Skip to comments.Arctic ice [build-up] may help alter hurricane paths
Posted on 11/17/2013 1:47:59 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
A hurricane hunter aircraft sent to the Arctic to study ice formations returned this month with critical data that might explain why an increasing number of tropical storms seem to be taking irregular paths.
Scientists are trying to determine how much heat is released into the atmosphere when Arctic ice builds up in autumn. That heat release is believed to shift the jet stream, a fast-moving, high altitude river of air, farther to the south.
That shift, in turn, might be slowing down or even stalling tropical systems, before they can re-curve east and out to sea, scientists say.
Bond said the faster the ice builds up, the more heat is released into the atmosphere.
"We could see and feel the tremendous amount of heat coming out of the ocean," he said. "That's what it takes to make ice, to lose heat like crazy."...........
(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...
I think this guy got his thermodynamics wrong. Ice is not a source of heat. Ice is the result of a lack of heat transfer from the sun.
Liquid water must give up heat to solidify. IIRC 80 calories per gram is the figure.
“....... When water (in any of the three phrases) moves from a higher to a lower ordered state, the air surrounding the H20 will have heat subtracted from it. The three processes that subtract heat from the surrounding air are evaporation, melting and sublimation (solid to gas). When water (in any of the three phrases) moves from a lower to a higher ordered state, the air surrounding the H20 will have energy added to it. This is called a release of latent heat (e.g. when heat is subtracted from liquid water, the individual water molecules will slow down. They eventually slow down to the point at which the hydrogen bonds do not allow the liquid to rotate anymore. Ice now develops. The energy the water molecules once had to rotate has been given up to the surrounding air). The three processes that add heat to the surrounding air are condensation, freezing and deposition (gas to solid).......”
Let’s see if I have this straight:
1) The sun cools.
2) Ice builds up on the Arctics.
3) Ice, when forming, releases a small amount of heat (message 3 on this thread).
4) MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING.
Isn’t this insignificant to the heat that was previously provided by the sun?
The hydrosphere of Earth is in a balance with solar energy, atmospheric gas and water in all it's states. It's the warmth or coolness of the air that interacts with water to melt or crystallize it. Direct radiative transfer of solar energy (such as sublimation of ice and snow or evaporation of liquid water) is a secondary mechanism of state change. Water can occur in solid and liquid form; if the liquid is put into solution with the atmosphere, it becomes a vaporous gas (NOT the same as steam, the true vapor phase form of water). By the way, water vapor (more accurately described as liquid water in gas solution) is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, yet is almost never accounted for in climate computer "models".
Farmers around a large body of water have their crops protected against a freeze because, as the temp cools, the water gives up heat before it can freeze - and that heat helps to keep the crops above freezing.
e.g., the Okanagan Lakes region of BC/Wash - many apple & grape growers in the area.
See how simple all this is?
Let's just all rush over the cliff and be done with it.
Ice Buildup? Weather? Hmmmm....the AGW fanatics are in a tizzy of a conundrum...
The only one of consequence has been Yolanda and she stayed in her Philippine band
Opening statements like that always get my attention because most of what follows is predicated on the validity of that statement.
I'm sure that you have noticed how much colder a cloudless winter night is than one with cloud cover. I believe that Dr. Spenser lives in Huntsville, AL. If he had done this experiment in a desert area, the night time temperature drop would have been even greater.
The following is from way down the page:
"Why Was the Cavity Colder than the Outside Air Temperature? The temperature of virtually anything is the result of a balance between (1) energy gained and (2) energy lost. As long as the energy gained exceeds that lost, the temperature will rise. This was clearly seen when I closed up The Box, and the rate of sunlight absorption in the cavity exceeded the rate of energy lost by infrared emission (and any hopefully small conductive losses). The temperature skyrocketed.
But once the rate of energy loss exceeds that gained, then the temperature will fall, as was seen when The Box entered the shade. Then, then rate of IR energy lost (which increases rapidly with temperature) exceeded that gained from diffuse solar radiation, and the cavity temperature fell.
So, at night when there is no solar energy available, what is to prevent the cavity from getting very cold? Outer space is supposed to emit near absolute zero, 3 K. The Boxs cavity enters the hours of darkness at something like 300 K temperature. At 300 K, and assuming an IR emissivity of 0.99, the cavity is emitting IR at a rate of just over 400 Watts per sq. meter. Assuming the box is very well insulated, and is not leaking air, what is to prevent the cavity temperature from dropping well below freezing (273 K)?"
That last line in this government school type article sums it up for government scientists.
They use Sandy as one example.
Flukes of usuality are not new.
At this point, I stopped reading. The idiot that wrote this doesn't understand middle school science. First of all, polar ice isn't diminishing. It's gaining in area at an astounding rate. Second, floating ice doesn't raise the water level when it melts. Arctic ice is floating. Anyone can perform the proof: fill a glass first with ice cubes, then with water to the brim. The ice will protrude above the glass. After the ice has melted, the water still doesn't spill over the top of the glass. The author is either grossly ignorant of the subject he is writing about, or he is simply stupid. I vote for the latter.
But the Left claims "climate change" is "settled science," that there is "consensus" -- the necessary lie to allow the EPA to strong-arm and extort businesses and dictate energy use (weaken U.S. economy and national security).
While not exact, think a window air conditioner. heat transfer normally separated and the heat is vented outside. Put it in the middle of a closed room and the front blows cold while the back vents heat.
While not a closed system, the Earth demonstrates many of the same attributes for the overall conservation of energy/mass.
This article is a total lie!
The earth is heating up and more than 3/4 of all of the ice in the north and south poles has already melted and sea levels have risen more than 2 feet while tropical storms (along with standard thunder storms) have become killers of millions of people.
Oh, wait.....I was reading “The thoughts of Al Gore.”
Forget what I said for a moment of weakness.
“Flukes of usuality are not new. “
Low information Americans now have the internet however. Anytime something “unusual” happens” (unusual could be it was hot one day in July) it is posted 87 times and all kinds of foolish theories are speculated.
That is the root of what is going on.
Then the toxic, western hating, America hating people like Al Gore come along; and take advantage of the low information crowds gullibility.
The wavy thing WE have on your home page looks like arabic or somethin'
Pickups and muscle cars demand equal credit!
You are correct, but the article was poorly written.
The more ice you have in the artic will increase the amount of heat reflected back into the atmosphere and space. This could cause a relative warming in the atmosphere in the local area. However, as you said the formation of ice will take heat out. The heat the aircraft felt is the sunlight being reflected off the ice.
And they also lied about super typhoon Haiyan. It ranks as only the 7th strongest storm in Philippines history.
Bastardi has shown that during periods of global cooling, (which is happening now), canes tend to turn north before they get to the Caribbean. That means there will be more going up the east coast. That is simply due to the fact that the temperate zone is stronger as compared to the tropical zone during cooling phases. The heat all originates in the equatorial tropical zones that receive the most sunlight. Polar areas receive no sunlight in winter. So they are looking at the situation backwards or confusing cause and affect. Which is normal for leftists pukes.
Click on most years lately here: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php and there is a bit of extra warmth in the fall. That's the energy given up by the liquid water when it freezes. It's a significant amount, however it pales in comparison to natural variation which can be seen in the same charts.
Therefore it is just plain silly to claim that it causes weather pattern changes. This is the weather that caused the left hook by Sandy:
It is simply weather with sporadic changes and long term natural fluctuations. Sandy just happened along at a time when NAO was very negative. In Pacific, despite an average season, super typhoon Haiyan happened to hit land at peak strength, just another coincidence. As you pointed out, there have been numerous stronger storms in the past.
But, but, but I thought all the polar bears were dying because there was NO ICE? Did Al Gore and his fellow liberal idiots lie? No No No... it just can’t be...
Warming in fall, we used to call that Indian Summer up in Michigan. So the freezing water that turned to ice released heat as a result of receiving cold. Humans have a problem looking at heat and cold. They are basically the same units only they are located on different sides of the axis. We need a cold index.