|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 5, 2014 8:01:50 GMT
Mark Serreze the director of the NSIDC wrote an article claiming that when ice freezes the arctic atmosphere warms up I wrote to NSIDC pointing out that was wrong NSIDC have written back "In regard to your inquiry about the November 2008 Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis post (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2008/11/an-expected-paradox-autumn-warmth-and-ice-growth/), NSIDC scientists have provided some clarification below. During ice formation, the ice itself is not releasing the latent heat. However, it is the ocean water beneath the ice that releases latent heat as the water freezes into ice. That heat is then conducted upwards through the ice cover. As a result, the ice surface is warmer than it would otherwise be (without the latent heat release from ice formation), and this represents a heat source to the atmosphere. Ice growth is one of the reasons why near-surface air temperatures are often higher over the Arctic Ocean in winter than over land areas at considerably lower latitudes. I hope that this information provides clarification." Essentially they have provided something that is not wrong, but not dealt with the article I have replied: Yes the ice would be colder if it were not for the latent heat. However, the rate of heating of the cold atmosphere per unit time by water at 0.0001C is likely to be greater than the rate of heating per unit time of icey water at 0C We cannot say therefore that there is additional heat available to heat the colder atmosphere once the ice begins forming in the way the incorrect online article is describing The online article is saying when ice forms the atmosphere, that is cooling the ice, mysteriously gets warmer! :-) You cannot possibly leave the article online like that. Iceskater what don't you get about "it is the ocean water beneath the ice that releases latent heat as the water freezes into ice. That heat is then conducted upwards through the ice cover." You say that is "essentially not wrong" then turn right around and deny that this heat can warm anything. Thermodynamic laws say it will warm anything that is colder. If the surface of the ice is warming its going to also be warming the "climate surface" which is the air. A key assumption in climate science is the surface is both the radiating ice surface and the temperature of the air in the Stevenson screens our surface temperature stations measure. If so if the surface of the ice warms so must the air. there is no way out of this if you accept the statement you just accepted. If the air is warmer its cooling is going to be reduced, if the air is colder its rate of warming is going to increase. In both cases the air warms. According mainstream science if cooling is reduced warming must result and obviously if the rate of warming goes up it must warm the air too. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 5, 2014 15:20:53 GMT
Mark Serreze the director of the NSIDC wrote an article claiming that when ice freezes the arctic atmosphere warms up I wrote to NSIDC pointing out that was wrong ------------------------- Hi
You have an online article that has a major error in it.
nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2008/11/an-expected-paradox-autumn-warmth-and-ice-growth/
Contrary to what the article claims, when ice freezes the latent heat that is within the water is not released in any visible manner when ice forms. Instead as the ice forms the temperature fall of the ice is no longer observed until it is fully frozen.
The article is claiming that heat is somehow radiated from the ice into the atmosphere to cause widespread warming during ice formation. If that was so then ice formation would not involve a latent heat of fusion. The word Latent means hidden or not visible.
Is there any chance this article could be removed pleased or have a note added to it to make it clear the article is wrong?
Regards
Andrew----------------------------------------- NSIDC have written back "In regard to your inquiry about the November 2008 Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis post (nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2008/11/an-expected-paradox-autumn-warmth-and-ice-growth/), NSIDC scientists have provided some clarification below.
During ice formation, the ice itself is not releasing the latent heat. However, it is the ocean water beneath the ice that releases latent heat as the water freezes into ice. That heat is then conducted upwards through the ice cover. As a result, the ice surface is warmer than it would otherwise be (without the latent heat release from ice formation), and this represents a heat source to the atmosphere. Ice growth is one of the reasons why near-surface air temperatures are often higher over the Arctic Ocean in winter than over land areas at considerably lower latitudes.
I hope that this information provides clarification." Essentially they have provided something that is not wrong, but not dealt with the article I have replied: Yes the ice would be colder if it were not for the latent heat. However, the rate of heating of the cold atmosphere per unit time by water at 0.0001C is likely to be greater than the rate of heating per unit time of icey water at 0C
We cannot say therefore that there is additional heat available to heat the colder atmosphere once the ice begins forming in the way the incorrect online article is describing
The online article is saying when ice forms, the atmosphere that is cooling the ice, mysteriously gets warmer! :-)
You cannot possibly leave the article online like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 5, 2014 15:27:10 GMT
Mark Serreze the director of the NSIDC wrote an article claiming that when ice freezes the arctic atmosphere warms up I wrote to NSIDC pointing out that was wrong ------------------------- Hi
You have an online article that has a major error in it.
nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2008/11/an-expected-paradox-autumn-warmth-and-ice-growth/
Contrary to what the article claims, when ice freezes the latent heat that is within the water is not released in any visible manner when ice forms. Instead as the ice forms the temperature fall of the ice is no longer observed until it is fully frozen.
The article is claiming that heat is somehow radiated from the ice into the atmosphere to cause widespread warming during ice formation. If that was so then ice formation would not involve a latent heat of fusion. The word Latent means hidden or not visible.
Is there any chance this article could be removed pleased or have a note added to it to make it clear the article is wrong?
Regards
AndrewI reposted your entire post above. For a moment lets focus on your letter to NSIDC. Here you say: "latent heat that is within the water is not released in any visible manner". I realize textbooks may actually contain this language if you accept that science cannot see how latent heat becomes sensible heat. The energy of latent heat is very clearly released in a visible manner and you are grasping at straws here because you have subsequently admitted that the sensible heat release is extended by the release of latent heat and the additional sensible heat being released by the ice warming the air is observable and therefore is visible. So basically like everything where you choose to make an unjustified attack you go into full time mode, now for about 7 months, of splitting hairs. Get over it Andrew! The release of latent heat can warm the atmosphere! |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 5, 2014 15:34:15 GMT
The online article is saying when ice forms, the atmosphere that is cooling the ice, mysteriously gets warmer! :-) You cannot possibly leave the article online like that. Then there is this jewel. Andrew must not have gotten the memo that when something cools something else it gets warmer. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 5, 2014 16:46:31 GMT
Iceskater what don't you get about "it is the ocean water beneath the ice that releases latent heat as the water freezes into ice. That heat is then conducted upwards through the ice cover." You say that is "essentially not wrong" then turn right around and deny that this heat can warm anything. Thermodynamic laws say it will warm anything that is colder. If the surface of the ice is warming its going to also be warming the "climate surface" which is the air. A key assumption in climate science is the surface is both the radiating ice surface and the temperature of the air in the Stevenson screens our surface temperature stations measure. If so if the surface of the ice warms so must the air. there is no way out of this if you accept the statement you just accepted. If the air is warmer its cooling is going to be reduced, if the air is colder its rate of warming is going to increase. In both cases the air warms. According mainstream science if cooling is reduced warming must result and obviously if the rate of warming goes up it must warm the air too. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 5, 2014 17:04:25 GMT
Andrew I can admit to not being perfect very easily. I know what I meant to say in the preceding paragraph but obviously stumbled, which I often do when firing off posts in a forum where I don't take the time to proof read them.
However, I am going to be writing any letters soon to NSIDC saying that the warming of airs that are causing water to freeze under the ice is "mysterious". And I am sure as heck not going to spend 7 months defending such lunacy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 5, 2014 17:32:40 GMT
Andrew I can admit to not being perfect very easily. I know what I meant to say in the preceding paragraph but obviously stumbled, which I often do when firing off posts in a forum where I don't take the time to proof read them. However, I am going to be writing any letters soon to NSIDC saying that the warming of airs that are causing water to freeze under the ice is "mysterious". And I am sure as heck not going to spend 7 months defending such lunacy. Right so you were talking about warming and me being muddled up whereas it was you, and you were talking about an ice covered ocean freezing from under the ice. Then you made the stupid get a thermometer commment, then you talked about massive freezing under a clear sky creating heat spikes. Funny how none of these things have anything to do with polynyas. Then you want to focus on a single bloody comment of Nums like it means anything at all compared to everything else he said when it is totally obvious he recognises that 0C water can heat things! and totally obvious he says that 100C steam requires heating of water and energy is transfered but no temperature change is visible and it is not possible to say the physics more simply. NSIDC and the farmers were muddled up and 7 months later you refuse to see that. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 6, 2014 3:58:10 GMT
Andrew I can admit to not being perfect very easily. I know what I meant to say in the preceding paragraph but obviously stumbled, which I often do when firing off posts in a forum where I don't take the time to proof read them. However, I am going to be writing any letters soon to NSIDC saying that the warming of airs that are causing water to freeze under the ice is "mysterious". And I am sure as heck not going to spend 7 months defending such lunacy. Right so you were talking about warming and me being muddled up whereas it was you, and you were talking about an ice covered ocean freezing from under the ice. Then you made the stupid get a thermometer commment, then you talked about massive freezing under a clear sky creating heat spikes. Funny how none of these things have anything to do with polynyas. Then you want to focus on a single bloody comment of Nums like it means anything at all compared to everything else he said when it is totally obvious he recognises that 0C water can heat things! and totally obvious he says that 100C steam requires heating of water and energy is transfered but no temperature change is visible and it is not possible to say the physics more simply. NSIDC and the farmers were muddled up and 7 months later you refuse to see that. So now you like polynyas? There is basically zero distance between the polynyas and what I was saying originally as I had read the article on the polynyas about a year before while researching issues related to Arctic temperature variations. And it was not one bloody comment from Numno that led to this. It was his objection to a statement by me saying that freezing raises the average winter time temperature in the Arctic which so happens to be the antithesis to the claims by NSIDC that melting ice lowers the summer time temperature of the arctic. That in turn led to claims by you and numno that the release of latent heat can't warm anything. . . .which of course is mind numbingly stupid! |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 6, 2014 4:18:19 GMT
Right so you were talking about warming and me being muddled up whereas it was you, and you were talking about an ice covered ocean freezing from under the ice. Then you made the stupid get a thermometer commment, then you talked about massive freezing under a clear sky creating heat spikes. Funny how none of these things have anything to do with polynyas. Then you want to focus on a single bloody comment of Nums like it means anything at all compared to everything else he said when it is totally obvious he recognises that 0C water can heat things! and totally obvious he says that 100C steam requires heating of water and energy is transfered but no temperature change is visible and it is not possible to say the physics more simply. NSIDC and the farmers were muddled up and 7 months later you refuse to see that. So now you like polynyas? There is basically zero distance between the polynyas and what I was saying originally as I had read the article on the polynyas about a year before while researching issues related to Arctic temperature variations. And it was not one bloody comment from Numno that led to this. It was his objection to a statement by me saying that freezing raises the average winter time temperature in the Arctic which so happens to be the antithesis to the claims by NSIDC that melting ice lowers the summer time temperature of the arctic. That in turn led to claims by you and numno that the release of latent heat can't warm anything. . . .which of course is mind numbingly stupid! Liar!! How about you focus on what he said rather than cutting out what he did say every time you reply!! Num said this!!! " Mr Icefisher is saying that if I take a bucket water at 0.01C inside the house and cool it down just a little bit, then a bang, and there will emanate a puff of warm air from the bucket, that I can heat up my house with.
Of course no such thing will happen, the phase change energy will go into changing the water into the crystal structure of ice, which will also expand a bit. (And by which way nature chops down northern rocks and mountains chip by chip.)" |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 6, 2014 5:21:01 GMT
Liar!! How about you focus on what he said rather than cutting out what he did say every time you reply!! Num said this!!! " Mr Icefisher is saying that if I take a bucket water at 0.01C inside the house and cool it down just a little bit, then a bang, and there will emanate a puff of warm air from the bucket, that I can heat up my house with.
Of course no such thing will happen, the phase change energy will go into changing the water into the crystal structure of ice, which will also expand a bit. (And by which way nature chops down northern rocks and mountains chip by chip.)" If your house is -30F an adequate amount of 32F water freezing to ice will quite nicely warm your house to a balmy 32F. If you take a 32F block of wood of as much weight as the water into your house it won't do nearly as good of a job. I understand your desperate need to plant words into my mouth and your zeal in building strawmen; because otherwise you would have to admit you were wrong in objecting to my statement that you can warm things with the release of latent heat. Your silly and futile attempts to put spin on my statements so as to make them sound as if I was equating the latent heat released from water to be a virtual propane blow torch is actually rather hilarious and pitiful at the same time. I mean do you really think putting an icecube tray in your freezer is going to melt the walls of the freezer department, or did you really in truly imagine that is what I was saying. LOL! |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 6, 2014 5:24:08 GMT
Liar!! How about you focus on what he said rather than cutting out what he did say every time you reply!! Num said this!!! " Mr Icefisher is saying that if I take a bucket water at 0.01C inside the house and cool it down just a little bit, then a bang, and there will emanate a puff of warm air from the bucket, that I can heat up my house with.
Of course no such thing will happen, the phase change energy will go into changing the water into the crystal structure of ice, which will also expand a bit. (And by which way nature chops down northern rocks and mountains chip by chip.)" If your house is -30F an adequate amount of 32F water freezing to ice will quite nicely warm your house to a balmy 32F. If you take a 32F block of wood of as much weight as the water into your house it won't do nearly as good of a job. I understand your desperate need to plant words into my mouth and your zeal in building strawmen; because otherwise you would have to admit you were wrong in objecting to my statement that you can warm things with the release of latent heat. Your silly and futile attempts to put spin on my statements so as to make them sound as if I was equating the latent heat released from water to be a virtual propane blow torch is actually rather hilarious and pitiful at the same time. I mean do you really think putting an icecube tray in your freezer is going to melt the walls of the freezer department, or did you really in truly imagine that is what I was saying. LOL! You can obfuscate all you want but num was totally clear with this. Mr Icefisher is saying that if I take a bucket water at 0.01C inside the house and cool it down just a little bit, then a bang, and there will emanate a puff of warm air from the bucket, that I can heat up my house with. Of course no such thing will happen You should easily be able to work out for yourself that you are wrong By your reasoning if you cool water in the centre of a well mixed sphere of water, which will be at 0 degree for pure water then the sphere will appear to be above 0C when viewed with a radiometer as the ice forms, even though the contents of the sphere remain at 0C. The idea is nonesense. No matter how you design an experiment to produce your expected result the result you would obtain would be nonesensical. Buy a better instrument Andrew! Iceskater what don't you get about "it is the ocean water beneath the ice that releases latent heat as the water freezes into ice. That heat is then conducted upwards through the ice cover." You say that is "essentially not wrong" then turn right around and deny that this heat can warm anything. Thermodynamic laws say it will warm anything that is colder. If the surface of the ice is warming Then there was all of the talk about heat spikes caused by massive cooling of the surface under clear skies. Depending on the amount of ice that forms, the heat released can raise temperatures in the lower part of the canopy. That inventor is just another person who has misunderstood the physics involved. Yes we thought you were the same difficult person you were as in the GHE stupidity, where two years of reasoning only produced two years of abuse from you and you learnt absolutely nothing about the GHE. 7 months after this stupid conversation began you are still saying the farmers are correct! |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 6, 2014 5:50:03 GMT
Andrew: We are.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 6, 2014 6:09:19 GMT
Why cant you help instead of being unhelpful? Do you agree with this text or not? biomet.ucdavis.edu/frostprotection/Principles%20of%20Frost%20Protection/FP005.html" the temperature of wet plant parts initially rises as the water freezes and releases latent heat as sensible, but then it falls to near the wet-bulb temperature, due to evaporation, before the plant is hit again with another pulse of water. This is illustrated in Figure 4. "  Figure 4. Temperature of a bud wetted by a sprinkler system with a precipitation rate of 2.8 mm h-1 (0.12 in/h) when exposed to a wind speed of 6.9 m s-1 (15 mph). The dotted line is for a 120 s rotation, the dashed line is for a 60 s rotation, and the solid line is for a 30 s rotation. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 6, 2014 14:19:56 GMT
Why cant you help instead of being unhelpful? Do you agree with this text or not? biomet.ucdavis.edu/frostprotection/Principles%20of%20Frost%20Protection/FP005.html" the temperature of wet plant parts initially rises as the water freezes and releases latent heat as sensible, but then it falls to near the wet-bulb temperature, due to evaporation, before the plant is hit again with another pulse of water. This is illustrated in Figure 4. " Figure 4. Temperature of a bud wetted by a sprinkler system with a precipitation rate of 2.8 mm h-1 (0.12 in/h) when exposed to a wind speed of 6.9 m s-1 (15 mph). The dotted line is for a 120 s rotation, the dashed line is for a 60 s rotation, and the solid line is for a 30 s rotation.Of course I do Andrew. This is exactly what I have been saying. The latent heat becomes sensible heat. You have to keep applying water to maintain the effect. A very simple physics concept. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 6, 2014 14:24:56 GMT
Why cant you help instead of being unhelpful? Do you agree with this text or not? biomet.ucdavis.edu/frostprotection/Principles%20of%20Frost%20Protection/FP005.html" the temperature of wet plant parts initially rises as the water freezes and releases latent heat as sensible, but then it falls to near the wet-bulb temperature, due to evaporation, before the plant is hit again with another pulse of water. This is illustrated in Figure 4. " Figure 4. Temperature of a bud wetted by a sprinkler system with a precipitation rate of 2.8 mm h-1 (0.12 in/h) when exposed to a wind speed of 6.9 m s-1 (15 mph). The dotted line is for a 120 s rotation, the dashed line is for a 60 s rotation, and the solid line is for a 30 s rotation.Of course I do Andrew. This is exactly what I have been saying. The latent heat becomes sensible heat. You have to keep applying water to maintain the effect. A very simple physics concept. Thanks If you can explain what you mean in reference to that graph it would be very helpful for me |
|
