|
Post by Andrew on Feb 8, 2014 7:25:09 GMT
It says 210.1 K and approximately 210K. Yeah like the 20th century warming was approximately 1k plus or minus 2k It makes no difference at all to the reality you were the sick pervert who played around with me for months on end while you continually lied for months on end. The other sicko was trenberth who tried to make out Mars had no CO2 in the atmosphere!
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 8, 2014 7:15:16 GMT
It says 210.1 K and approximately 210K. Yeah like the 20th century warming was approximately 1k plus or minus 2k the fact is you produced comical reasons why water could not create a GHE on earth. Including: My fridge was mains powered! Netting is a criminal act! An auditor had never heard of financial netting, when nearly every person with a job knows what a net income is! My cooling bricks were supposed to be getting hotter! And I have no doubt you thought the whole thing was one big laugth from start to finnish. What kind of a sick pervert does that?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 8, 2014 6:48:31 GMT
I dont see anything there at all that says Mars has no greenhouse effect. Obviously i think you are totally muddled up and totally confused. Sorry if I am going a bit fast for you. Subtracting 210.1K from 210K is indeed challenging. It says 210.1 K and approximately 210K. The fact is if CO2 is proven to be an irrelevant or insignificant gas on Earth is has no bearing on the power of water vapour as the most overwhelming powerful GHG on Earth, where comments about C02 are of insignificant consequence to the science of the GHE theory. Meanwhile the fact is you produced comical reasons why water could not create a GHE on earth. Including: My fridge was mains powered! Netting is a criminal act! An auditor had never heard of financial netting, when nearly every person with a job knows what a net income is! My cooling bricks were supposed to be getting hotter! And I have no doubt you thought the whole thing was one big laugth from start to finnish.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 8, 2014 5:18:25 GMT
Just provide the NASA link to support your belief system and the issue can be resolved. Obviously i think you are totally muddled up and probably you are going to be dancing on this, and name calling me, for the next two years. Good! Here it is resolved. nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.htmlThe blackbody temperature is given as 210K The average temperature is 210K The atmosphere is 95% CO2. The atmosphere is 6 millibars. Earth CO2 if the atmosphere was reduced to just earth's CO2 would be .4 millibar So Mars has a lot more CO2 screening that earth does by a factor of over 10 times, equivalent of more than 4 doublings. The reason? It seems the KISS answer would be that the lapse rate on Mars is almost non-existent. Its about .6% that of earth, so if you took earth's greenhouse effect with clouds at 33degC or its greenhouse effect without clouds in accordance with SB equations at 10degC, the Martian greenhouse effect should be between .2degC and .06degC, respectively. Something probably that can't be measured, giving no measurable greenhouse effect. When are you going to write to NASA and tell them they are all muddled up? Oh you already did that once with no results! I dont see anything there at all that says Mars has no greenhouse effect. Obviously i think you are totally muddled up, totally confused and totally dishonest. 1. C02 is more or less an irrelevant gas on Earth and has almost no relevance to disprove the GHE. 2. The overwhelmingly most dominating GHG on earth is water vapour. 3. You produced comical reasons why water could not create a GHE on Earth: My fridge was mains powered Netting was a criminal act Financial netting was something unknown to an auditor! My bricks were cooling and could not be getting hotter as you stupidly claimed I had said they would My sauna was being heated and my results were representative of nothing
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 7, 2014 13:25:19 GMT
You and I were talking about the simple science behind the idea of a green house effect. And daily you produced comical reasons why you were going to object to the simple science. Science always seems simple to a simpleton. Evidently so.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 7, 2014 12:17:38 GMT
You can of course believe whatever you want to believe. Possibly you can remember that I contacted Trenberth over the claim mars has no greenhouse effect. He said he does not believe Mars has any CO2. Nasa apparantly is claiming the presence of CO2 and the presence of a GHE. Actually NASA is the source of data that Mars does not have a greenhouse effect. Just provide the NASA link to support your belief system and the issue can be resolved. Obviously i think you are totally muddled up and probably you are going to be dancing on this, and name calling me, for the next two years.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 7, 2014 7:22:12 GMT
I would guess that you have already read the text and graph provided and no matter how clearly I express myself you will keep up the game that nothing I say is satisfying to you. You had me jumping thru hoops over the GHE even though it was totally clear your comments about the fourth power rule showed you could have no objections to the GHE. It is also totally clear that no auditor would object to netting, or claim he had never heard of financial netting. It is all good though. I learnt something about my naive and gullible nature and learnt something about malignant psychopaths that I had to witness first hand to believe. You are correct I have no objections to the GHE and have no reason to believe it works as advertised either. I am convinced that embedded shells with reflectivity would operate to increase heat and that is supported by the equations related to emissivity. And since there is no perfect blackbody anything else you could use to build embedded shells would no doubt increase heat to some extent as well. Anybody can draw a model and figure out how to balance the numbers purely mathematically, but thats not proof they are right. There are several issues that make me question the principle. No greenhouse effect on Mars, the fact that days on the earth do not get anywhere close to the SB limit as defined by the inverse square law, but surfaces do get to that limit on the moon, and surfaces do get to that limit on Mars (suggesting that its the thickness of the atmosphere that is the true variable and because of conduction and convection there is not much difference due to greenhouse gases). But those are just suggestions to keep an open mind on the topic. It could well be that greenhouse gases are a necessity for the greenhouse effect, but that the limit is defined by the lapse rate and the thickness of the atmosphere. But as we know the atmosphere is more complicated than that so that may be a gross oversimplification of the answer. I guess what is difficult to understand is why you feel compelled that everybody should believe the same thing. Do you hold that sort of prejudice for skin color as well? You can of course believe whatever you want to believe. Possibly you can remember that I contacted Trenberth over the claim mars has no greenhouse effect. He said he does not believe Mars has any CO2. Nasa apparantly is claiming the presence of CO2 and the presence of a GHE I would tend to believe Nasa rather than a climate scientist or somebody from the internet. You and I were talking about the simple science behind the idea of a green house effect. And daily you produced comical reasons why you were going to object to the simple science. Netting was a criminal act The fridge was mains powered the bricks were heated by the sauna stove At the time i did not know what to believe. I just assumed you were thick. I just assumed that all the blatant lies you told about me were part of your confusion. At the end of the day I still do not know why you behave as you do.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 7, 2014 5:43:05 GMT
I no longer have any idea what you are talking about. Yesterday you were telling me the word latent was totally redundant. Don't be such a moron! The word "latent" isn't redundant being used alone! The word "latent" is redundant when attaching it to the front of the "heat of fusion". The heat of fusion is a latent heat. Thats why it was ridiculous that you wrote the Univ of Florida and asked them to modify their paper by inserting the word latent in front of "heat of fusion". The act of freezing alone cannot raise falling temperatures unless supercooling is involved. >>The california article is specifically saying freezing of the spray raises the temperature of the plants above zero and the plants cool below zero after the rotating spray moves away and the plants rewarm above zero when it returns due to freezing. As described they are describing the impossible. ObviouslySigurdur says this is an accurate description and it is just physics. I would guess you garbled it as its basically unintelligible in your sentence. A link to the paragraph you are talking about would be helpful. I would guess that you have already read the text and graph provided and no matter how clearly I express myself you will keep up the game that nothing I say is satisfying to you. You had me jumping thru hoops over the GHE even though it was totally clear your comments about the fourth power rule showed you could have no objections to the GHE. It is also totally clear that no auditor would object to netting, or claim he had never heard of financial netting. It is all good though. I learnt something about my naive and gullible nature and learnt something about malignant psychopaths that I had to witness first hand to believe.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 7, 2014 5:24:43 GMT
Correct. The latent heat heats the water and the water heats whatever is cooling the water. No latent heat is released externally, the latent heat can only be consumed by maintaining the temperature of the water. The freezing process alone, without supercooling, cannot possibly raise the temperature of a cooling object. The farmers are totally muddled up. Whether i am right or wrong that is what was described to you from day one of this conversation. You cant take a bucket of water at 0.0001C and cool it down a little bit and then a bang you can heat your house. No novel heating solutions are possible from freezing water because there is no external release of exothermic energy when water freezes like a bomb going off unless the water is supercooled. Without supercooling? Why not just say that latent heat is like any other heat in regards to its heating ability of the water? Another object cannot heat water above its own temperature and the effective temperature of latent heat of freezing of water is 0 deg C. Therefore it will heat stuff colder than that and not heat stuff as warm or warmer than that. You guys seem to have dreamed up the idea that somebody was suggesting its effective temperature was greater or that it was ineffective at warming stuff when released below its effective temperature. At least Numno dropped out of this argument 6 months ago after about a week of this being an issue, for some reason you can't figure it out. " Correct. The latent heat heats the water and the water heats whatever is cooling the water." Thats kind of an odd way of putting it. Latent heat is simply part of the internal energy of ice. Its energy like any other energy which is employed in a different way when in frozen water than when its in unfrozen water. But there is no question its the same energy in both states. You are imagining some kind of queue outside the bounds of any observed science when you try to separate it. Its the energy in water, including latent heat, that heats what cools the water. When you say its the water heats something else its the water with that energy included. As usual you are merely splitting hairs and playing word games to pretend you are more knowledgeable. In fact when Numno said the energy was deployed to expand ice and chip rocks, its exactly not what latent heat does. Its like he had a brain fart and got the latent heat exactly backwards. Latent heat is not part of the internal energy of ice. The ice no longer has the energy Its like you had a brain fart and got the latent heat exactly backwards.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 6, 2014 20:08:16 GMT
its not wrong! You cant take part of a post and create special meaning while totally ignoring another part that totally does not suit your agenda! I am not taking a part of a post. You guys must have said a dozen times that the heat does not rise out of the water externally. The fact you did once like a week or more into the conversation shows that either you learned something and now for 6 months you have been in damage control mode. Or it means you think you know something still we don't know. But oddly you are having a great deal of difficulty describing what that is. Icefisher, Yes, I kept repeating the same thing. The meaning was crystal clear to me. But not to you. The ice can only freeze either by radiating energy to a colder air layer or space or by warming the very cold air that blows across the water ice mixture. So yes the ice is releasing energy to the atmosphere and the ice is a source of heat which can warm the atmosphere, but the unfrozen water is also a source of heat that can warm the atmosphere and is actually a greater source of heat because it has a higher temperature. It is called the latent heat of fusion of water for a good reason. You cannot observe the release of heat because it is hidden. All that will be noticeable is that the freezing ice water mixture is a greater source of heat for the atmosphere than if the ice water mixture had fallen in temperature and had not had the latent heats ability to maintain the ice water at around -2C as it freezes. Yes the ice water mixture is warmer because of the latent heat of fusion of water and yes that heat adds to the heating of the colder atmosphere which must now be warmer, but we cannot say the latent heat is released to heat the atmosphere in the way they are suggesting. The atmosphere is warmer because of ice formation than it would be if the ice formed and had no latent heat. If you cool water with a cold wind to produce ice you warm the air that passes over the icey water. However, if you cool liquid water that is not freezing, ie the water is warmer than icey water, you warm the air more than if you cool air to produce ice. Yes energy is released but it only stops the temperature decline. I think part of the problem is the useage of the word 'released'. Instead the heat can only flow out of the water like any heat flows from an object in the presence of a lower temperature to enable that. 'Release' implies it floats off somewhere like a packet of energy that can be used elsewhere. Meanwhile i just found this unedited gem of mine embedded in one of your posts: this is what Numno said was the fate of the energy: 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.)So Numno said the energy will be used to chop down mountains. Do you agree with that Iceskater? Seems Numno is revising his position. Are you? Numerouno has not expressed the science correctly in that sentence. The phase change energy does not go into changing the water into ice but rather it has to be removed by cooling before ice will form. Totally obviously i have been saying the same thing since August 23rd 2013.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 6, 2014 18:08:14 GMT
Freezing cannot raise the temperatures of a cooling environment. The farmers are talking about latent heat heating, rather than latent heat buffering. The california article is specifically saying freezing of the spray raises the temperature of the plants and the plants cool after the rotating spray moves away and rewarms when it returns due to freezing. The farmers are not claiming science is wrong and they are not claiming that the plants warm only because they were supercooled. sig referred to the florida article to point out latent heat was warming the upper canopy. That article is totally muddled in the way it presents the beneficial use of water for frost protection Freezing will absolutely and certainly will warm a cooling environment. Whether that raises the temperature of that environment or not is wholly and completely dependent upon whether the rate of cooling by that environment is greater or less than than rate of heat extraction from the surface. Heat extraction from the surface by the canopy environment is occurring via radiation, conduction, convection, evaporation, and sublimation. Heat loss of the canopy environment is via radiation, conduction and convection to the environment above the canopy. You simply don't know if the cooling of the canopy environment is greater or less than the heat extraction from the surface, yet like a moron you think you know the answer. I no longer have any idea what you are talking about. Yesterday you were telling me the word latent was totally redundant. The act of freezing alone cannot raise falling temperatures unless supercooling is involved. >>The california article is specifically saying freezing of the spray raises the temperature of the plants above zero and the plants cool below zero after the rotating spray moves away and the plants rewarm above zero when it returns due to freezing. As described they are describing the impossible. ObviouslySigurdur says this is an accurate description and it is just physics.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 6, 2014 17:43:10 GMT
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. Correct. The latent heat heats the water and the water heats whatever is cooling the water. No latent heat is released externally, the latent heat can only be consumed by maintaining the temperature of the water. The freezing process alone, without supercooling, cannot possibly raise the temperature of a cooling object. The farmers are totally muddled up. Whether i am right or wrong that is what was described to you from day one of this conversation. You cant take a bucket of water at 0.0001C and cool it down a little bit and then a bang you can heat your house. No novel heating solutions are possible from freezing water because there is no external release of exothermic energy when water freezes like a bomb going off unless the water is supercooled.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 6, 2014 15:42:37 GMT
Those pictures are remarkable. But im wondering why the guy is trying to chip the ice off his car? With two feet of ice on the roads, trees and power lines down everywhere how far does he think he is going to get? Personally in the same situation I would kick back with my favorite adult beverage and wait for the thaw! I was thinking the same but maybe the guy wanted to do a utube video like this one? I missed the video first time thru.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 6, 2014 14:46:09 GMT
That is seriously weird! Incredible pictures. You would never see anything like that here in Finland to my knowledge
|
|
|
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
|
|