Please see the consensus of virtually everyone in the scientific community around the world refuting that. Human emissions of CO2 are anything but natural, and they do cause harm. But you choose to live in conspiracy world, so I don't really see the point of engaging further.
Sea level has been going up ever since tide gauges started measuring it early in the 19th century
Doesn't have anything to do with a warm-up. Of course the water has to be coming from somewhere,
probably the ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica. And you know what? it's so cold in those places
that it never gets above freezing hardly anywhere hardly ever. Ice loss is a function of snow fall and
calving of bergs. The cause and effect of those two events are separated in time by years, decades,
centuries maybe even millennia.
Hardly ever doesn't mean never. Here's link to Nansen Falls in Antarctica The link says it's an
impressive 130 meters wide. But the IPCC tells us that the surface ice mass balance in Antarctica
contributes negatively to sea level rise. Here's Table 10.7
from the IPCC's AR4 report page 820 that shows that negative contribution for all scenarios. That doesn't mean
Antarctica isn't losing ice, it's just not from surface melting. Climate scientists are telling us that it's melting because
warm ocean water flows beneath the cooler surface water, flows beneath the sea ice, flows beneath shelf ice and then
melts the ice at the grounding line and then flows upwards and back to the ocean. Here's a graphic of that:
And Web Page
And of course that "circumpolar deep water" is warm due to CO2 blah blah blah...
My B.S. meter started beeping on that explanation about the time they talk about deep water warm enough
to melt fresh water ice.
I'm not saying that ice bergs calving into the sea don't exceed the amount of snow that falls; I'm saying that
temperature doesn't have anything to do with it. And banning fossil fuels isn't going to stop the trend.
Sea level has been going up ever since tide gauges started measuring it early in the 19th century
Doesn't have anything to do with a warm-up. Of course the water has to be coming from somewhere,
probably the ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica. And you know what? it's so cold in those places
that it never gets above freezing hardly anywhere hardly ever. Ice loss is a function of snow fall and
calving of bergs. The cause and effect of those two events are separated in time by years, decades,
centuries maybe even millennia.
Hardly ever doesn't mean never. Here's link to Nansen Falls in Antarctica The link says it's an
impressive 130 meters wide. But the IPCC tells us that the surface ice mass balance in Antarctica
contributes negatively to sea level rise. Here's Table 10.7
from the IPCC's AR4 report page 820 that shows that negative contribution for all scenarios. That doesn't mean
Antarctica isn't losing ice, it's just not from surface melting. Climate scientists are telling us that it's melting because
warm ocean water flows beneath the cooler surface water, flows beneath the sea ice, flows beneath shelf ice and then
melts the ice at the grounding line and then flows upwards and back to the ocean. Here's a graphic of that:
And Web Page
And of course that "circumpolar deep water" is warm due to CO2 blah blah blah...
My B.S. meter started beeping on that explanation about the time they talk about deep water warm enough
to melt fresh water ice.
I'm not saying that ice bergs calving into the sea don't exceed the amount of snow that falls; I'm saying that
temperature doesn't have anything to do with it. And banning fossil fuels isn't going to stop the trend.
It should. There are no deep water warm currents. Warm water rises, just like warm air. The only deep water currents are cold ones.Sea level has been going up ever since tide gauges started measuring it early in the 19th century
Doesn't have anything to do with a warm-up. Of course the water has to be coming from somewhere,
probably the ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica. And you know what? it's so cold in those places
that it never gets above freezing hardly anywhere hardly ever. Ice loss is a function of snow fall and
calving of bergs. The cause and effect of those two events are separated in time by years, decades,
centuries maybe even millennia.
Hardly ever doesn't mean never. Here's link to Nansen Falls in Antarctica The link says it's an
impressive 130 meters wide. But the IPCC tells us that the surface ice mass balance in Antarctica
contributes negatively to sea level rise. Here's Table 10.7
from the IPCC's AR4 report page 820 that shows that negative contribution for all scenarios. That doesn't mean
Antarctica isn't losing ice, it's just not from surface melting. Climate scientists are telling us that it's melting because
warm ocean water flows beneath the cooler surface water, flows beneath the sea ice, flows beneath shelf ice and then
melts the ice at the grounding line and then flows upwards and back to the ocean. Here's a graphic of that:
And Web Page
And of course that "circumpolar deep water" is warm due to CO2 blah blah blah...
My B.S. meter started beeping on that explanation about the time they talk about deep water warm enough
to melt fresh water ice.
Quite correct. Calving of a glacier has more to do with excess ice that can no longer support it's own weight.
Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel. Banning carbon based fuels, however, won't stop a glacier, but it WILL make a lot of people miserable and will even kill some of them.
wait a minute, you've posted the absurd statement over and over again that "ice does not melt, only water melts". so you admit now you were just trolling all that time?
Wait a minute, you've posted the absurd statement over and over again that "Ice does not melt, only water melts". So you admit now you were just trolling all that time?