An Alarmist I correspond with sent this link to me.
Does anybody know who the speaker is? Has there been a rebuttal to this as yet?
Thanks.
kadaka (KD Knoebel)
September 22, 2013 8:51 pm
From Eugene WR Gallun on September 22, 2013 at 8:20 pm:
Could someone answer a simple question for me?
When sea ice is forming which is colder — the sea ice or the water beneath it?
Salty water can get colder than fresh before freezing.
The sea ice is much less salty. When the sea water is cold enough for freezing, salt is removed from the freezing water, a process known as brine rejection.
Thus the answer is, for the ice either in or near the water, the ice is the temperature of the sea water. Ice is the solid phase, you’ve specified ice is forming thus the sea water is colder than the ice’s melting point. The solid phase could be any temperature from freezing point to -100°C or even colder. With the ice in thermally-conductive contact with the sea water, it will be at the water’s temperature.
Hope that helps.
Zeke says:
September 22, 2013 at 8:30 pm
Inre: BenD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UFO_religions
May provide some perspective and overview of these groups, with a helpful table.
————————————–
Hi Zeke, there is no mention of Sitchin at that link?
Besides, it is that this idea that was already put forward in his book (consider it sci fi if you like) prior to the IPCC suggesting such a program in a serious context that was the point.
RACookPE1978
Editor
September 22, 2013 9:14 pm
Eugene WR Gallun says:
September 22, 2013 at 8:20 pm
Could someone answer a simple question for me?
When sea ice is forming which is colder — the sea ice or the water beneath it?
I fear you are just mistaken enough to be completely confused about sea ice formation in the Arctic.
What courses have you had (and when ?) in thermodynamics, heat transfer, fluid flow, gas transfer and momentum, and thermal inertia and the states of matter? I ask because some (or all ) of these are involved as open ocean freezes into sea ice, but all of them can (almost) be ignored if terms past, say early high school or 8th grade physical science need to be the limit our our training. So, it can be explained very technically, or very basically, depending on what will help you most. 8<)
Eugene WR Gallun
September 22, 2013 9:16 pm
Bob Shapiro Sept 22 8:44 pm
I watched the video. I thought the funniest part was towards the end where the speaker talks about the evidence filling in and forming a picture. And he shows us a picture filling in — forming an image.
An image of what? Why, of Chicken Little!
Someone who helped make that video stuck in their own little message. Just can’t trust those artists!
Eugene WR Gallun
Zeke
September 22, 2013 9:17 pm
Site policy does not allow me to respond to your comment. Your remarks had a great deal in common with the succinct definition on the Wikipedia article, not the list.
I found it very helpful in understanding a great deal of what is on Youtube. Thank you. [What “site policy” do you think exists which would preclude your commenting on this video, or on comments about the video? Profanity? Mod]
RACookPE1978
Editor
September 22, 2013 9:33 pm
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
September 22, 2013 at 8:51 pm (replying to)
From Eugene WR Gallun on September 22, 2013 at 8:20 pm:
Could someone answer a simple question for me?
When sea ice is forming which is colder — the sea ice or the water beneath it?
Salty water can get colder than fresh before freezing.
The sea ice is much less salty. When the sea water is cold enough for freezing, salt is removed from the freezing water, a process known as brine rejection.
Thus the answer is, for the ice either in or near the water, the ice is the temperature of the sea water. Ice is the solid phase, you’ve specified ice is forming thus the sea water is colder than the ice’s melting point. The solid phase could be any temperature from freezing point to -100°C or even colder. With the ice in thermally-conductive contact with the sea water, it will be at the water’s temperature.
But remember the heat flow direction: Heat is being lost FROM the salt water under the sea water-fresh water boundary layer, UP THROUGH the salt-water-fresher-water boundary layer, UP THROUGH the freshly formed ice UP THROUGH the older ice above the newest ice, then UP THROUGH the boundary layer between top-of-old-ice and the cold-air mass of the lower Arctic skies, then INTO the cold Arctic air. The ultimate heat sink (the “what is colder” is Gallun’s original question) is the “The Arctic air is always colder than the warmer ocean salt water IF ice is freezing. If ice is melting, the Arctic air may be, or may not be, warmer than the ocean water below the ice. The ice between the salt water and the Arctic atmosphere has varying temperature profiles depending on solar exposure, time-of-day and temperature-of-atmosphere and the wind speed. Sometimes heat flow up-to-down, sometimes it is down-to-up. “
You are correct, if the ice is being formed, it is being formed UNDER the existing layer of sea ice once those tiny 6 to 8 inch dia platelets of circular ice freeze up. See (copywritten) photos at: http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-23443849/stock-photo-freezing-sea-ice-with-hydro-power-plant-smoke-in-background-halifax-nova-scotia-canada.html or http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-image-freezing-ice-image18339441
That boundary water temperature (the mix of fresh water and salty water under the newly-freezing ice ) will be somewhere between 0.0 C (perfect fresh water) and -1.7 C degrees nominal freezing point of ocean water. As a good rule of thumb, the air temperature will be -4 to -6 degrees to freeze salt water over wide areas. Once that top tiny layer of ice freezes over, and thus once the ice insulates the ocean water from the Arctic air, the top-of-ice can be considered nearly the same as the Arctic atmosphere under normal 2-10 m/sec wind speeds and nominally flat ice. Under those “normal” conditions, the top of ice is -4 to -6 degrees, and the bottom-of-ice becomes ocean water temperature: Measurements inside ice field openings show that the water temperature is 1.5 to 2.0 C, sometimes as much as 3 C. Further from the ice (100 – 500 km’s) the open ocean temperatures are 3-4-5 C.
That;s fine Zeke, and btw, I should have made it clearer that it was a direct quote from the author,on that link…
Eugene WR Gallun
September 22, 2013 10:40 pm
Kadaka (KDKnoebel) 8:51 pm
Thank you for your kind reply. Perhaps I need to rephrase my question slightly — though you answered what i asked admirably.
I assume this — that dropping air temperature causes surface water temperature to drop to the point where it turns into ice. Is that correct?
Ice them forms and blocks the water below from contact with the colder air. It is now the surface of the ice that is influenced by the air and the surface of the ice would drop to the temperature of the air. The bottom of the ice would be at the temperature of the salt water. It would seem to me that the top of the ice would need be colder than the bottom of the ice if the ice would grow thicker. As a non-scientist i would like to say that “cold must travel down through the ice and cause more water to freeze” but instead will say that there must be heat loss from the sea water to the air through the ice.
My thinking is that when ice is forming the “average” temperature of the ice is less than the water below it. The average temperature of the ice is also greater than the air above it.
Is any of that correct.
My real interest lies in trying to understand why (up to this year) their has been less ice in the arctic. Air temperature has remained higher than normal? Would that do it? Actually I sort of like the idea of a change in ocean currents bringing in warmer water. (But would that induced warmer water be less salty?)
Investigating your own ideas is how learning starts for many people. Its egocentric I admit. You throw your untutored mind against the giants. “Well, lets see which one of us is right, you who are all the experts, or me.” Rarely does the little guy win — usually he just learns stuff even if it is only to shut his mouth. But that too improves the world.
Eugene WR Gallun
kadaka (KD Knoebel)
September 22, 2013 10:49 pm
@RACookPE1978 on September 22, 2013 at 9:33 pm:
Wow, you sure overthink things.
Embed a thermometer in a chunk of freshwater ice. Put the ice in a bowl of seawater at -1°C, chosen because seawater freezes at -2°C. Place bowl in freezer at -1°C. Then ignore it for an hour for equalization.
What’s the thermometer reading? It can’t be above -1°C, the temperature of the seawater, no source of energy. Can’t be below -1°C, it will absorb thermal energy from the water if there’s a difference.
What’s left other than the freshwater ice being the temperature of the seawater?
What happens when ice is being made, the water and freezer temperature is -2°C or colder? There’s some latent heat released from the freezing, which is lost to to the seawater and freezer, since it’s the process of loosing that thermal energy that causes the freezing.
So again, the ice will be the temperature of the seawater.
I’ll try to find a half hour soon to wade through your comment, see if you found a way to defeat basic thermal theory and the general properties of the solid phase of matter.
RACookPE1978
Editor
September 22, 2013 11:05 pm
Ah, but your answer lies here: “Put the ice in a bowl of seawater at -1°C, chosen because seawater freezes at -2°C. Place bowl in freezer at -1°C. Then ignore it for an hour for equalization.”
You have – with that statement – exactly set the equilibrium conditions so that atmospheric air temperature (the freezer at equilibrium) IS holding the air, the ice, the semi-salty water (not shaken, not stirred, not moving!) and the “original” salty ocean water all at -1.0 C.
Under those very precise conditions – excepting the slower movement of the salinity-driven expulsion of high-salt water, medium-salt-water and fresh water at the ice-water boundary at the bottom – you may maintain the system as described.
Then again, I can create and maintain a super-saturated solution of many substances in pure water under laboratory conditions. Disturbed immediately when I bump the lab glass or drop a single small crystal into the super-saturated solution. This doesn’t mean that a super-saturated solution “can’t exist”. Does it mean that “Crystals will always form when the saturation curve is exceeded.” Neither. you just have to define your conditions.
Doesn’t make the “ideal” saturation curves wrong, you just have to define the conditions as “lab bench” or “Antarctic” 8<)
Robert Clemenzi
September 22, 2013 11:13 pm
Richard111 says:
September 22, 2013 at 9:12 am
Question from a baffled layman. How does a transparent gas cool down after it has been warmed by conduction from the surface? Nitrogen, oxygen and argon, 99.99% of the atmosphere qualify as transparent gases. Everyone says warmed air rises and cools. Does it really? Where did the energy go?
That is an excellent question!
The warm air rises and cools adiabatically until it is the same temperature as the air already at some higher level. As this occurs, the energy doesn't "go anywhere", it just spreads out a bit, which, in turn, causes the temperature to go down. Even though the heat spreads out, it doesn't go away. In order to keep the planet cool, "greenhouse gases" radiate the heat to space – nitrogen, oxygen and argon are IR transparent and not able to do that. Water vapor is the primary gas that cools the lower atmosphere (the troposphere), carbon dioxide cools the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere and mesosphere).
Because CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere, changing the amount available (either an increase or a decrease) will not change the amount of heat released toward space from the troposphere.
RACookPE1978
Editor
September 22, 2013 11:15 pm
Eugene WR Gallun says:
September 22, 2013 at 10:40 pm (replying to)
Kadaka (KDKnoebel) 8:51 pm
….
I assume this — that dropping air temperature causes surface water temperature to drop to the point where it turns into ice. Is that correct?
….
My real interest lies in trying to understand why (up to this year) their has been less ice in the arctic. Air temperature has remained higher than normal? Would that do it? Actually I sort of like the idea of a change in ocean currents bringing in warmer water. (But would that induced warmer water be less salty?)
Please look at the WUWT Sea Ice pages, looking in particular at the DMI air temperature record for 80 north latitude (the “edge” of the sea ice during most years) for the years 1959 through 2013. All data is at the website, linked to the plot shown each day for the DMI temperatures.
you will find that Arctic air temperatures at 80 north – where the sea ice will either melt or freeze – is very constant EVERY YEAR at +3.0 degrees C. It has never gotten higher, very seldom getting lower – though this year, the 80 degree north latitude air temperature never once got even up the “average” +3.0 degrees C over the entire ice melt season!
In 2010, a WUWT user plotted all summer 80 north latitude air temperatures fro 1959 through 2010. The result? Summer time temperatures in the high Arctic (far away from any land areas!) – consistently declined over the entire period that CO2 was increasing. Further, the closer one plotted summertime temperatures towards the 2010, the hotter summer were above 80 north.
Robert Clemenzi
September 22, 2013 11:17 pm
What happened to the “edit preview” feature? I no longer have that option – as you can see in my previous post!
TomR,Worc,MA,USA
September 22, 2013 11:33 pm
Brad, Thanks for the the reply.
I must say that you have fair with your replys. Full credit to you..
That whole exchange with Willis and Kahan struck me as very odd.
Anyway, I’ll watch for updates.
Enjoy.
kadaka (KD Knoebel)
September 23, 2013 12:19 am
From Robert Clemenzi on September 22, 2013 at 11:17 pm:
What happened to the “edit preview” feature? I no longer have that option – as you can see in my previous post!
That showed up when the site was briefly upgraded to WordPress Enterprise, it’s an available feature with paid hosting but not with the free blog space. The upgrade wasn’t working out, site regressed to previous state, the preview feature went away.
Which was fine by me, as it didn’t display the line spacing for me as it showed up after posting. My normal Preview was superior. Which was one of the nice features of CA Assistant, which works on WordPress blogs. Preview button, formatting help, it’s very versatile.
Click the link, follow the directions, you’ll have a very nice Preview function.
Richard111
September 23, 2013 12:43 am
Thanks to Bill Church: September 22, 2013 at 9:48 am
And thanks to _Jim: September 22, 2013 at 10:16 am
Nice graphical chart and comments _Jim. Seems to agree with what I have been able to study.
These studies I’ve done tell me that any substance able to radiate IR proportional to its
local temperature are unable to absorb those same IR bands but they can, if it is within
their IR range, absorb higher frequency/shorter wavelength IR and thus warm up.
The rate of warming and cooling is easily calculated if the mass, heat capacity and total
surface area of the substance is known.
My calculations tell me there is ~6kg of CO2 in a 1 metre square column of air. The CO2
is spread evenly up the column and aquires the local temperature of the column via
conduction which I understand is collisions with other atmospheric molecules in the order
of billions of collisions per second.
Boltzman distribution tells me peak radiation for the 15 micron band is -79C, 214K. Thus
every CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is warmer than that and since every CO2 molecule
is effectively on the surface of that mass of 6kg will be radiating in the 15 micron band.
When will any CO2 molecule be in a condition to absorb a photon in the 13 to 17 micron
band and pass that ‘warmth’ to nearby air molecules which are already much warmer
than the CO2 molecule will be when it has just absorbed a photon???
Your comments under the chart mention the 2.7 and 4.3 bands for CO2 and sunlight. Yes
energy from the sun does warm the CO2 during daylight hours which warms the air but
that energy failed to reach the surface so once more it appears that CO2 is a cooling
agent in the atmosphere.
Above the tropopause the CO2 will be radiating mostly directly to space in the 15 micron
band and COOLING the upper atmosphere. There is little or no H2O at those altitudes.
From my earlier question; nitrogen, oxygen argon are unable to radiate to space but CO2
does the job most effectively.
So it seems this layman is right royally screwed up and simply cannot understand how
THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT became the lynch pin of atmospheric ‘science’.
Jeff Crowder
September 23, 2013 3:39 am
I have lived on the Space Coast in sunny Florida for 46 years. Recently, many of our palms have been adversely affected by a whitefly infestation. I say “recently” because for me it is…I’ve never seen them before. I mentioned this to a friend and he immediately blamed the infestation on Climate Change. I asked him where he had heard or read that and he replied “isn’t it obvious?” He continued, “the climate is changing and forcing these insects to move to other areas as their normal habitat has been adversely affected”.
He sounded like he certainly knew what he was talking about. So I asked him where these whiteflys originated from. He replied, “Probably Cuba”. After pressing him I learned that he didn’t really know. After continued pressing on my part I learned that he assumed it was Climate Change that brought them here and that he’d never seen them around here before either.
They may very well be coming here because of habitat issues. But the fact that my friend made this assumption was what really frustrated me. It’s so easy and lazy to blame Climate Change for a host of issues yet people just accept it. Conditioning? What happened to science? I’m certainly not saying that the infestation isn’t caused by Climate Change. I don’t really know at this point. But I’m open to suggestions. Wouldn’t it be nice if everyone was open to suggestions?
DirkH
September 23, 2013 4:27 am
Robert Clemenzi says:
September 22, 2013 at 11:17 pm
“What happened to the “edit preview” feature? I no longer have that option – as you can see in my previous post!”
Anthony has quit wordpress professional for the moment.
An alternative is, if you have Firefox, to download the Greasemonkey add-on, and the Climate Audit assistant.
DirkH
September 23, 2013 4:36 am
Brad Keyes says:
September 22, 2013 at 7:59 am
“I’d like to encourage my fellow “denialati” to treat Prof Dan Kahan and his Yale blog (http://www.culturalcognition.net) as an opportunity or nexus for positive, respectful communication between the two “sides.” ”
Looking there, I find
“Why doesn’t “scientific consensus” settle disputes about climate change and other issues? The answer, a CCP experimental study suggests, is not that only some citizens view scientific opinion as important, but rather that citizens of diverse cultural outlooks form different perceptions of what most scientists believe”
This tells me that Kahan has discarded the scientific method for something else; probably communitarianism.
climatereason
Editor
September 23, 2013 4:54 am
Jeff
Did you know there was a whitefly web site and task force? http://pbcgov.com/coextension/horticulture/whitefly/
I have looked through the pdf’s but can’t see any mention of climate change.
Why not read it up, defeat your friend by using informed argument then report on your findings in the next Open thread.’
tonyb
Wijnand Schouten
September 23, 2013 5:06 am
[quote]
Wijnand Schoutem:
I am replying to your long and rambling post at September 22, 2013 at 2:57 pm http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/22/open-thread-13/#comment-1423908
My energy bills have little to do with true costs. They are inflated by subsidies to – and additional costs of – renewables. I already pay the equivalent of US$5 per gallon of petrol (i.e. American translation, gasoline) because 80% of the price in the UK is tax.
The coal price and cost is at a century low according to the IEA. Fracking has dramatically reduced the cost of producing oil and gas. The existence of the LSE process for synthetic crude from coal constrains the maximum long-term price of oil.
Imported oil has NOTHING to do with the “economic turndown”, and only 1% of electricity is generated from oil so renewables would not noticeably affect oil imports.
Unless you live far from the grid your solar panels will cost a small fortune compared to electricity from the grid when subsidies are removed.
And I wonder where you live because it is nearing midnight here in the UK, too.
Richard
[/quote]
I seriously disagree with you here. Maybe in the UK this is the case , but a few hundred miles west of you, we do not have any subsidies for Solar or a FIT.
Also, in NL we have good and decent statistics available on how much oil we import every day. It’s around 1 million barrels. Do the math …. every 10 days we spend 1 billion euro’s on oil … that is money going out of our economy to the Middle east. Yearly it’s around 36.5 billion euro.
Just think about it for a moment what would happen if it is possible to not spend this money in the Middle east and keep it running in your own economy. Our recession would be in the past instantly. We do use Nuclear here, we have a decent amount of Gas and we are going to use fracking. Nevertheless , it doesn’t make up for the numbers of our usage in the near future.
I would be very happy if they build a windfarm on sea over here. It’s bringing employment to build the farm, and the turbines will earn themselves back eventually over time. For the energy peaks or peak shaving what you can call it, are already cheap and good solutions available, just like my ancestors did. If you have to much energy you pump water in the basin, if you have to little you let it out. Water turbines are very stable and can be used very easily here. Small(er) wind turbines are also very efficient, since you don’t have to deal with the 30 – 40%!! energy loss in the transport network and use the generated energy locally near the homes.
I just got ticked off my the first commenter in this thread. It’s just time to stop the AGW = renewable link. Yes , you are right …. it’s a part of it because left wing politicians (ab)use it over and over again, but there are also benefit’s on renewable in the mid term future. Yes you are right, for now ( in the upcoming decade ) there might be some cheaper solutions available, they just don’t last long i think as more and more people depend on it and recourses drain out.
And for the Solar thing …. i just load my Opel Ampera ( Chevrolet Volt for the USA people ) with my solar panel whenever i have to much. I need around 10 kWh to drive around 80 KM , a total cost of around 2,30 euro here. ( we pay 23 cents per kWh )
If i use gas, i need approx. 4 liters, a cost of 7 euro here. Do the math how long it takes to earn my, in your opinion not economic, solar panels back…….. i’ll give you a hint…. an array, generating around 1000 kWh yearly costs around 1200 euro (no subsidies involved) ……. So i have this array earned back in 1.75 years. …. i rather buy something that’s of value to me with my money then spend it at the gas station and send it to Sjeik Abdullah….. perhaps not rocket science but very good for my wallet 😉
ENSO data (and hence the WUWT ENSO meter) remains boring. Which is getting rather interesting. Oh wait a minute, last night’s update ran fine, but the data isn’t new. I’ll look into it closer tonight.
richardscourtney
September 23, 2013 7:37 am
Wijnand Schouten:
I am replying to your post at September 23, 2013 at 5:06 am.
I am unaware of the circumstances specific to The Netherlands so cannot comment on those. However, I have difficulty accepting that wind and solar are being adopted anywhere without subsidies unless their adoption is enforced by legislation and/or regulation (such enforcement is a form of hidden subsidy).
If you want to give people pointless employment so they have jobs then get them to dig holes then fill them in, then dig … That way you will not obtain off-shore bird swatters which provide a hazard to shipping but no useful electricity.
And oil is not used to produce much electricity anywhere. If imports from the Middle East worry you then adopt coal for power generation and – if you want – convert some to oil. Coal is abundant, cheap and available from many sources worldwide. And The Netherlands is equipped with large coal ports.
If you want to operate an expensive and very range limited electric car then do. But don’t expect the rest of us to put up with that.
Resources don’t run out. They never have and they never will. Use the WUWT Search facility to read the several threads which discuss the daft notion of Peak Oil. You admit that resource depletion will not be a problem for the foreseeable “coming decade”. It will not be a problem ever.
Simply, you are advocating expensive and harmful solutions to non-problems.
Richard
tadchem
September 23, 2013 7:41 am
For John Whitman, and anyone else interested: The difference between “science” and “pseudo-science” is found in the process called “critical thinking.” James Lett has produced an excellent description of exactly what comprises it in his “Field Guide to Critical Thinking”, published by CSICOP on their website. He reduces it to 6 words summarizing rules to follow when considering any claim: Falsifiability, Logic, Comprehensiveness, Honesty, Replicability, and Sufficiency. Recommended reading…
An Alarmist I correspond with sent this link to me.
Does anybody know who the speaker is? Has there been a rebuttal to this as yet?
Thanks.
From Eugene WR Gallun on September 22, 2013 at 8:20 pm:
Salty water can get colder than fresh before freezing.
The sea ice is much less salty. When the sea water is cold enough for freezing, salt is removed from the freezing water, a process known as brine rejection.
Thus the answer is, for the ice either in or near the water, the ice is the temperature of the sea water. Ice is the solid phase, you’ve specified ice is forming thus the sea water is colder than the ice’s melting point. The solid phase could be any temperature from freezing point to -100°C or even colder. With the ice in thermally-conductive contact with the sea water, it will be at the water’s temperature.
Hope that helps.
Zeke says:
September 22, 2013 at 8:30 pm
Inre: BenD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UFO_religions
May provide some perspective and overview of these groups, with a helpful table.
————————————–
Hi Zeke, there is no mention of Sitchin at that link?
Besides, it is that this idea that was already put forward in his book (consider it sci fi if you like) prior to the IPCC suggesting such a program in a serious context that was the point.
Eugene WR Gallun says:
September 22, 2013 at 8:20 pm
I fear you are just mistaken enough to be completely confused about sea ice formation in the Arctic.
What courses have you had (and when ?) in thermodynamics, heat transfer, fluid flow, gas transfer and momentum, and thermal inertia and the states of matter? I ask because some (or all ) of these are involved as open ocean freezes into sea ice, but all of them can (almost) be ignored if terms past, say early high school or 8th grade physical science need to be the limit our our training. So, it can be explained very technically, or very basically, depending on what will help you most. 8<)
Bob Shapiro Sept 22 8:44 pm
I watched the video. I thought the funniest part was towards the end where the speaker talks about the evidence filling in and forming a picture. And he shows us a picture filling in — forming an image.
An image of what? Why, of Chicken Little!
Someone who helped make that video stuck in their own little message. Just can’t trust those artists!
Eugene WR Gallun
Site policy does not allow me to respond to your comment. Your remarks had a great deal in common with the succinct definition on the Wikipedia article, not the list.
I found it very helpful in understanding a great deal of what is on Youtube. Thank you.
[What “site policy” do you think exists which would preclude your commenting on this video, or on comments about the video? Profanity? Mod]
But remember the heat flow direction: Heat is being lost FROM the salt water under the sea water-fresh water boundary layer, UP THROUGH the salt-water-fresher-water boundary layer, UP THROUGH the freshly formed ice UP THROUGH the older ice above the newest ice, then UP THROUGH the boundary layer between top-of-old-ice and the cold-air mass of the lower Arctic skies, then INTO the cold Arctic air. The ultimate heat sink (the “what is colder” is Gallun’s original question) is the “The Arctic air is always colder than the warmer ocean salt water IF ice is freezing. If ice is melting, the Arctic air may be, or may not be, warmer than the ocean water below the ice. The ice between the salt water and the Arctic atmosphere has varying temperature profiles depending on solar exposure, time-of-day and temperature-of-atmosphere and the wind speed. Sometimes heat flow up-to-down, sometimes it is down-to-up. “
You are correct, if the ice is being formed, it is being formed UNDER the existing layer of sea ice once those tiny 6 to 8 inch dia platelets of circular ice freeze up. See (copywritten) photos at:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-23443849/stock-photo-freezing-sea-ice-with-hydro-power-plant-smoke-in-background-halifax-nova-scotia-canada.html or
http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-image-freezing-ice-image18339441
That boundary water temperature (the mix of fresh water and salty water under the newly-freezing ice ) will be somewhere between 0.0 C (perfect fresh water) and -1.7 C degrees nominal freezing point of ocean water. As a good rule of thumb, the air temperature will be -4 to -6 degrees to freeze salt water over wide areas. Once that top tiny layer of ice freezes over, and thus once the ice insulates the ocean water from the Arctic air, the top-of-ice can be considered nearly the same as the Arctic atmosphere under normal 2-10 m/sec wind speeds and nominally flat ice. Under those “normal” conditions, the top of ice is -4 to -6 degrees, and the bottom-of-ice becomes ocean water temperature: Measurements inside ice field openings show that the water temperature is 1.5 to 2.0 C, sometimes as much as 3 C. Further from the ice (100 – 500 km’s) the open ocean temperatures are 3-4-5 C.
That;s fine Zeke, and btw, I should have made it clearer that it was a direct quote from the author,on that link…
Kadaka (KDKnoebel) 8:51 pm
Thank you for your kind reply. Perhaps I need to rephrase my question slightly — though you answered what i asked admirably.
I assume this — that dropping air temperature causes surface water temperature to drop to the point where it turns into ice. Is that correct?
Ice them forms and blocks the water below from contact with the colder air. It is now the surface of the ice that is influenced by the air and the surface of the ice would drop to the temperature of the air. The bottom of the ice would be at the temperature of the salt water. It would seem to me that the top of the ice would need be colder than the bottom of the ice if the ice would grow thicker. As a non-scientist i would like to say that “cold must travel down through the ice and cause more water to freeze” but instead will say that there must be heat loss from the sea water to the air through the ice.
My thinking is that when ice is forming the “average” temperature of the ice is less than the water below it. The average temperature of the ice is also greater than the air above it.
Is any of that correct.
My real interest lies in trying to understand why (up to this year) their has been less ice in the arctic. Air temperature has remained higher than normal? Would that do it? Actually I sort of like the idea of a change in ocean currents bringing in warmer water. (But would that induced warmer water be less salty?)
Investigating your own ideas is how learning starts for many people. Its egocentric I admit. You throw your untutored mind against the giants. “Well, lets see which one of us is right, you who are all the experts, or me.” Rarely does the little guy win — usually he just learns stuff even if it is only to shut his mouth. But that too improves the world.
Eugene WR Gallun
@RACookPE1978 on September 22, 2013 at 9:33 pm:
Wow, you sure overthink things.
Embed a thermometer in a chunk of freshwater ice. Put the ice in a bowl of seawater at -1°C, chosen because seawater freezes at -2°C. Place bowl in freezer at -1°C. Then ignore it for an hour for equalization.
What’s the thermometer reading? It can’t be above -1°C, the temperature of the seawater, no source of energy. Can’t be below -1°C, it will absorb thermal energy from the water if there’s a difference.
What’s left other than the freshwater ice being the temperature of the seawater?
What happens when ice is being made, the water and freezer temperature is -2°C or colder? There’s some latent heat released from the freezing, which is lost to to the seawater and freezer, since it’s the process of loosing that thermal energy that causes the freezing.
So again, the ice will be the temperature of the seawater.
I’ll try to find a half hour soon to wade through your comment, see if you found a way to defeat basic thermal theory and the general properties of the solid phase of matter.
Ah, but your answer lies here: “Put the ice in a bowl of seawater at -1°C, chosen because seawater freezes at -2°C. Place bowl in freezer at -1°C. Then ignore it for an hour for equalization.”
You have – with that statement – exactly set the equilibrium conditions so that atmospheric air temperature (the freezer at equilibrium) IS holding the air, the ice, the semi-salty water (not shaken, not stirred, not moving!) and the “original” salty ocean water all at -1.0 C.
Under those very precise conditions – excepting the slower movement of the salinity-driven expulsion of high-salt water, medium-salt-water and fresh water at the ice-water boundary at the bottom – you may maintain the system as described.
Then again, I can create and maintain a super-saturated solution of many substances in pure water under laboratory conditions. Disturbed immediately when I bump the lab glass or drop a single small crystal into the super-saturated solution. This doesn’t mean that a super-saturated solution “can’t exist”. Does it mean that “Crystals will always form when the saturation curve is exceeded.” Neither. you just have to define your conditions.
Doesn’t make the “ideal” saturation curves wrong, you just have to define the conditions as “lab bench” or “Antarctic” 8<)
That is an excellent question!
The warm air rises and cools adiabatically until it is the same temperature as the air already at some higher level. As this occurs, the energy doesn't "go anywhere", it just spreads out a bit, which, in turn, causes the temperature to go down. Even though the heat spreads out, it doesn't go away. In order to keep the planet cool, "greenhouse gases" radiate the heat to space – nitrogen, oxygen and argon are IR transparent and not able to do that. Water vapor is the primary gas that cools the lower atmosphere (the troposphere), carbon dioxide cools the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere and mesosphere).
Because CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere, changing the amount available (either an increase or a decrease) will not change the amount of heat released toward space from the troposphere.
Please look at the WUWT Sea Ice pages, looking in particular at the DMI air temperature record for 80 north latitude (the “edge” of the sea ice during most years) for the years 1959 through 2013. All data is at the website, linked to the plot shown each day for the DMI temperatures.
you will find that Arctic air temperatures at 80 north – where the sea ice will either melt or freeze – is very constant EVERY YEAR at +3.0 degrees C. It has never gotten higher, very seldom getting lower – though this year, the 80 degree north latitude air temperature never once got even up the “average” +3.0 degrees C over the entire ice melt season!
In 2010, a WUWT user plotted all summer 80 north latitude air temperatures fro 1959 through 2010. The result? Summer time temperatures in the high Arctic (far away from any land areas!) – consistently declined over the entire period that CO2 was increasing. Further, the closer one plotted summertime temperatures towards the 2010, the hotter summer were above 80 north.
What happened to the “edit preview” feature? I no longer have that option – as you can see in my previous post!
Brad, Thanks for the the reply.
I must say that you have fair with your replys. Full credit to you..
That whole exchange with Willis and Kahan struck me as very odd.
Anyway, I’ll watch for updates.
Enjoy.
From Robert Clemenzi on September 22, 2013 at 11:17 pm:
That showed up when the site was briefly upgraded to WordPress Enterprise, it’s an available feature with paid hosting but not with the free blog space. The upgrade wasn’t working out, site regressed to previous state, the preview feature went away.
Which was fine by me, as it didn’t display the line spacing for me as it showed up after posting. My normal Preview was superior. Which was one of the nice features of CA Assistant, which works on WordPress blogs. Preview button, formatting help, it’s very versatile.
Click the link, follow the directions, you’ll have a very nice Preview function.
Thanks to Bill Church: September 22, 2013 at 9:48 am
And thanks to _Jim: September 22, 2013 at 10:16 am
Nice graphical chart and comments _Jim. Seems to agree with what I have been able to study.
These studies I’ve done tell me that any substance able to radiate IR proportional to its
local temperature are unable to absorb those same IR bands but they can, if it is within
their IR range, absorb higher frequency/shorter wavelength IR and thus warm up.
The rate of warming and cooling is easily calculated if the mass, heat capacity and total
surface area of the substance is known.
My calculations tell me there is ~6kg of CO2 in a 1 metre square column of air. The CO2
is spread evenly up the column and aquires the local temperature of the column via
conduction which I understand is collisions with other atmospheric molecules in the order
of billions of collisions per second.
Boltzman distribution tells me peak radiation for the 15 micron band is -79C, 214K. Thus
every CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is warmer than that and since every CO2 molecule
is effectively on the surface of that mass of 6kg will be radiating in the 15 micron band.
When will any CO2 molecule be in a condition to absorb a photon in the 13 to 17 micron
band and pass that ‘warmth’ to nearby air molecules which are already much warmer
than the CO2 molecule will be when it has just absorbed a photon???
Your comments under the chart mention the 2.7 and 4.3 bands for CO2 and sunlight. Yes
energy from the sun does warm the CO2 during daylight hours which warms the air but
that energy failed to reach the surface so once more it appears that CO2 is a cooling
agent in the atmosphere.
Above the tropopause the CO2 will be radiating mostly directly to space in the 15 micron
band and COOLING the upper atmosphere. There is little or no H2O at those altitudes.
From my earlier question; nitrogen, oxygen argon are unable to radiate to space but CO2
does the job most effectively.
So it seems this layman is right royally screwed up and simply cannot understand how
THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT became the lynch pin of atmospheric ‘science’.
I have lived on the Space Coast in sunny Florida for 46 years. Recently, many of our palms have been adversely affected by a whitefly infestation. I say “recently” because for me it is…I’ve never seen them before. I mentioned this to a friend and he immediately blamed the infestation on Climate Change. I asked him where he had heard or read that and he replied “isn’t it obvious?” He continued, “the climate is changing and forcing these insects to move to other areas as their normal habitat has been adversely affected”.
He sounded like he certainly knew what he was talking about. So I asked him where these whiteflys originated from. He replied, “Probably Cuba”. After pressing him I learned that he didn’t really know. After continued pressing on my part I learned that he assumed it was Climate Change that brought them here and that he’d never seen them around here before either.
They may very well be coming here because of habitat issues. But the fact that my friend made this assumption was what really frustrated me. It’s so easy and lazy to blame Climate Change for a host of issues yet people just accept it. Conditioning? What happened to science? I’m certainly not saying that the infestation isn’t caused by Climate Change. I don’t really know at this point. But I’m open to suggestions. Wouldn’t it be nice if everyone was open to suggestions?
Robert Clemenzi says:
September 22, 2013 at 11:17 pm
“What happened to the “edit preview” feature? I no longer have that option – as you can see in my previous post!”
Anthony has quit wordpress professional for the moment.
An alternative is, if you have Firefox, to download the Greasemonkey add-on, and the Climate Audit assistant.
Brad Keyes says:
September 22, 2013 at 7:59 am
“I’d like to encourage my fellow “denialati” to treat Prof Dan Kahan and his Yale blog (http://www.culturalcognition.net) as an opportunity or nexus for positive, respectful communication between the two “sides.” ”
Looking there, I find
“Why doesn’t “scientific consensus” settle disputes about climate change and other issues? The answer, a CCP experimental study suggests, is not that only some citizens view scientific opinion as important, but rather that citizens of diverse cultural outlooks form different perceptions of what most scientists believe”
This tells me that Kahan has discarded the scientific method for something else; probably communitarianism.
Jeff
Did you know there was a whitefly web site and task force?
http://pbcgov.com/coextension/horticulture/whitefly/
I have looked through the pdf’s but can’t see any mention of climate change.
Why not read it up, defeat your friend by using informed argument then report on your findings in the next Open thread.’
tonyb
[quote]
Wijnand Schoutem:
I am replying to your long and rambling post at September 22, 2013 at 2:57 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/22/open-thread-13/#comment-1423908
My energy bills have little to do with true costs. They are inflated by subsidies to – and additional costs of – renewables. I already pay the equivalent of US$5 per gallon of petrol (i.e. American translation, gasoline) because 80% of the price in the UK is tax.
The coal price and cost is at a century low according to the IEA. Fracking has dramatically reduced the cost of producing oil and gas. The existence of the LSE process for synthetic crude from coal constrains the maximum long-term price of oil.
Imported oil has NOTHING to do with the “economic turndown”, and only 1% of electricity is generated from oil so renewables would not noticeably affect oil imports.
Unless you live far from the grid your solar panels will cost a small fortune compared to electricity from the grid when subsidies are removed.
And I wonder where you live because it is nearing midnight here in the UK, too.
Richard
[/quote]
I seriously disagree with you here. Maybe in the UK this is the case , but a few hundred miles west of you, we do not have any subsidies for Solar or a FIT.
Also, in NL we have good and decent statistics available on how much oil we import every day. It’s around 1 million barrels. Do the math …. every 10 days we spend 1 billion euro’s on oil … that is money going out of our economy to the Middle east. Yearly it’s around 36.5 billion euro.
Just think about it for a moment what would happen if it is possible to not spend this money in the Middle east and keep it running in your own economy. Our recession would be in the past instantly. We do use Nuclear here, we have a decent amount of Gas and we are going to use fracking. Nevertheless , it doesn’t make up for the numbers of our usage in the near future.
I would be very happy if they build a windfarm on sea over here. It’s bringing employment to build the farm, and the turbines will earn themselves back eventually over time. For the energy peaks or peak shaving what you can call it, are already cheap and good solutions available, just like my ancestors did. If you have to much energy you pump water in the basin, if you have to little you let it out. Water turbines are very stable and can be used very easily here. Small(er) wind turbines are also very efficient, since you don’t have to deal with the 30 – 40%!! energy loss in the transport network and use the generated energy locally near the homes.
I just got ticked off my the first commenter in this thread. It’s just time to stop the AGW = renewable link. Yes , you are right …. it’s a part of it because left wing politicians (ab)use it over and over again, but there are also benefit’s on renewable in the mid term future. Yes you are right, for now ( in the upcoming decade ) there might be some cheaper solutions available, they just don’t last long i think as more and more people depend on it and recourses drain out.
And for the Solar thing …. i just load my Opel Ampera ( Chevrolet Volt for the USA people ) with my solar panel whenever i have to much. I need around 10 kWh to drive around 80 KM , a total cost of around 2,30 euro here. ( we pay 23 cents per kWh )
If i use gas, i need approx. 4 liters, a cost of 7 euro here. Do the math how long it takes to earn my, in your opinion not economic, solar panels back…….. i’ll give you a hint…. an array, generating around 1000 kWh yearly costs around 1200 euro (no subsidies involved) ……. So i have this array earned back in 1.75 years. …. i rather buy something that’s of value to me with my money then spend it at the gas station and send it to Sjeik Abdullah….. perhaps not rocket science but very good for my wallet 😉
ENSO data (and hence the WUWT ENSO meter) remains boring. Which is getting rather interesting. Oh wait a minute, last night’s update ran fine, but the data isn’t new. I’ll look into it closer tonight.
Wijnand Schouten:
I am replying to your post at September 23, 2013 at 5:06 am.
I am unaware of the circumstances specific to The Netherlands so cannot comment on those. However, I have difficulty accepting that wind and solar are being adopted anywhere without subsidies unless their adoption is enforced by legislation and/or regulation (such enforcement is a form of hidden subsidy).
If you want to give people pointless employment so they have jobs then get them to dig holes then fill them in, then dig … That way you will not obtain off-shore bird swatters which provide a hazard to shipping but no useful electricity.
And oil is not used to produce much electricity anywhere. If imports from the Middle East worry you then adopt coal for power generation and – if you want – convert some to oil. Coal is abundant, cheap and available from many sources worldwide. And The Netherlands is equipped with large coal ports.
If you want to operate an expensive and very range limited electric car then do. But don’t expect the rest of us to put up with that.
Resources don’t run out. They never have and they never will. Use the WUWT Search facility to read the several threads which discuss the daft notion of Peak Oil. You admit that resource depletion will not be a problem for the foreseeable “coming decade”. It will not be a problem ever.
Simply, you are advocating expensive and harmful solutions to non-problems.
Richard
For John Whitman, and anyone else interested: The difference between “science” and “pseudo-science” is found in the process called “critical thinking.” James Lett has produced an excellent description of exactly what comprises it in his “Field Guide to Critical Thinking”, published by CSICOP on their website. He reduces it to 6 words summarizing rules to follow when considering any claim: Falsifiability, Logic, Comprehensiveness, Honesty, Replicability, and Sufficiency. Recommended reading…