Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 23-02-2018, 15:52   #46
Marine service provider
 
newhaul's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: puget sound washington
Boat: 1968 Islander bahama 24 hull 182, 1963 columbia 29 defender. hull # 60
Posts: 5,300
Re: Northwest Passage - 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbunyard View Post
Why would you think this statement

"If this heat were instantly transferred to the lower 10 km of the global atmosphere it would result in a volume mean warming of this atmospheric layer by approximately 36C (65F)"

means '36C = 65F'?

I'm self-taught on this stuff and may be wrong here (so I hope I'll be corrected by someone who knows better), but as the comparison of F/C is not linear, I think the point is that, in the temperature range around liquid water, 36C is about equal to moving the F temp about 65 clicks (for lack of a better word).

For instance in the chart below, looking at the Celsius side, from 0 - 35 equals 32F - 95F, or 63 degrees F (95 -32 = 63).

If you go from the Fahrenheit side, starting at (since they don't have zero) about halfway between 5 and -4 F (-17.5C), and moving closest to 65F that they have, 68, (20C), we find that the equivalent is range is 37.5 C (17.5 + 20 = 37.5).

That's the best I can do...

Jim read your chart 35℃ is equal to 95℉ I fail to see where you are coming from with your attempt to explain how it is anything different the facts speak for themselves.
If you raise the temperature by 36℃ you are raising it by 96.8℉
__________________

__________________
Non illigitamus carborundum
newhaul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-02-2018, 17:14   #47
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Slidell, La.
Boat: Morgan Classic 33
Posts: 1,410
Re: Northwest Passage - 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by newhaul View Post
Jim read your chart 35℃ is equal to 95℉ I fail to see where you are coming from with your attempt to explain how it is anything different the facts speak for themselves.
If you raise the temperature by 36℃ you are raising it by 96.8℉
Ok then, the temp with without the oceans would be 152F instead of 121...


Maybe this will help ya'll understand...

the facts (and figures) do indeed speak for themselves...if one's listening.

They're not saying that 36C is the same temperature as 65F, but that the amount of energy represented by the two is the same.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	f.gif
Views:	47
Size:	77.6 KB
ID:	164708  
__________________

jimbunyard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-02-2018, 17:34   #48
Senior Cruiser
 
StuM's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Port Moresby,Papua New Guinea
Boat: FP Belize Maestro 43
Posts: 7,277
Re: Northwest Passage - 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reefmagnet View Post
These experts appear to think 36C = 65F.
They are correct.

They are talking about changes in temperature, not absolute temperature.

Since 1C or 1K = 9/5F, A change of 36C or 36K is 65F
StuM is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 23-02-2018, 17:43   #49
Senior Cruiser
 
StuM's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Port Moresby,Papua New Guinea
Boat: FP Belize Maestro 43
Posts: 7,277
Re: Northwest Passage - 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by newhaul View Post
Jim read your chart 35℃ is equal to 95℉ I fail to see where you are coming from with your attempt to explain how it is anything different the facts speak for themselves.
If you raise the temperature by 36℃ you are raising it by 96.8℉
Sigh!

Absolute temperature is NOT the same as change in termperature. They have different "0" points as well as different sized units.

If you go from 0C to 36C (or 273K to 305K), you go from 32F to 97F that's a change of 36C (or Kelvin) and 65F
StuM is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 23-02-2018, 17:51   #50
Senior Cruiser
 
StuM's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Port Moresby,Papua New Guinea
Boat: FP Belize Maestro 43
Posts: 7,277
Re: Northwest Passage - 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbunyard View Post
Ok then, the temp with without the oceans would be 152F instead of 121...


Maybe this will help ya'll understand...

the facts (and figures) do indeed speak for themselves...if one's listening.

They're not saying that 36C is the same temperature as 65F, but that the amount of energy change in temperature represented by the two is the same.
Fixed it for yah!

Amount of energy is measured in Joules, not degrees.

"Temperature of" and "amount of energy (aka "heat") in" a system are only VERY loosely related.

I can raise the termperature of a cup of water by 75C with a much smaller "amount of energy" than I need to raise the temperature of a gallon of water by the same amount.
StuM is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 23-02-2018, 17:59   #51
Registered User
 
SailOar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 922
Re: Northwest Passage - 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by newhaul View Post
Jim read your chart 35℃ is equal to 95℉ I fail to see where you are coming from with your attempt to explain how it is anything different the facts speak for themselves.
If you raise the temperature by 36℃ you are raising it by 96.8℉
Double sigh!

It's so easy to be "confused or feel mislead" when you are a "casual reader".
SailOar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-02-2018, 18:01   #52
Marine service provider
 
newhaul's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: puget sound washington
Boat: 1968 Islander bahama 24 hull 182, 1963 columbia 29 defender. hull # 60
Posts: 5,300
Re: Northwest Passage - 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by StuM View Post
Fixed it for yah!

Amount of energy is measured in Joules, not degrees.

"Temperature of" and "amount of energy (aka "heat") in" a system are only VERY loosely related.

I can raise the termperature of a cup of water by 75C with a much smaller "amount of energy" than I need to raise the temperature of a gallon of water by the same amount.
that makes it understandable they are talking about change in temp/ joules of energy.
Now it makes sense .
I still disagree with them about the oceans warming .
__________________
Non illigitamus carborundum
newhaul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-02-2018, 18:39   #53
Registered User
 
SailOar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 922
Re: Northwest Passage - 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by newhaul View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moody46CC
Heavy icebreaker operating stern first? That's a new one to me. Icebreakers operate by heading into the ice and sliding the forward section of the vessel over the ice, breaking it. Stern first? How would the rudder and prop(s) sur
powered via azipods.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azipod
Eduard Toll, Teekay's First Icebreaker LNG Carrier Newbuilding, is Delivered - Teekay
here are some shots of her in Ruddock.
Launch of Teekay's First Icebreaker LNG Carrier - Teekay

Although the ship manufacturer's page you referenced does indeed say "breaking ice 1.8 metres thick at speeds of five knots astern", the timelapse YouTube video appears to me to show the Eduard Toll motoring in a forwards direction. I wonder if something was lost in translation?

SailOar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-02-2018, 18:57   #54
Marine service provider
 
newhaul's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: puget sound washington
Boat: 1968 Islander bahama 24 hull 182, 1963 columbia 29 defender. hull # 60
Posts: 5,300
Re: Northwest Passage - 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by SailOar View Post
Although the ship manufacturer's page you referenced does indeed say "breaking ice 1.8 metres thick at speeds of five knots astern", the timelapse YouTube video appears to me to show the Eduard Toll motoring in a forwards direction. I wonder if something was lost in translation?

that is likely the case seeing how the bow is shaped it would ride up quite well on to the ice. I however seeing how she is shaped doubt a meer 1.8 meters more likely a working thickness of 2.5 or so she is a heavy vessel with a rather flat cross section for at least a third of her waterline length.
__________________
Non illigitamus carborundum
newhaul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-02-2018, 21:37   #55
Registered User
 
Reefmagnet's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: puɐןsuǝǝnb 'ʎɐʞɔɐɯ
Boat: Nantucket Island 33
Posts: 2,951
Re: Northwest Passage - 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbunyard View Post
Ok then, the temp with without the oceans would be 152F instead of 121...


Maybe this will help ya'll understand...

the facts (and figures) do indeed speak for themselves...if one's listening.

They're not saying that 36C is the same temperature as 65F, but that the amount of energy represented by the two is the same.
Just needed to say an approximate C -> F conversion is (C/5)*9=F for relative conversion and (C/5)*9+32=F for absolute conversion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reefmagnet View Post
These experts appear to think 36C = 65F.
Ok, that was easily figured out. But is the 36C relative difference comparing a 1955 world with oceans to a 2000 something world without oceans? Because if it is, then that's some serious scientific drama queening.
Reefmagnet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-02-2018, 00:46   #56
Marine service provider
 
newhaul's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: puget sound washington
Boat: 1968 Islander bahama 24 hull 182, 1963 columbia 29 defender. hull # 60
Posts: 5,300
Re: Northwest Passage - 2018

Sailoar here is an interesting vid I stumbled on about the rose ice shelf from national geographic.
https://youtu.be/fyjt5zpNAeg
I know its Antarctic not arctic but I thought you would like the information just the same.
__________________
Non illigitamus carborundum
newhaul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-02-2018, 01:18   #57
Senior Cruiser
 
StuM's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Port Moresby,Papua New Guinea
Boat: FP Belize Maestro 43
Posts: 7,277
Re: Northwest Passage - 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reefmagnet View Post
Just needed to say an approximate C -> F conversion is (C/5)*9=F for relative conversion and (C/5)*9+32=F for absolute conversion.
Not approximate. It's exactly 5:9 with a 32F offset
StuM is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 24-02-2018, 02:11   #58
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Slidell, La.
Boat: Morgan Classic 33
Posts: 1,410
Re: Northwest Passage - 2018

Some pretty breathtaking incongruence between this statement

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reefmagnet View Post
These experts appear to think 36C = 65F.
and the first part of this one

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reefmagnet View Post
Just needed to say an approximate C -> F conversion is (C/5)*9=F for relative conversion and (C/5)*9+32=F for absolute conversion.

Ok, that was easily figured out. But is the 36C relative difference comparing a 1955 world with oceans to a 2000 something world without oceans? Because if it is, then that's some serious scientific drama queening.
but if Stu's mathematical explanation gets the message across, wonderful...though the original 'casting of aspersions' on the 'experts' seemed to indicate a certain, uhhh --uneasiness-- with their mathematical concepts.


As for 'drama queening', the statement

"We have estimated an increase of 24 1022 J representing a volume mean warming of 0.09C of the 0–2000 m layer of the World Ocean. If this heat were instantly transferred to the lower 10 km of the global atmosphere it would result in a volume mean warming of this atmospheric layer by approximately 36C (65F). This transfer of course will not happen; earth's climate system simply does not work like this. But this computation does provide a perspective on the amount of heating that the earth system has undergone since 1955."

is meant to illustrate the difference in heating water and heating air, probably primarily directed at those who might assume that '0.09C of the 0–2000 m layer' was insignificant; a trifling amount. As the statement itself says, its' purpose is illustrative only; meant to help understand a thing difficult to envision based on ordinary experience.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StuM View Post
Fixed it for yah!

Amount of energy is measured in Joules, not degrees.

"Temperature of" and "amount of energy (aka "heat") in" a system are only VERY loosely related.

I can raise the termperature of a cup of water by 75C with a much smaller "amount of energy" than I need to raise the temperature of a gallon of water by the same amount.
Thanks.

You are certainly correct, the 'amount of energy' required to change the temperature of different amounts of matter is different.

We are however, not talking about (relatively speaking) different 'amounts
of matter', but the worlds' ocean, which, for simplicity's sake, is taken as a constant, fixed volume.

My unfortunate wording was meant to keep an apparently slightly confusing concept simple...after all, if x volume is at a given temp, and the temp changes by a certain amount, anything we call it, be it stus or jims or r/ms or n/hs or s/os or jewels or degrees f or c, is just a proxy representing 'Y' temperature change; an addition or loss of 'energy'...
jimbunyard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-02-2018, 05:00   #59
Registered User
 
Reefmagnet's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: puɐןsuǝǝnb 'ʎɐʞɔɐɯ
Boat: Nantucket Island 33
Posts: 2,951
Re: Northwest Passage - 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbunyard View Post
Some pretty breathtaking incongruence between this statement



and the first part of this one



but if Stu's mathematical explanation gets the message across, wonderful...though the original 'casting of aspersions' on the 'experts' seemed to indicate a certain, uhhh --uneasiness-- with their mathematical concepts.


As for 'drama queening', the statement

"We have estimated an increase of 24 1022 J representing a volume mean warming of 0.09C of the 02000 m layer of the World Ocean. If this heat were instantly transferred to the lower 10 km of the global atmosphere it would result in a volume mean warming of this atmospheric layer by approximately 36C (65F). This transfer of course will not happen; earth's climate system simply does not work like this. But this computation does provide a perspective on the amount of heating that the earth system has undergone since 1955."

is meant to illustrate the difference in heating water and heating air, probably primarily directed at those who might assume that '0.09C of the 02000 m layer' was insignificant; a trifling amount. As the statement itself says, its' purpose is illustrative only; meant to help understand a thing difficult to envision based on ordinary experience.



Thanks.

You are certainly correct, the 'amount of energy' required to change the temperature of different amounts of matter is different.

We are however, not talking about (relatively speaking) different 'amounts
of matter', but the worlds' ocean, which, for simplicity's sake, is taken as a constant, fixed volume.

My unfortunate wording was meant to keep an apparently slightly confusing concept simple...after all, if x volume is at a given temp, and the temp changes by a certain amount, anything we call it, be it stus or jims or r/ms or n/hs or s/os or jewels or degrees f or c, is just a proxy representing 'Y' temperature change; an addition or loss of 'energy'...
I'm guessing Skeptical science's "Hiroshima bomb-ometer" must really rock your socks.
Reefmagnet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-02-2018, 05:56   #60
Registered User
 
Reefmagnet's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: puɐןsuǝǝnb 'ʎɐʞɔɐɯ
Boat: Nantucket Island 33
Posts: 2,951
Re: Northwest Passage - 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by StuM View Post
Not approximate. It's exactly 5:9 with a 32F offset
Too be pedantic; 5/9 has an infinitely recurring decimal value of 5, therefore it's not possible to perform an "exact" conversion. Just as it is not possible to get an exact value of PI.
__________________

Reefmagnet is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
passage

« Northwest Passage | - »
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Northwest Passage Colorado Dreamer Polar Regions 23 19-04-2018 11:12
Crew Wanted: North Sea passage to Shetland- Scotland- june 2018 roda Crew Positions: Wanted & Available 2 16-04-2018 16:30
Time for Northwest - Passage 2018 jackdale Polar Regions 98 26-01-2018 13:42
Crew Wanted: ARC Europe - BVI to Portugal May 2018 to June 2018 jhill82 Crew Positions: Wanted & Available 0 10-12-2017 06:30
Crew Available: French-Californian sailing couple for east-west passage beginning of January 2018! PerrineNate Crew Positions: Wanted & Available 0 23-11-2017 09:57



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 00:05.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.