Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


Reply
Global Warming: Glaciers, ice caps and ice sheets are collapsing, and it's unstoppable; How the planet's ice cover is being altered by climate change
Topic Started: 27 May 2014, 01:51 PM (22,679 Views)
Shadow
Member Avatar
Evil Mouzealot Specufestor

peter fraser
27 Jun 2014, 12:43 AM
I've been trying to explain that the global ice and water mass can experience heat gain without temperature gains.

Don't they teach physics in Ireland - here is a high school explanation which you may find useful'
They taught us to be polite unless someone was rude to us first. But no, I don't see how energy used during changes of state can explain why human CO2 emissions would cause atmospheric warming for 100 years, and then 20 years ago suddenly stop causing atmospheric warming. Ice and water were changing state throughout the entire period. The fact that energy is used to change state doesn't explain why atmospheric warming stopped, even though CO2 emissions kept rising. Can you explain it (in your own words - i.e. don't just link to a physics experiment).

Has this theory been published anywhere, or did you come up with it yourself?
Edited by Shadow, 27 Jun 2014, 01:06 AM.
1. Epic Fail! Steve Keen's Bad Calls and Predictions.
2. Residential property loans regulated by NCCP Act. Banks can't margin call unless borrower defaults.
3. Housing is second highest taxed sector of Australian Economy. Renters subsidised by highly taxed homeowners.
4. Ongoing improvement in housing affordability. Australian household formation faster than population growth since 1960s.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
peter fraser
Member Avatar


Shadow
27 Jun 2014, 12:52 AM
They taught us to be polite unless someone was rude to us first. But no, I don't see how energy used during changes of state would explain why human CO2 emissions would cause atmospheric warming for 100 years, and then 20 years ago suddenly stop causing atmospheric warming. Can you explain it (in your own words - i.e. don't just link to a physics experiment).
I can't recall the heat unit conversions but basically heat can be applied to ice and it will warm steadily. If you graphed that it would give you a straight line on an upward incline until 0 degrees Celsius is reached. then it flatlines and keeps absorbing heat without temperature gain until it changes state to water. then the water will absorb the heat and the line will return to an linear incline.

There may be masses of ice on the cusp of melting but from space it will still show as ice and it will have been absorbing heat for many years without any temperature gains.

Do you follow that? as long as we are talking about ice on earth at one atmosphere this basic fact cannot be wrong, it's a well documented characteristic of what we call water, that can exist in solid state, liquid state, and gaseous state. Other compounds and elements also exhibit this characteristic although the amount of heat required to transition from one state to another is not constant between different materials.
Any expressed market opinion is my own and is not to be taken as financial advice
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Shadow
Member Avatar
Evil Mouzealot Specufestor

peter fraser
27 Jun 2014, 01:06 AM
I can't recall the heat unit conversions but basically heat can be applied to ice and it will warm steadily. If you graphed that it would give you a straight line on an upward incline until 0 degrees Celsius is reached. then it flatlines and keeps absorbing heat without temperature gain until it changes state to water. then the water will absorb the heat and the line will return to an linear incline.

There may be masses of ice on the cusp of melting but from space it will still show as ice and it will have been absorbing heat for many years without any temperature gains.

Do you follow that? as long as we are talking about ice on earth at one atmosphere this basic fact cannot be wrong, it's a well documented characteristic of what we call water, that can exist in solid state, liquid state, and gaseous state. Other compounds and elements also exhibit this characteristic although the amount of heat required to transition from one state to another is not constant between different materials.
But there is always ice and water changing state. That is a constant.

Human CO2 emissions allegedly caused atmospheric warming for 100 years, and then 20 years ago suddenly stopped causing atmospheric warming.

Ice and water were changing state throughout the entire period.

The fact that energy is always being used to change the state or ice and water doesn't explain why atmospheric warming suddenly stopped 20 years ago, even though CO2 emissions kept rising.
Edited by Shadow, 27 Jun 2014, 01:13 AM.
1. Epic Fail! Steve Keen's Bad Calls and Predictions.
2. Residential property loans regulated by NCCP Act. Banks can't margin call unless borrower defaults.
3. Housing is second highest taxed sector of Australian Economy. Renters subsidised by highly taxed homeowners.
4. Ongoing improvement in housing affordability. Australian household formation faster than population growth since 1960s.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Kulganis
Member Avatar


Shadow
27 Jun 2014, 12:34 AM
Do you have some evidence to show that the data in the chart is incorrect, or is it just convenient for you to attack the messenger?
I have the source of the original, not the redrawn mess that the Daily Mail and David Rose made...

Quote:
 
David Rose has written an article in the Mail on Sunday which, by eye, seems to use the top left panel from the figure below, but without mention of its original source. In the article David Rose suggests that this figure proves that the forecasts are wrong. This is incorrect - the last decade is interesting and I have discussed these issues previously (as have many others) and I have even co-authored a published article about the most sensitive simulations being less likely. David also incorrectly suggests that the shaded ranges shown are 75% and 95% certainty. As labelled below, they are actually the 25-75% and 5-95% ranges, so 50% and 90% certainty respectively.


http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2013/updated-comparison-of-simulations-and-observations/

Posted Image

Quote:
 
Even the IPCC admit their models were wrong. The fact that the models were wrong is no longer disputed by anyone, except you it seems... :re:
Where do they admit this? not in the Roy Spencer graph, but in their reports, I can't find any such admission.

Quote:
 
Readers should assume that everything they see in the Daily Mail is untrue and unverified. Scientists should refuse to grant interviews to the paper without a third-party present or an agreement to allow a review of any quotes used.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/02/15/205415/rosegate-dailymail-error-riddled-articles-misquote-credibility-science/
"If man is to survive, he will have learned to take a delight in the essential differences between men and between cultures. He will learn that differences in ideas and attitudes are a delight, part of life's exciting variety, not something to fear." - Gene Roddenberry

"Balloon animals are a great way to teach children that the things they love dearly, may spontaneously explode" -- Lee Camp
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Shadow
Member Avatar
Evil Mouzealot Specufestor

Kulganis
27 Jun 2014, 01:14 AM
I have the source of the original, not the redrawn mess that the Daily Mail and David Rose made...
They tell exactly the same story though. That the predictions were wrong.
1. Epic Fail! Steve Keen's Bad Calls and Predictions.
2. Residential property loans regulated by NCCP Act. Banks can't margin call unless borrower defaults.
3. Housing is second highest taxed sector of Australian Economy. Renters subsidised by highly taxed homeowners.
4. Ongoing improvement in housing affordability. Australian household formation faster than population growth since 1960s.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
peter fraser
Member Avatar


Shadow
27 Jun 2014, 01:08 AM
But there is always ice and water changing state. That is a constant.

Human CO2 emissions allegedly caused atmospheric warming for 100 years, and then 20 years ago suddenly stopped causing atmospheric warming.

Ice and water were changing state throughout the entire period.

The fact that energy is always being used to change state doesn't explain why atmospheric warming stopped, even though CO2 emissions kept rising.
Hmmm - maybe no one studies physics anymore.

this is schoolboy experiment stuff that has been done millions of times in labs all over the world.

Sure the water that has melted at 0 degrees C can be converted back into ice if a fresh cold event occurs but the point is that ice can be constantly gaining heat without changing into water or gaining temperature. this is irrefutable and it could be the explanation for the period where temperatures have been reasonably steady. If you graph a body of ice over time as it transitions to water you won't be getting a neat constant straight line, it has a large step at 0 Degrees C.

To the best of my knowledge the point that ice is in the melt process cannot be measured until it melts or is still below 0 degrees C,
Any expressed market opinion is my own and is not to be taken as financial advice
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Kulganis
Member Avatar


Shadow
27 Jun 2014, 01:20 AM
They tell exactly the same story though. That the predictions were wrong.
Except that they don't, because the observations are still within the 5-95% Band. It doesn't say that all the models are wrong, or even imprecise. And certainly not enough to describe it as a 'Spectacular Miscalculation'.
peter fraser
27 Jun 2014, 01:22 AM
Hmmm - maybe no one studies physics anymore.

this is schoolboy experiment stuff that has been done millions of times in labs all over the world.

Sure the water that has melted at 0 degrees C can be converted back into ice if a fresh cold event occurs but the point is that ice can be constantly gaining heat without changing into water or gaining temperature. this is irrefutable and it could be the explanation for the period where temperatures have been reasonably steady. If you graph a body of ice over time as it transitions to water you won't be getting a neat constant straight line, it has a large step at 0 Degrees C.

To the best of my knowledge the point that ice is in the melt process cannot be measured until it melts or is still below 0 degrees C,
It's been some years since I last did any physics, but...

You're talking about heat capacity yes?

As in...

ice: 2.108 kJ/kg-K
water: 4.187 kJ/kg-K
water vapor: 1.996 kJ/kg-K

It takes about half as much heat to raise the temperature of ice 1oC as it does to raise the temperature of water 1oC (assuming all the other variables [height above sea level, air pressure, etc.] are constant).

If the temperature of the ice is below freezing, say, -50oC (the mean temp in Antarctica is -57oC), it would take the same amount of energy to heat it to melting point, as it does to heat water to 25oC.
Edited by Kulganis, 27 Jun 2014, 01:59 AM.
"If man is to survive, he will have learned to take a delight in the essential differences between men and between cultures. He will learn that differences in ideas and attitudes are a delight, part of life's exciting variety, not something to fear." - Gene Roddenberry

"Balloon animals are a great way to teach children that the things they love dearly, may spontaneously explode" -- Lee Camp
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Shadow
Member Avatar
Evil Mouzealot Specufestor

peter fraser
27 Jun 2014, 01:22 AM
the point is that ice can be constantly gaining heat without changing into water or gaining temperature. this is irrefutable and it could be the explanation for the period where temperatures have been reasonably steady
What was the ice up to for the 100 years when global temperatures were rising? Why wasn't the ice also acting as a heat sink then? Why did the ice only decide to start absorbing all the heat 20 years ago?

Like I said - the existence of ice is a constant. It doesn't explain why global temperatures stopped rising 20 years ago, despite an increase in CO2 emissions that the alarmists claimed would result in increasing global warming.

Instead of coming up with all these fanciful reasons as to where the heat might have decided to start hiding, why not accept the simple and logical answer - i.e. that it's not hiding anywhere because global warming simply ended.

If you look back at past warming cycles, none of them continued forever - they all ended. The globe cycles between periods of warming and cooling and has done so for billions of years. Why is it so hard to accept the most logical answer - i.e. that the most recent warming cycle ended, as all other warming cycles before it also ended?
Kulganis
27 Jun 2014, 01:25 AM
Except that they don't, because the observations are still within the 5-95% Band
Observations are only barely still within the 95% band and that's because the 95% band is so wide that it would have been almost impossible for temperatures to completely move outside it within the given timeframe. The prediction was for temperatures to keep rising - the 'base case' is in the centre of the shaded areas - i.e. that's what they thought was most likely to happen. As you move to the outside of the shaded areas, you move into scenarios that they thought were less likely to happen. The actual data has been moving steadily outside the shaded areas. All the shaded areas slope upwards, but observed temperatures have actually been flat, rather than rising.

If the alarmists had made a 100% certainty band, then that band would stretch the entire height of the chart and it would be impossible for observed temperatures to ever move outside it. The alarmists could then claim the observed data is within their 100% certainty band, but it would be a meaningless claim because the 100% certainty band means 'we have no idea'. And the 95% certainty band means almost the same thing - i.e. it's so wide that temperatures could do pretty much anything.

I am 95% certain that the maximum temperature in Sydney tomorrow will be between 5 degrees and 40 degrees. It takes absolutely zero skill or ability to make that prediction because I made my 95% certainty band so wide that it would be practically impossible for temperatures to fall outside it tomorrow.

Similarly the IPCC made their 95% certainty band so wide that it would be virtually impossible for temperatures to fall outside it within the past few years. It requires no skill or ability to make such a prediction. Such a wide band is as good as saying 'we don't know what temperatures will do'.

By the way, here is where the IPCC admitted it was wrong...

https://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=ipcc+admits+no+warming
Edited by Shadow, 27 Jun 2014, 09:28 AM.
1. Epic Fail! Steve Keen's Bad Calls and Predictions.
2. Residential property loans regulated by NCCP Act. Banks can't margin call unless borrower defaults.
3. Housing is second highest taxed sector of Australian Economy. Renters subsidised by highly taxed homeowners.
4. Ongoing improvement in housing affordability. Australian household formation faster than population growth since 1960s.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
peter fraser
Member Avatar


Shadow
27 Jun 2014, 09:11 AM
What was the ice up to for the 100 years when global temperatures were rising? Why wasn't the ice also acting as a heat sink then? Why did the ice only decide to start absorbing all the heat 20 years ago?

Like I said - the existence of ice is a constant. It doesn't explain why global temperatures stopped rising 20 years ago, despite an increase in CO2 emissions that the alarmists claimed would result in increasing global warming.

Instead of coming up with all these fanciful reasons as to where the heat might have decided to start hiding, why not accept the simple and logical answer - i.e. that it's not hiding anywhere because global warming simply ended.

If you look back at past warming cycles, none of them continued forever - they all ended. The globe cycles between periods of warming and cooling and has done so for billions of years. Why is it so hard to accept the most logical answer - i.e. that the most recent warming cycle ended, as all other warming cycles before it also ended
I'm unable to understand your point here - this phenomenon is as well know and as well understood as gravity. I don't understand why you fail to grasp this very well known characteristic of warming ice and it would explain why the earth could be absorbing heat without any measurable change in temperature, which is the point that you rely on to support your theory.

You claim that the temperature has maintained the same range over the last 17 years, but anyone who understands what happens when ice is being warmed would say 'so what" that's a bunkum piece of evidence that could well be pointing to exactly what the scientists are claiming, and that's that the earth is heating up. The ice held on the poles is massive and it will affect our temperature for a long long time until it has melted. At that point we are stuffed.

If nothing else you at least have to accept that the point you lean on for support is possibly an indication of the exact opposite of what you think it indicates.

Seriously this is grade 9 physics, but I guess if you haven't studied it you won't know. It's all on Google so do some research and save yourself from continuous embarrassment in these debates.

Any expressed market opinion is my own and is not to be taken as financial advice
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Investor888
Default APF Avatar


peter fraser
27 Jun 2014, 10:10 AM
You claim that the temperature has maintained the same range over the last 17 years, but anyone who understands what happens when ice is being warmed would say 'so what" that's a bunkum piece of evidence that could well be pointing to exactly what the scientists are claiming, and that's that the earth is heating up. The ice held on the poles is massive and it will affect our temperature for a long long time until it has melted. At that point we are stuffed.
I love the fact that the man-made global warming alarmists suddenly decided that heat was being trapped in the ice, when all the 70+ climate models started to become more and more inaccurate from 2000 onward.
Funny how ALL the climate models predicted continued and accerating surface temperate warming of between 2-6deg C by 2100. Now no warming as predicted for 1/5 of that time so far. And with solar activity weakening, there will actually be global cooling through the 2020's and 2030's.
Funny to how the Antarctic sea-ice was suppose to melt away (as predicted as well by the alarmists, but as of yesterday (26 Jun 2014) is 1.7million sqkm ABOVE 1980-2008 averages, and setting records every day now. So your "hiding" heat is the ice is actually producing MORE sea-ice. And the VOLUME of ice in EAST Antarctica is growing (EAST Antarctica makes up 90% of the continent, and in on average 1000m thicker than West Antarctica). West Antarctica is melting because it sits on a bed of hotspots (volcanic) which generate 3 times the geothermal heat as the surface heat over other continental land worldwide.

The IPCC models on Antarctic sea-ice ALL predicted a DECREASE in sea-ice. Yes NEW records exist every day now.
IPCC REport 5

Quote:
 
4) The CMIP5 simulations [i.e climate models] on average simulate a decrease in Antarctic sea ice extent though Turner et al. (2013) find that approximately 10% of CMIP5 simulations exhibit an increasing trend in Antarctic sea ice extent larger than observed over the 1979-2005 period. However, Antarctic sea ice extent variability appears on average to be too large in the CMIP5 models (Turner et al., 2013; Zunz et al., 2013)


In other words, their models forecast less ice, and they cannot explain why there is instead more ice. And the fact is that the sea-ice is increasing even faster than their 10% of models that actually even predicted a Antarctic sea-ice increase - BIG FAIL!!!

Antarctic sea-ice swings between 2.5million sqkm in the southern summer, and 16million sqkm in the southern winter. Being 1.7million sqkm ABOVE 1980-2008 average currently, it's a huge incerase difference, and ALL the IPCC sea-ice models also FAILED.
Posted Image
Edited by Investor888, 27 Jun 2014, 10:52 AM.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Australian Property Forum · Next Topic »
Reply



Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.

Forum Rules: The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.

Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.

Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.

This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.

For more information go to Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use

Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ

Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy