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.
Well I was just trying to give you a basic education in how heat interacts with water and H2O in it's other states. I really liked the simplicity of the equation that one calorie of heat raises the temperature of one gram of water by one degree K (or C)
Of course we don't use those units of heat anymore, but they are still absolutely accurate. It's where we got the Celsius scale from - 0 degrees is the point at which water may begin to freeze and 100 degrees is the point at which it may begin to turn into a gaseous state, and it therefore takes exactly 100 calories of heat to raise the temperature of one gram of water from zero to 100 degrees, however the act of changing the state from ice to water and from water to a gas requires extra heat. That is when it turns to ice it requires the withdrawal of heat just to change the way the molecules arrange themselves from liquid state to a crystalline solid state, and to reverse that it requires additional heat to change it back to a liquid state without any change in temperature.
This is not theory, it's fact.
Any expressed market opinion is my own and is not to be taken as financial advice
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.
No, they aren't, the observation are well within the 5-95% band, not just within, but well within, and accounting for observational uncertainty, could well be within the 25-75% range, or perhaps barely outside the range of predictions.
Quote:
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'.
The IPCC made no such thing, the certainty bands are the range of predictions, and the charts were made by Ed Hawkins...
Quote:
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.
How about 5, 10, 20 years from now, rather than tomorrow, are you 95% certain your predictions will be absolutely correct then?
Quote:
Similarly
By the way, here is where the IPCC admitted it was wrong...
A google search does not make evidence from the IPCC Reports, especially when the first entry is an article from the Daily Mail, written by David Rose...
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.
"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
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
I understand your theory Peter, but I'm asking you why you believe the ice only started doing this 20 years ago.
Why wasn't the ice absorbing all the heat for the past 100 years too?
Kulganis
27 Jun 2014, 01:07 PM
No, they aren't, the observation are well within the 5-95% band, not just within, but well within, and accounting for observational uncertainty, could well be within the 25-75% range, or perhaps barely outside the range of predictions.
No, the observations are barely within the 95% band, and moving rapidly outside.
The IPCC predicted temperatures would keep rising, but in fact temperatures stopped rising two decades ago, despite increased CO2 emissions.
To claim that this is what the IPCC expected to happen is just being dishonest. The IPCC said temperatures would keep rising.
Quote:
A google search does not make evidence from the IPCC Reports, especially when the first entry is an article from the Daily Mail, written by David Rose...
The google search lists scores of different sites discussing the IPCC's admission that they got it wrong. Page upon page of them.
And here is the evidence that they got it wrong...
If you can't be arsed finding the evidence to your claims, don't make claims, the onus is on you to back up your claims with evidence. show me a press release, or in their actual reports, where they state that their models are wrong, not a google search for people discussing the possibility. I'm not going to go wading through the mountain of shit people hark on about, just to prove to myself that you are also full of shit.
"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
'Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis is the contribution of Working Group I (WGI) to the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).'
'the occurrence of the hiatus in GMST trend during the past 15 years raises the two related questions of what has caused it and whether climate models are able to reproduce it'
'During the 15-year period beginning in 1998, the ensemble of HadCRUT4 GMST trends lies below almost all model-simulated trends'
'Almost all CMIP5 historical simulations do not reproduce the observed recent warming hiatus'
They got it wrong, and they admitted they got it wrong.
You're as a bad as Steve Keen's fans who claim he was right even though he himself said he was wrong!
And here is the evidence that they got it wrong...
That's not evidence, that's a Monckton chart, yep, a journalist, with no other qualifications (other than pretending to be a lord, when he isn't a lord)
"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
That's not evidence, that's a Monckton chart, yep, a journalist, with no other qualifications (other than pretending to be a lord, when he isn't a lord)
The chart is a graphical representation of the official data.
Who draws the chart is irrelevant - the data is the data, and it shows no warming for nearly two decades.
'the occurrence of the hiatus in GMST trend during the past 15 years raises the two related questions of what has caused it and whether climate models are able to reproduce it'
'During the 15-year period beginning in 1998, the ensemble of HadCRUT4 GMST trends lies below almost all model-simulated trends'
'Almost all CMIP5 historical simulations do not reproduce the observed recent warming hiatus'
They got it wrong, and they admitted they got it wrong.
You're as a bad as Steve Keen's fans who claim he was right even though he himself said he was wrong!
Quote:
Confidential – This document is being made available in preparation of WGI-12 only and should not be cited, quoted, or distributed
You do know what 'Draft' means don't you?
The first quote doesn't appear at all in the report, some similar, but I couldn't be sure, are you certain you ctrl-v'd it right?
The second quote, is hardly an admission of being wrong...
For context...
Quote:
In summary, the observed recent warming hiatus, defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998–2012 as compared to the trend during 1951–2012, is attributable in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in external forcing (expert judgment, medium confidence). The forcing trend reduction is primarily due to a negative forcing trend from both volcanic eruptions and the downward phase of the solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of forcing trend in causing the hiatus, because of uncertainty in the magnitude of the volcanic forcing trend and low confidence in the aerosol forcing trend.
Almost all CMIP5 historical simulations do not reproduce the observed recent warming hiatus. There is medium confidence that the GMST trend difference between models and observations during 1998–2012 is to a substantial degree caused by internal variability, with possible contributions from forcing error and some CMIP5 models overestimating the response to increasing greenhouse-gas forcing. The CMIP5 model trend in effective radiative forcing (ERF) shows no apparent bias against the AR5 best estimate over 1998–2012. However, confidence in this assessment of CMIP5 ERF trend is low, primarily because of the uncertainties in model aerosol forcing and processes, which through spatial heterogeneity might well cause an undetected global-mean ERF trend error even in the absence of a trend in the global-mean aerosol loading.
The causes of both the observed GMST trend hiatus and of the model–observation GMST trend difference during 1998–2012 imply that, barring a major volcanic eruption, most 15-year GMST trends in the near-term future will be larger than during 1998–2012 (high confidence; see 11.3.6.3. for a full assessment of near-term projections of GMST). The reasons for this implication are fourfold: first, anthropogenic greenhouse-gas concentrations are expected to rise further in all RCP scenarios; second, anthropogenic aerosol concentration is expected to decline in all RCP scenarios, and so is the resulting cooling effect; third, the trend in solar forcing is expected to be larger over most near-term 15–year periods than over 1998–2012 (medium confidence), because 1998–2012 contained the full downward phase of the solar cycle; and fourth, it is more likely than not that internal climate variability in the near-term will enhance and not counteract the surface warming expected to arise from the increasing anthropogenic forcing.
"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
The first quote doesn't appear at all in the report, some similar, but I couldn't be sure, are you certain you ctrl-v'd it right?
It's on page 29...
'the occurrence of the hiatus in GMST trend during the past 15 years raises the two related questions of what has caused it and whether climate models are able to reproduce it'
Let me guess, you're going to try and tell me the IPCC wrote a report trying to figure out the reasons for a hiatus that they don't believe exists?
You're clutching at straws here.
Here's the official Met Office source data if you don't believe the previous graphical representation of it...
Show me the evidence that 97% or more experts are in complete agreement about those things.
I guarantee if you randomly select 100 experts around the world and ask them a question about those things they will not all give the same answer.
I said this
"Couldn't let this bullshit go without comment. Polio vaccinations, hyperinflation, smoking, driving while drunk, having unprotected sex in a Nairobi brothel; the list is endless where 97% plus of experts agree on things." in response to your original claim
"As somebody else said, claiming that 97% of experts are in complete agreement about ANYTHING is pretty ridiculous to begin with.
OK, let's take smoking. I can't find one expert in the field that doesn't say that smoking is bad for the health. Can you find one who would disagree with that, let alone the 97% level that you originally claimed? Jesus, even the tobacco companies don't deny its bad for the health. And you say that there are at least 3% of experts who deny that? Where are they?
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.
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