placeholder

It depends where and how it reforms. In the Arctic, which is a sea, the sea ice has been thinning. It used to be that there was a lot of old thicker ice. Now that's gone. So the ice disappears faster. Why is Arctic ice getting younger and thinner? https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/03/20/ice-free-arctic-summers-are-on-the-way-researchers-say

You could try reading the article that bignok actually linked to in order to find out why your opinion is invalid.

Well, I think in a way, this story tops them all Florida couple shot at after going to wrong house while delivering Instacart groceries https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/florida-gunshot-hosue-deliveries-instacart-b2324991.html The owner of the house actually blocked these people with his truck and then shot holes in their car. And guess what, under Florida law he didn't commit a crime. “(A detective) asked if we wanted to prosecute and we agreed to do that, but he said since they didn’t break any laws or do anything unlawful, they couldn’t do anything because we were on their property,” Ms D’arville told WTVJ."

Please, first of all, for some who claims to be sensitive about insults, you should learn the difference between lying and being mistaken. I concede that you posted those links. But why did you post them? And you offered no explanations of why you posted them. You think it's OK to post utterly pointless links. This has nothing to do with climatology.

Very convenient to cite a prediction with no evidence to back it up. And as we know, solar activity declined sharply in the 21st century and record heat followed. It's always possible to find a few loons to back up whatever you need. But the evidence is and virtually the entire climatolical community is against him. And it's just something he said. As far as I can tell, he has had nothing published in peer reviewed journals about this.

This is about time crystals. Events, if they can be called that, on the quantum scale. It has absolutely zero relevance to climate change or anything macro.

Ah, yes. Valentina Zharkova's "research" She's quite notorious: .Paper That Blames The Sun For Climate Change Was Just Retracted From Major Journal A paper published last year that claimed global warming was all to do with the Sun has been retracted. Nature Publishing Group-owned Scientific Reports has found that the paper's conclusion was based on a flawed assumption. The decision comes after sharp criticism from the scientific community prompted the journal's editors to undertake a further review of the study. The paper, titled "Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale," led by mathematician Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University in the UK, was published in June 2019. https://www.sciencealert.com/a-paper-that-blames-the-sun-for-climate-change-has-been-retracted

I'm sure you wouldn't make such a statement without being able to link it to a credible source. As per the rules of the forum. please provide that link.

Quotes I've linked to from credible sources?

You posted that the South Pole is growing. That the second law of thermodynamics has been broken. what's really funny is that you wrote that 99% of my posts contain no links. That is false. Challenge me on anything I've said here and I'll produce the links to support it.

Sea ice increasing will have no effect on sea levels. Whereas Greenland and Antarctica shedding glaciers will. Also, the oceans are still getting warmer. Also, Antarctic sea ice levels have since collapsed. Some Pacific islands are getting bigger. But that depends on healthy coral. Will coral stay healthy as ocean temperatures continue to rise and the PH continues to get lower?

I guess if I were you, and I had posted lots of stuff in error, maybe I'd stick to making personal comments instead of addressing the issues.

How exactly am I cherry picking? This is an article about the acceleration of the melting of the ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland. What's the good new here?

What I was getting at is that taking figures of speech literally is obviously a ploy. A way of avoiding the issue. They're just playing at being dumb. Like claiming that they don't know what a denialist is.

Well, what denialists do is to take a figure of speech, like "earth is in trouble" and take it literally instead. If someone has Asperger's syndrome, this is understandable. Otherwise, not so much.

Thanks for the silly generalizations.

I guess this is your way of conceding.

What has sea ice got to with the South Pole? And the South Pole is not the same thing as Antarctica. Not even nearly. Antarctica is a continent. How does the expansion of ice floating on the sea mean that the South Pole, or, for that matter, Antarctica are growing?

By your understanding of the second law of thermodynamics, not only greenhouse gases but greenhouses wouldn't be possible. A new generation of satellites and ocean bases sensors has confirmed that more energy is entering the earth's atmosphere than is leaving it. Joint NASA, NOAA Study Finds Earth's Energy Imbalance Has Doubled "NASA's Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) suite of satellite sensors measure how much energy enters and leaves Earth's system. In addition, data from a global array of ocean floats, called Argo, enable an accurate estimate of the rate at which the world’s oceans are heating up. Since approximately 90 percent of the excess energy from an energy imbalance ends up in the ocean, the overall trends of incoming and outgoing radiation should broadly agree with changes in ocean heat content. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/langley/joint-nasa-noaa-study-finds-earths-energy-imbalance-has-doubled That imbalance is due to the fact that greenhouse gases are slowing the exit of infrared radiation from the planet. Just because some a local phenomenon hasn't yet been figured out, doesn't mean that the large madel isn't working astonishingly well.

And the reason is that health coral reefs are adding enough sediment to outpace rising sea levels. So what's your point?

Once again, sea ice is not the ice sheets of Antarctica or Greenland. Sea ice is ice that is formed from sea water.

Actual the topic is about the ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica. It's not about the ice in your refrigerator and it's not about sea ice either.

I did read the article linked to. The South pole wasn't even mentioned once.

No. The south pole is not expanding. How did you come up with that one?

I am citing the various opinions of climatologists. But for the purposes of addressing your claim that "Solar activity was low throughout the whole of the LIA period" it doesn't matter. EThere aren't any reliable records of sunspot activity that cover the entire LIA even if you assign the latest date to its beginning.