So you did not read what you replied to or quoted. Hence the ignorance of what the cited papers are about (sea ice, not ice sheets)
So can we have you read these papers about the sea ice and realize that sea ice is not ice sheets, aleCcowaN?
Of course the actual previous post in
following previous post was
so rather than the rather charitable "nothing" there is the inane demand for people to do calculations.
So you still haven't read that post of mine
.
What makes you think I didn't read them? Not agreeing with you? or your choice of fabricating a story about what I did and what I meant by that?
I even mocked one of your papers, if you didn't notice. Maybe the figures blurred your vision.
Who do you think I am? r-j?
You seem to not understand a whole bunch of interconnected processes. For any practical purpose sea ice doesn't contribute to sea level rise. I already explain why, and I can explain further. Look at what you have done. You have linked to a page in a medium quality source showing pictures of how a big chunk of fresh water ice and coloured brine saltier than sea water -take a look to the flotation line- all at fusion temperature become expanded when melted and
at room temperature. If warming at room temperature weren't enough, we can even place a couple of dominoes below the back legs of the table. The gain of volume is negligible for any global warming related purpose, even more if you take into account the intellectual level this thread has: garbage in as part of the input, garbage out as its exclusive cultural product.
What do you think? That melting glaciers on the Himalayas don't contribute to negligible additional sea level rise? Do you think that one cubic metre of fresh water coming to the Indian Ocean from the Himalayas through the Ganges-Brahmaputra will only contribute with one cubic metre to the sea volume? It'll suffer the same negligible changes of your sea ice, because that comes from being fresh water, not from being ice.
One million tons of fresh water per second is poured into the oceans and it all will show the same changes. One week of that matches a whole year in your petty little paper. Ahh! What you say? that evaporation from the ocean will complete the cycle and leave everything even? And why do you think the just-a-piss less of two cubic kilometres of sea level expanse a year that your little paper implies is going to do? Is it out of the cycles for any good reason?
In the end, what I told you, what I tell you, and what I will tell you again -and consider you to be singular or plural, as you wish- is that the precise "truth" that matters so much to you remains to be negligible and cut-out from the whole system, hence meaningless, because IT ONLY MATTERS THE SUM OF ALL PROCESSES INVOLVING SALINITY, AND THAT IS CALLED THE HALOSTERIC CONTRIBUTION TO SEE LEVEL RISE, AND THAT HAS BEEN BEING NEGATIVE FOR YEARS WITH A DOWNWARD TREND DOZEN OF TIMES STRONGER THAN THAT OBVIOUS ARTIFICIALLY ISOLATED REALITY SPOTTED BY THE TINY LITTLE PAPER YOU INSIST TO QUOTE.
I'm not looking for the Mr Congeniality prize, nor to be acknowledged as intelligent or scientist of whatever -so far it feels like to be pointed as the smartest kid with Down syndrome-. But you all have to understand when you contribute to the misunderstanding of our present global warming crisis, and yet you believe you're doing it for the good.
