90+ percent of additional heat trapped by increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is going into long-term storage in the oceans.
Does this not suggest that over time warm currents get warmer and cold currents less cold?
And that in turn is not good news for winter sea ice ?
put this way it's absolutely correct, question is if this "warmer" and "less cold" will suffice to compensate airtemps between -20C and -50C anytime soon.
since there's not much dispute about that sooner or later it can happen that the arctic will be ice-free year round (can, not will, we dont' know) this discussion is about WHEN and some say soon and i and others say in a few 100 years if at all.
now we only have to calculate how much energy has to be stored in the ocean to compensate for those extremely low winter temps, fed by land winds that can be down to -60C even.
so even if the entire system gets 20C warmer (air wise) we still have to see whether -30C or -20C
over a period of weeks will not be able to freeze at least parts of the oceans each winter.
as to currents (cold and warm) if the tone of that guy (not the quoted) get's slightly more condescending without reason i'll opt out, don't need to deal with things like that, one meeting in person would take care of that but it won't happen.
back on topic, there is and will be a warm in-flow and cooler out-flow. the cooler outflow will reach temps that are cold now and will be cold in the future while still being in "arctic waters" hence we shall for a long time to come have cold currents in the arctic that won't withstand winter temps to avoid ice-building for quite some time to come which is my entire point.
i never said it can't be, i only say two things:
a) it won't happen any time soon (soon like in decades)
b) we can't know whether it will ever happen but currently i'd say yes it sooner or later will happen
. if things continue the way they do now which as well is not a given.
those are the points, the rest is noise based on righteousness and antipathy, both well known
and speaking for themselves.
EDIT:
the number of times i have to repeat basic statements to filter the distracting noise around it depends on feedbacks. if one looks at the quoted post and my direct answer to it there is no repetition. it's a normal exchange/discourse.
that changes only if someone, who is not, thinks he can play extra smart just because this place is in his mother tongue and not in another language which many of those intolerant players don't even speak. now one can ask how do i know about the "he is not" that's very simple, a wise or at least fair person would never ever attack that way in a discussion that is case oriented, just because the reasoning and/or opinion does not fit his own and without being totally off.
why should there be a thread with a question in the title if the answer would be clear and self-evident? that only would be the case if someone ask questions not to get answers but to get confirmation, a very widely spread evil indeed and then whoever dares to try to find an answer
will be discredited.
who ever does not agree with my reasoning and/or opinion or (language skills) and does that in a reasonable useful manner will receive either new reasons and/or a genuine thanks for the new knowledge he/she provided to me, many times been proven to be so MR. B