Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year

Yes you are correct - the ARCTIC ice melting will not raise sea levels but that is not the only place on earth losing ice; As for problematic - well firstly there is the issue of albedo - you know, the amount of reflection a planet has - that has a lot to do with how much ICE there is on this planet - less ice less albedo more heat very very simple, Then there is the increase in regional temperature (and I will skip by impacts on arctic ecology and dangers of increasing methane production) and go right to changing climate - don't you think that one area like this warming will change all sorts of weather patterns??

Then there is you "point" about currents - shakes head

Where is the warm coming from? Why are they changing and what is causing it?

 

In other words, they don't really know but say it is natural variability.

- - - Updated - - -

Yet you just posted something different so which is it? Link please.

- - - Updated - - -

You mean which you don't read.

 

I read it, but you didn't. The adventures of Hoosier-Can't-Read, chapter 4:

 

You mean where according to Kobashi, Current decadal average temperature in Greenland is not outside of natural variability of the past 4000 years?

 

This proves nothing. The chart is a joke.

 

On the contrary. I've just proved that onalandline is incapable of logical thinking.

 

So the pollution was confined to specific regions, there is no explanation across the globe. If the US is only considered point something of affect to the global changes you say exist, then the industrial age here cannot affect the globe. Your guys words not mine. Again, trying to have things both ways to pretend your always right. LOL!!!!!

Nice try!

 

Nice how you avoided the numbers and just answered the evaporation question. BTW, more precipitation would mean more snow and more snow would mean more mass. So nature would take care of any issue you've described.

One other point I didn't make before, the mass and the size of the icebergs are quite large and have been large for a hundred years. So are you saying the size of the icebergs will increase? Wow, I'd like to see one of those babies.

I can't wrap my mind around your vision. It isn't logical at this time.

WHooie!!!

 

Why is it a "joke" because it is not what you would like?

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry but it is possible - simply due to particle size if nothing else

 

Your cluelessness is both astounding and hilarious.

Do you really think that each nations industrial pollutants just hangs in the air over that nation? LOLOLOLOL.

The global atmosphere gets quite thoroughly mixed. When scientists study ice cores from the polar regions, they can identify both the industrial pollutants from various periods in the past, and also volcanic ash and particulates and sulfates that correspond to the dates of various volcanic eruptions in the past.

 

You haven't a clue. I will say that. So what you're saying is all of those particles over LA moved over to Pheonix, Salt Lake City, Denver, KC, etc? you're nuts.

There is a reason why smog is worse in LA, you need to do some homework.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope!...........

 

How's this for homework
China’s international trade and air pollution in the United States

and this
Quantifying the Contribution of Long-Range Saharan Dust Transport on Particulate Matter Concentrations in Houston, Texas, Using Detailed Elemental Analysis

Yes, wind can carry particulates 1000s of miles.
Also, studies have shown that air quality over New Hampshire is affected by pollution from China. You can look that study up yourself.

 

Please reread what I wrote, I said regional. REGIONAL! Here let me highlight it from your link: "This Chinese pollution also resulted in one extra day or more of noncompliance with the US ozone standard in 2006 over the Los Angeles area and many regions in the eastern United States."

I thought you all were adament that global warming was for the globe and not regional. So which is it? Where's that goal post moving to next?

So did those particles affect the daily temperatures there? Again, the argument here is that the years between 1940 to 1970 cooling was due to smog interfering with sunlight. Please provide that data that states that the long range Saharan Dust caused cooling in Houston. And I think your article was based on 2008 in July on specific days.

 

Well, for one it is actual readings tacked onto Proxy data which by definition would be inaccurate since proxy data may not show spikes. To have an accurate representation, you would have to use all proxy data.

Here is something more accurate.



The Dome C temperature anomaly record with respect to the mean temperature of the last millennium8 (based on original deuterium data interpolated to a 500-yr resolution), plotted on the EDC3 timescale13, is given as a black step curve. Data for CO2 are from Dome C (solid circles in purple5, blue4, black: this work, measured at Bern; red open circles: this work, measured at Grenoble), Taylor Dome6 (brown) and Vostok1, 2, 3 (green). All CO2 values are on the EDC3_gas_a age scale26. Horizontal lines are the mean values of temperature and CO2 for the time periods 799–650, 650–450, 450–270 and 270–50 kyr bp. Glacial terminations are indicated using Roman numerals in subscript (for example TI); Marine Isotope Stages (MIS) are given in italic Arabic numerals27.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/fig_tab/nature06949_F2.html

 

This proves that you are not capable of seeing the truth.

- - - Updated - - -

The economic costs of 'global warming' have been grossly overestimated, a leaked report - shortly to be published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - has admitted.

More: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/03/26/Global-warming-will-not-cost-the-earth-leaked-IPCC-report-admits

 

So if the arctic ice is already established as volume to the sea levels, then, I don't understand your concern with the arctic. Your concern? Why are you here posting about volume of sea ice in the arctic? Let's just address that question first.

 

Any any we do have you'll be sure to 'fiddle' anyway

 

Quite possibly the only true thing you've ever posted.

 

Because to see past your silliness is not logical. And you sir are about as silly as silly can be.

 

lololololololol.......and the Arctic ice cap is still way, way, below the levels of extent and volume it had just several decades ago.....

 

Again, what does it matter? Prove the matter part. It adds no increase in water tables. So who cares if there is ice there or not? Why do we need the ice on the cap, it's water? It's been freezing and thawing for centuries.

One other point, name me one city threatened by the sea level you're so concerned with.

 

Your usual ignorant drivel. The Arctic ice cap has definitely NOT been "freezing and thawing for centuries". The Arctic ice cap has been there for at least hundreds of thousands of years, possibly millions of years. Its loss causes more warming and changes the climate over the entire northern hemisphere.

Actually almost every coastal city in the world is threatened. But you want one specifically....how about Miami....

South Florida Faces Ominous Prospects From Rising Waters
The New York Times
By NICK MADIGAN
November 10, 2013
(excerpts)
MIAMI BEACH — In the most dire predictions, South Florida’s delicate barrier islands, coastal communities and captivating subtropical beaches will be lost to the rising waters in as few as 100 years. Further inland, the Everglades, the river of grass that gives the region its fresh water, could one day be useless, some scientists fear, contaminated by the inexorable advance of the salt-filled ocean. The Florida Keys, the pearl-like strand of islands that stretches into the Gulf of Mexico, would be mostly submerged alongside their exotic crown jewel, Key West. “I don’t think people realize how vulnerable Florida is,” Harold R. Wanless, the chairman of the geological sciences department at the University of Miami, said in an interview last week. “We’re going to get four or five or six feet of water, or more, by the end of the century. You have to wake up to the reality of what’s coming.”

Concern about rising seas is stirring not only in the halls of academia but also in local governments along the state’s southeastern coast. The four counties there — Broward, Miami-Dade, Monroe and Palm Beach, with a combined population of 5.6 million — have formed an alliance to figure out solutions. Long battered by hurricanes and prone to flooding from intense thunderstorms, Florida is the most vulnerable state in the country to the rise in sea levels. Even predictions more modest than Professor Wanless’s foresee most of low-lying coastal Florida subject to increasingly frequent floods as the polar ice caps melt more quickly and the oceans surge and gain ground. Much of Florida’s 1,197-mile coastline is only a few feet above the current sea level, and billions of dollars’ worth of buildings, roads and other infrastructure lies on highly porous limestone that leaches water like a sponge.

 

So why hasn't it happened yet. You've already said that it's thawing, so where is all the climate change? It's still winter and cold in the northern hemisphere and turning into spring, temperatures just started going up as they should. So, your evidence again isn't there. lose!!!!

Well that doesn't say today, where is the evidence that the sea levels have risen and threaten a city, today!!!!!

 

I explained about albedo

 

That is a totally ignorant statement you cannot back up with anything.