Future loss of Arctic sea-ice cover could drive a su bstantial decrease in California?s rainfall, aka drought

His best customer is probably a major polluter and that's why he's trying to be part of the denialist club.

Gosh, do jet engines cause pollution?

The reason that glaciers flow to the sea and break off is because they are being fed from snowfall inland. Antartica calves off a giant iceberg now and then precisely because it's net gaining ice mass. But that doesn't keep the Washington Post from shrieking when it happens.

Really, aren't some of the people here supposed to be engineers?

What saves us is the heavy winter snowfall in the Sierras, a narrow strip on the eastern border with Nevada. In a good year the crest (where I ski) can get 20 meters of snow, and the rest of the state, the desert, lives off the runoff.

After we wring most of the water out of the air, we pass it on to Nevada. Driving east on I80, you don't need signs to tell you when you have crossed in to Nevada; it's where the trees stop.

There are trees along the coast that survive by straining the water out of the sea fog.

Especially Al Gore's.

Then we assume that you never fly.

Well they do dump a lot of CO2 and water in the stratosphere.

George Monbiot's "Heat" makes the point that while we can replace gasoline-burning cars with electric cars, the international tourism business is less flexible.

Hydrogen fueled aircraft are feasible, but they'd have to be a lot more bulbous than current aircraft and would take some time to develop.

chains, melting Arctic sea ice caps can affect areas a long way from the Ar ctic region, bringing not only higher sea levels, but also severe drought.

to

and

er

nly

ea ice only contributes to its melting.

Antarctica isn't gaining ice mass.

An engineer would have checked the evidence before making the claim.

Glaciers can keep on calving off Antarctic whether it's gaining ice mass or not.

Antarctic ice cores go back some 800,000 years, so what's happening at the edge of the ice sheet reflects a lot of history.

Anthropogenic global warming guarantees that there there's going to be more snow falling on the top of the ice than there used to be, but making the i ce sheet thicker means that it flows faster - the pressure driving the ice flow is higher, and the temperature at the bottom of the ice sheet goes up (as the heat flowing out from the centre of the earth has to flow through a thicker layer of insulation).

This tends to end with the ice sheet slipping off as a lump - as happened w ith the Laurentian ice sheet at the end of the most recent ice age.

This dumped so much fresh water in the North Atlantic that the Gulf Stream stopped running for 1300 years, leading to some very cold weather where the Laurentian ice sheet had been, but not cold enough for long enough to rest ore the ice sheet (which seems to take tens of thousands of years).

John Larkin - gullible sucker that he is - can be relied on to recycle nons ense from denialist web-sites (mostly run by Anthony Watts) while leaving o ut the weasel words that cover the misrepresentations made.

East Antarctica is gaining ice mass, but not as much as the rest of Antarct ica is losing.

Don't be silly. They review the literature as a whole. They are human, so there are occasional drop-offs, but IPCC was set up to report science to administrators, and the initial assumptions are very much part of their remit.

the deep water is cole because it descended at some cold location, it's not the core of the earth cooling it, if the cold location warms the deep water will get hotter. but yeah, this is long term as the deep currents are real slow.