Ice cap disappearing 30 years ahead of schedule
- Thread starter david dissadent
- Start date
Signal 11
also programmed for conversational english
If you are suggesting that this is responsible for part of the recent melting, please specify what fraction in which years, and provide supporting evidence.
Signal 11
also programmed for conversational english
WouldBe
Dislicksick
That would only make the ice thicker. It has to be cold enough for the ice to form in the first place before rain or sea spray can freeze to it.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
This is what you quoted
Increased rain on it's own won't cause an increase in the ice extent.
If it was simply cold enough at the antarctic then ice would form anyway regardless of the amount of precipitaion.
Signal 11
also programmed for conversational english
By quoting that sentence, I didn't mean to imply that you should ignore the rest of the article, which explains the mechanism.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
Thicker is hardly suprising if you pile snow on top of the ice already there but that doesn't explain the bigger area of ice.
I don't see how snow would increase the area of ice. If the snow lands in the sea it will melt. What's the bit about when the snow refreezes. It's already frozen.
Signal 11
also programmed for conversational english
It is explained in the article. The fact that you "don't see" is not an argument against it.
If you are suggesting that carbon dioxide from human industrial activity is responsible for warmer air temperatures, please specify the physical mechanism by which this miracle happens in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and provide supporting evidence.
Signal 11
also programmed for conversational english
The mechanism is known as the greenhouse effect. You have already been given an explanation of it several times (for example, here). It is not disputed by any scientists in the field. If you wish to dispute it, provide your evidence. I am not going to let you shift the burden of proof.
There is no explanation in the link that you have recycled of the actual physical mechanism by which increasing carbon dioxide emissions supposedly warm the atmosphere in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, which is what I requested from you. If I am wrong, please quote the text here appropriately.
Signal 11
also programmed for conversational english
Yes there is.
Nobody here has any obligation to explain the mainstream view to you. If you do not understand what the mainstream view is then you are in no position to dispute it. If you do wish do dispute it, you have the burden of proof.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
No it's not. There's just some pseudoscience about the ice being depressed causing the snow to refreeze bollocks.
Do you really think there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect at all?
That when someone like Richard Lindzen points to the role of water vapour as a greenhouse gas, that he's talking rubbish?
If so, how do you reconcile this with the fact that much lower nighttime temperatures occur in places with low humidity, such as deserts, than in places with high humidity, such as rainforests?
Signal 11
also programmed for conversational english
No experts in the field dispute that increased snowfall causes both the extent and thickness of the antarctic ice to increase. If you wish to dispute it, provide your evidence.No it's not. There's just some pseudoscience about the ice being depressed causing the snow to refreeze bollocks.
There is no explanation in your recycled link of the physical mechanism by which additional carbon dioxide emissions supposedly warm the atmosphere. If there is, then it ought to be relatively simple for you to quote the appropriate text accordingly, but you haven't.
Wrong! The burden of proof always lies with the claimant. I'm not claiming that increased emissions of carbon dioxide warm the atmosphere, you are. Ergo, the burden of proof lies with you.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
Well then show how the area is increased rather than just a crappy statement that the ice is depressed causing the snow to refreeze.
Signal 11
also programmed for conversational english
If you had bothered to do the slightest research instead of just posting up your own ignorant misconceptions as if they were fact, then you could have easily found that out for yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_ice#Formation_of_sea_ice
WouldBe
Dislicksick
If you had bothered to do the slightest research instead of just posting up your own ignorant misconceptions as if they were fact, then you could have easily found that out for yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_ice#Formation_of_sea_ice
Notice the MAY in that statement. That doesn't mean always and certainly doen't mean is the normal method.
E2A: It also doesn't back up the previously stated 'weight of snow depresses ice sheet causing snow to refreeze' bollocks either.
Signal 11
also programmed for conversational english
Yes there is.
No, you are claiming that mainstream science is wrong, therefore you have the burden of proof. I am quite happy to believe what the experts say, so I do not need to prove anything.
Signal 11
also programmed for conversational english
Like I said before, no experts in the field dispute this. If you wish to dispute it, provide your evidence.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
So if freak weather results in tons of snow being deposited in the carribean then sea ice will form?
Signal 11
also programmed for conversational english
So if freak weather results in tons of snow being deposited in the carribean then sea ice will form?
Straw man. Nobody said it would.
From your wiki article the first sentance is
Explain how global warming cools the water to freezing point?
As ocean warming is one of the climatologists explanations for the loss of sea ice then you need to explain how warmer water can produce more sea ice?
he'll probably refer you to either a post made by one of his mates or to a Wikipedia page policed by the greenshirt cabal there.
bonkers
Similar threads
