RE: 0 + 0 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Phydeaux -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/12/2013 10:45:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

If it's normally so cold that ice cannot form at the poles (I think I have that right.... :>)... then....

Why is there so much of it? It surely must have been.... wait for it.... wait..... wait.... almost there... a lot warmer when all of it was made, right???

Wrong. What is being said is that it is so cold there is very little water vapor in the air so there is very little precipitation. Based on average annual precipitation amounts Antarctica is the driest place on Earth.


Driest continent. Not the driest place.

The Atacama Desert is commonly known as the driest place in the world, especially the surroundings of the abandoned Yungay town[9] (in Antofagasta Region, Chile).[10] The average rainfall is about 15 millimetres (0.59 in) per year,[11] although some locations, such as Arica and Iquique receive 1 millimetre (0.04 in) to 3 millimetres (0.12 in) in a year.[12]



mnottertail -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/12/2013 10:53:51 AM)

Except you cant pretend that which is not at all fact.  That is called hallucination.

http://www.discoveringantarctica.org.uk/alevel_2_2.html

Time as we understand it does not flow from present to past, and even a reactionary would not describe heated air as decending downward.

http://www.discoveringantarctica.org.uk/alevel_2_1.html




Phydeaux -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/12/2013 10:59:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Except you cant pretend that which is not at all fact.  That is called hallucination.

http://www.discoveringantarctica.org.uk/alevel_2_2.html

Time as we understand it does not flow from present to past, and even a reactionary would not describe heated air as decending downward.

http://www.discoveringantarctica.org.uk/alevel_2_1.html




Thanks for the quotes. Nothing in them that contradicts anything I said.
Best wishes



mnottertail -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/12/2013 11:05:36 AM)

of course it does, the prevailing winds are the wrong direction, and it isn't because of any winds coming off the waters.

you cannot read it that fast, and in fact you do not comprehend what it says.  It fundamentally says your pretending was full of shit, insofar as factually is concerned.



DomKen -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/12/2013 1:34:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

I'll make the point again, Ken.

Lets suppose, just for arguments sake that the humidity in antartica (absolute) is zero. It isn't, infact, it can't be, since the ice vapor pressure exists in equilibrium to the air above it. But, lets suppose its zero.

Ice vapor pressure? Are you really claiming that sublimation of ice is a major source of humidity in the air over Antarctica? You do understand that even at 4000m above sea level the air pressure is still fairly high right?

quote:

Draw a box around antartica.

Now, the waters around antartica are, well, water. The air just above that water is very cold - but not as cold. The water blowing off the oceans and into antartica will be saturated and will deliver water to the continent.

Only to the shoreline areas. The inland areas consistently have a high pressure area and the onshore winds do not get that far.




Phydeaux -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/12/2013 9:37:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

of course it does, the prevailing winds are the wrong direction, and it isn't because of any winds coming off the waters.

you cannot read it that fast, and in fact you do not comprehend what it says.  It fundamentally says your pretending was full of shit, insofar as factually is concerned.


2000+ wpm. The hell I can't.

And I read the part about the highlands winds blowing down. Doesn't change a damn thing.
The same sort of cycle happens all the time around heat sinks and sources. For air to flow out, it must also flow in.

So of course as the vapor rises it gets colder - and as it gets colder the diamond dust deposts first in the coastal areas but then toward the interiors.

But the point is that it isn't the (arid) nature of the interior that is controlling the amount of precipitation delivered. Nor is it the temperature. Numerous factors contribute to the snow deposition in the antartic. Wind, (even currents), surface ice.


[image]local://upfiles/11137/6E4A2AA3BBF442C28226B59117A80A1C.jpg[/image]



Phydeaux -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/12/2013 9:47:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

I'll make the point again, Ken.

Lets suppose, just for arguments sake that the humidity in antartica (absolute) is zero. It isn't, infact, it can't be, since the ice vapor pressure exists in equilibrium to the air above it. But, lets suppose its zero.

Ice vapor pressure? Are you really claiming that sublimation of ice is a major source of humidity in the air over Antarctica? You do understand that even at 4000m above sea level the air pressure is still fairly high right?

quote:

Draw a box around antartica.

Now, the waters around antartica are, well, water. The air just above that water is very cold - but not as cold. The water blowing off the oceans and into antartica will be saturated and will deliver water to the continent.

Only to the shoreline areas. The inland areas consistently have a high pressure area and the onshore winds do not get that far.




You do understand that sublimation occurs regardless of air pressure? That sublimation will increase as pressure decreases. 4000 meters is irrelevent to the question - yet, it would HELP sublimation not hurt it.

Go run through a few Peng Robinson equations, if you doubt it.

As for the rest of it - you really can't have it both ways. Either the water is delivered via off shore winds, or from ice vapor pressure. But ice can't accumulate from ice vapor pressure, by definition.

Look - have you ever defrosted your freezer - and dumped out all the ice. And some of the icecubes - the ones that have been there the longest - are 1/3 the size?

Its because the cubes have sublimated - lost their water to the atmosphere in the freezer.
And when you open the door - the water vapor escapes .. the ice sublimates a bit more
and the cycle repeats.



mnottertail -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/13/2013 7:24:49 AM)

Look - have you ever defrosted your freezer - and dumped out all the ice. And some of the icecubes - the ones that have been there the longest - are 1/3 the size?

Its because the cubes have sublimated - lost their water to the atmosphere in the freezer.
And when you open the door - the water vapor escapes .. the ice sublimates a bit more
and the cycle repeats.

couple of things, which does not raise the temperature of the freezer (temps raising in antartica) nor is the ice lost it has a different form, (as not in antartica) which is not a closed system, ie, I bet we can see waters warming (sort of like ice melts in a whiskey glass and the water becomes warmer) and levels rising. 

What's your bet.  Lets not bring closed systems into this to explain open systems, it is like talking idiots and oranges.



DomKen -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/13/2013 1:21:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

I'll make the point again, Ken.

Lets suppose, just for arguments sake that the humidity in antartica (absolute) is zero. It isn't, infact, it can't be, since the ice vapor pressure exists in equilibrium to the air above it. But, lets suppose its zero.

Ice vapor pressure? Are you really claiming that sublimation of ice is a major source of humidity in the air over Antarctica? You do understand that even at 4000m above sea level the air pressure is still fairly high right?

quote:

Draw a box around antartica.

Now, the waters around antartica are, well, water. The air just above that water is very cold - but not as cold. The water blowing off the oceans and into antartica will be saturated and will deliver water to the continent.

Only to the shoreline areas. The inland areas consistently have a high pressure area and the onshore winds do not get that far.




You do understand that sublimation occurs regardless of air pressure? That sublimation will increase as pressure decreases. 4000 meters is irrelevent to the question - yet, it would HELP sublimation not hurt it.

Go run through a few Peng Robinson equations, if you doubt it.

Sublimation does not occur as readily as the temperature goes down. In simple terms sublimation increases as the temperature goes up or the atmospheric pressure goes down. But no matter water sublimation does not result in any increase in the amount of water in the system. So there is no way that sublimation followed by redeposition can result in an increase of ice on Antarctica.

So your own claim contradicts itself. And we are right back to the only way more precipitation is falling over the continent is if the air is warmer.



Phydeaux -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/13/2013 1:47:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

I'll make the point again, Ken.

Lets suppose, just for arguments sake that the humidity in antartica (absolute) is zero. It isn't, infact, it can't be, since the ice vapor pressure exists in equilibrium to the air above it. But, lets suppose its zero.

Ice vapor pressure? Are you really claiming that sublimation of ice is a major source of humidity in the air over Antarctica? You do understand that even at 4000m above sea level the air pressure is still fairly high right?

quote:

Draw a box around antartica.

Now, the waters around antartica are, well, water. The air just above that water is very cold - but not as cold. The water blowing off the oceans and into antartica will be saturated and will deliver water to the continent.

Only to the shoreline areas. The inland areas consistently have a high pressure area and the onshore winds do not get that far.




You do understand that sublimation occurs regardless of air pressure? That sublimation will increase as pressure decreases. 4000 meters is irrelevent to the question - yet, it would HELP sublimation not hurt it.

Go run through a few Peng Robinson equations, if you doubt it.

Sublimation does not occur as readily as the temperature goes down. In simple terms sublimation increases as the temperature goes up or the atmospheric pressure goes down. But no matter water sublimation does not result in any increase in the amount of water in the system. So there is no way that sublimation followed by redeposition can result in an increase of ice on Antarctica.

So your own claim contradicts itself. And we are right back to the only way more precipitation is falling over the continent is if the air is warmer.



Ken, you're repeating back what I said. I said that water sublimation does not result in ice accumulation. Try reading what I wrote, instead of what you wish I wrote.
And no, we are not back to the same:

We now agree that water delivery is not a function of aridity in Antartica.

And you have no counter for that if there are more prevailing winds, or higher humidity prevailing winds that more water gets delivered to antartica.



mnottertail -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/13/2013 2:05:14 PM)

The counter is the facts.

Polar storms are cyclonic, and do not travel from offshore to the center of antarctica.  



Phydeaux -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/13/2013 2:26:18 PM)

As if the shape of the storm matters.
air (and hence water vapor) gets blown into antartica.



mnottertail -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/13/2013 2:30:40 PM)

NO. Period, research says no. 

The shape of the storms matter, the temperature of the storms matter, the temperature of everything matters.

Perhaps once you can cite some credible evidence of a cyclonic storm that edged in from the exterior of antarctica and wended inland to the center.  (You cant, but one never sees credible citations from you, just moronics of colonics storming forth)  



Phydeaux -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/13/2013 3:17:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

NO. Period, research says no. 

The shape of the storms matter, the temperature of the storms matter, the temperature of everything matters.

Perhaps once you can cite some credible evidence of a cyclonic storm that edged in from the exterior of antarctica and wended inland to the center.  (You cant, but one never sees credible citations from you, just moronics of colonics storming forth)  


Says you. Uncited.



DomKen -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/13/2013 3:25:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

I'll make the point again, Ken.

Lets suppose, just for arguments sake that the humidity in antartica (absolute) is zero. It isn't, infact, it can't be, since the ice vapor pressure exists in equilibrium to the air above it. But, lets suppose its zero.

Ice vapor pressure? Are you really claiming that sublimation of ice is a major source of humidity in the air over Antarctica? You do understand that even at 4000m above sea level the air pressure is still fairly high right?

quote:

Draw a box around antartica.

Now, the waters around antartica are, well, water. The air just above that water is very cold - but not as cold. The water blowing off the oceans and into antartica will be saturated and will deliver water to the continent.

Only to the shoreline areas. The inland areas consistently have a high pressure area and the onshore winds do not get that far.




You do understand that sublimation occurs regardless of air pressure? That sublimation will increase as pressure decreases. 4000 meters is irrelevent to the question - yet, it would HELP sublimation not hurt it.

Go run through a few Peng Robinson equations, if you doubt it.

Sublimation does not occur as readily as the temperature goes down. In simple terms sublimation increases as the temperature goes up or the atmospheric pressure goes down. But no matter water sublimation does not result in any increase in the amount of water in the system. So there is no way that sublimation followed by redeposition can result in an increase of ice on Antarctica.

So your own claim contradicts itself. And we are right back to the only way more precipitation is falling over the continent is if the air is warmer.



Ken, you're repeating back what I said. I said that water sublimation does not result in ice accumulation. Try reading what I wrote, instead of what you wish I wrote.
And no, we are not back to the same:

We now agree that water delivery is not a function of aridity in Antartica.

And you have no counter for that if there are more prevailing winds, or higher humidity prevailing winds that more water gets delivered to antartica.

Bullshit. You claimed that there was more precipitation in Antarctica, you claimed the ice cap was getting thicker, I then pointed out that that simply wasn't true. You then made a series of claims about sources of water vapor, none of which were true. then you claimed the source was sublimation of the existing ice. That is obviously incorrect. So that brings us right back to the undeniable fact, if more precipitation is occurring over the continent the air is warmer than it was.

As to your fantasy of sea winds reaching the high plateaus you cannot support that claim. The fact is the interior of Antarctica is under a stable high pressure zone and that keeps any air mass or winds from the sea from getting inland.



Phydeaux -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/13/2013 3:39:27 PM)

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Well, lets see.
Russia, China, and India all give lip service to global warming. But refuse to act on global warming. In fact, China is doubling its CO2 emissions every 5-8 years. India is adding somethig like 40 coal powered power plants this year.

They have also called for developed countries to give money and technology to other countries, to enable them to mitigate the effects of global warming.

So direct transfers of wealth from the US - to third world countries.

With out doing anything of the kind themselves.

So, you can certainly argue that relative to china, india and russia it gives comparative disadvantage to the us.



[sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif]

Is this your entry for the "Most Idiotic Post of the Year' Competition? Your post is so laughably stupid I can't think of any other possible use for it.


So. How timely. The UN Clmate Conference in Warsaw Poland, Nov11 - 22.

I quote. "Did we mention that the COP-19 conference was about politics [not climate change]? China led a walkout by 132 nations after the EU, Australia, and the US and other developed countries insisted that the questions of who should pay compensation for extreme climate events be discussed only after 2015.

John Vidal, the Guardian.

So to recap a bit. China is the biggest emmitter of CO2 now.
It has a central authority.
It plans to double its emissions over a 5 year span.

It walked out of a discussion when the conversation was no longer about the US paying.

Uhuh.



deathtothepixies -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/13/2013 5:04:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

of course it does, the prevailing winds are the wrong direction, and it isn't because of any winds coming off the waters.

you cannot read it that fast, and in fact you do not comprehend what it says.  It fundamentally says your pretending was full of shit, insofar as factually is concerned.


2000+ wpm. The hell I can't.

And I read the part about the highlands winds blowing down. Doesn't change a damn thing.
The same sort of cycle happens all the time around heat sinks and sources. For air to flow out, it must also flow in.

So of course as the vapor rises it gets colder - and as it gets colder the diamond dust deposts first in the coastal areas but then toward the interiors.

But the point is that it isn't the (arid) nature of the interior that is controlling the amount of precipitation delivered. Nor is it the temperature. Numerous factors contribute to the snow deposition in the antartic. Wind, (even currents), surface ice.


[image]local://upfiles/11137/6E4A2AA3BBF442C28226B59117A80A1C.jpg[/image]


Ok, I'll go for it, despite the fact that your diagram must a trap, I mean it is a trap right? You can't seriously be putting that diagram forward as part of your well thought out and well researched ideas about climate change?

If you were it would mean that you couldn't find a diagram to show us from any well known weather or metrological that was better than this drawing presumably done by a 3 year old.

If you were it would call into serious doubt the standard of your posts, it would question the level of your analysis of the facts and probably make people wonder about the depth of thought that had gone into your other links.

Or maybe it is what passes for rigorous science for you and other deniers?

Nah, you must have just had an off day with your crayons, happens to all of us



mnottertail -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/14/2013 6:22:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

NO. Period, research says no. 

The shape of the storms matter, the temperature of the storms matter, the temperature of everything matters.

Perhaps once you can cite some credible evidence of a cyclonic storm that edged in from the exterior of antarctica and wended inland to the center.  (You cant, but one never sees credible citations from you, just moronics of colonics storming forth)  


Says you. Uncited.



Yeah, you are uncited and full of shit as a christmas goose in your untutored hallucinations.  Here you go, now why is it that going to cause winds to blow into the central region from offshore when it is a physical impossiblility?

http://www.ccpo.odu.edu/~lizsmith/SEES/ozone/class/Chap_11/11_3.htm

Tell me why the gulf coast warmth does not reach up into the north pole, or even why the BC warmth doesnt make it into the interior regions of Alaska?

It should under your foolish hallucination, and those are not cyclonic systems.

I await your credible citations for the further hallucinations you are about to unfold for us here, since it happens in antarctica (without anyone seeing it, or commenting on this remarkable miracle, that happens nowhere else in the universe.

The highest temp ever recorded in antarctica was about 58 degrees (and of course that was way way way out on the coast.  The interior of antarctica is in the 70 below range) How you gonna get warm into that in contravention of the laws of physics?  credible citations please, cuz all you got is nothing per usual.  (you know jetstreams, inertia, high pressure, ozone and holes, all that stuff, give us the tour de force of hallucination.)



Phydeaux -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/16/2013 11:40:32 PM)

Well, I don't know about creditable. But I'll use yours anyway.

So - tell me (anywhere) where your article says anything about moisture delivery to antartica. News flash: it doesn't.

Second: Polar vortexes. Interesting things. Forms in winter. Breaks up after winter. Ergo not doing much then is it?

These cold temperatures begin to appear at lower altitudes later in the season. Hence, at higher stratospheric altitudes, the coldest period is in early winter, while at lower stratospheric altitudes, the coldest temperatures occur in late winter. The temperatures rapidly warm during the breakup of the polar vortex. This breakup occurs earliest at the highest altitudes, and occurs the latest at the lowest altitudes.

If you even bothered to read your own article, you would not that the phenomenon explains very well the annual ozone holes over north and south poles.

And, if you knew anything about those phenomenon - you would know they go away every year - when the polar vortex dissappears.

Nice try tho.



Phydeaux -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/16/2013 11:42:56 PM)

Oh .. the latest bit of fraud...

The EPA's top climate control scientist is charged with massive fraud.

Seems he has been caught falsifying his credentials, work habits... But you do have to pity him. It is so hard to distinguish between falsifying climate records and bilking the tax payer - and merely falsifying work records and merely bilking the EPA.

Pity he wasn't paid more.



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625