Arctic warming linked to colder winters

[srb7677]

Unfortunately I have no option, you haven't produced any yet.

You haven't explained why the CO2 / temperature relationship is the wrong way round. Something you totally misunderstood when I talked about the 800 year lag.
Neither your NASA nor Stephen Hawkins links had anything substantial in the way of science.

Let's start with how a gas that is 1.5 times denser than the other gases get into the upper atmosphere? Especially as when it rains that CO2 is collected and taken either underground or into the oceans and locked away.

I have posted a link to the science earlier in this thread. Seems you have not read it.

[Sheepy]

But by all means ignore the science. Ignore the evidence. Ignore the reality.

Ah well there you are you see, that is my problem I am very much a realist. It can be very problematic when the fantasist puts what is only a point of view as reality, it gets my back right up, when I know it has no base in real fact, but is merely a theory.
A realist can be much more pragmatic than a fantasist, because they can see the many avenues that people are being taken down, before they get there as a rule.

[Nick]

But by all means ignore the science.

Unfortunately I have no option, you haven't produced any yet.

You haven't explained why the CO2 / temperature relationship is the wrong way round. Something you totally misunderstood when I talked about the 800 year lag.
Neither your NASA nor Stephen Hawkins links had anything substantial in the way of science.

Let's start with how a gas that is 1.5 times denser than the other gases get into the upper atmosphere? Especially as when it rains that CO2 is collected and taken either underground or into the oceans and locked away.

[Nick]

am smiling at how many climate change denialists there are on this forum when I hope to engage in sensible debate.

"George, there's a report of someone driving the wrong way up the M6"

"What do you mean 1 Ethel, there's hundreds of them".

[HDQQ]

I will be alright. I live on a hill.

I live on a hill too, even higher up than you. If sea levels rise more people will want to live on your hill and my hill. It's not just about individuals.

[HDQQ]

And what do you think the land does when it has billions of tons of ice on it? It compresses down and raises the land somewhere else. When the ice is gone and the sea level settles the elevated land continues to drop back to its original level called equalisation.

Tell the people of New Orleans and Jakarta that the land doesn't drop into the sea. Jakarta is sinking at a rate of anything up to 6 inches a year.

The process of the land deforming under the weight of ice is called isostacy. I believe that the rough figure is that the crust is depressed by a quarter of the thickness of ice. So where the ice sheet in 2 miles thick - as in some parts of Antarctica, the crust is depressed by half a mile. The deformation happens very slowly, lagging behind the melting or accumulation of ice.

[srb7677]

I dunno, but one or two of them certainly don't believe in man over the power of nature, even if it is overseen by a supreme being.  Sounds like we have regressed a few thousand years and we are returning to Paganism.

Typical nonsense. Man has been trying to tame nature with variable success for millenia. The very domestificatiuon of animals and growing of crops which began to happen at least 12000 years ago are manifestations of that. Civilisation itself was built on that. Yet controlling nature is full of unexpected consequences simply because our understanding is less than absolute. The fact that human activities such as driving cars and flying in planes and burning coal is releasing CO2 into the atmosphere in growing quantities, and that this increased CO2, whose increase is measurable and whose heat retaining characteristics are known  , is causing an average growth in global warming is scientrifically undeniable to anyome with an ounce of rationality.

But by all means ignore the science. Ignore the evidence. Ignore the reality. But be prepared to be remembered in history as deluded and self interested fools on a par with flat earthers. Because that is all you will prove to be.

[Streetwalker]

We are a resilient species even if some of us are off their nuts and see doom and gloom at every turn of the globe . There have been too many false alarms and tales of Armageddon in my life time to get into bed with the latest version of the end is nigh .

I like cold winters anyway

 

[Sheepy]

I am smiling at how many climate change denialists there are on this forum when I hope to engage in sensible debate. This now extends apparently to denying well known facts about the ice age established for decades, and inventing entirely new geological processes of unprecendented scope and rapidit to argue that regardless of how much or how little of the earth's water is locked up in ice sheets, the sea level miraculously remains the same.

This is pure denialist rubbish.

I dunno, but one or two of them certainly don't believe in man over the power of nature, even if it is overseen by a supreme being.  Sounds like we have regressed a few thousand years and we are returning to Paganism.

[srb7677]

I am smiling at the Tony Blair Labour party school of debate; they certainly did a job on you Steve.

I am smiling at how many climate change denialists there are on this forum when I hope to engage in sensible debate. This now extends apparently to denying well known facts about the ice age established for decades, and inventing entirely new geological processes of unprecendented scope and rapidity to argue that regardless of how much or how little of the earth's water is locked up in ice sheets, the sea level miraculously remains the same.

This is pure denialist rubbish.

[Sheepy]

You are failing to convince me that you are not some kind of flat earther. Care to post a link to a reputable geologist who will back you up? And you do know that the last ice age was so=called because  there was a lot more ice around due to it being a lot colder, don't you? And surely any idiot knows that if there is a lot more ice in the form of ice sheets covering land, then there is a lot less to go in the sea, leading to lower sea levels.

Debating with a flat earther such as yourself has it's entertaining side but beyond that is pretty much a waste of time.

Do you believe the earth is flat, by the way?

I am smiling at the Tony Blair Labour party school of debate; they certainly did a job on you Steve.

[srb7677]

And what do you think the land does when it has billions of tons of ice on it? It compresses down and raises the land somewhere else. When the ice is gone and the sea level settles the elevated land continues to drop back to its original level called equalisation.

Tell the people of New Orleans and Jakarta that the land doesn't drop into the sea. Jakarta is sinking at a rate of anything up to 6 inches a year.

You are failing to convince me that you are not some kind of flat earther. Care to post a link to a reputable geologist who will back you up? And you do know that the last ice age was so=called because  there was a lot more ice around due to it being a lot colder, don't you? And surely any idiot knows that if there is a lot more ice in the form of ice sheets covering land, then there is a lot less to go in the sea, leading to lower sea levels.

Debating with a flat earther such as yourself has it's entertaining side but beyond that is pretty much a waste of time.

Do you believe the earth is flat, by the way?

[Nick]

and that therefore a much larger proportion of the world's water would have been frozen as ice. Much of it covering land.

And what do you think the land does when it has billions of tons of ice on it? It compresses down and raises the land somewhere else. When the ice is gone and the sea level settles the elevated land continues to drop back to its original level called equalisation.

Tell the people of New Orleans and Jakarta that the land doesn't drop into the sea. Jakarta is sinking at a rate of anything up to 6 inches a year.

[srb7677]

Clearly nothing. Another example of thinking with the masses.

How about the possibility that due to tectonic movement the land has fallen rather than the sea risen!! Science isn't always as cut and dried as you want to make it, that's why totally closing your mind off to another possibility makes you examine things in one dimension.

Rubbish, . It would take a much longer time geologically for the land to sink that much. It is known that the climate was much colder in the last ice age...and that therefore a much larger proportion of the world's water would have been frozen as ice. Much of it covering land. This would inevitably have resulted in lower sea levels.

Arguing with you is like arguing with someone who is convinced the earth is flat, .

[Nick]

Clearly it has risen since the last ice age.

Clearly nothing. Another example of thinking with the masses.

How about the possibility that due to tectonic movement the land has fallen rather than the sea risen!! Science isn't always as cut and dried as you want to make it, that's why totally closing your mind off to another possibility makes you examine things in one dimension.