shadow It's not a theory, it's so well understood that people with knowledge wouldn't even mention this. It's like gravity.
If the experiment in the video clip was performed 20 years ago, then performed again today, we would expect the same results, right?
But in the case of your own ice theory, you need to explain why the ice today is behaving differently to the ice 20+ years ago.
You need to explain why ice only started absorbing all the global warming two decades ago, and why the ice didn't absorb all the heat during the prior 100 years too.
Quote:
You are denying a very basic law of physics.
No, you are claiming a law of physics behaved differently over the past 20 years, compared to how it behaved in the previous 100 years.
You need to explain why before taking your theory to the IPCC for their consideration.
They are just going to ask you the same question that I have asked - i.e. why did the ice only start absorbing all the global warming 20 years ago.
That's a nice clip, but it still doesn't explain why the ice only started doing this two decades ago - i.e. why the ice didn't absorb all the heat during the prior 100 years too?
because the mean temperature of ice was far lower and the ice needs to warm to 0 degrees before it can melt. Ice at minus 8 degrees cannot change form, the molecules are not excited enough to alter form.
I would be more interested in the mean temperature of the ice and the volumes of ice than I would be about the air temperature or ocean temperature although they may still be indicative, but not defining.
You tell me that the temperature hasn't changed in 17.5 years and count that as a sign that global warning doesn't exist - I look at the same data and say uh oh - we might have a problem.
To change the form of ice to water it takes quite a lot of heat and that heat does not alter the temperature.
Physics 101.
Shadow
27 Jun 2014, 03:56 PM
If the experiment in the video clip was performed 20 years ago, then performed again today, we would expect the same results, right?
But in the case of your own ice theory, you need to explain why the ice today is behaving differently to the ice 20+ years ago.
You need to explain why ice only started absorbing all the global warming two decades ago, and why the ice didn't absorb all the heat during the prior 100 years too.
No, you are claiming a law of physics behaved differently over the past 20 years, compared to how it behaved in the previous 100 years.
No the behaviour of ice melting to water can never change (on the earths surface) but the temperature rises can be constant as the ice warms up to zero degrees Celsius. At that point the temperature won't increase until all of the ice within the system has melted.
If the experiment in the video clip was performed 20 years ago, then performed again today, we would expect the same results, right?
But in the case of your own ice theory, you need to explain why the ice today is behaving differently to the ice 20+ years ago.
You need to explain why ice only started absorbing all the global warming two decades ago, and why the ice didn't absorb all the heat during the prior 100 years too.
No, you are claiming a law of physics behaved differently over the past 20 years, compared to how it behaved in the previous 100 years.
still cant figure out if you think you are smart with your selective arguments with wry grin as u type, if you have severe case of confirmation bias in everything u do or if simply a flat out moron...
all your questoins have been answered .. but continue on your merry game of BS and be sure you are the last post on this thread to claim 'victory' so it can brighten up your day..
because the mean temperature of ice was far lower and the ice needs to warm to 0 degrees before it can melt. Ice at minus 8 degrees cannot change form, the molecules are not excited enough to alter form
So your theory is that approximately 20 years ago the mean temperature of global ice passed some threshold beyond which it begins to absorb all the global warming?
OK... take it to the IPCC. It's not something they appear to have considered. They're mostly blaming it on ocean currents and saying the warming has moved deep under the ocean.
So your theory is that approximately 20 years ago the mean temperature of global ice passed some threshold beyond which it begins to absorb all the global warming?
OK... take it to the IPCC. It's not something they appear to have considered.
Oh it's something that they will know about.
There is no possibility that all of the ice on the earths surface will be at zero or just below zero temperature, but it is possible that a substantial enough mass of it is in that temperature zone, and that is what is concerning me.
You keep saying theory - this is not theory, it's as accepted as gravity unless you are questioning that as well.
Any expressed market opinion is my own and is not to be taken as financial advice
It's not mentioned in their report. They discuss many possible reasons for the hiatus, but that's not one of them.
You should take your theory to them.
Quote:
You keep saying theory - this is not theory, it's as accepted as gravity
I'm referring to your theory that this is the reason for the hiatus. Your theory is not accepted anywhere yet - this is the first time anyone has heard of it.
It's not mentioned in their report. They discuss many possible reasons for the hiatus, but that's not one of them.
You should take your theory to them.
I'm referring to your theory that this is the reason for the hiatus. Your theory is not accepted anywhere yet - this is the first time anyone has heard of it.
It's accepted fact and I would think that it is in the models that you disbelieve even though you have just demonstrated that you don't even have a basic knowledge of ice, water, and how heat interacts with those solid and liquid states.
But hey you keep diverting diverting and diverting.
If you can blog enough pages past this anyone arriving fresh to the debate won't go back and read this so you will be able to claim a ho0llow victory of sorts in just a few days.
I predict that by Sunday will have been able to do a complete snow job on the accepted physics of melting ice.
It's just that we will both know that it's not so.
You're a smart guy shadow, I know that the science isn't beyond you, you just prefer to ignore the realities of high school physics.
Any expressed market opinion is my own and is not to be taken as financial advice
You keep saying theory - this is not theory, it's as accepted as gravity unless you are questioning that as well.
I probably shouldn't confuse the poor dear, but...
It is a theory, just not the everyday use of the word theory...
Gravity is a theory, just not the everyday use of the word theory...
A theory isn't a guess, but a well substantiated hypothesis, backed up by evidence. It's not like an ABS Estimation.
"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
Melting sea ice make zero difference to sea levels as water expands when it turns to ice. It is the land ice that matters.
What I have a problem with is that most who are climate liar it's have no idea about the Holocene and what the natural state of the home planet is, glaciation. This warm anomaly that all of civilisation has been created in, will end and it just may turn out that AGW, forcing the home planet into the Anthropocene, turns out to be a good thing is long time scales.
So the scientists are putting forward natural reasons for climate change now? But before they said it was all caused by humans!
If the lack of warming was caused by La Nina and negative Pacific Decadal Oscillation, then doesn't it follow that the previous warming may have caused been by the absence or reverse of those things? They can't have it both ways. They can't say that when temperatures rise it's caused by humans, but when temperatures fall it's caused by natural forces. Your theory that ice is now absorbing all the heat doesn't explain why the ice only started doing this 20 years ago.
Why didn't the ice absorb all the heat during the past 100 years too?
ok , ill bite...
Quote:
So the scientists are putting forward natural reasons for climate change now? But before they said it was all caused by humans!
great strawman, u really are one of the best ... of course scienctists acknowledge the effects of nature on climate ! and it was not ALL cause by humans, but there is strong belief from evidence gained that we are indeed influencing it , and that influence could be significant.
Quote:
If the lack of warming was caused by La Nina and negative Pacific Decadal Oscillation, then doesn't it follow that the previous warming may have caused been by the absence or reverse of those things? They can't have it both ways. They can't say that when temperatures rise it's caused by humans, but when temperatures fall it's caused by natural forces
They are not saying this at all .. they are saying temperatures are continuing to rise, and current climactic conditions have seen that in the last decade a lot of that heat is being stored in the oceans due to Pacific Ocean Oscillation / La Nina. The heat hasn't magically disappeared, its still there, and we may still be the cause for it.
Quote:
Why didn't the ice absorb all the heat during the past 100 years too?
Despite Unprecedented Heat Transfer to Oceans, NASA Shows January 2014 was 3rd Hottest On Record; Models Hint at El Nino, Big Atmospheric Temperature Jump on Horizon
Quote:
In a normal world, under normal climate conditions, such a long period of cool surface waters covering the Eastern Pacific would have driven global temperatures down below typical averages.The vast waters would have sucked heat out of the air and deposited it into the oceans. And, as we will see below, it did suck a massive amount of heat out. But not enough even to bring global temperatures back into the average range, much less put it below the average (both NASA and NOAA show 2011-2013 as top 10 hottest years on record). This is very concerning, especially when we consider, as we do below, that the rate of atmosphere to ocean heat exchange is currently unprecedented.
Quote:
As mentioned above, we have seen an unprecedented transfer of heat into the surface, middle and deep ocean over the past decade. And the Argo float graph below bears a stark testimony to this transfer:
Quote:
A primary driver of the strength of La Nina and its ability to transfer atmospheric heat into the oceans is the corresponding strength of the east to west trade winds blowing across the Pacific. A strong trade wind blowing over South America and shoving a huge pile of water across the Pacific from east to west generates vigorous upwelling. The strong upwelling, in turn, transfers relatively cool deep ocean waters to the surface, where they take up atmospheric heat. When the trades weaken, the opposite occurs and warmth builds up in the surface waters along with a corresponding shift to El Nino.
Quote:
Given these factors, it is important to note that a recent study has found that the trade winds over the past decade have been their strongest since at least 1910 with the wind continuing to strengthen and intensify well into 2012.
The long period of mixing with a rapidly heating atmosphere will have created an amazingly large and deep pool of hot water whose intensely high temperature anomalies become increasingly evident at the surface. The hot zone, in this case, exceeds even the extreme anomalies seen during 1998 for this critical region and a massive heat dump into the atmosphere begins.
At this point, single year variations above past record highs may reach or exceed +.1 C or more for multiple years running.
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