent two whole years being a troll! What an achievement that must be for you!
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 4, 2014 16:05:20 GMT
You did the same thing with the bricks where you claimed to have found a warming occurring on the inside faces of the bricks. However, the thermometer readings you recorded showed continuous cooling. Liar! I produced a video showing rising temperatures when the bricks were placed together. The other earlier experiments showed exactly what they were expected to show, the bricks only had to be warmer on the inside faces the fact the bricks were cooling was entirely irrelevant. All the results were entirely predictable from simple scientific ideas! Congratulations! You have now spent two whole years being a troll! What an achievement that must be for you! Andrew it might disappoint you to know I don't read every post you make. I am talking about the experiment where you claimed warming but your experiment did not capture it. You argued with me on that point while a list of numbers was right in your face. You may have later published a video but I probably did not watch it as I only recently, about a year ago, started watching videos regularly in my browser as before that my internet connection was too slow to satisfactorily watch videos. But if your video was done correctly I am proud of you Andrew! It would be good to know you are capable of learning something.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 5, 2014 7:21:17 GMT
Liar! I produced a video showing rising temperatures when the bricks were placed together. The other earlier experiments showed exactly what they were expected to show, the bricks only had to be warmer on the inside faces the fact the bricks were cooling was entirely irrelevant. All the results were entirely predictable from simple scientific ideas! Congratulations! You have now spent two whole years being a troll! What an achievement that must be for you! Andrew it might disappoint you to know I don't read every post you make. I am talking about the experiment where you claimed warming but your experiment did not capture it. You argued with me on that point while a list of numbers was right in your face. You may have later published a video but I probably did not watch it as I only recently, about a year ago, started watching videos regularly in my browser as before that my internet connection was too slow to satisfactorily watch videos. But if your video was done correctly I am proud of you Andrew! It would be good to know you are capable of learning something. You cannot read. You have just spent 7 months telling me i am saying something I never said. And on GHE you spent two years telling me I was saying something I never said. The experimental results were exactly as expected. The craziest thing is that we ever got to bricks. You were obviously f**king with me when you said the earlier experiments proves nothing because the fridge was mains powered! Quite the ride you have taken me on. I still cannot work out if you do this deliberately and consciously or whether you have no idea just how weird you behave.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 5, 2014 14:55:01 GMT
What is an aside in your view? I would take it as a sidebar for the purpose of providing more details. How do you justify vindicating that. Is it in your view correct or is it in your view wrong? The fact that ice expands and breaks down mountains is an irrelevant comment And aside does not mean an irrelevant comment in the first place so you never said it was an irrelevant comment whether you thought it was or not. Further how can it be irrelevant if its discussing the fate of the energy over which the entire topic of conversation is about? And finally why is it you are still avoiding saying if its wrong or its right? Do you even know?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 5, 2014 17:13:28 GMT
The fact that ice expands and breaks down mountains is an irrelevant comment And aside does not mean an irrelevant comment in the first place so you never said it was an irrelevant comment whether you thought it was or not. Further how can it be irrelevant if its discussing the fate of the energy over which the entire topic of conversation is about? And finally why is it you are still avoiding saying if its wrong or its right? Do you even know? I said originally it was a side comment. Obviously i dont attach any importance at all to the comment about ice expanding and breaking up rocks!!! Out of the blue he also mentioned that the media talk about ramming but he said icebreakers do not ram ice. It was a side comment that was tangental to the general conversation.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 6, 2014 0:41:38 GMT
And aside does not mean an irrelevant comment in the first place so you never said it was an irrelevant comment whether you thought it was or not. Further how can it be irrelevant if its discussing the fate of the energy over which the entire topic of conversation is about? And finally why is it you are still avoiding saying if its wrong or its right? Do you even know? I said originally it was a side comment. Obviously i dont attach any importance at all to the comment about ice expanding and breaking up rocks!!! You seem to attach some importance about revealing if he was right or wrong about it. Whats the matter Andrew are you afraid to admit you believed him when you started supporting him and attacking everybody and now you are embarrassed to admit it and simply wish it would go away?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 6, 2014 4:20:53 GMT
I said originally it was a side comment. Obviously i dont attach any importance at all to the comment about ice expanding and breaking up rocks!!! You seem to attach some importance about revealing if he was right or wrong about it. Whats the matter Andrew are you afraid to admit you believed him when you started supporting him and attacking everybody and now you are embarrassed to admit it and simply wish it would go away? You are the fool who refuses to see the farmers are talking about latent heat heating.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 6, 2014 16:56:26 GMT
You seem to attach some importance about revealing if he was right or wrong about it. Whats the matter Andrew are you afraid to admit you believed him when you started supporting him and attacking everybody and now you are embarrassed to admit it and simply wish it would go away? You are the fool who refuses to see the farmers are talking about latent heat heating. You are a fool who does not see that the release of latent heat maintains the temperature of water at 32F by heating the water, whether the water is at 32F or below 32F and that heats the orchard. If you are above the orchard you can pass your hand (or thermometer if you are big wuss and need to wear gloves) down over this cauldron of 32F water and feel (read) the heat. A fool is one who has never looked and flaps his jaws or does not believe it when they do look and see it.
|
|