:rolleyes:
Greenland is way inside the Arctic Circle, it is why Denmark (that controls Greenland) claims regions of the Arctic.
And there are many reports about the ice loss from Greenland indeed.
Oh dear, oh dear.
Indeed grossly wrong, so so much for the point that contrarians are credible.
doorhinge is really missing the point in an attempt at making a very dumb point, Dr Baxter and others were pointed at to answer the hypothetical of what would happen if the polar ice caps melted. Clearly the idea for contrarians was to then claim that that was confusing when the confusion is coming from the contrarians that clearly do not know what a timeline is.
In the meantime we are concentrating here on more likely stuff like the rise of the oceans that we can expect by the end of the century, and how wrong the deniers were and continue to be by claiming that no acceleration of the ice loss was going to take place.
The Koch brothers already funded a very recognised scientific group to review the research and the data, the scientific group already came with the conclusion that the contrarians were wrong. Based on that the brothers should stop the funding of groups that do not do science but only publish denial tripe.
HowStuffWorks climatologists discussed the Arctic ice separately from the Greenland ice.
So what do think about the Arctic-ice-melt-won’t-have-any-effect-on-sea-rise claim?
I think… No, scratch that, we know that you are not paying attention, everyone can see that I already replied to this by pointing out what the ice over the Arctic ocean will do, the problem is the ice over Greenland and other Arctic regions.
And if you think pointing at howstuffworks is a gaffe (once again it was pointed out to explain things at a kid’s level) your not acknowledgement of where Greenland is does “wonders” to your credibility.
No, but it definitely could be that you don’t understand what climate equilibrium is. In fact, since you don’t seem to understand anything else about climate, I’d say it was a certainty that you don’t understand that aspect of it either.
As many have already pointed out, your constant belabored arguments on the supposed lack of hard information make absolutely no sense. I’ve previously cited papers on Antarctic ice melt, as well as the extraordinary rapid loss of ice all over the Arctic. It’s not anybody’s fault if you’re incapable of looking up the massive volume of facts in the scientific literature, or don’t even know where Greenland is.
Arctic ice loss by itself doesn’t contribute proportionately to sea level rise because so much of it is sea ice, but accelerated Arctic warming does contribute by accelerating the melt of land glaciers that exist in some parts of the Arctic like Greenland and elsewhere and by contributing to thermal expansion which is a major component of sea level rise. And I’ve already cited papers about the rate of Antarctic ice sheet melt. The fact that you are ignorant of these papers doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Here, let me help.
You can start with TS.2.6 Changes in Sea Level and TFE.2: Sea Level Change: Scientific Understanding and Uncertainties in the IPCC WG1 AR5 Technical Summary, and the entirety of Chapter 13, Sea Level Change, in the main report which is supported by 18 pages of citations encompassing approximately 540 cited peer-reviewed research papers on sea level rise alone. The following short paragraphs from the Technical Summary provide a basic quick starting point on the paleoclimate connection to sea level rise, one of the important empirical bases of estimation.
The Kochs have a record of funding civil rights causes and think tanks and journalists that work on the racial inequality beat. So I’m not really sure what the issue is.
If you’re “not really sure what the issue is”, then you haven’t read this thread, never pay attention to the news, and have apparently been living in a cave all your life. Aside from the excellent points made by many others, I provided some informative links here, and here’s one more that makes for good reading. The Kochs seem to be in the running for one of the most insidious, powerful, and secretive sources of political influence in the modern history of putative democracies.
(post shortened)
Let’s view the instant replay.
According to the article you linked -
*If the Polar Ice Caps Melt
Are the polar ice caps in danger of melting and causing the oceans to rise? This could happen, but no one knows when it might happen.
…At the other end of the world, the North Pole, the ice is not nearly as thick as at the South Pole. The ice floats on the Arctic Ocean. If it melted, sea levels would not be affected.
There is a significant amount of ice covering Greenland, which would add another 7 meters (20 feet) to the oceans if it melted. Because Greenland is closer to the equator than Antarctica, the temperatures there are higher, so the ice is more likely to melt. Scientists from the Universities of London and Edinburgh say that ice loss in Antarctica and Greenland together contribute approximately 12 percent of the rise in sea levels (Source: Science Daily).*
You’ll notice that the page you provided addressed Greenland ice melt separately from pole ice melt. Key word - separately. USA, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Russia also have land masses within the Arctic Circle but the page you linked didn’t address their ice melt.
You’ve even, repeatedly, noticed that I had ignored (aka didn’t mention) Greenland ice when I questioned the HowStuffWorks statement that ice melt at the North Pole/Arctic wouldn’t affect sea level rise. My question to you is if you believe that to be a true statement.
In post 192, the Left Hand of Dorkness also pointed out, “Of COURSE warming will stop at some point.” I assume you agree with that statement, also.
Personally, I would bestow that honor on George Soros.
You do know how ice floats, right? Archimedes figured out the displacement stuff long ago.
But do you know Greenland is not only in the Arctic but is actually land?
That’s true in the same way the surgeons’ joke that “Bleeding always stops, eventually” is true.
BTW, in what way is George Soros spreading ignorance?
:rolleyes:
The cite was provided to answer the “what if the polar caps melted” indeed, no one knows when if ever that would take place. What it is clear that even though a complete melt will not take place there is a lot of gigatons of ice that are melting at an accelerated rate and there is no mechanism whatsoever that will tell us that the water will not go to increase the ocean rise, and now it is clear that it will be higher than the conservative estimate by the end of the century. And once again the deniers will not be more correct, they still are telling you that nothing will happen, never mind the evidence of the melting and the acceleration of it on top.
Then later it was pointed to you that talking about the north pole ice over the ocean was a moot point as ice melting over the ocean does not do much for the ocean rise. And Greenland is in the Arctic, and no matter how much you want to ignore it, many others will not ignore that basic error when judging how credible you are.
As pointed before the scientists are worrying about the ice in the glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica. Jumping up and down claiming that they are separated as if that means something useful in this discussion of how much Greenland and the Antarctic will contribute to the ocean rise is just an attempt at certifying your ignorance.
It was the HowThingsWork climataligist who stated that Northern polar ice melt wouldn’t affect sea level rise. Are they a denier organization? If they are correct when they say that Northern pole ice won’t affect sea level rise, why has so much time been spent since 1988, by the friends of the IPCC, warning of Arctic pole ice melt? It did figured strongly in the great Polar-Bears-are-in-decline scam, which has been proven to be false and now is seen not to have any affect on sea level rise.
You say no one knows if total ice cap melt will ever take place. That sounds like your saying that global warming/global cooling is a natural cycle. Average temp goes up, temp goes down, temp goes up, temp goes down.
It’s obvious that you think my questioning of anything pertaining to the claims of global warming zealotry is a moot point. I don’t. We differ. I want answers. You want believers. If the global warming zealots want to change the status quo, they’re going to have to answer questions instead of simply dismissing them. If only to bolster the credibility of AGW.
p.s. I didn’t introduce the Greenland strawman. That appears to have been created to give ElvisL1ves something to talk about.
:rolleyes:
As pointed before everyone understands the ice over the ocean is not much of an issue, it is the volume in the glaciers over the land that is in the polar regions.
No, you don’t. You now want answers to your misunderstanding, and even when you get it it is clear that your ignorance is more valuable than understanding why it is silly to continue harping on that misunderstanding.
No, your credibility is in tatters for not understanding what a timeline is.
And this also kills whatever credibility you had, I mentioned that you are ignoring the ice melt of places like Greenland in the Arctic, you then said that “Greenland still ain’t the Arctic.” A high school level error that you are only making worse by claiming that it is a strawman, in fact you really did say it.
Once again, I had asked about Arctic polar ice melt. You responded that I had ignored Greenland??? The article in question made separate statements about polar ice melt and Greenland ice melt. The article didn’t mention the other countries that have land masses within the Arctic Circle. I hadn’t asked about Greenland. You brought up Greenland. Except as an attempt to give ElvisL1ves something to write about, I don’t know why you brought up Greenland.
Dude.
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
That is why I posted a link (to a different site ignored by you) to the contribution Greenland could make to the ocean rise, incidentally you are only showing all that you can not bother to read what you said, indeed I brought Greenland, as a region of the arctic that is melting; before **ElvisL1ves **mentioned it, you already had come with the whooper that “Greenland still ain’t the Arctic.”
Meaning that even on timelines you participate you do not have a clue on how time works.
Greenland IS the Arctic? :smack: You make it sound like they’re identical twins.
The Arctic Circle is a big place. I’ve seen a map of the Arctic Circle. It does not consist solely of Greenland. Greenland still ain’t the Arctic and the Arctic ain’t Greenland.
Most people can find Greenland on a map (it’s often a shade of green 
). Those same people can also find the Arctic Circle, the Arctic Ocean, and the North Pole.
Only you are confused about that, again, Greenland is in the Arctic, it is part of it, you told us that Greenland still ain’t the Arctic.
The straw man here is to claim that we said that Greenland **is **the Arctic. Drop it or the only thing you get is that you are giving us evidence that you not only fail to pay attention at the links and the evidence but also that you do not pay attention to what I and others are actually writing.
The point that you are trying to still avoid is that the ice over the arctic ocean will not do much if it melts, because it is over the ocean, the ice over Greenland is a different thing. And it is still in the Arctic.
But, as we found out some people need to be confused about Greenland because acknowledging where it is and that its ice is melting will mean that what you did was just an attempt at stalling so as to never get what is going on.
I’m afraid that I have to concur with GIGO that the more you write, the more you demonstrate how little you know about this subject (which seems to be par for the course for most denialists who favor contempt for science over knowledge). For some reason you got yourself all worked up about the fact that you’ve just discovered that floating sea ice doesn’t add to sea level rise when it melts. Trust me, scientists have been well aware of this for some time – in fact, since about the time of Archimedes. And unlike the Antarctic, much (but certainly not all) of Arctic ice is sea ice bounded by land masses, and we’ve known that for a very long time, too, though it’s apparently news to you.
Arctic ice melt is important for many reasons, not the least of which is that it’s direct visible evidence of the accelerated rate of global warming in the Arctic, its impacts on biodiversity and animal and human habitats, and the feedback it creates through reduced albedo and methane emissions to further accelerate warming, among other things. And it also contributes to sea level rise through loss of land ice mass on significant land bodies like Greenland, and through ocean warming which causes thermal expansion.
That’s not what he’s saying and that’s meaningless babble. The significance of losing the majority of the ice caps in the long term is that it’s a clear demarcation of a major point of no return at which powerful feedbacks dominate the climate – at that point we can throw all our estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity out the window because we then face runaway climate change and geologically catastrophic sea level rise. But we’ll be in deep trouble long before then; in fact, we already are. CO2 levels have never been anywhere near this high since the human species has existed.
No, you don’t. I gave you answers in this post. You ignored it. Have you even read the short IPCC summary of the science, let alone the full report or any of the other two WG reports, or the Technical Summary of the WG1, or even one of 540 citations on sea level rise I pointed you to? For someone who claims to want answers, you don’t seem to do a lot of science reading on this subject. Like, none at all. You just pontificate on it.